[link]
"Aapo did it again!"  I exclaimed while reading this paper yesterday on the train back home (or at least I thought I was going home until I realised I was sitting on the wrong train the whole time. This gave me a couple more hours to think while traveling on a variety of longdistance buses...) Aapo Hyvärinen is one of my heroes  he did tons of cool work, probably most famous for pseudolikelihood, score matching and ICA. His recent paper, brought to my attention by my brand new colleague Hugo Larochelle, is similarly excellent: ### Summary Timecontrastive learning (TCL) trains a classifier that looks at a datapoint and guesses what part of the time series it came from. it exploits nonstationarity of time series to help representation learning an elegant connection to generative models (nonlinear ICA) is shown, although the assumptions of the model are pretty limiting TCL is the temporal analogue of representation learning with jigsaw puzzles similarly to GANs, logistic regression is deployed as a proxy to learn loglikelihood ratios directly from data Timecontrastive learning Timecontrastive learning (TCL) is a technique for learning to extract nonlinear representations from time series data. First, the time series is sliced up into a number of nonoverlapping chunks, indexed by ττ. Then, a multivariate logistic regression classifier is trained in a supervised manner to look at a sample taken from the series at an unknown time and predict ττ, the index of the chunk it came from. For this classifier, a neural network is used. The classifier itself is only a proxy to solving the representation learning problem. It turns out, if you chop off the final linear + softmax layer, the activations in the last hidden layer will learn to represent something fundamental, the logoddsratios in a probabilistic generative model (see paper for details). If one runs linear ICA over these hidden layer activations, the resulting network will learn to perform inference in a nonlinear ICA latent variable model. Moreover, if certain conditions about nonstationarity and the generative model are met, one can prove that the latent variable model is identifiable. This means that if the data was indeed drawn from the nonlinear ICA generative model, the resulting inference network  composed by the chopping off the top of the classifier and replacing it with a linear ICA layer  can infer the true hidden variables exactly. ### How practical are the assumptions? TCL relies on the nonstationarity of time series data: the statistics of data changes depending on which chunk or slice of the time series you are in, but it is also assumed that data are i.i.d. within each chunk. The proof also assumes that the chunkconditional data distributions are slightly modulated versions of the same nonlinear ICA generative model, this is how the model ends up identifiable  because we can use the different temporal chunks as different perspectives on the latent variables. I would say that these assumptions are not very practical, or at least on data such as natural video. Something along the lines of slowfeature analysis, with latent variables that exhibit more interesting behaviour over time would be desirable. Nevertheless, the model is complex enough to make a point, and I beleive TCL itself can be deployed more generally for representation learning. ### Temporal jigsaw It's not hard to see that TCL is analogous to a temporal version of the jigsaw puzzle method I wrote about last month. In the jigsaw puzzle method, one breaks up a single image into nonoverlapping chunks, shuffles them, and then trains a network to reassemble the pieces. Here, the chunking happens in the temporal domain instead. There are other papers that use the same general idea: training classifiers that guess the correct temporal ordering of frames or subsequences in videos. To do well at their job, these classifiers can end up learning about objects, motion, perhaps even a notion of inertia, gravity or causality. Ishan Misra et al. (2016) Unsupervised Learning using Sequential Verification for Action Recognition Basura Fernando et al. (2015) Modeling Video Evolution For Action Recognition In this context, the key contribution of Hyvarinen and Morioka's paper is to provide extra theoretical justification, and relating the idea to generative models. I'm sure one can use this framework to extend TCL to slightly more plausible generative models. ### Key takeaway `Logistic regression learns likelihood ratios` This is yet another example of using logistic regression as a proxy to estimating logprobabilityratios directly from data. The same thing happens in generative adversarial networks, where the discriminator learns to represent $\log P(x)  \log Q(x)$, where $P$ and $Q$ are the real and synthetic data distributions, respectively. This insight provides new ways in which unsupervised or semisupervised tasks can be reduced to supervised learning problems. As classification is now considered significantly easier than density estimation, direct probability ratio estimation may provide the easiest path forward for representation learning.
Your comment:
