<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Regularization on Juntak Noh — AI Notes</title>
    <link>https://ai.klavierhye.cc/tags/regularization/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Regularization on Juntak Noh — AI Notes</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- 0.147.7</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://ai.klavierhye.cc/tags/regularization/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Dropout: Why It Helps Generalization, and the Train/Inference Scaling Trick</title>
      <link>https://ai.klavierhye.cc/posts/dropout-generalization/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://ai.klavierhye.cc/posts/dropout-generalization/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Dropout is two ideas bolted together: randomly switch off units during training, then quietly turn them all back on for inference. The interesting parts are (1) &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; switching units off randomly improves generalization at all, and (2) the fact that &amp;ldquo;turn them all back on&amp;rdquo; is not free — the activations come out at the wrong scale unless you correct for it. Getting the scaling wrong is one of the most common deep-learning bugs, so this post works through both, at the same engineering depth as the &lt;a href=&#34;https://ai.klavierhye.cc/posts/l1-l2-regularization/&#34;&gt;L1/L2 post&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>L1 vs L2 Regularization: Why Does L1 Produce Sparse Solutions?</title>
      <link>https://ai.klavierhye.cc/posts/l1-l2-regularization/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://ai.klavierhye.cc/posts/l1-l2-regularization/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;ldquo;L1 gives you sparse weights, L2 gives you small weights&amp;rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 id=&#34;what-regularization-actually-is&#34;&gt;What Regularization Actually Is&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A model with enough capacity will happily drive its &lt;strong&gt;training&lt;/strong&gt; loss to zero by memorizing the data — including the noise. That is overfitting: great training numbers, bad predictions on anything new. In a linear model it shows up as coefficients that &lt;strong&gt;blow up&lt;/strong&gt; to large, opposing values.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why does fitting noise require large coefficients?&lt;/strong&gt; Because of the amplification in the OLS solution \(\hat{\mathbf{w}} = (X^\top X)^{-1}X^\top y\). If \(X^\top X\) has a small eigenvalue (a direction of almost no variance in the data — e.g. two nearly identical features), its inverse has a large eigenvalue, and noise in \(y\) projected onto that direction gets &lt;strong&gt;amplified into a large coefficient&lt;/strong&gt;. Concretely, if \(x_1 \approx x_2\), explaining \(y\) needs only \(w_1=1,\,w_2=0\) — but squeezing out the last bit of noise-fit might use \(w_1=1000,\,w_2=-999\). Since \(x_1 - x_2\) is a near-zero direction, you need enormous coefficients to produce the tiny output that matches the noise. Large \(|\mathbf{w}|\) is the fingerprint of a function contorting itself to fit noise.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
