-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 120
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.
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
Low PSNR when evaluate the reproduction model and pretrained model #46
Comments
I found that there may be some bugs in the latest version of the code. I tried to switch the code to the previous version(2e1a266) and got a PSNR value similar to that in the paper. |
Thanks a lot, @hanlinwu! I will try it soon and update here if it works well. |
Here is the update. By rolling back to the commit as @hanlinwu pointed out, I successfully achieved around 41dB PSNR on the Set5 validation set. However, when I test the pre-trained model on B100 (which I created myself by Octave rather than Matlab), the PSNR is even lower (around 27dB). I found that I could not actually reproduce the input image by running the dataset generation script in MATLAB using Octave. @XuecaiHu Would you mind if you could share the B100 dataset that you use for the training or sharing the Matlab version that you run? Thanks a lot! |
Did you solve this problem?@hcwang95 |
@reddandelion217 No, I've tried one another training dataset and still cannot reproduce the performance in the paper. Not sure where is the problem. |
@hcwang95 After analyzing the file history, I think the problem comes from the code below in file trainer.py, because there is no reason to do this:
and the code below in file metardn.py: |
@hcwang95 Hello, have you solved the reproduction problem?
The PSNR results I got are much lower than that from the paper. @XuecaiHu Could you please help solve the problem? Thank you! |
@supercaoO can you check the output of the h_project_coord and w_project_coord? |
and show me the results @supercaoO |
@XuecaiHu Thanks for your reply. I have emailed you (xuecai.hu@cripac.ia.ac.cn) the results. |
@liangheng96 Hello. After cloning the repository, maybe you can try |
@supercaoO Thank you! I know what @hanlinwu means by now. Now I swith to the previous version, and then I can get the similar results to the paper. Thank you very much! |
I think @reddandelion217 's comment is right. I delete these codes and then get the right PSNR.
|
Hi, do you see any errors in meta.py, saying 'ValueError: only one element tensors can be converted to Python scalars'? Thanks!@hcwang95 |
Any updates on this? |
Thanks for providing the detailed code with instructions to train and test.
I am curious if I have any problem with having pretty low PSNR during the evaluation of my trained model and even the pre-trained model downloaded from Google Drive.
The trained model got trained followed by the instruction in README but the PSNR for 1.1x on B100 is only around 29dB. Then I evaluated the pre-trained model and PSNR for 1.1x is also around 29dB.
Would you mind telling me whether the pre-trained model is the model generating the scores in the paper or preliminary model? Thanks a lot!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: