Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Poly Loss #406

Closed
LukeWood opened this issue May 2, 2022 · 3 comments
Closed

Poly Loss #406

LukeWood opened this issue May 2, 2022 · 3 comments
Labels
needs-impact-verification Unclear whether or not the feature should be included.

Comments

@LukeWood
Copy link
Contributor

LukeWood commented May 2, 2022

Short Description
https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.12511

Papers
https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.12511

Other Information

still not clear if we want this or not, it looks promising from the abstract but we should probably do some sanity checking.

@bhack
Copy link
Contributor

bhack commented May 2, 2022

It seems good, we have already 3 Pytorch third party implementations.
But I don't know if we want to collect all the bleeding edge as fast as possible without a minimum of "sedimentation" (E.g. See the experience we had with the optimizers proliferation tensorflow/addons#2203 (comment))

@LukeWood
Copy link
Contributor Author

LukeWood commented May 2, 2022

It seems good, we have already 3 Pytorch third party implementations. But I don't know if we want to collect all the bleeding edge as fast as possible without a minimum of "sedimentation" (E.g. See the experience we had with the optimizers proliferation tensorflow/addons#2203 (comment))

Yeah I agree. This issue is a good tracking issue; but contribution definitely not yet welcome in that we should wait to see how things unfold.

@LukeWood LukeWood added the needs-impact-verification Unclear whether or not the feature should be included. label May 5, 2022
@ianstenbit
Copy link
Contributor

This issue is not currently tied to any near-term objectives of KerasCV, so we are closing it for now. If you think this was done in error, or you are interested in adding this feature yourself, please checkout our README and re-open this issue if it meets the listed criteria.

Thank you! - The KerasCV team

freedomtan pushed a commit to freedomtan/keras-cv that referenced this issue Jul 20, 2023
* Fix logic for `allow_extra_keys`

* Format

* Avoid Dense layer which has tf warning
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needs-impact-verification Unclear whether or not the feature should be included.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants