Pablo Gonzalez

@mgoin It seems that those changes are already included in [master](https://github.com/mlcommons/inference/blob/master/tools/submission/submission_checker.py#L1187-L1190) and an [issue](https://github.com/mlcommons/inference/issues/1251) for a more robust method has been open. Can we close this PR?

@psyhtest it looks like all the changes were already merged. Since r2.1 was also merge into master [here](https://github.com/mlcommons/inference/pull/1245), can we close this PR?

@lixiaolx Checking the reference implementation, I can see that unfortunately this model is not implemented. Since it was removed in version 2.1, there is no incentive to fix it. There...

@arjunsuresh It seems all the changes of this PR have been merged. Can we close this PR?

@rakshithvasudev The error you get is not the submission checker classifying a warning as an error. Notice that when the submission checker calls the power check, the following check doesn't...

@G4V What command are you using to download the dataset? Make sure you use the command: `./openimages_mlperf -d ` leaving the `-m` argument as `None`. That argument was only added...

> @pgmpablo157321 Just to be sure, when the scripts were updated did we check it on the entire dataset for accuracy? We have been testing retinanet a lot ourselves but...

yes, I see that the 4 boxes are not adjacent

Just ran a couple of tests and I get there is a very small difference between both sets. For some reason, either this implementation or the previous one swaps the...

@G4V @arjunsuresh I got a reduction in accuracy as well: ``` Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50:0.95 | area= all | maxDets=100 ] = 0.366 Average Precision (AP) @[ IoU=0.50 |...