In contrast to traditional exhaustive search, selective search first clusters documents into several groups before all the documents are searched exhaustively by a query, to limit the search executed within one group or only a few groups. Selective search is designed to reduce the latency and computation in modern large-scale search systems. In this study, we propose MICO, a Mutual Information CO-training framework for selective search with minimal supervision using the search logs. After training, MICO does not only cluster the documents, but also routes unseen queries to the relevant clusters for efficient retrieval. In our empirical experiments, MICO significantly improves the performance on multiple metrics of selective search and outperforms a number of existing competitive baselines.

Multi-task learning (MTL) aims to solve multiple tasks jointly by sharing a base representation among them. This can lead to more efficient learning and better generalization, as compared to learning each task individually. However, one issue that often arises in MTL is the convergence speed between tasks varies due to differences in task difficulty, so it can be a challenge to simultaneously achieve the best performance on all tasks with a single model checkpoint. Various techniques have been proposed to address discrepancies in task convergence rate, including weighting the per-task losses and modifying task gradients. In this work, we propose a novel approach that avoids the problem of requiring all tasks to converge at the same rate, but rather allows for “asynchronous” convergence among the tasks where each task can converge on its own schedule. As our main contribution, we monitor per-task validation metrics and switch to a knowledge distillation loss once a task has converged instead of continuing to train on the true labels. This prevents the model from overfitting on converged tasks while it learns the remaining tasks. We evaluate the proposed method in two 5-task MTL setups consisting of internal e-commerce datasets. The results show that our method consistently outperforms existing loss weighting and gradient balancing approaches, achieving average improvements of 0.9% and 1.5% over the best performing baseline model in the two setups, respectively.