Feedback Control for Multi-Objective Graph Self-Supervision
Grover, Vasiloudis, Xie, Lu, Song, Faloutsos · cs.LG · 2026-09-05 · 原文
Can multi-task self-supervised learning on graphs be coordinated without the usual tug-of-war between objectives? Graph self-supervised learning (SSL) offers a growing toolbox of pretext objectives like mutual information, reconstruction, and contrastive learning, yet combining them reliably remains challenging due to objective interference and training instability. Most multi-pretext pipelines use per-update mixing, forcing every parameter update to be a compromise and leading to three failure modes: Disagreement (conflict-induced negative transfer), Drift (nonstationary objective utility), and Drought (hidden starvation of underserved objectives). We argue that coordination is fundamentally a temporal allocation problem: deciding when each objective receives optimization budget, not merely how to weigh them. We introduce ControlG, a control-theoretic framework that recasts multi-objective graph SSL as feedback-controlled temporal allocation by estimating per-objective difficulty and pairwise antagonism, planning target budgets via a Pareto-aware log-hypervolume planner, and scheduling with a Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller. Across 9 datasets, ControlG consistent
讲义
讲义·推断 依据「原文」自动生成的结构化摘要（推断），非原文表述；以原文为准。
1. 人话版
Can multi-task self-supervised learning on graphs be coordinated without the usual tug-of-war between objectives?
Graph self-supervised learning (SSL) offers a growing toolbox of pretext objectives like mutual information, reconstruction, and contrastive learning, yet combining them reliably remains challenging due to objective interference and training instability.
2. 领域脉络
本文类目：cs.LG，属于其所在研究脉络的最新进展。
3. 机制拆解
We argue that coordination is fundamentally a temporal allocation problem: deciding when each objective receives optimization budget, not merely how to weigh them.
We introduce ControlG, a control-theoretic framework that recasts multi-objective graph SSL as feedback-controlled temporal allocation by estimating per-objective difficulty and pairwise antagonism, planning target budgets via a Pareto-aware log-hypervolume planner, and scheduling with a Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller.
4. 证据与数字
Across 9 datasets, ControlG consistent
5. 反例与边界
Most multi-pretext pipelines use per-update mixing, forcing every parameter update to be a compromise and leading to three failure modes: Disagreement (conflict-induced negative transfer), Drift (nonstationary objective utility), and Drought (hidden starvation of underserved objectives).
6. 跨领域连接与意外收获
思考本文机制能否迁移到你正在跟进的问题。
7. 可复用方法
把本文机制与你手头项目对照，找一个两周内能验证的最小实验。
8. 术语表
精读时把不熟的术语记入此处，作为下次回忆的锚点。