[hw1] Reporting results

1 files changed, 34 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/hw1/main.tex b/hw1/main.tex
index 3aea165..ee9b915 100644
--- a/hw1/main.tex
+++ b/hw1/main.tex
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
 \usepackage{amsfonts}
 \usepackage{listings}
 \usepackage{bm}
+\usepackage{graphicx}
 
 % Some useful macros.
 \newcommand{\prob}{\mathbb{P}}
@@ -398,6 +399,13 @@ training data using the QR decomposition (see Section 7.5.2 in Murphy's book).
 \end{itemize}
 \end{problem}
 
+\paragraph{Solution} See file \textsf{main.py} for the code. I obtained:
+\begin{align*}
+    \hat{w} = [&5.55782079, 2.25190765, 1.07880135, -5.91177796, -1.73480336,\\
+            &-1.63875478 -0.26610556,  0.81781409, -0.65913397, 7.74153395]
+\end{align*}
+and a RMSE of 5.20880460.
+
 \begin{problem}[14pts]\label{prob:numerical_linear_model}
 Write code that evaluates the log-posterior probability (up to an
 additive constant) of $\mathbf{w}$ according to the previous Bayesian linear model and the normalized training data.
@@ -427,6 +435,15 @@ log-posterior probability to transform the maximization problem into a minimizat
 \end{itemize}
 \end{problem}
 
+\paragraph{Solution} See file \textsf{main.py} for the code. I obtained:
+\begin{align*}
+    \hat{w} = [&5.55780742, 2.2516761, 1.078904, -5.9118024, -1.73438477,\\
+               &-1.63887755, -0.26611567, 0.81785313, -0.65901996, 7.7415115]
+\end{align*}
+and a RMSE of 5.20880242.
+
+\vspace{2em}
+
 Linear regression can be extended to model non-linear relationships by
 replacing the original features $\mathbf{x}$ with some non-linear functions of
 the original features $\bm \phi(\mathbf{x})$. We can automatically generate one
@@ -482,4 +499,21 @@ by the method L-BFGS for each value of $d$. Answer the following questions:
 \end{itemize}
 \end{problem}
 
+\paragraph{Solution} See file \textsf{main.py} for the code. I obtained the following plot:
+\begin{center}
+\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{plot.pdf}
+\end{center}
+
+We see that the non-linear transformations help reduce the prediction error:
+the data is probably not very well modeled by a linear relation ship. Allowing
+more complex relationships (as $d$ becomes larger the relationship becomes more
+complex) fits it better.
+
+QR is faster than L-BFGS when the number of features is not too large ($d\leq
+400$). For $d=600$, L-BFGS is faster. The asymptotic complexity of QR is
+$O(nd^2 + d^3)$ whereas the complexity of L-BFGS is $O(nd)$ (for a fixed number
+of iterations). So asymptotically, L-BFGS is be faster as we observe for
+$d=600$ (for smaller values of $d$ the constants hidden in the $O$ do not allow
+a formal comparison).
+
 \end{document}