When Does Pretraining Help? Assessing Self-Supervised Learning for Law and the CaseHOLD Dataset

While self-supervised learning has made rapid advances in natural language processing, it remains unclear when researchers should engage in resource-intensive domain-specific pretraining (domain pretraining). The law, puzzlingly, has yielded few documented instances of substantial gains to domain pretraining in spite of the fact that legal language is widely seen to be unique. We hypothesize that these existing results stem from the fact that existing legal NLP tasks are too easy and fail to meet conditions for when domain pretraining can help. To address this, we first present CaseHOLD (Case Holdings On Legal Decisions), a new dataset comprised of over 53,000+ multiple choice questions to identify the relevant holding of a cited case. This dataset presents a fundamental task to lawyers and is both legally meaningful and difficult from an NLP perspective (F1 of 0.4 with a BiLSTM baseline). Second, we assess performance gains on CaseHOLD and existing legal NLP datasets. While a Transformer architecture (BERT) pretrained on a general corpus (Google Books and Wikipedia) improves performance, domain pretraining (using corpus of approximately 3.5M decisions across all courts in the U.S. that is larger than BERT's) with a custom legal vocabulary exhibits the most substantial performance gains with CaseHOLD (gain of 7.2% on F1, representing a 12% improvement on BERT) and consistent performance gains across two other legal tasks. Third, we show that domain pretraining may be warranted when the task exhibits sufficient similarity to the pretraining corpus: the level of performance increase in three legal tasks was directly tied to the domain specificity of the task. Our findings inform when researchers should engage resource-intensive pretraining and show that Transformer-based architectures, too, learn embeddings suggestive of distinct legal language.

An Information-Theoretic Perspective on Credit Assignment in Reinforcement Learning

How do we formalize the challenge of credit assignment in reinforcement learning? Common intuition would draw attention to reward sparsity as a key contributor to difficult credit assignment and traditional heuristics would look to temporal recency for the solution, calling upon the classic eligibility trace. We posit that it is not the sparsity of the reward itself that causes difficulty in credit assignment, but rather the \emph{information sparsity}. We propose to use information theory to define this notion, which we then use to characterize when credit assignment is an obstacle to efficient learning. With this perspective, we outline several information-theoretic mechanisms for measuring credit under a fixed behavior policy, highlighting the potential of information theory as a key tool towards provably-efficient credit assignment.

With Little Power Comes Great Responsibility

Despite its importance to experimental design, statistical power (the probability that, given a real effect, an experiment will reject the null hypothesis) has largely been ignored by the NLP community. Underpowered experiments make it more difficult to discern the difference between statistical noise and meaningful model improvements, and increase the chances of exaggerated findings. By meta-analyzing a set of existing NLP papers and datasets, we characterize typical power for a variety of settings and conclude that underpowered experiments are common in the NLP literature. In particular, for several tasks in the popular GLUE benchmark, small test sets mean that most attempted comparisons to state of the art models will not be adequately powered. Similarly, based on reasonable assumptions, we find that the most typical experimental design for human rating studies will be underpowered to detect small model differences, of the sort that are frequently studied. For machine translation, we find that typical test sets of 2000 sentences have approximately 75% power to detect differences of 1 BLEU point. To improve the situation going forward, we give an overview of best practices for power analysis in NLP and release a series of notebooks to assist with future power analyses.

Ideas for Improving the Field of Machine Learning: Summarizing Discussion from the NeurIPS 2019 Retrospectives Workshop

This report documents ideas for improving the field of machine learning, which arose from discussions at the ML Retrospectives workshop at NeurIPS 2019. The goal of the report is to disseminate these ideas more broadly, and in turn encourage continuing discussion about how the field could improve along these axes. We focus on topics that were most discussed at the workshop: incentives for encouraging alternate forms of scholarship, re-structuring the review process, participation from academia and industry, and how we might better train computer scientists as scientists. Videos from the workshop can be accessed at https://slideslive.com/neurips/west-114-115-retrospectives-a-venue-for-selfreflection-in-ml-research

TDprop: Does Jacobi Preconditioning Help Temporal Difference Learning?

