diff --git a/Lectures/lecture03.tex b/Lectures/lecture03.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1df37ec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Lectures/lecture03.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+\section{Lecture 3: Dropout}
+
+\subsection{Lecture}
+
+How does standard regularization works in Bayesian world?
+
+\begin{gather*}
+    \mathcal{L}(w, X, T) \to \min_w \\ 
+    \mathcal{L}(w, X, T) + \lambda R(w) \to \min_w
+\end{gather*}
+
+Then: 
+\begin{align*}
+    - \sum_{i=1}^n \log p(t_i | x_i, w) + \log p(w) \to \min_w 
+    &\Longleftrightarrow p (T | X, w) p(w) \to \max_w \\
+    &\Longleftrightarrow p(w | X, T) \to \max_w
+\end{align*}
+
+The general regularization worked like this: 
+\[ 
+    n \frac{\partial}{\partial w} \log p(t_k, x_k, w)
+\] 
+
+Then dropout was introduced: 
+\[ 
+    n \frac{\partial}{\partial w} \log p(t_k, x_k, w \odot \eta) \qquad \eta \sim \operatorname{Ber}(\eta | 1 - p)
+\] 
+
+Dropout was just a heuristic and no-one understood why it worked. 
+
+Let's consider a simple model:
+\[ 
+    y_i = \sum (w_{ij} \eta_{ij}) z_j
+\] 
+where $z_j$ is the input, $w_{ij}$ is the weight, and $\eta_{ij}$ is the Bernoulli mask.
+
+Statistics of $y$: 
+\[ 
+    \EE y_i = \sum \overbrace{w_{ij} (1 - p)}^{\mu_{ij}} z_j = \sum \mu_{ij} z_j
+\] 
+
+And: 
+\[ 
+    \DD y_i = \sum_j p (1 - p) (w_{ij} z_j)^2 = \sum_j \left( \frac{p}{1 - p}\right) \mu_{ij}^2 z_j^2
+\] 
+
+We get that the resulting distribution of $y$ is: 
+\[
+    y_i \leadsto \mathcal{N} (y_i | \sum_j \mu_{ij} z_j, \sum_j \left( \frac{p}{1 - p}\right) \mu_{ij}^2 z_j^2)
+\] 
+
+Before that we took the Bernoullean noize. Let's consider a situation when we take the Gaussian noize:
+\[ 
+    y_i = \sum \mu_{ij} \delta_{ij} z_j, \qquad \delta_{ij} \sim \mathcal{N} (\delta_{ij} | 1, \alpha)
+\]
+
+Statistics would be: 
+\begin{align*}
+    &\EE y_i = \sum \mu_{ij} z_j
+    &\DD y_i = \sum \alpha \mu_{ij}^2 z_j^2
+\end{align*} 
+
+Thus we can take $\alpha = \frac{p}{1 - p}$ and we get the same statistics. From now on we will consider the Gaussian noize, just because it is easier to work with.
+
+And how do we find the right value for $\alpha$/ $p$? How do we find a good value for the dropout rate?
+\begin{align*}
+    \LL (\mu) &= \int q(\delta | \alpha) \sum_{i = 1}^n \log p(t_i | x_i, \mu \odot \delta) d \delta \\ 
+    &= \{ w = \mu \odot \delta \} \\
+    &= \int q(w | \mu, \alpha) \log p(T | X, w) d w \to \max_{\mu} \\ 
+    &= \bigstar  
+\end{align*}
+Now think of the following: What if we make our model Bayesian? If we find such prior $p(w)$ that $KL(q(w | \mu, \alpha) || p(w)) = f(\alpha)$, then: 
+
+\begin{align*}
+    \bigstar &\sim \int q(w | \mu, \alpha) \log p(T | X, w) d w - KL(q(w | \mu, \alpha) || p(w)) \to \max_{\mu, \alpha} 
+\end{align*}
+
+Let's interpret the model as a Bayesian model. 
+\[ 
+    p(w | \lambda) = \prod_{l} \mathcal{N} (w_l | 0, \lambda_l^{2})
+\] 
+
+\[ 
+    \int q(w | \mu, \alpha) \log p(T | X, w) d w - \sum_l KL (q(w_l | \mu_l, \alpha_l) || p(w_l | \lambda_l)) \to \max_{\mu, \alpha}
+\] 
+
+The KL divergence can be computed in closed form:
+\[ 
+    KL(\mathcal{N} (w_l | \mu_l, \alpha_l \mu_l^2) || \mathcal{N} (w_l | 0, \lambda_l^2)) = \log \frac{\lambda_l}{\sqrt{\alpha_l} \mu_l} + \frac{\mu_l^2 + \alpha_l \mu_l^2}{2 \lambda_l^2} 
+\]
+
+We can integrate this with respect to $\lambda_l$: 
+\begin{align*}
+    &\frac{1}{\lambda_l} - \frac{\mu_l^2 + \alpha_l \mu_l^2}{\lambda_l^3} = 0 
+    &(\lambda_l^*)^2 = \mu_l^2 + \alpha_l \mu_l^2
+\end{align*}
+
+If we substitute this optimal value to the KL divergence: 
+\[
+    \frac{1}{2} \log \frac{\mu_l^2 + \alpha_l \mu_l^2}{\alpha \mu_l^2} + \frac{\mu_l^2 + \alpha_l \mu_l^2}{2 (\mu_l^2 + \alpha_l \mu_l^2)} = \frac{1}{2} \log \frac{\alpha + 1}{\alpha} + \frac{1}{2}
+\] 
+
+We got that we can now only optimize the function with respect to $\alpha$, yet, get the same thing as we would have had in the standard dropout. We interpreted the model as a Bayesian model and now have an algorithm to automatically tune the dropout rate.
+
+Later on we decided to take $\alpha_l$ instead of $\alpha$, so we get a different value for each weight. And we got the same results. 
+
diff --git a/neurobayes.tex b/neurobayes.tex
index 3254b6f..1c358b2 100644
--- a/neurobayes.tex
+++ b/neurobayes.tex
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+\documentclass[a4paper]{article}
+
 \input{preambule.tex}
 
 \usepackage{fancyhdr}
@@ -26,6 +28,6 @@ \section{Lecture 2}
 
 \input{Lectures/lecture02.tex}
 
-
+\input{Lectures/lecture03.tex}
 
 \end{document}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/preambule.tex b/preambule.tex
index 8a0b784..7251e26 100644
--- a/preambule.tex
+++ b/preambule.tex
@@ -1,5 +1,3 @@
-\documentclass[a4paper]{article}
-
 %plastikovye pakety
 
 \usepackage[12pt]{extsizes}