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
Good work!
I fail to find the the way to unify the numbers of channels of the feature from the backbone in the paper. According to the original design of FPN, they use 1*1 convs to reduce the numbers of channels. However, I notice that you use 3*3 2d convs to handle with the inconsistent numbers of channels. I wonder whether this design is from the paper or yourselves?
Chinese translation:
感谢你们的工作!
fpn模块涉及到两个不同channel数的feature map相加的操作,这必然要求要先把这两个feature map的通道数统一。但是我在论文中找不到他们是怎么做的。传统的FPN是用1*1conv来做降维的,但是我发现你们的代码中用的是3*3conv。特此请求确认。
感谢!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
buaaMars
changed the title
The correctness of the way to reduce or unify the numbers of channels of the feature from backbone
The correctness of the way to reduce or unify the numbers of channels of feature maps from backbone
Jun 18, 2019
Good work!
I fail to find the the way to unify the numbers of channels of the feature from the backbone in the paper. According to the original design of FPN, they use 1*1 convs to reduce the numbers of channels. However, I notice that you use 3*3 2d convs to handle with the inconsistent numbers of channels. I wonder whether this design is from the paper or yourselves?
Chinese translation:
感谢你们的工作!
fpn模块涉及到两个不同channel数的feature map相加的操作,这必然要求要先把这两个feature map的通道数统一。但是我在论文中找不到他们是怎么做的。传统的FPN是用1*1conv来做降维的,但是我发现你们的代码中用的是3*3conv。特此请求确认。
感谢!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: