-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.9k
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
Model output changes depending on whether Autoshape is used or not #9377
Comments
👋 Hello @ymerkli, thank you for your interest in YOLOv5 🚀! Please visit our ⭐️ Tutorials to get started, where you can find quickstart guides for simple tasks like Custom Data Training all the way to advanced concepts like Hyperparameter Evolution. If this is a 🐛 Bug Report, please provide screenshots and minimum viable code to reproduce your issue, otherwise we can not help you. If this is a custom training ❓ Question, please provide as much information as possible, including dataset images, training logs, screenshots, and a public link to online W&B logging if available. For business inquiries or professional support requests please visit https://ultralytics.com or email support@ultralytics.com. RequirementsPython>=3.7.0 with all requirements.txt installed including PyTorch>=1.7. To get started: git clone https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov5 # clone
cd yolov5
pip install -r requirements.txt # install EnvironmentsYOLOv5 may be run in any of the following up-to-date verified environments (with all dependencies including CUDA/CUDNN, Python and PyTorch preinstalled):
StatusIf this badge is green, all YOLOv5 GitHub Actions Continuous Integration (CI) tests are currently passing. CI tests verify correct operation of YOLOv5 training (train.py), validation (val.py), inference (detect.py) and export (export.py) on macOS, Windows, and Ubuntu every 24 hours and on every commit. |
@ymerkli yes this is true, the outputs are different now. The change was made in #9341 because the tuple outputs were not JIT traceable, which is a common use case, and so the current implementation use export=True to make them JIT traceable. DetectMultiBackend is used by val.py and detect.py. When used by val.py the second output can be used to compute validation losses, but in practice is not used and only metrics are computed. We could move the export flag setting to DMB, but then val.py will break as it's expecting 2 outputs always from the model (inference outputs and training outputs). |
👋 Hello, this issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. Please note it will be closed if no further activity occurs. Access additional YOLOv5 🚀 resources:
Access additional Ultralytics ⚡ resources:
Feel free to inform us of any other issues you discover or feature requests that come to mind in the future. Pull Requests (PRs) are also always welcomed! Thank you for your contributions to YOLOv5 🚀 and Vision AI ⭐! |
Search before asking
YOLOv5 Component
AutoShape
,DetectMultiBackend
Bug
In PR #9363, the following line was added to the constructor of the
AutoShape
wrapper:yolov5/models/common.py
Line 603 in 23701ea
i.e. if the
model
whichAutoShape
wraps is a PyTorch model, then theexport
class attribute of theDetect
layer is set to True.Why was this added and is this correct?
This now changes the behavior of the
Detect
layer depending on whether we use theAutoShape
wrapper or not. Theforward
pass of theDetect
layer returns tuple(output, input)
ifexport=False
andoutput
ifexport=True
. Thus, depending on whether we useAutoShape
orDetectMultiBackend
, theDetect
layer (and thus the model) either outputs 1 or 2 values, which IMO it should not, the API of theDetect
layer should not depend on the wrapper (which theDetect
layer is not aware of). See the example below.Environment
Minimal Reproducible Example
This outputs:
i.e.
AutoShape
returns the output of the detect layer only (the bounding box proposals), whileDetectMultiBackend
returns a tuple consisting of theDetect
layer output and input.Additional
No response
Are you willing to submit a PR?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: