-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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 model setting in the paper #13
Comments
Which "basic setting" do you mean and which one is slightly worse than that in the paper? |
The basic setting means I used the pretrained weight SAM ‘sam_vit_b’ and HIPT ‘vit256_small_dino’. And my dice result on BCSS is only 0.77, while the result on CRAG is very closer to the results in the paper.
发件人: Jingwei Zhang ***@***.***>
日期: 星期三, 2024年8月21日 22:09
收件人: cvlab-stonybrook/SAMPath ***@***.***>
抄送: CHEN Zhixuan ***@***.***>, Author ***@***.***>
主题: Re: [cvlab-stonybrook/SAMPath] The model setting in the paper (Issue #13)
Which "basic setting" do you mean and which one is slightly worse than that in the paper?
―
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#13 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQO7ZD4UKQOONCOXK3UKXDDZSSNRHAVCNFSM6AAAAABM3DGXNGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGMBSGE2DQOBTGU>.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
Not sure where the problem is, maybe you can have a try on different alpha and beta as my experiments in Fig.4 to see if this problem occurs in other hyper-parameters also. |
You can also check my pertained weights in the issue. |
OK, I will. Can you tell me which issue?
发件人: Jingwei Zhang ***@***.***>
日期: 星期四, 2024年8月22日 11:50
收件人: cvlab-stonybrook/SAMPath ***@***.***>
抄送: CHEN Zhixuan ***@***.***>, Author ***@***.***>
主题: Re: [cvlab-stonybrook/SAMPath] The model setting in the paper (Issue #13)
You can also check my pertained weights in the issue.
―
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#13 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQO7ZD4RNTA43JHZNXHE4OLZSVNWNAVCNFSM6AAAAABM3DGXNGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGMBTGYYTQOJSGA>.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
I would like to ask under what model setting the results in the paper were evaluated. The results I tried to reproduce with the basic setting are slightly worse than those in the paper.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: