mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Phase Transition Frequency as a Training Time Predictor of Test Accuracy in ResNets

arXiv 2609.05194 ↗First posted 4 Sep 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The number of discrete class-separability jumps observed during ResNet finetuning is examined empirically as a predictor of final test accuracy. Across 75 experiments spanning four benchmarks (CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, TinyImageNet, and CIFAR-10-C) and three architectures (ResNet-18, ResNet-50, and ResNet-101), with five to ten seeds per configuration, a strong within-dataset negative correlation is obtained on standard i.i.d. classification benchmarks: (r = -0.84) on CIFAR-10 ((p < 10-8), (n = 30)) and (r = -0.87) on CIFAR-100 ((p < 10-5), (n = 15)). Under distributional stress, the relationship attenuates: TinyImageNet yields (r = -0.45), and the CIFAR-10-C corruption benchmark yields (r = -0.19). Two additional analyses discipline the empirical claim. A partial correlation controlling for architecture depth, treated as a linear covariate, shows that on CIFAR-100 the transition count retains statistically significant predictive power ((rpartial = -0.69), (p = 0.007)); the corresponding result under the stricter categorical conditioning is not established at (n = 15). A comparison against six alternative training-curve signals shows that transition count achieved the strongest correlation among the evaluated signals on CIFAR-100 and one of the strongest on CIFAR-10, but is dominated by other signals on the two stressed benchmarks. The comparison is restricted to training-curve-level signals; comparisons against effective rank, Hessian sharpness, Fisher information, margin, and neural-collapse measures, which are the strongest competitors in the current literature, are not part of the present study and remain open. The observation is presented as an in-distribution training-quality probe among a family of candidate probes, and an inexpensive detection procedure suitable for logging alongside a standard training loop is provided.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Sep 2026.

Builds on

13 of 17 references.

References · 13

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2019Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbationscited by 2,877
  3. 2019Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?cited by 1,515
  4. 2019Natural Adversarial Examplescited by 1,408
  5. 2015Deep Learning and the Information Bottleneck Principlecited by 802
  6. 2020Prevalence of Neural Collapse during the terminal phase of deep learning trainingcited by 719
  7. 2022Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasetscited by 629
  8. 2017Opening the Black Box of Deep Neural Networks via Informationcited by 503
  9. 2020Measuring Robustness to Natural Distribution Shifts in Image Classificationcited by 454
  10. 2017Three Factors Influencing Minima in SGDcited by 273
  11. 2020The large learning rate phase of deep learning: the catapult mechanismcited by 216
  12. 2018A jamming transition from under- to over-parametrization affects loss landscape and generalizationcited by 67
1 more
  1. 2019Emergent properties of the local geometry of neural loss landscapescited by 46

Built on by

Not cited yet.