[link]
One of the dominant narratives of the deep learning renaissance has been the value of welldesigned inductive bias  structural choices that shape what a model learns. The biggest example of this can be found in convolutional networks, where models achieve a dramatic parameter reduction by having features maps learn local patterns, which can then be reused across the whole image. This is based on the prior belief that patterns in local images are generally locally contiguous, and so having feature maps that focus only on small (and gradually larger) local areas is a good fit for that prior. This paper operates in a similar spirit, except its input data isn’t in the form of an image, but a graph: the social graph of multiple agents operating within a Multi Agent RL Setting. In some sense, a graph is just a more general form of a pixel image: where a pixel within an image has a fixed number of neighbors, which have fixed discrete relationships to it (up, down, left, right), nodes within graphs have an arbitrary number of nodes, which can have arbitrary numbers and types of attributes attached to that relationship. The authors of this paper use graph networks as a sort of auxiliary information processing system alongside a more typical policy learning framework, on tasks that require group coordination and knowledge sharing to complete successfully. For example, each agent might be rewarded based on the aggregate reward of all agents together, and, in the stag hunt, it might require collaborative effort by multiple agents to successfully “capture” a reward. Because of this, you might imagine that it would be valuable to be able to predict what other agents within the game are going to do under certain circumstances, so that you can shape your strategy accordingly. The graph network used in this model represents both agents and objects in the environment as nodes, which have attributes including their position, whether they’re available or not (for captureable objects), and what their last action was. As best I can tell, all agents start out with directed connections going both ways to all other agents, and to all objects in the environment, with the only edge attribute being whether the players are on the same team, for competitive environments. Given this setup, the graph network works through a sort of “diffusion” of information, analogous to a message passing algorithm. At each iteration (analogous to a layer), the edge features pull in information from their past value and sender and receiver nodes, as well as from a “global feature”. Then, all of the nodes pull in information from their edges, and their own past value. Finally, this “global attribute” gets updated based on summations over the newlyupdated node and edge information. (If you were predicting attributes that were graphlevel attributes, this global attribute might be where you’d do that prediction. However, in this case, we’re just interested in predicting agentlevel actions). https://i.imgur.com/luFlhfJ.png All of this has the effect of explicitly modeling agents as entities that both have information, and have connections to other entities. One benefit the authors claim of this structure is that it allows them more interpretability: when they “play out” the values of their graph network, which they call a Relational Forward Model or RFM, they observe edge values for two agents go up if those agents are about to collaborate on an action, and observe edge values for an agent and an object go up before that object is captured. Because this information is carefully shaped and structured, it makes it easier for humans to understand, and, in the tests the authors ran, appears to also help agents do better in collaborative games. https://i.imgur.com/BCKSmIb.png While I find graph networks quite interesting, and multiagent learning quite interesting, I’m a little more uncertain about the inherent “graphiness” of this problem, since there aren’t really meaningful inherent edges between agents. One thing I am curious about here is how methods like these would work in situations of sparser graphs, or, places where the connectivity level between a node’s neighbors, and the average other node in the graph is more distinct. Here, every node is connected to every other node, so the explicit information localization function of graph networks is less pronounced. I might naively think that  to whatever extent the graph is designed in a way that captures information meaningful to the task  explicit graph methods would have an even greater comparative advantage in this setting. 
