Offline reinforcement learning is potentially high-value thing for the machine learning community learn to do well, because there are many applications where it'd be useful to generate a learnt policy for responding to a dynamic environment, but where it'd be too unsafe or expensive to learn in an on-policy or online way, where we continually evaluate our actions in the environment to test their value. In such settings, we'd like to be able to take a batch of existing data - collected from a human demonstrator, or from some other algorithm - and be able to learn a policy from those pre-collected transitions, without being able to query the environment further by taking arbitrary actions. 

There are two broad strategies for learning a policy from precollected transitions. One is to simply learn to mimic the action policy used by the demonstrator, predicting the action the demonstrator would take in a given state, without making use of reward data at all. This is Behavioral Cloning, and has the advantage of being somewhat more conservative (in terms of not experimenting with possibly-unsafe-or-low-reward actions the demonstrator never took), but this is also a disadvantage, because it's not possible to get higher reward than the demonstrator themselves got if you're simply copying their behavior. Another approach is to learn a Q function - estimating the value of a given action in a given state - using the reward data from the precollected transitions. This can also have some downsides, mostly in the direction of overconfidence. Q value Temporal Difference learning works by using the current reward added to the max Q value over possible next actions as the target for the current-state Q estimate. This tends to lead to overestimates, because regression to the mean effects mean that the highest value Q estimates are disproportionately likely to be noisy (possibly because they correspond to an action with little data in the demonstrator dataset). In on-policy Q learning, this is less problematic, because the agent can take the action associated with their noisily inaccurate estimate, and as a result get more data for that action, and get an estimate that is less noisy in future. But when we're in a fully offline setting, all our learning is completed before we actually start taking actions with our policy, so taking high-uncertainty actions isn't a valuable source of new information, but just risky. 

The approach suggested by this DeepMind paper - Critic Regularized Regression, or CRR - is essentially a synthesis of these two possible approaches. The method learns a Q function as normal, using temporal difference methods. The distinction in this method comes from how to get a policy, given a learned Q function. Rather than simply taking the action your Q estimate says is highest-value at a particular point, CRR optimizes a policy according to the formula shown below. The f() function is a stand-in for various potential functions, all of which are monotonic with respect to the Q function, meaning they increase when the Q function does. 

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

This basically amounts to a form of a behavioral cloning loss (with the part that maximizes the probability under your policy of the actions sampled from the demonstrator dataset), but weighted or, as the paper terms it, filtered, by the learned Q function. The higher the estimated q value for a transition, the more weight is placed on that transition from the demo dataset having high probability under your policy. Rather than trying to mimic all of the actions of the demonstrator, the policy preferentially tries to mimic the demonstrator actions that it estimates were particularly high-quality. Different f() functions lead to different kinds of filtration. The `binary`version is an indicator function for the Advantage of an action (the Q value for that action at that state minus some reference value for the state, describing how much better the action is than other alternatives at that state) being greater than zero. Another, `exp`, uses exponential weightings which do a more "soft" upweighting or downweighting of transitions based on advantage, rather than the sharp binary of whether an actions advantage is above 1. 

The authors demonstrate that, on multiple environments from three different environment suites, CRR outperforms other off-policy baselines - either more pure behavioral cloning, or more pure RL - and in many cases does so quite dramatically. They find that the sharper binary weighting scheme does better on simpler tasks, since the trade-off of fewer but higher-quality samples to learn from works there. However, on more complex tasks, the policy benefits from the exp weighting, which still uses and learns from more samples (albeit at lower weights), which introduces some potential mimicking of lower-quality transitions, but at the trade of a larger effective dataset size to learn from.

This paper argues that, in semi-supervised learning, it's suboptimal to use the same weight for all examples (as happens implicitly, when the unsupervised component of the loss for each example is just added together directly. Instead, it tries to learn weights for each specific data example, through a meta-learning-esque process. 

The form of semi-supervised learning being discussed here is label-based consistency loss, where a labeled image is augmented and run through the current version of the model, and the model is optimized to try to induce the same loss for the augmented image as the unaugmented one. The premise of the authors argument for learning per-example weights is that, ideally, you would enforce consistency loss less on examples where a model was unconfident in its label prediction for an unlabeled example. 

As a way to solve this, the authors suggest learning a vector of parameters - one for each example in the dataset - where element i in the vector is a weight for element i of the dataset, in the summed-up unsupervised loss. They do this via a two-step process, where first they optimize the parameters of the network given the example weights, and then the optimize the example weights themselves. To optimize example weights, they calculate a gradient of those weights on the post-training validation loss, which requires backpropogating through the optimization process (to determine how different weights might have produced a different gradient, which might in turn have produced better validation loss). This requires calculating the inverse Hessian (second derivative matrix of the loss), which is, generally speaking, a quite costly operation for huge-parameter nets. To lessen this cost, they pretend that only the final layer of weights in the network are being optimized, and so only calculate the Hessian with respect to those weights. They also try to minimize cost by only updating the example weights for the examples that were used during the previous update step, since, presumably those were the only ones we have enough information to upweight or downweight. With this model, the authors achieve modest improvements - performance comparable to or within-error-bounds better than the current state of the art, FixMatch. 

Overall, I find this paper a little baffling. It's just a crazy amount of effort to throw into something that is a minor improvement. A few issues I have with the approach: 

- They don't seem to have benchmarked against the simpler baseline of some inverse of using Dropout-estimated uncertainty as the weight on examples, which would, presumably, more directly capture the property of "is my model unsure of its prediction on this unlabeled example"
- If the presumed need for this is the lack of certainty of the model, that's a non-stationary problem that's going to change throughout the course of training, and so I'd worry that you're basically taking steps in the direction of a moving target
- Despite using techniques rooted in meta-learning, it doesn't seem like this models learns anything generalizable - it's learning index-based weights on specific examples, which doesn't give it anything useful it can do with some new data point it finds that it wasn't specifically trained on

Given that, I think I'd need to see a much stronger case for dramatic performance benefits for something like this to seem like it was worth the increase in complexity (not to mention computation, even with the optimized Hessian scheme)

This is a nice little empirical paper that does some investigation into which features get learned during the course of neural network training. To look at this, it uses a notion of "decodability", defined as the accuracy to which you can train a linear model to predict a given conceptual feature on top of the activations/learned features at a particular layer. This idea captures the amount of information about a conceptual feature that can be extracted from a given set of activations. 

They work with two synthetic datasets. 

1. Trifeature: Generated images with a color, shape, and texture, which can be engineered to be either entirely uncorrelated or correlated with each other to varying degrees. 
2. Navon: Generated images that are letters on the level of shape, and are also composed of letters on the level of texture 

The first thing the authors investigate is: to what extent are the different properties of these images decodable from their representations, and how does that change during training? In general, decodability is highest in lower layers, and lowest in higher layers, which makes sense from the perspective of the Information Processing Inequality, since all the information is present in the pixels, and can only be lost in the course of training, not gained. They find that decodability of color is high, even in the later layers untrained networks, and that the decodability of texture and shape, while much less high, is still above chance. When the network is trained to predict one of the three features attached to an image, you see the decodability of that feature go up (as expected), but you also see the decodability of the other features go down, suggesting that training doesn't just involve amplifying predictive features, but also suppressing unpredictive ones. This effect is strongest in the Trifeature case when training for shape or color; when training for texture, the dampening effect on color is strong, but on shape is less pronounced. 

https://i.imgur.com/o45KHOM.png

The authors also performed some experiments on cases where features are engineered to be correlated to various degrees, to see which of the predictive features the network will represent more strongly. In the case where two features are perfectly correlated (and thus both perfectly predict the label), the network will focus decoding power on whichever feature had highest decodability in the untrained network, and, interestingly, will reduce decodability of the other feature (not just have it be lower than the chosen feature, but decrease it in the course of training), even though it is equally as predictive. 
https://i.imgur.com/NFx0h8b.png

Similarly, the network will choose the "easy" feature (the one more easily decodable at the beginning of training) even if there's another feature that is slightly *more* predictive available. This seems quite consistent with the results of another recent paper, Shah et al, on the Pitfalls of Simplicity Bias in neural networks. The overall message of both of these experiments is that networks generally 'put all their eggs in one basket,' so to speak, rather than splitting representational power across multiple features. 

There were a few other experiments in the paper, and I'd recommend reading it in full - it's quite well written - but I think those convey most of the key insights for me.

This paper presents a combination of the inception architecture
with residual networks. This is done by adding a shortcut connection
to each inception module. This can alternatively be seen as a resnet where
the 2 conv layers are replaced by a (slightly modified) inception module.
The paper (claims to) provide results against the hypothesis that adding residual
connections improves training, rather increasing the model size is what makes the difference.

This summary builds extensively on my prior summary of SIRENs, so if you haven't read that summary or the underlying paper yet, I'd recommend doing that first! 

At a high level, the idea of SIRENs is to use a neural network to learn a compressed, continuous representation of an image, where the neural network encodes a mapping from (x, y) to the pixel value at that location, and the image can be reconstructed (or, potentially, expanded in size) by sampling from that function across the full range of the image. To do this effectively, they use sinusoidal activation functions, which let them match not just the output of the neural network f(x, y) to the true image, but also the first and second derivatives of the neural network to the first and second derivatives of the true image, which provides a more robust training signal. 

NERFs builds on this idea, but instead of trying to learn a continuous representation of an image (mapping from 2D position to 3D RGB), they try to learn a continuous representation of a scene, mapping from position (specified with with three coordinates) and viewing direction (specified with two angles) to the RGB color at a given point in a 3D grid (or "voxel", analogous to "pixel"), as well as the *density* or opacity of that point. 

Why is this interesting? Because if you have a NERF that has learned a good underlying function of a particular 3D scene, you can theoretically take samples of that scene from arbitrary angles, even angles not seen during training. It essentially functions as a usable 3D model of a scene, but one that, because it's stored in the weights of a neural network, and specified in a continuous function, is far smaller than actually storing all the values of all the voxels in a 3D scene (the authors give an example of 5MB vs 15GB for a NERF vs a full 3D model). To get some intuition for this, consider that if you wanted to store the curve represented by a particular third-degree polynomial function between 0 and 10,000 it would be much more space-efficient to simply store the 3 coefficients of that polynomial, and be able to sample from it at your desired granularity at will, rather than storing many empirically sampled points from along the curve. 

https://i.imgur.com/0c33YqV.png

How is a NERF model learned?

- The (x, y, z) position of each point is encoded as a combination of sine-wave, Fourier-style curves of increasingly higher frequency. This is similar to the positional encoding used by transformers. In practical turns, this means a location in space will be represented as a vector calculated as [some point on a low-frequency curve, some point on a slightly higher frequency curve..., some point on the highest-frequency curve]. This doesn't contain any more *information* than the (x, y, z) representation, but it does empirically seem to help training when you separate the frequencies like this
- You take a dataset of images for which viewing direction is known, and simulate sending a ray through the scene in that direction, hitting some line (or possibly tube?) of voxels on the way. You calculate the perceived color at that point, which is an integral of the color information and density/opacity returned by your model, for each point. Intuitively, if you have a high opacity weight early on, that part of the object blocks any voxels further in the ray, whereas if the opacity weight is lower, more of the voxels behind will contribute to the overall effective color perceived. You then compare these predicted perceived colors to the actual colors captured by the 2D image, and train on the prediction error.
- (One note on sampling: the paper proposes a hierarchical sampling scheme to help with sampling efficiently along the ray, first taking a course sample, and then adding additional samples in regions of high predicted density)
- At the end of training, you have a network that hopefully captures the information from *that particular scene*. A notable downside of this approach is that it's quite slow for any use cases that require training on many scenes, since each individual scene network takes about 1-2 days of GPU time to train