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
Would it be appropriate to consider comparing it with two-stage methods that incorporate enhancement algorithms for various common corruption types along with depth estimation? For example, when dealing with foggy conditions, could we explore a comparison with the approach of 'defoggy first, followed by depth estimation'?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @DachunKai, thanks for asking this interesting question!
To ensure fairness in comparison, we did not include augmentation techniques like de-foggy in our benchmarks. However, we agree that using some de-noising approaches is promising in improving the OoD robustness. Several of our participants in the RoboDepth Challenge have already proven the effectiveness of this two-stage method. You can find more details from the competition report (https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.15061).
Excellent work!
Would it be appropriate to consider comparing it with two-stage methods that incorporate enhancement algorithms for various common corruption types along with depth estimation? For example, when dealing with foggy conditions, could we explore a comparison with the approach of 'defoggy first, followed by depth estimation'?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: