About DinoV2+BoQ training and released checkpoint

Hi, Amar. Is the released DinoV2 weights selected on validation data (ie: pitts30k_val) or the last epoch? Using valiation on pitts30K,it seems the R1 converges around epoch 20. But the batch accuarcy (b_accu) is still increasing at epoch 40, not converging.

I tested on some indoor data, the released boq+dinov2 performs exceptional, better than Salad/CricaVPR. But my reproduced version is below the released model(all training params followed https://github.com/amaralibey/Bag-of-Queries/issues/6). I have the implemented in gsv-cities repo, here https://github.com/hit2sjtu/gsv-cities/pull/1/files.

Am I missing something?

Hello @hit2sjtu,

Can you share the performance you're getting?

I just checked your code, one thing I noticed is that you're using weight_decay=0.0 (I think in the first verion of the code I stated 0.0 for adam, someting I have read in a paper). But for AdamW, the best weight_decay is something between 0.0001 and 0.01 (I personnaly use 0.001 for ResNet and for DinoV2).

I checkpoint weights with the best performance on msls-val (not pitts30k-val but they most of the time converge together). I have trained dozens of models, with slightly different config (lr, weight_decay, augmentation) and they all get to ~92.5 recall@1 on msls-val and 94.5 R@1 on pitts30k-val (with 280x280 images).

The last models I trained, I was using a smaller learning rate on the DinoV2 backbone (0.2*lr).

...
elif self.optimizer.lower() == 'adamw':
  optimizer_params = [
              {"params": self.backbone.parameters(),  "lr": self.lr*0.2,  "weight_decay" : self.weight_decay},
              {"params": self.aggregator.parameters(),"lr": self.lr,      "weight_decay" : self.weight_decay},
          ]

  optimizer = torch.optim.AdamW(optimizer_params)

Now that you have two parameter groups, you have to keep an eye on the warmup, and take this change into account:

def optimizer_step(self,  epoch, batch_idx,
                        optimizer, optimizer_closure
                        ):
        # warm up lr
        if self.trainer.global_step < self.warmpup_steps:
            lr_scale = min(1., float(self.trainer.global_step + 1) / self.warmpup_steps)
            for pg in optimizer.param_groups:
                # pg['lr'] = lr_scale * self.lr # old
                pg['lr'] = lr_scale * pg["initial_lr"] # new
        optimizer.step(closure=optimizer_closure)

One other parameter I played with is the miner_margin of the multisimilarity loss. It has a small performance effect on sequence datasets (especially Nordland), using a smaller miner_margin=0.05 can enhance performance for some datasets (small miner_margin means fewer but harder pairs in the batch, which may hinder performance if too small). You can try with 0.075, 0.05 and 0.025. This is a hyperparameters that doesn't get saved so I can't say which value I used.

Here are the hparams that got saved when i trained the model in this repo:

lr: 0.0002
optimizer: adamw
weight_decay: 0.001
warmup_steps: 3900
milestones:
- 10
- 20
- 30
lr_mult: 0.1
batch_size: 160
img_per_place: 4
min_img_per_place: 4
shuffle_all: false
image_size:
- 280
- 280
random_sample_from_each_place: true

Finally, always use BICUBIC interpolation when possible:

T.Resize(image_size, interpolation = T.InterpolationMode.BICUBIC, antialias=True),

My training converge at 94.7%-95.3% for pitts30K_val, slightly higher than you mentioned (94.5%) but they generalize worse on my own indoor dataset. I will make the changes as explained and keep you updated. Thanks again for the detailed info.

Hello @hit2sjtu,

Can you share the performance you're getting?

I just checked your code, one thing I noticed is that you're using weight_decay=0.0 (I think in the first verion of the code I stated 0.0 for adam, someting I have read in a paper). But for AdamW, the best weight_decay is something between 0.0001 and 0.01 (I personnaly use 0.001 for ResNet and for DinoV2).

I checkpoint weights with the best performance on msls-val (not pitts30k-val but they most of the time converge together). I have trained dozens of models, with slightly different config (lr, weight_decay, augmentation) and they all get to ~92.5 recall@1 on msls-val and 94.5 R@1 on pitts30k-val (with 280x280 images).

The last models I trained, I was using a smaller learning rate on the DinoV2 backbone (0.2*lr).
...

elif self.optimizer.lower() == 'adamw':

  optimizer_params = [

              {"params": self.backbone.parameters(),  "lr": self.lr*0.2,  "weight_decay" : self.weight_decay},

              {"params": self.aggregator.parameters(),"lr": self.lr,      "weight_decay" : self.weight_decay},

          ]

  optimizer = torch.optim.AdamW(optimizer_params)
Now that you have two parameter groups, you have to keep an eye on the warmup, and take this change into account:
def optimizer_step(self,  epoch, batch_idx,

                        optimizer, optimizer_closure

                        ):

        # warm up lr

        if self.trainer.global_step < self.warmpup_steps:

            lr_scale = min(1., float(self.trainer.global_step + 1) / self.warmpup_steps)

            for pg in optimizer.param_groups:

                # pg['lr'] = lr_scale * self.lr # old

                pg['lr'] = lr_scale * pg["initial_lr"] # new

        optimizer.step(closure=optimizer_closure)
One other parameter I played with is the miner_margin of the multisimilarity loss. It has a small performance effect on sequence datasets (especially Nordland), using a smaller miner_margin=0.05 can enhance performance for some datasets (small miner_margin means fewer but harder pairs in the batch, which may hinder performance if too small). You can try with 0.075, 0.05 and 0.025. This is a hyperparameters that doesn't get saved so I can't say which value I used.

Here are the hparams that got saved when i trained the model in this repo:
lr: 0.0002

optimizer: adamw

weight_decay: 0.001

warmup_steps: 3900

milestones:

- 10

- 20

- 30

lr_mult: 0.1

batch_size: 160

img_per_place: 4

min_img_per_place: 4

shuffle_all: false

image_size:

- 280

- 280

random_sample_from_each_place: true
Finally, always use BICUBIC interpolation when possible:
T.Resize(image_size, interpolation = T.InterpolationMode.BICUBIC, antialias=True),

I can largely close most of the gap with your suggestions above. I am closing the issue for now. @amaralibey

amaralibey / Bag-of-Queries

About DinoV2+BoQ training and released checkpoint #7