In the paper, authors  Bengio et al. , use the DenseNet for semantic segmentation. DenseNets iteratively concatenates input feature maps to output feature maps. The biggest contribution was the use of a novel upsampling path - given conventional upsampling would've caused severe memory cruch.

#### Background

All fully convolutional semantic segmentation nets generally follow a conventional path - a downsampling path which acts as feature extractor, an upsampling path that restores the locational information of every feature extracted in the downsampling path. 

As opposed to Residual Nets (where input feature maps are added to the output) , in DenseNets,the output is concatenated to input which has some interesting implications:  
- DenseNets  are efficient in the parameter usage, since all the feature maps are reused
- DenseNets perform deep supervision thanks to short path to all feature maps in the architecture 

Using DenseNets for segmentation though had an issue with upsampling in the conventional way of concatenating feature maps through skip connections as feature maps could easily go beyond 1-1.5 K. So Bengio et al. suggests a novel way - wherein only feature maps produced in the last Dense layer are only upsampled and not the entire feature maps. Post upsampling, the output is concatenated with feature maps of same resolution from downsampling path through skip connection. That way, the information lost during pooling in the downsampling path can be recovered.

#### Methodology & Architecture

In the downsampling path, the input is concatenated with the output of a dense block, whereas for upsampling the output of dense block is upsampled (without concatenating it with the input) and then concatenated with the same resolution output of downsampling path. 

Here's the overall architecture 
![](https://i.imgur.com/tqsPj72.png)

Here's how a Dense Block looks like 
![](https://i.imgur.com/MMqosoj.png)

#### Results
The 103 Conv layer based DenseNet (FC-DenseNet103) performed better than shallower networks when compared on CamVid dataset. Though the FC-DenseNets were not pre-trained or used any post-processing like CRF or temporal smoothening etc.  When comparing to other nets FC-DenseNet architectures achieve state-of-the-art, improving upon models with 10 times more parameters. It is also worth mentioning that  small model FC-DenseNet56 already outperforms  popular  architectures  with  at  least 100 times more parameters. 

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

This paper introduces a deep universal word embedding based on using a bidirectional LM (in this case, biLSTM). First words are embedded with a CNN-based, character-level, context-free, token embedding into $x_k^{LM}$ and then each sentence is parsed using a biLSTM, maximizing the log-likelihood of a word given it's forward and backward context (much like a normal language model). 

The innovation is in taking the output of each layer of the LSTM ($h_{k,j}^{LM}$ being the output at layer $j$) 
$$
\begin{align}
R_k &= \{x_k^{LM}, \overrightarrow{h}_{k,j}^{LM}, \overleftarrow{h}_{k,j}^{LM} | j = 1 \ldots L \} \\
&= \{h_{k,j}^{LM} | j = 0 \ldots L \}
\end{align}
$$
and allowing the user to learn a their own task-specific weighted sum of these hidden states as the embedding:
$$
ELMo_k^{task} = \gamma^{task} \sum_{j=0}^L s_j^{task} h_{k,j}^{LM}
$$

The authors show that this weighted sum is better than taking only the top LSTM output (as in their previous work or in CoVe) because it allows capturing syntactic information in the lower layer of the LSTM and semantic information in the higher level. Table below shows that the second layer is more useful for the semantic task of word sense disambiguation, and the first layer is more useful for the syntactic task of POS tagging.

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

On other benchmarks, they show it is also better than taking the average of the layers (which could be done by setting $\gamma = 1$)
https://i.imgur.com/f78gmKu.png

To add the embeddings to your supervised model,  ELMo is concatenated with your context-free embeddings, $\[ x_k; ELMo_k^{task} \]$. It can also be concatenated with the output of your RNN model $\[ h_k; ELMo_k^{task} \]$ which can show improvements on the same benchmarks

https://i.imgur.com/eBqLe8G.png

Finally, they show that adding ELMo to a competitive but simple baseline gets SOTA (at the time) on very many NLP benchmarks

https://i.imgur.com/PFUlgh3.png

It's all open-source and there's a tutorial [here](https://github.com/allenai/allennlp/blob/master/tutorials/how_to/elmo.md)

[Summary by author /u/SirJAM_armedi](https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/8sq0jy/rudder_reinforcement_learning_algorithm_that_is/e11swv8/).

Math aside, the "big idea" of RUDDER is the following: We use an LSTM to predict the return of an episode. To do this, the LSTM will have to recognize what actually causes the reward (e.g. "shooting the gun in the right direction causes the reward, even if we get the reward only once the bullet hits the enemy after travelling along the screen"). We then use a salience method (e.g. LRP or integrated gradients) to get that information out of the LSTM, and redistribute the reward accordingly (i.e., we then give reward already once the gun is shot in the right direction). Once the reward is redistributed this way, solving/learning the actual Reinforcement Learning problem is much, much easier and as we prove in the paper, the optimal policy does not change with this redistribution.

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. 

The main contribution of [Asynchronous Methods for Deep Reinforcement Learning](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.01783v1.pdf) by Mnih et al. is a ligthweight framework for reinforcement learning agents. 

They propose a training procedure which utilizes asynchronous gradient decent updates from multiple agents at once. Instead of training one single agent who interacts with its environment, multiple agents are interacting with their own version of the environment simultaneously.

After a certain amount of timesteps, accumulated gradient updates from an agent are applied to a global model, e.g. a Deep Q-Network. These updates are asynchronous and lock free. 

Effects of training speed and quality are analyzed for various reinforcement learning methods. No replay memory is need to decorrelate successive game states, since all agents are already exploring different game states in real time. Also, on-policy algorithms like actor-critic can be applied.

They show that asynchronous updates have a stabilizing effect on policy and value updates. Also, their best method, an asynchronous variant of actor-critic, surpasses the current state-of-the-art on the Atari domain while training for half the time on a single multi-core CPU instead of a GPU.

Originally posted on my Github [paper-notes](https://github.com/karpathy/paper-notes/blob/master/matching_networks.md) repo.

# Matching Networks for One Shot Learning

By DeepMind crew: **Oriol Vinyals, Charles Blundell, Timothy Lillicrap, Koray Kavukcuoglu, Daan Wierstra**

This is a paper on **one-shot** learning, where we'd like to learn a class based on very few (or indeed, 1) training examples. E.g. it suffices to show a child a single giraffe, not a few hundred thousands before it can recognize more giraffes.

This paper falls into a category of *"duh of course"* kind of paper, something very interesting, powerful, but somehow obvious only in retrospect. I like it.

Suppose you're given a single example of some class and would like to label it in test images.

- **Observation 1**: a standard approach might be to train an Exemplar SVM for this one (or few) examples vs. all the other training examples - i.e. a linear classifier. But this requires optimization.
- **Observation 2:** known non-parameteric alternatives (e.g. k-Nearest Neighbor) don't suffer from this problem. E.g. I could immediately use a Nearest Neighbor to classify the new class without having to do any optimization whatsoever. However, NN is gross because it depends on an (arbitrarily-chosen) metric, e.g. L2 distance. Ew.
- **Core idea**: lets train a fully end-to-end nearest neighbor classifer!![Screen Shot 2016-08-07 at 10.08.44 PM](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/karpathy/paper-notes/master/img/matching_networks/Screen%20Shot%202016-08-07%20at%2010.08.44%20PM.png)

## The training protocol

As the authors amusingly point out in the conclusion (and this is the *duh of course* part), *"one-shot learning is much easier if you train the network to do one-shot learning"*. Therefore, we want the test-time protocol (given N novel classes with only k examples each (e.g. k = 1 or 5), predict new instances to one of N classes) to exactly match the training time protocol.

To create each "episode" of training from a dataset of examples then:

1. Sample a task T from the training data, e.g. select 5 labels, and up to 5 examples per label (i.e. 5-25 examples).
2. To form one episode sample a label set L (e.g. {cats, dogs}) and then use L to sample the support set S and a batch B of examples to evaluate loss on.

The idea on high level is clear but the writing here is a bit unclear on details, of exactly how the sampling is done.

## The model

I find the paper's model description slightly wordy and unclear, but basically we're building a **differentiable nearest neighbor++**. The output \hat{y} for a test example \hat{x} is computed very similar to what you might see in Nearest Neighbors:![Screen Shot 2016-08-07 at 11.14.26 PM](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/karpathy/paper-notes/master/img/matching_networks/Screen%20Shot%202016-08-07%20at%2011.14.26%20PM.png)
where **a** acts as a kernel, computing the extent to which \hat{x} is similar to a training example x_i, and then the labels from the training examples (y_i) are weight-blended together accordingly. The paper doesn't mention this but I assume for classification y_i would presumbly be one-hot vectors.

Now, we're going to embed both the training examples x_i and the test example \hat{x}, and we'll interpret their inner products (or here a cosine similarity) as the "match", and pass that through a softmax to get normalized mixing weights so they add up to 1. No surprises here, this is quite natural:

![Screen Shot 2016-08-07 at 11.20.29 PM](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/karpathy/paper-notes/master/img/matching_networks/Screen%20Shot%202016-08-07%20at%2011.20.29%20PM.png)
Here **c()** is cosine distance, which I presume is implemented by normalizing the two input vectors to have unit L2 norm and taking a dot product. I assume the authors tried skipping the normalization too and it did worse? Anyway, now all that's left to define is the function **f** (i.e. how do we embed the test example into a vector) and the function **g** (i.e. how do we embed each training example into a vector?).

**Embedding the training examples.** This (the function **g**) is a bidirectional LSTM over the examples:

 ![Screen Shot 2016-08-07 at 11.57.10 PM](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/karpathy/paper-notes/master/img/matching_networks/Screen%20Shot%202016-08-07%20at%2011.57.10%20PM.png)

i.e. encoding of i'th example x_i is a function of its "raw" embedding g'(x_i) and the embedding of its friends, communicated through the bidirectional network's hidden states. i.e. each training example is a function of not just itself but all of its friends in the set. This is part of the ++ above, because in a normal nearest neighbor you wouldn't change the representation of an example as a function of the other data points in the training set.

It's odd that the **order** is not mentioned, I assume it's random? This is a bit gross because order matters to a bidirectional LSTM; you'd get different embeddings if you permute the examples. 

**Embedding the test example.** This (the function **f**) is a an LSTM that processes for a fixed amount (K time steps) and at each point also *attends* over the examples in the training set. The encoding is the last hidden state of the LSTM. Again, this way we're allowing the network to change its encoding of the test example as a function of the training examples. Nifty: ![Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 12.11.15 AM](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/karpathy/paper-notes/master/img/matching_networks/Screen%20Shot%202016-08-08%20at%2012.11.15%20AM.png)

That looks scary at first but it's really just a vanilla LSTM with attention where the input at each time step is constant (f'(\hat{x}), an encoding of the test example all by itself) and the hidden state is a function of previous hidden state but also a concatenated readout vector **r**, which we obtain by attending over the encoded training examples (encoded with **g** from above).

Oh and I assume there is a typo in equation (5), it should say r_k = … without the -1 on LHS. 



## Experiments

**Task**: N-way k-shot learning task. i.e. we're given k (e.g. 1 or 5) labelled examples for N classes that we have not previously trained on and asked to classify new instances into he N classes.

**Baselines:** an "obvious" strategy of using a pretrained ConvNet and doing nearest neighbor based on the codes. An option of finetuning the network on the new examples as well (requires training and careful and strong regularization!).

**MANN** of Santoro et al. [21]: Also a DeepMind paper, a fun NTM-like Meta-Learning approach that is fed a sequence of examples and asked to predict their labels.

**Siamese network** of Koch et al. [11]: A siamese network that takes two examples and predicts whether they are from the same class or not with logistic regression. A test example is labeled with a nearest neighbor: with the class it matches best according to the siamese net (requires iteration over all training examples one by one). Also, this approach is less end-to-end than the one here because it requires the ad-hoc nearest neighbor matching, while here the *exact* end task is optimized for. It's beautiful.



### Omniglot experiments 

### ![Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 10.21.45 AM](https://github.com/karpathy/paper-notes/raw/master/img/matching_networks/Screen%20Shot%202016-08-08%20at%2010.21.45%20AM.png)

Omniglot of [Lake et al. [14]](http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~rsalakhu/papers/LakeEtAl2015Science.pdf) is a MNIST-like scribbles dataset with 1623 characters with 20 examples each.

Image encoder is a CNN with 4 modules of [3x3 CONV 64 filters, batchnorm, ReLU, 2x2 max pool]. The original image is claimed to be so resized from original 28x28 to 1x1x64, which doesn't make sense because factor of 2 downsampling 4 times is reduction of 16, and 28/16 is a non-integer >1. I'm assuming they use VALID convs?

Results: ![Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 10.27.46 AM](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/karpathy/paper-notes/master/img/matching_networks/Screen%20Shot%202016-08-08%20at%2010.27.46%20AM.png)

Matching nets do best. Fully Conditional Embeddings (FCE) by which I mean they the "Full Context Embeddings" of Section 2.1.2 instead are not used here, mentioned to not work much better. Finetuning helps a bit on baselines but not with Matching nets (weird).

The comparisons in this table are somewhat confusing:

- I can't find the MANN numbers of 82.8% and 94.9% in their paper [21]; not clear where they come from. E.g. for 5 classes and 5-shot they seem to report 88.4% not 94.9% as seen here. I must be missing something.
- I also can't find the numbers reported here in the Siamese Net [11] paper. As far as I can tell in their Table 2 they report one-shot accuracy, 20-way classification to be 92.0, while here it is listed as 88.1%?
- The results of Lake et al. [14] who proposed Omniglot are also missing from the table. If I'm understanding this correctly they report 95.2% on 1-shot 20-way, while matching nets here show 93.8%, and humans are estimated at 95.5%. That is, the results here appear weaker than those of Lake et al., but one should keep in mind that the method here is significantly more generic and does not make any assumptions about the existence of strokes, etc., and it's a simple, single fully-differentiable blob of neural stuff.

(skipping ImageNet/LM experiments as there are few surprises)

## Conclusions

Good paper, effectively develops a differentiable nearest neighbor trained end-to-end. It's something new, I like it!

A few concerns: 

- A bidirectional LSTMs (not order-invariant compute) is applied over sets of training examples to encode them. The authors don't talk about the order actually used, which presumably is random, or mention this potentially unsatisfying feature. This can be solved by using a recurrent attentional mechanism instead, as the authors are certainly aware of and as has been discussed at length in [ORDER MATTERS: SEQUENCE TO SEQUENCE FOR SETS](https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.06391), where Oriol is also the first author. I wish there was a comment on this point in the paper somewhere.

- The approach also gets quite a bit slower as the number of training examples grow, but once this number is large one would presumable switch over to a parameteric approach.

- It's also potentially concerning that during training the method uses a specific number of examples, e.g. 5-25, so this is the number of that must also be used at test time. What happens if we want the size of our training set to grow online? It appears that we need to retrain the network because the encoder LSTM for the training data is not "used to" seeing inputs of more examples? That is unless you fall back to iteratively subsampling the training data, doing multiple inference passes and averaging, or something like that. If we don't use FCE it can still be that the attention mechanism LSTM can still not be "used to" attending over many more examples, but it's not clear how much this matters. An interesting experiment would be to not use FCE and try to use 100 or 1000 training examples, while only training on up to 25 (with and fithout FCE). Discussion surrounding this point would be interesting.

- Not clear what happened with the Omniglot experiments, with incorrect numbers for [11], [21], and the exclusion of Lake et al. [14] comparison.

- A baseline that is missing would in my opinion also include training of an [Exemplar SVM](https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tmalisie/projects/iccv11/), which is a much more powerful approach than encode-with-a-cnn-and-nearest-neighbor.

  ​

  * They describe a variation of convolutions that have a differently structured receptive field.
  * They argue that their variation works better for dense prediction, i.e. for predicting values for every pixel in an image (e.g. coloring, segmentation, upscaling).

### How
  * One can image the input into a convolutional layer as a 3d-grid. Each cell is a "pixel" generated by a filter.
  * Normal convolutions compute their output per cell as a weighted sum of the input cells in a dense area. I.e. all input cells are right next to each other.
  * In dilated convolutions, the cells are not right next to each other. E.g. 2-dilated convolutions skip 1 cell between each input cell, 3-dilated convolutions skip 2 cells etc. (Similar to striding.)
  * Normal convolutions are simply 1-dilated convolutions (skipping 0 cells).
  * One can use a 1-dilated convolution and then a 2-dilated convolution. The receptive field of the second convolution will then be 7x7 instead of the usual 5x5 due to the spacing.
  * Increasing the dilation factor by 2 per layer (1, 2, 4, 8, ...) leads to an exponential increase in the receptive field size, while every cell in the receptive field will still be part in the computation of at least one convolution.
  * They had problems with badly performing networks, which they fixed using an identity initialization for the weights. (Sounds like just using resdiual connections would have been easier.)

![Receptive field](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aleju/papers/master/neural-nets/images/Multi-Scale_Context_Aggregation_by_Dilated_Convolutions__receptive.png?raw=true "Receptive field")

*Receptive fields of a 1-dilated convolution (1st image), followed by a 2-dilated conv. (2nd image), followed by a 4-dilated conv. (3rd image). The blue color indicates the receptive field size (notice the exponential increase in size). Stronger blue colors mean that the value has been used in more different convolutions.*


### Results
  * They took a VGG net, removed the pooling layers and replaced the convolutions with dilated ones (weights can be kept).
  * They then used the network to segment images.
  * Their results were significantly better than previous methods.
  * They also added another network with more dilated convolutions in front of the VGG one, again improving the results.


