Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key problem in the theory of meta-learning is to understand how the task distributions influence transfer risk, the expected error of a meta-learner on a new task drawn from the unknown task distribution. In this paper, focusing on fixed design linear regression with Gaussian noise and a Gaussian task (or parameter) distribution, we give distribution-dependent lower bounds on the transfer risk of any algorithm, while we also show that a novel, weighted version of the so-called biased regularized regression method is able to match these lower bounds up to a fixed constant factor. Notably, the weighting is derived from the covariance of the Gaussian task distribution. Altogether, our results provide a precise characterization of the difficulty of meta-learning in this Gaussian setting. While this problem setting may appear simple, we show that it is rich enough to unify the "parameter sharing" and "representation learning" streams of meta-learning; in particular, representation learning is obtained as the special case when the covariance matrix of the task distribution is unknown. For this case we propose to adopt the EM method, which is shown to enjoy efficient updates in our case. The paper is completed by an empirical study of EM. In particular, our experimental results show that the EM algorithm can attain the lower bound as the number of tasks grows, while the algorithm is also successful in competing with its alternatives when used in a representation learning context.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".