我需要一些与Tensorflow的密集层输出兼容的东西。

来自@desertnaut的解决方案在本例中不起作用，因为我有一批数据。因此，我提出了另一个解决方案，应该在这两种情况下工作:

def softmax(x, axis=-1):
    e_x = np.exp(x - np.max(x)) # same code
    return e_x / e_x.sum(axis=axis, keepdims=True)

结果:

logits = np.asarray([
    [-0.0052024,  -0.00770216,  0.01360943, -0.008921], # 1
    [-0.0052024,  -0.00770216,  0.01360943, -0.008921]  # 2
])

print(softmax(logits))

#[[0.2492037  0.24858153 0.25393605 0.24827873]
# [0.2492037  0.24858153 0.25393605 0.24827873]]

参考:Tensorflow softmax

我想补充一点对这个问题的理解。这里减去数组的最大值是正确的。但如果你运行另一篇文章中的代码，你会发现当数组是2D或更高维度时，它不会给你正确的答案。

在这里我给你一些建议:

为了得到max，试着沿着x轴做，你会得到一个1D数组。 重塑你的最大数组原始形状。 np。Exp得到指数值。 np。沿轴求和。 得到最终结果。

根据结果，你将通过做矢量化得到正确的答案。因为和大学作业有关，所以我不能把具体的代码贴在这里，如果你不明白我可以多给你一些建议。

(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)。

目标是使用Numpy和Tensorflow实现类似的结果。与原始答案的唯一变化是np的轴参数。和api。

初始方法:axis=0 -然而，当维度为N时，这并不能提供预期的结果。

修改方法:axis=len(e_x.shape)-1 -总是在最后一个维度上求和。这提供了与tensorflow的softmax函数类似的结果。

def softmax_fn(input_array):
    """
    | **@author**: Prathyush SP
    |
    | Calculate Softmax for a given array
    :param input_array: Input Array
    :return: Softmax Score
    """
    e_x = np.exp(input_array - np.max(input_array))
    return e_x / e_x.sum(axis=len(e_x.shape)-1)

The purpose of the softmax function is to preserve the ratio of the vectors as opposed to squashing the end-points with a sigmoid as the values saturate (i.e. tend to +/- 1 (tanh) or from 0 to 1 (logistical)). This is because it preserves more information about the rate of change at the end-points and thus is more applicable to neural nets with 1-of-N Output Encoding (i.e. if we squashed the end-points it would be harder to differentiate the 1-of-N output class because we can't tell which one is the "biggest" or "smallest" because they got squished.); also it makes the total output sum to 1, and the clear winner will be closer to 1 while other numbers that are close to each other will sum to 1/p, where p is the number of output neurons with similar values.

从向量中减去最大值的目的是，当你计算e^y指数时，你可能会得到非常高的值，将浮点数夹在最大值处，导致平局，但在这个例子中不是这样。如果你减去最大值得到一个负数，那么就会出现一个大问题，然后你就会得到一个负指数，它会迅速缩小数值，改变比率，这就是在海报上的问题中发生的情况，并得到错误的答案。

Udacity提供的答案效率低得可怕。我们需要做的第一件事是计算所有向量分量的e^y_j, KEEP这些值，然后求和，然后除。Udacity搞砸的地方是他们计算了两次e^y_j !!正确答案如下:

def softmax(y):
    e_to_the_y_j = np.exp(y)
    return e_to_the_y_j / np.sum(e_to_the_y_j, axis=0)

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。