✳ BETWEEN QUESTIONS ML STUDY ATLAS

A QUESTION-LED LESSON

Regularization and Leakage: Two Different Ways Evaluation Can Mislead

A model can appear better than it will perform: it may fit noise, or information about the answer may accidentally enter training.

L2 regularization

One way to discourage large parameters is to add λw² to the training objective. For the toy objective J(w) = (w − 2)² + λw², the minimizer is w* = 2/(1 + λ), for λ ≥ 0.

A trade-off, not a magic fix

Increasing λ pulls the optimum toward zero in this example, but also increases the original data-fitting loss. The best strength depends on the task and should be selected using suitable validation data. Increase λ and watch the optimum move toward zero. The penalty is one part of the objective; lower total loss in this toy does not establish better test performance.

INTERACTIVE EXPLORATION

Change the L2 penalty

For J(w) = (w − 2)² + λw², change λ. The readout shows the analytic optimum and its two objective components.

Leakage is a different problem

A feature calculated using future information, or a scaler fitted on the full dataset before splitting, can leak test information. A penalty on weights cannot repair that mistake; prevent leakage in the data pipeline and split.

Check your understanding

For λ = 1, what w minimizes (w − 2)² + λw²?

w = 1. The derivative is 2(w − 2) + 2w, which is zero at 1.

Keep exploring

Train, validation and test ↗Generalization ↗

Further reading

Source and further reading ↗