You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi, I felt you have created a very modularized implementation and it is easy to understand. I have one question for fpn mask layers which is fpn_mask_graph() in your implementation. I think you have used same layers irrespective of backbone type, is my understanding correct. If yes, do you think that is fine. Do not we need to add the respective backbone blocks in fpn mask also?
Thanks,
Veeru.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
You are right. Generally, I refactored the original matterport model realization and started to add small improvements to it.
So, now for all backbones /src/config.py holds the same params.
I believe that each backbone can be exploited more efficiently with new c2-c5 features. Perhaps, some simple tasks can be solved even with a smaller group of features.
I believe this is definitely important research that concerns cost complexity as much as model accuracy. I added "Flexible backbones configuration" point in TODOs section of README.md. If you are interested in such improvements, you can send PRs for collaboration.
Looking at the model basic scheme It seems to me that flexible backbones configuration will also require code structure improvements.
Hi, I felt you have created a very modularized implementation and it is easy to understand. I have one question for fpn mask layers which is fpn_mask_graph() in your implementation. I think you have used same layers irrespective of backbone type, is my understanding correct. If yes, do you think that is fine. Do not we need to add the respective backbone blocks in fpn mask also?
Thanks,
Veeru.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: