Closed CemEntok closed 1 year ago
Hello. There is a slight discrepancy between the number of instances we used to generate the numbers reported in the paper at the time of publication and the results our current code produces.
The single illuminant results reported in the paper used sub-image (_1) of the 99 two-illuminant test scene, and the multi-illuminant used the two/three-illuminant test scene (_12,_123). The code has now been updated to handle all the sub-images (_1,_12,_13) of the three-illuminant scene as well.
If you want to generate slightly reduced test instances to reproduce our result, please refer to following code: https://github.com/DY112/LSMI-dataset/blob/4e12d52ad6a17a0b7350113fb1f287263ac096ec/2_preprocess_data.py#L47C1-L48C25
This is how we initially processed the test scene, and it generates a test set that matches what is reported in the paper.
Thank you for your reply!
So by looking at these bullet-ins, you test the model with data A for obtaining single illuminant results, data B+C for obtaining multi-illuminant results, and data A+B+C for obtaining mixed-illuminant results so that the numbers shared in the paper are matched:
Am I approaching the testing of the model in your paper in the right manner? Correct me please if I am wrong.
Sorry for late reply.
Hello
is there any JSON file including train/val/test splits you can share publicly so that your single illuminant and mixed illuminant results can be reproduced? I noticed that the files you shared in separate_json_files are only consisting of multi-illuminant images.