text: The paper proposed a new regularization approach that simultaneously encourages the weight vectors (W) to be sparse and orthogonal to each other. The argument is that the sparsity helps to eliminate the irrelevant feature vectors by making the corresponding weights zero. Nearly orthogonal sparse vectors will have zeros at different indexes and hence, encourages the weight vectors to have small overlap in terms of indices of nonzero entries (called support). Small overlap in support of weight vectors, aids interpretability as each weight vector is associated with a unique subset of feature vectors. For example, in the topic model, small overlap encourages, each topic to have unique set of representation words. The proposed approach used L1 regularizer for enforcing sparsity in W. For enforcing orthogonality between different weight vectors (wi, wj), the log-determinant divergence (LDD) regularization term encourages the Gram Matrix G (Gij = wiTwj) to be close to an identity matrix I. The authors applied and tested the performance of proposed approach on Neural Network and Sparse Coding (SC) machine learning models. The authors validated the need for their proposed regularizer through experiments on 4 datasets (3 text and 1 images). Major * The novelty of the paper is not clear. Neither L1 no logdet() are novel regularizers (see the literature of Determinatal Point Process). With the presence of the auto-differentiator, one cannot claim the making derivative a novelty. * L1 is also encourages diversity although as explicit as logdet. This is also obvious from Fig 2. Perhaps the advantage of diversity is in interpretability but that is hard to quantify and the authors did not put enough effort to do that; we only have small anecdotal results in section 4.3. * The Table 1 is not convincing because one can argue, for example, gun (vec 1) and weapon (vec 4) are colinear. * In section 4.2, the authors experimented with SC on text dataset. The overlap score decreases as the strength of regularization increases. The authors didn’t show the effect of increasing the regularization strength on the model accuracy and convergence time. This analysis is important to make sure, the decrease in overlap score is not coming at the expense of model accuracy and performance. * In section 4.4, increase in test set accuracy and difference between test and train set accuracy is used to validate the claim, that the proposed regularizer helps reducing over fitting. In Table-2, , the test accuracy increases between SC and LDD-L1 SC while the train accuracy remains almost the same. Also, the authors didn’t do any cross validation to support their claim. The difference is numbers is too small to support the claim. * In section on LSTM for Language Modeling, the perplexity score of LDD-L1 regularization on PytorchLM received perplexity score of 1.2 lower than without regularization. Although, the author mentions it as a significant reduction, the lowest perplexity score in Table 3 is significantly lower than this result. It’s not clear how 1.2 reduction in perplexity is significant and why the method should be preferred while much better models already exists. * Results of the best perplexity model, Neural Architecture Search + WT V2, with proposed regularization would also help, validating the generalizability claims of the new approach. * In CNN for Image Classification section, details of increase interpretability of the model, in terms of classification decision, is missing. * In Table-4, the proposed LDD-L1 WideResNet is not the best results. Results of adding the proposed regularization, to the best know method (Pyramid Sep Drop) would be interesting. * The proposed regularization claims to provide more interpretable representation and less overfit model. The given experiments are inadequate to validate the claims. * A more extensive experimentation is required to validate the applicability of the method. * In SC, aj are the linear coefficients or the coefficient vector of the j-th sample. If A ∈ Rm×n then aj ∈ Rm×1 and j ranges between [1,n] as in equation 6. The notation in section 2.2, Sparse Coding section is misleading as j ranges between [1,m]. * In Related works, the authors mention previous work done on interpreting the results of the machine learning models. Related works on enhancing interpretability and reducing overfitting by using regularization is missing.