Question about CutPaste

Thank you for your great work, I have a question:
In the paper, you said, "For the methods [18, 34, 37, 39, 49, 79] chosen to serve as underlying models for SSPCAB, we use the official code from the repositories provided by the corresponding authors".
However, it looks like the authors of CutPaste didn't release their official code.
About the results from CutPaste+SSPCAB, I wonder if you reimplemented their code to generate the results?

[ristea]

Indeed the authors have not released an official implementation. Therefore, we used a public implementation from https://github.com/Runinho/pytorch-cutpaste

[jianzhang96]

Thank you for your great work!
In the public implementation CutPaste, the reproduced results (91.0 for classification) are lower than the paper (95.2). How did you fill the gap? In other words, your proposed SSPCAB can improve detection results from 91.0 to 96.1 with 5.1 performance gain.

[BadSeedX]

Thank you for your great work! In the public implementation CutPaste, the reproduced results (91.0 for classification) are lower than the paper (95.2). How did you fill the gap? In other words, your proposed SSPCAB can improve detection results from 91.0 to 96.1 with 5.1 performance gain.
I have the same doubt

[fighting-mumu]

Thank you for your great work! In the public implementation CutPaste, the reproduced results (91.0 for classification) are lower than the paper (95.2). How did you fill the gap? In other words, your proposed SSPCAB can improve detection results from 91.0 to 96.1 with 5.1 performance gain.
I have the same doubt

[caiyu6666]

Thank you for your great work! In the public implementation CutPaste, the reproduced results (91.0 for classification) are lower than the paper (95.2). How did you fill the gap? In other words, your proposed SSPCAB can improve detection results from 91.0 to 96.1 with 5.1 performance gain.
I have the same doubt

[unrealgeometry]

Thank you for your great work! In the public implementation CutPaste, the reproduced results (91.0 for classification) are lower than the paper (95.2). How did you fill the gap? In other words, your proposed SSPCAB can improve detection results from 91.0 to 96.1 with 5.1 performance gain.
I have the same doubt

[mjack3]

Thank you for your great work! In the public implementation CutPaste, the reproduced results (91.0 for classification) are lower than the paper (95.2). How did you fill the gap? In other words, your proposed SSPCAB can improve detection results from 91.0 to 96.1 with 5.1 performance gain.
I have the same doubt