Lightning-AI / Lightning-AI/torchmetrics
MeanAveragePrecision for custom area definitions
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 2.5k
- Forks
- 526
- Avg merge
- 6d 11h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 5
Description
## 🚀 Feature
MeanAveragePrecision metric computes mAP and mAR for the following area definition:
```
self.bbox_area_ranges = {
"all": (float(0**2), float(1e5**2)),
"small": (float(0**2), float(32**2)),
"medium": (float(32**2), float(96**2)),
"large": (float(96**2), float(1e5**2)),
}
```
I would like to provide a different definition, like:
```
MeanAveragePrecision(areas={
"all": (float(0**2), float(1e5**2)),
"xsmall": (float(0**2), float(16**2)),
"small": (float(16**2), float(32**2)),
"medium": (float(32**2), float(96**2)),
"large": (float(96**2), float(1e5**2)),
})
```
### Motivation
The default does not necessarily make sense for datasets other than COCO.
### Pitch
Instead of returning the metrics of the default areas, return the summarized metrics for the provided area definition.
### Alternatives
-
### Additional context
-
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start at the MeanAveragePrecision entry point and trace how the default area definitions are stored and summarized. Define the expected behavior for a caller-provided areas mapping, then update the relevant metric tests so custom categories such as xsmall are included in the returned summaries.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python, pytorch
- Domain
- machine-learning
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 52/100