Papernot and McDaniel introduce deep k-nearest neighbors where nearest neighbors are found at each intermediate layer in order to improve interpretbaility and robustness. Personally, I really appreciated reading this paper; thus, I will not only discuss the actually proposed method but also highlight some ideas from their thorough survey and experimental results.

First, Papernot and McDaniel provide a quite thorough survey of relevant work in three disciplines: confidence, interpretability and robustness. To the best of my knowledge, this is one of few papers that explicitly make the connection of these three disciplines. Especially the work on confidence is interesting in the light of robustness as Papernot and McDaniel also frequently distinguish between in-distribution and out-distribution samples. Here, it is commonly known that deep neural networks are over-confidence when moving away from the data distribution.

The deep k-nearest neighbor approach is described in Algorithm 1 and summarized in the following. For a trained model and a training set of labeled samples, they first find k nearest neighbors for each intermediate layer of the network. The layer nonconformity with a specific label $j$, referred to as $\alpha$ in Algorithm 1, is computed as the number of labels that in the set of nearest neighbors that do not share this label. By comparing these nonconformity values to a set of reference values (computing over a set of labeled calibration data), the prediction can be refined. In particular, the probability for label $j$ can be computed as the fraction of reference nonconformity values that are higher than the computed one. See Algorthm 1 or the paper for details.

https://i.imgur.com/RA6q1VI.png
https://i.imgur.com/CkRf8ex.png
Algorithm 1: The deep k-nearest neighbor algorithm and an illustration.

Finally, they provide experimental results – again considering the three disciplines of confidence/credibility, interpretability and robustness. The main take-aways are that the resulting confidences are more reliable on out-of-distribution samples, which also include adversarial examples. Additioanlly, the nearest neighbor allow very basic interpretation of the predictions.

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

Spatial Pyramid Pooling (SPP) is a technique which allows Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) to use input images of any size, not only $224\text{px} \times 224\text{px}$ as most architectures do. (However, there is a lower bound for the size of the input image).

## Idea

* Convolutional layers operate on any size, but fully connected layers need fixed-size inputs
* Solution:
  * Add a new SPP layer on top of the last convolutional layer, before the fully connected layer
  * Use an approach similar to bag of words (BoW), but maintain the spatial information. The BoW approach is used for text classification, where the order of the words is discarded and only the number of occurences is kept.
  * The SPP layer operates on each feature map independently.
  * The output of the SPP layer is of dimension $k \cdot M$, where $k$ is the number of feature maps the SPP layer got as input and $M$ is the number of bins.

Example: We could use spatial pyramid pooling with 21 bins:

* 1 bin which is the max of the complete feature map
* 4 bins which divide the image into 4 regions of equal size (depending on the input size) and rectangular shape. Each bin gets the max of its region.
* 16 bins which divide the image into 4 regions of equal size (depending on the input size) and rectangular shape. Each bin gets the max of its region.

## Evaluation

* Pascal VOC 2007, Caltech101: state-of-the-art, without finetuning
* ImageNet 2012: Boosts accuracy for various CNN architectures
* ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC) 2014: Rank #2


## Code

The paper claims that the code is [here](http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/kahe/), but this seems not to be the case any more.

People have tried to implement it with Tensorflow ([1](http://stackoverflow.com/q/40913794/562769), [2](https://github.com/fchollet/keras/issues/2080), [3](https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/issues/6011)), but by now no public working implementation is available.


## Related papers

* [Atrous Convolution](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.00915)

This paper proposes a variant of Neural Turing Machine (NTM) for meta-learning or "learning to learn", in the specific context of few-shot learning (i.e. learning from few examples). Specifically, the proposed model is trained to ingest as input a training set of examples and improve its output predictions as examples are processed, in a purely feed-forward way. This is a form of meta-learning because the model is trained so that its forward pass effectively executes a form of "learning" from the examples it is fed as input.

During training, the model is fed multiples sequences (referred to as episodes) of labeled examples $({\bf x}_1, {\rm null}), ({\bf x}_2, y_1), \dots, ({\bf x}_T, y_{T-1})$, where $T$ is the size of the episode. For instance, if the model is trained to learn how to do 5-class classification from 10 examples per class, $T$ would be $5 \times 10 = 50$. Mainly, the paper presents experiments on the Omniglot dataset, which has 1623 classes. In these experiments, classes are separated into 1200 "training classes" and 423 "test classes", and each episode is generated by randomly selecting 5 classes (each assigned some arbitrary vector representation, e.g. a  one-hot vector that is consistent within the episode, but not across episodes) and constructing a randomly ordered sequence of 50 examples from within the chosen 5 classes. Moreover, the correct label $y_t$ of a given input ${\bf x}_t$ is always provided only at the next time step, but the model is trained to be good at its prediction of the label of ${\bf x}_t$ at the current time step. This is akin to the scenario of online learning on a stream of examples, where the label of an example is revealed only once the model has made a prediction.

The proposed NTM is different from the original NTM of Alex Graves, mostly in how it writes into its memory. The authors propose to focus writing to either the least recently used memory location or the most recently used memory location. Moreover, the least recently used memory location is reset to zero before every write (an operation that seems to be ignored when backpropagating gradients).

Intuitively, the proposed NTM should learn a strategy by which, given a new input, it looks into its memory for information from other examples earlier in the episode (perhaps similarly to what a nearest neighbor classifier would do) to predict the class of the new input.

The paper presents experiments in learning to do multiclass classification on the Omniglot dataset and regression based on functions synthetically generated by a GP. The highlights are that:

1. The proposed model performs much better than an LSTM and better than an NTM with the original write mechanism of Alex Graves (for classification).
2. The proposed model even performs better than a 1st nearest neighbor classifier.
3. The proposed model is even shown to outperform human performance, for the 5-class scenario.
4. The proposed model has decent performance on the regression task, compared to GP predictions using the groundtruth kernel.

**My two cents**

This is probably one of my favorite ICML 2016 papers. I really think meta-learning is a problem that deserves more attention, and this paper presents both an interesting proposal for how to do it and an interesting empirical investigation of it. 

Much like previous work [\[1\]][1] [\[2\]][2], learning is based on automatically generating a meta-learning training set. This is clever I think, since a very large number of such "meta-learning" examples (the episodes) can be constructed, thus transforming what is normally a "small data problem" (few shot learning) into a "big data problem", for which deep learning is more effective.

I'm particularly impressed by how the proposed model outperforms a 1-nearest neighbor classifier. That said, the proposed NTM actually performs 4 reads at each time step, which suggests that a fairer comparison might be with a 4-nearest neighbor classifier. I do wonder how this baseline would compare.

I'm also impressed with the observation that the proposed model surpassed humans.

The paper also proposes to use 5-letter words to describe classes, instead of one-hot vectors. The motivation is that this should make it easier for the model to scale to much more than 5 classes. However, I don't entirely follow the logic as to why one-hot vectors are problematic. In fact, I would think that arbitrarily assigning 5-letter words to classes would instead imply some similarity between classes that share letters that is arbitrary and doesn't reflect true class similarity. 

Also, while I find it encouraging that the performance for regression of the proposed model is decent, I'm curious about how it would compare with a GP approach that incrementally learns the kernel's hyper-parameter (instead of using the groundtruth values, which makes this baseline unrealistically strong).

Finally, I'm still not 100% sure how exactly the NTM is able to implement the type of feed-forward inference I'd expect to be required. I would expect it to learn a memory representation of examples that combines information from the input vector ${\bf x}_t$ *and* its label $y_t$. However, since the label of an input is presented at the following time step in an episode, it is not intuitive to me then how the read/write mechanisms are able to deal with this misalignment. My only guess is that since the controller is an LSTM, then it can somehow remember ${\bf x}_t$ until it gets $y_t$ and appropriately include the combined information into the memory. This could be supported by the fact that using a non-recurrent feed-forward controller is much worse than using an LSTM controller. But I'm not 100% sure of this either.

All the above being said, this is still a really great paper, which I hope will help stimulate more research on meta-learning. Hopefully code for this paper can eventually be released, which would help in popularizing the topic.

[1]: http://snowedin.net/tmp/Hochreiter2001.pdf
[2]: http://www.thespermwhale.com/jaseweston/ram/papers/paper_16.pdf

This paper presents a recurrent neural network architecture in which some of the recurrent weights dynamically change during the forward pass, using a hebbian-like rule. They correspond to the matrices $A(t)$ in the figure below:

![Fast weights RNN figure](http://i.imgur.com/DCznSf4.png)

These weights $A(t)$ are referred to as *fast weights*. Comparatively, the recurrent weights $W$ are referred to as slow weights, since they are only changing due to normal training and are otherwise kept constant at test time.

More specifically, the proposed fast weights RNN compute a series of hidden states $h(t)$ over time steps $t$, but, unlike regular RNNs, the transition from $h(t)$ to $h(t+1)$ consists of multiple ($S$) recurrent layers $h_1(t+1), \dots, h_{S-1}(t+1), h_S(t+1)$, defined as follows:

$$h_{s+1}(t+1) = f(W h(t) + C x(t) + A(t) h_s(t+1))$$

where $f$ is an element-wise non-linearity such as the ReLU activation. The next hidden state $h(t+1)$ is simply defined as the last "inner loop" hidden state $h_S(t+1)$, before moving to the next time step. 

As for the fast weights $A(t)$, they too change between time steps, using the hebbian-like rule:

$$A(t+1) = \lambda A(t) + \eta h(t) h(t)^T$$

where $\lambda$ acts as a decay rate (to partially forget some of what's in the past)  and $\eta$ as the fast weight's "learning rate" (not to be confused with the learning rate used during backprop). Thus, the role played by the fast weights is to rapidly adjust to the recent hidden states and remember the recent past.

In fact, the authors show an explicit relation between these fast weights and memory-augmented architectures that have recently been popular. Indeed, by recursively applying and expending the equation for the fast weights, one obtains

$$A(t) = \eta \sum_{\tau = 1}^{\tau = t-1}\lambda^{t-\tau-1} h(\tau) h(\tau)^T$$

*(note the difference with Equation 3 of the paper... I think there was a typo)* which implies that when computing the $A(t) h_s(t+1)$ term in the expression to go from $h_s(t+1)$ to $h_{s+1}(t+1)$, this term actually corresponds to

$$A(t) h_s(t+1) = \eta \sum_{\tau =1}^{\tau = t-1} \lambda^{t-\tau-1} h(\tau) (h(\tau)^T h_s(t+1))$$

i.e. $A(t) h_s(t+1)$ is a weighted sum of all previous hidden states $h(\tau)$, with each hidden states weighted by an "attention weight" $h(\tau)^T h_s(t+1)$. The difference with many recent memory-augmented architectures is thus that the attention weights aren't computed using a softmax non-linearity.

Experimentally, they find it beneficial to use [layer normalization](https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.06450). Good values for $\eta$ and $\lambda$ seem to be 0.5 and 0.9 respectively. I'm not 100% sure, but I also understand that using $S=1$, i.e. using the fast weights only once per time steps, was usually found to be optimal. Also see Figure 3 for the architecture used on the image classification datasets, which is slightly more involved.

The authors present a series 4 experiments, comparing with regular RNNs (IRNNs, which are RNNs with ReLU units and whose recurrent weights are initialized to a scaled identity matrix) and LSTMs (as well as an associative LSTM for a synthetic associative retrieval task and ConvNets for the two image datasets). Generally, experiments illustrate that the fast weights RNN tends to train faster (in number of updates) and better than the other recurrent architectures. Surprisingly, the fast weights RNN can even be competitive with a ConvNet on the two image classification benchmarks, where the RNN traverses glimpses from the image using a fixed policy.

**My two cents**

This is a very thought provoking paper which, based on the comparison with LSTMs, suggests that fast weights RNNs might be a very good alternative. I'd be quite curious to see what would happen if one was to replace LSTMs with them in the myriad of papers using LSTMs (e.g. all the Seq2Seq work). Intuitively, LSTMs seem to be able to do more than just attending to the recent past. But, for a given task, if one was to observe that fast weights RNNs are competitive to LSTMs, it would suggests that the LSTM isn't doing something that much more complex. So it would be interesting to determine what are the tasks where the extra capacity of an LSTM is actually valuable and exploitable. Hopefully the authors will release some code, to facilitate this exploration. 

The discussion at the end of Section 3 on how exploiting the "memory augmented" view of fast weights is useful to allow the use of minibatches is interesting. However, it also suggests that computations in the fast weights RNN scales quadratically with the sequence size (since in this view, the RNN technically must attend to all previous hidden states, since the beginning of the sequence). This is something to keep in mind, if one was to consider applying this to very long sequences (i.e. much longer than the hidden state dimensionality).

Also, I don't quite get the argument that the "memory augmented" view of fast weights is more amenable to mini-batch training. I understand that having an explicit weight matrix $A(t)$ for each minibatch sequence complicates things. However, in the memory augmented view, we also have a "memory matrix" that is different for each sequence, and yet we can handle that fine. The problem I can imagine is that storing a *sequence of arbitrary weight matrices* for each sequence might be storage demanding (and thus perhaps make it impossible to store a forward/backward pass for more than one sequence at a time), while the implicit memory matrix only requires appending a new row at each time step. Perhaps the argument to be made here is more that there's already mini-batch compatible code out there for dealing with the use of a memory matrix of stored previous memory states.

This work strikes some (partial) resemblance to other recent work, which may serve as food for thought here. The use of possibly multiple computation layers between time steps reminds me of [Adaptive Computation Time (ACT) RNN]( http://www.shortscience.org/paper?bibtexKey=journals/corr/Graves16). Also, expressing a backpropable architecture that involves updates to weights (here, hebbian-like updates) reminds me of recent work that does backprop through the updates of a gradient descent procedure (for instance as in [this work]( http://www.shortscience.org/paper?bibtexKey=conf/icml/MaclaurinDA15)). 

Finally, while I was familiar with the notion of fast weights from the work on [Using Fast Weights to Improve Persistent Contrastive Divergence](http://people.ee.duke.edu/~lcarin/FastGibbsMixing.pdf), I didn't realize that this concept dated as far back as the late 80s. So, for young researchers out there looking for inspiration for research ideas, this paper confirms that looking at the older neural network literature for inspiration is probably a very good strategy :-)

To sum up, this is really nice work, and I'm looking forward to the NIPS 2016 oral presentation of it!

Deeper networks should never have a higher **training** error than smaller ones. In the worst case, the layers should "simply" learn identities. It seems as this is not so easy with conventional networks, as they get much worse with more layers. So the idea is to add identity functions which skip some layers. The network only has to learn the **residuals**. 

Advantages:

* Learning the identity becomes learning 0 which is simpler
* Loss in information flow in the forward pass is not a problem anymore
    * No vanishing / exploding gradient
* Identities don't have parameters to be learned

## Evaluation

The learning rate starts at 0.1 and is divided by 10 when the error plateaus. Weight decay of 0.0001 ($10^{-4}$), momentum of 0.9. They use mini-batches of size 128.

* ImageNet ILSVRC 2015: 3.57% (ensemble)
* CIFAR-10: 6.43%
* MS COCO: 59.0% mAp@0.5 (ensemble)
* PASCAL VOC 2007: 85.6% mAp@0.5
* PASCAL VOC 2012: 83.8% mAp@0.5

## See also

* [DenseNets](http://www.shortscience.org/paper?bibtexKey=journals/corr/1608.06993)

This method is based on improving the speed of R-CNN \cite{conf/cvpr/GirshickDDM14}

1. Where R-CNN would have two different objective functions, Fast R-CNN combines localization and classification losses into a "multi-task loss" in order to speed up training.
2. It also uses a pooling method based on \cite{journals/pami/HeZR015} called the RoI pooling layer that scales the input so the images don't have to be scaled before being set an an input image to the CNN. "RoI max pooling works by dividing the $h \times w$ RoI window into an $H \times W$ grid of sub-windows of approximate size $h/H \times w/W$ and then max-pooling the values in each sub-window into the corresponding output grid cell."
3. Backprop is performed for the RoI pooling layer by taking the argmax of the incoming gradients that overlap the incoming values.

This method is further improved by the paper "Faster R-CNN" \cite{conf/nips/RenHGS15}

This paper presents a method to train a neural network to make predictions for *counterfactual* questions. In short, such questions are questions about what the result of an intervention would have been, had a different choice for the intervention been made (e.g. *Would this patient have lower blood sugar had she received a different medication?*).

One approach to tackle this problem is to collect data of the form $(x_i, t_i, y_i^F)$ where $x_i$ describes a situation (e.g. a patient), $t_i$ describes the intervention made (in this paper $t_i$ is binary, e.g. $t_i = 1$ if a new treatment is used while $t_i = 0$ would correspond to using the current treatment) and $y_i^F$ is the factual outcome of the intervention $t_i$ for $x_i$. From this training data, a predictor $h(x,t)$ taking the pair $(x_i, t_i)$ as input and outputting a prediction for $y_i^F$ could be trained. 

From this predictor, one could imagine answering counterfactual questions by feeding $(x_i, 1-t_i)$ (i.e. a description of the same situation $x_i$ but with the opposite intervention $1-t_i$) to our predictor and comparing the prediction $h(x_i, 1-t_i)$ with $y_i^F$. This would give us an estimate of the change in the outcome, had a different intervention been made, thus providing an answer to our counterfactual question.

The authors point out that this scenario is related to that of domain adaptation (more specifically to the special case of covariate shift) in which the input training distribution (here represented by inputs $(x_i,t_i)$) is different from the distribution of inputs that will be fed at test time to our predictor (corresponding to the inputs $(x_i, 1-t_i)$). If the choice of intervention $t_i$ is evenly spread and chosen independently from $x_i$, the distributions become the same. However, in observational studies, the choice of $t_i$ for some given $x_i$ is often not independent of $x_i$ and made according to some unknown policy. This is the situation of interest in this paper.

Thus, the authors propose an approach inspired by the domain adaptation literature. Specifically, they propose to have the predictor $h(x,t)$ learn a representation of $x$ that is indiscriminate of the intervention $t$ (see Figure 2 for the proposed neural network architecture). Indeed, this is a notion that is [well established][1] in the domain adaptation literature and has been exploited previously using regularization terms based on [adversarial learning][2] and [maximum mean discrepancy][3]. In this paper, the authors used instead a regularization (noted in the paper as $disc(\Phi_{t=0},\Phi_ {t=1})$) based on the so-called discrepancy distance of [Mansour et al.][4], adapting its use to the case of a neural network. 

As an example, imagine that in our dataset, a new treatment ($t=1$) was much more frequently used than not ($t=0$) for men. Thus, for men, relatively insufficient evidence for counterfactual inference is expected to be found in our training dataset. Intuitively, we would thus want our predictor to not rely as much on that "feature" of patients when inferring the impact of the treatment. 

In addition to this term, the authors also propose incorporating an additional regularizer where the prediction $h(x_i,1-t_i)$ on counterfactual inputs is pushed to be as close as possible to the target $y_{j}^F$ of the observation $x_j$ that is closest to $x_i$ **and** actually had the counterfactual intervention $t_j = 1-t_i$. 

The paper first shows a bound relating the counterfactual generalization error to the discrepancy distance. Moreover, experiments simulating counterfactual inference tasks are presented, in which performance is measured by comparing the predicted treatment effects (as estimated by the difference between the observed effect $y_i^F$ for the observed treatment and the predicted effect $h(x_i, 1-t_i)$ for the opposite treatment) with the real effect (known here because the data is simulated). The paper shows that the proposed approach using neural networks outperforms several baselines on this task.

**My two cents**

The connection with domain adaptation presented here is really clever and enlightening. This sounds like a very compelling approach to counterfactual inference, which can exploit a lot of previous work on domain adaptation.

The paper mentions that selecting the hyper-parameters (such as the regularization terms weights) in this scenario is not a trivial task. Indeed, measuring performance here requires knowing the true difference in intervention outcomes, which in practice usually cannot be known (e.g. two treatments usually cannot be given to the same patient once). In the paper, they somewhat "cheat" by using the ground truth difference in outcomes to measure out-of-sample performance, which the authors admit is unrealistic. Thus, an interesting avenue for future work would be to design practical hyper-parameter selection procedures for this scenario. I wonder whether the *reverse cross-validation* approach we used in our work on our adversarial approach to domain adaptation (see [Section 5.1.2][5]) could successfully be used here.

Finally, I command the authors for presenting such a nicely written description of counterfactual inference problem setup in general, I really enjoyed it!

[1]: https://papers.nips.cc/paper/2983-analysis-of-representations-for-domain-adaptation.pdf
[2]: http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.07818
[3]: http://ijcai.org/Proceedings/09/Papers/200.pdf
[4]: http://www.cs.nyu.edu/~mohri/pub/nadap.pdf
[5]: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.07818v4.pdf#page=16

The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis is the idea that you can train a deep network, set all but a small percentage of its high-magnitude weights to zero, and retrain the network using the connection topology of the remaining weights, but only if you re-initialize the unpruned weights to the the values they had at the beginning of the first training. This suggests that part of the value of training such big networks is not that we need that many parameters to use their expressive capacity, but that we need many “draws” from the weight and topology distribution to find initial weight patterns that are well-disposed for learning. 

This paper out of Uber is a refreshingly exploratory experimental work that tries to understand the contours and contingencies of this effect. Their findings included: 
- The pruning criteria used in the original paper, where weights are kept according to which have highest final magnitude, works well. However, an alternate criteria, where you keep the weights that have increased the most in magnitude, works just as well and sometimes better. This makes a decent amount of sense, since it seems like we’re using magnitude as a signal of “did this weight come to play a meaningful role during training,” and so weights whose influence increased during training fall in that category, regardless of their starting point
https://i.imgur.com/wTkNBod.png
- The authors’ next question was: other than just re-initialize weights to their initial values, are there other things we can do that can capture all or part of the performance effect? The answer seems to be yes; they found that the most important thing seems to be keeping the sign of the weights aligned with what it was at its starting point. As long as you do that, redrawing initial weights (but giving them the right sign), or re-setting weights to a correctly signed constant value, both work nearly as well as the actual starting values

https://i.imgur.com/JeujUr3.png

- Turning instead to the weights on the pruning chopping block, the authors find that, instead of just zero-ing out all pruned weights, they can get even better performance if they zero the weights that moved towards zero during training, and re-initialize (but freeze) the weights that moved away from zero during training. The logic of the paper is “if the weight was trying to move to zero, bring it to zero, otherwise reinitialize it”. This performance remains high at even lower levels of training than does the initial zero-masking result 
- Finally, the authors found that just by performing the masking (i.e. keeping only weights with large final values), bringing those back to their values, and zeroing out the rest, *and not training at all*, they were able to get 40% test accuracy on MNIST, much better than chance. If they masked according to “large weights that kept the same sign during training,” they could get a pretty incredible 80% test accuracy on MNIST. Way below even simple trained models, but, again, this model wasn’t *trained*, and the only information about the data came in the form of a binary weight mask 

This paper doesn’t really try to come up with explanations that wrap all of these results up neatly with a bow, and I really respect that. I think it’s good for ML research culture for people to feel an affordance to just run a lot of targeted experiments aimed at explanation, and publish the results even if they don’t quite make sense yet. I feel like on this problem (and to some extent in machine learning generally), we’re the blind men each grabbing at one part of an elephant, trying to describe the whole. Hopefully, papers like this can bring us closer to understanding strange quirks of optimization like this one 

The proposed approach consists in corrupting the training targets with a noise derived from the task reward while doing maximum likelihood training. This simple but specific smoothing of the target distribution allows to significantly boost the performance of neural structured output prediction as showcased on TIMIT phone and translation tasks. The link between this approach and RL-based expected reward maximization is also made clear by the paper,

Prior work has chosen either maximum likelihood learning, which is relatively tractable but assumes a log likelihood loss, or reinforcement learning, which can be performed for a task-specific loss function but requires sampling many predictions to estimate gradients. The proposed objective bridges the gap with "reward-augmented maximum likelihood," which is similar to maximum likelihood but estimates the expected loss with samples that are drawn in proportion to their distance from the ground truth. Empirical results show good improvements with LSTM-based predictors on speech recognition and machine translation benchmarks relative to maximum likelihood training.


This work is inspired by recent advancement in reinforcement learning and likelihood learning. The authors suggest to learn parameters so as to minimize the KL divergence between CRFs and a probability model that is proportional to the reward function (which the authors call payoff distribution, see Equation 4). The authors suggest an optimization algorithm for the KL-divergence minimization that depends on sampling from the payoff distribution.

Current methods to learn a model for structured prediction include max margin optimisation and reinforcement learning. However, the max margin approach only optimises a bound on the true reward, and requires loss augmented inference to obtain gradients, which can be expensive. On the other hand, reinforcement learning does not make use of available supervision, and can therefore struggle when the reward is sparse, and furthermore the gradients can have high variance. The paper proposes a novel approach to learning for problems that involve structured prediction. They relate their approach to simple maximum likelihood (ML) learning and reinforcement learning (RL): ML optimises the KL divergence of a delta distribution relative to the model distribution, and RL optimises the KL divergence of the model distribution relative to the exponentiated reward distribution. They propose reward-augmented maximum likelihood learning, which optimises the KL divergence of the exponentiated reward distribution relative to the model distribution. Compared to RL, the arguments of the KL divergence are swapped. Compared to ML, the delta distribution is generalised to the exponentiated reward distribution. Training is cheap in RML learning. It is only necessary to sample from the output set according to the exponentiated reward distribution. All experiments are performed in speech recognition and machine translation, where the structure over the output set is defined by the edit distance. An improvement is demonstrated over simple ML.

### 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 very new paper, is currently receiving quite a bit of attention by the [community](https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/5qxoaz/r_170107875_wasserstein_gan/).

The paper describes a new training approach, which solves the two major practical problems with current GAN training:

1) The training process comes with a meaningful loss. This can be used as a (soft) performance metric and will help debugging, tune parameters and so on.

2) The training process does not suffer from all the instability problems. In particular the paper reduces mode collapse significantly.

On top of that, the paper comes with quite a bit mathematical theory, explaining why there approach works and other approachs have failed. This paper is a must read for anyone interested in GANs.

This paper presents an unsupervised generative model, based on the variational autoencoder framework, but where the encoder is a recurrent neural network that sequentially infers the identity, pose and number of objects in some input scene (2D image or 3D scene). 

In short, this is done by extending the DRAW model to incorporate discrete latent variables that determine whether an additional object is present or not. Since the reparametrization trick cannot be used for discrete variables, the authors estimate the gradient through the sampling operation using a likelihood ratio estimator. 

Another innovation over DRAW is the application to 3D scenes, in which the decoder is a graphics renderer. Since it is not possible to backpropagate through the renderer, gradients are estimated using finite-difference estimates (which require going through the renderer several times).

Experiments are presented where the evaluation is focused on the ability of the model to detect and count the number of objects in the image or scene.

**My two cents**

This is a nice, natural extension of DRAW. I'm particularly impressed by the results for the 3D scene setting. Despite the fact that setup is obviously synthetic and simplistic, I really surprised that estimating the decoder gradients using finite-differences worked at all. It's also interesting to see that the proposed model does surprisingly well compared to a CNN supervised approach that directly predicts the objects identity and pose. Quite cool!

To see the model in action, see [this cute video][1].

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tc84kKdpY4 

$\bf Summary:$
The paper is about squeezing the number of parameters in a convolutional neural network. The number of parameters in a convolutional layer is given by (number of input channels)$\times$(number of filters)$\times$(size of filter$\times$size of filter).

The paper proposes 2 strategies: (i) replace 3x3 filters with 1x1 filters and (ii) decrease the number of input channels. They assume the budget of the filter is given, i,e., they do not tinker with the number of filters. Decrease in number of parameters will lead to less accuracy. To compensate, the authors propose to downsample late in the network. 

The results are quite impressive. Compared to AlexNet, they achieve a 50x reduction is model size while preserving the accuracy. Their model can be further compressed with existing methods like Deep Compression which are orthogonal to this paper's approach and this can give in total of around 510x reduction while still preserving accuracy of AlexNet.

$\bf Question$: The impact on running times (specially on feed forward phase which may be more typical on embedded devices) is not clear to me. Is it certain to be reduced as well or at least be *no worse* than the baseline models? 

#### Introduction

* Introduces a new global log-bilinear regression model which combines the benefits of both global matrix factorization and local context window methods.


#### Global Matrix Factorization Methods

* Decompose large matrices into low-rank approximations.
* eg - Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA)

##### Limitations

* Poor performance on word analogy task
* Frequent words contribute disproportionately high to the similarity measure.

#### Shallow, Local Context-Based Window Methods

* Learn word representations using adjacent words.
* eg - Continous bag-of-words (CBOW) model and skip-gram model.

##### Limitations

* Since they do not operate directly on the global co-occurrence counts, they can not utilise the statistics of the corpus effectively.


#### GloVe Model

* To capture the relationship between words $i$ and $j$, word vector models should use ratios of co-occurene probabilites (with other words $k$) instead of using raw probabilites themselves.
* In most general form:
     * $F(w_{i}, w_{j}, w_{k}^{~} ) = P_{ik}/P_{jk}$
* We want $F$ to encode information in the vector space (which have a linear structure), so we can restrict to the difference of $w_{i}$ and $w_{j}$
    * $F(w_{i} - w_{j}, w_{k}^{~} ) = P_{ik}/P_{jk}$
* Since right hand side is a scalar and left hand side is a vector, we take dot product of the arguments.
    * $F( (w_{i} - w_{j})^{T}, w_{k}^{~} ) = P_{ik}/P_{jk}$
* *F* should be invariant to order of the word pair $i$ and $j$.
    * $F(w_{i}^{T}w_{k}^{~}) = P_{ik}$
* Doing further simplifications and optimisations (refer paper), we get cost function, 
    * $J = \sum_{\text{over all i, j pairs in the vocabulary}}[w_{i}^{T}w_{k}^{~} + b_{i} + b_{k}^{~} - log(X_{ik})]^{2}$
    * $f$ is a weighing function.
    * $f(x) = min((x/x_{max})^{\alpha}, 1)$
    * Typical values, $x_{\max} = 100$ and $\alpha = 3/4$
    * *b* are the bias terms.

##### Complexity

* Depends on a number of non-zero elements in the input matrix.
* Upper bound by the square of vocabulary size
* Since for shallow window-based approaches, complexity depends on $|C|$ (size of the corpus), tighter bounds are needed.
* By modelling number of co-occurrences of words as power law function of frequency rank, the complexity can be shown to be proportional to $|C|^{0.8}$

#### Evaluation

##### Tasks

* Word Analogies
    * a is to b as c is to ___?
    * Both semantic and syntactic pairs
    * Find closest d to $w_{b} - w_{c} + w_{a}$ (using cosine similarity)

* Word Similarity
* Named Entity Recognition

##### Datasets

* Wikipedia Dumps - 2010 and 2014
* Gigaword5
* Combination of Gigaword5 and Wikipedia2014
* CommonCrawl
* 400,000 most frequent words considered from the corpus.

##### Hyperparameters

* Size of context window.
* Whether to distinguish left context from right context.
* $f$ - Word pairs that are $d$ words apart contribute $1/d$ to the total count.
* $xmax = 100$
* $\alpha = 3/4$
* AdaGrad update

##### Models Compared With

* Singular Value Decomposition
* Continous Bag-Of-Words
* Skip-Gram

##### Results

* Glove outperforms all other models significantly.
* Diminishing returns for vectors larger than 200 dimensions.
* Small and asymmetric context windows (context window only to the left) works better for syntactic tasks.
* Long and symmetric context windows (context window to both the sides) works better for semantic tasks.
* Syntactic task benefited from larger corpus though semantic task performed better with Wikipedia instead of Gigaword5 probably due to the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia and slightly outdated nature of Gigaword5.
* Word2vec’s performance decreases if the number of negative samples increases beyond about 10.
* For the same corpus, vocabulary, and window size GloVe consistently achieves better results, faster.

