Meta-Learning Dynamics Forecasting Using Task Inference

Current deep learning models for dynamics forecasting struggle with generalization. They can only forecast in a specific domain and fail when applied to systems with different parameters, external forces, or boundary conditions. We propose a model-based meta-learning method called DyAd which can generalize across heterogeneous domains by partitioning them into different tasks. DyAd has two parts: an encoder which infers the time-invariant hidden features of the task with weak supervision, and a forecaster which learns the shared dynamics of the entire domain. The encoder adapts and controls the forecaster during inference using adaptive instance normalization and adaptive padding. Theoretically, we prove that the generalization error of such procedure is related to the task relatedness in the source domain, as well as the domain differences between source and target. Experimentally, we demonstrate that our model outperforms state-of-the-art approaches on both turbulent flow and real-world ocean data forecasting tasks

Meta Reinforcement Learning with Latent Variable Gaussian Processes

Learning from small data sets is critical in many practical applications where data collection is time consuming or expensive, e.g., robotics, animal experiments or drug design. Meta learning is one way to increase the data efficiency of learning algorithms by generalizing learned concepts from a set of training tasks to unseen, but related, tasks. Often, this relationship between tasks is hard coded or relies in some other way on human expertise. In this paper, we frame meta learning as a hierarchical latent variable model and infer the relationship between tasks automatically from data. We apply our framework in a model-based reinforcement learning setting and show that our meta-learning model effectively generalizes to novel tasks by identifying how new tasks relate to prior ones from minimal data. This results in up to a 60% reduction in the average interaction time needed to solve tasks compared to strong baselines.Comment: 11 pages, 7 figure

Team Learning: A Theoretical Integration and Review

With the increasing emphasis on work teams as the primary architecture of organizational structure, scholars have begun to focus attention on team learning, the processes that support it, and the important outcomes that depend on it. Although the literature addressing learning in teams is broad, it is also messy and fraught with conceptual confusion. This chapter presents a theoretical integration and review. The goal is to organize theory and research on team learning, identify actionable frameworks and findings, and emphasize promising targets for future research. We emphasize three theoretical foci in our examination of team learning, treating it as multilevel (individual and team, not individual or team), dynamic (iterative and progressive; a process not an outcome), and emergent (outcomes of team learning can manifest in different ways over time). The integrative theoretical heuristic distinguishes team learning process theories, supporting emergent states, team knowledge representations, and respective influences on team performance and effectiveness. Promising directions for theory development and research are discussed

Alternative approaches for studying shared and distributed leadership

Scholars hold different perspectives about leadership which are not limited to a formally appointed leader. Of the abundance of terms used to describe this phenomenon, shared and distributed are the most prevalent. These terms are often used interchangeably, resulting in confusion in the way that shared and distributed leadership is conceptualized and investigated. This paper provides a historical development of this field, challenges existing conceptions and reveals inconsistencies and contradictions that are seldom acknowledged. Four distinct approaches to the study of shared and distributed leadership are identified in the literature, each embracing different ontological views and leadership epistemologies. Individually, the four approaches offer valuable - yet partial - understanding. Comparing and contrasting the assumptions and insights from the four approaches raises fundamental issues about how we think about leadership in terms of research, practice and development