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~ Thank you for developing such a nice visualization tool. Just a small question regrading the test_deconv.py you provided as the demo. If I recall correctly it was said in Matthew's paper (http://www.matthewzeiler.com/pubs/arxive2013/eccv2014.pdf) that this deconvnet could only be used to visualize a single activation in a certain feature map, and thus we have to set the other activations to zero. While the following lines in test_deconv.py
I think this would be open to interpretation of the idea and results. I see no reason why this cannot be used to for multiple features. For example, if you start with only 1 activation in pool5, this will become several activation in a lower layer, such as pool2, and those will all be used to create the image. He never stated that this would only work using 1 activation, I think the paper may have just reported results using 1 activation (though it has been a while since I've read the paper, I could be wrong).
Hi~ Thank you for developing such a nice visualization tool. Just a small question regrading the test_deconv.py you provided as the demo. If I recall correctly it was said in Matthew's paper (http://www.matthewzeiler.com/pubs/arxive2013/eccv2014.pdf) that this deconvnet could only be used to visualize a single activation in a certain feature map, and thus we have to set the other activations to zero. While the following lines in test_deconv.py
feat = net.blobs['pool5'].data
feat[0][feat[0] < 150] = 0
seems to set only the activations smaller than 150 to zero, and I wonder if this might contradict with the original idea of the paper?
Thank you!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: