Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Towards an Optimal Control Perspective of ResNet Training

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Training a ResNet with stage-cost penalties on intermediate outputs pushes the weights of unnecessary deeper residual layers toward zero, opening a theory-grounded route to layer pruning.

desk verdict Useful extension of optimal-control stage-cost training to standard ResNets; the vanishing/pruning claim outruns the theorems, but the construction and bounds are worth refereeing after scoping fixes. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21453 v1 pith:ERGUPP2K submitted 2025-06-26 cs.LG cs.SYeess.SYmath.OC

Jens Püttschneider , Simon Heilig , Asja Fischer , Timm Faulwasser This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.SYeess.SYmath.OC
keywords ResNetoptimalcontrolstagecostintermediateoutputslayerpruningself-regularizationskipconnectionstrainingdynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that treating ResNet training as an optimal control problem—adding a stage cost that penalizes prediction losses at intermediate hidden states—makes the network self-regularize in depth. The concrete claim is that under this scheme the weights of residual layers that are no longer needed tend to shrink toward zero, so the network itself signals where it could be pruned. The authors prove that the training objective of a deep stage-cost ResNet is bounded above by an objective built from a shallower SubResNet whose extra residual branches are zeroed, and they report experiments in which loss and accuracy stabilize after about 12 residual blocks. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a theory-grounded alternative to post-hoc structural pruning, if the vanishing-weight dynamics hold.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the intermediate output head $E_k(x_k,w_{E,k})=H(S_{N-1}(\cdots S_k(x_k,w_{S,k})\cdots),w_H)$, which reuses the network's own skip connections and output layer to turn every hidden state into a prediction. A SubResNet-$M$ is defined by sharing the first $M$ residual blocks and using the deeper skip connections plus output head as its output. The mechanism is the identity-mapping property: if residual branch weights $w_{F,k}=0$ for $k=M,\ldots,N-1$, then $\hat y^N=\hat y^N_k=\hat y^M$ for all $k\ge M$, so zeroing the residual branches of a deep network turns it into a shallow network whose predictions are replicated by all later intermediate outputs. That feasible zero-extension yields the upper bounds in Theorem 1 and Theorem 4, connecting the stage-cost objective of the deep network to the loss of a shallower SubResNet.

What would settle it

Train a homogeneous ResNet-54 with stage cost on CIFAR-10, record the norms $\|w_{F,k}\|$ of every residual branch after convergence, and prune all blocks after the depth at which the loss plateaus. If the deep residual-branch norms do not vanish relative to earlier blocks, or if pruning away the small-norm blocks costs substantially more accuracy than the reported gap to a SubResNet-12, the central vanishing-weight claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that adding a stage-cost term to ResNet training—penalizing the loss evaluated at intermediate outputs obtained by propagating each hidden state through the subsequent skip connections and the output layer—recasts training as an optimal control problem and, at least for sufficiently deep networks, biases the residual-branch weights of later layers to vanish. The formal anchor is a bound: for a deep ResNet-$N$ trained with stage cost, the optimal training objective $J_N(w^N)$ is at most $\bar J_N$, the objective of a feasible parameter setting built from a shallower SubResNet-$M$ whose residual branches after $M$ are zeroed, namely $\bar J_N = \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} [\gamma L(\hat y^M_k) + \frac{\lambda}{2}\|w^M_{F,k}\|^2] + (1+\gamma(N-M))\bar L$. Without weight decay the average of losses along intermediate outputs satisfies $L_{\mathrm{avg}} \le \bar L + \frac{C}{N+1}$, and if a SubResNet reaches zero loss this tightens to $\frac{C}{N+1}$. Empirically the authors report that on homogeneous ResNets the loss stabilizes after roughly 12 residual blocks and pruning the rest costs only a few accuracy points, while for standard ResNets with width changes the vanishing effect holds mainly within stages of equal width and pruning is harder.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the optimizer actually converges to a configuration close to the zeroed-residual-branch setting the bound constructs; if training settles at a different minimizer with nonzero deep-layer weights, the pruning conclusion does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any deep ResNet trained with the stage-cost objective is, at its optimum, no worse in training objective than the same network with residual branches after depth $M$ zeroed, so those layers are formally dispensable.
  • Without weight decay, the average loss over all intermediate outputs converges to the shallower SubResNet's output loss up to a $C/(N+1)$ term, so added depth beyond the useful range adds no loss asymptotically.
  • If the loss attains zero at some SubResNet, the average stage-cost loss decays as $C/(N+1)$, giving an explicit depth-sufficiency rate.
  • Homogeneous ResNets trained this way plateau around block 12, and pruning the remaining 42 blocks costs at most about 3.5 accuracy points on the tested benchmarks.
  • For standard ResNets, vanishing of deep residual weights is mostly confined to stages of equal width, so pruning across width-changing stage boundaries remains hard.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the vanishing-weight behavior is robust, depth could be chosen after training by thresholding residual-branch parameter norms rather than by fixing a depth in advance.
  • The same stage-cost construction should transfer to other residual architectures with skip connections, such as Transformers or U-Nets, though the SubResNet identity would need an adapted definition.
  • A direct test: monitor block-wise residual parameter norms during stage-cost training; the hypothesized self-regularization predicts they decay earlier than under standard training and that pruning by norm threshold matches pruning by accuracy plateau.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a stage-cost training objective for ResNets, where intermediate outputs are formed by propagating hidden states through the subsequent skip connections and the output head, and these intermediate losses are added to the terminal loss. It proves upper bounds comparing the optimal stage-cost objective of a deep ResNet-N with the objective of a shallower SubResNet-M (Theorems 1 and 4), reports loss and accuracy trajectories on MNIST, CIFAR-10, and CIFAR-100, and claims that stage-cost training biases the weights of unnecessary deep residual blocks to vanish, suggesting a theory-grounded layer pruning strategy.

