Frankle and Carbin discover so-called winning tickets, subset of weights of a neural network that are sufficient to obtain state-of-the-art accuracy. The lottery hypothesis states that dense networks contain subnetworks – the winning tickets – that can reach the same accuracy when trained in isolation, from scratch. The key insight is that these subnetworks seem to have received optimal initialization. Then, given a complex trained network for, e.g., Cifar, weights are pruned based on their absolute value – i.e., weights with small absolute value are pruned first. The remaining network is trained from scratch using the original initialization and reaches competitive performance using less than 10% of the original weights. As soon as the subnetwork is re-initialized, these results cannot be reproduced though. This suggests that these subnetworks obtained some sort of “optimal” initialization for learning.

Also find this summary at [davidstutz.de](https://davidstutz.de/category/reading/).

Brendel and Bethge show empirically that state-of-the-art deep neural networks on ImageNet rely to a large extent on local features, without any notion of interaction between them. To this end, they propose a bag-of-local-features model by applying a ResNet-like architecture on small patches of ImageNet images. The predictions of these local features are then averaged and a linear classifier is trained on top. Due to the locality, this model allows to inspect which areas in an image contribute to the model’s decision, as shown in Figure 1. Furthermore, these local features are sufficient for good performance on ImageNet. Finally, they show, on scrambled ImageNet images, that regular deep neural networks also rely heavily on local features, without any notion of spatial interaction between them.

https://i.imgur.com/8NO1w0d.png
Figure 1: Illustration of the heap maps obtained using BagNets, the bag-of-local-features model proposed in the paper. Here, different sizes for the local patches are used.

Also find this summary at [davidstutz.de](https://davidstutz.de/category/reading/).

The paper discusses and empirically investigates by empirical testing the effect of "catastrophic forgetting" (**CF**), i.e. the inability of a model to perform a task it was previously trained to perform if retrained to perform a second task. 

An illuminating example is what happens in ML systems with convex objectives: regardless of the initialization (i.e. of what was learnt by doing the first task), the training of the second task will always end in the global minimum, thus totally "forgetting" the first one. 

Neuroscientific evidence (and common sense) suggest that the outcome of the experiment is deeply influenced by the similarity of the tasks involved. Namely, if (i) the two tasks are *functionally identical but input is presented in a different format* or if (ii)  *tasks are similar* and the third case for (iii) *dissimilar tasks*. 

Relevant examples may be provided respectively by (i) performing the same image classification task starting from two different image representations as RGB or HSL, (ii) performing image classification tasks with semantically similar as classifying two similar animals and (iii) performing a text classification followed by image classification. 

The problem is investigated by an empirical study covering two methods of training ("SGD" and "dropout") combined with 4 activations functions (logistic sigmoid, RELU, LWTA, Maxout). A random search is carried out on these parameters. 

From a practitioner's point of view, it is interesting to note that dropout has been set to 0.5 in hidden units and 0.2 in the visible one since this is a reasonably well-known parameter. 

## Why the paper is important
It is apparently the first to provide a systematic empirical analysis of CF. Establishes a framework and baselines to face the problem.

## Key conclusions, takeaways and modelling remarks
* dropout helps in preventing CF
* dropout seems to increase the optimal model size with respect to the model without dropout 
* choice of activation function has a less consistent effect than dropout\no dropout choice
* dissimilar task experiment provides a  notable exception of then dissimilar task experiment
* the previous hypothesis that LWTA activation is particularly resistant to CF is rejected  (even if it performs best in the new task in the dissimilar task pair the behaviour is inconsistent)
* choice of activation function should always be cross-validated
* If computational resources are insufficient for cross-validation the combination dropout + maxout activation function is recommended.

Reinforcement learning is notoriously sample-inefficient, and one reason why is that agents learn about the world entirely through experience, and it takes lots of experience to learn useful things. One solution you might imagine to this problem is the ones humans by and large use in encountering new environments: instead of learning everything through first-person exploration, acquiring lots of your knowledge by hearing or reading condensed descriptions of the world that can help you take more sensible actions within it. This paper and others like it have the goal of learning RL agents that can take in information about the world in the form of text, and use that information to solve a task. This paper is not the first to propose a solution in this general domain, but it claims to be unique by dint of having both the dynamics of the environment and the goal of the agent change on a per-environment basis, and be described in text. 

The precise details of the architecture used are very much the result of particular engineering done to solve this problem, and as such, it's a bit hard to abstract away generalizable principles that this paper showed, other than the proof of concept fact that tasks of the form they describe - where an agent has to learn which objects can kill which enemies, and pursue the goal of killing certain ones - can be solved. 

Arguably the most central design principle of the paper is aggressive and repeated use of different forms of conditioning architectures, to fully mix the information contained in the textual and visual data streams. This was done in two main ways: 

- Multiple different attention summaries were created, using the document embedding as input, but with queries conditioned on different things (the task, the inventory, a summarized form of the visual features). This is a natural but clever extension of the fact that attention is an easy way to generate conditional aggregated versions of some input
https://i.imgur.com/xIsRu2M.png
- The architecture uses FiLM (Featurewise Linear Modulation), which is essentially a many-generations-generalized version of conditional batch normalization in which the gamma and lambda used to globally shift and scale a feature vector are learned, taking some other data as input. The canonical version of this would be taking in text input, summarizing it into a vector, and then using that vector as input in a MLP that generates gamma and lambda parameters for all of the convolutional layers in a vision system. The interesting innovation of this paper is essentially to argue that this conditioning operation is quite neutral, and that there's no essential way in which the vision input is the "true" data, and the text simply the auxiliary conditioning data: it's more accurate to say that each form of data should conditioning the process of the other one. And so they use Bidirectional FiLM, which does just that, conditioning vision features on text summaries, but also conditioning text features on vision summaries.
https://i.imgur.com/qFaH1k3.png
- The model overall is composed of multiple layers that perform both this mixing FiLM operation, and also visually-conditioned attention. The authors did show, not super surprisingly, that these additional forms of conditioning added performance value to the model relative to the cases where they were ablated

Xu and Mannor provide a theoretical paper on robustness and generalization where their notion of robustness is based on the idea that the difference in loss should be small for samples that are close. This implies that, e.g., for a test sample close to a training sample, the loss on both samples should be similar. The authors formalize this notion as follows:

Definition: Let $A$ be a learning algorithm and $S \subset Z$ be a training set such that $A(S)$ denotes the model learned on $S$ by $A$; the algorithm $A$ is $(K, \epsilon(S))$-robust if $Z$ can be partitioned into $K$ disjoint sets, denoted $C_i$ such that $\forall s \in S$ it holds:

$s,z \in C_i \rightarrow |l(A(S), s) – l(A(S), z)| \leq \epsilon(S)$.

In words, this means that we can partition the space $Z$ (which is $X \times Y$ for a supervised problem) into a finite set of subsets and whenever a sample falls into the same partition as a training sample, the learned model should have nearly the same loss on both samples. Note that this notion does not entirely match the notion of adversarial robustness as commonly referred to nowadays. The main difference is that the partition can be chosen, while for adversarial robustness, the “partition” (usually in form of epsilon-balls around training and testing samples) is fixed.

Based on the above notion of robustness, the authors provide PAC bounds for robust algorithms, i.e. generalization performance of $A$ is linked to its generalization. Furthermore, in several examples, common machine learning techniques such as SVMs and neural networks are shown to be robust under specific conditions. For neural networks, for example, an upper bound on the $L_1$ norm of weights and the requirement of Lipschitz continuity is enough. This actually related to work on adversarial robustness, where Lipschitz continuity and weight regularization is also studied.

Also find this summary at [davidstutz.de](https://davidstutz.de/category/reading/).

Problem
=========
Brain MRI segmentation using adversarial training approach

Dataset
======
55 T1 weighted brain MR images (35 adults and 20 elders) with respective label maps.


Contributions
==========
1. The authors suggest an adversarial loss in addition to the traditional loss.
2. The authors compare 2 Generator (Segmentor) models - Fully convolutional and dilated networks.

https://i.imgur.com/orhWhoM.png

Dilated network
------------------
Using conv layers, allows for larger receptive field with fewer trainable weights (compared to the FCN option).


However, the authors claim the adversarial loss contributes more when applying the FCN model

**Dropout for layers** sums it up pretty well. The authors built on the idea of [deep residual networks](http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.03385) to use identity functions to skip layers. 

The main advantages:

* Training speed-ups by about 25%
* Huge networks without overfitting

## Evaluation

* [CIFAR-10](https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~kriz/cifar.html): 4.91% error ([SotA](https://martin-thoma.com/sota/#image-classification): 2.72 %) Training Time: ~15h
* [CIFAR-100](https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~kriz/cifar.html): 24.58% ([SotA](https://martin-thoma.com/sota/#image-classification): 17.18 %) Training time: < 16h
* [SVHN](http://ufldl.stanford.edu/housenumbers/):  1.75% ([SotA](https://martin-thoma.com/sota/#image-classification): 1.59 %) - trained for 50 epochs, begging with a LR of 0.1, divided by 10 after 30 epochs and 35. Training time: < 26h

Coming from the perspective of the rest of machine learning, a somewhat odd thing about reinforcement learning that often goes unnoticed is the fact that, in basically all reinforcement learning, performance of an algorithm is judged by its performance on the same environment it was trained on. In the parlance of ML writ large: training on the test set. In RL, most of the focus has historically been on whether automatic systems would be able to learn a policy from the state distribution of a single environment, already a fairly hard task. But, now that RL has had more success in the single-environment case, there comes the question: how can we train reinforcement algorithms that don't just perform well on a single environment, but over a range of environments. One lens onto this question is that of meta-learning, but this paper takes a different approach, and looks at how straightforward regularization techniques pulled from the land of supervised learning can (or can't straightforwardly) be applied to reinforcement learning. 

In general, the regularization techniques discussed here are all ways of reducing the capacity of the model, and preventing it from overfitting. Some ways to reduce capacity are: 

- Apply L2 weight penalization
- Apply dropout, which handicaps the model by randomly zeroing out neurons
- Use Batch Norm, which uses noisy batch statistics, and increases randomness in a way that, similar to above, deteriorates performance
- Use an information bottleneck: similar to a VAE, this approach works by learning some compressed representation of your input, p(z|x), and then predicting your output off of that z, in a way that incentivizes your z to be informative (because you want to be able to predict y well) but also penalizes too much information being put in it (because you penalize differences between your learned p(z|x) distribution and an unconditional prior p(z) ). This pushes your model to use its conditional-on-x capacity wisely, and only learn features if they're quite valuable in predicting y

However, the paper points out that there are some complications in straightforwardly applying these techniques to RL. The central one is the fact that in (most) RL, the distribution of transitions you train on comes from prior iterations of your policy. This means that a noisier and less competent policy will also leave you with less data to train on. Additionally, using a noisy policy can increase variance, both by making your trained policy more different than your rollout policy (in an off-policy setting) and by making your estimate of the value function higher-variance, which is problematic because that's what you're using as a target training signal in a temporal difference framework. 

The paper is a bit disconnected in its connection between justification and theory, and makes two broad, mostly distinct proposals: 

1. The most successful (though also the one least directly justified by the earlier-discussed theoretical difficulties of applying regularization in RL) is an information bottleneck ported into a RL setting. It works almost the same as the classification-model one, except that you're trying to increase the value of your actions given compressed-from-state representation z, rather than trying to increase your ability to correctly predict y. The justification given here is that it's good to incentivize RL algorithms in particular to learn simpler, more compressible features, because they often have such poor data and also training signal earlier in training 
2. SNI (Selective Noise Injection) works by only applying stochastic aspects of regularization (sampling from z in an information bottleneck, applying different dropout masks, etc) to certain parts of the training procedure. In particular, the rollout used to collect data is non-stochastic, removing the issue of noisiness impacting the data that's collected. They then do an interesting thing where they calculate a weighted mixture of the policy update with a deterministic model, and the update with a stochastic one. The best performing of these that they tested seems to have been a 50/50 split.  This is essentially just a knob you can turn on stochasticity, to trade off between the regularizing effect of noise and the variance-increasing-negative effect of it. 

https://i.imgur.com/fi0dHgf.png

https://i.imgur.com/LLbDaRw.png

Based on my read of the experiments in the paper, the most impressive thing here is how well their information bottleneck mechanism works as a way to improve generalization, compared to both the baseline and other regularization approaches. It does look like there's some additional benefit to SNI, particularly in the CoinRun setting, but very little in the MultiRoom setting, and in general the difference is less dramatic than the difference from using the information bottleneck.

### What is BN:
  * Batch Normalization (BN) is a normalization method/layer for neural networks.
  * Usually inputs to neural networks are normalized to either the range of [0, 1] or [-1, 1] or to mean=0 and variance=1. The latter is called *Whitening*.
  * BN essentially performs Whitening to the intermediate layers of the networks.

### How its calculated:
  * The basic formula is $x^* = (x - E[x]) / \sqrt{\text{var}(x)}$, where $x^*$ is the new value of a single component, $E[x]$ is its mean within a batch and `var(x)` is its variance within a batch.
  * BN extends that formula further to $x^{**} = gamma * x^* +$ beta, where $x^{**}$ is the final normalized value. `gamma` and `beta` are learned per layer. They make sure that BN can learn the identity function, which is needed in a few cases.
  * For convolutions, every layer/filter/kernel is normalized on its own (linear layer: each neuron/node/component). That means that every generated value ("pixel") is treated as an example. If we have a batch size of N and the image generated by the convolution has width=P and height=Q, we would calculate the mean (E) over `N*P*Q` examples (same for the variance).

### Theoretical effects:
  * BN reduces *Covariate Shift*. That is the change in distribution of activation of a component. By using BN, each neuron's activation becomes (more or less) a gaussian distribution, i.e. its usually not active, sometimes a bit active, rare very active.
  * Covariate Shift is undesirable, because the later layers have to keep adapting to the change of the type of distribution (instead of just to new distribution parameters, e.g. new mean and variance values for gaussian distributions).
  * BN reduces effects of exploding and vanishing gradients, because every becomes roughly normal distributed. Without BN, low activations of one layer can lead to lower activations in the next layer, and then even lower ones in the next layer and so on.

### Practical effects:
  * BN reduces training times. (Because of less Covariate Shift, less exploding/vanishing gradients.)
  * BN reduces demand for regularization, e.g. dropout or L2 norm. (Because the means and variances are calculated over batches and therefore every normalized value depends on the current batch. I.e. the network can no longer just memorize values and their correct answers.)
  * BN allows higher learning rates. (Because of less danger of exploding/vanishing gradients.)
  * BN enables training with saturating nonlinearities in deep networks, e.g. sigmoid. (Because the normalization prevents them from getting stuck in saturating ranges, e.g. very high/low values for sigmoid.)


![MNIST and neuron activations](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aleju/papers/master/neural-nets/images/Batch_Normalization__performance_and_activations.png?raw=true "MNIST and neuron activations")

*BN applied to MNIST (a), and activations of a randomly selected neuron over time (b, c), where the middle line is the median activation, the top line is the 15th percentile and the bottom line is the 85th percentile.*

-------------------------

### Rough chapter-wise notes

* (2) Towards Reducing Covariate Shift
  * Batch Normalization (*BN*) is a special normalization method for neural networks.
  * In neural networks, the inputs to each layer depend on the outputs of all previous layers.
  * The distributions of these outputs can change during the training. Such a change is called a *covariate shift*.
  * If the distributions stayed the same, it would simplify the training. Then only the parameters would have to be readjusted continuously (e.g. mean and variance for normal distributions).
  * If using sigmoid activations, it can happen that one unit saturates (very high/low values). That is undesired as it leads to vanishing gradients for all units below in the network.
  * BN fixes the means and variances of layer inputs to specific values (zero mean, unit variance).
  * That accomplishes:
    * No more covariate shift.
    * Fixes problems with vanishing gradients due to saturation.
  * Effects:
    * Networks learn faster. (As they don't have to adjust to covariate shift any more.)
    * Optimizes gradient flow in the network. (As the gradient becomes less dependent on the scale of the parameters and their initial values.)
    * Higher learning rates are possible. (Optimized gradient flow reduces risk of divergence.)
    * Saturating nonlinearities can be safely used. (Optimized gradient flow prevents the network from getting stuck in saturated modes.)
    * BN reduces the need for dropout. (As it has a regularizing effect.)
  * How BN works:
    * BN normalizes layer inputs to zero mean and unit variance. That is called *whitening*.
    * Naive method: Train on a batch. Update model parameters. Then normalize. Doesn't work: Leads to exploding biases while distribution parameters (mean, variance) don't change.
    * A proper method has to include the current example *and* all previous examples in the normalization step.
    * This leads to calculating in covariance matrix and its inverse square root. That's expensive. The authors found a faster way.

* (3) Normalization via Mini-Batch Statistics
  * Each feature (component) is normalized individually. (Due to cost, differentiability.)
  * Normalization according to: `componentNormalizedValue = (componentOldValue - E[component]) / sqrt(Var(component))`
  * Normalizing each component can reduce the expressitivity of nonlinearities. Hence the formula is changed so that it can also learn the identiy function.
  * Full formula: `newValue = gamma * componentNormalizedValue + beta` (gamma and beta learned per component)
  * E and Var are estimated for each mini batch.
  * BN is fully differentiable. Formulas for gradients/backpropagation are at the end of chapter 3 (page 4, left).

* (3.1) Training and Inference with Batch-Normalized Networks
  * During test time, E and Var of each component can be estimated using all examples or alternatively with moving averages estimated during training.
  * During test time, the BN formulas can be simplified to a single linear transformation.

* (3.2) Batch-Normalized Convolutional Networks
  * Authors recommend to place BN layers after linear/fully-connected layers and before the ninlinearities.
  * They argue that the linear layers have a better distribution that is more likely to be similar to a gaussian.
  * Placing BN after the nonlinearity would also not eliminate covariate shift (for some reason).
  * Learning a separate bias isn't necessary as BN's formula already contains a bias-like term (beta).
  * For convolutions they apply BN equally to all features on a feature map. That creates effective batch sizes of m\*pq, where m is the number of examples in the batch and p q are the feature map dimensions (height, width). BN for linear layers has a batch size of m.
  * gamma and beta are then learned per feature map, not per single pixel. (Linear layers: Per neuron.)

* (3.3) Batch Normalization enables higher learning rates
  * BN normalizes activations.
  * Result: Changes to early layers don't amplify towards the end.
  * BN makes it less likely to get stuck in the saturating parts of nonlinearities.
  * BN makes training more resilient to parameter scales.
  * Usually, large learning rates cannot be used as they tend to scale up parameters. Then any change to a parameter amplifies through the network and can lead to gradient explosions.
  * With BN gradients actually go down as parameters increase. Therefore, higher learning rates can be used.
  * (something about singular values and the Jacobian)

* (3.4) Batch Normalization regularizes the model
  * Usually: Examples are seen on their own by the network.
  * With BN: Examples are seen in conjunction with other examples (mean, variance).
  * Result: Network can't easily memorize the examples any more.
  * Effect: BN has a regularizing effect. Dropout can be removed or decreased in strength.

* (4) Experiments
* (4.1) Activations over time
** They tested BN on MNIST with a 100x100x10 network. (One network with BN before each nonlinearity, another network without BN for comparison.)
** Batch Size was 60.
** The network with BN learned faster. Activations of neurons (their means and variances over several examples) seemed to be more consistent during training.
** Generalization of the BN network seemed to be better.

* (4.2) ImageNet classification
** They applied BN to the Inception network.
** Batch Size was 32.
** During training they used (compared to original Inception training) a higher learning rate with more decay, no dropout, less L2, no local response normalization and less distortion/augmentation.
** They shuffle the data during training (i.e. each batch contains different examples).
** Depending on the learning rate, they either achieve the same accuracy (as in the non-BN network) in 14 times fewer steps (5x learning rate) or a higher accuracy in 5 times fewer steps (30x learning rate).
** BN enables training of Inception networks with sigmoid units (still a bit lower accuracy than ReLU).
** An ensemble of 6 Inception networks with BN achieved better accuracy than the previously best network for ImageNet.

* (5) Conclusion
** BN is similar to a normalization layer suggested by Gülcehre and Bengio. However, they applied it to the outputs of nonlinearities.
** They also didn't have the beta and gamma parameters (i.e. their normalization could not learn the identity function).

This paper builds upon the previous work in gradient-based meta-learning methods. 
The objective of meta-learning is to find meta-parameters ($\theta$) which can be "adapted" to yield "task-specific" ($\phi$) parameters.
Thus, $\theta$ and $\phi$ lie in the same hyperspace. 
A meta-learning problem deals with several tasks, where each task is specified by its respective training and test datasets. 
At the inference time of gradient-based meta-learning methods, before the start of each task, one needs to perform some gradient-descent (GD) steps initialized from the meta-parameters to obtain these task-specific parameters. 
The objective of meta-learning is to find $\theta$, such that GD on each task's training data yields parameters that generalize well on its test data. 

Thus, the objective function of meta-learning is the average loss on the training dataset of each task ($\mathcal{L}_{i}(\phi)$), where the parameters of that task ($\phi$) are obtained by performing GD initialized from the meta-parameters ($\theta$). 

\begin{equation}
F(\theta) = \frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=1}^{M} \mathcal{L}_i(\phi)
\end{equation}

In order to backpropagate the gradients for this task-specific loss function back to the meta-parameters, one needs to backpropagate through task-specific loss function ($\mathcal{L}_{i}$) and the GD steps (or any other optimization algorithm that was used), which were performed to yield $\phi$.
As GD is a series of steps, a whole sequence of changes done on $\theta$ need to be considered for backpropagation. 
Thus, the past approaches have focused on RNN + BPTT or Truncated BPTT. 

However, the author shows that with the use of the proximal term in the task-specific optimization (also called inner optimization), one can obtain the gradients without having to consider the entire trajectory of the parameters. 
The authors call these implicit gradients.
The idea is to constrain the $\phi$ to lie closer to $\theta$ with the help of proximal term which is similar to L2-regularization penalty term.
Due to this constraint, one obtains an implicit equation of $\phi$  in terms of $\theta$ as 
\begin{equation}
\phi = \theta - \frac{1}{\lambda}\nabla\mathcal{L}_i(\phi)
\end{equation}
This is then differentiated to obtain the implicit gradients as 

\begin{equation}
\frac{d\phi}{d\theta} = \big( \mathbf{I} + \frac{1}{\lambda}\nabla^{2} \mathcal{L}_i(\phi) \big)^{-1}
\end{equation}

and the contribution of gradients from $\mathcal{L}_i$ is thus, 
\begin{equation}
 \big( \mathbf{I} + \frac{1}{\lambda}\nabla^{2} \mathcal{L}_i(\phi) \big)^{-1} \nabla \mathcal{L}_i(\phi)
\end{equation}

The hessian in the above gradients are memory expensive computations, which become infeasible in deep neural networks.
Thus, the authors approximate the above term by minimizing the quadratic formulation using conjugate gradient method which only requires Hessian-vector products (cheaply available via reverse backpropagation).
\begin{equation}
\min_{\mathbf{w}} \mathbf{w}^\intercal \big( I + \frac{1}{\lambda}\nabla^{2} \mathcal{L}_i(\phi) \big) \mathbf{w} - \mathbf{w}^\intercal \nabla \mathcal{L}_i(\phi)
\end{equation} 

Thus, the paper introduces computationally cheap and constant memory gradient computation for meta-learning.