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.

Meta-reinforcement learning (Meta-RL) has attracted attention due to its capability to enhance reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms, in terms of data efficiency and generalizability. In this paper, we develop a bilevel optimization framework for meta-RL (BO-MRL) to learn the meta-prior for task-specific policy adaptation, which implements multiple-step policy optimization on one-time data collection. Beyond existing meta-RL analyses, we provide upper bounds of the expected optimality gap over the task distribution. This metric measures the distance of the policy adaptation from the learned meta-prior to the task-specific optimum, and quantifies the model's generalizability to the task distribution. We empirically validate the correctness of the derived upper bounds and demonstrate the superior effectiveness of the proposed algorithm over benchmarks.

Cross-validation (CV) is commonly used to estimate predictive risk when independent test data are unavailable. Its validity depends on the assumption that validation tasks are sampled from the same distribution as prediction tasks encountered during deployment. In spatial prediction and other settings with structured data, this assumption is frequently violated, leading to biased estimates of deployment risk. We propose Target-Weighted CV (TWCV), an estimator of deployment risk that accounts for discrepancies between validation and deployment task distributions, thus accounting for (1) covariate shift and (2) task-difficulty shift. We characterize prediction tasks by descriptors such as covariates and spatial configuration. TWCV assigns weights to validation losses such that the weighted empirical distribution of validation tasks matches the corresponding distribution over a target domain. The weights are obtained via calibration weighting, yielding an importance-weighted estimator that targets deployment risk. Since TWCV requires adequate coverage of the deployment distribution's support, we combine it with spatially buffered resampling that diversifies the task difficulty distribution. In a simulation study, conventional as well as spatial estimators exhibit substantial bias depending on sampling, whereas buffered TWCV remains approximately unbiased across scenarios. A case study in environmental pollution mapping further confirms that discrepancies between validation and deployment task distributions can affect performance assessment, and that buffered TWCV better reflects the prediction task over the target domain. These results establish task distribution mismatch as a primary source of CV bias in spatial prediction and show that calibration weighting combined with a suitable validation task generator provides a viable approach to estimating predictive risk under dataset shift.

Previous work has achieved encouraging performance.

However, this assumption can possibly fail in real-world scenarios.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/