Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Question about RPN #17

Open
hantaotao opened this issue Apr 25, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

Question about RPN #17

hantaotao opened this issue Apr 25, 2022 · 1 comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation

Comments

@hantaotao
Copy link

Hello, I am very interested in your work, but I have a question to ask you. In the RPN stage, a proposal may be a positive sample in dataset A but a negative sample in dataset B. Will this produce ambiguity? Thanks!

@hantaotao hantaotao added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Apr 25, 2022
@xingyizhou
Copy link
Owner

Hi,

Great question! You are correct. We did not handle this issue in our work. We tried a few ideas including dataset-specific RPN, class-specific RPN, and ignoring high confident losses in RPN. All of them did not improve or improved minor.

My hypothesis is that RPNs are robust enough to generalize even if they are not trained consistently, given that we used an over-sufficient number of proposals at testing (1K proposals per image). You can find more discussions about RPN generalization in Appendix A of our Detic project.

Best,
Xingyi

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants