Fix shape inference of Split-2 #2549
Conversation
|
@linkerzhang This is a follow-up PR for #2328 and the same fix for shape inference of Split-11 was done for Split-2. |
onnx/defs/tensor/utils.cc
Outdated
| " Value=", | ||
| axis); | ||
| } | ||
| if (allow_negative_axis && axis < 0) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no need checking allow_negative_axis here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done, sorry for the large latency!
shinh
force-pushed
the
infer-split-2
branch
2 times, most recently
from
be4e246
to
32697c5
Compare
|
Hi @shinh, |
This should be same as onnx#2328 Signed-off-by: Shinichiro Hamaji <shinichiro.hamaji@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Shinichiro Hamaji <shinichiro.hamaji@gmail.com>
|
Unlike previous approach which factored out a function to share code among Split-11 and Split-2, this time, I just copied the shape inference of Split-11 to Split-2. This way seems to be more consistent with other operator definitions. At first, I tried to remove the support for negative axis from the one of Split-2 since Split-2 did not mention negative axis. However, it made some tests fail so I decided to handle negative axis even in Split-2. This is quite an old PR. I don't have the model fixed by this PR anymore. If this patch does not look good and you still want to fix Split-2, I'd suggest you create another PR. I'll close this PR then. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. I have confirmed it can fix shape inference bug with Split-2. For instance: https://github.com/onnx/models/blob/master/vision/classification/shufflenet/model/shufflenet-v2-10.onnx
|
@linkerzhang Could you help to merge this? Thank you. |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| const auto& split_dim = shape.dim(axis); | ||
| if (!split_dim.has_dim_value()) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A minor point: if the "split" attribute is specified, then we can infer the output dimensions, even if the input-shape does not have a dim-value for the split-axis, isn't that right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree. Do you want to do this in this PR? I'm afraid it'd take time for me to update this PR if we do this in this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's fine to do that as a separate PR.
|
@shinh : thanks for updating the fix. Regarding that is troubling. I guess there is some mismatch between the spec (which doesn't mention negative |
|
@gramalingam Makes sense. https://github.com/onnx/onnx/tree/master/onnx/backend/test/data/pytorch-converted/test_GLU This model consists the split node with negative which might break the test previously. |
|
LGTM. I am afraid it needs your signoff. We can merge it once we have the signoff. |
Co-authored-by: Chun-Wei Chen <jacky82226@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Shinichiro Hamaji <shinichiro.hamaji@gmail.com>
|
Done! |
#2328 did not fix the shape inference of the old Split.
for #1735