-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
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
Is the model DeepLab v3+ ? #6
Comments
Hi there. Yes it's DeepLab v3+. Very thanks for your pointing out and sorry for the mistakes. I would revise the paper. I would also re-implement the CAG model of the deeplab v2 version and report the experimental results if possible. Thanks again! |
Hello @RogerZhangzz , thanks for the prompt reply. In this case, to me it seems incomparable between your method and others. Basically using a more advanced framework like DeepLab v3+ will boost performance, no matter what UDA technique is used. I'm then more interested in results using DeepLab v2. |
Hi. Yes a more advanced model will improve the model. However, I re-implemented the baseline model based on Deeplab v3+. Then the performance sees an increase after CAG training, proving the effectiveness. Secondly, I also re-implemented the counterpart method of CAG, namely, self-training regarding the prediction probabilities based on Deeplab V3+. The results also improve by a large margin. Thirdly, the CAG method is compatible with most of other SOTA ones, and our implementation doesn’t incorporate them. Thus a further significant increase of performance can be expected when involving all other methods. Lastly, all ablation studies are based on Deeplab V3+, eliminating the possibility of performance improvements due to a better model. Thus the effectiveness of it has been validated in ablation studies. |
Hi! what are the real results of Deeplabv2 in the paper? There is a huge gap between v2 and v3+ in performance. @RogerZhangzz |
Is there anything new? |
Hello authors, thanks for the nice work and the published codes. I have a question regarding your segmentation framework. As stated in your paper, it is DeepLab v2. However when I look at your implementation of the ASPP module and the decoder, it seems to be the DeepLabv3+ (which performs better than DeepLab v2 generally https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.02611.pdf ). Could you please confirm this point?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: