Tobias Wegel

Large Language Models are typically benchmarked by evaluating every model on every test query. For practitioners seeking the best model to deploy, this is often wasteful: if a model clearly performs worse than others, there is no need to precisely estimate its performance. Best-arm identification algorithms can be naturally applied to drastically reduce costs by adaptively allocating evaluation budget. Further, language models often respond similarly to the same prompt-a property previous work has tried to leverage with mixed success. We propose Synchronized Successive Rejects (SySRs), augmenting the classical Successive Rejects algorithm with paired comparisons. Unlike prior attempts to leverage model similarity in best-model identification, our approach is hyperparameter-free and enjoys performance guarantees that improve with the degree of similarity between evaluated models. Empirically, our method outperforms all baselines in terms of average error rate across 15 standard benchmarks, and in terms of worst-case budget for reliably identifying the best model.

When a learner faces a new task with few samples, it must leverage any available side information. In practice, this often comes in the form of model evaluations on related tasks in public benchmarks. A key question then is how to model task relatedness such that it is both realistic and the benchmark evaluations lead to provable gains. Empirically, we observe that weak monotonicity is often approximately satisfied: if a model dominates another on many benchmarks, it also tends to outperform on the new task. We explore the statistical complexity of learning under (approximate) weak monotonicity, leveraging it within two learning paradigms: transfer learning and model selection aggregation. We show that not only can we prune the model class based on monotonicity, but we can also further adapt to the geometry of the available trade-offs by hedging on the frontier.

In multi-objective learning (MOL), several possibly competing prediction tasks must be solved jointly by a single model. Achieving good trade-offs may require a model class G with larger capacity than what is necessary for solving the individual tasks. This, in turn, increases the statistical cost, as reflected in known MOL bounds that depend on the complexity of G. We show that this cost is unavoidable for some losses, even in an idealized semi-supervised setting, where the learner has access to the Bayes-optimal solutions for the individual tasks as well as the marginal distributions over the covariates. On the other hand, for objectives defined with Bregman losses, we prove that the complexity of G may come into play only in terms of unlabeled data. Concretely, we establish sample complexity upper bounds, showing precisely when and how unlabeled data can significantly alleviate the need for labeled data. These rates are achieved by a simple, semi-supervised algorithm via pseudo-labeling.

Modern machine learning methods often have to rely on high-dimensional data that is expensive to label, while unlabeled data is abundant. When the data exhibits low-dimensional structure such as sparsity, conventional regularization techniques are known to improve generalization for a single objective (e.g., prediction risk). However, it is largely unexplored how to leverage this structure in the context of multi-objective learning (MOL) with multiple competing objectives. In this work, we discuss how the application of vanilla regularization approaches can fail, and propose the first MOL estimator that provably yields improved performance in the presence of sparsity and unlabeled data. We demonstrate its effectiveness experimentally for multi-distribution learning and fairness-risk trade-offs.