Contaminated Multi-task Learning with Heterogeneity: Fundamental Limits and Optimal Algorithms
About
Integrating information across related tasks can improve estimation and prediction in transfer, multi-task, and federated learning, but contamination and heterogeneity make robust borrowing challenging. We study a contaminated multi-task empirical risk minimization (ERM) framework in which an $\epsilon$ fraction of $K$ tasks, each with sample size $n$, may be arbitrarily contaminated while the remaining tasks are heterogeneous. Our goal is to estimate both the global minimizer of the average risk and the clean task-specific minimizers, thereby combining robustness and personalization. In the Gaussian mean model, we show that several common paradigms, including adaptive and robust regularization around a shared center, global matrix regularization, decomposition-based regularization, and score-based outlier-task detection, all suffer from a worst-case contamination error of order $\epsilon\sqrt{d/n}$, which is suboptimal compared to the lower bound $\epsilon/\sqrt{n}$. This identifies a dimension-dependent barrier for these approaches. We then establish minimax lower bounds for a general heterogeneous ERM setting and propose a computationally efficient filtering-based robust multi-task gradient descent method. Under local strong convexity, smoothness, and sub-Gaussian gradient assumptions, the proposed method attains high-probability upper bounds matching the minimax rates up to logarithmic factors over a broad regime. In particular, it removes the extra $\sqrt{d}$ contamination dependence of many regularization-based methods and score-based outlier detection, while achieving personalization to local tasks under strong heterogeneity. Simulations and a real-data analysis demonstrate strong robustness and personalization relative to a broad range of benchmark methods.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear regression | Synthetic Linear Regression (n=50, d=50, K=40, ε=0.2) (train/test) | Average Local Error0.219 | 204 | |
| Linear regression | Synthetic Multi-task Linear Regression (n=d=50, K=40, epsilon=0.2) | Global Error (L2-norm)0.178 | 192 | |
| Linear regression | Synthetic Multi-task Dataset d=50, K=20, epsilon=0.2 (test) | Local Error0.688 | 102 | |
| Logistic Regression | Logistic regression d=50, K=20, epsilon=0.2 varying per-task sample size n (test) | Local Error1.437 | 102 | |
| Multi-task Linear Regression (Local Parameter Estimation) | Synthetic Multi-task Linear Regression (n=d=50, ε=0.2) (test) | Local L2 Error0.98 | 102 | |
| Multi-task Logistic Regression | Synthetic Multi-task Logistic Regression (n=d=50, epsilon=0.2) | Local Error1.519 | 102 | |
| Local prediction | HAR 60% (train) | Local Prediction Error1.3 | 102 | |
| Local prediction | HAR (20% train) | Local Prediction Error2.1 | 102 | |
| Local prediction error | HAR 50% (train) | Error Rate1.4 | 102 | |
| Linear regression | Linear Regression (synthetic) | Local Error0.981 | 101 |