We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
hello~,看到作者都是国人,就用中文提问了。
aaai论文中的结果,是使用了PON的划分吗,没有看到文中提及?另外文中提到了使用的是6 camera,但对比的方法都是1 camera,是否公平?
另外,iccv论文扩充的期刊中(https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.08207),ablation study有提及default 配置与new的配置,差异较大,主要是new split下数据是non-overlapping的,然而PON也是non-overlapping的,为何在PON配置下,指标仍然较高?此处default配置是PON配置吗?(看起来更像是NuScene原始划分?)如果不是PON划分,与sota的对比是否公平?
期待解答,祝好~
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
hello~,看到作者都是国人,就用中文提问了。
aaai论文中的结果,是使用了PON的划分吗,没有看到文中提及?另外文中提到了使用的是6 camera,但对比的方法都是1 camera,是否公平?
另外,iccv论文扩充的期刊中(https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.08207),ablation study有提及default 配置与new的配置,差异较大,主要是new split下数据是non-overlapping的,然而PON也是non-overlapping的,为何在PON配置下,指标仍然较高?此处default配置是PON配置吗?(看起来更像是NuScene原始划分?)如果不是PON划分,与sota的对比是否公平?
期待解答,祝好~
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: