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.

Eric Gan

dblp:347/3322 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
0as first author
4since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 4 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
3 papers
Representation and self-supervised learning · 59% Learning theory · 38% Trustworthy machine learning · 3%

Topics — the 9 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
contrastive learning
1.422024
Investigating the Benefits of Projection Head for Representation Learning · ICLR 2024
Which Features are Learnt by Contrastive Learning? On the Role of Simplicity Bias in Class Collapse and Feature Suppression · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Learning theory › inductive bias
simplicity bias
1.422024
Changing the Training Data Distribution to Reduce Simplicity Bias Improves In-distribution Generalization · NeurIPS 2024
Which Features are Learnt by Contrastive Learning? On the Role of Simplicity Bias in Class Collapse and Feature Suppression · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization
0.812024
Changing the Training Data Distribution to Reduce Simplicity Bias Improves In-distribution Generalization · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › contrastive learning
projection head
0.812024
Investigating the Benefits of Projection Head for Representation Learning · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation analysis
representation learning theory
0.812024
Investigating the Benefits of Projection Head for Representation Learning · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › unsupervised representation learning
self-supervised representation learning
0.812024
Investigating the Benefits of Projection Head for Representation Learning · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › contrastive learning
feature suppression
0.712023
Which Features are Learnt by Contrastive Learning? On the Role of Simplicity Bias in Class Collapse and Feature Suppression · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Learning theory › implicit bias
implicit bias of gradient descent
0.712023
Which Features are Learnt by Contrastive Learning? On the Role of Simplicity Bias in Class Collapse and Feature Suppression · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness
0.212024
Investigating the Benefits of Projection Head for Representation Learning · ICLR 2024

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

upsampling · 0.8sharpness-aware minimization · 0.8layer-wise feature weighting analysis · 0.8gradient descent · 0.8contrastive loss · 0.8theoretical analysis · 0.7stochastic gradient descent · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Identifying Spurious Biases Early in Training through the Lens of Simplicity Bias
abstract
Neural networks trained with (stochastic) gradient descent have an inductive bias towards learning simpler solutions. This makes them highly prone to learning spurious correlations in the training data, that may not hold at test time. In this work, we provide the first theoretical analysis of the effect of simplicity bias on learning spurious correlations. Notably, we show that examples with spurious features are provably separable based on the model’s output early in training. We further illustrate that if spurious features have a small enough noise-to-signal ratio, the network’s output on majority of examples is almost exclusively determined by the spurious features, leading to poor worst-group test accuracy. Finally, we propose SPARE, which identifies spurious correlations early in training, and utilizes importance sampling to alleviate their effect. Empirically, we demonstrate that SPARE outperforms state-of-the-art methods by up to 21.1% in worst-group accuracy, while being up to 12x faster. We also show the applicability of SPARE, as a highly effective but lightweight method, to discover spurious correlations.
Yu Yang 0007, Eric Gan, Gintare Karolina Dziugaite, Baharan Mirzasoleiman
AISTATS2
2024 Investigating the Benefits of Projection Head for Representation Learning
abstract
An effective technique for obtaining high-quality representations is adding a projection head on top of the encoder during training, then discarding it and using the pre-projection representations. Despite its proven practical effectiveness, the reason behind the success of this technique is poorly understood. The pre-projection representations are not directly optimized by the loss function, raising the question: what makes them better? In this work, we provide a rigorous theoretical answer to this question. We start by examining linear models trained with self-supervised contrastive loss. We reveal that the implicit bias of training algorithms leads to layer-wise progressive feature weighting, where features become increasingly unequal as we go deeper into the layers. Consequently, lower layers tend to have more normalized and less specialized representations. We theoretically characterize scenarios where such representations are more beneficial, highlighting the intricate interplay between data augmentation and input features. Additionally, we demonstrate that introducing non-linearity into the network allows lower layers to learn features that are completely absent in higher layers. Finally, we show how this mechanism improves the robustness in supervised contrastive learning and supervised learning. We empirically validate our results through various experiments on CIFAR-10/100, UrbanCars and shifted versions of ImageNet. We also introduce a potential alternative to projection head, which offers a more interpretable and controllable design.
Yihao Xue, Eric Gan, Jiayi Ni, Siddharth Joshi 0004, Baharan Mirzasoleiman
ICLR2
2024 Changing the Training Data Distribution to Reduce Simplicity Bias Improves In-distribution Generalization
abstract
Can we modify the training data distribution to encourage the underlying optimization method toward finding solutions with superior generalization performance on in-distribution data? In this work, we approach this question for the first time by comparing the inductive bias of gradient descent (GD) with that of sharpness-aware minimization (SAM). By studying a two-layer CNN, we rigorously prove that SAM learns different features more uniformly, particularly in early epochs. That is, SAM is less susceptible to simplicity bias compared to GD. We also show that examples constraining features that are learned early are separable from the rest based on the model’s output. Based on this observation, we propose a method that (i) clusters examples based on the network output early in training, (ii) identifies a cluster of examples with similar network output, and (iii) upsamples the rest of examples only once to alleviate the simplicity bias. We show empirically that USEFUL effectively improves the generalization performance on the original data distribution when training with various gradient methods, including (S)GD and SAM. Notably, we demonstrate that our method can be combined with SAM variants and existing data augmentation strategies to achieve, to the best of our knowledge, state-of-the-art performance for training ResNet18 on CIFAR10, STL10, CINIC10, Tiny-ImageNet; ResNet34 on CIFAR100; and VGG19 and DenseNet121 on CIFAR10.
Paymon Haddad, Eric Gan, Baharan Mirzasoleiman
NeurIPS3
2023 Which Features are Learnt by Contrastive Learning? On the Role of Simplicity Bias in Class Collapse and Feature Suppression
abstract
Contrastive learning (CL) has emerged as a powerful technique for representation learning, with or without label supervision. However, supervised CL is prone to collapsing representations of subclasses within a class by not capturing all their features, and unsupervised CL may suppress harder class-relevant features by focusing on learning easy class-irrelevant features; both significantly compromise representation quality. Yet, there is no theoretical understanding of class collapse or feature suppression at test time. We provide the first unified theoretically rigorous framework to determine which features are learnt by CL. Our analysis indicate that, perhaps surprisingly, bias of (stochastic) gradient descent towards finding simpler solutions is a key factor in collapsing subclass representations and suppressing harder class-relevant features. Moreover, we present increasing embedding dimensionality and improving the quality of data augmentations as two theoretically motivated solutions to feature suppression. We also provide the first theoretical explanation for why employing supervised and unsupervised CL together yields higher-quality representations, even when using commonly-used stochastic gradient methods.
Yihao Xue, Siddharth Joshi 0004, Eric Gan, Baharan Mirzasoleiman
ICML3