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. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Madhu Advani

dblp:191/6702 · also Madhu S. Advani · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
2as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 2 first-author · 1 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
4 papers
Learning theory · 35% Representation and self-supervised learning · 29% Deep learning architectures and training · 13%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Mathematical optimization · 100%

Topics — the 17 heaviest of 19, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Learning theory
implicit bias
0.812024
How JEPA Avoids Noisy Features: The Implicit Bias of Deep Linear Self Distillation Networks · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › unsupervised representation learning › self-supervised representation learning › predictive learning
joint-embedding predictive architecture
0.812024
How JEPA Avoids Noisy Features: The Implicit Bias of Deep Linear Self Distillation Networks · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression › knowledge distillation
self-distillation
0.812024
How JEPA Avoids Noisy Features: The Implicit Bias of Deep Linear Self Distillation Networks · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization
0.412019
Dynamics of stochastic gradient descent for two-layer neural networks in the teacher-student setup · NeurIPS 2019
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
overparameterized neural network
0.412019
Dynamics of stochastic gradient descent for two-layer neural networks in the teacher-student setup · NeurIPS 2019
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
stochastic gradient descent
0.412019
Dynamics of stochastic gradient descent for two-layer neural networks in the teacher-student setup · NeurIPS 2019
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
teacher-student framework
0.412019
Dynamics of stochastic gradient descent for two-layer neural networks in the teacher-student setup · NeurIPS 2019
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
information bottleneck
0.312018
On the Information Bottleneck Theory of Deep Learning · ICLR (Poster) 2018
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
information-theoretic representation learning
0.312018
On the Information Bottleneck Theory of Deep Learning · ICLR (Poster) 2018
Machine learning › Learning theory
neural network theory
0.312018
On the Information Bottleneck Theory of Deep Learning · ICLR (Poster) 2018
Machine learning › Learning theory
high-dimensional statistics
0.212016
An equivalence between high dimensional Bayes optimal inference and M-estimation · NIPS 2016
Machine learning › Learning theory › statistical estimation › decision-theoretic estimation
minimum mean square error
0.212016
An equivalence between high dimensional Bayes optimal inference and M-estimation · NIPS 2016
Mathematical optimization › continuous optimization
convex optimization
0.212016
An equivalence between high dimensional Bayes optimal inference and M-estimation · NIPS 2016
Mathematical optimization › statistical estimation
m-estimators
0.212016
An equivalence between high dimensional Bayes optimal inference and M-estimation · NIPS 2016
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › unsupervised representation learning › self-supervised representation learning
masked autoencoder
0.212024
How JEPA Avoids Noisy Features: The Implicit Bias of Deep Linear Self Distillation Networks · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference
bayesian inference
0.112016
An equivalence between high dimensional Bayes optimal inference and M-estimation · NIPS 2016
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference
MAP inference
0.112016
An equivalence between high dimensional Bayes optimal inference and M-estimation · NIPS 2016

