ML Interview Q Series: How would you define multi-task learning and in which circumstances is it best utilized?
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
Multi-task learning (MTL) involves jointly training a single model to solve several related tasks, rather than training separate models for each task independently. It leverages shared representations that help each task improve by accessing information from other tasks. This approach can reduce overfitting, improve generalization, and enable data-efficient learning when tasks are related.
A common way to conceptualize multi-task learning is by unifying the losses from multiple tasks into a joint objective. Often, practitioners use a weighted sum of the individual task losses. A typical formulation can be expressed as:
In this expression:
T is the total number of tasks to be learned simultaneously.
L_i is the loss function specific to task i. This might be cross-entropy for a classification task or mean-squared error for a regression task.
w_i is a weighting factor that balances the relative importance of each task’s loss.
MTL is especially valuable when:
Tasks share some underlying structure, allowing a shared representation to benefit all tasks.
There is a limited amount of data for one or more tasks, so leveraging additional tasks can prevent overfitting.
Learning multiple tasks jointly can improve the efficiency and storage usage instead of having separate models for each task.
In neural networks, multi-task learning often involves a shared backbone of layers that captures general features, followed by separate output layers or “heads” for each task. The shared layers learn generalized features across tasks, while the individual heads learn task-specific nuances.
MTL can be applied in various scenarios such as:
Natural Language Processing: Jointly performing tasks like part-of-speech tagging, named entity recognition, and semantic role labeling.
Computer Vision: Simultaneously doing object detection, segmentation, and classification using a shared base network.
Recommendation Systems: Combining multiple prediction tasks (e.g., rating prediction and click-through prediction) into one framework.
It should be used when tasks show synergy (i.e., they have shared features or underlying dependencies). However, forcing too many disparate tasks into a single model can risk negative transfer, where performance actually degrades due to conflicting optimization objectives.
Example Implementation in PyTorch
Below is a simplified illustration showing how a shared backbone can branch into different heads for two tasks: classification and regression.
import torch
import torch.nn as nn
import torch.optim as optim
class MultiTaskNet(nn.Module):
def __init__(self, input_dim, hidden_dim, num_classes):
super(MultiTaskNet, self).__init__()
self.shared_fc = nn.Linear(input_dim, hidden_dim)
self.relu = nn.ReLU()
# Separate heads
self.classification_head = nn.Linear(hidden_dim, num_classes)
self.regression_head = nn.Linear(hidden_dim, 1)
def forward(self, x):
x = self.relu(self.shared_fc(x))
class_out = self.classification_head(x)
reg_out = self.regression_head(x)
return class_out, reg_out
# Example usage
model = MultiTaskNet(input_dim=16, hidden_dim=32, num_classes=10)
optimizer = optim.Adam(model.parameters(), lr=1e-3)
criterion_classification = nn.CrossEntropyLoss()
criterion_regression = nn.MSELoss()
for data, labels_class, labels_reg in dataloader:
preds_class, preds_reg = model(data)
loss_class = criterion_classification(preds_class, labels_class)
loss_reg = criterion_regression(preds_reg, labels_reg.float())
# Weighted sum of two tasks
total_loss = 0.5 * loss_class + 0.5 * loss_reg
optimizer.zero_grad()
total_loss.backward()
optimizer.step()
In this code, a shared linear layer learns common representations. The network then branches into two heads, one for classification (class_out) and one for regression (reg_out). Each task has its own loss, combined via a weighted sum (in this simple example, weights are 0.5 each).
Common Challenges
Multi-task learning comes with some key considerations:
Task weighting: If you do not balance the losses properly, a single task can dominate the training. Techniques such as uncertainty-based weighting or adaptive loss scaling can help manage this.
Negative transfer: If tasks conflict, the performance might degrade. Regularization or carefully selecting only closely related tasks can mitigate this issue.
Data imbalance: When certain tasks have more data than others, a model might disproportionately focus on these tasks. Proper weighting or curriculum learning strategies can address this.
