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

Cannot obtain the reported performance by directly running the run.sh #26

Open
Reply1999 opened this issue Jan 5, 2020 · 4 comments
Open

Comments

@Reply1999
Copy link

Reply1999 commented Jan 5, 2020

Hi, I would like to thank you for releasing the codes in the first place.

Following the readme.md, we directly run the run.sh without any modification, but fail to obtain the reported performance. Can you help us figure out what the problem is?

To be more specific, we obtain Mean AP: 54.3% and top1: 77.3% (best) after training for 30 epoches by running the run.sh for SSG in Duke->Market1501, which should have Mean AP: 58.3% and top1: 80.0%.

@yihongXU
Copy link

yihongXU commented Feb 17, 2020

Hi,
Would you mind telling me which parameters did you use for getting Mean AP: 54.3% and top1: 77.3% (best) ? And which version of pytorch did you use? You used two gpus or just one?
thank you!

Sincerely,

@OasisYang
Copy link
Collaborator

The parameters are the same as described in the code, I use pytorch=0.4.1 with two gpus.

@yihongXU
Copy link

yihongXU commented Feb 17, 2020

The parameters are the same as described in the code, I use pytorch=0.4.1 with two gpus.

Hi thanks for your reply. I'll go try pytorch=0.4.1, torchvision=0.2.0, and as the settings in the code, I will try batch_size=128 instead of batch_size=32 recommended in the readme, which gives out an error during training.

@X-funbean
Copy link

Hi, I tried Duke->Market with default SSG config on 2 RTX2080Ti and I got the following result:

Mean AP: 54.1%
CMC Scores  market1501
top-1          76.1%
top-5          86.9%
top-10         90.2%

 * Finished epoch  30  top1: 76.1%  best: 76.5%

It seems that this result matches with those in several issues, which is apparently lower than what the paper has reported. Has anyone actually obtained the reported performance?

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