What fraction of retraining data is needed before geometry-specific fine-tuning introduces overfitting artifacts?

Your question asks about a threshold phenomenon in machine learning—specifically, when does fine-tuning on geometry-specific data start to hurt rather than help? The provided preprints don't directly address that overfitting boundary.

However, the archive *does* contain relevant empirical guidance on data efficiency in geometry transfer learning. In cross-detector fine-tuning studies, researchers found that [AG-2025.11-1571] achieved strong results with only 100 target-domain samples using parameter-efficient adaptation (updating just 17% of parameters), while [AG-2025.02-1472] showed that fine-tuning on 100,000 events from a new detector geometry matched the performance of training from scratch on 1 million events—a 10-fold data reduction. Both cases suggest that overfitting risk remains manageable when fine-tuning is done carefully.

The broader picture from [AG-2025.04-1127] is illuminating: deep learning exhibits a two-phase dynamic where rapid fitting (prone to overfitting) is followed by a slower "compression" phase that drives generalization. The implication is that overfitting artifacts may appear early in geometry-specific fine-tuning but can be mitigated by letting training progress longer, or by using parameter-efficient methods that constrain the model's adaptability.

A concrete answer to your precise question—the exact fraction of retraining data at which overfitting begins—is not available in these preprints; they report success cases rather than failure boundaries.