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
Hello, first of all thank you for sharing your work!
I was testing and was finding it was really sensitive to the parameters (and that ones would influence each other's choice severely). So I start looking at the code together with the paper and I found something different: the normalization
You seem to normalize the tracklets (both position and velocity) with: normalize = alpha * 2 + beta * 2
then passing these normalized tracklets to prepare_quick_shift.
I experimented by doing the normalization individually for position and velocity inside this last function
Hello, first of all thank you for sharing your work!
I was testing and was finding it was really sensitive to the parameters (and that ones would influence each other's choice severely). So I start looking at the code together with the paper and I found something different: the normalization
You seem to normalize the tracklets (both position and velocity) with:
normalize = alpha * 2 + beta * 2
then passing these normalized tracklets to prepare_quick_shift.
I experimented by doing the normalization individually for position and velocity inside this last function
dist_p = np.linalg.norm(p[i] - p[neighbors], axis=1) / alpha
dist_v = np.linalg.norm(v[i] - v[neighbors], axis=1) / beta
And found it to be much more robust, even when changing scenarios.
I'd like to know why you did such normalization, maybe I'm missing something... Thank you again!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: