Re:Softmax forever, or why I like softmax
by totalizator on Thursday February 20, 2025 @02:20AM
(#43111995)
That would be "welcome to the world of academia". My post-doc friends won't even read a blog post prior to checking author's resume. They are very dismissive every time they notice anything they consider sloppy etc.
Re:Softmax forever, or why I like softmax
by lblume on Thursday February 20, 2025 @02:37AM
(#43112088)
Which is a problem with the reputation-based academic system itself ("publish or perish") and not individuals working in it.
Re:Softmax forever, or why I like softmax
by throw_pm23 on Thursday February 20, 2025 @03:21AM
(#43112320)
You seem to merge two different points. Not reading based on sloppiness is defensible. Not reading based on the author's resume less so.
In particular, the assumption that |a_k| ≈ 0 initially is incorrect, since in the original paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.01628 the a_k are distances from one vector to multiple other vectors, and they're unlikely to be initialized in such a way that the distance is anywhere close to zero. So while the gradient divergence near 0 could certainly be a problem, it doesn't have to be as fatal as the author seems to think it is.