ML Interview Q Series: NLL loss is used with softmax for probabilistic outputs; alternatives depend on specific modeling needs.
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Hint: Think about how softmax transforms logits into probabilities.
Comprehensive Explanation
Negative log-likelihood (NLL) loss, especially in the form of cross-entropy, is closely associated with models whose final layer outputs a probability distribution over discrete classes. A typical example is the softmax function, which converts logits (real-valued scores) into probabilities that sum to 1. When we train models under the principle of maximum likelihood estimation, minimizing NLL is a natural objective because it directly corresponds to maximizing the likelihood of the observed labels under the predicted probability distribution.
When we use a softmax output layer for multi-class classification, each dimension of the output vector corresponds to a probability for one possible class. Because negative log-likelihood directly penalizes the model based on how likely it makes the correct class under its predicted distribution, it provides strong gradients that effectively guide learning.
Below is the key mathematical expression (commonly interpreted as cross-entropy or NLL for multi-class classification) in the big font as requested:
Here, C is the total number of classes. y_c is the true label indicator for class c (typically 1 if c is the correct class, 0 otherwise), while \hat{y}_{c} is the model’s predicted probability for that class. The summation is over all possible classes.
This expression measures how well the probability distribution \hat{y} (obtained from the softmax) matches the one-hot ground truth distribution y. Minimizing this loss is equivalent to maximizing the likelihood that the predicted distribution places on the correct label.
A different loss function for probabilistic outputs might be considered when your problem setup or performance goals differ from standard multi-class classification. For instance, in settings such as probabilistic regression or ordinal regression, the direct one-hot cross-entropy form might not capture the nuances of the task. You might prefer losses such as mean squared error (MSE) or Kullback–Leibler divergence (KL divergence) if you want a different notion of distance between distributions. Another example is focal loss, which is sometimes used in highly imbalanced classification scenarios to reduce the relative loss for well-classified examples and focus on more challenging ones.
When to Use Different Loss Functions
If you need a loss function that places emphasis on different aspects of the distribution (for example, penalizing over-confident predictions or adjusting for label imbalance), you might deviate from the standard NLL. Other losses might also be appropriate when you care about specific statistical properties, such as capturing the variance of a predicted distribution in probabilistic regression tasks or dealing with multi-label classification problems where multiple classes can be active.
When training a model to produce probabilities for multiple outputs or continuous variables, you might also consider:
• Mean squared error (MSE) if your final output is meant to approximate the mean of a continuous target distribution. • Mean absolute error (MAE) if you want a more robust error measure against outliers in a regression setting. • Focal loss if you have a heavily imbalanced dataset and want to down-weight easy examples while focusing on misclassified samples. • KL divergence if you have a target distribution (not just a single label) and want to measure how the predicted distribution diverges from that target distribution.
Possible Follow-Up Questions
Could you clarify why cross-entropy and negative log-likelihood are often considered the same in classification tasks?
Cross-entropy in classification tasks can be written exactly as the negative log-likelihood when the target distribution is a one-hot vector. If y_c = 1 for the correct class and 0 otherwise, then the cross-entropy expression reduces to -log of the predicted probability for the correct class. Hence, in many deep learning frameworks, the terms “cross-entropy loss” and “NLL loss” are used interchangeably in multi-class classification scenarios.
If we used MSE instead of NLL for a softmax output layer, what could go wrong?
Using MSE to measure the difference between predicted probabilities and one-hot targets can lead to slower convergence and potential saturation of gradients. Unlike the logarithmic penalty in NLL, MSE penalizes differences in a way that does not align as directly with maximum likelihood estimation for categorical outcomes. The gradient signals might be weaker or uninformative for classes whose probabilities are already quite small, making training more difficult and sometimes less stable.
Why might focal loss be preferred over standard NLL in some classification problems?
Focal loss is specifically designed for cases of class imbalance or when some examples are much easier to classify than others. In standard NLL, well-classified examples still contribute non-negligible terms, possibly overpowering gradients from hard-to-classify examples. Focal loss reduces the weight (loss contribution) of these easy examples, focusing more on those that are misclassified or require further learning. This re-weighting scheme can significantly improve performance when dealing with extreme label imbalance or tasks like object detection where many background examples are easy to classify.
How does softmax interact with NLL in practice to produce stable training?
Softmax normalizes logits into a valid probability distribution, summing to 1. Negative log-likelihood then directly exploits this interpretation by penalizing the log probability of the correct class. The log ensures that errors in confidently wrong predictions (i.e., giving near-1 probability to the wrong label) receive large penalties, leading to strong corrective gradients. Numerically, most deep learning libraries combine these steps into a stable function (e.g., “log_softmax”) that avoids issues like overflow or underflow in the exponentiation when logits are large in magnitude.
Are there any numeric stability concerns when computing NLL with softmax, and how are they handled?
Yes. Directly computing softmax(logits) and then taking the log of that result can lead to numerical underflow or overflow if logits are large (positive or negative). This is often handled by combining the softmax and log steps into a single stable function, often called log_softmax. This function uses the “log-sum-exp” trick to avoid exponentiating large values directly. Libraries like PyTorch and TensorFlow provide built-in operations (e.g., F.log_softmax in PyTorch) that make these calculations numerically stable.
Below are additional follow-up questions
How does binary cross-entropy differ from multi-class cross-entropy when dealing with NLL?
Binary cross-entropy (BCE) is typically used for binary classification or multi-label classification, where each output neuron can independently represent the probability of a label. It treats each class as a separate Bernoulli trial, producing probabilities in [0, 1] for each label using a sigmoid activation. In contrast, multi-class cross-entropy uses a single softmax across multiple mutually exclusive classes, producing one probability distribution that sums to 1 across all classes.
A potential pitfall: • In certain tasks that appear “binary,” you might actually need a multi-class approach (e.g., “dog vs. cat vs. neither”). Using BCE with a single output neuron would force the model to classify everything as either “dog” or “not dog,” missing the nuance of multiple distinct classes. • Conversely, in multi-label tasks, forcing a softmax-based multi-class approach can be problematic because softmax-based cross-entropy assumes only one class can be correct. If multiple labels can be correct simultaneously, BCE with a sigmoid activation per label is more suitable.
This distinction also impacts how you interpret the output probabilities. With a single softmax, the outputs sum to 1 across classes. With multiple sigmoids, each output is independently predicted, and the sum across labels can exceed 1.
Can label smoothing be used with negative log-likelihood, and what problems might it solve?
Label smoothing is a technique where you replace the 0 or 1 entries in a one-hot label distribution with numbers slightly above 0 and slightly below 1 (for example, 0.9 for the correct class and 0.1 spread over incorrect classes). By doing so, you avoid having the model place all probability mass on a single class. This works seamlessly with negative log-likelihood (or cross-entropy) because label smoothing merely changes the target distribution used in the NLL calculation.
Benefits: • It reduces the model’s tendency to become overconfident, which can improve generalization. • It can alleviate potential overfitting to noisy or mislabeled data. • It smooths gradients, often leading to more stable training.
Potential pitfalls: • Excessive smoothing can dilute the signal the model receives for the correct class, slowing training or degrading accuracy if you go too far. • Misapplication in tasks that genuinely require very confident predictions can hurt performance (for instance, tasks that demand near-perfect discrimination).
How is NLL used differently in ordinal classification or ranking problems, and are there specific pitfalls to watch out for?
Ordinal classification implies that the classes have an inherent order (like movie ratings from 1 to 5). Standard NLL treats classes as categorical without accounting for this order—class 1 is “as different” from class 2 as it is from class 5. An alternative is to use specialized ordinal regression losses that capture this ordering (e.g., cumulative link models or losses that penalize misclassifications based on distance between classes).
Subtlety in ordinal tasks using plain NLL: • You lose the benefit of knowing class “5” is closer to “4” than it is to “1.” • If the dataset is highly imbalanced (e.g., many samples in class “3” vs. fewer in “1” and “5”), the model might become biased without an ordinal-specific approach. • Models might inadvertently learn to treat ordinal classes as purely nominal, ignoring the sequential nature that could otherwise improve predictions.
Why might we use KL divergence rather than traditional NLL in certain training setups, such as knowledge distillation?
In knowledge distillation, the teacher model outputs a “soft” probability distribution over classes, and the student is trained to match that distribution. The idea is that these probabilities contain “dark knowledge” about the relative likelihoods of classes beyond the correct label. KL divergence measures how one probability distribution diverges from another and is a more direct way to compare two distributions than standard cross-entropy with one-hot labels.
Potential pitfalls: • If the teacher’s distribution is flawed (e.g., overconfident or undertrained), matching it might pass on those flaws. • KL divergence is not symmetric. Minimizing KL(student || teacher) is different from minimizing KL(teacher || student). Typically, you want the student distribution to match the teacher’s distribution, so the standard forward KL is used. • If the temperature used to soften probabilities is too high or too low, the information gleaned can become too uniform or too spiky.
