Skip to content
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

Baseline Low Performance #2

Open
yyuncong opened this issue May 28, 2024 · 11 comments
Open

Baseline Low Performance #2

yyuncong opened this issue May 28, 2024 · 11 comments

Comments

@yyuncong
Copy link

yyuncong commented May 28, 2024

Hi,

Thank you for the great work and the tremendous efforts of open-sourcing the baselines!

I tried the VLM baseline and noticed that the model performance is way lower than the reported results (more like a random selection). This is quite confusing because I did not modify the codebase (other than the data path).

Could you help me double check if the baselines are functioning properly? I am also actively investigating if this is caused by my local environment. Thank you for your help!

@allenzren
Copy link
Collaborator

allenzren commented May 30, 2024

Hi Yuncong, thanks for checking out our work!

This is my bad --- when we ran experiments, we were using a different version of the Prismatic VLM --- the official repo was not released then. It was a 13B one and I am not sure if the specific one was released at the end. If you would like to improve the performance, I would suggest using a different checkpoint from their repo and also seeing if the weighting parameters for the semantic values make sense (i.e., the semantic values look reasonable). You can also look into other newer VLMs.

@allenzren
Copy link
Collaborator

Do you notice if the question answering is particularly bad? or the semantic exploration does not work?

@yusirhhh
Copy link

yusirhhh commented Jun 13, 2024

The outcomes of the evaluation are summarized below. Notably, without any adjustments to the codebase, the achieved metrics were marginally lower than those reported in the paper:

Total cases: 500
Successful cases (weighted): 118
Successful cases (max): 120
Success rate (weighted): 23.60%
Success rate (max): 24.00%

@allenzren @yyuncong

@yyuncong
Copy link
Author

The outcomes of the evaluation are summarized below. Notably, without any adjustments to the codebase, the achieved metrics were marginally lower than those reported in the paper:

Total cases: 500
Successful cases (weighted): 118
Successful cases (max): 120
Success rate (weighted): 23.60%
Success rate (max): 24.00%

@allenzren @yyuncong

Thank you for summarizing the evaluation results! Given the fact that the questions are all multiple choices with at most 4 choices, the evaluation results suggest that the current pipeline barely helps question answering?

@allenzren
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @yyuncong @yusirhhh, thanks for looking into this! I think there is something off right now that the success rate is not even above 25% --- even if the exploration is not working as well as the original experiments, question answering should not be that bad if the VLM functions. I can look into this this weekend if that helps.

@yusirhhh
Copy link

@allenzren @yyuncong I am troubleshooting this issue and would appreciate it if you could provide the images corresponding to the questions from your experiments. This would help me investigate the VQA performance and determine if the low accuracy is due to the VLM model's VQA capabilities

@yusirhhh
Copy link

@allenzren When I sample views from the scene, I find that the "../hm3dsem/topdown" folder is missing. Could you please tell me how to generate the top-down files?

@allenzren
Copy link
Collaborator

@yusirhhh I added the script that I used for getting the topdown views. I literally went to the hm3d website and downloaded the topdown views there (example) --- it is not that high resolution and I didn't use it to generate questions.

@yyuncong
Copy link
Author

Hi @yyuncong @yusirhhh, thanks for looking into this! I think there is something off right now that the success rate is not even above 25% --- even if the exploration is not working as well as the original experiments, question answering should not be that bad if the VLM functions. I can look into this this weekend if that helps.

Hi! I would like to follow up on the performance issue. I was wondering if there have been any updates or progress on this matter? Thank you for your help!

@dunkegg
Copy link

dunkegg commented Jul 1, 2024

@yusirhhh Hi. Did you use the stopping criterion in the paper for the success rate?
I also found the stopping criterion value resulted in a low success rate.

@allenzren
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi everyone, there was a bug in loading the questions from the csv, and it is fixed in 18381da. Initially the choices of the question were loaded as a string, so it was not parsed into the four choices correctly.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants