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.

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

[BC-Breaking] TuSimple max lane number testing constrain bug fix #13

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Apr 26, 2021

Conversation

voldemortX
Copy link
Owner

@voldemortX voldemortX commented Apr 24, 2021

This bug fix brings 0.1~0.4% F1 score increase on all uploaded models (on one extreme case ERFNet Baseline, 0.8%).
The original code did not mask out the lane prediction with lowest existence probability, but it accidentally masked out the first lane when the network predicted 6 lanes (TuSimple has a maximal number of 5 lanes).

This change is only applied to testing scripts, so any previous downloaded/trained weights still can be used, they just need re-testing. Also this change is too small to have much of a effect on hyper-parameter validation, so hyper-parameters will remain unchanged as well.

However, we are providing new best model weights for download (since the previous ones now are not the best among the 3 runs after re-testing), these models are:

erfnet_baseline_tusimple_20210201.pt
resnet101_baseline_tusimple_20210217.pt
resnet34_baseline_tusimple_20210216.pt
resnet18_scnn_tusimple_20210216.pt
resnet34_scnn_tusimple_20210216.pt

Be sure to re-download the new best models (filename ends with _20210424.pt).

@voldemortX voldemortX self-assigned this Apr 24, 2021
@voldemortX voldemortX merged commit 06f42c7 into master Apr 26, 2021
@voldemortX voldemortX deleted the max-lane branch April 26, 2021 03:44
@voldemortX voldemortX mentioned this pull request Apr 26, 2021
@voldemortX voldemortX mentioned this pull request Jun 4, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants