I am using DeepLabv3+ and I am running some tests. For my first run I used an output_stride=16 and atrous_rates=[6, 12, 18] and in the 2nd run I used output_stride=8 and atrous_rates=[12,24, 36]. Then I used tensorboard to see the results and I could notice that the heatmaps look larger and one "unit" is 4x bigger than the run with output_stride=16.
output_stride=16
output_stride=8
I would like to know what is the reason behing this behaviour and the consequences on my mIOU metric.
regards
According to the paper Encoder-Decoder with Atrous Separable Convolution for Semantic Image Segmentation (3.1 DeeplabV3+ as an encoder), output_stride simply means the ratio between image input size and feature map output size (before global pooling). So change output_stride will change the output result.
just copy form link.
Related
I built a digital scale reader using Darknet's YOLOv4Tiny. It is having trouble confusing 2's and 5's which leads me to believe that I am doing some unwanted data augmentation during training. (The results are mostly correct, and glare could be a factor, but I am expecting better results).
I have referenced this post:
Understanding darknet's yolo.cfg config files
and the darknet github:
https://github.com/AlexeyAB/darknet/wiki/CFG-Parameters-in-the-%5Bnet%5D-section
Below is a link to the yolov4-tiny.cfg that I modified for my model:
https://github.com/AlexeyAB/darknet/blob/master/cfg/yolov4-tiny.cfg
And a snippet from the link above:
[net]
# Testing
#batch=1
#subdivisions=1
# Training
batch=64
subdivisions=1
width=416
height=416
channels=3
momentum=0.9
decay=0.0005
angle=0
saturation = 1.5
exposure = 1.5
hue=.1
Am I correct that angle=0 means that there is no rotation?
Are there any other possible ways I might be augmenting my data that could cause an issue?
Edit: If I wanted, how could I eliminate all data augmentation?
Or do I just need more data (currently 2484 images for 10 digit classes)?
horizontal flip is applied by default, add "flip=0" to disable.
https://github.com/AlexeyAB/darknet
Here, the angle, saturation, exposure, and hue all are part of data augmentation. You can eliminate all data augmentation by setting the value to 0. As data argumentation's values are hyperparameters, modifying the value of these could lead the accuracy to better or worse both. Here I suggest you keep the value given by darknet the same as they found these values are good to get good accuracy. And by all these 4 types of data augmentation darknet initially generated all images. If you add more images without replication it is always good to add more images for the deep learning model to learn the necessary complexity during training.
I have a multi-dimensional, hyper-spectral image (channels, width, height = 15, 2500, 2500). I want to compress its 15 channel dimensions into 5 channels.So, the output would be (channels, width, height = 5, 2500, 2500). One simple way to do is to apply PCA. However, performance is not so good. Thus, I want to use Variational AutoEncoder(VAE).
When I saw the available solution in Tensorflow or keras library, it shows an example of clustering the whole images using Convolutional Variational AutoEncoder(CVAE).
https://www.tensorflow.org/tutorials/generative/cvae
https://keras.io/examples/generative/vae/
However, I have a single image. What is the best practice to implement CVAE? Is it by generating sample images by moving window approach?
One way of doing it would be to have a CVAE that takes as input (and output) values of all the spectral features for each of the spatial coordinates (the stacks circled in red in the picture). So, in the case of your image, you would have 2500*2500 = 6250000 input data samples, which are all vectors of length 15. And then the dimension of the middle layer would be a vector of length 5. And, instead of 2D convolutions that are normally used along the spatial domain of images, in this case it would make sense to use 1D convolution over the spectral domain (since the values of neighbouring wavelengths are also correlated). But I think using only fully-connected layers would also make sense.
As a disclaimer, I haven’t seen CVAEs used in this way before, but like this, you would also get many data samples, which is needed in order for the learning generalise well.
Another option would be indeed what you suggested -- to just generate the samples (patches) using a moving window (maybe with a stride that is the half size of the patch). Even though you wouldn't necessarily get enough data samples for the CVAE to generalise really well on all HSI images, I guess it doesn't matter (if it overfits), since you want to use it on that same image.
I am training an object detector for my own data using Tensorflow Object Detection API. I am following the (great) tutorial by Dat Tran https://towardsdatascience.com/how-to-train-your-own-object-detector-with-tensorflows-object-detector-api-bec72ecfe1d9. I am using the provided ssd_mobilenet_v1_coco-model pre-trained model checkpoint as the starting point for the training. I have only one object class.
I exported the trained model, ran it on the evaluation data and looked at the resulted bounding boxes. The trained model worked nicely; I would say that if there was 20 objects, typically there were 13 objects with spot on predicted bounding boxes ("true positives"); 7 where the objects were not detected ("false negatives"); 2 cases where problems occur were two or more objects are close to each other: the bounding boxes get drawn between the objects in some of these cases ("false positives"<-of course, calling these "false positives" etc. is inaccurate, but this is just for me to understand the concept of precision here). There are almost no other "false positives". This seems much better result than what I was hoping to get, and while this kind of visual inspection does not give the actual mAP (which is calculated based on overlap of the predicted and tagged bounding boxes?), I would roughly estimate the mAP as something like 13/(13+2) >80%.
However, when I run the evaluation (eval.py) (on two different evaluation sets), I get the following mAP graph (0.7 smoothed):
mAP during training
This would indicate a huge variation in mAP, and level of about 0.3 at the end of the training, which is way worse than what I would assume based on how well the boundary boxes are drawn when I use the exported output_inference_graph.pb on the evaluation set.
Here is the total loss graph for the training:
total loss during training
My training data consist of 200 images with about 20 labeled objects each (I labeled them using the labelImg app); the images are extracted from a video and the objects are small and kind of blurry. The original image size is 1200x900, so I reduced it to 600x450 for the training data. Evaluation data (which I used both as the evaluation data set for eval.pyand to visually check what the predictions look like) is similar, consists of 50 images with 20 object each, but is still in the original size (the training data is extracted from the first 30 min of the video and evaluation data from the last 30 min).
Question 1: Why is the mAP so low in evaluation when the model appears to work so well? Is it normal for the mAP graph fluctuate so much? I did not touch the default values for how many images the tensorboard uses to draw the graph (I read this question: Tensorflow object detection api validation data size and have some vague idea that there is some default value that can be changed?)
Question 2: Can this be related to different size of the training data and the evaluation data (1200x700 vs 600x450)? If so, should I resize the evaluation data, too? (I did not want to do this as my application uses the original image size, and I want to evaluate how well the model does on that data).
Question 3: Is it a problem to form the training and evaluation data from images where there are multiple tagged objects per image (i.e. surely the evaluation routine compares all the predicted bounding boxes in one image to all the tagged bounding boxes in one image, and not all the predicted boxes in one image to one tagged box which would preduce many "false false positives"?)
(Question 4: it seems to me the model training could have been stopped after around 10000 timesteps were the mAP kind of leveled out, is it now overtrained? it's kind of hard to tell when it fluctuates so much.)
I am a newbie with object detection so I very much appreciate any insight anyone can offer! :)
Question 1: This is the tough one... First, I think you don't understand correctly what mAP is, since your rough calculation is false. Here is, briefly, how it is computed:
For each class of object, using the overlap between the real objects and the detected ones, the detections are tagged as "True positive" or "False positive"; all the real objects with no "True positive" associated to them are labelled "False Negative".
Then, iterate through all your detections (on all images of the dataset) in decreasing order of confidence. Compute the accuracy (TP/(TP+FP)) and recall (TP/(TP+FN)), only counting the detections that you've already seen ( with confidence bigger than the current one) for TP and FP. This gives you a point (acc, recc), that you can put on a precision-recall graph.
Once you've added all possible points to your graph, you compute the area under the curve: this is the Average Precision for this category
if you have multiple categories, the mAP is the standard mean of all APs.
Applying that to your case: in the best case your true positive are the detections with the best confidence. In that case your acc/rec curve will look like a rectangle: you'd have 100% accuracy up to (13/20) recall, and then points with 13/20 recall and <100% accuracy; this gives you mAP=AP(category 1)=13/20=0.65. And this is the best case, you can expect less in practice due to false positives which higher confidence.
Other reasons why yours could be lower:
maybe among the bounding boxes that appear to be good, some are still rejected in the calculations because the overlap between the detection and the real object is not quite big enough. The criterion is that Intersection over Union (IoU) of the two bounding boxes (real one and detection) should be over 0.5. While it seems like a gentle threshold, it's not really; you should probably try and write a script to display the detected bounding boxes with a different color depending on whether they're accepted or not (if not, you'll get both a FP and a FN).
maybe you're only visualizing the first 10 images of the evaluation. If so, change that, for 2 reasons: 1. maybe you're just very lucky on these images, and they're not representative of what follows, just by luck. 2. Actually, more than luck, if these images are the first from the evaluation set, they come right after the end of the training set in your video, so they are probably quite similar to some images in the training set, so they are easier to predict, so they're not representative of your evaluation set.
Question 2: if you have not changed that part in the config file mobilenet_v1_coco-model, all your images (both for training and testing) are rescaled to 300x300 pixels at the start of the network, so your preprocessings don't matter.
Question 3: no it's not a problem at all, all these algorithms were designed to detect multiple objects in images.
Question 4: Given the fluctuations, I'd actually keep training it until you can see improvement or clear overtraining. 10k steps is actually quite small, maybe it's enough because your task is relatively easy, maybe it's not enough and you need to wait ten times that to have significant improvement...
Is it possible to do batching in tensorflow without expanding the placeholder size by an extra dimension of None? Specifically I'd just like to feed multiple samples via the placeholders through feed_dict. The code base I'm working on would require a large amount of change to the code to account for adding an extra dimension for the batch size.
eg:
sess.run(feed_dict={var1:val1values, var2: val2values, ...})
Where val1values would represent a batch of size X instead of just one training sample.
The shape information including the number of dimensions is available to Python code to do arbitrary things with, and does affect the ops added to the graph (like which matmul kernel is used), so there's no general safe way to automatically add a batch dimension. Something like labeled_tensor may make code slightly less confusing to refactor.
I am attempting to build a model which has two phases.
The first takes an input image and passes it through a conv-deconv network. The resulting Tensor has entries corresponding to pixels in a desired output image (same size as the input image).
To calculate the final output image I want to take the value generated at each pixel location from the first phase and use it as an additional input to a reduction function that is applied over the entire input image. This second step has no trainable variables, but it does have computation/memory costs that grow exponentially with the size of the input (each output pixel is a function of all input pixels).
I'm currently using the tf.map_fn to calculate the output image. I'm mapping the output pixel calculation function onto the results from the first phase. My desire is that tensorflow would allocate the memory to store the intermediate tensors needed for each pixel calculation and then free that memory before moving on to the next pixel calculation. But instead it seems to never free the intermediate calculations causing OOM errors.
Is there someway to tell tensorflow (either explicitly or implicitly) that it should free the memory allocated to hold the data of a Tensor that is no longer needed in the calculation?
TensorFlow deallocates memory for the tensor as soon as the tensor is no longer needed for any future calculations. You can verify this by looking at memory deallocation messages as shown in this notebook.
It's possible you are running out of memory because TensorFlow executes nodes in a memory inefficient order.
As an example, consider following computation:
k = 2000
a = tf.random_uniform(shape=(k,k))
for i in range(n):
a = tf.matmul(a, tf.random_uniform(shape=(k,k)))
The order in which it is evaluated can be shown below
All the circles (tf.random_uniform) nodes are evaluated first, followed by squares (tf.matmul). This has O(n) memory requirement compared to O(1) for the optimal order.
You can use control dependencies to force a specific execution order, ie, using helper function as below:
import tensorflow.contrib.graph_editor as ge
def run_after(a_tensor, b_tensor):
"""Force a to run after b"""
ge.reroute.add_control_inputs(a_tensor.op, [b_tensor.op])