Significance. The proof of the upper bounds in Theorems 1 and 4 is a valid feasibility argument and is a useful formal observation connecting stage-cost training to shallower SubResNets. The homogeneous-ResNet experiments, where pruning to 12 blocks costs less than one accuracy point on CIFAR-10, are clean and interesting. However, the central advertised claim that the training dynamic drives deep residual weights to vanish is not entailed by the theorems and is only empirically supported for homogeneous architectures. The paper therefore currently overstates its theoretical contribution; if the authors reframe the bounds as necessary but not sufficient for the pruning phenomenon, the work would be a solid empirical plus theoretical-bounds contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 1; Appendix B; Abstract] Theorem 1 (and its weight-decay-free counterpart, Theorem 4) only establishes that the optimal objective J_N(w*) is no larger than the objective of a feasible zero-tail configuration µw. Since the proof uses only feasibility of µw, it does not constrain the minimizer or the gradient trajectory: J_N(w*) ≤ J_N(µw) is compatible with ‖w*_{F,k}‖ being large for k ≥ M. The Abstract's claim that “our training dynamic biases the weights of the unnecessary deeper residual layers to vanish” therefore does not follow from the theorems. The explicit global-optimality assumption in Appendix B does not bridge this gap, because even a global minimizer may have large tail weights while satisfying the bound. This should be stated openly, and the Abstract and Section 1 should be revised so that the vanishing-weight behavior is presented as an empirical finding, not as a proven consequence of the stage-cost objective.
  2. [Theorem 4, Appendix B] Theorem 4 is stated for all γ > 0, but the proof uses the condition γ ≤ 1 without stating it. The step that passes from the terminal-loss form of J_N to the averaged form Σ_{k=0}^N γL(ŷ_k^N) requires L(ŷ_N^N) ≤ γL(ŷ_N^N), which holds only when γ ≤ 1. Consequently the stated bound (5) is not established for γ > 1. The theorem statement should either include the assumption γ ≤ 1 (which covers the experiments, where γ = 0.02) or provide a different argument. The constant C in (5) can also be negative for some parameter choices, so the claim that C < ∞ in the main text is weaker than what is needed for a meaningful upper bound.
  3. [Section 4; Table 1; Appendix A.2] The empirical support for the pruning claim is restricted to homogeneous ResNets. For the standard ResNet, Figure 4 shows that parameter norms do not vanish across stages, only within stages of equal width, and Table 1 shows that pruning the standard ResNet-54 to 12 blocks drops CIFAR-10 test accuracy from 92.91% to 78.64%. The text itself states that “it remains challenging to prune standard ResNets nearly lossless.” The Abstract and Introduction claim applicability to standard architectures and a general layer-pruning strategy; these claims are not supported by the experiments. The paper should qualify the pruning conclusion to homogeneous architectures, or add experiments or analysis showing that the standard-ResNet case can be handled.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B, proof of Theorem 1] The proof contains a range typo: “¯w^N_{F,k} = 0 for k = N, ..., M−1” should read k = M, ..., N−1.
  2. [Appendix B, proof of Theorem 4] The proof has two apparent typos: the first sum on the right-hand side of (6) should range over the ResNet-M trajectory, and “ŷ^M_N if k ≥ N” should be “ŷ^M_M if k ≥ M.”
  3. [Figures 4 and 5, Appendix A.2] The captions of Figures 4 and 5 refer to “dashed loss lines” and “solid lines,” but the panels show residual-difference norms and parameter norms, not losses; the captions should be corrected to describe the displayed quantities.
  4. [Section 4 and Table 3] There is a typo “near near optimal” and the heading of Table 3 reads “Bound 1 Theorem 1)” with a missing opening parenthesis.
  5. [Definition 1] Definition 1 should emphasize that the SubResNet-M output head includes the skip-connection parameters w_{S,M},...,w_{S,N-1} and the terminal head w_H of the deeper network, so the SubResNet is not simply the first M blocks of ResNet-N. This point is central to the identity-mapping lemmas and should be stated more prominently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation in the main bound; Theorem 1 is a standard feasible-point upper bound. The vanishing-weight conclusion rests on experiments, and the only self-citation is motivational, not load-bearing.

full rationale

Theorem 1 (Appendix B) proves J_N(w^*) <= J_N(bar w) by exhibiting a feasible parameter assignment with w_F,k = 0 for k >= M and first-M parameters equal to an independently trained SubResNet-M. This is a standard optimality argument: the optimum is no worse than any feasible point. The bound therefore does not assume the conclusion that the optimizer drives deep residual weights to zero; that conclusion is supported empirically in Appendix A.2, and the paper itself notes it is clean mainly for homogeneous architectures, which is a scope limitation rather than circularity. Reference [12] is a self-citation used to motivate the stage-cost/turnpike background, but it is not invoked in the proof of Theorem 1 or Theorem 4, so it is not load-bearing. The abstract's phrasing that the training dynamic biases weights to vanish is an inference beyond the theorem, but that is a correctness or overclaim concern, not a circular one.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central proof rests on standard feasible-point comparison and on domain assumptions: nonnegative losses with gamma in (0,1] for Theorem 4, and global optimality of training. The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. The stage-cost weight gamma and the weight-decay lambda are chosen hyperparameters, not fitted to make the bound hold.

free parameters (3)
  • gamma (stage cost weight) = 0.02
    Constant chosen for all experiments; appears linearly in J_N and in the bound; no fitting procedure is described.
  • lambda (weight decay coefficient) = not stated for main experiments; lambda = 1e-4 used for Bound 2 evaluation
    The training objective includes lambda/2 ||w||^2; the main text omits its value, so the exact training setup is under-specified.
  • effective learning rate factor alpha/gamma for intermediate heads = alpha/gamma with alpha = 0.1, gamma = 0.02
    Used only for the variant with additional intermediate-output parameters; the schedule is standard from [5].
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Loss functions are nonnegative and gamma <= 1, needed for Theorem 4's inequality sum gamma L <= J and division by gamma(N+1).
    The theorem states only gamma > 0, but the proof uses gamma <= 1; cross-entropy and L2 satisfy nonnegativity.
  • domain assumption The empirical training reaches a global optimum of the stage-cost objective.
    Stated in Appendix B: bounds require the empirical loss to be optimized to global optimality; not guaranteed for deep networks.
  • standard math ResNet forward propagation is treated as an Euler discretization of a neural ODE, so optimal control concepts apply.
    Background from the neural ODE literature; motivates the stage cost but is not strictly needed for the inequality bounds.
  • domain assumption The output head derived from the backbone's later skip connections and output layer is a meaningful intermediate predictor.
    If these projected heads were poor predictors, the stage cost would not reflect useful learning; the empirical results partially validate this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards an Optimal Control Perspective of ResNet Training." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ERGUPP2K

@misc{pith2026250621453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards an Optimal Control Perspective of ResNet Training},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ERGUPP2K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21453}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a training formulation for ResNets reflecting an optimal control problem that is applicable for standard architectures and general loss functions. We suggest bridging both worlds via penalizing intermediate outputs of hidden states corresponding to stage cost terms in optimal control. For standard ResNets, we obtain intermediate outputs by propagating the state through the subsequent skip connections and the output layer. We demonstrate that our training dynamic biases the weights of the unnecessary deeper residual layers to vanish. This indicates the potential for a theory-grounded layer pruning strategy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21453 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of a ResNet-v2 architecture while training with our proposed stage cost regu￾larizer penalizing intermediate outputs. We propose to forward the hidden states through the network’s non-trivial skip connections to account for dimensionality projections. space-time neural network, an optimal control perspective to real-world architectures remains an open problem. Moreover, existing results on stage cost fo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Loss and accuracy trajectories for the standard ResNets trained on CIFAR-10 with the stage cost loss and their SubResNets of varying depth. The dashed loss lines are the training losses, and the solid lines are the test losses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. In this homogeneous architecture, convergence is stronger compared to the standard ResNet. After approximately 12 residual blocks, the loss and accuracy trajectories stabilize, and no further improvement is observed. This suggests that the remaining residual blocks can be pruned without significant performance loss. The resulting SubResNet-12 achieves a test accuracy of 91.26%, compared to the 91.64% of the full Res… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Output residual norms and parameter norm residual trajectories for the standard ResNets trained on CIFAR-10 with the stage cost loss and their SubResNets of varying depth. The dashed loss lines represent are the training losses and the solid lines are the test losses. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Output residual norms and parameter norm residual trajectories for the homogeneous ResNets trained on CIFAR-10 with the stage cost loss and their SubResNets of varying depth. The dashed loss lines represent are the training losses and the solid lines are the test losse…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Exact ensemble controllability for neural differential equations via neural interpolation

