Open Ha0Tang opened 4 years ago
Hi @Ha0Tang, we follow the train/test split in PATN, which is different from Def-GAN, making these differences. However, we found there is a typo for the IS of Def-GAN(should be 3.265, not 2.265) after checking. Sorry for this mistake and we will correct it in our arxiv version.
Hi, thank you for your quick response. You reported 3.265 (IS) and 0.770 (SSIM) on Def-GAN, while Pose-Transfer reported 3.362 (IS) and 0.760 (SSIM) on Def-GAN. Since both of you used the same testing set on Def-GAN, I would like to know what makes these differences? Also, you reported 3.209 (IS) and 0.774 (SSIM) on Pose-Transfer, while in their paper the authors reported 3.209 (IS) and 0.773 (SSIM), I would like to know why IS is the same and SSIM is slightly different? Thanks.
@Ha0Tang, I think it may come from that the reproduction details for other papers (e.g. Def-GAN) between us and Pose-transfer are not entirely the same. Also different pytorch or tensorflow versions could be used.
The results (IS, SSIM, and DS) of Table 1 in your paper is quite different from the results of Table 1 in Pose-Transfer. For example, you reported 2.265 (IS) and 0.770 (SSIM) on Def-GAN, while Pose-Transfer reported 3.362 (IS) and 0.760 (SSIM) on Def-GAN. I would like to know what makes these differences? Thanks in advance!