Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

regularization: we should maybe discuss this, relation between constrained a penalized loss #66

Open
berndbischl opened this issue Nov 7, 2018 · 2 comments
Open

regularization: we should maybe discuss this, relation between constrained a penalized loss #66

berndbischl opened this issue Nov 7, 2018 · 2 comments
Labels
chap-regularization

Comments

@berndbischl
Copy link
Contributor

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/335306/why-are-additional-constraint-and-penalty-term-equivalent-in-ridge-regression
@berndbischl berndbischl changed the title we should maybe discuss this, relation between constrained a penalized loss regularization: we should maybe discuss this, relation between constrained a penalized loss Nov 7, 2018
@juliambr
Copy link

juliambr commented Jan 8, 2019

Haben wir in CIM1 bereits im Optimierungskapitel. Wollen / sollen wir das hier nochmal machen?

@mb706 mb706 transferred this issue from another repository Nov 30, 2022
@mb706 mb706 transferred this issue from slds-lmu/dummyrepo Dec 1, 2022
@mb706 mb706 transferred this issue from slds-lmu/i2ml Dec 1, 2022
@ludwigbothmann
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, link to optimization, but right now we do not find the correct chunk

@mb706 mb706 transferred this issue from slds-lmu/lecture_i2ml Jan 28, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
chap-regularization
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@berndbischl @juliambr @ludwigbothmann