scalarization
- North America > Canada > Ontario > Toronto (0.04)
- Asia (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language > Machine Translation (0.73)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (0.69)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language > Large Language Model (0.68)
- South America > Chile > Santiago Metropolitan Region > Santiago Province > Santiago (0.04)
- North America > United States > Texas > Brazos County > College Station (0.04)
- Asia > China > Guangxi Province > Nanning (0.04)
- Overview (0.92)
- Research Report (0.67)
- Energy (0.46)
- Health & Medicine > Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology (0.46)
- South America > Chile > Santiago Metropolitan Region > Santiago Province > Santiago (0.04)
- North America > United States > Texas > Brazos County > College Station (0.04)
- Asia > China > Guangxi Province > Nanning (0.04)
- Overview (0.92)
- Research Report (0.67)
- Energy (0.46)
- Health & Medicine > Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology (0.46)
- North America > United States > Illinois > Champaign County > Urbana (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
Revisiting Scalarization in Multi-Task Learning: A Theoretical Perspective
Linear scalarization, i.e., combining all loss functions by a weighted sum, has been the default choice in the literature of multi-task learning (MTL) since its inception. In recent years, there is a surge of interest in developing Specialized Multi-Task Optimizers (SMTOs) that treat MTL as a multi-objective optimization problem. However, it remains open whether there is a fundamental advantage of SMTOs over scalarization. In fact, heated debates exist in the community comparing these two types of algorithms, mostly from an empirical perspective. To approach the above question, in this paper, we revisit scalarization from a theoretical perspective.
SparseST: Exploiting Data Sparsity in Spatiotemporal Modeling and Prediction
Wu, Junfeng, Benmeziane, Hadjer, Maghraoui, Kaoutar El, Liu, Liu, Wang, Yinan
Spatiotemporal data mining (STDM) has a wide range of applications in various complex physical systems (CPS), i.e., transportation, manufacturing, healthcare, etc. Among all the proposed methods, the Convolutional Long Short-Term Memory (ConvLSTM) has proved to be generalizable and extendable in different applications and has multiple variants achieving state-of-the-art performance in various STDM applications. However, ConvLSTM and its variants are computationally expensive, which makes them inapplicable in edge devices with limited computational resources. With the emerging need for edge computing in CPS, efficient AI is essential to reduce the computational cost while preserving the model performance. Common methods of efficient AI are developed to reduce redundancy in model capacity (i.e., model pruning, compression, etc.). However, spatiotemporal data mining naturally requires extensive model capacity, as the embedded dependencies in spatiotemporal data are complex and hard to capture, which limits the model redundancy. Instead, there is a fairly high level of data and feature redundancy that introduces an unnecessary computational burden, which has been largely overlooked in existing research. Therefore, we developed a novel framework SparseST, that pioneered in exploiting data sparsity to develop an efficient spatiotemporal model. In addition, we explore and approximate the Pareto front between model performance and computational efficiency by designing a multi-objective composite loss function, which provides a practical guide for practitioners to adjust the model according to computational resource constraints and the performance requirements of downstream tasks.
- North America > United States > New York > Rensselaer County > Troy (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Europe > France (0.04)
- Research Report (0.64)
- Workflow (0.46)
- Overview (0.46)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- Europe > Netherlands > North Holland > Amsterdam (0.40)
- North America > Canada > Ontario > Toronto (0.14)
- North America > United States (0.04)
- Telecommunications (0.40)
- Semiconductors & Electronics (0.40)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Vision (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Search (0.69)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning > Gradient Descent (0.46)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (0.46)