    math.OC 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Exact ensemble controllability of neural ODEs is achieved constructively by solving a linear interpolation system with tanh-based localized kernels, for depth-two networks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Reversible architectures for arbitrarily deep residual neural networks

    Bo Chang, Lili Meng, Eldad Haber, Lars Ruthotto, David Begert, and Elliot Holtham. Reversible architectures for arbitrarily deep residual neural networks. InThe 32th Annual AAAI Conference on Artificial Antelligence, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Sparsity in long-time control of neural odes

    Carlos Esteve and Borjan Geshkovski. Sparsity in long-time control of neural odes. Systems & Control Letters, 172:105452, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Large-time asymptotics in deep learning

    Carlos Esteve, Borjan Geshkovski, Dario Pighin, and Enrique Zuazua. Large-time asymptotics in deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.02491, 2020

    arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    On the turnpike to design of deep neural networks: Explicit depth bounds

    Timm Faulwasser, Arne-Jens Hempel, and Stefan Streif. On the turnpike to design of deep neural networks: Explicit depth bounds. IFAC Journal of Systems and Control, 30:100290, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Identity mappings in deep residual networks

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Identity mappings in deep residual networks. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016

    2016

  7. [7]

    Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images

    Alex Krizhevsky. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. Technical report, 2009. Technical Report

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Lecun, L

    Y . Lecun, L. Bottou, Y . Bengio, and P. Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278–2324, 1998. doi: 10.1109/5.726791

    doi:10.1109/5.726791 1998

Show all 15 references
  1. [9]

    Deeply- Supervised Nets

    Chen-Yu Lee, Saining Xie, Patrick Gallagher, Zhengyou Zhang, and Zhuowen Tu. Deeply- Supervised Nets. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), 2015. 6 TOWARDS AN OPTIMAL CONTROL PERSPECTIVE OF RESNET TRAINING

    2015

  2. [10]

    Split computing and early exiting for deep learning applications: Survey and research challenges

    Yoshitomo Matsubara, Marco Levorato, and Francesco Restuccia. Split computing and early exiting for deep learning applications: Survey and research challenges. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(5), December 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    How deep do we need: Accelerating training and inference of neural ODEs via control perspective

    Keyan Miao and Konstantinos Gatsis. How deep do we need: Accelerating training and inference of neural ODEs via control perspective. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    On dissipativity of cross-entropy loss in training resnets

    Jens Püttschneider and Timm Faulwasser. On dissipativity of cross-entropy loss in training resnets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19013, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Pacheco, and Rodrigo S

    Haseena Rahmath P, Vishal Srivastava, Kuldeep Chaurasia, Roberto G. Pacheco, and Rodrigo S. Couto. Early-exit deep neural network - a comprehensive survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 57 (3), November 2024. Appendix A. Experimental Supplements A.1. Setup The experimental setup is b...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Hence, the ResNet-54 in this paper corresponds to the ResNet-110 in [ 5]

    defines the depth of a ResNet as the total number of layers, including convolutional and fully connected layers. Hence, the ResNet-54 in this paper corresponds to the ResNet-110 in [ 5]. The standard ResNet architecture consists of an input embedding with of a 3x3 convolution ...

  7. [15]

    10 TOWARDS AN OPTIMAL CONTROL PERSPECTIVE OF RESNET TRAINING for all k = 0, ..., N

    For simplicity, we refer to the network architecture for M = 0, which only consists of the input stem and the output layer, as a ResNet, despite its lack of skip connections. 10 TOWARDS AN OPTIMAL CONTROL PERSPECTIVE OF RESNET TRAINING for all k = 0, ..., N. The feasible param...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.