Evaluation of ConcatDataset

[stwerner97]

I want to train and evaluate a detection model on multiple datasets at once. As preparation of the dataset, I use a joined label space with the same class label. How do I set up the evaluator when using multiple concatenated datasets? Looking at this pull request #3522, it seems that this use-case should be supported. I would be fine with both aggregated reports as well as dataset-specific evaluations.

I've tried to use separate evaluation metrics for each dataset.

val_evaluator = [
    dict(
        _scope_="mmdet",
        type="CocoMetric",
        ann_file=f"{objects365_data_root}/annotations/val.json",
        metric='bbox',
        proposal_nums=(1, 10, 100)
    ),
    dict(
        _scope_="mmdet",
        type="CocoMetric",
        ann_file=f"{coco2017_data_root}/annotations/val.json",
        metric='bbox',
        proposal_nums=(1, 10, 100)
    ),
]

This does not work and throws an AssertionError: Results do not correspond to current coco set error. I also tried an evaluator similar to this:

val_evaluator = [
    dict(
         _scope_="mmdet",
        type="CocoMetric",
        metric='bbox',
        proposal_nums=(1, 10, 100)
    )
]

which raises an error that the ann_file is missing AssertionError: ground truth is required for evaluation when `ann_file` is not provided.

Below are the relevant parts of my configuration file.

<... some more code ...>

# -------------------- Dataset Definition -------------------- #
base_train_dataset = dict(
    type = "CocoDataset",
    ann_file = "annotations/train.json",
    data_prefix = dict(img='train/'),
    metainfo = metainfo,
    filter_cfg=dict(filter_empty_gt=True, min_size=32),
    backend_args = {{_base_.backend_args}},
    pipeline = {{_base_.train_pipeline}},
)

base_val_dataset = dict(
    type = "CocoDataset",
    ann_file = "annotations/val.json",
    data_prefix = dict(img='val/'),
    metainfo = metainfo,    
    filter_cfg=dict(filter_empty_gt=True, min_size=32),
    backend_args = {{_base_.backend_args}},
    pipeline= {{_base_.test_pipeline}},
)

objects365_train_dataset = dict(
    data_root=objects365_data_root,
    **base_train_dataset
)

coco2017_train_dataset = dict(
    data_root=coco2017_data_root,
    **base_train_dataset
)

objects365_val_dataset = dict(
    data_root=objects365_data_root,
    **base_val_dataset
)

coco2017_val_dataset = dict(
    data_root=coco2017_data_root,
    **base_val_dataset
)

combined_train_dataset = dict(
    type = "ConcatDataset",
    datasets = [objects365_train_dataset, coco2017_train_dataset]
)

combined_val_dataset = dict(
    type = "ConcatDataset",
    datasets = [objects365_val_dataset, coco2017_val_dataset]
)

# -------------------- Data Definition -------------------- #
data = dict(
    train = combined_train_dataset,
    val = combined_val_dataset,
)

# -------------------- Dataloader Definition -------------------- #
train_dataloader = dict(
    _delete_ = True,
    batch_size=1,
    num_workers=1,
    dataset=combined_train_dataset,
)

val_dataloader = dict(
    _delete_ = True,
    batch_size=1,
    num_workers=1,
    dataset=combined_val_dataset,
)

<... some more code ...>

The setup is successfully training for the first epoch, but then throws an error upon evaluating.

Thanks for the great project! 😊

[hhaAndroid]

@stwerner97 The first way of writing is correct. https://github.com/open-mmlab/mmdetection/blob/dev-3.x/configs/mask2former/mask2former_r50_8xb2-lsj-50e_coco-panoptic.py#L181

[stwerner97]

Thanks for the quick response @hhaAndroid! 😊

The example you've linked does not work for me and does not use a ConcatDataset. I've also double checked that the evaluation of both coco2017_val_dataset and objects365_val_dataset works alright if I don't use ConcatDataset and instead train and evaluate on a single dataset. I've also checked that both datasets use consistent annotations, i.e., a single label and the same ID.

[stwerner97]

I've checked what issues are raised when I use the following evaluator

val_evaluator = [
    dict(
         _scope_="mmdet",
        type="CocoMetric",
        metric='bbox',
        proposal_nums=(1, 10, 100)
    )
]

and noticed that, although the COCOMetric class raises the error AssertionError: ground truth is required for evaluation when `ann_file` is not provided, the ground truth labels are available under another key. The lines of the COCOMetric class that raise the issue are

assert 'instances' in data_sample, \
    'ground truth is required for evaluation when ' \
    '`ann_file` is not provided'

While instances is not set in data_sample, gt_instances is. If I change the key (and do some changes in order to fit the expected downstream shape of the ground truth), the evaluation works for me.

assert 'gt_instances' in data_sample, \
    'ground truth is required for evaluation when ' \
    '`ann_file` is not provided'

gt['anns'] = []

boxes = data_sample['gt_instances']['bboxes'].detach().cpu().numpy()
labels = data_sample['gt_instances']['labels'].detach().cpu().numpy()

for bbox, label in zip(boxes, labels):
    gt['anns'].append({'bbox': bbox, 'bbox_label': label})

@hhaAndroid could you confirm that the key gt_instances indeed holds the ground-truth bbox and class labels? I'll later check if the implementation works when a single dataset is used, but the ann_file isn't set in the evaluator.

[stwerner97]

Unfortunately, I don't think this works as expected, as the datasets (stored in coco format) could have overlapping image ids, which might give wrong results later on when aggregating the scores.

In essence, I think, one would need to ensure that the image ids are unique across datasets or the dataloader would need to give some indication what source dataset a sample belongs to.

[oomq]

I've checked what issues are raised when I use the following evaluator

val_evaluator = [
    dict(
         _scope_="mmdet",
        type="CocoMetric",
        metric='bbox',
        proposal_nums=(1, 10, 100)
    )
]

and noticed that, although the COCOMetric class raises the error AssertionError: ground truth is required for evaluation when `ann_file` is not provided, the ground truth labels are available under another key. The lines of the COCOMetric class that raise the issue are

assert 'instances' in data_sample, \
    'ground truth is required for evaluation when ' \
    '`ann_file` is not provided'

While instances is not set in data_sample, gt_instances is. If I change the key (and do some changes in order to fit the expected downstream shape of the ground truth), the evaluation works for me.

assert 'gt_instances' in data_sample, \
    'ground truth is required for evaluation when ' \
    '`ann_file` is not provided'

gt['anns'] = []

boxes = data_sample['gt_instances']['bboxes'].detach().cpu().numpy()
labels = data_sample['gt_instances']['labels'].detach().cpu().numpy()

for bbox, label in zip(boxes, labels):
    gt['anns'].append({'bbox': bbox, 'bbox_label': label})

@hhaAndroid could you confirm that the key gt_instances indeed holds the ground-truth bbox and class labels? I'll later check if the implementation works when a single dataset is used, but the ann_file isn't set in the evaluator.

@hhaAndroid @stwerner97 I encountered the same problem as you.

AssertionError: Results do not correspond to current coco set

so, I modified the config files, just like this.

val_evaluator = [
    dict(
        _scope_="mmdet",
        type='CocoMetric',
        metric='bbox',
        ann_file=[
            "{}/test.json".format(data_rootsrsdd),
            "{}/test.json".format(data_rootssdd),
            "{}/test.json".format(data_rootrsdd),
            "{}/test.json".format(data_rootdssdd)],
        format_only=False,
        backend_args=backend_args),

]

and then, I found the error was caused by the self._coco_api,which can found in {root}\mmdetection\mmdet\evaluation\metrics\coco_metric.py, because it only keeps the path of the last ann_file when we use the same COCOmetric type. So I modified the way of the codeself._coco_api= COCO(local_path) gets, so that it can merge the json files at once. The code can found in pycocotools\coco.py.

class COCO:
    def __init__(self, annotation_file=None):
        # load dataset
        self.dataset, self.anns, self.cats, self.imgs = dict(), dict(), dict(), dict()
        self.imgToAnns, self.catToImgs = defaultdict(list), defaultdict(list)
        if not annotation_file == None:
            if isinstance(annotation_file, list):
                print('loading mutil-annotations into memory...')
                # datasets = {}
                json_contents = []
                for ann in annotation_file:
                    with open(ann, "r") as f:
                        json_content = json.load(f)
                        # datasets.update(dataset)
                        json_contents.append(json_content)
                        print("d")
                merged_images = []
                merged_annotations = []
                merged_info = []
                merged_class = []
                for _json in json_contents:
                    merged_images += _json["images"]
                    merged_annotations += _json["annotations"]
                    merged_info = _json["info"]
                    merged_class = _json["categories"]

                datasets = {
                    "info": merged_info,
                    "categories": merged_class,
                        "images": merged_images,
                        "annotations": merged_annotations

                    }

                self.dataset = datasets
                self.createIndex()

            else:
                print('loading annotations into memory...')
                tic = time.time()
                with open(annotation_file, 'r') as f:
                    dataset = json.load(f)
                assert type(dataset) == dict, 'annotation file format {} not supported'.format(type(dataset))
                print('Done (t={:0.2f}s)'.format(time.time() - tic))
                self.dataset = dataset
                self.createIndex()

It can work, but the Recall was very low and Precision was zero. I don't know if it's a problem with the model or the code I modified, and I haven't had time to solve it yet. By the way, I considered your advise, and maked sure the each different image corresponds to a unique "img_id" in different json files. I am a fresh, but I hope this helps you.