Architecture design: Choosing how many layers to share versus how many to dedicate to each task can strongly affect performance.
Why It Is Helpful
When tasks align or provide complementary signals, multi-task learning speeds up convergence and improves the overall model robustness. Because of shared representations, the model reuses learned features across tasks, saving computational resources compared to training separate models for each task.
Potential Follow-Up Questions
How do you decide which tasks can be effectively combined in a multi-task setting?
Tasks with common underlying structure or related feature spaces are good candidates. For instance, in NLP, tasks relying on syntactic or semantic understanding can help each other. If tasks have nothing in common (e.g., image classification and speech recognition without shared features), the model may not benefit from combining them and might instead suffer from negative transfer.
How would you handle a situation where losses for different tasks differ in scale by orders of magnitude?
You could apply normalization or a dynamic task-weighting method. In practice, you can:
Scale each task’s loss by a factor that puts them in a comparable range.
Employ more advanced approaches like task uncertainty weighting, which automatically adjusts each task’s weight based on the variability of its loss.
Can you share layers selectively instead of sharing them all?
Yes, you can. Selective sharing can be beneficial when tasks are not perfectly aligned. For instance, you can adopt a “hard parameter sharing” approach for early layers and maintain task-specific subnetworks for deeper layers. Alternatively, you can apply “soft parameter sharing” by having distinct parameters per task but adding a regularization term that encourages similarity among them.
What if a certain task out of the set suddenly becomes irrelevant or is no longer needed?
If a task becomes irrelevant, it can still affect training through the shared representations. You might consider fine-tuning a sub-network only on tasks still relevant, or you might freeze the shared parts and retrain task-specific heads. Advanced approaches can prune parameters associated with the unused task, but this introduces additional complexity.
How do you troubleshoot performance drops on one task when transitioning from single-task training to multi-task training?
You can try different weighting schemes or investigate if that task is genuinely conflicting with the others (i.e., negative transfer). Additionally, experiment with partial sharing (where only certain layers are shared). Monitoring task-specific gradients can reveal potential conflicts in parameter updates.
How can multi-task learning be adapted to large language models and Transformer architectures?
Modern architectures like Transformers often use a shared encoder across tasks and add task-specific output heads. This follows the same principle of MTL: the encoder gathers generalized feature representations, while specialized heads learn for each task individually. Pre-trained Transformer-based models such as BERT or GPT can be fine-tuned in a multi-task manner by keeping the Transformer backbone fixed and learning separate heads or adapters.
What are some strategies to adjust the weights w_i?
Common approaches include:
Manual Tuning: Choose w_i through grid search or heuristics (e.g., giving tasks with smaller data more weight).
Uncertainty-based Weighting: Set weights in proportion to each task’s homoscedastic uncertainty, which can be learned.
GradNorm or Gradient-based Methods: Adjust weights to balance gradient magnitudes among tasks.
Such dynamic strategies help the model focus on tasks that most need training attention or whose data is more scarce.
Are there cases where multi-task learning might not be beneficial?
Yes, if tasks are unrelated or contradictory (e.g., tasks that require different features or data modalities with no overlap). In such scenarios, forcing them into a single model can degrade performance on all tasks. In those cases, separate models or specialized approaches could be more suitable.
Below are additional follow-up questions
How does multi-task learning differ from transfer learning, and how can we decide which approach is more appropriate?
In multi-task learning, you train one model on multiple tasks simultaneously, with each task influencing the shared representation. By contrast, transfer learning typically involves pretraining on one (often large) source task or dataset, then transferring those learned representations to a new target task. Although both aim to leverage knowledge from one context to boost performance in another, their training setups and objectives differ:
When to choose multi-task learning: If you have multiple tasks that will be trained together from the ground up, and they share underlying feature space or domain. The goal is for tasks to help each other by learning a shared representation that improves performance on all tasks simultaneously.
When to use transfer learning: If you have a large dataset for a particular domain or task, and limited data for the new task. You can first train a model on the large dataset, then transfer its learned representation to a smaller data scenario. This is a sequential approach, rather than a parallel one.
Potential pitfalls:
Multi-task learning can lead to negative transfer if tasks are not sufficiently related.
Transfer learning might not help if the pretraining domain or task is too different from the target domain, resulting in poor generalization.
How do you evaluate the performance of a multi-task model, and what metrics or techniques can highlight conflicts between tasks?
In a multi-task setting, each task has its own performance metric. Common strategies for evaluation include:
Task-specific metrics: For example, if you have a classification task, you track accuracy or F1-score; for a regression task, you track mean-squared error or R-squared. You then examine whether the multi-task model outperforms or at least matches single-task baselines on each metric.
Overall composite metrics: Sometimes, practitioners combine metrics (e.g., a weighted average of task-specific metrics) into a single composite measure. However, carefully deciding the weighting is crucial to accurately reflect the importance of each task.
Conflict detection:
Inspect the gradient norms for each task. If tasks produce conflicting gradients, it indicates that updating the network benefits one task at the expense of another.
Watch for improvements on some tasks but declining performance on others. This signals possible negative transfer or an imbalance in task weighting.
Potential pitfalls:
Overemphasizing a single aggregate metric may hide a scenario where one task is performing poorly while another is doing extremely well.
Large differences in metric scales (e.g., loss or error ranges) can skew the combined measure, causing tasks with bigger numeric ranges to dominate optimization.
How can multi-task learning be adapted to handle tasks with different data modalities (e.g., images and text)?
When tasks come from distinct modalities—say, an image classification task and a text sentiment analysis task—you can still attempt a multi-task setup, but it often involves more complex architectures:
Modality-specific encoders: You might have a convolutional encoder for image data and a transformer-based encoder for text data. After each encoder, you can merge representations through a fusion layer or a shared embedding space if there is some overlap or correlation in the tasks.
Shared layers vs. partially shared:
If the tasks have some overlapping domain elements (e.g., image captions accompanying images), you could learn a joint representation by concatenating or cross-attending between image and text features.
If tasks are quite different, you can still use multi-task learning by sharing only higher-level layers or a joint final representation that aims to learn domain-agnostic signals.
Potential pitfalls:
If the tasks do not have meaningful overlap, forcing them into a single architecture can hamper performance for both.
Different data modalities often require different preprocessing pipelines and specialized layers, so the complexity of designing a multi-task system increases.
Issues with scaling and memory usage can arise when dealing with large image datasets plus large text corpora in the same model.
How do you handle the scenario when tasks have drastically different amounts of available training data?
Multi-task learning can sometimes help smaller tasks by leveraging information from tasks with larger data. However, imbalances can also cause the model to focus disproportionately on the task with more abundant data:
Data sampling strategies:
You can sample tasks in a balanced manner so that each mini-batch includes examples from the low-resource tasks more often, preventing them from being overshadowed by the high-resource tasks.
Curriculum learning can be employed: start by focusing on tasks with more data or simpler tasks, and gradually introduce the more challenging tasks.
Adaptive loss weighting:
If you notice that tasks with large datasets dominate training, you might reduce their loss weight or increase the loss weight for smaller tasks.
Dynamic reweighting methods can also detect if a task is being underlearned and boost its weight automatically.
Potential pitfalls:
Over-sampling smaller tasks might lead to overfitting on those tasks while neglecting the tasks with bigger datasets.
If tasks are not related, trying to support underrepresented tasks by artificially boosting them can degrade performance across the board.
How do you debug a multi-task model that is performing poorly or not converging?
Debugging can be more complex in multi-task learning due to multiple intertwined objectives. Some common strategies include:
Investigate task-wise gradients: Check if parameter updates for different tasks are in conflict. Tools like gradient visualization or monitoring gradient cosine similarities can reveal if tasks consistently push parameters in opposing directions.
Check task weighting: If one task has a large loss scale, it can overwhelm others. Experiment by adjusting weights or normalizing each loss to a comparable scale.
