Ensemble Prediction of Task Affinity for Efficient Multi-Task Learning
Afiya Ayman, Ayan Mukhopadhyay, Aron Laszka

TL;DR
This paper introduces ETAP, a scalable framework that predicts task affinity in multi-task learning, enabling efficient task grouping by estimating potential performance gains through linear and non-linear models.
Contribution
The paper presents a novel ensemble predictor combining linear affinity scores and non-linear refinements to accurately forecast task group benefits in multi-task learning.
Findings
ETAP outperforms existing baselines in predicting MTL gains.
ETAP enables more effective task grouping, improving overall multi-task learning performance.
The framework is scalable and applicable across diverse datasets.
Abstract
A fundamental problem in multi-task learning (MTL) is identifying groups of tasks that should be learned together. Since training MTL models for all possible combinations of tasks is prohibitively expensive for large task sets, a crucial component of efficient and effective task grouping is predicting whether a group of tasks would benefit from learning together, measured as per-task performance gain over single-task learning. In this paper, we propose ETAP (Ensemble Task Affinity Predictor), a scalable framework that integrates principled and data-driven estimators to predict MTL performance gains. First, we consider the gradient-based updates of shared parameters in an MTL model to measure the affinity between a pair of tasks as the similarity between the parameter updates based on these tasks. This linear estimator, which we call affinity score, naturally extends to estimating…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
It combines gradient-based affinity with learned non-linear relationship modeling to efficiently and accurately capture task relationships. And it includes thorough component-wise ablations that clarify each contribution and improve interpretability.
Dividing learning tasks into groups based on similarity is a long-standing area [1]. The paper introduces new measures of task affinity for MTL, but I am not fully convinced that the proposed methods are superior to prior work. The baselines used are relatively dated, and a comparison of computational cost and predictive performance with stronger recent baselines, such as [2], would strengthen the claims. Efficient group-wise tracking of task affinity is also not new, as [3] tracks inter-task af
Strengths Tackles an important challenge in the MTL literature — the high computational overhead of existing task-grouping algorithms. Through comprehensive ablation studies, the paper provides valuable insights into the role of gradient similarities (e.g., via comparison of affine vs. non-linear mappings). Design choices (e.g., use of B-splines and regression techniques) are justified through ablation analyses and comparative experiments. The paper is clearly structured and effectively relat
Weaknesses While computational efficiency is claimed as a key advantage, it would be valuable to include results for the complete approach (including hyperparameter tuning in the second stage) or to explicitly state that the additional cost is negligible. Comparing against an additional data-driven baseline would strengthen the evaluation. The performance gains over naive MTL are relatively modest; a discussion of their practical significance would help contextualize their value. Some design
1. The two-stage ensemble design that uses gradient-based affinity scores as foundation and refining with data-driven models is reasonable, it combines white-box gradient-based affinity scoring with data-driven ensemble prediction. 2. ETAP achieves impressive runtime reduction while maintaining or improving correlation with ground-truth gains. This is a meaningful practical contribution.
1. The gradient-based affinity score (Equation 5) is quite similar to existing work (TAG), just removing the auxiliary forward/backward passes. The B-spline transformation and ridge regression are standard techniques. The main novelty seems to be in combining these pieces, which feels somewhat incremental. Can you clarify what is fundamentally new here beyond engineering different existing methods together? 2. While you claim ETAP is "scalable," all experiments use relatively small task sets (n=
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning · Reinforcement Learning in Robotics · Advanced Neural Network Applications
