Linear regression: normal equation vs SGD#2
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
adds linear regression solved two ways so you can see the tradeoff side by side. one path is the normal equation, the exact closed form where you set the gradient to zero and solve a small linear system, with optional ridge and a pseudoinverse fallback when the design matrix is collinear. the other is minibatch gradient descent, which standardizes the features first so a single learning rate works and then maps the weights back to the raw scale. tests check that both recover the true coefficients on clean data and land in the same place on noisy data, plus the usual edge cases (empty input, rank-deficient X, bad hyperparams). mostly a demo of ordinary least squares and why you'd reach for the iterative version once the feature count gets big.