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,
Thank you for your good work. I have a couple of questions:
Did you guys test this network for longer training schedules and see if the difference between regular MaskRCNN holds ? PointRend paper shows that even if used 3x training schedule they still get 1.3%mAP better than regular MaskRCNN.
On the similar lines, were you able to show that the performance difference between a regular MaskRCNN and a BMaskRCNN hold if you use a higher capacity network say, ResNeXt 101 and ResNeXt 152?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
ruthvik92
changed the title
Effect of longer training schedules (3x)?
Effect of longer training schedules (3x) and ResNeXt 101 and 152?
Jul 20, 2021
ruthvik92
changed the title
Effect of longer training schedules (3x) and ResNeXt 101 and 152?
Effect of longer training schedules (3x) and ResNeXt 101 and 152 bacbones?
Jul 20, 2021
ruthvik92
changed the title
Effect of longer training schedules (3x) and ResNeXt 101 and 152 bacbones?
Effect of longer training schedules (3x) and ResNeXt 101 and 152 backbones?
Jul 20, 2021
Hi,
Thank you for your good work. I have a couple of questions:
Did you guys test this network for longer training schedules and see if the difference between regular MaskRCNN holds ? PointRend paper shows that even if used 3x training schedule they still get 1.3%mAP better than regular MaskRCNN.
On the similar lines, were you able to show that the performance difference between a regular MaskRCNN and a BMaskRCNN hold if you use a higher capacity network say, ResNeXt 101 and ResNeXt 152?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: