arXiv subjects

Vishal Rajput

Publications and source records attributed to Vishal Rajput.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The Matching Principle: When Does a Training Penalty Cover Deployment Shift?

Ordinary training optimises the task loss and then stops. It never pays for internal representation energy: Jacobians can stay large in directions that never helped the label, so even small label-preserving noise throws the model off---a design gap that classical noise-injection theory fixes at second order, but only when applied as default regularisation, which current practice does not do. We make that precise with a Matching Principle: name deployment directions (Sigma_task) and the training penalty Sigma', and ask whether the second covers the first. The no-thinking default is even-spread / isotropic penalty (Sigma' proportional to I)---classical Gaussian / Tikhonov at second order: no axis estimate, no architecture change, and---in a simple linear ridge model---strictly less deployment drift than task-only training, with no coverage miss by construction. When axes are known, matching is sharper; when they are missed, a residual floor remains. Across seven domains a named second-moment penalty beats unregularised training; a controlled illustration recovers match > even-spread > wrong-axis when axes are forced. The ridge theorems are proved; deep nets remain experiments under a specified perturbation. Design rule: fix internal energy by default (even-spread); match when axes are known; treat losses that control representation sensitivity as first-class design.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Supervised Learning Has a Geometric Blind Spot

Ordinary supervised training minimises the task loss and then stops. It never pays for how far the representation moves when the input is nudged along directions that helped fit training labels---including directions that are nuisance at deployment. We call that leftover sensitivity the geometric blind spot of empirical risk minimisation. In a Gaussian linear model where the nuisance enters the label conditional and the decoder has finite Lipschitz constant, population MSE forces a floor on linearised representation drift. The same distinction predicts a failure mode of adversarial training: Jacobian magnitude can fall while clean class geometry worsens. We track that dissociation with a class-layout score and study isotropic encoder matching---penalising the squared distance between phi(x) and phi(x+delta) for Gaussian delta under a task-loss cap---when nuisance axes are unknown. On a Vision Transformer trained from scratch on CIFAR-10, projected gradient descent attains the smallest Jacobian Frobenius yet the worst clean layout score (1.353+/-0.020 over three seeds), above task-only training (1.093); isotropic matching attains the best (0.904). The drift floor is proved for the linear-Gaussian case; deep nets and cross-task orderings are protocol empirics. Design rule: report class-layout geometry beside the task score; prefer isotropic encoder matching when axes are unknown.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

Robustness of different loss functions and their impact on networks learning capability

Recent developments in AI have made it ubiquitous, every industry is trying to adopt some form of intelligent processing of their data. Despite so many advances in the field, AIs full capability is yet to be exploited by the industry. Industries that involve some risk factors still remain cautious about the usage of AI due to the lack of trust in such autonomous systems. Present-day AI might be very good in a lot of things but it is very bad in reasoning and this behavior of AI can lead to catastrophic results. Autonomous cars crashing into a person or a drone getting stuck in a tree are a few examples where AI decisions lead to catastrophic results. To develop insight and generate an explanation about the learning capability of AI, we will try to analyze the working of loss functions. For our case, we will use two sets of loss functions, generalized loss functions like Binary cross-entropy or BCE and specialized loss functions like Dice loss or focal loss. Through a series of experiments, we will establish whether combining different loss functions is better than using a single loss function and if yes, then what is the reason behind it. In order to establish the difference between generalized loss and specialized losses, we will train several models using the above-mentioned losses and then compare their robustness on adversarial examples. In particular, we will look at how fast the accuracy of different models decreases when we change the pixels corresponding to the most salient gradients.

cs.LG↗