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

GCNet vs. Non-Local module #2

Closed
Senwang98 opened this issue Nov 30, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

GCNet vs. Non-Local module #2

Senwang98 opened this issue Nov 30, 2021 · 4 comments

Comments

@Senwang98
Copy link

Senwang98 commented Nov 30, 2021

@yzd-v
Hi, thanks for your simple and powerfull KD method. I have one question, why use GCNet rather commonly used Non-local module,
Have you test these two OPs since GCNet is little better than Non-local.(Maybe some experiments about these two modules can be added into your paper, since this is one question reviewers intuitively will ask)

@yzd-v
Copy link
Owner

yzd-v commented Nov 30, 2021

Both GCNet and non-local can be used to add global knowledge for distillation. And we compare them in ablation study. The lighter GCNet is easier to train for distillation.

@Senwang98
Copy link
Author

Senwang98 commented Nov 30, 2021

@yzd-v
Okay, I have seen Table 6. in your paper.

@yzd-v
Copy link
Owner

yzd-v commented Nov 30, 2021

You may read the two papers carefully. In table 6, we just use global distillation without focal distillation. While the result in FKD is achieved with all losses. However, Faster RCNN can achieve 42.0 mAP with focal and global distillation together.

@Senwang98
Copy link
Author

@yzd-v
Ok, it's my fault(feel a bit embarrassed, I will delete above pictures......23333)

@yzd-v yzd-v closed this as completed Dec 28, 2021
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