I'm still having some trouble reconciling the discrepancy between the Arik et al. CRNN paper's claimed number of parameters and the number of parameters in my implementation. I did realize I made an error in specifying which dimension is time vs. frequency when defining the stride/kernel size, and after correcting this, the model went up to ~143k parameters. But, the paper says their model, with the same configuration, has ~229k params.
I've tried everything I can think of to identify the error, but there's nothing in the paper that I've found that indicates the model I've built is missing anything. If any of you have a moment to take a look, another pair of eyes looking at the model would be very helpful.
I'm still having some trouble reconciling the discrepancy between the Arik et al. CRNN paper's claimed number of parameters and the number of parameters in my implementation. I did realize I made an error in specifying which dimension is time vs. frequency when defining the stride/kernel size, and after correcting this, the model went up to ~143k parameters. But, the paper says their model, with the same configuration, has ~229k params.
I've tried everything I can think of to identify the error, but there's nothing in the paper that I've found that indicates the model I've built is missing anything. If any of you have a moment to take a look, another pair of eyes looking at the model would be very helpful.