Why Does Train-Validation Separation Emerge? Update-Pressure Density Dynamics in Pretrained Backbones
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Train-validation separation is the evolving difference between performance on observed training examples and a finite held-out validation set. We propose a dynamic structural account of how this gap develops during adaptation of pretrained models: continued fitting can shift update demand from broadly reusable support toward narrower support with weaker held-out transfer. A conditional local model links this shift to increasing heterogeneity in gradient allocation and train-validation separation. Fixed training probes make this structural evolution observable without validation examples entering the readouts; held-out performance is used separately to evaluate its relation to the gap. In a constructed hierarchy implemented with a residual multilayer perceptron (ResMLP), increasing the target share of example-private features from p=.3 to .5 to .7, while preserving the relative mixture 1:2:3:4 among the four shared feature levels, increases the final mean accuracy gap from .185 to .331 to .527 across five runs per condition. Masked-input losses measured separately on training and validation examples expose the corresponding transfer asymmetry. The natural language processing (NLP) analysis uses 10-epoch runs of RoBERTa, DeBERTa, and Qwen on six datasets (90 runs): the training-probe-weighted within-class and overall dispersion readouts each have positive raw and smoothed level correlations with the accuracy gap in all 90 runs. Raw changes paired at approximately one-epoch intervals remain positively associated in 86/90 and 87/90 runs, respectively. A 40-epoch ResNet-18 study tests both readouts on three vision datasets. Together, controlled simulation, NLP, and vision support the dynamic structural account across settings, with real-model evidence testing its observable predictions under the specified monitors.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.
Builds on
21 of 28 references.
References · 21
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
- 2018The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis: Finding Sparse, Trainable Neural Networkscited by 2,250
- 2020DeBERTa: Decoding-enhanced BERT with Disentangled Attentioncited by 2,157
- 2019SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systemscited by 1,718
- 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,695
- 2018On the Spectral Bias of Neural Networkscited by 1,321
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,279
- 2014How transferable are features in deep neural networks?cited by 1,216
- 2017A Closer Look at Memorization in Deep Networkscited by 936
9 more
- 2022Fine-Tuning can Distort Pretrained Features and Underperform Out-of-Distributioncited by 722
- 2020Prevalence of Neural Collapse during the terminal phase of deep learning trainingcited by 713
- 2018An Empirical Study of Example Forgetting during Deep Neural Network Learningcited by 669
- 2020Dataset Cartography: Mapping and Diagnosing Datasets with Training Dynamicscited by 423
- 2021ResMLP: Feedforward networks for image classification with data-efficient trainingcited by 338
- 2020Gradient Starvation: A Learning Proclivity in Neural Networkscited by 262
- 2019Stiffness: A New Perspective on Generalization in Neural Networkscited by 46
- 2020Coherent Gradients: An Approach to Understanding Generalization in Gradient Descent-based Optimizationcited by 41
- 2019Circuit-Based Intrinsic Methods to Detect Overfittingcited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.