A Pattern Language for Machine Learning Tasks
Benjamin Rodatz, Ian Fan, Tuomas Laakkonen, Neil John Ortega, Thomas, Hoffmann, Vincent Wang-Mascianica

TL;DR
This paper introduces a unified, graph-based framework for defining and optimizing machine learning tasks as equality constraints, enabling model-agnostic behavior control and practical data manipulation without complex training procedures.
Contribution
It formalizes tasks as constraints, develops a graphical mathematics for them, and demonstrates a novel data editing method that is model-agnostic and efficient.
Findings
Framework unifies diverse ML approaches
Enables model-agnostic behavior design
Successful implementation of a data manipulation task
Abstract
We formalise the essential data of objective functions as equality constraints on composites of learners. We call these constraints "tasks", and we investigate the idealised view that such tasks determine model behaviours. We develop a flowchart-like graphical mathematics for tasks that allows us to; (1) offer a unified perspective of approaches in machine learning across domains; (2) design and optimise desired behaviours model-agnostically; and (3) import insights from theoretical computer science into practical machine learning. As a proof-of-concept of the potential practical impact of our theoretical framework, we exhibit and implement a novel "manipulator" task that minimally edits input data to have a desired attribute. Our model-agnostic approach achieves this end-to-end, and without the need for custom architectures, adversarial training, random sampling, or interventions on…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2025
Originality: I think there is novelty in the category-theoretic foundations of this framework. I haven't seen this diagram notation before. Clarity: I think the writing was easy to follow, my concerns below notwithstanding. Significance: its clearly very early work, possibly a more developed version of this work could be impactful.
I found this paper extremely difficult to parse for content. It seems like there is something here, but it is hardly even hinted at in the main paper. I did not thoroughly check the proofs in the appendix so possibly I missed some important details there. But in general I fail to see what is actually being proposed here. My concerns are as follows: * Over half of the main paper is spent restating some form of empirical risk minimization, and reintroducing commonly used notation and modeling par
The language provided could be used to succinctly express complex loss function, using a relatively intuitive and succinct grammar. The utilization of a standard notation for referring to minimization objectives could prove useful, as similar concepts have been adopted in computer science. Furthermore, the formal nature of the grammar lends itself to using formal verification techniques to look for properties of interest in the objective function. How would be done in practice however I am still
- The article is sometimes difficult to understand and unpolished; this is particularly true for sections 1 and 2. They are difficult to read and the vocabulary is not always defined (e.g. what is a datatype, what does ∶⇒ mean? ). As it stands, the paper can be confusing to read, this might be due to unpolished writing and a foreign vocabulary from the one typically used in the ML community. - The proposed language could be more intuitive, at least from a ML prospective; this may hinder its usa
In general, the work is well written and easy to understand. The motivation of introducing the formal language for describing tasks makes sense and the applications are well delivered in a number of common or well-known objectives. Generally this sort of formalism could make it easier to relate different algorithms w.r.t. their target behavior and system specification. The novel training paradigm I believe is novel (manipulation), which is convincingly yielded from the formalism and its efficacy
Most of the issues are on clarification, for which I have added questions below. Some of the symbols could be better presented, as I continuously had to refresh myself on what the numerous symbols meant while building an understanding of the formalism. Perhaps a table or some other sort of summary that helps the reader reference while looking through diagrams. One major issue I have is it's unclear how the formalism specifically relates different algorithms w.r.t. the target behavior of the m
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsNeural Networks and Applications