![Segmentation performance](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aleju/papers/master/neural-nets/images/Multi-Scale_Context_Aggregation_by_Dilated_Convolutions__segmentation.png?raw=true "Segmentation performance")

*Their performance on a segmentation task compared to two competing methods. They only used VGG16 without pooling layers and with convolutions replaced by dilated convolutions.*

Pathogen perception by the plant innate immune system is of central importance to plant survival and productivity. The Arabidopsis protein RIN4 is a negative regulator of plant immunity. In order to identify additional proteins involved in RIN4-mediated immune signal transduction, we purified components of the RIN4 protein complex. We identified six novel proteins that had not previously been implicated in RIN4 signaling, including the plasma membrane (PM) H+-ATPases AHA1 and/or AHA2. RIN4 interacts with AHA1 and AHA2 both in vitro and in vivo. RIN4 overexpression and knockout lines exhibit differential PM H+-ATPase activity. PM H+-ATPase activation induces stomatal opening, enabling bacteria to gain entry into the plant leaf; inactivation induces stomatal closure thus restricting bacterial invasion. The rin4 knockout line exhibited reduced PM H+-ATPase activity and, importantly, its stomata could not be re-opened by virulent Pseudomonas syringae. We also demonstrate that RIN4 is expressed in guard cells, highlighting the importance of this cell type in innate immunity. These results indicate that the Arabidopsis protein RIN4 functions with the PM H+-ATPase to regulate stomatal apertures, inhibiting the entry of bacterial pathogens into the plant leaf during infection. Author Summary Top Plants are continuously exposed to microorganisms. In order to resist infection, plants rely on their innate immune system to inhibit both pathogen entry and multiplication. We investigated the function of the Arabidopsis protein RIN4, which acts as a negative regulator of plant innate immunity. We biochemically identified six novel RIN4-associated proteins and characterized the association between RIN4 and the plasma membrane H+-ATPase pump. Our results indicate that RIN4 functions in concert with this pump to regulate leaf stomata during the innate immune response, when stomata close to block the entry of bacterial pathogens into the leaf interior.

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}

The paper introduces a sequential variational auto-encoder that generates complex images iteratively. The authors also introduce a new spatial attention mechanism that allows the model to focus on small subsets of the image. This new approach for image generation produces images that can’t be distinguished from the training data.

#### What is DRAW:
The deep recurrent attention writer (DRAW) model has two differences with respect to other variational auto-encoders. First, the encoder and the decoder are recurrent networks. Second, it includes an attention mechanism that restricts the input region observed by the encoder and the output region observed by the decoder.

#### What do we gain?
The resulting images are greatly improved by allowing a conditional and sequential generation. In addition, the spatial attention mechanism can be used in other contexts to solve the “Where to look?” problem.

#### What follows?
A possible extension to this model would be to use a convolutional architecture in the encoder or the decoder. Although this might be less useful since we are already restricting the input of the network.

#### Like:
* As observed in the samples generated by the model, the attention mechanism works effectively by reconstructing images in a local way.
* The attention model is fully differentiable.

#### Dislike:
* I think a better exposition of the attention mechanism would improve this paper.

This paper considers the problem of structured output prediction, in the specific case where the output is a sequence and we represent the sequence as a (conditional) directed graphical model that generates from the first token to the last. The paper starts from the observation that training such models by maximum likelihood (ML) does not reflect well how the model is actually used at test time. Indeed, ML training implies that the model is effectively trained to predict each token conditioned on the previous tokens *from the ground truth* sequence (this is known as "teacher forcing"). Yet, when making a prediction for a new input, the model will actually generate a sequence by generating tokens one after another and conditioning on *its own predicted tokens* instead. 

So the authors propose a different training procedure, where at training time each *conditioning* ground truth token is sometimes replaced by the model's previous prediction. The choice of replacing the ground truth by the model's prediction is made by "flipping a coin" with some probability, independently for each token. Importantly, the authors propose to start with a high probability of using the ground truth (i.e. start close to ML) and anneal that probability closer to 0, according to some schedule (thus the name Schedule Sampling). 

Experiments on 3 tasks (image caption generation, constituency parsing and speech recognition) based on neural networks with LSTM units, demonstrate that this approach indeed improves over ML training in terms of the various performance metrics appropriate for each problem, and yields better sequence prediction models. 



#### My two cents

Big fan of this paper. It both identifies an important flaw in how sequential prediction models are currently trained and, most importantly, suggests a solution that is simple yet effective. I also believe that this approach played a non-negligible role in Google's winner system for image caption generation, in the Microsoft COCO competition. 

My alternative interpretation of why Scheduled Sampling helps is that ML training does not inform the model about the relative quality of the errors it can make. In terms of ML, it is as bad to put high probability on an output sequence that has just 1 token that's wrong, than it is to put the same amount of probability on a sequence that has all tokens wrong. Yet, say for image caption generation, outputting a sentence that is one word away from the ground truth is clearly preferable from making a mistake on a words (something that is also reflected in the performance metrics, such as BLEU). 

By training the model to be robust to its own mistakes, Scheduled Sampling ensures that errors won't accumulate and makes predictions that are entirely off much less likely.

An alternative to Scheduled Sampling is DAgger (Dataset Aggregation: \cite{journals/jmlr/RossGB11}), which briefly put alternates between training the model and adding to the training set examples that mix model predictions and the ground truth. However, Scheduled Sampling has the advantage that there is no need to explicitly create and store that increasingly large dataset of sampled examples, something that isn't appealing for online learning or learning on large datasets.

I'm also very curious and interested by one of the direction of future work mentioned in the conclusion: figuring out a way to backprop through the stochastic predictions made by the model. Indeed, as the authors point out, the current algorithm ignores the fact that, by sometimes taking as input its previous prediction, this induces an additional relationship between the model's parameters and its ultimate prediction, a relationship that isn't taken into account during training. To take it into account, you'd need to somehow backpropagate through the stochastic process that generated the previous token prediction. While the work on variational autoencoders has shown that we can backprop through gaussian samples, backpropagating through the sampling of a discrete multinomial distribution is essentially an open problem. I do believe that there is work that tried to tackle propagating through stochastic binary units however, so perhaps that's a start. Anyways, if the authors could make progress on that specific issue, it could be quite useful not just in the context of Schedule Sampling, but possibly in the context of training networks with discrete stochastic units in general!

This paper presents a novel layer that can be used in convolutional neural networks. A spatial transformer layer computes re-sampling points of the signal based on another neural network. The suggested transformations include scaling, cropping, rotations and non-rigid deformation whose paramerters are trained end-to-end with the rest of the model. The resulting re-sampling grid is then used to create a new representation of the underlying signal through bi-linear or nearest neighbor interpolation. This has interesting implications: the network can learn to co-locate objects in a set of images that all contain the same object, the transformation parameter localize the attention area explicitly, fine data resolution is restricted to areas important for the task. Furthermore, the model improves over previous state-of-the-art on a number of tasks.

The layer has one mini neural network that regresses on the parameters of a parametric transformation, e.g. affine), then there is a module that applies the transformation to a regular grid and a third more or less "reads off" the values in the transformed positions and maps them to a regular grid, hence under-forming the image or previous layer. Gradients for back-propagation in a few cases are derived. The results are mostly of the classic deep learning variety, including mnist and svhn, but there is also the fine-grained birds dataset. The networks with spatial transformers seem to lead to improved results in all cases.

We want to find two matrices $W$ and $H$ such that $V = WH$. Often a goal is to determine underlying patterns in the relationships between the concepts represented by each row and column. $W$ is some $m$ by $n$ matrix and we want the inner dimension of the factorization to be $r$. So 

$$\underbrace{V}_{m \times n} = \underbrace{W}_{m \times r} \underbrace{H}_{r \times n}$$

Let's consider an example matrix where of three customers (as rows) are associated with three movies (the columns) by a rating value.

$$
V = \left[\begin{array}{c c c}
5 & 4 & 1  \\\\
4 & 5 & 1 \\\\
2 & 1 & 5
\end{array}\right]
$$


We can decompose this into two matrices with $r = 1$. First lets do this without any non-negative constraint using an SVD reshaping matrices based on removing eigenvalues:


$$
W = \left[\begin{array}{c c c}
-0.656 \\\
 -0.652 \\\
 -0.379
\end{array}\right],
H = \left[\begin{array}{c c c}
-6.48 & -6.26 & -3.20\\\\
\end{array}\right]
$$

We can also decompose this into two matrices with $r = 1$ subject to the constraint that $w_{ij} \ge 0$ and  $h_{ij} \ge 0$. (Note: this is only possible when $v_{ij} \ge 0$):

$$
W = \left[\begin{array}{c c c}
0.388 \\\\
0.386 \\\\
0.224
\end{array}\right],
H = \left[\begin{array}{c c c}
11.22 & 10.57 & 5.41  \\\\
\end{array}\right]
$$

Both of these $r=1$ factorizations reconstruct matrix $V$ with the same error. 

$$
V \approx WH = \left[\begin{array}{c c c}
4.36 & 4.11 & 2.10 \\\
4.33 & 4.08 & 2.09 \\\
2.52 & 2.37 & 1.21 \\\
\end{array}\right]
$$


If they both yield the same reconstruction error then why is a non-negativity constraint useful? We can see above that it is easy to observe patterns in both factorizations such as similar customers and similar movies. `TODO: motivate why NMF is better`



#### Paper Contribution 

This paper discusses two approaches for iteratively creating a non-negative $W$ and $H$ based on random initial matrices. The paper discusses a multiplicative update rule where the elements of $W$ and $H$ are iteratively transformed by scaling each value such that error is not increased. 

The multiplicative approach is discussed in contrast to an additive gradient decent based approach where small corrections are iteratively applied. The multiplicative approach can be reduced to this by setting the learning rate ($\eta$) to a ratio that represents the magnitude of the element in $H$ to the scaling factor of $W$ on $H$.



