Adding the DINO component to DN-DETR

[Vallum]

Hi, authors,

Thank you for opening your fantastic project.

I was very impressed on your successive project DN-DETR and DINO,

so I have merged DINO component to this precedent Deformable DETR based DN-DETR, which is a little bit different from official-DINO.

Do you authors, by any chance, interested in to merge DINO into this DN-DETR?

If so, please let me know and prepare the code sharing. Because you already have your own official DINO repo, maybe you don't want to mix DN-DETR with another DINO code, That's ok, and in that case, I am considering to take another way to open my implementation

Thanks.

[FengLi-ust]

Hey, thanks for your interest in our work. We are glad to see that you implement DINO based on DN-DETR. Is there any difference between your re-implemented DINO and our DINO? Can it achieve the same performance as our DINO? Maybe you could provide more information and we can discuss with more details.

[Vallum]

Fist of all, with Resnet-50 + Deformable DETR + DN+DINO, 36 epochs

IoU metric: bbox
 Average Precision  (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area=   all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.509
 Average Precision  (AP) @[ IoU=0.50      | area=   all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.691
 Average Precision  (AP) @[ IoU=0.75      | area=   all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.556
 Average Precision  (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= small | maxDets=100 ] = 0.337
 Average Precision  (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area=medium | maxDets=100 ] = 0.542
 Average Precision  (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= large | maxDets=100 ] = 0.653
 Average Recall     (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area=   all | maxDets=  1 ] = 0.380
 Average Recall     (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area=   all | maxDets= 10 ] = 0.658
 Average Recall     (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area=   all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.730
 Average Recall     (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= small | maxDets=100 ] = 0.570
 Average Recall     (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area=medium | maxDets=100 ] = 0.772
 Average Recall     (AR) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= large | maxDets=100 ] = 0.880

I think the performance is almost same with your official DINO.

For MQS, I wanted to maintain the choice between original Deformable DETR's 2 stage variants and your other variants,

        if self.two_stage:
            output_memory, output_proposals = self.gen_encoder_output_proposals(memory, mask_flatten, spatial_shapes)

            # hack implementation for two-stage Deformable DETR
            enc_outputs_class = self.decoder.class_embed[self.decoder.num_layers](output_memory)
            enc_outputs_coord_unact = self.decoder.bbox_embed[self.decoder.num_layers](output_memory) + output_proposals

            topk = self.two_stage_num_proposals
            topk_proposals = torch.topk(enc_outputs_class[..., 0], topk, dim=1)[1]
            topk_coords_unact = torch.gather(enc_outputs_coord_unact, 1, topk_proposals.unsqueeze(-1).repeat(1, 1, 4))
            topk_coords_unact = topk_coords_unact.detach()
            reference_points = topk_coords_unact.sigmoid()

            # MQS is dab + mqs
            if self.use_mqs:
                assert self.use_dab
                reference_points_mqs = reference_points

                # sometimes the target is empty, add a zero part of query_embed to avoid unused parameters
                reference_points_mqs += self.tgt_embed.weight[0][0]*torch.tensor(0).cuda()
                tgt_mqs = self.tgt_embed.weight[:, None, :].repeat(1, bs, 1).transpose(0, 1) # nq, bs, d_model

                # query_embed is not None when training.
                if query_embed is not None:
                    reference_points_dab = query_embed[..., self.d_model:].sigmoid()
                    tgt_dab = query_embed[..., :self.d_model]

                    reference_points = torch.cat([reference_points_dab, reference_points_mqs], dim=1)
                    tgt = torch.cat([tgt_dab, tgt_mqs], dim=1)
                else:
                    reference_points = reference_points_mqs
                    tgt = tgt_mqs
            else:
                pos_trans_out = self.pos_trans_norm(self.pos_trans(self.get_proposal_pos_embed(topk_coords_unact, self.d_model)))
                query_embed, tgt = torch.split(pos_trans_out, c, dim=2)
        else:
            if self.use_dab:
                reference_points = query_embed[..., self.d_model:].sigmoid()
                tgt = query_embed[..., :self.d_model]
                # tgt = tgt.unsqueeze(0).expand(bs, -1, -1)
            else:
                query_embed, tgt = torch.split(query_embed, c, dim=1)
                query_embed = query_embed.unsqueeze(0).expand(bs, -1, -1)
                tgt = tgt.unsqueeze(0).expand(bs, -1, -1)
                reference_points = self.reference_points(query_embed).sigmoid()
                # bs, num_quires, 2

        init_reference_out = reference_points

For negative sampling, the Official DINO pushed the negative sampling out of dn_components.py, in which case, it was hard for me to use both DN-DETR and DINO simutaneously. So I implemented double sampling inside dn_components.py

# in def prepare_for_dn
    if training:
        if contrastive:
            new_targets = []
            for t in targets:
                new_t = {}
                new_t['labels'] = torch.cat([t['labels'], torch.tensor(len(t['labels']) * [num_classes], dtype=torch.int64).cuda()], dim=0)
                new_t['boxes'] = torch.cat([t['boxes'], t['boxes']], dim=0)
                new_targets.append(new_t)
            targets = new_targets
        known = [(torch.ones_like(t['labels'])).cuda() for t in targets] # [ [ 1, 1], [1, 1, 1], ... ]
        know_idx = [torch.nonzero(t) for t in known] # [ [0, 1], [0, 1, 2], ... ]
        known_num = [sum(k) for k in known] # [ 2, 3, ... ]

