user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Understanding and Improving Information Transfer in Multi-Task Learning

Paper content:
We investigate multi-task learning approaches which use a shared feature representation for all tasks.
To better understand the transfer of task information, we study an architecture with a shared module for all tasks and a separate output module for each task.
We study the theory of this setting on linear and ReLU-activated models.
Our key observation is that whether or not tasks' data are well-aligned can significantly affect the performance of multi-task learning.
We show that misalignment between task data can cause negative transfer (or hurt performance) and provide sufficient conditions for positive transfer.
Inspired by the theoretical insights, we show that aligning tasks' embedding layers leads to performance gains for multi-task training and transfer learning on the GLUE benchmark and sentiment analysis tasks; for example, we obtained a 2.35% GLUE score average improvement on 5 GLUE tasks over BERT LARGE using our alignment method.
We also design an SVD-based task re-weighting scheme and show that it improves the robustness of multi-task training on a multi-label image dataset.
Multi-task learning has recently emerged as a powerful paradigm in deep learning to obtain language (Devlin et al. (2018) ; Liu et al. (2019a; b) ) and visual representations (Kokkinos (2017) ) from large-scale data.
By leveraging supervised data from related tasks, multi-task learning approaches reduce the expensive cost of curating the massive per-task training data sets needed by deep learning methods and provide a shared representation which is also more efficient for learning over multiple tasks.
While in some cases, great improvements have been reported compared to single-task learning (McCann et al. (2018) ), practitioners have also observed problematic outcomes, where the performances of certain tasks have decreased due to task interference (Alonso and Plank (2016) ; Bingel and Søgaard (2017) ).
Predicting when and for which tasks this occurs is a challenge exacerbated by the lack of analytic tools.
In this work, we investigate key components to determine whether tasks interfere constructively or destructively from theoretical and empirical perspectives.
Based on these insights, we develop methods to improve the effectiveness and robustness of multi-task training.
There has been a large body of algorithmic and theoretical studies for kernel-based multi-task learning, but less is known for neural networks.
The conceptual message from the earlier work (Baxter (2000) ; Evgeniou and Pontil (2004) ; Micchelli and Pontil (2005) ; Xue et al. (2007) ) show that multi-task learning is effective over "similar" tasks, where the notion of similarity is based on the single-task models (e.g. decision boundaries are close).
The work on structural correspondence learning (Ando and Zhang (2005) ; Blitzer et al. (2006) ) uses alternating minimization to learn a shared parameter and separate task parameters.
Zhang and Yeung (2014) use a parameter vector for each task and learn task relationships via l 2 regularization, which implicitly controls the capacity of the model.
These results are difficult to apply to neural networks: it is unclear how to reason about neural networks whose feature space is given by layer-wise embeddings.
To determine whether two tasks interfere constructively or destructively, we investigate an architecture with a shared module for all tasks and a separate output module for each task (Ruder (2017) ).
See Figure 1 for an illustration.
Our motivating observation is that in addition to model similarity which affects the type of interference, task data similarity plays a second-order effect after controlling model similarity.
To illustrate the idea, we consider three tasks with the same number of data samples where task 2 and 3 have the same decision boundary but different data distributions (see Figure 2 for an illustration).
We observe that training task 1 with task 2 or task 3 can either improve or hurt task 1's performance, depending on the amount of contributing data along the decision boundary!
This observation shows that by measuring the similarities of the task data and the models separately, we can analyze the interference of tasks and attribute the cause more precisely.
Motivated by the above observation, we study the theory of multi-task learning through the shared module in linear and ReLU-activated settings.
Our theoretical contribution involves three components: the capacity of the shared module, task covariance, and the per-task weight of the training procedure.
The capacity plays a fundamental role because, if the shared module's capacity is too large, there is no interference between tasks; if it is too small, there can be destructive interference.
Then, we show how to determine interference by proposing a more fine-grained notion called task covariance which can be used to measure the alignment of task data.
By varying task covariances, we observe both positive and negative transfers from one task to another!
We then provide sufficient conditions which guarantee that one task can transfer positively to another task, provided with sufficiently many data points from the contributor task.
Finally, we study how to assign per-task weights for settings where different tasks share the same data but have different labels.
Our theory leads to the design of two algorithms with practical interest.
First, we propose to align the covariances of the task embedding layers and present empirical evaluations on well-known benchmarks and tasks.
On 5 tasks from the General Language Understanding Evaluation (GLUE) benchmark (Wang et al. (2018b) ) trained with the BERT LARGE model by Devlin et al. (2018) , our method improves the result of BERT LARGE by a 2.35% average GLUE score, which is the standard metric for the benchmark.
Further, we show that our method is applicable to transfer learning settings; we observe up to 2.5% higher accuracy by transferring between six sentiment analysis tasks using the LSTM model of Lei et al. (2018) .
Second, we propose an SVD-based task reweighting scheme to improve multi-task training for settings where different tasks have the same data but different labels.
On the ChestX-ray14 image classification dataset, we compare our method to the unweighted scheme and observe an improvement of 5.6 AUC score for all tasks.
In conclusion, these evaluations confirm that our theoretical insights are applicable to a broad range of settings and applications.
In this work, we studied the theory of multi-task learning in linear and ReLU-activated settings.
We verified our theory and its practical implications through extensive synthetic and real world experiments.
Our work opens up many interesting future questions.
First, could we extend the guarantees for choosing optimization schemes to non-linear settings?
Second, a limitation of our SVD-based optimization scheduler is that it only applies to settings with the same data.
Could we extend the method for heterogeneous task data?
More broadly, we hope our work inspires further studies to better understand multi-task learning in neural networks and to guide its practice.
Hard parameter sharing vs soft parameter sharing.
The architecture that we study in this work is also known as the hard parameter sharing architecture.
There is another kind of architecture called soft parameter sharing.
The idea is that each task has its own parameters and modules.
The relationships between these parameters are regularized in order to encourage the parameters to be similar.
Other architectures that have been studied before include the work of Misra et al. (2016), where the authors explore trainable architectures for convolutional neural networks.
Domain adaptation.
Another closely related line of work is on domain adaptation.
The acute reader may notice the similarity between our study in Section 2.3 and domain adaptation.
The crucial difference here is that we are minimizing the multi-task learning objective, whereas in domain adaptation the objective is typically to minimize the objective on the target task.
See Ben

assistant: text: A Theoretical Study of Multi-Task Learning with Practical Implications for Improving Multi-Task Training and Transfer Learning