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

Reproducing the Map-Free and only Social-Context Results form the Ablation Study #6

Open
SchDevel opened this issue Jul 1, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@SchDevel
Copy link

SchDevel commented Jul 1, 2021

Hey there,

I want to reproduce the results of your ablation study, where you only used Social-Context with EWTA-Loss.

image

However, I habe problems training the model only with social context.
What are the correct flags I need to set for preprocessing (run_preprocess.py) and for training (main.py)?

Looking forward hearing from you soon!

Best regards

SchDevel

@wqi
Copy link
Owner

wqi commented Aug 11, 2021

Hi SchDevel, apologies for the delayed response - my CMU inbox is no longer active so I missed your initial email.

Unfortunately, there isn't a "simple" way to run this ablation with only social context using the current codebase. You'd likely have to remove the waypoint prediction step within WIMP_encoder.py and make the corresponding changes in WIMP_decoder.py.

I would've liked for this to be easier to reproduce and I'll try to make this something that's runnable with a single flag in the future, but I haven't been actively worked on this codebase in quite some time. Thanks for understanding!

@SchDevel
Copy link
Author

Hey,

thank you for your response.
I want to compare an approach I am currently working on with your WIMP approach (because WIMP is very well-thought and has publicly available code).
One part of this is a comparison of the amount of learnable model parameters on your map-free experiment.

I tried to count these parameters in two different ways:

  • Reimplementation of your model (without the polyline attention) with the implementation details given in the paper: ~23.000.000 learnable parameters
  • Following your suggestion, I removed the whole centerline processing and the waypoint prediction part of your publicly available code: ~25.000.000 learnable parameters.

Therefore, in my comparison, I would conservatively describe that the results of your map-free evaluation were achieved with >20.000.000 learnable parameters.
Would you agree with this statement?

As already written, I will of course cite your paper accordingly.

Looking forward hearing from you soon!

Best regards

SchDevel

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

2 participants