Minimax and Neyman–Pearson Meta-Learning for Outlier Languages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Model-agnostic meta-learning (MAML) has been recently put forth as a strategy to learn resource-poor languages in a sample-efficient fashion. Nevertheless, the properties of these languages are often not well represented by those available during training. Hence, we argue that the i.i.d. assumption ingrained in MAML makes it ill-suited for cross-lingual NLP. In fact, under a decision-theoretic framework, MAML can be interpreted as minimising the expected risk across training languages (with a uniform prior), which is known as Bayes criterion. To increase its robustness to outlier languages, we create two variants of MAML based on alternative criteria: Minimax MAML reduces the maximum risk across languages, while Neyman–Pearson MAML constrains the risk in each language to a maximum threshold. Both criteria constitute fully differentiable two-player games. In light of this, we propose a new adaptive optimiser solving for a local approximation to their Nash equilibrium. We evaluate both model variants on two popular NLP tasks, part-of-speech tagging and question answering. We report gains for their average and minimum performance across low-resource languages in zero- and few-shot settings, compared to joint multi-source transfer and vanilla MAML. The code for our experiments is available at https://github.com/rahular/robust-maml
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".