Skip to content
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

the lambda in the option_parser.py is different from the paper #57

Closed
MikeXuQ opened this issue Jul 8, 2020 · 8 comments
Closed

the lambda in the option_parser.py is different from the paper #57

MikeXuQ opened this issue Jul 8, 2020 · 8 comments

Comments

@MikeXuQ
Copy link

MikeXuQ commented Jul 8, 2020

Hi, when I read the source code, I find that the lambda set in the option_parser.py is different from the paper set, like the lambda_ee in the paper is 2 but is 100 in the option_parse.py. Have I missed something important?

@PeizhuoLi
Copy link
Collaborator

Sorry for our negligence. It should be 100 and we didn't fix it in the paper.

@MikeXuQ
Copy link
Author

MikeXuQ commented Jul 8, 2020

Sorry for our negligence. It should be 100 and we didn't fix it in the paper.

Thanks for your reply! And I find that there is a extra rec_loss_global which seems to never appear in the paper. Would you mind telling me why using it here? And in the adv loss, the code use the pos as input, but the paper use the rotation as input. Is that better for using the pos as input for discriminator?

@PeizhuoLi
Copy link
Collaborator

We treat rec_loss_global as part of the rec_loss. It is an extra penalization over global position. It helps a lot with the global stability of output.

In adv_loss, the paper says both rotation and offset. We find using joint position is enough and joint position contains both (part of) rotation and offset information.

@MikeXuQ
Copy link
Author

MikeXuQ commented Jul 9, 2020

We treat rec_loss_global as part of the rec_loss. It is an extra penalization over global position. It helps a lot with the global stability of output.

In adv_loss, the paper says both rotation and offset. We find using joint position is enough and joint position contains both (part of) rotation and offset information.

Do you mean that using joint position is better than use the rotation and offset?And why does the rec_loss_global use motion divided by height as input?

@PeizhuoLi
Copy link
Collaborator

We find that using position has same effect as literally using rotation + offset but easier to stabilize.

rec_loss_global is penalization over global position. Characters with different height have different scale of global position. Here dividing by height aims to normalize it.

@MikeXuQ
Copy link
Author

MikeXuQ commented Jul 9, 2020

But the motion is quaternion in the code. Can we use quaternion dividing by height as the representation of the global position?

@PeizhuoLi
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm afraid you misunderstood the code. Motion consists both joint rotation and global position part. The rec_loss_global is only applied on global position part.

@MikeXuQ
Copy link
Author

MikeXuQ commented Jul 9, 2020

Thanks! I got it!

@MikeXuQ MikeXuQ closed this as completed Jul 9, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants