Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Shouldn't it be log_sigmoid instead of softmax ? #7

Open
karanchahal opened this issue Feb 18, 2019 · 1 comment
Open

Shouldn't it be log_sigmoid instead of softmax ? #7

karanchahal opened this issue Feb 18, 2019 · 1 comment

Comments

@karanchahal
Copy link

The paper mentions that the loss layer is combined with the sigmoid computation and not softmax. More speciafically this line

Finally,
we note that the implementation of the loss layer combines
the sigmoid operation for computing p with the loss computation, resulting in greater numerical stability.

So isn't the author saying that we should use sigmoid activation over the last layer. The softmax usage maybe could lead to a lower accuracy.

@etienne87
Copy link

actually is there any benchmark for using focal softmax or binary cross-entropy?

@wyli wyli mentioned this issue May 2, 2020
2 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants