No abstract

In most machine learning tasks, we evaluate a model M on a given data population S by measuring a population-level metric F(S;M). Examples of such evaluation metric F include precision/recall for (binary) recognition, the F1 score for multi-class classification, and the BLEU metric for language generation. On the other hand, the model M is trained by optimizing a sample-level loss G(S_t; M) at each learning step t, where S_t is a subset of S (a.k.a. the mini-batch). Popular choices of G include cross-entropy loss, the Dice loss, and sentence-level BLEU scores. A fundamental assumption behind this paradigm is that the mean value of the sample-level loss G, if averaged over all possible samples, should effectively represent the population-level metric F of the task, such as, that E[ G(S_t; M) ] ~ F(S; M). In this paper, we systematically investigate the above assumption in several NLP tasks. We show, both theoretically and experimentally, that some popular designs of the sample-level loss G may be inconsistent with the true population-level metric F of the task, so that models trained to optimize the former can be substantially sub-optimal to the latter, a phenomenon we call it, Simpson's bias, due to its deep connections with the classic paradox known as Simpson's reversal paradox in statistics and social sciences.

This paper discusses a new approach to the fundamental problem of learning optimal Q-functions. In this approach, optimal Q-functions are formulated as saddle points of a nonlinear Lagrangian function derived from the classic Bellman optimality equation. The paper shows that the Lagrangian enjoys strong duality, in spite of its nonlinearity, which paves the way to a general Lagrangian method to Q-function learning. As a demonstration, the paper develops an imitation learning algorithm based on the duality theory, and applies the algorithm to a state-of-the-art machine translation benchmark. The paper then turns to demonstrate a symmetry breaking phenomenon regarding the optimality of the Lagrangian saddle points, which justifies a largely overlooked direction in developing the Lagrangian method.

In most machine learning tasks, we evaluate a model M on a given data population S by measuring a population-level metric F(S; M). Examples of such evaluation metric F include precision/recall for (binary) recognition, the F1 score for multi-class classification, and the BLEU metric for language generation. On the other hand, the model M is trained by optimizing a sample-level loss G(St; M) at each learning step t, where St is a subset of S (a.k.a. the mini-batch). Popular choices of G include cross-entropy loss, the Dice loss, and sentence-level BLEU scores. A fundamental assumption behind this paradigm is that the mean value of the samplelevel loss G, if averaged over all possible samples, should effectively represent the population-level metric F of the task, such as, that E[G(St; M)] ≈ F (S; M). In this paper, we systematically investigate the above assumption in several NLP tasks. We show, both theoretically and experimentally, that some popular designs of the sample-level loss G may be inconsistent with the true population-level metric F of the task, so that models trained to optimize the former can be substantially sub-optimal to the latter, a phenomenon we call it, Simpson's bias, due to its deep connections with the classic paradox known as Simpson's reversal paradox in statistics and social sciences.