RuntimeError: Given groups=1, weight of size [1024, 3, 14, 14], expected input[16, 9, 336, 336] to have 3 channels, but got 9 channels instead

[piantic]

First of all, thank you for publishing a good paper.
As you mentioned in the issue, the benchmark performance is overall good.

Unfortunately, the weights are not public now, so I am trying to train the model myself.
I was able to train pretrain stage, so it is okay.

But there are some issues in fine-tuning stage.
Runtime errors keep occurring during this stage.
RuntimeError: Given groups=1, weight of size [1024, 3, 14, 14], expected input[16, 9, 336, 336] to have 3 channels, but got 9 channels instead

I checked the loss and the loss did not change from 0.0.
{'loss': 0.0, 'learning_rate': 1.6279069767441862e-06, 'epoch': 0.0}

I suspected your slice_logic and noticed that the output was unusual.
But other issues say it's normal, so I don't think this is the problem.

• Weird slice_logic test output #2

Could you please give me some advice on this?

[gordonhu608]

Got this runtime error too, "RuntimeError: Given groups=1, weight of size [1024, 3, 14, 14], expected input[2, 9, 336, 336] to have 3 channels, but got 9 channels instead". Has this been solved?

[piantic]

@BubvieyKevin Thank you, let's wait until the code is ready again.

[guozonghao96]

Thank you for identifying some issues with our code. We have also noticed the same problems and are currently working on resolving them.

[gordonhu608]

Thanks all authors for this great work. How's the progress concerning addressing this issue?

[xrorrim]

Thanks for report this problem and we have fixed it in the latest version of code.

[piantic]

Thanks a lot. we will test it again

[gordonhu608]

I just tested the code again and still got this error, RuntimeError: Given groups=1, weight of size [1024, 3, 14, 14], expected input[4, 15, 336, 336] to have 3 channels, but got 15 channels instead. Does this problem also happen to other people?

[lucasjinreal]

Am not able to train either.

However, I still quite not very understand the code, the process_image part actually turns every single image into 336 resolution, why it still interpolate in vit?

Anyone knows on this part?

[zyddnys]

Change https://github.com/thunlp/LLaVA-UHD/blob/main/llava_uhd/train/llava-uhd/train.py#L766
to

if all(x is not None and x.shape == images[0].shape for x in images) and False:

[gordonhu608]

Change https://github.com/thunlp/LLaVA-UHD/blob/main/llava_uhd/train/llava-uhd/train.py#L766 to

if all(x is not None and x.shape == images[0].shape for x in images) and False:

Does this change fix the training? And how's the training results of replicating LLaVA-UHD?

[YFCYFC]

https://github.com/thunlp/LLaVA-UHD/blob/main/llava_uhd/train/llava-uhd/train.py#L766

No, this does not fix the bug, I still meet the same bug.

[ParadoxZW]

Hi, guys @piantic @zyddnys @lucasjinreal @YFCYFC @gordonhu608 @guozonghao96

I've released another implementation of LLaVA-UHD here, which I believe is more stable and elegant. The code of the new repo originates from this repo, but its overall quality is improved, and the training program is tested to be able to normally run without bugs.

When I reviewed this old repo and tried to fix this RuntimeError issue, I found it contains a lot of hidden bugs and calculations with wrong logic (violating the spirit of the original paper), and misses some necessary process (such as, image normalization). So I decided to rewrite the code and try my best to fix all these issues. Now I open-sourced my rewritten version.

You are very welcome to use it, and I look forward to your feedback.

[guozonghao96]

Our repository has been fully improved, and almost all bugs have been eliminated. For details, please refer to the main branch and the LLaVA-UHD v1 branch. This issue is now closed. If there are any new problems, feel free to open a new issue.