Timeline for Question about conventions for L1 and L2 regularization
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 2016 at 13:40 | comment | added | GeoMatt22 | @Firebug your point is probably what I was thinking of even more (I gave +1 as soon as I saw it). | |
| Oct 13, 2016 at 13:18 | comment | added | Firebug | @GeoMatt22 regarding your argument about pretty notation, I think that's fair, including the point I raised on my answer regarding the derivative, towards facilitation of gradient based optimization implementations. | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 19:43 | comment | added | GeoMatt22 | In terms of "pretty" notation, the exponent on the norm term prevents an extra 1/p exponent when it is expanded as a sum. This may have influenced the conventions? (i.e. sum of squares may have preceded the vector-norm notation?) | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 15:38 | vote | accept | Haitao Du | ||
| Aug 17, 2016 at 14:47 | history | edited | Mark L. Stone | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 194 characters in body
|
| Aug 17, 2016 at 14:42 | history | answered | Mark L. Stone | CC BY-SA 3.0 |