### Still a draft

## Introduction

* [Link to Paper](http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6071v4.pdf)
* Spatial pooling layers are building blocks for Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs).
* Input to pooling operation is a $N_{in}$ x $N_{in}$ matrix and output is a smaller matrix $N_{out}$ x $N_{out}$.
* Pooling operation divides $N_{in}$ x $N_{in}$ square into $N^2_{out}$ pooling regions $P_{i, j}$.
* $P_{i, j}$ ⊂ $\{1, 2, . . . , N_{in}\}$ $\forall$ $(i, j) \in \{1, . . . , N_{out} \}^2$

## MP2

* Refers to 2x2 max-pooling layer.
* Popular choice for max-pooling operation.

### Advantages of MP2
* Fast.
* Quickly reduces the size of the hidden layer.
* Encodes a degree of invariance with respect to translations and elastic distortions.

### Issues with MP2
* Disjoint nature of pooling regions.
* Since size decreases rapidly, stacks of back-to-back CNNs are needed to build deep networks.

## FMP

* Reduces the spatial size of the image by a factor of *α*, where *α ∈ (1, 2)*.
* Introduces randomness in terms of choice of pooling region.
* Pooling regions can be chosen in a *random* or *pseudorandom* manner.
* Pooling regions can be *disjoint* or *overlapping*.

## Generating Pooling Regions

* Let $a_i$ and $b_i$ be 2 increasing sequences of integers, starting at 1 and ending at $N_{in}$.
* Increments are either 1 or 2.
* For *disjoint regions, $P = [a_{i−1}, a_{i − 1}] × [b_{j−1}, b_{j − 1}]$
* For *overlapping regions, $P = [a_{i−1}, a_i] × [b_{j−1}, b_j 1]$
* Pooling regions can be generated *randomly* by choosing the increment randomly at each step.
* To generate pooling regions in a *peusdorandom* manner, choose $a_i$ = ceil($\alpha | (i+u))$, where $\alpha \in (1, 2)$ with some $u \in (0, 1)$.
* Each FMP layer uses a different pair of sequence.
* An FMP network can be thought of as an ensemble of similar networks, with each different pooling-region configuration defining a different member of the ensemble.

## Observations  

* *Random* FMP is good on its own but may underfit when combined with dropout or training data augmentation.  
* *Pseudorandom* approach generates more stable pooling regions.   
* *Overlapping* FMP performs better than *disjoint* FMP.    

## Weakness

* No justification is provided for the observations mentioned above.
* It needs to be seen how performance is affected if the pooling layer in architectures like GoogLeNet.

#### Problem addressed: 
A fast way of finding adversarial examples, and a hypothesis for the adversarial examples

#### Summary: 
This paper tries to explain why adversarial examples exists, the adversarial example is defined in another paper \cite{arxiv.org/abs/1312.6199}. The adversarial example is kind of counter intuitive because they normally are visually indistinguishable from the original example, but leads to very different predictions for the classifier. For example, let sample $x$ be associated with the true class $t$. A classifier (in particular a well trained dnn) can correctly predict $x$ with high confidence, but with a small perturbation $r$, the same network will predict $x+r$ to a different incorrect class also with high confidence.
 
 This paper explains that the exsistence of such adversarial examples is more because of low model capacity in high dimensional spaces rather than overfitting, and got some empirical support on that. It also shows a new method that can reliably generate adversarial examples really fast using `fast sign' method. Basically, one can generate an adversarial example by taking a small step toward the sign direction of the objective. They also showed that training along with adversarial examples helps the classifier to generalize.

#### Novelty:
A fast method to generate adversarial examples reliably, and a linear hypothesis for those examples.

#### Datasets:
MNIST

#### Resources:
Talk of the paper https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq4A2mPCB0Y

#### Presenter:
Yingbo Zhou

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

### Rough chapter-wise notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This paper argues for the use of normalizing flows - a way of building up new probability distributions by applying multiple sets of invertible transformations to existing distributions - as a way of building more flexible variational inference models. 

The central premise of a variational autoencoder is that of learning an approximation to the posterior distribution of latent variables - p(z|x) - and parameterizing that distribution according to values produced by a neural network. In typical practice, this has meant that VAEs are limited in terms of the complexity of latent variable distributions they can encode, since using an analytically specified distribution tends to limit you to simpler distributional shapes - Gaussians, uniform, and the like. Normalizing flows are here proposed as a way to allow for the model to learn more complex forms of posterior distribution. 

Normalizing flows work off of a fairly simple intuition: if you take samples from a distribution p(x), and then apply a function f(x) to each x in that sample, you can calculate the expected value of your new distribution f(x) by calculating the expectation of f(x) under the old distribution p(x). That is to say: 
https://i.imgur.com/NStm7zN.png
This mathematical transformation has a pretty delightful name - The Law of the Unconscious Statistician - that came from the fact that so many statisticians just treated this identity as a definitional fact, rather than something actually in need of proving (I very much fall into this bucket as well). The implication of this is that if you apply many transformations in sequence to the draws from some simple distribution, you can work with that distribution without explicitly knowing its analytical formulation, just by being able to evaluate - and, importantly - invert the function. The ability to invert the function is key, because of the way you calculate the derivative: by taking the inverse of the determinant of the derivative of your function f(z) with respect to z. (Note here that q(z) is the original distribution you sampled under, and q’(z) is the implicit density you’re trying to estimate, after your function has been applied). 

https://i.imgur.com/8LmA0rc.png

Combining these ideas together: a variational flow autoencoder works by having an encoder network define the parameters of a simple distribution (Gaussian or Uniform), and then running the samples from that distribution through a series of k transformation layers. This final transformed density over z is then given to the decoder to work with. Some important limitations are in place here, the most salient of which is that in order to calculate derivatives, you have to be able to calculate the determinant of the derivative of a given transformation. Due to this constraint, the paper only tests a few transformations where this is easy to calculate analytically - the planar transformation and radial transformation. If you think about transformations of density functions as fundamentally stretching or compressing regions of density, the planar transformation works by stretching along an axis perpendicular to some parametrically defined plane, and the radial transformation works by stretching outward in a radial way around some parametrically defined point. Even though these transformations are individually fairly simple, when combined, they can give you a lot more flexibility in distributional space than a simple Gaussian or Uniform could. 

https://i.imgur.com/Xf8HgHl.png

Dynamic Memory Network has:
1. **Input module**: This module processes the input data about which a question is being asked into a set of vectors termed facts. This module consists of GRU over input words.
2. **Question Module**: Representation of question as a vector. (final hidden state of the GRU over the words in the question)
3. **Episodic Memory Module**: Retrieves the information required to answer the question from the input facts (input module). Consists of two parts
    1. attention mechanism 
    2. memory update mechanism  

  To get it more intuitive: When we see a question, we only have the question in our memory(i.e. the initial memory vector == question vector), then based on our question and previous memory we pass over the input facts and generate a contextual vector (this is the work of attention mechanism), then memory is updated again based upon the contextual vector and the previous memory, this is repeated again and again.
4. **Answer Module**: The answer module uses the question vector and the most updated memory from 3rd module to generate answer. (a linear layer with softmax activation for single word answers, RNNs for complicated answers)

**Improved DMN+**

The input module used single GRU to process the data. Two shortcomings: 
1. The GRU only allows sentences to have context from sentences before them, but not after them. This prevents information propagation from future sentences. Therfore bi-directional GRUs were used in DMN+.
2. The supporting sentences may be too far away from each other on a word level to allow for these distant sentences to interact through the word level GRU. In DMN+ they used sentence embeddings rather than word embeddings. And then used the GRUs to interact between the sentence embeddings(input fusion layer).

**For Visual Question Answering**


Split the image into parts, consider them parallel to sentences in input module for text. Linear layer with tanh activation to project the regional vectors(from images) to textual feature space (for text based question answering they used positional encoding for embedding sentences). Again use bi-directional GRUs to form the facts. Now use the same process as mentioned for text based question answering.

This paper performs a comparitive study of recent advances in deep learning with human-like learning from a cognitive science point of view. Since natural intelligence is still the best form of intelligence, the authors list a core set of ingredients required to build machines that reason like humans.

- Cognitive capabilities present from childhood in humans.  
    - Intuitive physics; for example, a sense of plausibility of object trajectories, affordances.
    - Intuitive psychology; for example, goals and beliefs.
- Learning as rapid model-building (and not just pattern recognition).
    - Based on compositionality and learning-to-learn.
    - Humans learn by inferring a general schema to describe goals, object types and interactions. This enables learning from few examples. 
    - Humans also learn richer conceptual models.
        - Indicator: variety of functions supported by these models: classification, prediction, explanation, communication, action, imagination and composition.
        - Models should hence have strong inductive biases and domain knowledge built into them; structural sharing of concepts by compositional reuse of primitives.
- Use of both model-free and model-based learning.
    - Model-free, fast selection of actions in simple associative learning and discriminative tasks.
    - Model-based learning when a causal model has been built to plan future actions or maximize rewards.
- Selective attention, augmented working memory, and experience replay are low-level promising trends in deep learning inspired from cognitive psychology.
    - Need for higher-level aforementioned ingredients.