We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
Hi, I am wondering do you compare the results of the reconstructed bev feature with the real bev feature at timestamp t-k?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We conducted the experiment on the model below:
and we found that the performance of HoP branch is: .
Sorry, something went wrong.
Got it! With HoP, the performance of NDS increases to 0.531 from 0.5159.
Hi, @jinhuan-hit . I am afraid that my last answer may mislead you. Let me clarify it.
The performance of HoP branch, which is shown in the second picture, means that it is the detection performance based on reconstructed BEV feature.
The performance increase due to HoP is from 0.513 to 0.531.
No branches or pull requests
Hi, I am wondering do you compare the results of the reconstructed bev feature with the real bev feature at timestamp t-k?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: