This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 1, 2021. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This network is experimental, so far it could not run on FPGAs.
Description
This network brings several recent ideas to our YOLOv2 implementation. In short, GlazedYolo = YoloV2 + BlazeFace + MixConv + Group Convolution.
Architecture difference from LMFYolo
I guess the last difference is the most effective one from the point of view of performance. GlazedYolo achieves following performance number (the number is mAP@IoU=0.5).
On PASCALVOC, the difference is not much, but there's huge difference on WIDER_FACE. When input image size is enlarged to 320x320, GlazedYolo (quantized) achieves 81.9% mAP on WIDER_FACE dataset.
Further direction
To make it easier to run it on our accelerator, I'm planning following experiments
Motivation and Context
We want to have better network for object detection, witout changing computation cost drastically.
How has this been tested?
Check accuracy by executing through some experiments.
Screenshots (if appropriate):
None
Types of changes
Checklist: