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.

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.

This is another "learning the learning rate" paper, which predates (and might have inspired) the "Speed learning on the fly" paper I recently wrote notes about (see \cite{journals/corr/MasseO15}). In this paper, they consider the off-line training scenario, and propose to do gradient descent on the learning rate by unrolling the *complete* training procedure and treating it all as a function to optimize, with respect to the learning rate. This way, they can optimize directly the validation set loss.

The paper in fact goes much further and can tune many other hyper-parameters of the gradient descent procedure: momentum, weight initialization distribution parameters, regularization and input preprocessing.

#### My two cents

This is one of my favorite papers of this year. While the method of unrolling several steps of gradient descent (100 iterations in the paper) makes it somewhat impractical for large networks (which is probably why they considered 3-layer networks with only 50 hidden units per layer), it provides an incredibly interesting window on what are good hyper-parameter choices for neural networks. Note that, to substantially reduce the memory requirements of the method, the authors had to be quite creative and smart about how to encode changes in the network's weight changes.

There are tons of interesting experiments, which I encourage the reader to go check out (see section 3).

One experiment on training the learning rates, separately for each iteration (i.e. learning a learning rate schedule), for each layer and for either weights or biases (800 hyper-parameters total) shows that a good schedule is one where the top layer first learns quickly (large learning), then the bottom layer starts training faster, and finally the learning rates of all layers is decayed towards zero. Note that some of the experiments presented actually optimized the training error, instead of the validation set error.

Another looked at finding optimal scales for the weight initialization. Interestingly, the values found weren't that far from an often prescribed scale of $1 / \sqrt{N}$, where $N$ is the number of units in the previous layer.

The experiment on "training the training set", i.e. generating the 10 examples (one per class) that would minimize the validation set loss of a network trained on these examples is a pretty cool idea (it essentially learns prototypical images of the digits from 0 to 9 on MNIST).

Another experiment tried to optimize a multitask regularization matrix, in order to encourage forms of soft-weight-tying across tasks.

Note that approaches like the one in this paper make tools for automatic differentiation incredibly valuable. Python autograd, the author's automatic differentiation Python library https://github.com/HIPS/autograd (which inspired our own Torch autograd https://github.com/twitter/torch-autograd) was in fact developed in the context of this paper.

Finally, I'll end with a quote from the paper, that I found particularly funny: "The last remaining parameter to SGD is the initial parameter vector. Treating this vector as a hyperparameter blurs the distinction between learning and meta-learning. In the extreme case where all elementary learning rates are set to zero, the training set ceases to matter and the meta-learning procedure exactly reduces to elementary learning on the validation set. Due to philosophical vertigo, we chose not to optimize the initial parameter vector."

  * Weight Normalization (WN) is a normalization technique, similar to Batch Normalization (BN).
  * It normalizes each layer's weights.

### Differences to BN
  * WN normalizes based on each weight vector's orientation and magnitude. BN normalizes based on each weight's mean and variance in a batch.
  * WN works on each example on its own. BN works on whole batches.
  * WN is more deterministic than BN (due to not working an batches).
  * WN is better suited for noisy environment (RNNs, LSTMs, reinforcement learning, generative models). (Due to being more deterministic.)
  * WN is computationally simpler than BN.

### How its done
  * WN is a module added on top of a linear or convolutional layer.
  * If that layer's weights are `w` then WN learns two parameters `g` (scalar) and `v` (vector, identical dimension to `w`) so that `w = gv / ||v||` is fullfilled (`||v||` = euclidean norm of v).
  * `g` is the magnitude of the weights, `v` are their orientation.
  * `v` is initialized to zero mean and a standard deviation of 0.05.
  * For networks without recursions (i.e. not RNN/LSTM/GRU):
    * Right after initialization, they feed a single batch through the network.
    * For each neuron/weight, they calculate the mean and standard deviation after the WN layer.
    * They then adjust the bias to `-mean/stdDev` and `g` to `1/stdDev`.
    * That makes the network start with each feature being roughly zero-mean and unit-variance.
    * The same method can also be applied to networks without WN.

### Results:
  * They define BN-MEAN as a variant of BN which only normalizes to zero-mean (not unit-variance).
  * CIFAR-10 image classification (no data augmentation, some dropout, some white noise):
    * WN, BN, BN-MEAN all learn similarly fast. Network without normalization learns slower, but catches up towards the end.
    * BN learns "more" per example, but is about 16% slower (time-wise) than WN.
    * WN reaches about same test error as no normalization (both ~8.4%), BN achieves better results (~8.0%).
    * WN + BN-MEAN achieves best results with 7.31%.
    * Optimizer: Adam
  * Convolutional VAE on MNIST and CIFAR-10:
    * WN learns more per example und plateaus at better values than network without normalization. (BN was not tested.)
    * Optimizer: Adamax
  * DRAW on MNIST (heavy on LSTMs):
    * WN learns significantly more example than network without normalization.
    * Also ends up with better results. (Normal network might catch up though if run longer.)
  * Deep Reinforcement Learning (Space Invaders):
    * WN seemed to overall acquire a bit more reward per epoch than network without normalization. Variance (in acquired reward) however also grew.
    * Results not as clear as in DRAW.
    * Optimizer: Adamax

### Extensions
  * They argue that initializing `g` to `exp(cs)` (`c` constant, `s` learned) might be better, but they didn't get better test results with that.
  * Due to some gradient effects, `||v||` currently grows monotonically with every weight update. (Not necessarily when using optimizers that use separate learning rates per parameters.)
  * That grow effect leads the network to be more robust to different learning rates.
  * Setting a small hard limit/constraint for `||v||` can lead to better test set performance (parameter updates are larger, introducing more noise).


![CIFAR-10 results](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aleju/papers/master/neural-nets/images/Weight_Normalization__cifar10.png?raw=true "CIFAR-10 results")

*Performance of WN on CIFAR-10 compared to BN, BN-MEAN and no normalization.*

![DRAW, DQN results](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aleju/papers/master/neural-nets/images/Weight_Normalization__draw_dqn.png?raw=true "DRAW, DQN results")

*Performance of WN for DRAW (left) and deep reinforcement learning (right).*

[Parsey McParseface](http://github.com/tensorflow/models/tree/master/syntaxnet) is  a parser of English sentences capable of finding parts of speech and dependency parsing. By Michael Collins and google NY.

This paper is more than just about google's data collection and computing powers. The parser uses a feed forward NN, which is much faster than the RNN usually used for parsing. Also the paper is using a global method to solve the label bias problem. This method can be used for many tasks and indeed in the paper it is used also to shorten sentences by throwing unnecessary words.

The label bias problem arises when predicting each label in a sequence using a softmax over all possible label values in each step. This is a local approach but what we are really interested in is a global approach in which the sequence of all labels that appeared in a training example are normalized by all possible sequences. This is intractable so instead a beam search is performed to generate alternative sequences to the training sequence. The search is stopped when the training sequence drops from the beam or ends. The different beams with the training sequence are then used to compute the global loss. 

Similar method is used in [seq2seq by Sasha Rush](http://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.02960.pdf) and  [talk](https://github.com/udibr/notes/blob/master/Talk%20by%20Sasha%20Rush%20-%20Interpreting%2C%20Training%2C%20and%20Distilling%20Seq2Seq%E2%80%A6.pdf)

This paper describes an architecture designed for generating class predictions based on a set of features in situations where you may only have a few examples per class, or, even where you see entirely new classes at test time. Some prior work has approached this problem in ridiculously complex fashion, up to and including training a network to predict the gradient outputs of a meta-network that it thinks would best optimize loss, given a new class. The method of Prototypical Networks prides itself on being much simpler, and more intuitive, so I hope I’ll be able to convey that in this explanation.  In order to think about this problem properly, it makes sense to take a few steps back, and think about some fundamental assumptions that underly machine learning. 
https://i.imgur.com/Q45w0QT.png

One very basic one is that you need some notion of similarity between observations in your training set, and potential new observations in your test set, in order to properly generalize.  To put it very simplistically, if a test example is very similar to examples of class A that we saw in training, we might predict it to be of class A at testing. But what does it *mean* for two observations to be similar to one another? If you’re using a method like K Nearest Neighbors, you calculate a point’s class identity based on the closest training-set observations to it in Euclidean space, and you assume that nearness in that space corresponds to likelihood of two data points having come the same class. This is useful for the use case of having new classes show up after training, since, well, there isn’t really a training period: the strategy for KNN is just carrying your whole training set around, and, whenever a new test point comes along, calculating it’s closest neighbors among those training-set points. If you see a new class in the wild, all you need to do is add the examples of that class to your group of training set points, and then after a few examples, if your assumptions hold, you’ll be able to predict that class by (hopefully) finding those two or three points as neighbors. But what if some dimensions of your feature space matter much more than others for differentiating between classes? In a simplistic example, you could have twenty features, but, unbeknownst to you, only one is actually useful for separating out your classes, and the other 19 are random. If you use the naive KNN assumption, you wouldn’t expect to perform well here, because you will have distances in these 19 meaningless directions spreading out your points, due to randomness, more than the meaningful dimension spread them out due to belonging to different classes. And what if you want to be able to learn non-linear relationships between your features, which the composability of multi-layer neural networks lends itself well to? In cases like those, the features you were handed may be a woefully suboptimal metric space in which to calculate a kind of similarity that corresponds to differences in class identity, so you’ll just have to strike out for the territories and create a metric space for yourself. 

That is, at a very high level, what this paper seeks to do: learn a transformation between input features and some vector space, such that distances in that vector space correspond as well as possible to probabilities of belonging to a given output class. You may notice me using “vector space” and “embedding” similarity; they are the same idea: the result of that learned transformation, which represents your input observations as dense vectors in some p-dimensional space, where p is a chosen hyperparameter. 

What are the concrete learning steps this architecture goes through?
 
1. During each training episode, sample a subset of classes, and then divide those classes into training examples, and query examples 
2. Using a set of weights that are being learned by the network, map the input features of each training example into a vector space. 
3. Once all training examples are mapped into the space, calculate a “mean vector” for class A by averaging all of the embeddings of training examples that belong to class A. This is the “prototype” for class A, and once we have it, we can forget the values of the embedded examples that were averaged to create it. This is a nice update on the KNN approach, since the number of parameters we need to carry around to evaluate is only (num-dimensions) * (num-classes), rather than (num-dimensions) * (num-training-examples). 
4. Then, for each query example, map it into the embedding space, and use a distance metric in that space to create a softmax over possible classes. (You can just think of a softmax as a network’s predicted probability, it’s a set of floats that add up to 1). 
5. Then, you can calculate the (cross-entropy) error between the true output and that softmax prediction vector in the same way as you would for any classification network 
6. Add up the prediction loss for all the query examples, and then backpropogate through the network to update your weights 

The overall effect of this process is to incentivize your network to learn, not necessarily a good prediction function, but a good metric space. The idea is that, if the metric space is good enough, and the classes are conceptually similar to each other (i.e. car vs chair, as opposed to car vs the-meaning-of-life), a space that does well at causing similar observed classes to be close to one another will do the same for classes not seen during training. 

I admit to not being sufficiently familiar with the datasets used for testing to have a sense for how well this method compares to more fully supervised classification schemes; if anyone does, definitely let me know! But the paper claims to get state of the art results compared to other approaches in this domain of few-shot learning (matching networks, and the aforementioned meta-learning). 

One interesting note is that the authors found that squared Euclidean distance, when applied within the embedded space, worked meaningfully better than cosine distance (which is a more standard way of measuring distances between vectors, since it measures only angle, rather than magnitude). They suspect that this is because Euclidean distance, but not cosine distance belongs to a category of divergence/distance metrics (called Bregman Divergences) that have a special set of properties such that the point closest on aggregate to all points in a cluster is the average of all those points. If you want to dive way deep into the minutia on this point, I found this blog post quite good: http://mark.reid.name/blog/meet-the-bregman-divergences.html

Normal RL agents in multi-agent scenarios treat their opponents as a static part of the environment, not taking into account the fact that other agents are learning as well. This paper proposes LOLA, a learning rule that should take the agency and learning of opponents into account by optimizing "return under one step look-ahead of opponent learning"

So instead of optimizing under the current parameters of agent 1 and 2 
$$V^1(\theta_i^1, \theta_i^2)$$

LOLA proposes to optimize taking into account one step of opponent (agent 2) learning
$$V^1(\theta_i^1, \theta_i^2 + \Delta \theta^2_i)$$

where we assume the opponent's naive learning update $\Delta \theta^2_i = \nabla_{\theta^2} V^2(\theta^1, \theta^2) \cdot \eta$ and we add a second-order correction term

on top of this, the authors propose
- a learning rule with policy gradients in the case that the agent does not have access to exact gradients
- a way to estimate the parameters of the opponent, $\theta^2$, from its trajectories using maximum likelihood in the case you can't access them directly
$$\hat \theta^2 = \text{argmax}_{\theta^2} \sum_t \log \pi_{\theta^2}(u_t^2|s_t)$$

LOLA is tested on iterated prisoner's dilemma and converges to a tit-for-tat strategy more frequently than the naive RL learning algorithm, and outperforms it. LOLA is tested on iterated matching pennies (similar to prisoner's dilemma) and stably converges to the Nash equilibrium whereas the naive learners do not. In testing on coin game (a higher dimensional version of prisoner's dilemma) they find that naive learners generally choose the defect option whereas LOLA agents have a mostly-cooperative strategy.

As well, the authors show that LOLA is a dominant learning rule in IPD, where both agents always do better if either is using LOLA (and even better if both are using LOLA).

Finally, the authors also propose second order LOLA, which instead of assuming the opponent is a naive learner, assumes the opponent uses a LOLA learning rule. They show that second order LOLA does not lead to improved performance so there is no need to have a $n$th order LOLA arms race.

I should say from the outset: I have a lot of fondness for this paper. It goes upstream of a lot of research-community incentives: It’s not methodologically flashy, it’s not about beating the State of the Art with a bigger, better model (though, those papers certainly also have their place). The goal of this paper was, instead, to dive into a test set used to evaluate performance of models, and try to understand to what extent it’s really providing a rigorous test of what we want out of model behavior. Test sets are the often-invisible foundation upon which ML research is based, but like real-world foundations, if there are weaknesses, the research edifice built on top can suffer. 

Specifically, this paper discusses the Winograd Schema, a clever test set used to test what the NLP community calls “common sense reasoning”. An example Winograd Schema sentence is: 
The delivery truck zoomed by the school bus because it was going so fast.
A model is given this task, and asked to predict which token the underlined “it” refers to. These cases are specifically chosen because of their syntactic ambiguity - nothing structural about the order of the sentence requires “it” to refer to the delivery truck here. However, the underlying meaning of the sentence is only coherent under that parsing. This is what is meant by “common-sense” reasoning: the ability to understand meaning of a sentence in a way deeper than that allowed by simple syntactic parsing and word co-occurrence statistics.

Taking the existing Winograd examples (and, when I said tiny, there are literally 273 of them) the authors of this paper surface some concerns about ways these examples might not be as difficult or representative of “common sense” abilities as we might like. 

- First off, there is the basic, previously mentioned fact that there are so few examples that it’s possible to perform well simply by random chance, especially over combinatorially large hyperparameter optimization spaces. This isn’t so much an indictment of the set itself as it is indicative of the work involved in creating it. 
- One of the two distinct problems the paper raises is that of “associativity”. This refers to situations where simple co-occurance counts between the description and the correct entity can lead the model to the correct term, without actually having to parse the sentence. An example here is:
“I’m sure that my map will show this building; it is very famous.” 
Treasure maps aside, “famous buildings” are much more generally common than “famous maps”, and so being able to associate “it” with a building in this case doesn’t actually require the model to understand what’s going on in this specific sentence. The authors test this by creating a threshold for co-occurance, and, using that threshold, call about 40% of the examples “associative”
- The second problem is that of predictable structure - the fact that the “hinge” adjective is so often the last word in the sentence, making it possible that the model is brittle, and just attending to that, rather than the sentence as a whole 

The authors perform a few tests - examining results on associative vs non-associative examples, and examining results if you switch the ordering (in cases like “Emma did not pass the ball to Janie although she saw that she was open,” where it’s syntactically possible), to ensure the model is not just anchoring on the identity of the correct entity, regardless of its place in the sentence. Overall, they found evidence that some of the state of the art language models perform well on the Winograd Schema as a whole, but do less well (and in some cases even less well than the baselines they otherwise outperform) on these more rigorous examples. Unfortunately, these tests don’t lead us automatically to a better solution - design of examples like this is still tricky and hard to scale - but does provide valuable caution and food for thought. 

