Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data.

Erin George

dblp:310/1223 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Learning theory · 80% Deep learning architectures and training · 15% Optimization for machine learning · 5%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Learning theory › overfitting
benign overfitting
1.422024
Benign overfitting in leaky ReLU networks with moderate input dimension · NeurIPS 2024
Training shallow ReLU networks on noisy data using hinge loss: when do we overfit and is it benign? · NeurIPS 2023
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization bounds
0.812024
Benign overfitting in leaky ReLU networks with moderate input dimension · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Learning theory
margin maximization
0.812024
Benign overfitting in leaky ReLU networks with moderate input dimension · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization
0.712023
Training shallow ReLU networks on noisy data using hinge loss: when do we overfit and is it benign? · NeurIPS 2023
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
ReLU networks
0.712023
Training shallow ReLU networks on noisy data using hinge loss: when do we overfit and is it benign? · NeurIPS 2023
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › gradient-based optimization
gradient descent
0.212024
Benign overfitting in leaky ReLU networks with moderate input dimension · NeurIPS 2024

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

hinge loss · 1.4gradient descent · 1.4signal-to-noise ratio analysis · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Benign overfitting in leaky ReLU networks with moderate input dimension
abstract
The problem of benign overfitting asks whether it is possible for a model to perfectly fit noisy training data and still generalize well. We study benign overfitting in two-layer leaky ReLU networks trained with the hinge loss on a binary classification task. We consider input data which can be decomposed into the sum of a common signal and a random noise component, which lie on subspaces orthogonal to one another. We characterize conditions on the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the model parameters giving rise to benign versus non-benign, or harmful, overfitting: in particular, if the SNR is high then benign overfitting occurs, conversely if the SNR is low then harmful overfitting occurs. We attribute both benign and non-benign overfitting to an approximate margin maximization property and show that leaky ReLU networks trained on hinge loss with gradient descent (GD) satisfy this property. In contrast to prior work we do not require the training data to be nearly orthogonal. Notably, for input dimension $d$ and training sample size $n$, while results in prior work require $d = \Omega(n^2 \log n)$, here we require only $d = \Omega(n)$.
Kedar Karhadkar, Erin George, Michael Murray, Guido Montúfar, Deanna Needell
NeurIPS2
2023 Training shallow ReLU networks on noisy data using hinge loss: when do we overfit and is it benign?
abstract
We study benign overfitting in two-layer ReLU networks trained using gradient descent and hinge loss on noisy data for binary classification. In particular, we consider linearly separable data for which a relatively small proportion of labels are corrupted or flipped. We identify conditions on the margin of the clean data that give rise to three distinct training outcomes: benign overfitting, in which zero loss is achieved and with high probability test data is classified correctly; overfitting, in which zero loss is achieved but test data is misclassified with probability lower bounded by a constant; and non-overfitting, in which clean points, but not corrupt points, achieve zero loss and again with high probability test data is classified correctly. Our analysis provides a fine-grained description of the dynamics of neurons throughout training and reveals two distinct phases: in the first phase clean points achieve close to zero loss, in the second phase clean points oscillate on the boundary of zero loss while corrupt points either converge towards zero loss or are eventually zeroed by the network. We prove these results using a combinatorial approach that involves bounding the number of clean versus corrupt updates during these phases of training.
Erin George, Michael Murray, William Swartworth, Deanna Needell
NeurIPS1