This paper investigates simultaneous preference and metric learning from a crowd of respondents. A set of items represented by d-dimensional feature vectors and paired comparisons of the form "item i is preferable to item j" made by each user is given. Our model jointly learns a distance metric that characterizes the crowd's general measure of item similarities along with a latent ideal point for each user reflecting their individual preferences. This model has the flexibility to capture individual preferences, while enjoying a metric learning sample cost that is amortized over the crowd. We first study this problem in a noiseless, continuous response setting (i.e., responses equal to differences of item distances) to understand the fundamental limits of learning. Next, we establish prediction error guarantees for noisy, binary measurements such as may be collected from human respondents, and show how the sample complexity improves when the underlying metric is lowrank. Finally, we establish recovery guarantees under assumptions on the response distribution. We demonstrate the performance of our model on both simulated data and on a dataset of color preference judgments across a large number of users.

The NFM framework utilizes the classical idea of multiplicative frailty in survival analysis as a principled way of extending the proportional hazard assumption, at the same time being able to leverage the strong approximation power of neural architectures for handling nonlinear covariate dependence. Two concrete models are derived under the framework that extends neural proportional hazard models and nonparametric hazard regression models. Both models allow efficient training under the likelihood objective. Theoretically, for both proposed models, we establish statistical guarantees of neural function approximation with respect to nonparametric components via characterizing their rate of convergence. Empirically, we provide synthetic experiments that verify our theoretical statements. We also conduct experimental evaluations over 6 benchmark datasets of different scales, showing that the proposed NFM models achieve predictive performance comparable to or sometimes surpassing state-of-the-art survival models.

We categorize meta-learning evaluation into two settings: in-distribution [ID], in which the train and test tasks are sampled iid from the same underlying task distribution, and out-of-distribution [OOD], in which they are not. While most metalearning theory and some FSL applications follow the ID setting, we identify that most existing few-shot classification benchmarks instead reflect OOD evaluation, as they use disjoint sets of train (base) and test (novel) classes for task generation. This discrepancy is problematic because--as we show on numerous benchmarks-- meta-learning methods that perform better on existing OOD datasets may perform significantly worse in the ID setting. In addition, in the OOD setting, even though current FSL benchmarks seem befitting, our study highlights concerns in 1) reliably performing model selection for a given meta-learning method, and 2) consistently comparing the performance of different methods. To address these concerns, we provide suggestions on how to construct FSL benchmarks to allow for ID evaluation as well as more reliable OOD evaluation. Our work aims to inform the meta-learning community about the importance and distinction of ID vs. OOD evaluation, as well as the subtleties of OOD evaluation with current benchmarks.