Open yaseryacoob opened 3 years ago
We did not include vox, because there is no benifit in using current model. As explained in the paper. The checkpoint and config for vox is still provided.
Since you actually went through effort of evaluating it, even if it didn't improve, there are insights that can develop from the new framework on such data. Your work so it is your call. Thanks for responding.
We did not include vox, because there is no benifit in using current model. As explained in the paper. The checkpoint and config for vox is still provided.
@AliaksandrSiarohin We evaluated the vox256.pth that provided in this repository on our own face-related test set. The quantitative result shows that this model is better than the vox-adv-cpk from FOMM. Can you speculate on the reason why the model results become better?
Just a speculation. This model has better generalisation when estimating affine transformations, you can see explanation for this phenomenon in the toy experiment section. Because we evaluate model on faces we did not observe an improvement, since vox dataset is already large and generalisation is not a problem. Since your dataset is face-like, generalization may still be the issue.
Thank you for your explanation! I really like your this work, and MonKeyNet and FOMM too.
I noticed there are no examples from VoxCeleb in the paper or the code. Also no sufficient information or data so one can replicate the experiments. Can you please share?