-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
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 use segmentation labels instead of bounding boxes in the COCO dataset? #28
Comments
Hi! @gongyan1 Could you show the related code about the seg labels? |
@LZHgrla Thank you for reaching out. However, when I downloaded the COCO labels mentioned in your readme, I found that they are not stored as four values of x, y, w, h as expected but rather as many values, and the number of values per line is inconsistent. Therefore, my question is, given that one txt file corresponds to one image and each line corresponds to one object, if these are bounding boxes, they should all be in the common format of class_id x y w h. |
@gongyan1 Lines 488 to 496 in 4dbb9b2
You can also directly download bounding box labels here, https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov5/releases/download/v1.0/coco2017labels.zip |
Hello,
This is indeed a fascinating piece of work, and I appreciate the outstanding contribution you have made to the community. However, I have a question. I noticed that the labels in this repository use segmentation instead of bounding boxes. Could you explain the reason behind this choice? If my dataset is labeled with bounding boxes, would it still be compatible? Moreover, were the performances of other methods compared in the article also trained with segmentation labels? To my knowledge, both v7 and v5 have used bounding box labels.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: