[Object Detection] Evaluation procedure throwing negative values for AP and AR

[Manish-rai21bit]

System information

• What is the top-level directory of the model you are using: models/research/object_detection/
• Have I written custom code (as opposed to using a stock example script provided in TensorFlow): Yes
• OS Platform and Distribution (e.g., Linux Ubuntu 16.04): Ubuntu
• TensorFlow installed from (source or binary): Source
• TensorFlow version (use command below): 1.9.0
• Bazel version (if compiling from source):
• CUDA/cuDNN version:
• GPU model and memory: NVIDIA K80 GPUs
• Exact command to reproduce: python /home/ubuntu/data/tensorflow/models/research/object_detection/metrics/offline_eval_map_corloc.py \ --eval_dir='/home/ubuntu/data/tensorflow/my_workspace/training_demo/test_eval_metrics' \ --eval_config_path='/home/ubuntu/data/tensorflow/my_workspace/training_demo/test_eval_metrics/test_eval_config.pbtxt' \ --input_config_path='/home/ubuntu/data/tensorflow/my_workspace/training_demo/test_eval_metrics/test_input_config.pbtxt'

Describe the problem

I fine-tuned the faster_rcnn_resnet101 model available on the model zoo. I had used the train and evaluation dataset for the train process. On the tensorboard I was monitoring the model performance on the metrics - mAP and AR. Once I get the fine-tuned model, I want to evaluate the performance of a test dataset that the model has not seen.

I found followed this documentation on offline evaluation but for my dataset - https://github.com/tensorflow/models/blob/master/research/object_detection/g3doc/oid_inference_and_evaluation.md. Here are the steps that I followed:

1. Created the TFRecord for the test dataset with similar fields as in the TFRecord for the train dataset
2. Ran the inference on this test dataset using the query:
   python /home/ubuntu/data/tensorflow/models/research/object_detection/inference/infer_detections.py \ --input_tfrecord_paths=$TF_RECORD_FILES \ --output_tfrecord_path='/home/ubuntu/data/tensorflow/my_workspace/training_demo/Predictions/train.record' \ --inference_graph=$OUTPUT_INFERENCE_GRAPH \ --discard_image_pixels
   This creates bounding box predictions for the test data.
3. I then evaluate the detection bounding boxes using this:
   `
   echo "
   label_map_path: '/home/ubuntu/data/tensorflow/my_workspace/training_demo/annotations/label_map.pbtxt'
   tf_record_input_reader: { input_path: '/home/ubuntu/data/tensorflow/my_workspace/training_demo/Predictions/train.record' }
   " > /home/ubuntu/data/tensorflow/my_workspace/training_demo/test_eval_metrics/test_input_config.pbtxt

echo "
metrics_set: 'coco_detection_metrics'
" > /home/ubuntu/data/tensorflow/my_workspace/training_demo/test_eval_metrics/test_eval_config.pbtxt

python /home/ubuntu/data/tensorflow/models/research/object_detection/metrics/offline_eval_map_corloc.py
--eval_dir='/home/ubuntu/data/tensorflow/my_workspace/training_demo/test_eval_metrics'
--eval_config_path='/home/ubuntu/data/tensorflow/my_workspace/training_demo/test_eval_metrics/test_eval_config.pbtxt'
--input_config_path='/home/ubuntu/data/tensorflow/my_workspace/training_demo/test_eval_metrics/test_input_config.pbtxt'`

This whole thing (step 1, 2, 3) works perfect however, I see negative values (-1.0) for some mAP and AR.

Here is the output of the evaluation (on train, eval and test dataset) that I ran using the above queries:

`

Evaluation on test data

Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.459
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50 | area= all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.601
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.75 | area= all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.543
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= small | maxDets=100 ] = 0.459
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area=medium | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= large | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= all | maxDets= 1 ] = 0.543
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= all | maxDets= 10 ] = 0.627
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.628
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= small | maxDets=100 ] = 0.628
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area=medium | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= large | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000

evaluation on eval.record

Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.371
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50 | area= all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.521
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.75 | area= all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.428
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= small | maxDets=100 ] = 0.371
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area=medium | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= large | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= all | maxDets= 1 ] = 0.458
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= all | maxDets= 10 ] = 0.537
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.539
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= small | maxDets=100 ] = 0.539
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area=medium | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= large | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000

evaluation on train.record

Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.525
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50 | area= all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.677
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.75 | area= all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.619
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= small | maxDets=100 ] = 0.525
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area=medium | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= large | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= all | maxDets= 1 ] = 0.521
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= all | maxDets= 10 ] = 0.614
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.615
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= small | maxDets=100 ] = 0.615
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area=medium | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= large | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
`

I am not sure why I see -1.0 in the AP and AR when I do have the correct label map and bounding boxes of small, medium and large sizes available in my dataset.

[Manish-rai21bit]

With a couple of unit tests and investigations points to the use of wrong category mapping (label map) in the data.
For example, if the label map does not contain a class 4 but due to error in the data there is a class 4 in the ground truth then the values of metrics will be -1.0.

[devphilno]

@Manish-rai21bit could you elaborate on your fix? For me the area= small values are negativ. My labelmap file looks like this:
item {
id: 1
name: 'Pig'
}

[paviddavid]

@Manish-rai21bit @snphnolt Did you figure out what was the issue? During training I can see pretty nice accuracies for the different sizes (Large, medium and small) but during test on a dataset, I only got accuracy values for the size small. Medium and Large are both -1.000.

[typical-byte-world]

I have almost the same problem, only worse My metrics always -1

Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= all | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50 | area= all | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.75 | area= all | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= small | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area=medium | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= large | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= all | maxDets= 1 ] = -1.000
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= all | maxDets= 10 ] = -1.000
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= all | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= small | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area=medium | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000
Average Recall (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= large | maxDets=100 ] = -1.000

[Manish-rai21bit]

Hi @typical-byte-world,

-1.00 is the default value for when the ground truth is missing for that particular bucket. Since, you are getting all -1.00, I would recommend checking the ground truth data. It could be an error with the box area, or the labels.

[typical-byte-world]

@Manish-rai21bit thank for your answer. Can you help me, for example my coordinates 0.394 0.388 0.413 0.087. Should I multiply them by 100?

[Manish-rai21bit]

I am assuming that "0.394 0.388 0.413 0.087" are the normalised coordinates. In that case, you should multiple the normalised x and y coordinates of the box by the image width and height respectively.

[typical-byte-world]

@Manish-rai21bit When I train, I get -1, but when I convert the model and try to manually predict it, it predicts 20-30 boxes for me throughout the picture. In the configuration file there is a parameter to resize the image, does it automatically calculate the coordinates? I just have different image sizes. One part 320x240, another 3000x2000, does it matter? Thank

[karolmajek]

@typical-byte-world coordinates should be in pixels not in percent.
Just multiply your values by w,h for each image separately, since you have different sizes.
I'm resizing images prior to training, to reduce GPU memory usage and increase batch size.
But if you do so you need to do data augmentation before training.

[CPor99]

Hi, I am having the same issue, where all the Evaluation results are negative (-1.00). I followed the comment provided by @Manish-rai21bit and found a https://github.com/sulc/tfrecord-viewer where basically you test your TFRecords before proceeding to training. Using this approach my TFRecords seem to be good since all images are displayed with their proper class and annotation. What else could be the issue for negative evaluation results? Thanks

[DimitrisParaskevopoulos]

@paviddavid paviddavid i got he same problem. Only large map values are -1. Did you find any solution? thank you

[dhrubapuc23]

Here is one answer from stackoverflow:

The evalution metrics is of COCO format so you can refer to COCO API for the meaning of these values.

As specified in coco api Code , -1 is the default value if the category is absent. In your case, all objects detected only belong to 'small' area. Also area categories of 'small', 'medium' and 'large' depend on the pixels the area takes as specified here.

[DimitrisParaskevopoulos]

Thank you for your time and your answer. Στις Παρ 8 Απρ 2022 στις 12:14 μ.μ., ο/η Dhrubajyoti Das < ***@***.***> έγραψε:

…

Here is one answer from stackoverflow: The evalution metrics is of COCO format so you can refer to COCO API for the meaning of these values. As specified in coco api Code <https://github.com/cocodataset/cocoapi/blob/ed842bffd41f6ff38707c4f0968d2cfd91088688/PythonAPI/pycocotools/cocoeval.py#L335> , -1 is the default value if the category is absent. In your case, all objects detected only belong to 'small' area. Also area categories of 'small', 'medium' and 'large' depend on the pixels the area takes as specified here <https://github.com/tensorflow/models/blob/dadc4a625d273f995f8297968859c252147029ee/research/object_detection/metrics/coco_tools.py#L210> . — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6021 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWAPJG5BDHV45AIFD2ZYOH3VD72FRANCNFSM4GPHHFDA> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>