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

deep linear network analysis · 0.8convex optimization · 0.5asymptotic analysis · 0.5teacher-student framework · 0.4differential equations · 0.4information theory · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 How JEPA Avoids Noisy Features: The Implicit Bias of Deep Linear Self Distillation Networks
abstract
Two competing paradigms exist for self-supervised learning of data representations. Joint Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPAs) is a class of architectures in which semantically similar inputs are encoded into representations that are predictive of each other. A recent successful approach that falls under the JEPA framework is self-distillation, where an online encoder is trained to predict the output of the target encoder, sometimes with a lightweight predictor network. This is contrasted with the Masked Auto Encoder (MAE) paradigm, where an encoder and decoder are trained to reconstruct missing parts of the input in ambient space rather than its latent representation. A common motivation for using the JEPA approach over MAE is that the JEPA objective prioritizes abstract features over fine-grained pixel information (which can be unpredictable and uninformative). In this work, we seek to understand the mechanism behind this empirical observation by analyzing deep linear models. We uncover a surprising mechanism: in a simplified linear setting where both approaches learn similar representations, JEPAs are biased to learn high influence features, or features characterized by having high regression coefficients. Our results point to a distinct implicit bias of predicting in latent space that may shed light on its success in practice.
Etai Littwin, Omid Saremi, Madhu Advani, Vimal Thilak, Preetum Nakkiran, Chen Huang 0001, Joshua M. Susskind
NeurIPS3
2020 High-dimensional dynamics of generalization error in neural networks
abstract
We perform an analysis of the average generalization dynamics of large neural networks trained using gradient descent. We study the practically-relevant "high-dimensional" regime where the number of free parameters in the network is on the order of or even larger than the number of examples in the dataset. Using random matrix theory and exact solutions in linear models, we derive the generalization error and training error dynamics of learning and analyze how they depend on the dimensionality of data and signal to noise ratio of the learning problem. We find that the dynamics of gradient descent learning naturally protect against overtraining and overfitting in large networks. Overtraining is worst at intermediate network sizes, when the effective number of free parameters equals the number of samples, and thus can be reduced by making a network smaller or larger. Additionally, in the high-dimensional regime, low generalization error requires starting with small initial weights. We then turn to non-linear neural networks, and show that making networks very large does not harm their generalization performance. On the contrary, it can in fact reduce overtraining, even without early stopping or regularization of any sort. We identify two novel phenomena underlying this behavior in overcomplete models: first, there is a frozen subspace of the weights in which no learning occurs under gradient descent; and second, the statistical properties of the high-dimensional regime yield better-conditioned input correlations which protect against overtraining. We demonstrate that standard application of theories such as Rademacher complexity are inaccurate in predicting the generalization performance of deep neural networks, and derive an alternative bound which incorporates the frozen subspace and conditioning effects and qualitatively matches the behavior observed in simulation.
Madhu Advani, Andrew M. Saxe, Haim Sompolinsky
Neural Networks1
2019 Dynamics of stochastic gradient descent for two-layer neural networks in the teacher-student setup
abstract
Deep neural networks achieve stellar generalisation even when they have enough parameters to easily fit all their training data. We study this phenomenon by analysing the dynamics and the performance of over-parameterised two-layer neural networks in the teacher-student setup, where one network, the student, is trained on data generated by another network, called the teacher. We show how the dynamics of stochastic gradient descent (SGD) is captured by a set of differential equations and prove that this description is asymptotically exact in the limit of large inputs. Using this framework, we calculate the final generalisation error of student networks that have more parameters than their teachers. We find that the final generalisation error of the student increases with network size when training only the first layer, but stays constant or even decreases with size when training both layers. We show that these different behaviours have their root in the different solutions SGD finds for different activation functions. Our results indicate that achieving good generalisation in neural networks goes beyond the properties of SGD alone and depends on the interplay of at least the algorithm, the model architecture, and the data set.
Sebastian Goldt, Madhu Advani, Andrew M. Saxe, Florent Krzakala, Lenka Zdeborová
NeurIPS2
2018 On the Information Bottleneck Theory of Deep Learning
Andrew M. Saxe, Yamini Bansal, Joel Dapello, Madhu Advani, Artemy Kolchinsky, Brendan D. Tracey, David D. Cox
ICLR (Poster)4
2016 An equivalence between high dimensional Bayes optimal inference and M-estimation
abstract
Due to the computational difficulty of performing MMSE (minimum mean squared error) inference, maximum a posteriori (MAP) is often used as a surrogate. However, the accuracy of MAP is suboptimal for high dimensional inference, where the number of model parameters is of the same order as the number of samples. In this work we demonstrate how MMSE performance is asymptotically achievable via optimization with an appropriately selected convex penalty and regularization function which are a smoothed version of the widely applied MAP algorithm. Our findings provide a new derivation and interpretation for recent optimal M-estimators discovered by El Karoui, et. al. PNAS 2013 as well as extending to non-additive noise models. We demonstrate the performance of these optimal M-estimators with numerical simulations. Overall, at the heart of our work is the revelation of a remarkable equivalence between two seemingly very different computational problems: namely that of high dimensional Bayesian integration, and high dimensional convex optimization. In essence we show that the former computationally difficult integral may be computed by solving the latter, simpler optimization problem.
Madhu Advani, Surya Ganguli
NIPS1