**Object detection** is the task of drawing one bounding box around each instance of the type of object one wants to detect. Typically, image classification is done before object detection. With neural networks, the usual procedure for object detection is to train a classification network, replace the last layer with a regression layer which essentially predicts pixel-wise if the object is there or not. An bounding box inference algorithm is added at last to make a consistent prediction (see [Deep Neural Networks for Object Detection](http://papers.nips.cc/paper/5207-deep-neural-networks-for-object-detection.pdf)).

The paper introduces RPNs (Region Proposal Networks). They are end-to-end trained to generate region proposals.They simoultaneously regress region bounds and bjectness scores at each location on a regular grid.

RPNs are one type of fully convolutional networks. They take an image of any size as input and output a set of rectangular object proposals, each with an objectness score.

## See also
* [R-CNN](http://www.shortscience.org/paper?bibtexKey=conf/iccv/Girshick15#joecohen)
* [Fast R-CNN](http://www.shortscience.org/paper?bibtexKey=conf/iccv/Girshick15#joecohen)
* [Faster R-CNN](http://www.shortscience.org/paper?bibtexKey=conf/nips/RenHGS15#martinthoma)
* [Mask R-CNN](http://www.shortscience.org/paper?bibtexKey=journals/corr/HeGDG17)

If you were to survey researchers, and ask them to name the 5 most broadly influential ideas in Machine Learning from the last 5 years, I’d bet good money that Batch Normalization would be somewhere on everyone’s lists. Before Batch Norm, training meaningfully deep neural networks was an unstable process, and one that often took a long time to converge to success. When we added Batch Norm to models, it allowed us to increase our learning rates substantially (leading to quicker training) without the risk of activations either collapsing or blowing up in values. It had this effect because it addressed one of the key difficulties of deep networks: internal covariate shift. 

To understand this, imagine the smaller problem, of a one-layer model that’s trying to classify based on a set of input features. Now, imagine that, over the course of training, the input distribution of features moved around, so that, perhaps, a value that was at the 70th percentile of the data distribution initially is now at the 30th. We have an obvious intuition that this would make the model quite hard to train, because it would learn some mapping between feature values and class at the beginning of training, but that would become invalid by the end. This is, fundamentally, the problem faced by higher layers of deep networks, since, if the distribution of activations in a lower layer changed even by a small amount, that can cause a “butterfly effect” style outcome, where the activation distributions of higher layers change more dramatically. Batch Normalization - which takes each feature “channel” a network learns, and normalizes [normalize = subtract mean, divide by variance] it by the mean and variance of that feature over spatial locations and over all the observations in a given batch - helps solve this problem because it ensures that, throughout the course of training, the distribution of inputs that a given layer sees stays roughly constant, no matter what the lower layers get up to. 

On the whole, Batch Norm has been wildly successful at stabilizing training, and is now canonized - along with the likes of ReLU and Dropout - as one of the default sensible training procedures for any given network. However, it does have its difficulties and downsides. One salient one of these comes about when you train using very small batch sizes - in the range of 2-16 examples per batch. Under these circumstance, the mean and variance calculated off of that batch are noisy and high variance (for the general reason that statistics calculated off of small sample sizes are noisy and high variance), which takes away from the stability that Batch Norm is trying to provide. 

One proposed alternative to Batch Norm, that didn’t run into this problem of small sample sizes, is Layer Normalization. This operates under the assumption that the activations of all feature “channels” within a given layer hopefully have roughly similar distributions, and, so, you an normalize all of them by taking the aggregate mean over all channels, *for a given observation*, and use that as the mean and variance you normalize by. Because there are typically many channels in a given layer, this means that you have many “samples” that go into the mean and variance. However, this assumption - that the distributions for each feature channel are roughly the same - can be an incorrect one. 

A useful model I have for thinking about the distinction between these two approaches is the idea that both are calculating approximations of an underlying abstract notion: the in-the-limit mean and variance of a single feature channel, at a given point in time. Batch Normalization is an approximation of that insofar as it only has a small sample of points to work with, and so its estimate will tend to be high variance. Layer Normalization is an approximation insofar as it makes the assumption that feature distributions are aligned across channels: if this turns out not to be the case, individual channels will have normalizations that are biased, due to being pulled towards the mean and variance calculated over an aggregate of channels that are different than them. 

Group Norm tries to find a balance point between these two approaches, one that uses multiple channels, and normalizes within a given instance (to avoid the problems of small batch size), but, instead of calculating the mean and variance over all channels, calculates them over a group of channels that represents a subset. The inspiration for this idea comes from the fact that, in old school computer vision, it was typical to have parts of your feature vector that - for example - represented a histogram of some value (say: localized contrast) over the image. Since these multiple values all corresponded to a larger shared “group” feature. If a group of features all represent a similar idea, then their distributions will be more likely to be aligned, and therefore you have less of the bias issue. 

One confusing element of this paper for me was that the motivation part of the paper strongly implied that the reason group norm is sensible is that you are able to combine statistically dependent channels into a group together. However, as far as I an tell, there’s no actually clustering or similarity analysis of channels that is done to place certain channels into certain groups; it’s just done so semi-randomly based on the index location within the feature channel vector. So, under this implementation, it seems like the benefits of group norm are less because of any explicit seeking out of dependant channels, and more that just having fewer channels in each group means that each individual channel makes up more of the weight in its group, which does something to reduce the bias effect anyway.

The upshot of the Group Norm paper, results-wise, is that Group Norm performs better than both Batch Norm and Layer Norm at very low batch sizes. This is useful if you’re training on very dense data (e.g. high res video), where it might be difficult to store more than a few observations in memory at a time. However, once you get to batch sizes of ~24, Batch Norm starts to do better, presumably since that’s a large enough sample size to reduce variance, and you get to the point where the variance of BN is preferable to the bias of GN.  

This paper presents an approach to initialize a neural network from the parameters of a smaller and previously trained neural network. This is effectively done by increasing the size (in width and/or depth) of the previously trained neural network, in such of a way that the function represented by the network doesn't change (i.e. the output of the larger neural network is still the same). The motivation here is that initializing larger neural networks in this way allows to accelerate their training, since at initialization the neural network will already be quite good.

In a nutshell, neural networks are made wider by adding several copies (selected randomly) of the same hidden units to the hidden layer, for each hidden layer. To ensure that the neural network output remains the same, each incoming connection weight must also be divided by the number of replicas that unit is connected to in the previous layer. If not training using dropout, it is also recommended to add some noise to this initialization, in order to break its initial symmetry (though this will actually break the property that the network's output is the same). As for making a deeper network, layers are added by initializing them to be the identity function. For ReLU units, this is achieved using an identity matrix as the connection weight matrix. For units based on sigmoid or tanh activations, unfortunately it isn't possible to add such identity layers.

In their experiments on ImageNet, the authors show that this initialization allows them to train larger networks faster than if trained from random initialization. More importantly, they were able to outperform their previous validation set ImageNet accuracy by initializing a very large network from their best Inception network.

[code](https://github.com/openai/improved-gan),
[demo](http://infinite-chamber-35121.herokuapp.com/cifar-minibatch/1/?),
[related](http://www.inference.vc/understanding-minibatch-discrimination-in-gans/)

### Feature matching
problem: overtraining on the current discriminator

solution:
$||E_{x \sim p_{\text{data}}}f(x) - E_{z \sim p_{z}(z)}f(G(z))||_{2}^{2}$

were f(x) activations intermediate layer in discriminator
### Minibatch discrimination
problem: generator to collapse to a single point

solution: for each sample i, concatenate to $f(x_i)$ features $b$ measuring its distance to other samples j (i and j are both real or generated samples in same batch):
$\sum_j \exp(-||M_{i, b} - M_{j, b}||_{L_1})$

this generates visually appealing samples very quickly
### Historical averaging
problem: SGD fails by going into extended orbits

solution: parameters revert to the mean
$|| \theta - \frac{1}{t} \sum_{i=1}^t \theta[i] ||^2$

### One-sided label smoothing
problem: discriminator vulnerability to adversarial examples

solution: discriminator target for positive samples is 0.9 instead of 1

### Virtual batch normalization
problem: using BN cause output of examples in batch to be dependent

solution: use reference batch chosen once at start of training and each sample is normalized using itself and the reference. It's
expensive so used only on generation

### Assessment of image quality
problem: MTurk not reliable

solution: use inception model p(y|x) to compute 
$\exp(\mathbb{E}_x \text{KL}(p(y | x) || p(y)))$
on 50K generated images x

### Semi-supervised learning
use the discriminator to also classify on K labels when known and
use all real samples (labels and unlabeled) in the discrimination task
$D(x) = \frac{Z(x)}{Z(x) + 1}, \text{ where } Z(x) = \sum_{k=1}^{K} \exp[l_k(x)]$.
In this case use feature matching but not minibatch discrimination.
It also improves the quality of generated images.

Problem
----------
Given an unconstrained image, estimate:
1. 3d pose of human skeleton 
2. 3d body mesh


Contributions
-----------
1. full body mesh extraction from image
2. improvement of state of the art


Datasets
-------------
1. Leeds Sports
2. HumanEva
3. Human3.6M


Approach
----------------
Consider the problem both bottom-up and top-down.
1. Bottom-up: DeepCut cnn model to fit joints 2d positions onto the image.
2. top-down: A skinned multi-person linear model (SMPL) is fitted and projected onto 2d joint positions and image.

The main contribution of this paper is introducing a new transformation that the authors call Batch Normalization (BN). The need for BN comes from the fact that during the training of deep neural networks (DNNs) the distribution of each layer’s input change. This phenomenon is called internal covariate shift (ICS).

#### What is BN?
Normalize each (scalar) feature independently with respect to the mean and variance of the mini batch. Scale and shift the normalized values with two new parameters (per activation) that will be learned. The BN consists of making normalization part of the model architecture.

#### What do we gain?
According to the author, the use of BN provides a great speed up in the training of DNNs. In particular, the gains are greater when it is combined with higher learning rates. In addition, BN works as a regularizer for the model which allows to use less dropout or less L2 normalization. Furthermore, since the distribution of the inputs is normalized, it also allows to use sigmoids as activation functions without the saturation problem.

#### What follows?
This seems to be specially promising for training recurrent neural networks (RNNs). The vanishing and exploding gradient problems \cite{journals/tnn/BengioSF94} have their origin in the iteration of transformation that scale up or down the activations in certain directions (eigenvectors). It seems that this regularization would be specially useful in this context since this would allow the gradient to flow more easily. When we unroll the RNNs, we usually have ultra deep networks.

#### Like
* Simple idea that seems to improve training.
* Makes training faster.
* Simple to implement. Probably.
* You can be less careful with initialization.

#### Dislike
* Does not work with stochastic gradient descent (minibatch size = 1).
* This could reduce the parallelism of the algorithm since now all the examples in a mini batch are tied.
* Results on ensemble of networks for ImageNet makes it harder to evaluate the relevance of BN by itself. (Although they do mention the performance of a single model).