I guess there is an errata page at the publisher, but I'm more concerned about author seeing this. The initial explanations of functions with mixtures of math, diagrams, and code written a few different ways confusingly mixes up ReLU and LeakyReLU repeatedly.
For example, in Figue 1-1, the diagram labelled "ReLU function" shows a LearkyReLU. On page 6, the code defines leaky_relu correctly, but then the note immediately below says that x.clip(min=0) (i.e. ReLU) is equivalent.
I can just see the process in writing of vacillating between whether ReLU or LeakyReLU is a better example, but the result would be really mysterious to someone who was not already familiar with both of those.
I guess there is an errata page at the publisher, but I'm more concerned about author seeing this. The initial explanations of functions with mixtures of math, diagrams, and code written a few different ways confusingly mixes up ReLU and LeakyReLU repeatedly.
For example, in Figue 1-1, the diagram labelled "ReLU function" shows a LearkyReLU. On page 6, the code defines
leaky_relucorrectly, but then the note immediately below says thatx.clip(min=0)(i.e. ReLU) is equivalent.I can just see the process in writing of vacillating between whether ReLU or LeakyReLU is a better example, but the result would be really mysterious to someone who was not already familiar with both of those.