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

Paymon Haddad

dblp:376/2061 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as 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 · 1 · 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
1 paper
Learning theory · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization
0.812024
Changing the Training Data Distribution to Reduce Simplicity Bias Improves In-distribution Generalization · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Learning theory › inductive bias
simplicity bias
0.812024
Changing the Training Data Distribution to Reduce Simplicity Bias Improves In-distribution Generalization · NeurIPS 2024

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

upsampling · 0.8sharpness-aware minimization · 0.8gradient descent · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
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
NeurIPS2