A Principled Approach for Learning Task Similarity in Multitask Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multitask learning aims at solving a set of related tasks simultaneously, by exploiting the shared knowledge for improving the performance on individual tasks. Hence, an important aspect of multitask learning is to understand the similarities within a set of tasks. Previous works have incorporated this similarity information explicitly (e.g., weighted loss for each task) or implicitly (e.g., adversarial loss for feature adaptation), for achieving good empirical performances. However, the theoretical motivations for adding task similarity knowledge are often missing or incomplete. In this paper, we give a different perspective from a theoretical point of view to understand this practice. We first provide an upper bound on the generalization error of multitask learning, showing the benefit of explicit and implicit task similarity knowledge. We systematically derive the bounds based on two distinct task similarity metrics: H divergence and Wasserstein distance. From these theoretical results, we revisit the Adversarial Multi-task Neural Network, proposing a new training algorithm to learn the task relation coefficients and neural network parameters iteratively. We assess our new algorithm empirically on several benchmarks, showing not only that we find interesting and robust task relations, but that the proposed approach outperforms the baselines, reaffirming the benefits of theoretical insight in algorithm design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".