Instance-dependent early stopping (IES) reduces training computation by skipping backpropagation for examples whose losses have stabilized, but the second-order loss-difference criterion used by IES lacks a theoretical justification. We develop Theory-Guided Instance-Dependent Early Stopping (TG-IES), which analyzes this criterion under explicit assumptions and derives a noise-calibrated mastery threshold and a conditional stability bound for instance exclusion. We show that second-order differencing has a favorable bias-variance trade-off over first- and third-order differences in a specific signal-to-noise regime, and that its signal contains both gradient-drift and curvature terms. TG-IES derives its stopping threshold and patience from training-run statistics rather than using the manually selected threshold of IES. Across CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, TG-IES saves 53-58% of backpropagation instances in its main convolutional settings while keeping accuracy within 0.1-0.9 percentage points of full training; in the primary ResNet-18/CIFAR-10 setting, this corresponds to 35.7% FLOP-normalized savings. The method also transfers to ViT-Tiny, where it achieves smaller savings and incurs a modest accuracy cost. These results provide a theoretical basis for second-order instance-dependent early stopping and show that theory-guided calibration can substantially reduce training computation under the assumptions and experimental settings studied.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: TG-IES uses each instance’s loss trajectory to derive a second-order loss signal. Observed noise sets the mastery threshold δ , and a conditional reference horizon Ksafe initializes patience K∗ . The mastery rule decides when an instance becomes passive and when it re-enters training. Skipping passive instances alters updates by the passive-set gradient ωt , governing drift and descent (dashed box). Experiments assess compute savings, accuracy, and the method’s assumptions.
Symbol
Meaning
Symbol
Meaning
Li(t)
loss of instance i after epoch t
θ(t) , ηt
parameters after epoch t ; step size
L~i(t)
recorded loss Li(t)+ξi,t (noise scale σ )
L
training loss N1∑iLi
Δ1Li(t)
Li(t)−Li(t−1) : how much the loss moved
gi
∇θLi : update direction from instance i
Δ2Li(t)
Δ1Li(t)−Δ1Li(t−1) : change of that move
g
N1∑igi : full-data gradient
ΔNLi(t)
the difference applied N times
Hi
∇θ2Li : local curvature of Li
δ , K∗
mastery threshold on ∣Δ2L~i∣ ; patience
At , Pt
active / passive instances
Table 1: Notation used in the main text.
Table 3Figure 4
Baseline
IES (literal)
TG-IES (ours)
Setting
Acc. (%)
Acc. (%)
Saved (%)
Acc. (%)
Saved (%)
SGD with exponential learning-rate decay
ResNet-18 / CIFAR-10 †
95.03±0.13
94.85±0.17
49.02±0.44
94.85±0.28
53.63±0.30
VGG-16 / CIFAR-10
93.30±0.12
93.15±0.17
41.02±1.12
93.11±0.14
54.43±0.12
DenseNet-121 / CIFAR-10
95.36±0.14
95.24±0.02
51.60±0.89
95.28±0.09
54.53±0.66
ResNet-18 / CIFAR-100
76.88±0.41
76.78±0.40
18.49±0.43
76.01±0.08
57.76±0.04
Table 4: All three-seed settings, mean ± std ( † primary). IES (literal), the higher-saving IES variant in every setting, is shown; all runs are in Table 11 .
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Cell
n
Acc. (%)
Saved (%)
CIFAR-10 / ResNet-18 / SGD-exp (primary)
3
94.85±0.28
53.63±0.30
CIFAR-10 / ResNet-18 / SGD-fixed
3
91.91±0.18
29.27±0.30
CIFAR-10 / ResNet-18 / SGD-linear
1
94.85∗
32.05∗
CIFAR-10 / ResNet-18 / SGD-step
1
94.44∗
43.52∗
CIFAR-10 / ResNet-18 / SGD-cosine
1
94.73∗
23.15∗
CIFAR-10 / ResNet-18 / Adam
3
92.44±0.10
30.18±0.62
Appendix
Table 5: TG-IES, every distinct (dataset, architecture, optimizer/schedule) cell in this paper, same four fixed calibration constants throughout. Mean ± std over seeds where n>1 ; asterisked rows are single-seed by design ( Appendix K ’s matched-epoch schedule comparison).
Method
Test Acc. (%)
Backprop Saved (%)
Baseline
92.91±0.06
0.03±0.00
IES (shipped)
92.61±0.10
56.02±0.22
IES (literal)
92.42±0.10
60.09±0.29
TG-IES (ours)
92.44±0.10
30.18±0.62
Appendix
Table 6: ResNet-18, CIFAR-10, Adam, mean ± std, 3 seeds.
Figure 4: Direct instrumentation of Δ2Li(t)=ηtDi(t)+O(ηt2)+Ri,t , fixed 300-instance subset, baseline training, all valid epochs, one panel per schedule. Dashed line: y=x . The drift term correlates weakly with the observed signal and does not dominate the residual under any schedule.
Figure 5: Best-so-far test accuracy vs. cumulative compute budget (% of N× total-epochs), all three cells with new-baseline data. A method’s curve stops at its own final compute point.
Figure 6: Pooled lag- k autocorrelation of detrended per-instance loss residuals, epochs 101–200, ResNet-18/CIFAR-10 seed 0 ( n≈1.9 M pairs/lag). Shaded band: 95% null interval for zero correlation.
Figure 7: Backprop saved (left) and best test accuracy (right) vs. gradient-norm-floor percentile, ResNet-18 and VGG-16, CIFAR-10, seed 0. Dotted line: this paper’s fixed default (20th percentile).
Method
Wall-clk (min)
Peak Mem (MiB)
Util (%)
Energy (Wh)
Baseline
15.66
1162
67.7
98.2
IES (shipped)
12.86
1216
62.8
78.1
IES (literal)
12.26
1184
59.0
70.1
TG-IES
11.66
1454
48.9
59.9
Appendix
Table 7: Measured efficiency, primary setting, single RTX 5090. Wall-clock: mean over 3 seeds from the real 200-epoch runs. Peak Mem/Util/Energy: short instrumented runs, seed 0; Energy is an estimate. Lower is better throughout.
Figure 8: Wall-clock time, peak GPU memory, and estimated energy, each as % of no-removal baseline. Wall-clock and energy fall furthest for TG-IES; peak memory is the one metric that rises above baseline, only for TG-IES.
Figure 9: Left: empirical MSE (N) vs. predicted noise floor, naive population-average test (all instances, epochs 101–200). This pooled test does not isolate Proposition 4.3 ’s SNR band and finds N=1 lowest; the band-restricted test (main text), which evaluates each instance at the epoch its signal first drops below the calibrated δ=0.01597 , finds N=2 lowest ( 7.5×10−5 pooled over 46,779 instances), as predicted. Right: empirical r^i pooled per training-epoch quartile; rate rises and spread narrows in the second half of training (mean r^ from 0.53 to 0.76 ; CV from 1.05 to 0.75 ), so Assumption 3.2 fits late training better.
Figure 10: Per-instance gradient norm ∥gi(t)∥ vs. ∣Δ2Li(t)∣ , all three LR schedules, primary architecture/dataset (300-instance subset). Theorem 5.4 predicts a positive, roughly linear relationship; correlations shown per panel.
CIFAR-10
CIFAR-100
Method
Acc. (%)
Saved (%)
Acc. (%)
Saved (%)
Baseline
84.07±0.35
0.03±0.00
59.25±0.24
0.03±0.00
IES (shipped)
83.92±0.18
13.13±0.21
59.19±0.22
8.38±0.22
IES (literal)
83.86±0.48
16.68±0.32
58.77±0.24
12.51±0.21
TG-IES (ours)
83.71±0.47
25.52±0.26
58.56±0.47
26.28±0.14
Appendix
Table 8: ViT-Tiny (CIFAR-native, patch-4), CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, AdamW warmup-cosine, mean ± std, 3 seeds.
Figure 11: Parameter-space distance between TG-IES’s actual trajectory and the shared-seed baseline reference vs. epoch, one curve per fixed K∗ , 3-seed mean. Left: absolute distance. Right: normalized by the baseline’s own parameter norm at that epoch.
Epoch
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Frac. >ε0
0.52
0.48
0.39
0.46
0.48
0.46
0.47
0.50
0.50
Appendix
Table 10: Reactivation probe, primary cell, 3-seed mean of frac_exceed_eps0 (fraction of a 300-instance random subsample of the passive set whose true gradient norm exceeds the run’s calibrated ε0 ) at each probed epoch.
