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
According to your paper, is the process of selecting pseudo boxes in MIST the same as applying NMS with the threshold 0.2 to the top cfg.ROI_BOX_HEAD.OICR_P proposals?
max_iou seems return the max iou among the ii proposal and all the proposals with higher score, but not the proposals in the pseudo boxes list. Is it the case?
And then max_iou will determine whether the ii proposal be appended to the pseudo boxes list. If the max_iou is from the ii proposal and a proposal which is not selected (due to large overlap with existing proposals in pseudo boxes list), then ii proposal will not be appended to the pseudo boxes list. If so, is it slightly different from Algorithm 1 in your paper?
Thank you.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thanks for your great work.
According to your paper, is the process of selecting pseudo boxes in MIST the same as applying NMS with the threshold 0.2 to the top cfg.ROI_BOX_HEAD.OICR_P proposals?
In your implement,
wetectron/wetectron/modeling/roi_heads/weak_head/pseudo_label_generator.py
Lines 35 to 42 in 44e6fa9
max_iou
seems return the max iou among theii
proposal and all the proposals with higher score, but not the proposals in the pseudo boxes list. Is it the case?And then
max_iou
will determine whether theii
proposal be appended to the pseudo boxes list. If themax_iou
is from theii
proposal and a proposal which is not selected (due to large overlap with existing proposals in pseudo boxes list), thenii
proposal will not be appended to the pseudo boxes list. If so, is it slightly different from Algorithm 1 in your paper?Thank you.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: