Skip to content
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

why do you perform down sampling after the first layer in 3detr-m, rather than the whole encoder? #36

Open
ch3cook-fdu opened this issue Apr 24, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@ch3cook-fdu
Copy link

Would this operation leads to performance drop? or because of the computational cost?

@imisra
Copy link
Contributor

imisra commented Apr 27, 2022

We followed PointNet++ for this design decision, where the downsampling is performed after the first layer. In initial experiments, directly downsampling gave worse results.

@ch3cook-fdu
Copy link
Author

I mean, "PointNetSA -> Encoder -> Encoder -> Encoder -> DownSampling", rather than "PointNetSA -> Encoder -> DownSampling -> Encoder -> Encoder".
Since it's known that DownSampling in PointNet++ loses information, "PointNetSA -> DownSampling -> Encoder -> Encoder -> Encoder" would not be a good choice.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants