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

BCEWithLogitsLossFlat and BCEWithLogitsLoss #582

Open
kfkelvinng opened this issue May 17, 2023 · 0 comments
Open

BCEWithLogitsLossFlat and BCEWithLogitsLoss #582

kfkelvinng opened this issue May 17, 2023 · 0 comments

Comments

@kfkelvinng
Copy link

kfkelvinng commented May 17, 2023

I tried to understand the difference, but they are almost identical in term of behaviour.
In the documentation https://docs.fast.ai/losses.html#bcewithlogitslossflat, nn.BCEWithLogitsLoss suppose to fail but it doesn't.

tst = BCEWithLogitsLossFlat()
output = torch.randn(32, 5, 10)
target = torch.randn(32, 5, 10)
#nn.BCEWithLogitsLoss would fail with those two tensors, but not our flattened version.
_ = tst(output, target)
test_fail(lambda x: nn.BCEWithLogitsLoss()(output,target))

The correct test should be:

test_fail(lambda: nn.BCEWithLogitsLoss()(output,target))

instead of

test_fail(lambda x: nn.BCEWithLogitsLoss()(output,target))

In contrast to https://docs.fast.ai/losses.html#crossentropylossflat, the nn.CrossEntropyLoss fail but the test is misleading.

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

1 participant