Looks like I was missing a negative sign on the derivative for nlogsig_deriv. Integrating this should give us nlogsig, the negative log likelihood.
Should be noted somewhere that labels are intended to be of the form {-1, 1} for correctness. Otherwise, we can transform the labels when the classification task is chosen.
Coverage increased (+0.9%) to 97.414% when pulling 770fb2779388f89817b01cdc53328ec382d691ca on Hydrotoast:master into 1ea355a5d5eeba2cd630c5e37395fc8682542165 on btwardow:master.
Looks like I was missing a negative sign on the derivative for
nlogsig_deriv
. Integrating this should give usnlogsig
, the negative log likelihood.Should be noted somewhere that labels are intended to be of the form
{-1, 1}
for correctness. Otherwise, we can transform the labels when the classification task is chosen.