COPA: Comparing the Incomparable to Explore the Pareto Front

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14321v1
• Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 14:51:42 GMT
• Title: COPA: Comparing the Incomparable to Explore the Pareto Front
• Authors: Adrián Javaloy, Antonio Vergari, Isabel Valera,
• Abstract summary: In machine learning (ML) it is common to account for multiple objectives when selecting a model to deploy.<n>It is often unclear how one should compare, aggregate and, ultimately, trade-off these objectives.
• Score: 19.11658981007657
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: In machine learning (ML), it is common to account for multiple objectives when, e.g., selecting a model to deploy. However, it is often unclear how one should compare, aggregate and, ultimately, trade-off these objectives, as they might be measured in different units or scales. For example, when deploying large language models (LLMs), we might not only care about their performance, but also their CO2 consumption. In this work, we investigate how objectives can be sensibly compared and aggregated to navigate their Pareto front. To do so, we propose to make incomparable objectives comparable via their CDFs, approximated by their relative rankings. This allows us to aggregate them while matching user-specific preferences, allowing practitioners to meaningfully navigate and search for models in the Pareto front. We demonstrate the potential impact of our methodology in diverse areas such as LLM selection, domain generalization, and AutoML benchmarking, where classical ways to aggregate and normalize objectives fail.

Related papers

• Projection Optimization: A General Framework for Multi-Objective and Multi-Group RLHF [13.612504157832708]
  Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) is a widely used fine-tuning approach that aligns machine learning model with human preferences.<n>In this work, we transform the non-linear aggregation problem into a series of sub-problems and extend our framework to handle multi-group scenarios.<n>We demonstrate that our algorithmic framework achieves sublinear regret and can be easily adapted to a reward-free algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T01:56:52Z)
• Few-shot Steerable Alignment: Adapting Rewards and LLM Policies with Neural Processes [50.544186914115045]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in everyday applications.<n> Ensuring their alignment with the diverse preferences of individual users has become a critical challenge.<n>We present a novel framework for few-shot steerable alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T16:14:59Z)
• Do Membership Inference Attacks Work on Large Language Models? [141.2019867466968]
  Membership inference attacks (MIAs) attempt to predict whether a particular datapoint is a member of a target model's training data. We perform a large-scale evaluation of MIAs over a suite of language models trained on the Pile, ranging from 160M to 12B parameters. We find that MIAs barely outperform random guessing for most settings across varying LLM sizes and domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T17:52:05Z)
• Revisiting Few-Shot Object Detection with Vision-Language Models [49.79495118650838]
  We revisit the task of few-shot object detection (FSOD) in the context of recent foundational vision-language models (VLMs) We propose Foundational FSOD, a new benchmark protocol that evaluates detectors pre-trained on any external data. We discuss our recent CVPR 2024 Foundational FSOD competition and share insights from the community.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-22T07:42:00Z)
• Practical Membership Inference Attacks against Fine-tuned Large Language Models via Self-prompt Calibration [32.15773300068426]
  Membership Inference Attacks aim to infer whether a target data record has been utilized for model training. We propose a Membership Inference Attack based on Self-calibrated Probabilistic Variation (SPV-MIA)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-10T13:55:05Z)
• Variable Importance Matching for Causal Inference [73.25504313552516]
  We describe a general framework called Model-to-Match that achieves these goals. Model-to-Match uses variable importance measurements to construct a distance metric. We operationalize the Model-to-Match framework with LASSO.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-23T00:43:03Z)
• Learning with Impartiality to Walk on the Pareto Frontier of Fairness, Privacy, and Utility [28.946180502706504]
  We argue that machine learning pipelines should not favor one objective over another. We propose impartially-specified models that show the inherent trade-offs between the objectives. We provide an answer to the question of where fairness mitigation should be integrated within a privacy-aware ML pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-17T23:23:45Z)
• Unifying Language Learning Paradigms [96.35981503087567]
  We present a unified framework for pre-training models that are universally effective across datasets and setups. We show how different pre-training objectives can be cast as one another and how interpolating between different objectives can be effective. Our model also achieve strong results at in-context learning, outperforming 175B GPT-3 on zero-shot SuperGLUE and tripling the performance of T5-XXL on one-shot summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-10T19:32:20Z)
• Improving Few-shot Learning by Spatially-aware Matching and CrossTransformer [116.46533207849619]
  We study the impact of scale and location mismatch in the few-shot learning scenario. We propose a novel Spatially-aware Matching scheme to effectively perform matching across multiple scales and locations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-06T14:10:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.