Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Questions about correct order and paths when running the full pipeline #2

Open
baurst opened this issue Oct 25, 2022 · 5 comments
Open

Questions about correct order and paths when running the full pipeline #2

baurst opened this issue Oct 25, 2022 · 5 comments
Assignees
@Szy-Young

Comments

@baurst
Copy link
Contributor

baurst commented Oct 25, 2022

Hi,

thank you for publishing the code to your very interesting paper!

Could you please kindly look at my steps that I did to try to reproduce the results in the paper? Clearly I must be doing something wrong, but I cannot figure it out, since there are a lot of steps involved. Thank you very much in advance for taking a look. Your help is very much appreciated!

Here is how I adapted the experiment (mainly data and save paths) to my machine:

  • config/flow/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml

    • old save_path: 'ckpt/flow/kittisf/kittisf_unsup/epoch=23.ckpt'
    • new save_path: '/mnt/ssd4/ogc/ckpt/flow/kittisf/kittisf_unsup/epoch=23.ckpt'
    • old root: '/home/ziyang/Desktop/Datasets/KITTI_SceneFlow'
    • new root: '/mnt/ssd4/ogc/kitti_sf'

  • config/seg/kittidet/kittisf_unsup.yaml

    • old save_path: 'ckpt/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup'
    • new save_path: '/mnt/ssd4/ogc/ckpt/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup'
    • old root: '/home/ziyang/Desktop/Datasets/KITTI_Object'
    • new root: '/mnt/ssd4/ogc/kitti_det'

  • config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_sup.yaml

    • old save_path: 'ckpt/seg/kittisf/kittisf_sup'
    • new save_path: '/mnt/ssd4/ogc/ckpt_out/seg/kittisf/kittisf_sup'
    • old root: '/home/ziyang/Desktop/Datasets/KITTI_SceneFlow_downsampled'
    • new root: '/mnt/ssd4/ogc/kitti_sf_downsampled'

  • config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml

    • old save_path: 'ckpt/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup'
    • new save_path: '/mnt/ssd4/ogc/ckpt/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup'
    • old root: '/home/ziyang/Desktop/Datasets/KITTI_SceneFlow_downsampled'
    • new root: '/mnt/ssd4/ogc/kitti_sf_downsampled
    • old batch_size: 4
    • new batch_size: 2

  • config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml

    • old save_path: 'ckpt/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv'
    • new save_path: '/mnt/ssd4/ogc/ckpt_out/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv'
    • old root: '/home/ziyang/Desktop/Datasets/KITTI_SceneFlow_downsampled'
    • new root: '/mnt/ssd4/ogc/kitti_sf_downsampled'
    • old batch_size: 4
    • new batch_size: 2

  • config/seg/semantickitti/kittisf_unsup.yaml

    • old save_path: 'ckpt/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup'
    • new save_path: '/mnt/ssd4/ogc/ckpt/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup'
    • old root: '/home/ziyang/Desktop/Datasets/SemanticKITTI'
    • new root: '/mnt/ssd4/ogc/SemanticKITTI'

After this, I did the following steps:

KITTI_SF="/mnt/ssd4/ogc/kitti_sf"
KITTI_DET="/mnt/ssd4/ogc/kitti_det"
SEMANTIC_KITTI="/mnt/ssd4/ogc/SemanticKITTI"

python data_prepare/kittisf/process_kittisf.py ${KITTI_SF}

python test_flow_kittisf.py config/flow/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --split train --test_model_iters 5 --save
python test_flow_kittisf.py config/flow/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --split val --test_model_iters 5 --save

python data_prepare/kittisf/downsample_kittisf.py ${KITTI_SF} --save_root ${KITTI_SF}_downsampled
python data_prepare/kittisf/downsample_kittisf.py ${KITTI_SF} --save_root ${KITTI_SF}_downsampled --predflow_path flowstep3d

python data_prepare/kittidet/process_kittidet.py ${KITTI_DET}
python data_prepare/semantickitti/process_semantickitti.py ${SEMANTIC_KITTI}

for ROUND in $(seq 1 2); do
    python train_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --round ${ROUND}
    python oa_icp.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split train --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2 --save
    python oa_icp.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split val --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2 --save
done

python train_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --round ${ROUND}

# KITTI-SF
python test_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --split val --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2

For the last command I am getting:
AveragePrecision@50: 0.3241964006222572
PanopticQuality@50: 0.2567730165763252 F1-score@50: 0.35737439222042144 Prec@50: 0.26614363307181654 Recall@50: 0.5437731196054254
{'per_scan_iou_avg': 0.5634193836152553, 'per_scan_iou_std': 0.020407961700111627, 'per_scan_ri_avg': 0.6674587628245354, 'per_scan_ri_std': 0.00429959088563919}

# KITTI-Det
python test_seg.py config/seg/kittidet/kittisf_unsup.yaml --split val --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2

I am getting:
AveragePrecision@50: 0.13945170257439435
PanopticQuality@50: 0.1318724309223011 F1-score@50: 0.19702186647587533 Prec@50: 0.13796774698606545 Recall@50: 0.3444609491048393
{'per_scan_iou_avg': 0.45250289306404357, 'per_scan_iou_std': 0.0, 'per_scan_ri_avg': 0.4861106249785733, 'per_scan_ri_
std': 0.0}

# SemanticKITTI
python test_seg.py config/seg/semantickitti/kittisf_unsup.yaml --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2

AveragePrecision@50: 0.10315215577576131
PanopticQuality@50: 0.0989709766834506 F1-score@50: 0.15591615175838772 Prec@50: 0.10372148859543817 Recall@50: 0.31385
31283601174
{'per_scan_iou_avg': 0.4351089967498311, 'per_scan_iou_std': 0.0, 'per_scan_ri_avg': 0.4129963953279687, 'per_scan_ri_s
td': 0.0}

Am I doing something fundamentally wrong? Thanks again for taking a look!
@Yang7879 Yang7879 assigned Yang7879 and Szy-Young and unassigned Yang7879 Oct 29, 2022
@Szy-Young
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @baurst, thank you for your interest! Here are some step-by-step suggestions to check the reproduction:

  1. KITTI-SF pre-processing
python data_prepare/kittisf/process_kittisf.py ${KITTI_SF}

I've uploaded our processed data to: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vpibaeu1yx1kpeg/kittisf.zip?dl=0.
You can compare your version with it. The data processing is deterministic and this step should produce exactly the same results.

  1. Scene flow estimation on KITTI-SF
python test_flow_kittisf.py config/flow/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --split train --test_model_iters 5 --save
python test_flow_kittisf.py config/flow/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --split val --test_model_iters 5 --save

Here are our outputs:

# --split train
Evaluation on kittisf-train: {'EPE': 0.12648308038711548, 'AccS': 0.5746897603012622, 'AccR': 0.7554271269217133, 'Outlier': 0.3829704918945208}

# --split val
Evaluation on kittisf-val: {'EPE': 0.15136219955515118, 'AccS': 0.6428256083279849, 'AccR': 0.7688812624663115, 'Outlier': 0.3612103173363721}

This step is also deterministic and should produce exactly the same results.

  1. KITTI-SF downsampling
python data_prepare/kittisf/downsample_kittisf.py ${KITTI_SF} --save_root ${KITTI_SF}_downsampled
python data_prepare/kittisf/downsample_kittisf.py ${KITTI_SF} --save_root ${KITTI_SF}_downsampled --predflow_path flowstep3d

I've uploaded our downsampled data to: https://www.dropbox.com/s/r2lq98afy61u6de/kittisf_downsampled.zip?dl=0.
You can compare your version with it. Again, this step is deterministic and should produce exactly the same results.

  1. Train segmentation - Round 1
python train_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --round 1
python oa_icp.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split train --round 1 --test_batch_size 4 --save
python oa_icp.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split val --round 1 --test_batch_size 4 --save

Here are our outputs for the OA-ICP algorithm:

# --split train
Original flow: {'EPE': 0.1221223770081997, 'AccS': 0.551214599609375, 'AccR': 0.7276544189453125, 'Outlier': 0.433809814453125}
Weighted Kabsch flow: {'EPE': 0.12027331572026015, 'AccS': 0.520142822265625, 'AccR': 0.7200775146484375, 'Outlier': 0.451470947265625}
Object-Aware ICP flow: {'EPE': 0.022878126529976724, 'AccS': 0.943924560546875, 'AccR': 0.9632830810546875, 'Outlier': 0.2250048828125}