Setting
Method
Seed
Acc. (%)
Saved (%)
ResNet-18/E
Baseline
0
94.96
0.03
ResNet-18/E
Baseline
1
95.18
0.03
ResNet-18/E
Baseline
2
94.95
0.03
ResNet-18/E
IES (shipped)
0
94.61
45.36
ResNet-18/E
IES (shipped)
1
94.74
46.09
ResNet-18/E
IES (shipped)
2
94.79
45.53
Appendix
Table 11: All 96 IES-family runs. E = SGD exponential LR, F = SGD fixed LR, C100 = CIFAR-100, ViT/C10 and ViT/C100 = ViT-Tiny on CIFAR-10/CIFAR-100. Color on TG-IES rows compares against the other methods for that same seed.
Binary neural networks are very attractive for constrained deployment, enabling small footprint and low-power inference. For binary activations, the dot products become sign-controlled additions or subtractions, but the number of operations is unchanged. Indeed, every neuron or output channel still accumulates all of its input, even though only the sign will be retained, which is often wasteful. As the accumulation progresses, the running partial sum frequently drifts so far from zero that its final sign becomes highly predictable long before the last term is reached; every contribution evaluated after that point changes the value of the sum but not the final output activation. This paper turns this observation into a post-training early-stopping mechanism. We characterize the behavior of the running accumulations on the training dataset and use this information to predict the final sign as soon as possible. No model parameter is retrained. We count the number of operations under an idealized ordering of weights. On VGG11 applied to the CIFAR-10 dataset, the method removes 86.6% of the accumulation terms of the deepest convolution for a 0.37-point accuracy drop, and 25% of the full-network arithmetic when used on the three deepest convolutions simultaneously, for a 1.36-point drop.
Quentin Luquet de Saint-Germain, Massil Ait Abdeslam, Jean Pierre David
Polytechnique Montréal, Department of Electrical Engineering Montréal, Canada
Gradient boosted decision trees require a stopping rule to avoid overfitting. The standard rule monitors a validation loss and stops if the loss fails to improve for a fixed patience period. However, the patience parameter has no interpretable scale and validation losses can be noisy or implicitly defined by a user-specified gradient. We propose ScoreStop, a gradient-based early-stopping rule that casts the stopping decision at each iteration as a test of the null hypothesis that the current predictor is the population risk minimizer. We use a functional score test, computed on validation data, with a statistic that is scale-invariant in the update direction, with a known asymptotic distribution under the null. Because our test uses gradients rather than loss values, the same construction applies to implicit losses such as LambdaRank, and data-dependent losses such as Cox regression via influence functions. In synthetic experiments and real-data benchmarks, we show that ScoreStop is competitive with loss-based methods.
Oliver J. Hines, Christian L. Hines
Columbia University, NY, USA · Alan Turing Institute, London, UK
Gradient-flow optimization is usually viewed as an algorithmic procedure for minimizing empirical loss, with training duration selected by validation or heuristic early stopping rules. We develop a statistical inference framework for gradient-flow training. We show that whenever fitted values evolve through a time-invariant positive semidefinite training operator, the output at each time is equivalent to the best linear unbiased predictor under a corresponding random-effects model. Training time then becomes a variance-component parameter governing variance reallocation from residual noise to structured signal. This turns two training decisions into inferential problems: whether training is needed becomes a variance-component test for signal beyond initialization, and how long to train becomes restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation of the training-time variance component. We show that the REML-guided early stopping rule selects the time at which optimized spectral losses become decorrelated from the training-operator eigenvalues. The asymptotic prediction optimality of the REML-guided early stopping time is established for fixed-design in-sample risk and random-design out-of-sample risk. Deep learning models in fixed-kernel gradient regimes provide canonical instantiations for our results. Numerical experiments and a UK Biobank proteomics application show competitive accuracy of the REML-guided early stopping time with reduced reliance on validation splits and repeated checkpoint evaluation.
Minhao Yao, Ruoyu Wang, Xihong Lin +2
Centre for Biomedical Data Science, Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore · Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA · Institute of Natural Sciences, MOE-LSC, School of Mathematical Sciences, CMA-Shanghai, SJTU-Yale2026 Joint Center of Biostatistics and Data Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University +1