Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
139 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

TaskMet: Task-Driven Metric Learning for Model Learning (2312.05250v2)

Published 8 Dec 2023 in cs.LG, cs.AI, math.OC, and stat.ML

Abstract: Deep learning models are often deployed in downstream tasks that the training procedure may not be aware of. For example, models solely trained to achieve accurate predictions may struggle to perform well on downstream tasks because seemingly small prediction errors may incur drastic task errors. The standard end-to-end learning approach is to make the task loss differentiable or to introduce a differentiable surrogate that the model can be trained on. In these settings, the task loss needs to be carefully balanced with the prediction loss because they may have conflicting objectives. We propose take the task loss signal one level deeper than the parameters of the model and use it to learn the parameters of the loss function the model is trained on, which can be done by learning a metric in the prediction space. This approach does not alter the optimal prediction model itself, but rather changes the model learning to emphasize the information important for the downstream task. This enables us to achieve the best of both worlds: a prediction model trained in the original prediction space while also being valuable for the desired downstream task. We validate our approach through experiments conducted in two main settings: 1) decision-focused model learning scenarios involving portfolio optimization and budget allocation, and 2) reinforcement learning in noisy environments with distracting states. The source code to reproduce our experiments is available at https://github.com/facebookresearch/taskmet

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (49)
  1. Differentiable convex optimization layers. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019.
  2. Differentiable mpc for end-to-end planning and control. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018.
  3. Anonymous. Predict-then-optimize via learning to optimize from features. In Submitted to The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=jvOvJ3XSjK. under review.
  4. Goal-driven dynamics learning via bayesian optimization. In 2017 IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 5168–5173. IEEE, 2017.
  5. Yoshua Bengio. Using a financial training criterion rather than a prediction criterion. International journal of neural systems, 8(04):433–443, 1997.
  6. Differentiable gaussian process motion planning. In 2020 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 10598–10604. IEEE, 2020.
  7. Efficient and modular implicit differentiation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:5230–5242, 2022.
  8. Decision-aware learning for optimizing health supply chains. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.08507, 2022.
  9. Ulisse Dini. Analisi infinitesimale. Lithografia Gorani, 1878.
  10. Implicit functions and solution mappings, volume 543. Springer, 2009.
  11. Task-based end-to-end model learning in stochastic optimization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.
  12. Generalization bounds in the predict-then-optimize framework. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019.
  13. Smart “predict, then optimize”. Management Science, 68(1):9–26, 2022.
  14. Amir-massoud Farahmand. Iterative value-aware model learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018.
  15. Value-aware loss function for model-based reinforcement learning. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 1486–1494. PMLR, 2017.
  16. Surco: Learning linear surrogates for combinatorial nonlinear optimization problems. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10034–10052. PMLR, 2023.
  17. Dynamically weighted balanced loss: class imbalanced learning and confidence calibration of deep neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 33(7):2940–2951, 2021.
  18. Popcorn: Partially observed prediction constrained reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04032, 2020.
  19. Rishabh Gupta and Qi Zhang. Data-driven decision-focused surrogate modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12161, 2023.
  20. Dream to control: Learning behaviors by latent imagination. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01603, 2019a.
  21. Learning latent dynamics for planning from pixels. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2555–2565. PMLR, 2019b.
  22. Temporal difference learning for model predictive control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.04955, 2022.
  23. Discriminant adaptive nearest neighbor classification and regression. Advances in neural information processing systems, 8, 1995.
  24. A geometric take on metric learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 25, 2012.
  25. Few-shot object detection via feature reweighting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 8420–8429, 2019.
  26. Deep metric learning: A survey. Symmetry, 11(9):1066, 2019.
  27. Brian Kulis et al. Metric learning: A survey. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 5(4):287–364, 2013.
  28. Objective mismatch in model-based reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.04523, 2020.
  29. Active learning in the predict-then-optimize framework: A margin-based approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06584, 2023.
  30. Optimizing millions of hyperparameters by implicit differentiation. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 1540–1552. PMLR, 2020.
  31. Smart predict-and-optimize for hard combinatorial optimization problems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 1603–1610, 2020.
  32. Mean-variance analysis in portfolio choice and capital markets, volume 66. John Wiley & Sons, 2000.
  33. Richard O Michaud. The markowitz optimization enigma: Is ‘optimized’optimal? Financial analysts journal, 45(1):31–42, 1989.
  34. Control-oriented model-based reinforcement learning with implicit differentiation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 7886–7894, 2022.
  35. Resolving class imbalance in object detection with weighted cross entropy losses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.01413, 2020.
  36. Tuning computer vision models with task rewards. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08242, 2023.
  37. A survey of contextual optimization methods for decision making under uncertainty, 2023.
  38. Decision-focused learning without decision-making: Learning locally optimized decision losses. In Alice H. Oh, Alekh Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, and Kyunghyun Cho, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=eN2lQxjWL05.
  39. Leaving the nest: Going beyond local loss functions for predict-then-optimize. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16830, 2023.
  40. Decision-oriented learning with differentiable submodular maximization for vehicle routing problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01543, 2023.
  41. Value gradient weighted model-based reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01464, 2022.
  42. End-to-end learning with multiple modalities for system-optimised renewables nowcasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07151, 2023.
  43. Decision-focused learning in restless multi-armed bandits with application to maternal and child care domain. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00916, 2022.
  44. Metric learning for kernel regression. In Artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 612–619. PMLR, 2007.
  45. Melding the data-decisions pipeline: Decision-focused learning for combinatorial optimization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 1658–1665, 2019.
  46. Fixes that fail: Self-defeating improvements in machine-learning systems. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:11745–11756, 2021.
  47. Differentiable top-k with optimal transport. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:20520–20531, 2020.
  48. Distance metric learning: A comprehensive survey. Michigan State Universiy, 2(2):4, 2006.
  49. Landscape surrogate: Learning decision losses for mathematical optimization under partial information. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08964, 2023.
Citations (7)

