Topic · Machine Learning & AI
← All topicsModel Validation & MLOps
51 articles · 9 checkpoints · 30 deeper reads · 12 reference notes
Every article, in reading order
plant a flag as you finish eachRead these first
You have to hold data back twice, for two different reasons, once to choose between models, once to grade the winner. Collapsing those two jobs into one is why so many models look good on paper and disappoint in production.
A fixed test set stops being a fair test the moment it's used to choose between many models, every comparison leaks a little information back, and enough comparisons can make a leaderboard measure luck as much as skill.
A model that says '70% chance' should be right about 70% of the time it says that, calibration checks whether a model's predicted probabilities can actually be trusted as probabilities, separately from whether it ranks outcomes well.
A model's accuracy on live data can quietly decay because the relationship it learned between inputs and outputs has changed, detecting that shift early, before it shows up in P&L, is a separate discipline from validating the model in the first place.
A way of turning any trained model's point predictions into intervals that are guaranteed to cover the true value a chosen percentage of the time, without assuming anything about the model or the data's distribution.
An ablation study removes one piece of a model at a time to find out which parts are actually doing work, the only reliable way to tell a genuinely useful feature or component from one that's just along for the ride.
A model that scored well in backtest can still fail quietly once it is live, because the world it sees starts to differ from the world it was trained on. Monitoring is the discipline of catching that drift before the P&L does.
A classifier can only ever produce four kinds of outcome, and almost every metric you have heard of is one ratio built from those four counts. Learn the little two-by-two table and precision, recall, F1 and specificity stop being jargon.
Accuracy and AUC treat every mistake as equally bad, but in trading and risk the cost of a false positive and a false negative are almost never the same, evaluating a model on its actual economic payoff often changes which model wins.
Then the rest