Could we apply NLL directly to continuous-valued outputs, and what alternatives exist for probabilistic regression?
Negative log-likelihood can be generalized to continuous distributions— for instance, by assuming outputs follow a Gaussian or some other parametric form. In that case, the network may output parameters of the distribution (e.g., mean, variance) and the loss becomes the negative log-likelihood of the observed continuous target under that distribution.
Alternatives: • Mean squared error or mean absolute error can be seen as a simplified version of negative log-likelihood under Gaussian or Laplace assumptions, respectively. • If the data distribution is skewed or multi-modal, a Gaussian assumption might be too simplistic. You might want a more flexible approach (e.g., mixture density networks) or distribution-based losses that account for heavier tails or multiple modes.
Pitfalls: • If your distributional assumptions are wrong (e.g., you assume Gaussian but the data is highly skewed), the model might perform poorly. • Estimating variance requires careful calibration. If the model underestimates variance, it will be overly penalized for points lying farther from the mean.
In what scenarios might you want to avoid softmax + NLL, opting for other methods altogether?
You might avoid softmax + NLL when: • You have to deal with multi-label classification, where classes are not mutually exclusive. Sigmoid + binary cross-entropy is more natural in such cases. • You are focusing on ranking or pairwise comparisons rather than purely categorical classification. Losses tailored to ranking (e.g., pairwise losses like RankNet, or listwise losses like ListMLE) can be more relevant. • You need certain robustness to outliers. Softmax + NLL can be sensitive if your data contains heavy mislabeling or extreme outliers in a classification context. More robust losses or label smoothing strategies might be essential.
Pitfalls: • Misapplication of softmax + NLL can lead to misrepresentation of the problem, forcing a single class choice where multiple choices may be valid. • Overconfidence can arise if the model is not well-regularized or if the data is noisy.
What are some implementation-specific subtleties when combining softmax and NLL in libraries like PyTorch or TensorFlow?
Modern libraries often provide integrated functions, like torch.nn.CrossEntropyLoss in PyTorch, which expects raw logits (not probabilities) and internally applies log_softmax. Potential edge cases:
• Passing already softmaxed probabilities into a function that expects raw logits can yield incorrect or unexpected gradients. • Shape mismatches can occur if your targets are expected to be a single integer per sample (e.g., class index), but you accidentally pass a one-hot encoded vector. • Floating-point underflow can be avoided by using built-in stable functions (log_softmax + NLL in one pass). Attempting to compute softmax and log in separate steps can trigger numerical instability.
A subtle implementation detail is whether the loss expects reduction='mean' or reduction='sum'. Using a “mean” might yield smaller gradients than “sum,” affecting learning rates and hyperparameter tuning.
What are some practical ways to diagnose if NLL-based training is going wrong in a real project?
You can look at: • Training vs. validation loss curves: If training loss plummets but validation loss stagnates or diverges, your model might be overfitting or your data distribution differs from the training set. • Confusion matrix: A strong imbalance in predictions might show that the model collapses to predicting the most common class if your data is imbalanced. • Calibration plots: NLL-based training sometimes yields overly confident predictions. Check calibration metrics (like expected calibration error) to confirm if the predicted probabilities match actual frequencies. • Per-class accuracy or recall: If one class is rarely predicted, your dataset or your model’s capacity to distinguish classes could be at fault. Adjusting the loss or data sampling strategy might be necessary.
Edge cases include: • Highly skewed labels. A standard NLL approach might push the model to nearly always pick the majority class. • Very small datasets. Overfitting can occur quickly, especially with large-capacity neural networks.
How does temperature scaling modify softmax outputs, and why might you couple it with NLL?
Temperature scaling raises or lowers the “temperature” T in the softmax, effectively controlling how peaky or flat the distribution is:
softmax_i(logit_i / T).
When T < 1, the model’s predictions become sharper (more confident). When T > 1, predictions become flatter (less confident). This can improve calibration without necessarily retraining the underlying model. You still typically use NLL as your loss, but you insert a learned or fixed temperature factor to adjust confidence.
Potential pitfalls: • If you set T too high, your model might distribute probability too uniformly, hurting accuracy on well-classified examples. • If T is too low, your model becomes overconfident. • Temperature scaling is often done post hoc (after training) to improve calibration. If you incorporate it into training directly, you must consider how it interacts with gradients and whether it leads to stable or unstable training dynamics.