Learning the Pareto Front with Hypernetworks
Abstract: Multi objective optimization problems are prevalent in machine learning. These problems have a set of optimal solutions, called the Pareto front, where each point on the front represents a different trade-off between possibly conflicting objectives. Recent optimization algorithms can target a specific desired ray in loss space, but still face two grave limitations: (i) A separate model has to be learned for each point on the front; and (ii) The exact trade-off must be known prior to the optimization process. Here, we tackle the problem of learning the entire Pareto front, with the capability of selecting a desired operating point on the front after training. We call this new setup Pareto-Front Learning (PFL). We describe an approach to PFL implemented using HyperNetworks, which we term Pareto HyperNetworks (PHNs). PHN learns the entire Pareto front simultaneously using a single hypernetwork, which receives as input a desired preference vector, and returns a Pareto-optimal model whose loss vector is in the desired ray. The unified model is runtime efficient compared to training multiple models, and generalizes to new operating points not used during training. We evaluate our method on a wide set of problems, from multi-task learning, through fairness, to image segmentation with auxiliaries. PHNs learns the full Pareto front in roughly the same time as learning a single point on the front, and also reaches a better solution set. PFL opens the door to new applications where models are selected based on preferences that are only available at run time.
What Can We Learn from Collective Human Opinions on Natural Language Inference Data?
Abstract: Despite the subjective nature of many NLP tasks, most NLU evaluations have focused on using the majority label with presumably high agreement as the ground truth. Less attention has been paid to the distribution of human opinions. We collect ChaosNLI, a dataset with a total of 464,500 annotations to study Collective HumAn OpinionS in oft-used NLI evaluation sets. This dataset is created by collecting 100 annotations per example for 3,113 examples in SNLI and MNLI and 1,532 examples in Abductive-NLI. Analysis reveals that: (1) high human disagreement exists in a noticeable amount of examples in these datasets; (2) the state-of-the-art models lack the ability to recover the distribution over human labels; (3) models achieve near-perfect accuracy on the subset of data with a high level of human agreement, whereas they can barely beat a random guess on the data with low levels of human agreement, which compose most of the common errors made by state-of-the-art models on the evaluation sets. This questions the validity of improving model performance on old metrics for the low-agreement part of evaluation datasets. Hence, we argue for a detailed examination of human agreement in future data collection efforts, and evaluating model outputs against the distribution over collective human opinions. The ChaosNLI dataset and experimental scripts are available at this https URL.