-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 67
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
(WIP) Tfdsv4 carla mot #1907
Draft
jprokos26
wants to merge
6
commits into
twosixlabs:tfdsv4
Choose a base branch
from
jprokos26:tfdsv4-carla-mot
base: tfdsv4
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
(WIP) Tfdsv4 carla mot #1907
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
956405a
built dataset
jprokos26 49410f1
Revert "built dataset"
jprokos26 5edd3c1
preprocessing not implemented
jprokos26 799f1fd
tfdsv4 fast-forward
jprokos26 0d15a1b
reverting to https://github.com/twosixlabs/armory/blob/tfdsv4/armory/…
jprokos26 4c1bf44
WIP MOT preprocessing. Cannot store dictionary in tensor...
jprokos26 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions
3
armory/datasets/adversarial/carla_multi_object_tracking_dev/__init__.py
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | ||
"""carla_multi_object_tracking_dev dataset.""" | ||
|
||
from .carla_multi_object_tracking_dev import CarlaMultiObjectTrackingDev |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions
1
armory/datasets/adversarial/carla_multi_object_tracking_dev/checksums.tsv
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1 @@ | ||
https://armory-public-data.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/carla/carla_mot_dev_1.0.0.tar.gz 704303119 cdd4be9cd3bcb5c2f94a6628350f106deec6fdc7b6a9c05711309b2bcc814f3d carla_mot_dev_1.0.0.tar.gz |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ | |||
from armory.art_experimental.attacks import patch | ||||
from armory.art_experimental.attacks.sweep import SweepAttack | ||||
from armory.datasets.generator import ArmoryDataGenerator | ||||
from armory.data.datasets import EvalGenerator # TODO: Remove before PR merge | ||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. EvalGenerator is seemingly never reached as armory runs fine without this import, but flake8 complains about this line without this import: armory/armory/utils/config_loading.py Line 194 in 0d15a1b
EvalGenerator should be completely removed from this file as suggested by #1836 (comment) |
||||
from armory.data.utils import maybe_download_weights_from_s3 | ||||
from armory.utils import labels | ||||
|
||||
|
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This function is translated from the linked function below, however tensorflow does not support storing dictionaries as elements of a tensor (whereas previously numpy had no problem with this). As such the return of this preprocessing function cannot be a tensor containing lists of dictionaries (which contain tensors as values) since this is not supported even with RaggedTensors. From this I only see two viable options:
next
callnext
callThoughts?
armory/armory/data/adversarial_datasets.py
Lines 1029 to 1072 in 48dcc04
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that the rest of the function works up until the NotImplementedError; after that point it either throws an error when trying to
tf.convert_to_tensor(output)
or when the function is mapped to the dataloader it complains that the output is not a valid return type (since it is a list of dictionaries).Also the static hash table makes no difference compared to using a generic dictionary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ideally (3) is best but I think (2) may be preferable to (1)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agreed; assuming you don't have a recommendation of how to proceed with (3) I will implement (2).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do not, we've run into a similar issue with other datasets that has required modifying the scenario code