{ "owner": "labmlai", "repo": "annotated_deep_learning_paper_implementations", "number": 146, "html_url": "https://github.com/labmlai/annotated_deep_learning_paper_implementations/issues/146", "is_pull_request": false, "state": "closed", "state_reason": "completed", "title": "Bug in SA for DDPM UNet?", "author": "FutureXiang", "created_at": "2022-09-07T17:28:50Z", "updated_at": "2022-10-13T11:16:47Z", "closed_at": "2022-10-13T11:16:47Z", "labels": [ "bug" ], "milestone": null, "comments_count": 3, "reactions": { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 }, "resolution_days": 35.74, "fix": { "closing_commit": null, "linked_prs": [], "best_guess_fix_commit": null, "has_fix": false }, "fetched_at": "2026-07-28T12:22:15.889126+00:00", "comments": [ { "author": "vpj", "created_at": "2022-09-11T12:02:35Z", "body": "Thanks, you are right! That's a typo and a big bug!" }, { "author": "FutureXiang", "created_at": "2022-09-11T14:04:07Z", "body": "Thank you for your response!\r\n\r\nI compare the FID results on classifier-free guidance conditional CIFAR-10 with `attn = attn.softmax(dim=1)` and `attn = attn.softmax(dim=2)`, following the settings in the original DDPM paper.\r\n\r\nHowever, I observe **no difference** between the bugged and the correct model (FID \u00b10.05),\r\nand the correct model performs **even worse** than the bugged one when trained with more iterations (FID -0.02~0.3).\r\n\r\nHave any idea why it happens?" }, { "author": "vpj", "created_at": "2022-09-12T03:11:06Z", "body": "This is strange. I guess the wrong softmax also provides a similar non-linearity to the correct softmax and gradient descent finds a way to use it. But I don't understand how the wrong softmax becomes better than the correct one. Wonder how well no attention will perform. I will also try to run some tests.\r\n\r\nBtw, I pushed the fix https://github.com/labmlai/annotated_deep_learning_paper_implementations/commit/7d1550dd67ef903959a6367165e17c15b89da5c8" } ] }