search

pytorch / vision

Datasets, Transforms and Models specific to Computer Vision
https://pytorch.org/vision
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
16.32k stars 6.97k forks source link

[RFC] Batteries Included - Phase 3 #6323

Open datumbox opened 2 years ago

datumbox commented 2 years ago

šŸš€ The feature

Note: To track the progress of the project check out this board.

This is the 3rd phase of TorchVision's modernization project (see phase 1 and 2). We aim to keep TorchVision relevant by ensuring it provides off-the-shelf all the necessary primitives, model architectures and recipe utilities to produce SOTA results for the supported Computer Vision tasks.

1. New Primitives

To enable our users to reproduce the latest state-of-the-art research we will enhance TorchVision with the following data augmentations, layers, losses and other operators:

Data Augmentations

Losses

Operators added in PyTorch Core

2. New Architectures & Model Iterations

To ensure that our users have access to the most popular SOTA models, we will add the following architectures along with pre-trained weights:

Image Classification

Video Classification

3. Improved Training Recipes & Pre-trained models

To ensure that are users can have access to strong baselines and SOTA weights, we will improve our training recipes to incorporate the newly released primitives and offer improved pre-trained models:

Reference Scripts

Pre-trained weights

Other Candidates

There are several other Operators (#5414), Losses (#2980), Augmentations (#3817) and Models (#2707) proposed by the community. Here are some potential candidates that we could implement depending on bandwidth. Contributions are welcome for any of the below:

cc @datumbox @vfdev-5

datumbox commented 2 years ago

Tagging a few of the regular contributors in case they are interested in specific items: @abhi-glitchhg @federicopozzi33 @frgfm @lezwon @oke-aditya @xiaohu2015 @yassineAlouini @zhiqwang

Feel free to propose additional candidates.

oke-aditya commented 2 years ago

I will be happy to take losses :) dice loss first.

frgfm commented 2 years ago

Like Christmas in july hehe :grin:

I have a few questions though:

Looking forward to help for the next release :)

federicopozzi33 commented 2 years ago

I'd like to take the Polynomial LR scheduler!

about schedulers, should we open PR directly on core? or do we need to contact them on a dedicated issue beforehand?

datumbox commented 2 years ago

Thanks for offering to help! We are lucky to have you guys! :)

@frgfm excellent questions. Let me try to provide some more context here:

abhi-glitchhg commented 2 years ago

Hello all šŸ‘‹ Bit late to the party!

Is mosaic still available? If not I would like to try it.

datumbox commented 2 years ago

@abhi-glitchhg Mosaic is available. It's a bit unclear how it will be implemented at the moment as there are multiple approaches seen online. I would prefer it if we can implement it as a Transform (rather than a Dataset or preloader etc), potentially similar to what we do for MixUp or SimpleCopyPaste. I think it would be best to disconnect its addition from the Transforms V2 initiative and add it first on the references. Then @pmeier and @vfdev-5 can propose moving forward with it using the new API.

To test the new transform we can use a similar approach as in #5825. The contributor has provided enough visual proof that the transform works as expected and then I helped him verify it by training models on internal infra. Let me know if that makes sense to you.

datumbox commented 2 years ago

BTW @lezwon just let us know he is busy and thus AutoAugment for Detection is also up for grabs if someone wants it. See #6224

yassineAlouini commented 2 years ago

@datumbox I can work on MobileViT. šŸ‘Œ

federicopozzi33 commented 2 years ago

I wanted to know how helpful it is to implement network architectures without training them, validating the implementations just by using/adapting/porting weights released by the authors.

I can provide some specific examples if needed.

datumbox commented 2 years ago

@federicopozzi33 Though the final training (especially of the large variants) is done by our team, we typically request to train at least one variant of the architecture to prove it works. The hardest part of such contributions is often to reproduce the accuracies of the paper and that's why we request this. We've been known to be flexible though, especially if a contributor has experience in implementing and contributing similar architectures to us. Another approach would be to partner with another contributor who has access to an infra and co-author the PR. That's the approach taken on the FCOS model by @xiaohu2015 and @zhiqwang.

datumbox commented 2 years ago

@yassineAlouini I realized that my fat finger gave you a thumbs down instead of thumbs up on your comment to work on MobileViT. Sorry about that. Are you still interested in it?

yassineAlouini commented 2 years ago

@datumbox Yes I am and I understood that you meant :+1: instead so all is good. I should start on Friday. :ok_hand:

federicopozzi33 commented 2 years ago

I'd like to take on LARS optimizer, but I have a question: to test the correctness of the optimizer, is it required to reproduce the experiments of the paper?

datumbox commented 2 years ago

@federicopozzi33 I don't think it's required to reproduce experiments but we would need to be very careful to ensure the optimizer works the same as a reference implementation. If reproducing experiments is necessary, I can run them for you.

@frgfm you said you had already implementations, are you still interested and have the time to contribute? Perhaps you could work with Federico.

Let me know your preferences guys and we can come up with a plan. Because the contribution will land on Core, we would need to align with their practices. The earlier PR on PolynomialLR went super smoothly, so we can try replicating that approach.

federicopozzi33 commented 2 years ago

@federicopozzi33 I don't think it's required to reproduce experiments but we would need to be very careful to ensure the optimizer works the same as a reference implementation. If reproducing experiments is necessary, I can run them for you.

Ok. There should be some reference implementations.

@frgfm you said you had already implementations, are you still interested and have the time to contribute? Perhaps you could work with Federico.

Let me know your preferences guys and we can come up with a plan. Because the contribution will land on Core, we would need to align with their practices. The earlier PR on PolynomialLR went super smoothly, so we can try replicating that approach.

Oh sorry, I looked at the main thread, without paying attention to the other messages.

@frgfm let me know if you're still interested to contribute, I can choose other issues without any problem :)

datumbox commented 2 years ago

@federicopozzi33 @frgfm @yassineAlouini @abhi-glitchhg @oke-aditya It would be great if you can either open issues with the items you plan to work on, or open dummy (empty) initial PRs with them so that we can link from the ticket and know which work is assigned to whom.

This would allow other community members to pick up work. I would also recommend to assign one task to each so that we can progress the work faster and without blocking others who want to contribute (though I'm happy to group together things that make sense such as the losses or the optimizers if that's what we want).

yassineAlouini commented 2 years ago

Will do @datumbox :ok_hand:

yassineAlouini commented 2 years ago

https://github.com/pytorch/vision/issues/6404 @datumbox not sure if it is the proper way to do it (since it is the first time for me), please comment/enhance if you have some time. Will start exploring the code soon.

frgfm commented 2 years ago

Sorry everyone, I was away from computers for a few days :sweat_smile:

@frgfm you said you had already implementations, are you still interested and have the time to contribute? Perhaps you could work with Federico.

Sure!

@federicopozzi33 @frgfm @yassineAlouini @abhi-glitchhg @oke-aditya It would be great if you can either open issues with the items you plan to work on, or open dummy (empty) initial PRs with them so that we can link from the ticket and know which work is assigned to whom.

That's a good idea, do you prefer issues that you can add as "tasks" in this very issue?

datumbox commented 2 years ago

That's a good idea, do you prefer issues that you can add as "tasks" in this very issue?

Sure. I just want to make sure to have an owner for each algorithm and know which ones are available. Please create issues for those that you would like to tackle and assign yourself. If something changes and you can't pick them up, please let me know if try to find a different owner :)

frgfm commented 2 years ago

Alright, I'll start with polyloss then & open an issue for this. One question then: should I create a "nn" module on torchvision for this? Or will losses go into "ops"? Or another submodule for experimental features ("prototype/nn" ?) that will move later on to upstream core?

Then I'll go for the LARS & LAMB optimizers if they aren't taken care of by then :+1:

And hopefully, there will still be some models left to check afterwards :)

oke-aditya commented 2 years ago

I too believe nn module or having sub module for layers and losses would be great. But that would be BC breaking etc.

datumbox commented 2 years ago

@oke-aditya @frgfm Sorry I missed your messages.

We should add the losses flat on the ops, similar to what we do with every other loss. The nn module was too controversial and wasn't adopted.

Working on LARS/LAMB would also be awesome. We would need to coordinate with Core, but I think we can do it. Looking forward to your PRs!

frgfm commented 2 years ago

We should add the losses flat on the ops, similar to what we do with every other loss. The nn module was too controversial and wasn't adopted.

Alright, but so far the other losses don't provide the module interface (only the functional API). I'll start with functional, and let me know in the PR if it's worth adding the module version as well :+1:

Working on LARS/LAMB would also be awesome. We would need to coordinate with Core, but I think we can do it. Looking forward to your PRs!

Fortunately, I have already followed the same syntax & folder organization as core. So the integration should be rather smooth :ok_hand:

YosuaMichael commented 2 years ago

I have talked with @oke-aditya in slack and he seems interested to add swin3d and I will help to support him on this. cc @datumbox

oke-aditya commented 2 years ago

Yes. Fortunately I'm well and having good health. So will take dice loss and this. : šŸ˜Š

YosuaMichael commented 2 years ago

Thanks a lot @oke-aditya for the help!

ambujpawar commented 2 years ago

I see that Mixup for Detection [1, 2] is still available. Can I pick it up?

datumbox commented 2 years ago

@ambujpawar It is! Would you be happy to give a try of the new Transforms API (it's at torchvision.prototype.transforms) or you prefer to stick with hacking together an implementation based on what we have on the references of classification?

ambujpawar commented 2 years ago

I dont have a preference for now. But I think the new transforms API would be nicer right? So, I think I would go with that one

datumbox commented 2 years ago

Sounds great! Could you create an issue or a dummy PR so that we can assign it to you and keep track of this item easier?

federicopozzi33 commented 2 years ago

Since LARS optimizer is still available, I would like to pick it. @datumbox, is it ok for you?

Atharva-Phatak commented 2 years ago

@datumbox I would like to take LAMB optimizer.

datumbox commented 2 years ago

@federicopozzi33 I think your message fell through the cracks... I apologise, would you like to pick it up?

@Atharva-Phatak sounds great, I assigned the issue you started to you. Note that this is meant to be upstreamed to PyTorch Core. Ping me when you have an early version, to do an early check before we involve PyTorch Core engineers. :)

federicopozzi33 commented 2 years ago

@federicopozzi33 I think your message fell through the cracks... I apologise, would you like to pick it up?

No problem. Yes, I'm still interested. Do I open the PR draft directly in the PyTorch repo, right?

datumbox commented 2 years ago

@federicopozzi33 Yes that sounds great! Feel free to ping me like the previous time to go through checks together and when we are mostly ready, I'll ping the Core engineers to get their input. :)

Atharva-Phatak commented 2 years ago

@datumbox Are you recommending I make a draft PR, and we can go over the changes? Then we can file a main PR for pytorch-core right?

datumbox commented 2 years ago

@Atharva-Phatak Yes sounds good.

You can start a draft PR on core and put me as reviewer to discuss details before looping other devs in. If you have specific details in mind, you can also post them on the issue you raised at TorchVision. Previously that's what we did with @federicopozzi33 and worked fine (see https://github.com/pytorch/vision/issues/4438#issuecomment-1199979841). I'm quite flexible to adjust on the way it works for you, just make sure you mark the PR as draft to indicate it's work in progress.

frgfm commented 2 years ago

Oops I realized I hadn't opened the PR for LARS & LAMB on core :sweat_smile: Sorry about that :upside_down_face: Do you prefer to keep working on this? Or should I open the PRs?

Atharva-Phatak commented 2 years ago

@frgfm I thought no one was working on LAMB and hence I took it up. If it's okay I would like to work on it. šŸ˜ƒ

frgfm commented 2 years ago

Of course it is! What about LARS @federicopozzi33? :)

federicopozzi33 commented 2 years ago

Of course it is!

What about LARS @federicopozzi33? :)

Same as @Atharva-Phatak. Moreover, I've already started working on that, so I'd like to continue.

frgfm commented 2 years ago

Roger that! In case one of you encounters trouble, let me know as I've implemented those already a while back :+1: (cf. https://github.com/frgfm/Holocron/tree/main/holocron/optim)

ambujpawar commented 2 years ago

I am (almost) finished with the Mixup for Detection. Would like to pickup Deformable DeTR next, since its not taken up yet. Shall I create a issue and a draft PR for this issue like done previously?

datumbox commented 2 years ago

@ambujpawar I was wondering if you could perhaps support on normal DeTR first. The work has previously started at #5922 but was not completed. Let me know if that's of interest.

ambujpawar commented 2 years ago

Sure, it seems interesting. I thought other contirbutors were already working on it. Therefore, chose the different one. I will pickup the normal DeTR then :)

I see a PR for DeTR but not an issue. Shall I create one?

datumbox commented 2 years ago

Yes good idea, create an issue and perhaps ping the devs who are on the PR to see if there are opportunities for collaboration. We've done previously shared PRs (for FCOS, see #4961) so this might also work here. Otherwise we can find another ticket for you. I just wanted to make sure we add DeTR soon as it would be the first Transformer-based detection model, something missing in TorchVision at the moment.

weike382 commented 1 year ago

So good.Looking forward to the realization of MTV candidates.

deepwilson commented 1 year ago

@datumbox I have some free time and would like to contribute. I see that the DETR implementation is also not moving ahead. If you are aware of any other tasks please do let me know. Thanks!