Monitor per-task performance curves: Plot learning curves for each task separately. A big discrepancy, such as one task improving steadily while another remains stagnant, suggests negative transfer or insufficient weighting.
Try isolating tasks: Temporarily train tasks alone. If a task works fine in isolation but fails in the multi-task environment, it may be conflicting with others. You might adopt partial sharing to isolate some parameters for that task.
Potential pitfalls:
Overfitting to a single task that consistently shows easy-to-minimize loss.
Confusing data pipeline issues (e.g., misalignment of labels or mismatch in batching logic between tasks) with conceptual multi-task conflicts.
Failing to systematically track changes for each task can lead to guesswork.
How can knowledge distillation be used in conjunction with multi-task learning?
Knowledge distillation often refers to transferring knowledge from a large, complex teacher model to a smaller, more efficient student model. In a multi-task setting:
Distillation from multi-task teacher: You could have a large multi-task teacher model that has learned representations for several tasks. The student model is then trained to mimic this teacher’s outputs (logits or intermediate activations) for all tasks simultaneously.
Layer-level distillation: You might distill features from intermediate layers of the teacher model to guide the student’s shared representation. This helps the student quickly learn the cross-task abstractions the teacher has discovered.
Potential pitfalls:
If the teacher model itself suffers from negative transfer across tasks, the student might inherit those shortcomings.
Balancing distillation losses with direct task losses can get tricky, as you need to ensure the student still learns from ground-truth labels.
How do you design your multi-task pipeline when some tasks are expensive to label, and you only have partial annotation for a subset of tasks on certain data points?
In real-world scenarios, you might have complete labels for some tasks on one set of data but only partial labels for other tasks on another set. This leads to incomplete annotation:
Approach with separate heads: Because each task has its own head, you can train each head with whichever samples have labels for that task. The shared representation still updates from each labeled subset.
Multi-label data structure: You might have data points that are fully labeled for multiple tasks, and data points that are labeled only for a single task. The loss function typically ignores the tasks for which a data point doesn’t have labels.
Potential pitfalls:
Unbalanced coverage can cause the network to learn partial representations that favor tasks with more or better-labeled data.
If you never have a scenario where multiple tasks share the exact same data instance, the model might struggle to learn shared representations across tasks effectively.
Implementation complexity increases, as you need to handle missing labels carefully without breaking your training loop.
How might you adapt multi-task learning in online or continual learning settings where new tasks arrive sequentially?
In an online or continual learning framework, tasks appear one after another over time:
Progressive networking: As new tasks arrive, you can create new task-specific subnetworks that connect to previously learned representations. This method reuses the prior knowledge while allowing new parameters for fresh tasks.
Regularization-based approaches: Introduce constraints (like EWC - Elastic Weight Consolidation) to preserve critical weights for old tasks while learning new tasks. If tasks are truly related, multi-task learning helps them reinforce each other.
Potential pitfalls:
Catastrophic forgetting of older tasks if the model overwrites shared representations while focusing on newly arrived tasks.
Balancing memory usage with performance: continuously adding new heads or parameters can bloat the model over many tasks.
Determining which layers should be shared across old and new tasks is challenging, especially when tasks differ in domain or complexity.
How do you decide the best architecture (hard-sharing vs. soft-sharing vs. hybrid) for multi-task learning?
Choice of architecture depends on task similarities and deployment constraints:
Hard-sharing: Most layers are shared among tasks, with minimal task-specific layers. This is simpler and reduces overall parameters but can cause strong coupling between tasks.
Soft-sharing: Each task has its own parameters, but a regularization term encourages them to remain close. This is more flexible but increases model size.
Hybrid approach: Some initial layers are shared to extract generic features, and deeper layers branch out for each task. This is often a good balance when tasks share some fundamental representation but diverge in specifics.
Potential pitfalls:
Hard-sharing can cause severe negative transfer if tasks conflict.
Soft-sharing might be computationally expensive and memory-intensive for large models.
Over-engineering a hybrid approach can become unwieldy, and tuning each shared vs. separate layer might require extensive experimentation.