BertModel for 2 category classification - How to evaluate the performance
Hello there, I am building a fine-tuned BERT model for classification (with a linear layer in the end). The prediction should just be 1/0 (Yes, No). 

When I am writing the evaluation part, I saw some people online did a F.log_softmax for the logits then use np.argmax to get the predicted label. However, I also saw people directly apply np.argmax on logits without the softmax activation. I am wondering which one should I follow and how to decide that? 

Here's my model definition:
```python
class ReviewClassification(BertPreTrainedModel):
    def __init__(self, config):
        super().__init__(config)
        self.num_labels = 2

        self.bert = BertModel(config)
        self.dropout = nn.Dropout(config.hidden_dropout_prob)

        embedding_size = config.hidden_size

        self.classifier = nn.Linear(embedding_size, len(LABEL_NAME))
        self.init_weights()

    def forward(
            self,
            review_input_ids=None,
            review_attention_mask=None,
            review_token_type_ids=None,
            agent_input_ids=None,
            agent_attention_mask=None,
            agent_token_type_ids=None,
            labels=None,
    ):

        review_outputs = self.bert(
            review_input_ids,
            attention_mask=review_attention_mask,
            token_type_ids=review_token_type_ids,
            position_ids=None,
            head_mask=None,
            inputs_embeds=None,
        )
        
        feature = review_outputs[1]  # (batch_size, seq_len) -? Should it be (batch_size, hidden_size)

        # nn.CrossEntropyLoss applies F.log_softmax and nn.NLLLoss internally on your input,
        # so you should pass the raw logits to it.
        logits = self.classifier(feature)

        outputs = (logits,)  # + outputs[2:]  # add hidden states and attention if they are here

        if labels is not None:
            loss_fct = nn.CrossEntropyLoss()
            loss = loss_fct(logits.view(-1, self.num_labels), labels.view(-1))
            outputs = (loss,) + outputs

        return outputs  # (loss, logits, hidden_states, attentions) 
```

Then this is my validation code
```
def model_validate(model, data_loader):
    # Put the model in evaluation mode--the dropout layers behave differently
    # during evaluation.
    model.eval()
    device = torch.device('cuda' if torch.cuda.is_available() else 'cpu')
    model.to(device)
    if torch.cuda.device_count() > 1:
        model = nn.DataParallel(model)

    label_prop = data_loader.dataset.dataset.label_prop()

    total_valid_loss = 0

    batch_size = data_loader.batch_size
    num_batch = len(data_loader)

    y_pred, y_true = [], []

    # Evaluate data
    for step, batch in tqdm(enumerate(data_loader), desc="Validation...", total=num_batch):
        b_review_input_ids = batch["review_input_ids"].to(device)
        b_review_attention_mask = batch["review_attention_mask"].to(device)
        b_review_token_type_ids = batch["review_token_type_ids"].to(device)

        b_binarized_label = batch["binarized_label"].to(device)

        # Tell pytorch not to bother with constructing the compute graph during
        # the forward pass, since this is only needed for backprop (training).
        with torch.no_grad():
            (loss, logits,) = model(review_input_ids=b_review_input_ids,
                                    review_attention_mask=b_review_attention_mask,
                                    review_token_type_ids=b_review_token_type_ids,

                                    labels=b_binarized_label)

        total_valid_loss += loss.item()
        numpy_probas = logits.detach().cpu().numpy()
        y_pred.extend(np.argmax(numpy_probas, axis=1).flatten())
        y_true.extend(b_binarized_label.cpu().numpy())
    # End of an epoch of validation

    # put model to train mode again.
    model.train()

    ave_loss = total_valid_loss / (num_batch * batch_size)

    # compute the various f1 score for each label
    report = classification_report(y_true, y_pred, output_dict=True)
    metrics_df = pd.DataFrame(report).transpose()
   

    metrics_df = metrics_df.sort_index()
    
    weighted_f1_score = metrics_df.loc['weighted avg', 'f1-score']
    averaged_f1_score = metrics_df.loc['macro avg', 'f1-score']

    return ave_loss, metrics_df, {
        "weighted": weighted_f1_score,
        "averaged": averaged_f1_score,
    }
```

The other version I was trying is:
```
    transfored_logits = F.log_softmax(logits,dim=1)
    numpy_probas = transfored_logits.detach().cpu().numpy()
    y_pred.extend(np.argmax(numpy_probas, axis=1).flatten())
    y_true.extend(b_binarized_label.cpu().numpy())

```

The third version I was trying is:
```
   transfored_logits = torch.sigmoid(logits)
    numpy_probas = transfored_logits.detach().cpu().numpy()
    y_pred.extend(np.argmax(numpy_probas, axis=1).flatten())
    y_true.extend(b_binarized_label.cpu().numpy())

```

I also don't know how to understand the result. When I see online, people say if I set dim = 1 for log_softmax, the sum of probability for all feature (categories) should = 1. However, giving some examples below:

This is logits output: (for one batch - batch size = 16, num_labels = 2)
tensor([[ 1.1261, -1.8547],
        [ 0.6066, -1.1498],
        [ 1.3667, -2.0078],
        [ 2.0652, -2.6669],
        [ 1.0388, -1.7555],
        [ 0.6801, -1.1652],
        [ 0.8315, -1.3860],
        [ 1.5685, -2.2362],
        [ 0.1150, -0.3344],
        [ 2.0751, -2.6166],
        [ 1.5033, -2.1702],
        [ 0.1115, -0.3096],
        [ 0.8610, -1.4834],
        [ 1.5544, -2.2773],
        [ 2.1014, -2.6533],
        [ 0.7789, -1.3748]], device='cuda:0')

If I apply softmax first, F.log_softmax(logits,dim=1), I get: 
tensor([[-0.0495, -3.0302],
        [-0.1593, -1.9157],
        [-0.0337, -3.4082],
        [-0.0088, -4.7409],
        [-0.0594, -2.8537],
        [-0.1467, -1.9920],
        [-0.1033, -2.3209],
        [-0.0220, -3.8267],
        [-0.4935, -0.9429],
        [-0.0091, -4.7008],
        [-0.0251, -3.6985],
        [-0.5046, -0.9257],
        [-0.0916, -2.4360],
        [-0.0214, -3.8531],
        [-0.0086, -4.7632],
        [-0.1098, -2.2635]], device='cuda:0')

The sum per row doesn't sum up to 1 and doesn't look like probability to me. 

If I apply sigmoid, torch.sigmoid(logits)
tensor([[0.7551, 0.1353],
        [0.6472, 0.2405],
        [0.7969, 0.1184],
        [0.8875, 0.0650],
        [0.7386, 0.1474],
        [0.6638, 0.2377],
        [0.6967, 0.2000],
        [0.8276, 0.0965],
        [0.5287, 0.4172],
        [0.8885, 0.0681],
        [0.8181, 0.1025],
        [0.5278, 0.4232],
        [0.7029, 0.1849],
        [0.8255, 0.0930],
        [0.8910, 0.0658],
        [0.6854, 0.2018]], device='cuda:0')

It does look like probability more, although it still doesn't sum up to 1. 

No matter which version I use, the predicted result is always the same in this case (since my 1 (Yes) Label has a really low incidence rate)
array([0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0])


This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
