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
We need to decide whether to add the option of Gaussian blurring in our builders. I ran some indicative experiments with holistic AAMs (features=double_igo, diagonal=180, scales=(1., 0.5, 0.25), scale_shapes=True, scale_features=True, n_shape=[5, 10, 15], n_appearance=100, max_iters=60) and the blurring seems to constantly increase the performance. I used LFPW training and testing sets. See the following tables for details:
However, after mentioning this to @jalabort , it seems that it is not easy to add this option for all builders. The biggest problem seems to be how to determine the value of sigma that would be used in the gaussian_pyramid method.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We need to decide whether to add the option of Gaussian blurring in our builders. I ran some indicative experiments with holistic AAMs (
features=double_igo, diagonal=180, scales=(1., 0.5, 0.25), scale_shapes=True, scale_features=True, n_shape=[5, 10, 15], n_appearance=100, max_iters=60
) and the blurring seems to constantly increase the performance. I used LFPW training and testing sets. See the following tables for details:1)
ModifiedAlternatingInverseCompositional
algorithm:noise_std
False
True
False
True
2)
WibergInverseCompositional
algorithm:noise_std
False
True
False
True
However, after mentioning this to @jalabort , it seems that it is not easy to add this option for all builders. The biggest problem seems to be how to determine the value of
sigma
that would be used in thegaussian_pyramid
method.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: