-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
Description
Description
Hi! Thank you for your work!
I’m a beginner trying to reproduce results from the paper. After generating images using the provided code, I computed FID and LPIPS metrics([https://github.com//issues/3]) but observed significant differences compared to Table 1 in the paper (FID: 274.52 vs. reported 55.30, LPIPS: 0.494 vs. reported 0.36).
File Structure
evaluate_img/
├── exp1_200/
│ ├── CACTIF_transfer_1.png
│ ├── CACTIF_transfer_2.png
│ └── ...
├── origin_200/
│ ├── 00001.png
│ ├── 00002.png
│ └── ...
└── citystyle_1/
├── 1.png
├── 2.png
└── ...
Steps to Reproduce
-
Image Generation & Structure:
- Generated 200 output images via CACTIF transfer, stored in
evaluate_img/exp1_200/(nb_img_per_style: int = 200) - Used 200 original GTA images from
evaluate_img/origin_200/. - Created style reference by duplicating
zurich_000087_000019_leftImg8bit200 times intoevaluate_img/citystyle_1/.
- Generated 200 output images via CACTIF transfer, stored in
-
FID Calculation (via
pytorch_fid):python -m pytorch_fid evaluate_img/citystyle_1 evaluate_img/exp1_200 --device cuda:1
Result: FID = 274.52 (expected: 55.30).
-
LPIPS Calculation (modified script):
Used a customlpips_sim2real.pyto handle mismatched filenames:python PerceptualSimilarity/lpips_sim2real.py -d0 evaluate_img/origin_200 -d1 evaluate_img/exp1_200 -o evaluate_img/example_dists.txt --use_gpu --gpu_id 1
Result: Avg. LPIPS = 0.494 (expected: 0.36).
Request for Help
As a beginner working to reproduce these results, I would be deeply grateful for any guidance on where I might be going wrong. Any overlooked steps in the reproduction process that might explain the metric discrepancies?
Thank you for your time and consideration.