-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 584
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
[BUG] evaluate_detections() is skipping detections #5335
Comments
Can you provide any more details on how to reproduce the issue, what kind of data, labels, etc? I tried reproducing this using |
Hi @mwoodson1. Unfortunatly, I can't share directly the data. I can share however a sample which had this issue. I ran two evaluations, one with fiftyone Here is one of the sample where
|
Describe the problem
Hi ! Thanks for this awesome project !
I've been using 51 for quite a while now. I recently tried the
evaluate_detections()
method withfiftyone.core.labels.Detections
andCOCO
evaluation method, which is very powerful.When I upgraded Fiftyone to 1.1.0 (and also in 1.2.0), I've noticed a strange behavior that I can not explain.
It looks like some predictions are not evaluated. Their
eval_id
remains empty, and the detection is neither evaluated as afp
ortp
. When investigated, I discovered it seems it was all the predictions that are False Positive and where there is also a GT on the same image ( a non-negative image).Code to reproduce issue
This is how I created the evaluation :
dataset = fo.load_dataset('my_dataset')
System information
python --version
): Python 3.10.13fiftyone --version
): 1.2.0Other info/logs
Include any logs or source code that would be helpful to diagnose the problem.
If including tracebacks, please include the full traceback. Large logs and
files should be attached. Please do not use screenshots for sharing text. Code
snippets should be used instead when providing tracebacks, logs, etc.
Willingness to contribute
The FiftyOne Community encourages bug fix contributions. Would you or another
member of your organization be willing to contribute a fix for this bug to the
FiftyOne codebase?
from the FiftyOne community
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: