The output stage of a simple two-class identification model can be encoded in a couple of apparently identical ways :

• A single output is_A_rather_than_B, which simply measures the probability of being in class A

• As two different outputs {is_A, is_B}, each of which represents the membership probability (so is_A = 1-is_B)

The first of these seems like the simplest, most direct solution, and can be approached as a regression problem, and fitted directly.

The second seems like twice the work, with unneccessary SoftMax, ArgMax and a complex CategoricalCrossEntropy thrown in for good measure.

However (and we’re still trying to weigh up why) :

• The first has a tendency to be much more sensitive to learning rates, and initialisation - and easily ‘blows up’ without warning

• Overall, the second method (i.e. two actual outputs for two distinct classes) works much better

## Possible Reasons / Puzzles

• Two outputs implies twice the number of weights in a dense network leading up to it - so larger learning capacity, but this doesn’t explain :

• Single-output networks seemed to suffer from problems with stability during training. It may be analogous to think of differential pair signalling, as opposed to ‘absolute’ signal values. Propagating ‘matched pairs’ of training signals may reduce a network’s tendency to overshoot with high learning rates. But this doesn’t explain :

• Two matched signals, with a dropout layer, beat single signals without dropout. There may be an inter-layer thing going on, since dropout also encourages training signals to
‘route around’ neurons that aren’t chosen.