MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416284722 · doi:10.1109/iccv51701.2025.00277

Resolving Token-Space Gradient Conflicts: Token Space Manipulation for Transformer-Based Multi-Task Learning

2025· article· en· W4416284722 on OpenAlexaff
Wooseong Jeong, Kuk‐Jin Yoon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersDefense Acquisition Program Administration
KeywordsOverfittingSecurity tokenScalabilityAdaptabilityTask (project management)Adaptation (eye)Limit (mathematics)Gradient descentArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-Task Learning (MTL) enables multiple tasks to be learned within a shared network, but differences in objectives across tasks can cause negative transfer, where the learning of one task degrades another task's performance. While pre-trained transformers significantly improve MTL performance, their fixed network capacity and rigid structure limit adaptability. Previous dynamic network architectures attempt to address this but are inefficient as they directly convert shared parameters into task-specific ones. We propose Dynamic Token Modulation and Expansion (DTME-MTL), a framework applicable to any transformer-based MTL architecture. DTME-MTL enhances adaptability and reduces overfitting by identifying gradient conflicts in token space and applying adaptive solutions based on conflict type. Unlike prior methods that mitigate negative transfer by duplicating network parameters, DTME-MTL operates entirely in token space, enabling efficient adaptation without excessive parameter growth. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DTME-MTL consistently improves multi-task performance with minimal computational overhead, offering a scalable and effective solution for enhancing transformer-based MTL models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningFrench-language works237,207