We investigate whether Jacobi preconditioning, accounting for the bootstrap term in temporal difference (TD) learning, can help boost performance of adaptive optimizers. Our method, TDprop, computes a per parameter learning rate based on the diagonal preconditioning of the TD update rule. We show how this can be used in both $n$-step returns and TD($\lambda$). Our theoretical findings demonstrate that including this additional preconditioning information is, surprisingly, comparable to normal semi-gradient TD if the optimal learning rate is found for both via a hyperparameter search. In Deep RL experiments using Expected SARSA, TDprop meets or exceeds the performance of Adam in all tested games under near-optimal learning rates, but a well-tuned SGD can yield similar improvements -- matching our theory. Our findings suggest that Jacobi preconditioning may improve upon typical adaptive optimization methods in Deep RL, but despite incorporating additional information from the TD bootstrap term, may not always be better than SGD.

Towards the Systematic Reporting of the Energy and Carbon Footprints of Machine Learning

Accurate reporting of energy and carbon usage is essential for understanding the potential climate impacts of machine learning research. We introduce a framework that makes this easier by providing a simple interface for tracking realtime energy consumption and carbon emissions, as well as generating standardized online appendices. Utilizing this framework, we create a leaderboard for energy efficient reinforcement learning algorithms to incentivize responsible research in this area as an example for other areas of machine learning. Finally, based on case studies using our framework, we propose strategies for mitigation of carbon emissions and reduction of energy consumption. By making accounting easier, we hope to further the sustainable development of machine learning experiments and spur more research into energy efficient algorithms.

Separating value functions across time-scales

In many finite horizon episodic reinforcement learning (RL) settings, it is desirable to optimize for the undiscounted return - in settings like Atari, for instance, the goal is to collect the most points while staying alive in the long run. Yet, it may be difficult (or even intractable) mathematically to learn with this target. As such, temporal discounting is often applied to optimize over a shorter effective planning horizon. This comes at the cost of potentially biasing the optimization target away from the undiscounted goal. In settings where this bias is unacceptable - where the system must optimize for longer horizons at higher discounts - the target of the value function approximator may increase in variance leading to difficulties in learning. We present an extension of temporal difference (TD) learning, which we call TD($\Delta$), that breaks down a value function into a series of components based on the differences between value functions with smaller discount factors. The separation of a longer horizon value function into these components has useful properties in scalability and performance. We discuss these properties and show theoretic and empirical improvements over standard TD learning in certain settings.

Distilling Information from a Flood: A Possibility for the Use of Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review in Machine Learning Research

The current flood of information in all areas of machine learning research, from computer vision to reinforcement learning, has made it difficult to make aggregate scientific inferences. It can be challenging to distill a myriad of similar papers into a set of useful principles, to determine which new methodologies to use for a particular application, and to be confident that one has compared against all relevant related work when developing new ideas. However, such a rapidly growing body of research literature is a problem that other fields have already faced - in particular, medicine and epidemiology. In those fields, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been used exactly for dealing with these issues and it is not uncommon for entire journals to be dedicated to such analyses. Here, we suggest the field of machine learning might similarly benefit from meta-analysis and systematic review, and we encourage further discussion and development along this direction.

An Introduction to Deep Reinforcement Learning

Deep reinforcement learning is the combination of reinforcement learning (RL) and deep learning. This field of research has been able to solve a wide range of complex decision-making tasks that were previously out of reach for a machine. Thus, deep RL opens up many new applications in domains such as healthcare, robotics, smart grids, finance, and many more. This manuscript provides an introduction to deep reinforcement learning models, algorithms and techniques. Particular focus is on the aspects related to generalization and how deep RL can be used for practical applications. We assume the reader is familiar with basic machine learning concepts.