Testing Using Pretrained Model Results in Different Performance Across Multiple Runs

[YunzeMan]

Hi, Thanks for sharing your great work. As indicated in the title, I not only got lower performance ([email protected]: 0.7069, [email protected]: 0.5699), but also different performance across multiple runs.

These are several runs using the following command:
python tools/test.py configs/tr3d/tr3d_scannet-3d-18class.py ./tr3d_scannet.pth --eval mAP (Yes, I'm using the provided pretrained model on scannet)

Run 1: ([email protected]: 0.7069, [email protected]: 0.5699)
Run 2: ([email protected]: 0.7068, [email protected]: 0.5716)
Run 3: ([email protected]: 0.7069, [email protected]: 0.5710)

I'm using Pytorch 1.12, CUDA 11.3, CUDNN 8.

I cannot figure out where the stochasticity may come from, especially during the evaluation (test). Could you shed some lights on the possible reasons of this scenario?

Here is one of my outputs during the testing.
test_log.txt

[filaPro]

Hi @YunzeMan ,

We didn't meet nondeterministic issues on ScanNet. Can you please share .log file of this run? Also may be check something from torch randomness guide?

[YunzeMan]

Regarding randomness, I strictly followed your steps. I checked torch randomness guide but didn't find useful directions. Setting --deterministic=True didn't seem to help.

I also trained the model following your steps. Here is the log file.
20230812_013000.log

The [email protected] and [email protected] are both lower than your reported value. Have you altered the codebase or parameters a little bit without noticing it?

[filaPro]

No, this code for sure is able to reproduce our metrics...

May by you can try our implementation in mmdetection3d codebase?

[filaPro]

Btw, i think i understand this little randomness in test stage. Here in SparseTensor construction the default quantization_mode is RANDOM_SUBSAMPLE following MinkowskiEngine. Can you try with UNWEIGHTED_AVERAGE here?

[YunzeMan]

Thanks for pointing that out. However, after changing quantization_mode of x to UNWEIGHTED_AVERAGE, the little randomness still persists. Here are results of three separate runs:

Run 1: ([email protected]: 0.7068, [email protected]: 0.5702)
Run 2: ([email protected]: 0.7068, [email protected]: 0.5697)
Run 3: ([email protected]: 0.7069, [email protected]: 0.5720)

What's more frustrating than the little randomness is the marginally lower performance. But since the gap isn't very large, I can perhaps work with the current version.