-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 472
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
Question about 'RPN' location! #2
Comments
Hi @fighting-liu , |
Dear Orpine, Now I am training the 4th R-FCN stage (totally 4 stage, with OHEM, 229 category), and I feel confuse that Why this happens..., if this always happens, we even do not need the last training stage..., this problem bother me a lot......, help.. I try 3 kind of base learning rate: 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001. the situation I mentioned just now is almost same. just like this: ------------------------- Iteration 0 ------------------------- ------------------------- Iteration 2000 ------------------------- ------------------------- Iteration 4000 ------------------------- ------------------------- Iteration 6000 ------------------------- ..... ------------------------- Iteration 98000 ------------------------- ------------------------- Iteration 100000 ------------------------- ------------------------- Iteration 102000 ------------------------- .... And even worse, when testing the image, the proposals I get with RFCN is bad than faster-rcnn(ZF)...., I do not know why? |
Hi @xiaoxiongli , I see you post this in the original R-FCN repo too, and the reason is that the iteration 0 info is useless. It just run 1 iteration, which means it just use 2 images(ims_per_batch=2 if you didn't change it). So the iteration 0's training log is inaccurate(Note that validation loss is accurate) . That's no problem, we can see that the loss decreased indeed. And it is possible that stage-2 model achieves better result than stage-4 model, because stage-2 model didn't share weights, the RPN you used to produce rois has different weights with R-FCN, which means you introduce more parameters. I don't understand your last statement, I think R-FCN doesn't produce region proposals, you mean in 4-step training, RPN with R-FCN(ResNet) gives worse region proposals than RPN with fast-rcnn(ZF)? |
Dear @orpine : |
Thanks for this great work.
A question here, as in faster rcnn work itself and its implementation in ResNet paper, 'RPN' layer is inserted right after Res4X, but in your implementation, you insert it right after Res5X, will it affect final results?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: