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

Homoscedastic Loss Function #2

Open
nivesh48 opened this issue May 16, 2021 · 6 comments
Open

Homoscedastic Loss Function #2

nivesh48 opened this issue May 16, 2021 · 6 comments

Comments

@nivesh48
Copy link

This isn't an issue but a doubt i would like to clarify. When i am using the homoscedastic loss for my area of research the loss values are in negatives and starting to converge in negative. Is this behavior natural for this multi task loss or am i doing any mistake?

@zhackzey
Copy link

This isn't an issue but a doubt i would like to clarify. When i am using the homoscedastic loss for my area of research the loss values are in negatives and starting to converge in negative. Is this behavior natural for this multi task loss or am i doing any mistake?

Same question. I also observed that the log_var values continue decreasing in negative, and the total loss continues decreasing. Have no idea and doubt if the model can converge.

@dariocazzani
Copy link

I think the problem arises from the fact that the implementation doesn't use
See Issue 3

@zhackzey
Copy link

I think the problem arises from the fact that the implementation doesn't use
See Issue 3
I dont think the formula is wrong. The uncertainty parameter is log \sigma^2. Thus,exp(-log\sigma^2)is 1/sigma^2.

@tong-zeng
Copy link

Hi @zhackzey I think as Issue #3 reported,
The uncertainty parameter is σ^-2, and the uncertainty penalty is logσ, when taking the exp in the code, exp(-logσ) = σ^-1 which is different with uncertainty parameter σ^-2 in the paper.

@tong-zeng
Copy link

Hi @zhackzey Just realized that the author corrected the formula in a new version of the paper, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04977.pdf

@baojunqi
Copy link

Hi @zhackzey Just realized that the author corrected the formula in a new version of the paper, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04977.pdf

How about the performance using this loss function in your research area? I also found that my loss values are negative and I wonder if that is correct? I am really confused...

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

5 participants