Model developers tune the overall impact of the regularization term by
multiplying its value by a scalar known as lambda (also called the
regularization rate). That is, model developers aim to do the
following:

Performing L_{2} regularization has the following effect on a model

Encourages weight values toward 0 (but not exactly 0)

Encourages the mean of the weights toward 0, with a normal
(bell-shaped or Gaussian) distribution.

Increasing the lambda value strengthens the regularization effect.
For example, the histogram of weights for a high value of lambda
might look as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Histogram of weights.

Lowering the value of lambda tends to yield a flatter histogram, as
shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Histogram of weights produced by a lower lambda value.

When choosing a lambda value, the goal is to strike the right balance between
simplicity and training-data fit:

If your lambda value is too high, your model will be simple, but you
run the risk of underfitting your data. Your model won't learn enough
about the training data to make useful predictions.

If your lambda value is too low, your model will be more complex, and you
run the risk of overfitting your data. Your model will learn too
much about the particularities of the training data, and won't be
able to generalize to new data.

The ideal value of lambda produces a model that generalizes well to
new, previously unseen data.
Unfortunately, that ideal value of lambda is data-dependent,
so you'll need to do some
tuning.

Click the plus icon to learn about L_{2} regularization and learning rate.

There's a close connection between learning rate and lambda.
Strong L_{2} regularization values tend
to drive feature weights closer to 0. Lower
learning rates (with early stopping) often produce the same
effect because the steps away from 0 aren't as large.
Consequently, tweaking learning rate and lambda
simultaneously may have confounding effects.

Early stopping means ending training before the model fully
reaches convergence. In practice, we often end up with some
amount of implicit early stopping when training in an
online
(continuous) fashion. That is, some new trends just haven't had
enough data yet to converge.

As noted, the effects from changes to regularization parameters can be
confounded with the effects from changes in learning rate or number of
iterations. One useful practice (when training across a fixed batch of data)
is to give yourself a high enough number of iterations that early
stopping doesn't play into things.