Reported train, val, test split sizes vs actual FMA size about neural-audio-fp HOT 3 CLOSED

Hi @raraz15, thank you for your deep inspection. Firstly, the name test-dummy-db-100k refers to roughly 100k, not exactly 100k. As you mentioned, while FMA is composed of about 100K tracks, it falls short of 100K if you exclude the test/validation hold-out. Honestly, I just called it 100k for ease of reference, sorry for the confusion!!

Also, I haven't been able to identify the main cause of the performance improvement. This repo is a reconstruction of the code I used at the time of writing the paper, and there might have been bugs in the data configuration back then. Generally, a DB size increase of 6K songs would not make much of a performance difference, but if those songs happened to partially overlap with the Test-set, performance would drop. So, I think your inference seems plausible.

from neural-audio-fp.

Hello, author. Thank you for your remarkable contributions. I would like to ask if you have figured out why the results of the project you provided are better than the ones mentioned in your paper.

from neural-audio-fp.

@EnthusiasticcitizenYe Unfortunately, as time has passed, it is now difficult to reproduce the paper results identically, and it is difficult to clearly find the cause of the performance improvement. So if you cite this work for benchmarking, I recommend comparing the official re-implementation results along with the result table in the paper. Sorry for the inconvenience.

from neural-audio-fp.