从Udacity的深度学习课程中,y_i的softmax仅仅是指数除以整个Y向量的指数之和:

其中S(y_i)是y_i的软最大函数e是指数函数j是no。输入向量Y中的列。

我试过以下几种方法:

import numpy as np

def softmax(x):
    """Compute softmax values for each sets of scores in x."""
    e_x = np.exp(x - np.max(x))
    return e_x / e_x.sum()

scores = [3.0, 1.0, 0.2]
print(softmax(scores))

返回:

[ 0.8360188   0.11314284  0.05083836]

但建议的解决方案是:

def softmax(x):
    """Compute softmax values for each sets of scores in x."""
    return np.exp(x) / np.sum(np.exp(x), axis=0)

它产生与第一个实现相同的输出,尽管第一个实现显式地取每列与Max的差值,然后除以和。

有人能用数学方法解释一下吗?一个是对的,另一个是错的?

实现在代码和时间复杂度方面是否相似?哪个更有效率?


当前回答

根据所有的回复和CS231n的注释,请允许我总结如下:

def softmax(x, axis):
    x -= np.max(x, axis=axis, keepdims=True)
    return np.exp(x) / np.exp(x).sum(axis=axis, keepdims=True)

用法:

x = np.array([[1, 0, 2,-1],
              [2, 4, 6, 8], 
              [3, 2, 1, 0]])
softmax(x, axis=1).round(2)

输出:

array([[0.24, 0.09, 0.64, 0.03],
       [0.  , 0.02, 0.12, 0.86],
       [0.64, 0.24, 0.09, 0.03]])

其他回答

从数学的角度看,两边是相等的。

这很容易证明。m = max (x)。现在你的函数softmax返回一个向量,它的第i个坐标等于

注意,这适用于任何m,因为对于所有(甚至是复数)数e^m != 0

from computational complexity point of view they are also equivalent and both run in O(n) time, where n is the size of a vector. from numerical stability point of view, the first solution is preferred, because e^x grows very fast and even for pretty small values of x it will overflow. Subtracting the maximum value allows to get rid of this overflow. To practically experience the stuff I was talking about try to feed x = np.array([1000, 5]) into both of your functions. One will return correct probability, the second will overflow with nan your solution works only for vectors (Udacity quiz wants you to calculate it for matrices as well). In order to fix it you need to use sum(axis=0)

(好吧…这里有很多困惑,在问题和答案中…)

首先,这两个解决方案(即你的解决方案和建议的解决方案)是不相等的;它们恰好只在一维分数数组的特殊情况下是等价的。如果你也尝试过Udacity测试提供的例子中的二维分数数组,你就会发现它。

就结果而言,两个解决方案之间的唯一实际区别是axis=0参数。为了了解情况,让我们试试你的解决方案(your_softmax),其中唯一的区别是axis参数:

import numpy as np

# your solution:
def your_softmax(x):
    """Compute softmax values for each sets of scores in x."""
    e_x = np.exp(x - np.max(x))
    return e_x / e_x.sum()

# correct solution:
def softmax(x):
    """Compute softmax values for each sets of scores in x."""
    e_x = np.exp(x - np.max(x))
    return e_x / e_x.sum(axis=0) # only difference

正如我所说,对于一个1-D分数数组,结果确实是相同的:

scores = [3.0, 1.0, 0.2]
print(your_softmax(scores))
# [ 0.8360188   0.11314284  0.05083836]
print(softmax(scores))
# [ 0.8360188   0.11314284  0.05083836]
your_softmax(scores) == softmax(scores)
# array([ True,  True,  True], dtype=bool)

尽管如此,以下是Udacity测试中给出的二维分数数组作为测试示例的结果:

scores2D = np.array([[1, 2, 3, 6],
                     [2, 4, 5, 6],
                     [3, 8, 7, 6]])

print(your_softmax(scores2D))
# [[  4.89907947e-04   1.33170787e-03   3.61995731e-03   7.27087861e-02]
#  [  1.33170787e-03   9.84006416e-03   2.67480676e-02   7.27087861e-02]
#  [  3.61995731e-03   5.37249300e-01   1.97642972e-01   7.27087861e-02]]

print(softmax(scores2D))
# [[ 0.09003057  0.00242826  0.01587624  0.33333333]
#  [ 0.24472847  0.01794253  0.11731043  0.33333333]
#  [ 0.66524096  0.97962921  0.86681333  0.33333333]]

结果是不同的——第二个结果确实与Udacity测试中预期的结果相同,其中所有列的总和确实为1,而第一个(错误的)结果不是这样。

所以,所有的麻烦实际上是一个实现细节-轴参数。根据numpy。和文档:

默认值axis=None将对输入数组的所有元素求和

而这里我们想按行求和,因此axis=0。对于一个一维数组,(唯一的)行和所有元素的和恰好是相同的,因此在这种情况下你会得到相同的结果…

抛开轴的问题不谈,你的实现(即你选择先减去最大值)实际上比建议的解决方案更好!事实上,这是实现softmax函数的推荐方式-请参阅这里的理由(数值稳定性,也在这里的一些其他答案中指出)。

这也适用于np. remodeling。

   def softmax( scores):
        """
        Compute softmax scores given the raw output from the model

        :param scores: raw scores from the model (N, num_classes)
        :return:
            prob: softmax probabilities (N, num_classes)
        """
        prob = None

        exponential = np.exp(
            scores - np.max(scores, axis=1).reshape(-1, 1)
        )  # subract the largest number https://jamesmccaffrey.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/the-max-trick-when-computing-softmax/
        prob = exponential / exponential.sum(axis=1).reshape(-1, 1)

        

        return prob

我很好奇它们之间的性能差异

import numpy as np

def softmax(x):
    """Compute softmax values for each sets of scores in x."""
    return np.exp(x) / np.sum(np.exp(x), axis=0)

def softmaxv2(x):
    """Compute softmax values for each sets of scores in x."""
    e_x = np.exp(x - np.max(x))
    return e_x / e_x.sum()

def softmaxv3(x):
    """Compute softmax values for each sets of scores in x."""
    e_x = np.exp(x - np.max(x))
    return e_x / np.sum(e_x, axis=0)

def softmaxv4(x):
    """Compute softmax values for each sets of scores in x."""
    return np.exp(x - np.max(x)) / np.sum(np.exp(x - np.max(x)), axis=0)



x=[10,10,18,9,15,3,1,2,1,10,10,10,8,15]

使用

print("----- softmax")
%timeit  a=softmax(x)
print("----- softmaxv2")
%timeit  a=softmaxv2(x)
print("----- softmaxv3")
%timeit  a=softmaxv2(x)
print("----- softmaxv4")
%timeit  a=softmaxv2(x)

增加x内部的值(+100 +200 +500…)我使用原始numpy版本得到的结果始终更好(这里只是一个测试)

----- softmax
The slowest run took 8.07 times longer than the fastest. This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached.
100000 loops, best of 3: 17.8 µs per loop
----- softmaxv2
The slowest run took 4.30 times longer than the fastest. This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached.
10000 loops, best of 3: 23 µs per loop
----- softmaxv3
The slowest run took 4.06 times longer than the fastest. This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached.
10000 loops, best of 3: 23 µs per loop
----- softmaxv4
10000 loops, best of 3: 23 µs per loop

直到……x内的值达到~800,则得到

----- softmax
/usr/local/lib/python3.6/dist-packages/ipykernel_launcher.py:4: RuntimeWarning: overflow encountered in exp
  after removing the cwd from sys.path.
/usr/local/lib/python3.6/dist-packages/ipykernel_launcher.py:4: RuntimeWarning: invalid value encountered in true_divide
  after removing the cwd from sys.path.
The slowest run took 18.41 times longer than the fastest. This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached.
10000 loops, best of 3: 23.6 µs per loop
----- softmaxv2
The slowest run took 4.18 times longer than the fastest. This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached.
10000 loops, best of 3: 22.8 µs per loop
----- softmaxv3
The slowest run took 19.44 times longer than the fastest. This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached.
10000 loops, best of 3: 23.6 µs per loop
----- softmaxv4
The slowest run took 16.82 times longer than the fastest. This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached.
10000 loops, best of 3: 22.7 µs per loop

就像一些人说的,你的版本在“大数字”上更稳定。对于小数字来说,情况可能正好相反。

我想说,虽然从数学上讲,这两种方法都是正确的,但就实现而言,第一个方法更好。在计算softmax时,中间值可能会变得很大。两个大数的除法在数值上是不稳定的。这些笔记(来自斯坦福大学)提到了一个归一化技巧,这基本上就是你正在做的事情。