Researcher profile

Shira Kritchman

Shira Kritchman contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - Baseline
2works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Frequency Bias in Neural Networks for Input of Non-Uniform Density

Recent works have partly attributed the generalization ability of over-parameterized neural networks to frequency bias -- networks trained with gradient descent on data drawn from a uniform distribution find a low frequency fit before high frequency ones. As realistic training sets are not drawn from a uniform distribution, we here use the Neural Tangent Kernel (NTK) model to explore the effect of variable density on training dynamics. Our results, which combine analytic and empirical observations, show that when learning a pure harmonic function of frequency $κ$, convergence at a point $\x \in \Sphere^{d-1}$ occurs in time $O(κ^d/p(\x))$ where $p(\x)$ denotes the local density at $\x$. Specifically, for data in $\Sphere^1$ we analytically derive the eigenfunctions of the kernel associated with the NTK for two-layer networks. We further prove convergence results for deep, fully connected networks with respect to the spectral decomposition of the NTK. Our empirical study highlights similarities and differences between deep and shallow networks in this model.

preprint2010arXiv

The Surprise Examination Paradox and the Second Incompleteness Theorem

We give a new proof for Godel's second incompleteness theorem, based on Kolmogorov complexity, Chaitin's incompleteness theorem, and an argument that resembles the surprise examination paradox. We then go the other way around and suggest that the second incompleteness theorem gives a possible resolution of the surprise examination paradox. Roughly speaking, we argue that the flaw in the derivation of the paradox is that it contains a hidden assumption that one can prove the consistency of the mathematical theory in which the derivation is done; which is impossible by the second incompleteness theorem.