Organizations: Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 · Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010
Crash classification models in transportation safety are typically evaluated using accuracy, F1, or AUC, metrics that cannot reveal whether a model is silently overfitting. We introduce a spectral diagnostic framework grounded in Random Matrix Theory (RMT) and Heavy-Tailed Self-Regularization (HTSR) that spans the ML taxonomy: weight matrices for BERT/ALBERT/Qwen2.5, out-of-fold increment matrices for XGBoost/Random Forest, empirical Hessians for Logistic Regression, induced affinity matrices for Decision Trees, and Graph Laplacians for KNN. Evaluating nine model families on two Iowa DOT crash classification tasks (173,512 and 371,062 records respectively), we find that the power-law exponent α provides a structural quality signal: well-regularized models consistently yield α within [2,4] (mean 2.87±0.34), while overfit variants show α<2 or spectral collapse. We observe a strong rank correlation between α and expert agreement (Spearman ρ=0.89, p<0.001), suggesting spectral quality captures model behaviors aligned with expert reasoning. We propose an α-based early stopping criterion and a spectral model selection protocol, and validate both against cross-validated F1 baselines. Sparse Lanczos approximations make the framework scalable to large datasets.
Figures & tables
Model
Matrix C
Overfit Signal
Cost
BERT/ALBERT
Wℓ⊤Wℓ
α<2 , traps
O(d3)
Qwen2.5-7B
Wℓ⊤Wℓ
α<2 , traps
O(d3)
XGBoost
W7⊤W7/N
α<2 , traps
O(T3)
Random Forest
OOB analogue
α<2 , traps
O(T3)
Logistic Reg. †
X⊤DX/N
α→∞
O(d3)
Decision Tree †
M⊤M
Dirac at λ=1
O(L)
TABLE I: Taxonomy of Effective Representation Matrices. N : samples, T : trees, L : leaves, d : features, k : neighbors. Mappings marked with † are novel proposals validated empirically in this work.
Fig. 1: Unified spectral diagnostic framework. Crash data trains a diverse taxonomy of models. Weight matrices (Deep Learning) or Effective Representation Matrices (Classical ML/Ensembles) are analyzed via RMT to extract α and trap counts, informing safety-critical deployment decisions.
Model Family
Regime
Matrix
α^
KS p
Traps
F1
AUC
κ (Expert)
BERT
Good
Weight
2.87±0.14
0.42
0.4±0.5
.874±.008
.936±.005
.68±.03
BERT
Overfit-Epochs
Weight
1.74±0.19
0.18
4.8±1.3
.862±.011
.921±.007
.54±.04
ALBERT
Good
Weight
3.12±0.09
0.61
0.2±0.4
.868±.007
.929±.004
.73±.02
ALBERT
Overfit-Epochs
Weight
2.08±0.21
0.14
1.8±0.8
.859±.009
.918±.006
.61±.04
Qwen2.5-7B
Zero-shot
Weight
2.94±0.12
0.52
0.6±0.5
.781±.010
.872±.007
.76±.03
XGBoost
Good
OOF Incr.
2.34±0.17
0.38
0.2±0.4
.851±.006
.922±.004
.62±.03
TABLE II: Spectral diagnostics and classification performance for intersection misclassification detection (mean ± std over 5 seeds). KS p : power-law goodness-of-fit p -value. † : novel spectral mapping proposed in this work.
Model †
Task
Regime
α^
KS p
Logistic Reg.
INT
Good
3.21±0.31
0.29
Logistic Reg.
INT
Overfit
1.68±0.38
0.09
Logistic Reg.
AIM
Good
3.15±0.27
0.31
Logistic Reg.
AIM
Overfit
1.72±0.35
0.08
Decision Tree
INT
Good
2.62±0.28
0.22
Decision Tree
INT
Overfit
Collapse
< 0.01
TABLE III: Power-law fit validation for novel spectral mappings ( † ) across both tasks. KS p>0.1 indicates the power-law hypothesis is not rejected.
Fig. 2: Layer-wise α for BERT (top) and ALBERT (bottom). Shaded band = optimal range [2,4] ; colored bands = min/max across 5 seeds. ALBERT’s shared weights produce more uniform α with tighter variance.
Fig. 3: Schematic ESD (log-log) of the XGBoost OOF correlation matrix. Left: well-regularized ( α=2.34 , no traps). Right: overfit ( α=1.62 , correlation traps visible as isolated spikes). MP distribution (dashed gray) serves as the null model. These are illustrative; actual α values are fitted via MLE on computed eigenvalues.
Model
Criterion
Stop Epoch/Round
F1
α^
BERT
Val. loss
7.2±1.1
.874±.008
2.87±.14
α<2.0
5.4±0.9
.869±.010
2.14±.12
Joint
5.4±0.9
.871±.009
2.14±.12
None (20 ep.)
20
.832±.018
1.38±.16
ALBERT
Val. loss
8.0±1.3
.868±.007
3.12±.09
α<2.0
11.2±2.1
.864±.008
2.06±.11
TABLE IV: Early stopping comparison across three model families on INT task (mean ± std, 5 seeds). α -stop triggers at α^<2.0 .
