Paper detail

Reasonable Effectiveness of Random Weighting: A Litmus Test for Multi-Task Learning

Multi-Task Learning (MTL) has achieved success in various fields. However, how to balance different tasks to achieve good performance is a key problem. To achieve the task balancing, there are many works to carefully design dynamical loss/gradient weighting strategies but the basic random experiments are ignored to examine their effectiveness. In this paper, we propose the Random Weighting (RW) methods, including Random Loss Weighting (RLW) and Random Gradient Weighting (RGW), where an MTL model is trained with random loss/gradient weights sampled from a distribution. To show the effectiveness and necessity of RW methods, theoretically we analyze the convergence of RW and reveal that RW has a higher probability to escape local minima, resulting in better generalization ability. Empirically, we extensively evaluate the proposed RW methods to compare with twelve state-of-the-art methods on five image datasets and two multilingual problems from the XTREME benchmark to show RW methods can achieve comparable performance with state-of-the-art baselines. Therefore, we think that the RW methods are important baselines for MTL and should attract more attentions.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.