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
Hi,I see in paper that you say: 'In this work, we follow previous studies [50, 7] and use a unified approach for GT-sampling', but after I reading the point-augmenting code and your code, I still find some difference between your unified approach and point-augmenting approach, for example, when generate image gtaug, you only keep one image gtaug for one 3d box, but point-augmenting keep 6 image gtaug in nuscenes, can I ask did your approach is better than Pointaugmenting.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,I see in paper that you say: 'In this work, we follow previous studies [50, 7] and use a unified approach for GT-sampling', but after I reading the point-augmenting code and your code, I still find some difference between your unified approach and point-augmenting approach, for example, when generate image gtaug, you only keep one image gtaug for one 3d box, but point-augmenting keep 6 image gtaug in nuscenes, can I ask did your approach is better than Pointaugmenting.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: