Hi, thank you for your paper and code.
I read the paper and try to understand the model in train_val.prototxt .
As far as i know, final1 & final2 are both ranking functions, and labelr produces labels of {-1, 1}, then the ranking_loss is EuclideanLoss((final1 - final2) * labelr, 0)
my question is:
- For me,
EuclideanLoss((final1 - final2) * labelr, 0) is quite strange, because labelr seems to be useless in this loss function.
EuclideanLoss((final1 - final2) * labelr, 0) is quite different from the loss function in paper, which i think is like [ max(0, (final1 - final2) * labelr) ]^2.
- For both of the above loss function, I think gradient vanishing will occur during training, because both final1 and final2 could be very small(say 1.1e-5, 1.2e-5), and the loss will be very small. Is that the case?
Did i miss something important?
Looking forward to your reply. Thanks again.
Hi, thank you for your paper and code.
I read the paper and try to understand the model in
train_val.prototxt.As far as i know,
final1&final2are both ranking functions, andlabelrproduces labels of {-1, 1}, then the ranking_loss isEuclideanLoss((final1 - final2) * labelr, 0)my question is:
EuclideanLoss((final1 - final2) * labelr, 0)is quite strange, becauselabelrseems to be useless in this loss function.EuclideanLoss((final1 - final2) * labelr, 0)is quite different from the loss function in paper, which i think is like[ max(0, (final1 - final2) * labelr) ]^2.Did i miss something important?
Looking forward to your reply. Thanks again.