# Theoretical Deep Dive into Linear Regression | by Dr. Robert Kübler | Jun, 2023

You should use some other prior distribution on your parameters to create extra fascinating regularizations. You may even say that your parameters *w* are usually distributed however **correlated** with some correlation matrix Σ*.*

Allow us to assume that Σ ispositive-definite, i.e. we’re within the non-degenerate case. In any other case, there isn’t a densityp(w).

If you happen to do the maths, you can see out that we then must optimize

for some matrix Γ. **Observe: Γ is invertible and we’ve Σ⁻¹ = ΓᵀΓ. **That is additionally referred to as **Tikhonov regularization**.

**Trace:** begin with the truth that

and do not forget that positive-definite matrices will be decomposed into a product of some invertible matrix and its transpose.

Nice, so we outlined our mannequin and know what we wish to optimize. However how can we optimize it, i.e. be taught the very best parameters that reduce the loss operate? And when is there a novel resolution? Let’s discover out.

## Strange Least Squares

Allow us to assume that we don’t regularize and don’t use pattern weights. Then, the MSE will be written as

That is fairly summary, so allow us to write it in another way as

Utilizing matrix calculus, you’ll be able to take the by-product of this operate with respect to *w *(we assume that the bias time period *b* is included there)*.*

If you happen to set this gradient to zero, you find yourself with

If the (*n *× *ok*)-matrix *X* has a rank of *ok*, so does the (*ok *× *ok*)-matrix *X*ᵀ*X, *i.e. it’s invertible*. Why? *It follows from rank(*X*)* = *rank(*X*ᵀ*X*)*.*

On this case, we get the **distinctive resolution**

Observe:Software program packages don’t optimize like this however as a substitute use gradient descent or different iterative methods as a result of it’s sooner. Nonetheless, the formulation is sweet and offers us some high-level insights about the issue.

However is that this actually a minimal? We will discover out by computing the Hessian, which is *X*ᵀ*X. *The matrix is positive-semidefinite since *w*ᵀ*X*ᵀ*Xw = |Xw|² *≥ 0 for any *w*. It’s even **strictly** positive-definite since *X*ᵀ*X* is invertible, i.e. 0 isn’t an eigenvector, so our optimum *w* is certainly minimizing our drawback.

## Excellent Multicollinearity

That was the pleasant case. However what occurs if *X* has a rank smaller than *ok*? This would possibly occur if we’ve two options in our dataset the place one is a a number of of the opposite, e.g. we use the options *top (in m)* and *top (in cm)* in our dataset. Then we’ve *top (in cm) = 100 * top (in m).*

It could possibly additionally occur if we one-hot encode categorical knowledge and don’t drop one of many columns. For instance, if we’ve a function *coloration* in our dataset that may be pink, inexperienced, or blue, then we are able to one-hot encode and find yourself with three columns *color_red, color_green,* and *color_blue*. For these options, we’ve *color_red + color_green + color_blue = *1, which induces good multicollinearity as effectively.

In these instances, the rank of *X*ᵀ*X *can be smaller than *ok*, so this matrix isn’t invertible.

Finish of story.

Or not? Really, no, as a result of it might imply two issues: (*X*ᵀ*X*)*w = X*ᵀ*y *has

- no resolution or
- infinitely many options.

It seems that in our case, we are able to acquire one resolution utilizing the Moore-Penrose inverse. Because of this we’re within the case of infinitely many options, all of them giving us the identical (coaching) imply squared error loss.

If we denote the Moore-Penrose inverse of *A* by *A*⁺, we are able to remedy the linear system of equations as

To get the opposite infinitely many options, simply add the null area of *X*ᵀ*X *to this particular resolution.

## Minimization With Tikhonov Regularization

Recall that we might add a previous distribution to our weights. We then needed to reduce

for some invertible matrix Γ. Following the identical steps as in extraordinary least squares, i.e. taking the by-product with respect to *w* and setting the outcome to zero, the answer is

The neat half:

XᵀX + ΓᵀΓ is at all times invertible!

Allow us to discover out why. It suffices to point out that the null area of *X*ᵀ*X* + ΓᵀΓ is just {0}. So, allow us to take a *w *with (*X*ᵀ*X* + ΓᵀΓ)*w* = 0. Now, our purpose is to point out that *w *= 0.

From (*X*ᵀ*X* + ΓᵀΓ)*w* = 0 it follows that

which in flip implies |Γ*w*| = 0 → Γ*w = *0*. *Since* *Γ is invertible, *w* needs to be 0. Utilizing the identical calculation, we are able to see that the Hessian can be positive-definite.