Shouldn't have a `+1` in the NMS implementation for the boxes width/height computation ?

[viniciusarruda]

The standard is to have a bounding box defined as quoted here.

But in the NMS source code, there is no +1 when computing the areas and intersection values. This also leaves a bug in the case of getting union = 0, raising a NaN error when computing the iou.

If the code is correct, what am I missing ? Shouldn't the documentation explain this better ?

Thanks.

[bmanga]

Same in the cuda implementation.

[fmassa]

Hi,

Great questions!

We have answered those questions in #826 (comment) .

We handle NaN in the implementation by not clamping the area to zero, but if you do find an example where this fails please let us know!

Let us know if you have further questions!

[bmanga]

@fmassa I think it would make sense to specify in the documentation (or somewhere) that (x1, y1) is inclusive and (x2, y2) is not. That would be simpler than trying to pin it as working with continuous coordinates IMO (that's what OpenCV also does).

[fmassa]

@bmanga I think we can reference in the documentation the discussion thread in the attached link I sent, this way users have the full picture.

[bmanga]

@fmassa Agreed, a quick explanation + link would be good. I can create a PR if you'd like.

[fmassa]

Yes please!