Thanks!
Merging.
Please try to finish the get-egs script- including shuffling of egs.
Add the --max-jobs-run $nj option to the $cmd when shuffling to avoid overwhelming the disk (it will have $num_train_archives jobs).
For extracting the examples for the training subset and validation, you'll have to add an extra option to the python script to make the chunk-sizes deterministic rather than random (note: there will typically be one job, and --num-archives=3). The left and right chunk sizes will be identical, and they will range from min-chunk-size to max-chunk-size in a geometric pattern as you go from the first to the last archive.
For the 'archive-chunk-sizes' file you may have to add some kind of way of specifying a filename suffix or pattern so that we can get separate versions of that file for the training-subset and validation-subset egs.

Dan

Please try to finish the get-egs script- including shuffling of egs.

Will do.

For the 'archive-chunk-sizes' file you may have to add some kind of way of specifying a filename suffix or pattern so that we can get separate versions of that file for the training-subset and validation-subset egs.

If I understand this correctly, we plan on using the same utterances in train and validation (but of course, different cuts)? Edit: Nevermind, I misread that.

No, for validation the utterances are a held-out set-- see the get_egs.sh
script, it creates that subset.
You'd call that python script two times more- once for training-subset and
once for validation. And they use a different, smaller number of
frames-per-archive- again, that's drafted in the script.

Dan

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:25 PM, david-ryan-snyder <notifications@github.com

wrote:

Please try to finish the get-egs script- including shuffling of egs.

Will do.

For the 'archive-chunk-sizes' file you may have to add some kind of way of
specifying a filename suffix or pattern so that we can get separate
versions of that file for the training-subset and validation-subset egs.

If I understand this correctly, we plan on using the same utterances in
train and validation (but of course, different cuts)?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#8 (comment).