Re: Exercise 4.6
I have the same question. Can someone help here?
From my understanding having small weights is not perfect for sign(s), since this will lead to a signal that is often around 0 and thus a small change of just one input has a high chance to lead to a completely different output, if the sign changes. So it would be better to have big weights, thus the signal is always pushed to the big number region and the sign is more stable. But I maybe I'm just wrong here. 
Re: Exercise 4.6
Yes, the soft order constraint does not impact classification. Better regularize with the hard order constraint, or use the soft order constraint with the "regression for classification" algorithm.
Quote:

Re: Exercise 4.6
Correct again.
So let us differentiate between the theory of machine learning and its implementation on finite precision computers. In theory, if you have an infinite precision machine, then the size of the weights does not matter because it is a mathematical fact that, for positive , In finite precision, you typically want the weights to be around 1 and the inputs rescaled to be around 1 too (this is called input preprocessing and you can read about it in eChapter 9). Quote:

Re: Exercise 4.6
Thanks for this clarification. It helps a lot for understanding.

Re: Exercise 4.6
Thank you very much for your reply!

Re: Exercise 4.6
Thanks for the helpful discussion. Follow up is why does the hard constraint imply that the weights will be larger?

All times are GMT 7. The time now is 07:48 PM. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000  2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
The contents of this forum are to be used ONLY by readers of the Learning From Data book by Yaser S. AbuMostafa, Malik MagdonIsmail, and HsuanTien Lin, and participants in the Learning From Data MOOC by Yaser S. AbuMostafa. No part of these contents is to be communicated or made accessible to ANY other person or entity.