[link]
It is a fact universally acknowledged that a reinforcement learning algorithm not in possession of a model must be in want of more data. Because they generally are. Joking aside, it is broadly understood that modelfree RL takes a lot of data to train, and, even when you can design them to use offpolicy trajectories, collecting data in the real environment might still be too costly. Under those conditions, we might want to learn a model of the environment and generate synthesized trajectories, and train on those. This has the advantage of not needing us to run the actual environment, but the obvious disadvantage that any model will be a simplification of the true environment, and potentially an inaccurate one. These authors seek to answer the question of: “is there a way to generate trajectories that has higher fidelity to the true environment.” As you might infer from the fact that they published a paper, and that I’m now writing about it, they argue that, yes, there is, and it’s through explicit causal/counterfactual modeling. Causal modeling is one of those areas of statistics that seems straightforward at its highest level of abstraction, but tends to get mathematically messy and unintuitive when you dive into the math. So, rather than starting with equations, I’m going to try to verbally give some intuitions for the way causal modeling is framed here. Imagine you’re trying to understand what would happen if a person had gone to college. There’s some set of information you know about them, and some set of information you don’t, that’s just random true facts about them and about the universe. If, in the real world, they did go to college, and you want to simulate what would have happened if they didn’t, it’s not enough to just know the observed facts about them, you want to actually isolate all of the random other facts (about them, about the world) that weren’t specifically “the choice to go to college”, and condition on those as well. Obviously, in the example given here, it isn’t really practically possible to isolate all the specific unseen factors that influence someone’s outcome. But, conceptually, this quantity, is what we’re going to focus on in this paper. Now, imagine a situation where a RL agent has been dropped into a mazelike puzzle. It has some set of dynamics, not immediately visible to the player, that make it difficult, but ultimately solvable. The best kind of simulated data, the paper argues, would be to keep that state of the world (which is partially unobservable) fixed, and sample different sets of actions the agent might take in that space. Thus, “counterfactual modeling”: for a given configuration of random states in the world, sampling different actions within it. To do this, you first have to infer the random state the agent is experiencing. In the normal modelbased case, you’d have some prior over world states, and just sample from it. However, if you use the experience of the agent’s trajectory, you can make a better guess as to what world configuration it was dropped into. If you can do this, which is, technically speaking, sampling from the posterior over unseen context, conditional on an agent’s experience, then the paper suggests you’ll be able to generate data that’s more realistic, because the trajectories will be direct counterfactuals of “real world” scenarios, rather than potentiallyunsolvable or unrealistic draws from the prior. This is, essentially, the approach proposed by the paper: during training, they make this “world state” visible to the agent, and let it learn a model predicting what state it started with, given some trajectory of experience. They also learn a model that predicts the outcome and ultimately the value of actions taken, conditioned on this random context (as well as visible context, and the agent’s prior actions). They start out by using this as a tool for policy evaluation, which is a nice problem setup because you can actually check how well you’re doing against some baseline: if you want to know how good your simulated data is at replicating the policy reward on real data, you can just try it out on real data and see. The authors find that they reduce policy reward estimation error pretty substantially by adding steps of experience (in Bayesian terms, bit of evidence moving them from the prior, towards the posterior). https://i.imgur.com/sNAcGjZ.png They also experiment with using this for actual policy search, but, honestly, I didn’t quite follow the intuitions behind Guided Policy Search, so I’m just going to not dive into that for now, since I think a lot of the key contributions of the paper are wrapped up in the idea of “estimate the reward of a policy by simulating data from a counterfactual trajectory” 
[link]
This paper feels a bit like watching a 90’s show, and everyone’s in denim and miniskirts, except it’s a 2017 ML paper, and everything uses attention. (I’ll say it again, ML years are like dog years, but more so). That said, that’s not a critique of the paper: finding clever ways to cobble together techniques for your application can be an important and valuable contribution. This paper addresses the problem of text to image generation: how to take a description of an image and generate an image that matches it, and it makes two main contributions: 1) a GAN structure that seems to merge insights from Attention and Progressive GANs in order to select areas of the sentence to inform details in specific image regions, and 2) a novel discriminator structure to evaluate whether a sentence matches an image. https://i.imgur.com/JLuuhJF.png Focusing on the first of these first: their generation system works by an iterative process, that gradually builds up image resolution, and also pulls specific information from the sentence to inform details in each region. The first layer of the network generates a first “hidden state” based on a compressed representation of the sentence as a whole (the final hidden state of a LSTM text encoder, I believe), as well as random noise (typical input to a GAN). Subsequent “hidden states” are calculated by calculating attention weightings between each region of the image, and each word in the sentence, and pulling together a perregion context vector based on that attention map. (As far as I understand it, “region” here refers to the fact that when you’re at lower spatial scales of what is essentially a progressive generation process, 64x64 rather than 256x256, for example, each “pixel” actually represents a larger region of the image). I’m using quotes around “hidden state” in the above paragraph because I think it’s actually pretty confusing terminology, since it suggests a recurrent structure, but this model isn’t actually recurrent: there’s a specific set of weights for resolution block 0, and 1, and 2. This whole approach, of calculating a specific attentionweighted context vector over input words based on where you are in the generation process is very conceptually similar to the original domain of attention, where the attention query would be driven by the hidden state of the LSTM generating the translated version of some input sentence, except, here, instead of translating between languages, you’re translating across mediums. The loss for this model is a combination of perlayer loss, and a final, special, fullresolution loss. At each level of resolution, there exists a separate discriminator, which seems to be able to take in both 1) only an image, and judge whether it thinks that image looks realistic on it’s own, and 2) an image and a global sentence vector, and judge whether the image matches the sentence. It’s not fully clear from the paper, but it seems like this is based on just feeding in the sentence vector as additional input? https://i.imgur.com/B6qPFax.png For each nonfinal layer’s discriminator, the loss is a combination of both of these unconditional and conditional losses. The final contribution of this paper is something they call the DAMSM loss: the Deep Attention Multimodal Similarity Model. This is a fairly complex model structure, whose ultimate goal is to assess how closely a final generated image matches a sentence. The whole structure of this loss is based on projecting regionlevel image features (from an intermediate, 17x17 layer of a pretrained Inception Net) and word features into the same space, and then calculating dot product similarities between them, which are then used to build “visual context vectors” for each word (for each word, created a weighted sum of visual vectors, based on how similar each is to the word). Then, we take each word’s context vector, and see how close it is to the original word vector. If we, again, imagine image and word vectors as being in a conceptually shared space, then this is basically saying “if I take a weighted average of all the things that are the most similar to me, how ultimately similar is that weighted average to me”. This allows there to be a “concept representation” match found when, for example, a particular word’s concept, like “beak”, is only present in one region, but present there very strongly: the context vector will be strongly weighted towards that region, and will end up being very close, in cosine similarity terms, to the word itself. By contrast, if none of the regions are a particularly good match for the word’s concept, this value will be low. DAMSM then aggregates up to an overall “relevance” score between a sentence and image, that’s simply a sum over a word’s “concept representation”, for each word in a sentence. It then calculates conditional probabilities in two directions: what’s the probability of the sentence, given the image (relevance score of (Sent, Imag), divided by that image’s summed relevance with all possible sentences in the batch), and, also, what’s the probability of the image, given the sentence (relevance score of the pair, divided by the sentence’s summed relevance with all possible images in the batch). In addition to this wordlevel concept modeling, DAMSM also has full sentencelevel versions, where it simply calculates the relevance of each (sentence, image) pair by taking the cosine similarity between the global sentence and global image features (the final hidden state of an encoder RNN, and the final aggregated InceptionNet features, respectively). All these losses are aggregated together, to get one that uses both global information, and information as to whether specific words in a sentence are represented well in an image. 
[link]
This is a paper where I keep being torn between the response of “this is so simple it’s brilliant; why haven’t people done it before,” and “this is so simple it’s almost tautological, and the results I’m seeing aren’t actually that surprising”. The basic observation this paper makes is one made frequently before, most recently to my memory by Geoff Hinton in his Capsule Net paper: sometimes the translation invariance of convolutional networks can be a bad thing, and lead to worse performance. In a lot of ways, translation invariance is one of the benefits of using a convolutional architecture in the first place: instead of having to learn separate feature detectors for “a frog in this corner” and “a frog in that corner,” we can instead use the same feature detector, and just move it over different areas of the image. However, this paper argues, this makes convolutional networks perform worse than might naively be expected at tasks that require them to remember or act in accordance with coordinates of elements within an image. For example, they find that normal convolutional networks take nearly an hour and 200K worth of parameters to learn to “predict” the onehot encoding of a pixel, when given the (x,y) coordinates of that pixel as input, and only get up to about 80% accuracy. Similarly, trying to take an input image with only one pixel active, and predict the (x,y) coordinates as output, is something the network is able to do successfully, but only when the test points are sampled from the same spatial region as the training points: if the test points are from a heldout quadrant, the model can’t extrapolate to the (x, y) coordinates there, and totally falls apart. https://i.imgur.com/x6phN4p.png The solution proposed by the authors is a really simple one: at one or more layers within the network, in addition to the feature channels sent up from the prior layer, add two addition channels: one with a with deterministic values going from 1 (left) to 1 (right), and the other going top to bottom. This essentially adds two fixed “features” to each pixel, which jointly carry information about where it is in space. Just by adding this small change, we give the network the ability to use spatial information or not, as it sees fit. If these features don’t prove useful, their weights will stay around their initialization values of expectationzero, and the behavior should be much like a normal convolutional net. However, if it proves useful, convolution filters at the next layer can take position information into account. It’s easy to see how this would be useful for this paper’s toy problems: you can just create a feature detector for “if this pixel is active, pass forward information about it’s spatial position,” and predict the (x, y) coordinates out easily. You can also imagine this capability helping with more typical image classification problems, by having feature filters that carry with them not only content information, but information about where a pattern was found spatially. The authors do indeed find comparable performance or small benefits to ImageNet, MNIST, and Atari RL, when applying their layers in lieu of normal convolutional layer. On GANs in particular, they find less mode collapse, though I don’t yet 100% follow the intuition of why this would be the case. https://i.imgur.com/wu7wQZr.png 
[link]
This paper was a real delight to read, and even though I’m summarizing it here, I’d really encourage you, if you’re reading this, to read the paper itself, since I found it to be unusually clearly written. It tackles the problem of understanding how features of loss functions  these integral, yet arcane, objects defined in millions of parameterdimensions  impact model performance. Loss function analysis is generally a difficult area, since the number of dimensions and number of points needed to evaluate to calculate loss are both so high. The latter presents computational challenges, the former ones of understanding: human brains and manydimensional spaces are not a good fit. Overall, this paper contributes by 1) arguing for a new way of visualizing loss functions, 2) demonstrating how and in what cases “flatness” of loss function contributes to performance and trainability, and 3)) The authors review a few historically common ways of visualizing loss functions, before introducing their variant. The simplest, onedimensional visualization technique, 1D Linear Interpolation, works by taking two parameter settings (say, a random initialization, and the final network minimum), and smoothly interpolating between the two, by taking a convex combination mediated by alpha. Then, you can plot the value of the loss at all of these parameter configurations as a function of alpha. If you want to plot in 2D, with a contour plot, you can do so in a pretty similar manner, by picking two random “direction vectors” of the same size as the parameter vector, and then adding amounts of those directions, weighted by alpha and beta, to your starting point. These random directions become your axes, and you get a snapshot of the change in your loss function as you move along them. The authors then make the observation that these techniques can’t natively be used to compare two different models, if the parameters of those models are on different scales. If you take a neural net, multiply one layer by 10, and then divide the next layer by 10, you’ve essentially done a noop that won’t impact the outcome. However, if you’re moving by a fixed amount along your random direction in parameter space, you’ll have to move much farther to go the commensurate amount of distance in the network that’s been multiplied by 10. To address this problem, they suggest a simple fix: after you’ve selected each of your random directions, scale the value in each direction vector by the norm of the filter that corresponds to that value. This gets rid of the sensitivity of your plots to the scale of weights. (One thing I admit I’m a little confused by here is the fact that each value in the direction vector corresponds to a filter, rather than to a weight; I would have natively thought theta, and all the direction vectors, are of length numberofmodelparameters, and each value is a single weight. I think I still broadly grasp the intuition, but I’d value having a better sense of this). To demonstrate the value of their normalization system, they compare the interpolation plots for a model with small and large batch size, with and without weight decay. Small batches are known to increase flatness of the loss function around the eventual minimum, which seems cooccurrent with good generalization results. And, that bears out in the original model’s linear interpolation (figs a, b, c), where the small model has the wider solution basin, and also better performance. However, once weight decay is applied (figs d, e, f), the smallbatch basin appears to shrink to be very narrow, although smallbatch still has dominant performance. At first glance, this would seem to be a contradiction of the “flatter solutions mean more generalization” rule. https://i.imgur.com/V0H13kK.png But this is just because weight decay hits smaller models more strongly, because they have more distinct updates during which they apply the weight decay penalty. This means that when weight decay is applied, the overall scale of weights in the smallbatch network is lower, and so it’s solution looked “sharp” when plotted on the same weight scale as the largebatch network. When normalization was used, this effect by and large went away, and you once again saw higher performance with flatter loss functions. (batch size and performance with and without weight decay, shown normalized below) https://i.imgur.com/vEUIgo0.png A few other, more scattered observations from the paper:  I’ve heard explanations of skip connections in terms of “giving the model shorter gradient paths between parameters and output,” but haven’t really seen an argument for why skip connections lead to smoother loss functions, even they empirically seem to https://i.imgur.com/g3QqRzh.png  The authors also devise a technique for visualizing the change in loss function along the trajectory taken by the optimization algorithm, so that different ones can be compared. The main problem in previous methods for this has been that optimization trajectories happen in a lowdimensional manifold within parameter space, so if you just randomly select directions, you won’t see any interesting movement along the trajectory. To fix this, they choose as their axes the principal components you get from making a matrix out of the parameter values at each epoch: this prioritizes the parameters that had the most variance throughout training. 
[link]
This paper focuses on the wellknown fact that adversarial examples are often transferable: that is, that an adversarial example created by optimizing loss on a surrogate model trained on similar data can often still induce increased loss on the true target model, though typically not to the same magnitude as an example optimized against the target itself. Its goal is to come up with clearer theoretical formulation for transferred examples, and more clearly understand what kinds of models transfer better than others. The authors define their two scenarios of interest as white box (where the parameters of the target model are known), and limited knowledge, or black box, where only the data type and feature representation is known, but the exact training dataset is unknown, as well as the parameters of the target model. Most of the mathematics of this paper revolve around this equation, which characterizes how to find a delta to maximize loss on the surrogate model: https://i.imgur.com/Y0mD35x.png In words: you’re finding a delta (perturbations of each input value) such that the pnorm of delta is less than some radius epsilon, and such that delta maximizes the dot product between delta and the model gradient with respect to the inputs. The closer two vectors are to one another, the higher their dot product. So, having your delta just *be* the model gradient w.r.t inputs maximizes that quantity. However, we also need to meet the requirement of having our perturbation’s norm be less than epsilon, so we in order to find the actual optimal value, we divide by the norm of the gradient (to get ourselves a norm of 1), and multiply by epsilon (to get ourselves a norm of epsilon). This leads to the optimal value of delta being, for a norm of 2: https://i.imgur.com/Op0H7KL.png An important thing to remember is that all of the above has been using what, meaning it’s been an examination of what the optimal delta is when we’re calculating against the surrogate model. But, if we plug in the optimal transfer value of delta we found above, how does this compare to the increase in loss if we were able to optimize against the true model? https://i.imgur.com/RHILZK1.png Loss on the true model is, as above, calculated as the dot product of the delta perturbation with the gradient w.r.t inputs of the true model. Using the same logic as above, this quantity is maximized when our perturbation is as close as possible to the target model’s gradient vector. So, the authors show, the degree to which adversarial examples calculated on one model transfer to another is mediated by the cosine distance between surrogate model’s gradient vector and the target model’s one. The more similar these gradients w.r.t the input are to one another, the closer surrogatemodel loss increase will be to targetmodel loss increase. This is one of those things that makes sense once it’s laid out, but it’s still useful to have a specific conceptual quality to point to when predicting whether adversarial examples will transfer, rather than just knowing that they do, at least some of the time, to at least some extent. Another interesting thing to notice from the above equation, though not directly related to transfer examples, is the right hand of the equation, the upper bound on loss increase, which is the pnorm of the gradient vector of the target model. In clearer words, this means that the amount of loss that it’s possible to induce on a model using a given epsilon of perturbation is directly dependent on the norm of that model’s gradient w.r.t inputs. This suggests that more highly regularized models, which are by definition smoother and have smaller gradients with respect to inputs, will be harder to attack. This hypothesis is borne out by the authors’ experiments. However, they also find, consistent with my understanding of prior work, that linear models are harder to attack than nonlinear ones. This draws a line between two ways we’re used to thinking about model complexity/simplicity: having a lesssmooth function with bigger gradients increases your vulnerability, but having nonlinear model structure seems to decrease it. https://i.imgur.com/mw9exLU.png One final intriguing empirical finding of this paper is that, in addition to being the hardest models to attack when they are the target, highly regularized models work the best as surrogate models. There’s a simplistic way in which this makes sense, in that if you create your examples against a “harder” adversary to begin with, they’ll be in some sense stronger, and transfer better. However, I’m not sure that intuition is a correct one here. 
[link]
In the literature of adversarial examples, there’s this (to me) constant question: is it the case that adversarial examples are causing the model to objectively make a mistake, or just displaying behavior that is deeply weird, and unintuitive relative to our sense of what these models “should” be doing. A lot of the former question seems to come down to arguing over about what’s technically “out of distribution”, which has an occasional angelsdancingonapin quality, but it’s pretty unambiguously clear that the behavior displayed in this paper is weird, and beyond what I naively expected a network to be able to be manipulated to do. The goal these authors set for themselves is what they call “reprogramming” of a network; they want the ability to essentially hijack the network’s computational engine to perform a different task, predicting a different set of labels, on a different set of inputs than the ones the model was trained on. For example, one task they perform is feeding in MNIST images at the center of a bunch of (what appear to be random, but are actually carefully optimized) pixels, and getting a network that can predict MNIST labels out the other end. Obviously, it’s not literally possible to change the number of outputs that a network produces once it’s trained, so the authors would arbitrarily map ImageNet outputs to MNIST categories (like, “when this model predicts Husky, that actually means the digit 7”) and then judge how well this mapped output performs as a MNIST classifier. I enjoyed the authors’ wry commentary here about the arbitrariness of the mapping, remarking that “a ‘White Shark’ has nothing to do with counting 3 squares in an image, and an ‘Ostrich’ does not at all resemble 10 squares”. https://i.imgur.com/K02cwK0.png This paper assumes a white box attack model, which implies visibility of all of the parameters, and ability to directly calculate gradients through the model. So, given this setup of a input surrounded by modifiable pixel weights, and a desire to assign your “MNIST Labels” correctly, this becomes a straightforward optimization problem: modify the values of your input weights so as to maximize your MNIST accuracy. An important point to note here is that the same input mask of pixel values is applied for every newtask image, and so these values are optimized over a full training set of inserted images, the way that normal weights would be. One interesting observation the authors make is that, counter to the typical setup of adversarial examples, this attack would not work with a fully linear model, since you actually need your “weights” to interact with your “input”, which is different each time, but these are both just different areas of your true input. This need to have different regions of input determine how other areas of input are processed isn’t possible in a linear model where each input has a distinct impact on the output, regardless of other input values. By contrast, when you just need to optimize a single perturbation to get the network to jack up the prediction for one class, that can be accomplished by just applying a strong enough bias everywhere in the input, all pointing in the same direction, which can be added together linearly and still get the job done. The authors are able to perform MNIST and the task of “count the squares in this small input” to relatively high levels of accuracy. They perform reasonably on CIFAR (as well as a fully connected network, but not as well as a convnet). They found that performance was higher when using a pretrained ImageNet, relative to just random weights. There’s some suggestion made that this implies there’s a kind of transfer learning going on, but honestly, this is weird enough that it’s hard to say. https://i.imgur.com/bj2MUnk.png They were able to get this reprogramming work on different model structures, but, fascinatingly, saw distinctive patterns to the "weight pixels" they needed to add to each model structure, with ResNet easily differentiable from Inception. One minor quibble I have with the framing of this paper  which I overall found impressive, creative, and wellwritten  is that I feel like it’s stretching the original frame of “adversarial example” a bit too far, to the point of possible provoking confusion. It’s not obvious that the network is making a mistake, per se, when it classifies this very outofdistribution input as something silly. I suppose, in an ideal world, we may want our models to return to something like a uniformoveroutputs state of low confidence when predicting out of distribution, but that’s a bit different than seeing a gibbon in a picture of a panda. I don’t dispute the authors claim that the behavior they’re demonstrating is a vulnerability in terms of its ability to let outside actors “hijack” networks compute, but I worry we might be overloading the “adversarial example” to cover too many types of network failure modes. 
[link]
This paper tries to solve the problem of how to learn systems that, given a starting state and a desired target, can earn the set of actions necessary to reach that target. The strong version of this problem requires a planning algorithm to learn a full set of actions to take the agent from state A to B. However, this is a difficult and complex task, and so this paper tries to address a relaxed version of this task: generating a set of “waypoint” observations between A and B, such that each successive observation is relatively close to one another in terms of possible actions (the paper calls this ‘hreachable’, if observations are reachable from one another in h timesteps). With these checkpoint observations in hand, the planning system can them solve many iterations of a much shortertimescale version of the problem. However, the paper asserts, applying predesigned planning algorithms in observation space (sparse, highdimensional) is difficult, because planning algorithms apparently do better with denser representations. (I don’t really understand, based on just reading this paper, *why* this is the case, other than the general fact that high dimensional, sparse data is just hard for most things). Historically, a typical workflow for applying planning algorithms to an environment would have been to handdesign feature representations where nearby representations were close in causal decision space (i.e. could be easily reached from one another). This paper’s goal is to derive such representations from data, rather than handdesigning them. The system they design to do this is a little unwieldy to follow, and I only have about 80% confidence that I fully understand all the mechanisms. One basic way you might compress highdimensional space into a lowdimensional code is by training a Variational Autoencoder, and pulling the latent code out of the bottleneck in the middle. However, we also want to be able to map between our lowdimensional code and a realistic observation space, once we’re done planning and have our trajectory of codes, and VAE typically have difficulty generating highdimensional observations with high fidelity. If what you want is imagegeneration fidelity, the natural step would be to use a GAN. However, GANs aren’t really natively designed to learn an informative representation; their main goal is generation, and there’s no real incentive for the noise variables used to seed generation to encode any useful information. One GAN design that tries to get around this is the InfoGAN, which gets its name from the requirement that there be high mutual information between (some subset of) the noise variables used to seed the generator, and the actual observation produced. I’m not going to get into the math of the variational approximation, but what this actually mechanically shakes out to is: in addition to generating an observation from a code, an InfoGAN also tries to predict the original code subset given the observation. Intuitively, this requirement, for the observation to contain information about the code, also means the code is forced to contain meaningful information about the image generated from it. However, even with this system, even if each code separately corresponds to a realistic observation, there’s no guarantee that closeness in state space corresponds to closeness in “causality space”. This feature is valuable for planning, because it means that if you chart out a trajectory through state space, it actually corresponds to a reasonable trajectory through observation space. In order to solve this problem, the authors added their final, and more novel, modification to the InfoGAN framework: instead of giving the GAN one latent code, and having it predict one observation, they would give two at a time, and have the GAN try to generate a pair of temporally nearby (i.e. less than h actions away) observations. Importantly, they’d also define some transition or sampling function within state space, so that there would be a structured or predictable way that adjacent pairs of states looked. So, if the GAN were able to learn to map adjacent points in state space to adjacent points in observation space, then you’d be able to plan out trajectories in state space, and have them be realistic in observation space. https://i.imgur.com/oVlVc0x.png They do some experiments and do show that both adding the “Info” structure of the InfoGAN, and adding the paired causal structure, lead to states with improved planning properties.They also compared the clusters derived from their Causal InfoGAN states to the clusters you’d get from just naively assuming that nearness in observation space meant nearness in causality space. https://i.imgur.com/ddQpIdH.png They specifically tested this on an environment divided into two “rooms”, where there were many places where there were two points, nearby in Euclidean space, but far away (or mutually inaccessible) in action space. They showed that the Causal InfoGAN (b) was successfully able to learn representations such that points nearby in action space clustered together, whereas a Euclidean representation (c) didn't have this property. 
