arXiv preprint ·

Why Does Train-Validation Separation Emerge? Update-Pressure Density Dynamics in Pretrained Backbones

Yuchen Li, Mingyu Du, Zongqi Fan, Ken-Tye Yong and Nguyen H. Tran

Published
Source
arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
Original
Read it at arXiv
Topics
Machine Learning

Abstract

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.

The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.

Read it on ReadSearch

Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.

Already a reader? Sign in

All new papers in Machine Learning

Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.

ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.

Papers belong to their authors and publishers; every page here links to the original. All research topics