rogerzhangzz / cag_uda Goto Github PK

I got a category anchor file after running cac.py, but when using it for training, I encountered an error:

File "train.py", line 87, in train
model.objective_vectors = objective_vectors['objective_vectors']
IndexError: only integers, slices (:), ellipsis (...), numpy.newaxis (None) and integer or boolean arrays are valid indices

can you pls point out what's wrong, THX!

I want to train your network with my own dataset. could you please let me know how can I train with the custom dataset?

I want to know how you deal with the batchnorm in deeplabv3plus head. As I know, AdaSeg freeze the bn layers which pretrained on imagenet in backbone. In the deeplabv2 head, there are no bn layers

Hello, thank for sharing the great work.
I find some inconsistent results in Table 3. Why the reported results of the CAG-UDA model in two mIoU metrics (13- and 16-class subsets) are different? Previous SOTA methods, like AdvEnt, report the results on the 13-class subset based on that of 16-class subset. Could you please explain it?

Thanks for releasing codes!
I found several differences between the paper and the released code:

1. The batch size. In your paper, the batch size of segmentation model was set as 1, in your code, the default batch size is 4.
2. The ASPP module is different with a common design. You use concat and conv instead of sum
   

   CAG_UDA/models/aspp.py

   Line 81 in b6fbea6

   x = torch.cat((x1, x2, x3, x4, x5), dim=1)

3. The decoder uses low-level feature as input
   

   CAG_UDA/models/decoder.py

   Line 36 in b6fbea6

   def forward(self, x, low_level_feat):

I wanna know if I just set the batch size to 1 as the paper described, is there a signifigent performance drop? What's the reason of the design for the decoder? Is it necessary to use low-level feature?

Hi!

First of all, thanks for releasing the code.
In algorithm 1, in the paper, it says only X_s and Y_s are used. However, in "Pixel-level Adversarial and Constraint-based Adaptation" they use X_s, Y_s and X_t in their "warm up", a tleast thats how I understand it.

Is this a typo or did you adapt the warmup technique?

Thanks :)

Hi, it seems that the code of warm-up stage is not avaliable. Is it convenient for sharing that?

We apologize for the typos in the final version paper at
http://papers.nips.cc/paper/8335-category-anchor-guided-unsupervised-domain-adaptation-for-semantic-segmentation.pdf

The formulation of Equation 5 and 10 should be

repectively,
instead of

and
.

The reviewed version of the paper is correct, and this mistake is due to the unintentional operation of 'lookup and replace' when we were editing the final version.

This has been corrected at arxig.org, and we apologize again for this mistake.

Thanks.

you said on paper "the decoder can be further divided in to a feature transformation net and a classifier"

In my thought, ASPP is classifier which is layer5 in this code. But I don't know what is feature transformation net.

Hi, authors, thanks for the nice work and the published codes. Since warm-up strategy is very important, could you release the warm-up code? Thanks.

I used CycleGAN to style-transfer the GTA5 dataset.
should i run cac.py to generate a new category anchor file using my transferred dataset?
but when applying the generated category_anchors i got an error:
File "train.py", line 87, in train
model.objective_vectors = objective_vectors['objective_vectors']
IndexError: only integers, slices (:), ellipsis (...), numpy.newaxis (None) and integer or boolean arrays are valid indices

Thanks for your job.
When I try to reproduce your job by running 'train.py', I could not find the file of 'GTA5/split.mat'. I could not find it in GTA5, and could you share the file?

Hello authors, thanks for the nice work and the published codes. I have a question regarding your segmentation framework. As stated in your paper, it is DeepLab v2. However when I look at your implementation of the ASPP module and the decoder, it seems to be the DeepLabv3+ (which performs better than DeepLab v2 generally https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.02611.pdf ). Could you please confirm this point?