With this implementation, I parsed the performance in every module step from DN-DETR to DN+DINO	source	resnet-50	epochs	AP	AP50	AP75	APS	APM	APL
paper	dino-MQS-LFT-4scale	12	47.9	65.3	52.1	31.2	50.9	61.9
paper	dino-MQS-LFT-5scale	12	48.3	65.8	52.4	32.2	51.3	62.2
paper	DN-DDETR-4scale	12	43.4	61.9	47.2	24.8	46.8	59.4
self	DN-DDETR-MQS-4scale	12	48.2	66.0	52.6	29.9	51.4	63.0
self	DN-DDETR-MQS-LFT-4scale	12	48.1	65.3	52.4	30.4	51.3	62.7
self	DN-DDETR-CDN-MQS-LFT-4scale	12	48.2	65.4	52.5	31.1	51.1	63.3

source	resnet-50	epochs	AP	AP50	AP75	APS	APM	APL
paper	dino-MQS-LFT-4scale	36	50.5	68.3	55.1	32.7	53.9	64.9
paper	dino-MQS-LFT-5scale	36	51.0	69.0	55.6	34.1	53.6	65.6
paper	DN-DDETR-4scale	50	48.6	67.4	52.7	31.0	52.0	63.7
self	DN-DDETR-MQS-4scale	36	49.9	68.2	54.0	34.6	53.2	64.6
self	DN-DDETR-MQS-LFT-4scale	36	50.3	68.2	55.0	32.7	53.3	65.1
self	DN-DDETR-CDN-MQS-LFT-4scale	36	50.7	68.7	55.4	33.2	54.1	65.2

[FengLi-ust]

That's great. Looks like you are comparing with the old DINO in your table. You can initialize the parameters as the new DINO, so you can achieve around 49.0 in 12epoch.

[Vallum]

@FengLi-ust Could you let me know which parameters in newer DINO are different from older DINO? I followed older paper settings, but I cannot find which one is different. For me, their parameters look just same?!

For my latest 12 epochs setting, I found

 Average Precision  (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area=   all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.487
 Average Precision  (AP) @[ IoU=0.50      | area=   all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.664
 Average Precision  (AP) @[ IoU=0.75      | area=   all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.530
 Average Precision  (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= small | maxDets=100 ] = 0.309
 Average Precision  (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area=medium | maxDets=100 ] = 0.520
 Average Precision  (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= large | maxDets=100 ] = 0.631

It looked similar, but the small area AP is comparatively lower. (0.309 vs. 0.32) So I am not sure that they have same or similar settings.

Namespace(amp=False, aux_loss=True, backbone='resnet50', backbone_freeze_keywords=None,
batch_norm_type='FrozenBatchNorm2d', batch_size=2, bbox_loss_coef=5, box_noise_scale=0.4, 
clip_max_norm=0.1, cls_loss_coef=1, coco_panoptic_path=None, coco_path='data/coco', contrastive=True, 
dataset_file='coco', debug=False, dec_layers=6, dec_n_points=4, device='cuda', 
dice_loss_coef=1, dilation=False, dim_feedforward=2048, 
dist_backend='nccl', dist_url='env://', distributed=True, drop_lr_now=False, 
dropout=0.0, enc_layers=6, enc_n_points=4, eos_coef=0.1, epochs=12, eval=False, 
find_unused_params=False, finetune_ignore=None, fix_size=False, focal_alpha=0.25, 
frozen_weights=None, giou_loss_coef=2, gpu=0, hidden_dim=256, 
label_noise_scale=0.5, local_rank=0, lr=0.0001, lr_backbone=1e-05, lr_drop=10, 
mask_loss_coef=1, masks=False, modelname='dn_dab_deformable_detr', nheads=8, note='', 
num_feature_levels=4, num_patterns=0, num_queries=900, num_results=300, num_select=300, 
num_workers=10, output_dir='exps/r50_dn_dab_deformable_detr_two_stage_refactor_12epochs', 
pe_temperatureH=20, pe_temperatureW=20, position_embedding='sine', pre_norm=False, 
pretrain_model_path=None, random_refpoints_xy=False, rank=0, remove_difficult=False, 
return_interm_layers=False,
save_checkpoint_interval=10, save_log=False, save_results=False, scalar=200, seed=42, 
set_cost_bbox=5, set_cost_class=2,set_cost_giou=2, 
start_epoch=0, transformer_activation='relu', tsst=False, two_stage=True, 
use_dn=True, weight_decay=0.0001, world_size=8)

[FengLi-ust]

I just have a quick look. The lr_drop should be set to 11.

[FengLi-ust]

@Vallum Hey, you can pull request so I can merge your code. We can also have discussions if you meet problems.

[Vallum]

@FengLi-ust Thank you for the response. Let me just check the result and do the code prepared.

[seungyonglee0802]

@Vallum Thank you for your nice work. I just want to ask a tiny question.

In the code to choose Top K proposals from encoder output class, you wrote the code like below topk_proposals = torch.topk(enc_outputs_class[..., 0], topk, dim=1)[1] But, I think enc_outputs_class[..., 0] is only considering class0. (class number 0 could be different according to a Dataset) In my opinion, topk_proposals = torch.topk(enc_outputs_class.max(-1)[0], topk, dim=1)[1] could be better which can choose proposal with considering all classes. (refer to DINO) I want to hear you opinion and thanks in advance :)