You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
can be simplified by dividing numerator and denominator by the squared gradient:
The simplified version (19") is more efficient (no powers of gradients need to be computed), and clearly more numerically stable than (19), because the powers are vulnerable to numerical over and underflow. It is also more robust for the case in which the gradients are zero (the original version becomes 0/0).
Is there any reason for using (19) instead of (19") in the computation of the alphas?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I noticed that equation (19) in the paper:
can be simplified by dividing numerator and denominator by the squared gradient:
The simplified version (19") is more efficient (no powers of gradients need to be computed), and clearly more numerically stable than (19), because the powers are vulnerable to numerical over and underflow. It is also more robust for the case in which the gradients are zero (the original version becomes 0/0).
Is there any reason for using (19) instead of (19") in the computation of the alphas?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: