ML Interview Q Series: What strategy would you use for optimizing multiple objectives (accuracy, fairness, interpretability) and incorporating them into a cost function?

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Hint: Weighted multi-term objectives or multi-objective optimization approaches

Comprehensive Explanation

Multi-objective optimization arises when we have several goals that might conflict with each other, such as maximizing accuracy while maintaining a certain level of fairness and interpretability. One typical way to address this is to define a unified cost function that balances these different objectives. Another approach is to use genuine multi-objective optimization techniques that aim to find a Pareto front.

When dealing with a single cost function that combines multiple terms, a common strategy is to weight each objective according to its relative importance. The resulting function might look like a linear combination (or another combination strategy) of multiple losses, each quantifying a different objective. Sometimes these objectives can be scaled or normalized so they are on comparable scales.

For instance, one might define a combined loss function L as follows:

In this expression, L_{i} is the loss term for the i-th objective. The coefficients alpha_{i} are weighting factors that indicate how important each objective is relative to the others. A larger alpha_{i} increases the influence of the corresponding objective in the total cost function.

Choosing alpha_{i} usually depends on empirical testing, domain expertise, or constraints that specify a minimum or maximum acceptable threshold for certain objectives. In fairness applications, for example, one might set alpha_{fairness} to a higher value if fairness is critical, even at the potential cost of decreasing accuracy slightly.

In more advanced settings, rather than simply combining objectives into a single scalar, a multi-objective optimization technique can be used. In such a case, the learning algorithm seeks a set of solutions (the Pareto front), each of which achieves a different trade-off among competing objectives. Ultimately, a domain expert or a downstream application may choose the best compromise.

One must also consider the scale of each objective to prevent one term from dominating the others. If fairness metrics are on a different scale than accuracy, it might be important to normalize them or to choose alpha_{i} carefully so that no term overwhelms the rest.

Practical Considerations for Implementation

It is common to implement such multi-term objectives in machine learning frameworks like PyTorch or TensorFlow by defining each component of the loss separately and combining them. Below is a simple PyTorch snippet illustrating how to combine multiple objectives:

import torch
import torch.nn as nn

class MultiObjectiveModel(nn.Module):
    def __init__(self):
        super(MultiObjectiveModel, self).__init__()
        self.linear = nn.Linear(10, 1)  # Example
        self.aux_linear = nn.Linear(10, 1)  # Example for an auxiliary objective

    def forward(self, x):
        main_output = self.linear(x)
        aux_output = self.aux_linear(x)
        return main_output, aux_output

# Example usage
model = MultiObjectiveModel()
criterion_main = nn.MSELoss()
criterion_aux = nn.L1Loss()

optimizer = torch.optim.Adam(model.parameters(), lr=0.01)

for epoch in range(10):
    x = torch.randn(5, 10)
    y_main = torch.randn(5, 1)
    y_aux = torch.randn(5, 1)

    optimizer.zero_grad()
    main_pred, aux_pred = model(x)

    # Weighted combination of two objectives
    loss_main = criterion_main(main_pred, y_main)
    loss_aux = criterion_aux(aux_pred, y_aux)
    alpha_main = 0.7
    alpha_aux = 0.3
    total_loss = alpha_main * loss_main + alpha_aux * loss_aux

    total_loss.backward()
    optimizer.step()

In this example, two different loss functions are used: a mean-squared error loss for the main prediction objective and an L1 loss for the auxiliary objective. The alpha values determine how heavily each is weighted when calculating the total loss.

Tuning the Weights

Deciding how to select alpha_{i} can be done manually based on domain knowledge, or through techniques like grid search or Bayesian optimization. The general idea is to systematically vary alpha_{i} across different runs and measure how the resulting model performs with respect to each objective. Some organizations explicitly prioritize fairness or interpretability over raw performance, and this prioritization is reflected in the choice of weights.

Balancing Interpretability and Performance

Incorporating interpretability often requires using simpler models or adding additional constraints (such as fewer parameters or monotonicity constraints on certain features). This objective might not always be easy to quantify with a conventional loss term. Sometimes it involves constraints like “use only these many features” or “apply a penalty if the model becomes too complex.” When it is represented as a penalty, it can be appended to the total cost function with an appropriate weight.

Multi-Objective Optimization and the Pareto Front

Instead of combining objectives into one, another strategy is multi-objective optimization, where each objective remains its own dimension. The algorithm’s goal is to discover trade-off solutions forming a Pareto front. In practice, such solutions are discovered using evolutionary algorithms or gradient-based approaches that maintain multiple possible solutions simultaneously. The final selection from the Pareto front is a business or policy decision depending on which trade-off is most acceptable.

This strategy is particularly helpful in complex settings, such as ensuring fairness in different demographic groups. Each fairness metric can be treated as a separate objective, and then a Pareto front can be derived that shows how improving one dimension (like reducing false-positive rate disparity) might degrade another (like overall accuracy). This approach provides stakeholders with a clear set of trade-off solutions.

Potential Follow-up Questions

How would you choose the weighting factors alpha_{i} in practice?

One would often start with domain knowledge. If fairness is as important as accuracy, alpha_{fairness} might be comparable to alpha_{accuracy}. Tuning can be done by searching across alpha combinations. Stakeholder input is invaluable, as some constraints or performance targets are absolute. Techniques like Bayesian optimization or specialized search can systematically identify suitable alpha_{i}.

What are the typical challenges when scaling fairness or interpretability as an objective?

In fairness, there could be multiple protected groups, and each might have a different fairness metric. Trying to incorporate all of them into a single function can be unwieldy. One might need constraints that ensure a minimum fairness threshold for each group instead of a single aggregated measure. With interpretability, the challenge is quantifying it precisely. Sometimes model sparsity is used, but it doesn’t always equate to interpretability in a practical sense.

How do you handle objectives that might be on very different scales?

It is important to normalize the objective values. Accuracy might be on a 0 to 1 scale, while fairness metrics vary across an entirely different range. Normalization or standardization ensures that each term has a roughly comparable effect in the total objective. Another approach is to use dimensionless metrics or to transform the loss terms so they are more compatible.

What if the fairness metric conflicts so severely with the accuracy metric that one cannot find a suitable compromise?

This extreme conflict can happen in highly imbalanced or complex real-world scenarios. One can then adopt a multi-objective approach, discover the Pareto front, and see if there is at least one point that is acceptable. If no solution meets the minimum threshold of fairness while maintaining acceptable accuracy, it might indicate the need for more data, refined modeling techniques, or policy-level decisions about which metrics are non-negotiable.

Why might we decide to use multi-objective methods instead of a single aggregated cost?

A single aggregated cost is straightforward but forces all objectives into a single scalar that might obscure important trade-offs. Multi-objective methods let stakeholders explicitly examine and decide among the different trade-offs. In critical applications, transparency around these trade-offs is essential, especially when fairness or risk mitigation is a top priority.

Below are additional follow-up questions

What if our secondary objective (e.g., a fairness metric) is non-differentiable? How do we optimize it alongside a differentiable primary objective?

Non-differentiable objectives often arise when the fairness metric or constraint is defined in terms of discrete counts or thresholds (for instance, the difference in acceptance rates between protected groups). Standard gradient-based methods rely on a continuous, differentiable loss function to compute gradients and update parameters. When the fairness metric is not differentiable, several strategies can help:

One approach is to use proxy losses that are differentiable approximations of the non-differentiable metric. For instance, if we want to minimize group-level disparity, we can define a surrogate function that closely models the discrete fairness gap but is itself smooth enough to allow backpropagation.

Another strategy is to use iterative or two-step procedures where, in each epoch, we measure the non-differentiable metric on a validation set, then adjust the model or the weighting of the proxy objective. This approach is iterative and may be more computationally expensive, but it can still converge toward solutions that improve the real objective in question.

Reinforcement learning or evolutionary methods can also be employed if the non-differentiable objective is crucial and we cannot find a good differentiable surrogate. These methods do not strictly require gradients; instead, they sample model updates based on performance feedback and can handle discrete or threshold-based objectives.

Pitfalls include the possibility that the differentiable proxy is poorly correlated with the real fairness metric, leading to suboptimal solutions. One must validate that improvements in the proxy objective track well with improvements in the actual non-differentiable metric.

How do we incorporate hard constraints into a multi-objective optimization problem rather than just weighting terms?

In some scenarios, certain requirements must be absolutely satisfied, rather than merely balanced by a weight. For example, a financial institution may require that the false acceptance rate for loans must never exceed a certain threshold for fairness or regulatory reasons. In these cases, one would typically reformulate the optimization problem as follows:

Here, L_primary(x) is the main objective (like classification loss) and L_constraint(x) is the fairness or other constraint that must remain below some acceptable limit epsilon. This approach is known as constrained optimization.

In practice, constrained optimization can be handled in several ways. One method is to use Lagrange multipliers (if the constraint is differentiable), transforming the constraint into an additional term in the objective. Another approach is to use specialized solvers or iterative procedures that project solutions back into the feasible region whenever constraints are violated.

The main pitfall arises from the model struggling to find feasible solutions at all, especially if constraints are very restrictive. Ensuring that epsilon is set to a realistic threshold and that the problem remains solvable is essential.

How do we handle dynamic changes in the relative importance of each objective over time?

In real-world applications, priorities can shift. For example, a business might initially focus on rapid model deployment with moderate fairness but later decide fairness must take precedence. This change can be handled in multiple ways:

• Adaptive weighting: The weighting factors alpha_main, alpha_fairness, etc., can be adjusted over time. The model can continue training with updated weights to progressively shift the balance.

• Transfer learning or continual learning: If the model has been trained under one set of priorities, you can partially “freeze” certain layers and fine-tune others under the new weighting scheme. This prevents catastrophic forgetting of the original performance while adapting to new objectives.

• Scheduling: Sometimes a specific schedule is defined (for example, focus heavily on accuracy in early training to get the model to converge, then gradually increase the fairness weight so the final model also meets fairness criteria). This staged approach can be more stable than abruptly changing the weights.

A challenge is to avoid instability in training. Large jumps in weights or constraints can lead to catastrophic performance drops. Thorough validation and incremental changes are key to ensuring the model transitions smoothly.

What if our objectives involve different types of outputs, like classification accuracy for one part of the model and regression-based interpretability for another?

It is common to have multi-task settings where the model outputs different types of predictions, each with its own loss function. For instance, a single neural network could perform classification while simultaneously providing some score that measures or approximates interpretability. If interpretability is assessed by a complexity measure or monotonic relationship in certain features, that part could be formulated as a penalty.

To handle classification accuracy (which might use cross-entropy) and interpretability (perhaps measured by a separate function), we typically compute each objective’s loss independently, then combine them with weights. The challenge is ensuring that these metrics, which operate on fundamentally different data and scales, are properly normalized or balanced. Another subtlety is that interpretability metrics can be highly model-dependent and not straightforward to quantify.

Edge cases emerge when the interpretability measure is incompatible with certain architectures. For instance, a large Transformer model might exhibit high performance but low interpretability. The model might continually fail to improve interpretability because it’s too flexible. This often forces a design choice about architecture before you can successfully incorporate a straightforward interpretability objective.

How do we address the risk of overfitting to one objective, ignoring others that might be less emphasized?

When multiple objectives are present, there is a risk the model focuses primarily on whichever objective is easiest to optimize or has the highest weight. If L_fairness is lower weight than L_accuracy, the network may place disproportionate effort on boosting accuracy, even at the expense of fairness.

Regular monitoring of each objective on a validation set is crucial. If we detect that one objective’s performance is degrading substantially, we can adjust its weight or consider methods like early stopping that track a composite score. Another possibility is to use a multi-objective optimization method (like Pareto-based evolutionary algorithms) that specifically prevents any single objective from becoming overshadowed.

A subtle point is that “overfitting” can happen in each objective individually. For instance, you might overfit your fairness metric to a small subset of data, ignoring broader real-world distributions. Proper validation that reflects the real data distribution and multiple objectives is key.

If interpretability is defined by a measure of model size or complexity, could we end up favoring an overly simplistic model that sacrifices accuracy too greatly?

Absolutely. If you include a complexity penalty as part of your objective function—for example, using L0 or L1 regularization to minimize the number of model parameters—the optimization may converge to a trivial or overly simplistic model. While it may be highly “interpretable” by that simplistic measure, it might fail in terms of overall predictive performance.

To mitigate this risk, you should set a suitable range or threshold for the complexity measure so the model cannot trivially zero out most parameters. Another solution is a multi-objective approach with interpretability and accuracy as separate dimensions rather than a single combined function. This way, you can see the trade-offs on a Pareto front and select a model that has an acceptable balance.

A deeper consideration is that “simpler” does not always guarantee better human interpretability. Some regularization-based approaches reduce the number of features or parameters but might not yield a model that is truly more interpretable in a practical sense. Always align the interpretability measure with genuine stakeholder needs.

In a real-time system where data distribution shifts, how can we ensure that our fairness or interpretability criteria remain valid?

Data drift or concept drift means that the relationships in the data can change over time (e.g., user behavior patterns evolving). A model trained with certain fairness constraints might no longer behave fairly under a new distribution. Similarly, an interpretable rule discovered on historical data might no longer make sense if new features or user behaviors appear.

To address this:

• Continuous Monitoring: Periodically assess performance across all objectives (accuracy, fairness, interpretability) on recent data. Track trends to spot distribution shifts early.

• Online or Continual Learning: Update the model with fresh data or re-validate fairness constraints in incremental training steps. This requires an efficient mechanism to incorporate new examples without forgetting old patterns.

• Redefining Objectives Over Time: Fairness standards might shift with societal or legal changes. Regularly update constraints or metrics to align with the current context.

A common pitfall is ignoring the dynamic aspect of real-world data. If the model is locked in place, you risk decaying performance or fairness. But if you keep retraining aggressively, you risk instability and might violate constraints that used to hold. Careful scheduling and validation are essential.

How do we handle objectives where the scale or form of the data is extremely different, such as one objective that depends on text-based features and another that depends on structured numeric data?

When working with heterogeneous data (text, images, time series, numeric features), the corresponding objectives can vary dramatically in scale and semantics. For example, a text-based fairness measure might track certain keywords or language usage for interpretability, while a numeric performance metric tracks the accuracy of a regression on structured data.

One approach is to design separate network components that specialize in different data modalities, each with its own objective function, then combine intermediate representations in a shared layer. The weighting scheme must be mindful of the potentially different magnitude of these losses.

Normalization or per-task scaling is important. If the text-based fairness measure is typically in the range [0,10] while the numeric accuracy measure is in [0,1], you could inadvertently dominate the optimization with the text-based fairness term unless you rescale or set suitable weights.

Edge cases arise if one data modality is far more abundant or has drastically different noise patterns. If the text domain is large and complex, the model might struggle to properly balance the numeric task. Cross-validation strategies that account for both modalities ensure that the final model does not degrade on one domain in favor of another.