Ongoing declines in production of the world's fisheries may have serious ecological and socioeconomic consequences. As a result, a number of international efforts have sought to improve management and prevent overexploitation, while helping to maintain biodiversity and a sustainable food supply. Although these initiatives have received broad acceptance, the extent to which corrective measures have been implemented and are effective remains largely unknown. We used a survey approach, validated with empirical data, and enquiries to over 13,000 fisheries experts (of which 1,188 responded) to assess the current effectiveness of fisheries management regimes worldwide; for each of those regimes, we also calculated the probable sustainability of reported catches to determine how management affects fisheries sustainability. Our survey shows that 7% of all coastal states undergo rigorous scientific assessment for the generation of management policies, 1.4% also have a participatory and transparent processes to convert scientific recommendations into policy, and 0.95% also provide for robust mechanisms to ensure the compliance with regulations; none is also free of the effects of excess fishing capacity, subsidies, or access to foreign fishing. A comparison of fisheries management attributes with the sustainability of reported fisheries catches indicated that the conversion of scientific advice into policy, through a participatory and transparent process, is at the core of achieving fisheries sustainability, regardless of other attributes of the fisheries. Our results illustrate the great vulnerability of the world's fisheries and the urgent need to meet well-identified guidelines for sustainable management; they also provide a baseline against which future changes can be quantified. Author Summary Top Global fisheries are in crisis: marine fisheries provide 15% of the animal protein consumed by humans, yet 80% of the world's fish stocks are either fully exploited, overexploited or have collapsed. Several international initiatives have sought to improve the management of marine fisheries, hoping to reduce the deleterious ecological and socioeconomic consequence of the crisis. Unfortunately, the extent to which countries are improving their management and whether such intervention ensures the sustainability of the fisheries remain unknown. Here, we surveyed 1,188 fisheries experts from every coastal country in the world for information about the effectiveness with which fisheries are being managed, and related those results to an index of the probable sustainability of reported catches. We show that the management of fisheries worldwide is lagging far behind international guidelines recommended to minimize the effects of overexploitation. Only a handful of countries have a robust scientific basis for management recommendations, and transparent and participatory processes to convert those recommendations into policy while also ensuring compliance with regulations. Our study also shows that the conversion of scientific advice into policy, through a participatory and transparent process, is at the core of achieving fisheries sustainability, regardless of other attributes of the fisheries. These results illustrate the benefits of participatory, transparent, and science-based management while highlighting the great vulnerability of the world's fisheries services. The data for each country can be viewed at http://as01.ucis.dal.ca/ramweb/surveys/fishery_assessment .

This is follow-up work to the ResNets paper. It studies the propagation formulations behind the connections of deep residual networks and performs ablation experiments. A residual block can be represented with the equations $y_l = h(x_l) + F(x_l, W_l); x_{l+1} = f(y_l)$. $x_l$ is the input to the l-th unit and $x_{l+1}$ is the output of the l-th unit. In the original ResNets paper, $h(x_l) = x_l$, $f$ is ReLu, and F consists of 2-3 convolutional layers (bottleneck architecture) with BN and ReLU in between. In this paper, they propose a residual block with both $h(x)$ and $f(x)$ as identity mappings, which trains faster and performs better than their earlier baseline. Main contributions:

- Identity skip connections work much better than other multiplicative interactions that they experiment with:
    - Scaling $(h(x) = \lambda x)$: Gradients can explode or vanish depending on whether modulating scalar \lambda > 1 or < 1.
    - Gating ($1-g(x)$ for skip connection and $g(x)$ for function F):
    For gradients to propagate freely, $g(x)$ should approach 1, but
    F gets suppressed, hence suboptimal. This is similar to highway
    networks. $g(x)$ is a 1x1 convolutional layer.
    - Gating (shortcut-only): Setting high biases pushes initial $g(x)$
    towards identity mapping, and test error is much closer to baseline.
    - 1x1 convolutional shortcut: These work well for shallower networks
    (~34 layers), but training error becomes high for deeper networks,
    probably because they impede gradient propagation.

- Experiments on activations.
    - BN after addition messes up information flow, and performs considerably
    worse.
    - ReLU before addition forces the signal to be non-negative, so the signal is monotonically increasing, while ideally a residual function should be free to take values in (-inf, inf).
    - BN + ReLU pre-activation works best. This also prevents overfitting, due
    to BN's regularizing effect. Input signals to all weight layers are normalized.

## Strengths

- Thorough set of experiments to show that identity shortcut connections
are easiest for the network to learn. Activation of any deeper unit can
be written as the sum of the activation of a shallower unit and a residual
function. This also implies that gradients can be directly propagated to
shallower units. This is in contrast to usual feedforward networks, where
gradients are essentially a series of matrix-vector products, that may vanish, as networks grow deeper.

- Improved accuracies than their previous ResNets paper.

## Weaknesses / Notes

- Residual units are useful and share the same core idea that worked in
LSTM units. Even though stacked non-linear layers are capable of asymptotically
approximating any arbitrary function, it is clear from recent work that
residual functions are much easier to approximate than the complete function.
The [latest Inception paper](http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.07261) also reports
that training is accelerated and performance is improved by using identity
skip connections across Inception modules.

- It seems like the degradation problem, which serves as motivation for
residual units, exists in the first place for non-idempotent activation
functions such as sigmoid, hyperbolic tan. This merits further
investigation, especially with recent work on function-preserving transformations such as [Network Morphism](http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.01670), which expands the Net2Net idea to sigmoid, tanh, by using parameterized activations, initialized to identity mappings.