# --split val
Original flow: {'EPE': 0.14206457536667585, 'AccS': 0.6343487548828125, 'AccR': 0.765782470703125, 'Outlier': 0.34766357421875}
Weighted Kabsch flow: {'EPE': 0.144663465321064, 'AccS': 0.5925579833984375, 'AccR': 0.743780517578125, 'Outlier': 0.3667724609375}
Object-Aware ICP flow: {'EPE': 0.0639616659656167, 'AccS': 0.8458380126953124, 'AccR': 0.88419189453125, 'Outlier': 0.17696044921875}

Besides, you can also take a look at your segmentation results after round 1:

python test_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split val --round 1 --test_batch_size 2

# Our outputs
Evaluation on kittisf-val:
AveragePrecision@50: 0.26585884114941416
PanopticQuality@50: 0.21743871392992076 F1-score@50: 0.32455795677799604 Prec@50: 0.23817762399077277 Recall@50: 0.5092478421701603
{'per_scan_iou_avg': 0.5011032064259052, 'per_scan_iou_std': 0.018945805206894876, 'per_scan_ri_avg': 0.521771999001503, 'per_scan_ri_std': 0.0036116865277290343}

In this step, due to the non-deterministic PyTorch operators in training, you may not reproduce exactly the same values even with fixed random seed. However, the segmentation and scene flow improvement results should be close to ours. The scene flow improvement (Object-Aware ICP flow) results on training split are especially important, as the segmentation in round 2 depends on it.

(By the way, the "Original flow" in the outputs of OA-ICP should be exactly the same, otherwise the previous downsampling step is not correct.)

  1. Train segmentation - Round 2
python train_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --round 2

python test_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --split val --round 2 --test_batch_size 2

If you have reproduced the same results in step 1-3 and similar results in step 4, in this step your results should be close to ours reported in Table 3 of the paper.

After you fixed the training on KITTI-SF, the testing on KITTI-Det and SemanticKITTI are also expected to work fine.

Hope these can help you!

@baurst
Copy link
Contributor Author

baurst commented Nov 1, 2022

Thank you so much for taking the time to investigate this and uploading your results. The resulting data and metrics including step 2 are pretty much identical with the output that I am getting.

For step 3 I got different results from you (compared np.allclose(...) to the downsampled data you have uploaded to dropbox.) I rebuild the PointNet stuff and reran the pipeline and now the data seems to equal for step 3, so that's good news. The only explanation I have at the moment is that maybe the setup.py script of the PointNet2 extensions pulled a different CUDA version than my conda PyTorch uses and it unfortunately did not lead to a crash, but failed silently maybe? Not sure. It seems to be fixed now. Thank you again for your help.:)

I am now rerunning the pipeline and will report back with new results, but I am reasonably confident that this could have been the issue.

@baurst
Copy link
Contributor Author

baurst commented Nov 4, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Hi, thank you very much for all your help, it is very much appreciated!

After retraining the whole thing, I got the following results:

Round 1:

SF - Train:

python oa_icp.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split train --round 1 --test_batch_size 2 --save
Original flow: {'EPE': 0.12211721856147051, 'AccS': 0.5512310791015625, 'AccR': 0.7276416015625, 'Outlier': 0.4337994384765625}
Weighted Kabsch flow: {'EPE': 0.12256817236542701, 'AccS': 0.5357562255859375, 'AccR': 0.72188720703125, 'Outlier': 0.444791259765625}
Object-Aware ICP flow: {'EPE': 0.026448437687940897, 'AccS': 0.94170654296875, 'AccR': 0.9593218994140625, 'Outlier': 0.2265020751953125}

SF - Val:

python oa_icp.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split val --round 1 --test_batch_size 2 --save
Original flow: {'EPE': 0.14206901295110583, 'AccS': 0.634364013671875, 'AccR': 0.76574951171875, 'Outlier': 0.34768310546875}
Weighted Kabsch flow: {'EPE': 0.1433044557645917, 'AccS': 0.6090081787109375, 'AccR': 0.7522802734375, 'Outlier': 0.3580340576171875}
Object-Aware ICP flow: {'EPE': 0.06135747742839157, 'AccS': 0.859599609375, 'AccR': 0.8907073974609375, 'Outlier': 0.1681353759765625}

Segmentation - Val:

python test_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split val --round 1 --test_batch_size 2
Evaluation on kittisf-val:
AveragePrecision@50: 0.3040004303378626
PanopticQuality@50: 0.22565737308702502 F1-score@50: 0.3401574803149606 Prec@50: 0.2498554077501446 Recall@50: 0.5326757090012331
{'per_scan_iou_avg': 0.5131771497428417, 'per_scan_iou_std': 0.017402197439223527, 'per_scan_ri_avg': 0.5475729809701443, 'per_scan_ri_std': 0.004504442065954208}

So this looks all good, for Round 1 the segmentation result is even better than the one you have reported in the post above.

