YOLOv8-OBB learns 0° rotation about ultralytics HOT 12 CLOSED

👋 Hello @simoneangarano, thank you for your interest in Ultralytics YOLOv8 🚀! We recommend a visit to the Docs for new users where you can find many Python and CLI usage examples and where many of the most common questions may already be answered.

If this is a 🐛 Bug Report, please provide a minimum reproducible example to help us debug it.

If this is a custom training ❓ Question, please provide as much information as possible, including dataset image examples and training logs, and verify you are following our Tips for Best Training Results.

Join the vibrant Ultralytics Discord 🎧 community for real-time conversations and collaborations. This platform offers a perfect space to inquire, showcase your work, and connect with fellow Ultralytics users.

Install

Pip install the ultralytics package including all requirements in a Python>=3.8 environment with PyTorch>=1.8.

pip install ultralytics

Environments

YOLOv8 may be run in any of the following up-to-date verified environments (with all dependencies including CUDA/CUDNN, Python and PyTorch preinstalled):

• Notebooks with free GPU:
• Google Cloud Deep Learning VM. See GCP Quickstart Guide
• Amazon Deep Learning AMI. See AWS Quickstart Guide
• Docker Image. See Docker Quickstart Guide

Status

If this badge is green, all Ultralytics CI tests are currently passing. CI tests verify correct operation of all YOLOv8 Modes and Tasks on macOS, Windows, and Ubuntu every 24 hours and on every commit.

from ultralytics.

How are you displaying your bounding boxes? The results object that you get as a return value for predict has several bounding box coordinate types, for example results[0].obb.xyxyxyxy for 4 pairs of xy coords for each corner.

from ultralytics.

results[0].plot(). Even the visualizations auto-generated during training (val_batch0_pred.jpg) show bboxes that are only slightly rotated.

from ultralytics.

@simoneangarano hello! It sounds like the model might be struggling to learn the angle variations effectively. This could be due to a variety of factors including the diversity of the training data in terms of angles or the specific characteristics of the loss function handling the angle predictions.

To better diagnose the issue, you could:

• Check the distribution of angles in your training dataset to ensure there's enough variation.
• Experiment with adjusting the loss weights for the angle component in the training configuration.

For visualizing the predictions with more clarity on rotations, you might consider manually plotting the bounding boxes using results[0].obb.xyxyxyxy to extract and visualize each box's corners. This can give you a clearer picture of how the model is predicting rotations.

Here's a quick example on how you can plot these manually for more detailed inspection:

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np

# Assuming 'result' is your prediction result for one image
boxes = result.obb.xyxyxyxy  # Get the oriented bounding box coordinates

fig, ax = plt.subplots(1)
ax.imshow(result.img)  # Plot the image

# Plot each OBB
for box in boxes:
    poly = plt.Polygon(np.array(box).reshape(-1, 2), closed=True, edgecolor='r', fill=None)
    ax.add_patch(poly)

plt.show()

This might help you visually confirm the model's performance on angle predictions more precisely.

from ultralytics.

• Experiment with adjusting the loss weights for the angle component in the training configuration.

How do I increase the weight for the angle component? I don't see any training hyperparameter that's specific for that.

from ultralytics.

@simoneangarano hello! In the current YOLOv8 implementation, direct hyperparameter adjustment for the angle component in the loss function isn't exposed via the training configuration. However, you can modify the source code where the loss is computed to manually increase the weight for the angle component.

Here’s a brief guide on how you might approach this:

1. Locate the loss computation section in the model's code (usually found in the model definition files).
2. Identify the part of the loss that corresponds to the angle prediction.
3. Increase the multiplier for the angle loss to give it more weight during training.

If you need specific guidance on which file or line to edit, I can help you further if you provide more details about your setup or the version of YOLOv8 you are using. 🚀

from ultralytics.

Thanks!
I need more help figuring out where the rotation loss is explicitly computed.
My setup is:
Ultralytics YOLOv8.2.19 🚀 Python-3.9.18 torch-2.3.0+cu121 CUDA:0 (NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090, 24245MiB)
Setup complete ✅ (24 CPUs, 62.5 GB RAM, 249.4/1832.2 GB disk)
I'm using YOLOv8n-OBB.

from ultralytics.

Hello! For adjusting the rotation loss in YOLOv8n-OBB, you'll need to dive into the source code where the model and its loss functions are defined. Typically, this would be in the files where the model's forward pass and loss calculations are implemented.

Since the exact location can vary with updates, I recommend checking files related to model definitions, possibly named something like models.py or within a models directory. Look for a section that computes losses and identifies parts handling bounding box coordinates, where you might find calculations involving angles or rotations.

If you're not familiar with navigating the codebase, using a search function in your IDE for keywords like "loss" and "angle" or "rotation" might speed things up. 🚀

Hope this helps! If you need more specific pointers, feel free to ask.

from ultralytics.

I guess the angles were not being considered in the default loss, as manually adding an additional loss component ang_loss solves the issue. Now the model learns to predict rotated bounding boxes. Still, what is the best loss to be used here? I used MSE and it seems to be working, but maybe there is something better. Help?

This is the code I modified in ultralytics/utils/loss.py. If you want to include it in the next release, I can help by creating a pull request.

# Cls loss
# loss[1] = self.varifocal_loss(pred_scores, target_scores, target_labels) / target_scores_sum  # VFL way
loss[1] = self.bce(pred_scores, target_scores.to(dtype)).sum() / target_scores_sum  # BCE

# Bbox loss
if fg_mask.sum():
    target_bboxes[..., :4] /= stride_tensor
    loss[0], loss[2] = self.bbox_loss(
        pred_distri, pred_bboxes, anchor_points, target_bboxes, target_scores, target_scores_sum, fg_mask
    )
else:
    loss[0] += (pred_angle * 0).sum()

angle_diff = target_bboxes[fg_mask][:,-1] - pred_bboxes[fg_mask][:,-1]
angle_loss = (angle_diff ** 2).mean()

loss[0] *= self.hyp.box  # box gain
loss[1] *= self.hyp.cls  # cls gain
loss[2] *= self.hyp.dfl  # dfl gain
loss[3] = angle_loss * self.hyp.ang

return loss.sum() * batch_size, loss.detach()  # loss(box, cls, dfl)

from ultralytics.

Hey there! 🚀 Great job on integrating the angle loss into the model! Using MSE for the angle loss is a solid choice as it emphasizes larger errors and is generally well-behaved during optimization. However, you might also consider experimenting with the Smooth L1 Loss, which is less sensitive to outliers than MSE. This can sometimes lead to better performance, especially in cases where the angle variation is large.

Here's how you could modify your code to use Smooth L1 Loss for the angle:

angle_diff = target_bboxes[fg_mask][:,-1] - pred_bboxes[fg_mask][:,-1]
angle_loss = F.smooth_l1_loss(pred_bboxes[fg_mask][:,-1], target_bboxes[fg_mask][:,-1], reduction='mean')

This change might provide a more robust training process with respect to angle predictions. If you're seeing good results and want to contribute, a pull request would be fantastic! The community would definitely benefit from your insights and improvements. 😊

from ultralytics.

Thanks for the help! I will.

from ultralytics.

@simoneangarano you're welcome! 😊 If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to reach out. Looking forward to your pull request! 🚀

from ultralytics.