Fig. 4: BERT training dynamics (median seed, INT task). Top: validation loss minimum at epoch 7. Bottom: α^ crosses below 2.0 at epoch 5, providing an earlier structural warning.
Fig. 5: Spectral quality ( α^ ) vs. expert agreement ( κ ) across all model families ( n=15 ; DT/KNN-Overfit excluded due to collapsed spectra). Spearman ρ=0.89 ( p<0.001 ; 95% bootstrap CI: [0.74,0.96] ). Shaded region = optimal α range. Qwen2.5-7B (zero-shot) occupies the upper-right quadrant.
Selection Strategy
Kendall’s τ vs. κ
Cross-validated F1
0.50
Validation loss
0.43
Spectral composite (Eq. 6)
0.79
TABLE V: Model selection ranking comparison on INT task. Kendall’s τ measures rank correlation with expert agreement ( κ ) across 9 well-regularized models.
TABLE VII: Spectral extraction cost on AIM dataset. Training time excludes hyperparameter search. Qwen2.5-7B is used zero-shot (no training); spectral time reflects weight matrix extraction and eigendecomposition.
Training Neural Networks (NNs) without overfitting is difficult; detecting that overfitting is difficult as well. We present a novel Random Matrix Theory method that detects the onset of overfitting in deep learning models without access to train or test data. For each model layer, we randomize each weight matrix element-wise, W→Wrand, fit the randomized empirical spectral distribution with a Marchenko-Pastur distribution, and identify large outliers that violate self-averaging. We call these outliers Correlation Traps. During the onset of overfitting, which we call the "anti-grokking" phase in long-horizon grokking, Correlation Traps form and grow in number and scale as test accuracy decreases while train accuracy remains high. Traps may be benign or may harm generalization; we provide an empirical approach to distinguish between them by passing random data through the trained model and evaluating the JS divergence of output logits. Our findings show that anti-grokking is an additional grokking phase with high train accuracy and decreasing test accuracy, structurally distinct from pre-grokking through its Correlation Traps. More broadly, we find that some foundation-scale LLMs exhibit the same Correlation Traps, indicating potentially harmful overfitting.
Hari K. Prakash, Charles H Martin
University of California San Diego Data Science and Engineering · Calculation Consulting San Francisco, CA, USA
We investigate whether spectral properties of neural network weight matrices can predict test accuracy. Under controlled label noise variation, the tail index alpha of the eigenvalue distribution at the network's bottleneck layer predicts test accuracy with leave-one-out R^2 = 0.984 (21 noise levels, 3 seeds per level), far exceeding all baselines: the best conventional metric (Frobenius norm of the optimal layer) achieves LOO R^2 = 0.149. This relationship holds across three architectures (MLP, CNN, ResNet-18) and two datasets (MNIST, CIFAR-10). However, under hyperparameter variation at fixed data quality (180 configurations varying width, depth, learning rate, and weight decay), all spectral and conventional measures are weak predictors (R^2 < 0.25), with simple baselines (global L_2 norm, LOO R^2 = 0.219) slightly outperforming spectral measures (tail alpha, LOO R^2 = 0.167). We therefore frame the tail index as a data quality diagnostic: a powerful detector of label corruption and training set degradation, rather than a universal generalization predictor. A noise detector calibrated on synthetic noise successfully identifies real human annotation errors in CIFAR-10N (9% noise detected with 3% error). We identify the information-processing bottleneck layer as the locus of this signature and connect the observations to the BBP phase transition in spiked random matrix models. We also report a negative result: the level spacing ratio <r> is uninformative for weight matrices due to Wishart universality.
Transportation agencies increasingly predict crash-injury severity with statistical and machine-learning models, but these models do not state how often their output contains the recorded injury level or for which groups of drivers it fails, a gap that matters most for motorcyclists and unrestrained drivers. This study develops and evaluates a certification layer that gives any fitted severity model a finite-sample, distribution-free coverage guarantee within prespecified safety strata. The layer, CHOIR (Conformal Heterogeneity-aware Ordinal Inference with Risk control), combines groupwise and weighted conformal prediction with conformal risk control to return contiguous KABCO intervals, and adds a declared sensitivity analysis for medically assessed injury and bounds on fatal omission. It is evaluated on 4.04 million Texas crashes from 2017-2023, one sampled driver per crash, with seven base models from the ordered logit to a tabular foundation model, and on held-out counties and later years. Under one pooled threshold every model reaches 0.90 coverage overall but covers motorcyclists or unrestrained drivers at 0.868 or lower, and class-balanced gradient boosting covers unrestrained drivers at only 0.374. Calibration within four safety strata places all 28 model-by-stratum estimates between 0.898 and 0.907, at the cost of sets spanning 3.6 to 4.6 of five categories for these groups, and the certified ordered logit is within 0.03 categories of the narrowest model. Injury-model coverage should therefore be certified within safety groups rather than on average, calibration rather than model complexity determines validity, and a statewide threshold should not be applied to small rural counties without local calibration data.
Amir Rafe, Subasish Das
Civil Engineering, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, 78666 TX, USA