Round 2:

Here it get's a bit weird to me:

SF - Train:

python oa_icp.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split train --round 2 --test_batch_size 2 --save
Original flow: {'EPE': 0.026448437687940897, 'AccS': 0.94170654296875, 'AccR': 0.9593218994140625, 'Outlier': 0.2265020751953125}
Weighted Kabsch flow: {'EPE': 0.09985332327196375, 'AccS': 0.7451837158203125, 'AccR': 0.81739501953125, 'Outlier': 0.334610595703125}
Object-Aware ICP flow: {'EPE': 0.08384263168089091, 'AccS': 0.8469573974609375, 'AccR': 0.898587646484375, 'Outlier': 0.2753076171875}

Is it expected that the original flow is much better than the Weighted Kabsch flow and Object-Aware ICP flow? I think this contradicts your statement: By the way, the "Original flow" in the outputs of OA-ICP should be exactly the same, otherwise the previous downsampling step is not correct. I'm not sure what I am doing wrong. It's probably best I delete all intermediate results and start again from the beginning.

SF - Val:

python oa_icp.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split val --round 2 --test_batch_size 2 --save
Loaded weights from /mnt/ssd4/selfsupervised_OD/ogc/ckpt_out/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv_R2/best.pth.tar
Original flow: {'EPE': 0.06135747742839157, 'AccS': 0.859599609375, 'AccR': 0.8907073974609375, 'Outlier': 0.1681353759765625}
Weighted Kabsch flow: {'EPE': 0.10845257709734142, 'AccS': 0.7518304443359375, 'AccR': 0.8445501708984375, 'Outlier': 0.2459100341796875}
Object-Aware ICP flow: {'EPE': 0.08291638159193099, 'AccS': 0.87177490234375, 'AccR': 0.895157470703125, 'Outlier': 0.168624267578125}

Here the difference is not that big.

Segmentation Train:

Results after training using python train_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --round 2:

python test_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --split train --round 2 --test_batch_size 2 
AveragePrecision@50: 0.5843461014413663
PanopticQuality@50: 0.43964455737869956 F1-score@50: 0.5475504322766571 Prec@50: 0.4418604651162791 Recall@50: 0.7196969696969697
{'per_scan_iou_avg': 0.721262679696083, 'per_scan_iou_std': 0.020856219343986595, 'per_scan_ri_avg': 0.9482875975966454, 'per_scan_ri_std': 0.0019339963793754578}

That looks very good!

Segmentation Val:

python test_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --split val --round 2 --test_batch_size 2
AveragePrecision@50: 0.44320909604001196
PanopticQuality@50: 0.3760641999234322 F1-score@50: 0.47724974721941354 Prec@50: 0.40445586975149955 Recall@50: 0.5819975339087546
{'per_scan_iou_avg': 0.6221984243392944, 'per_scan_iou_std': 0.014200684800744056, 'per_scan_ri_avg': 0.92194748878479, 'per_scan_ri_std': 0.002544737458229065}

This is 10% less than you have reported in the paper, indicating I must have made a mistake somewhere. Thanks again for your help!

Just to be sure, I run the experiment pipeline like this. Am I missing something critical?

KITTI_SF="/mnt/ssd4/selfsupervised_OD/ogc/kitti_sf"

export PYTORCH_CUDA_ALLOC_CONF=max_split_size_mb:512
export CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=1

python data_prepare/kittisf/process_kittisf.py ${KITTI_SF}
python data_prepare/kittisf/downsample_kittisf.py ${KITTI_SF} --save_root ${KITTI_SF}_downsampled
python data_prepare/kittisf/downsample_kittisf.py ${KITTI_SF} --save_root ${KITTI_SF}_downsampled --predflow_path flowstep3d

for ROUND in $(seq 1 2); do
    python train_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --round ${ROUND}
    python oa_icp.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split train --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2 --save
    python oa_icp.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split val --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2 --save
    python test_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --split train --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2
    python test_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --split val --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2
done

# ROUND will remain as 2 here
python train_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --round ${ROUND}
python test_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --split train --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2
python test_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --split val --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2

python train_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --round ${ROUND} would run twice with ROUND==2, that does not seem right - I should delete the last 3 commands in the script, right?

@Szy-Young
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @baurst , thanks for your feedback!

1. Experiment pipeline

In your reported results, the SF-train and SF-val of Round 2 is not needed. In round1, we train the segmentation and improve the scene flow; In round 2, we only train the segmentation (with improved flow) and report it as final segmentation results.
So your experiment pipeline is expected to be:

KITTI_SF="/mnt/ssd4/selfsupervised_OD/ogc/kitti_sf"

export PYTORCH_CUDA_ALLOC_CONF=max_split_size_mb:512
export CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=1

python data_prepare/kittisf/process_kittisf.py ${KITTI_SF}
python data_prepare/kittisf/downsample_kittisf.py ${KITTI_SF} --save_root ${KITTI_SF}_downsampled
python data_prepare/kittisf/downsample_kittisf.py ${KITTI_SF} --save_root ${KITTI_SF}_downsampled --predflow_path flowstep3d           

# ROUND = 1 (No loop here! Only run ROUND=1; Use "kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml" for training and testing)
python train_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --round ${ROUND}
python oa_icp.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split train --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2 --save
python oa_icp.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split val --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2 --save
python test_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split train --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2
python test_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split val --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2

# ROUND = 2
python train_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --round ${ROUND}
python test_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --split train --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2
python test_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --split val --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2

You are expected to get only two trained models: kittisf_unsup_woinv_R1 and kittisf_unsup_R2 in ckpt/seg/kittisf directory.

In your pipeline, what make me confusing is

for ROUND in $(seq 1 2); do
    python train_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --round ${ROUND}
    python oa_icp.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split train --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2 --save
    python oa_icp.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml --split val --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2 --save
    python test_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --split train --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2
    python test_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml --split val --round ${ROUND} --test_batch_size 2
done

The python test_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup.yaml will visit ckpt/seg/kittisf_unsup_R{ROUND}, which should not exist at this stage. Because you perform the training via python train_seg.py config/seg/kittisf/kittisf_unsup_woinv.yaml and can only got ckpt/seg/kittisf_unsup_woinv_R{ROUND}. So maybe intermediate results from previous runs are used? It might be a good idea to delete all current results and train from the beginning.

2. Testing in Round 2

If you have fixed the experiment pipeline, there might be another reason for the failure in reproduction. As you can see, in testing we load the model with lowest validation loss:

OGC/test_seg.py

Lines 80 to 83 in 3afbf55

if args.round > 0:
weight_path = osp.join(args.save_path + '_R%d'%(args.round), 'best.pth.tar')
else:
weight_path = osp.join(args.save_path, 'best.pth.tar')

However, this may not lead to the model with best performance. I occasionally met such case before, as shown below:
loss_metric

A quick solution is to load the model from the final epoch:

OGC/test_seg.py

Lines 76 to 79 in 3afbf55

# if args.round > 0:
# weight_path = osp.join(args.save_path + '_R%d'%(args.round), 'current.pth.tar')
# else:
# weight_path = osp.join(args.save_path, 'current.pth.tar')

Or you can save model from different epochs during the training and select from them:

OGC/train_seg.py

Lines 212 to 217 in 3afbf55

# # Also save intermediate epochs
# save_checkpoint(
# checkpoint_state(self.segnet),
# is_best,
# filename=osp.join(self.exp_base, 'epoch_%03d'%(self.cur_epoch)),
# bestname=osp.join(self.exp_base, self.best_name))

Training log on Tensorboard can also help you debug~ I've reproduced with different random seeds and we can always got a ~50 F1 score and ~40 PQ score:
multi_seed

@baurst
Copy link
Contributor Author

baurst commented Nov 7, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Thank you very much for your help and detailed explanation! I will delete the intermediate results and try again. :)

I did not know that the experiment has tensorboard support! I never could find any tensorboad logs, so I assumed there is no tensorboard logging active. But I found out that the summaries are not written because the log_dir did not exist for me and thus no tensorboard files could be written. I created a PR #3 enabling the creation of the log_dir prior to running so that others can have the tensorboard as well.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@Szy-Young Szy-Young

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@baurst @Szy-Young @Yang7879