not-edge loss value is too small, edge loss is nan/inf about adaptive_affinity_fields HOT 4 OPEN

okay, update something about the Nan/Inf problem:

in losses.affinity_loss function
the edge seems good, the not_ignore seems good. But when it runs to tf.logical_and:

edge = tf.logical_and(edge, not_ignore)

the output 'edge' will be a completely zero-matrix. That means no effective value left. So the final edge_loss will meet problems.

I will continue debugging, hope could help someone.

from adaptive_affinity_fields.

I think the problem is just caused by:
edge_indices = tf.where(tf.reshape(edge, [-1]))
because 'edge' sometimes will be a completely zero-matrix, so the shape of edge_indices will be (0,1) sometimes. Then
edge_loss = tf.gather(edge_loss, edge_indices)
will generate inf values.

So I think 'edge' and 'not_ignore' should be checked well. However, I still don't know whether it's a common problem, maybe it's related to the dataset itself. How do you think about it? @twke18

from adaptive_affinity_fields.

okay, update something about the Nan/Inf problem:

in losses.affinity_loss function
the edge seems good, the not_ignore seems good. But when it runs to tf.logical_and:

edge = tf.logical_and(edge, not_ignore)

the output 'edge' will be a completely zero-matrix. That means no effective value left. So the final edge_loss will meet problems.

I will continue debugging, hope could help someone.

I was looking how ignores_from_label and edges_from_label compute the edge map and it seems they compute it differently. ignores_from_label does it backwards, i.e. for st_y in range(2*size,-1,-size):, whereas edges_from_label does it forward, i.e. for st_y in range(0,2*size+1,size):.

Is it intentional? Could this be the source of the zero-matrix issue when edge = tf.logical_and(edge, not_ignore) is computed?

from adaptive_affinity_fields.

Have you guys obtained improved results using affinity field loss? I tried many times, but I can hardly get improved results over my baseline. I also have the same issue as yours and I just do not take the term which is Nan into account when computing the total loss.

from adaptive_affinity_fields.