Summary

  • The paper introduces TaskMet, a novel approach that embeds task information into the loss function to guide model training.
  • It utilizes metric learning to focus on data aspects critical for downstream tasks, balancing prediction accuracy with task performance.
  • Experimental validation in decision-focused and reinforcement learning setups demonstrates TaskMet's robust ability to reduce discrepancy in task relevance.

Introduction

Machine learning models are conventionally trained to maximize accuracy on a given prediction task. While these models may excel at approximating underlying functions, they often falter when employed in subsequent tasks. This may occur if the model's training does not emphasize the specific sections of data critical for those tasks. A prevailing approach to resolve this issue involves end-to-end learning that employs task-specific losses either by making them differentiable or replacing them with surrogate functions. However, this often requires a delicate balance between focusing on the prediction accuracy and the task performance, with a distinct concern being the overfitting to specific tasks, potentially undermining the model's generalization capabilities.

Metric Learning in Model Training

The paper presents an alternative strategy that embeds the task information into a learned metric without altering the optimal prediction model. By altering the model's loss function through metric learning, the model retains its predictive power while adapting to the utility of downstream tasks. The metric effectively serves as a lens focusing the model training on aspects important for performing the task at hand. This method, which the authors call TaskMet, guides the learning process by emphasizing the significance of certain predictions over others based on their impact on task performance.

Validation through Experiments

TaskMet's effectiveness is demonstrated through two main sets of experiments: decision-focused model learning settings, involving portfolio optimization and budget allocation tasks; and reinforcement learning scenarios with distracting or noisy environments. These experiments establish that TaskMet can discern essential data features and prioritize them accordingly, leading to better performance on downstream tasks compared to traditional methods. In particular, TaskMet shows gains in reducing the discrepancy between what the prediction model deems important and what actually matters for the task.

Conclusion

The paper concludes that TaskMet is a robust method for task-based learning, offering both interpretability and improved performance. It allows for training that is task-informed without the direct interference of task-based losses in model parameter updates. TaskMet stands out as it consistently achieves a high balance of prediction accuracy and task performance across a range of settings without requiring intensive tuning. There is potential for further exploration, particularly in extending this learning approach to multiple task losses or for long-horizon planning tasks in reinforcement learning. However, stability in learning the metric and careful hyper-parameter tuning are highlighted as important considerations for successful implementation.

Github Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com