[link]
This paper builds very directly on the idea of “empowerment” as an intrinsic reward for RL agents. Where empowerment incentivizes agents to increase the amount of influence they’re able to have over the environment, “social influence,” this paper’s metric, is based on the degree which the actions of one agent influence the actions of other agents, within a multiagent setting. The goals between the two frameworks are a little different. The notion of “empowerment” is built around a singular agent trying to figure out a shortterm proxy for likelihood of longterm survival (which is a feedback point no individual wants to hit). By contrast, the problems that the authors of this paper seek to solve are more explicitly multiagent coordination problems: prisoner’s dilemmastyle situations where collective reward requires cooperation. However, they share a mathematical basis: the idea that an agent’s influence on some other element of its environment (be it the external state, or another agent’s actions) is well modeled by calculating the mutual information between its agents and that element. While this is initially a bit of an odd conceptual jump, it does make sense: if an action can give statistical information to help you predict an outcome, it’s likely (obviously not certain, but likely) that that action influenced that outcome. In a multiagent problem, where cooperation and potentially even communication can help solve the task, being able to influence other agents amounts to “finding ways to make oneself useful to other agents”, because other agents aren’t going to change behavior based on your actions, or “listen” to your “messages” (in the experiment where a communication channel was available between agents) if these signals don’t help them achieve *their* goals. So, this incentive, to influence the behavior of other (selfinterested) agents, amounts to a good proxy for incentivizing useful cooperation. Zooming in on the exact mathematical formulations (which differ slightly from, though they’re in a shared spirit with, the empowerment math): the agent’s (A’s) Causal Influence reward is calculated by taking a KL divergence between the action distribution of the other agent (B) conditional on the action A took, compared to other actions A might have taken. (see below. Connecting back to empowerment: Mutual Information is just the expected value of this quantity, taken over A’s action distribution). https://i.imgur.com/oxXCbdK.png One thing you may notice from the above equation is that, because we’re working in KL divergences, we expect agent A to have access to the full distribution of agent B’s policy conditional on A’s action, not just the action B actually took. We also require the ability to sample “counterfactuals,” i.e. what agent B would have done if agent A had done something differently. Between these two requirements. If we take a realistic model of two agents interacting with each other, in only one timeline, only having access to the external and not internal parameters of the other, it makes it clear that these quantities can’t be pulled from direct experience. Instead, they are calculated by using an internal model: each agent builds its own MOA (Model of Other Agents), where they build a predictive model of what an agent will do at a given time, conditional on the environment and the actions of all other agents. It’s this model that is used to sample the aforementioned counterfactuals, since that just involves passing in a different input. I’m not entirely sure, in each experiment, whether the MOAs are trained concurrent with agent policies, or in a separate prior step. https://i.imgur.com/dn2cBg4.png Testing on, again, Prisoner’s Dilemma style problems requiring agents to take risky collaborative actions, the authors did find higher performance using their method, compared to approaches where each agent just maximizes its own external reward (which, it should be said, does depend on other agents’ actions), with no explicit incentive towards collaboration. Interestingly, when they specifically tested giving agents access to a “communication channel” (the ability to output discrete signals or “words” visible to other agents), they found that it was able to train just as effectively with only an influence reward, as it was with both an influence and external reward. 
[link]
This paper performs a fascinating toy experiment, to try to see if something languagelike in structure can be effectively induced in a population of agents, if they are given incentives that promote it. In some sense, a lot of what they find “just makes sense,” but it’s still a useful proof of concept to show that it can be done. The experiment they run takes place in a simple, twodimensional world, with a fixed number of landmarks (representing locations goals need to take place), and agents, and actions. In this construction, each agent has a set of internal goals, which can either be actions (like “go to green landmark”) they themselves need to perform, or actions that they want another agent to perform. Agents’ goals are not visible to other agents, but all agents’ reward is defined to be the aggregated reward of all agents together, so if agent A has a goal involving an action of agent B’s, it’s in B’s “interest” to do that action, if it can be communicated to them. In order to facilitate other agents performing goals, at each step, each agent both takes an action, and also emits an “utterance”, which is just a discrete symbolic “word” out of some some fixed vocabulary of words (Note that applying “word” here is a but fuzzy; the agents do not pronounce or spell a characterbased word, they just pick a discrete symbol that is playing the role of a word”. Even though other agents cannot see a given agent’s goals, they can see its public utterances, and so agents learn that communication is a way to induce other agents to perform desired actions. As a mathematically interesting aside: this setup, of allowing each agent to sample a single discrete word out of a small vocabulary at each setting, takes the deployment of some interesting computational tricks to accomplish. First off, in general, sampling a discrete single symbol out of a set of possible symbols is not differentiable, since it’s a discrete rather than continuous action, and derivatives require continuous functions. However, a paper from 2016 proposed a (heuristic) solution to this problem by means of the Gumbel Softmax Trick. This derives from the older “Gumbel Max Trick”, which is the mathematical fact that if you want to sample from a categorical distribution, a computationally easy way to do so is to add a variable sampled from a (0,1) Gumbel distribution to the log probability of each category, and then take the argmax of this as the index of the sample category (I’m not going to go another level down into why this is true, since I think it’s too far afield of the scope of this summary). Generally, argmax functions are also not differentiable. However, they can be approximated with softmaxes, which interpolate between a totally uniform and very nearly discretesample distribution based on a temperature parameter. In practice, or, at least, if this paper does what the original Gumbel Softmax paper did, during training, a discrete sample is taken, but a lowtemperature continuous approximation is used for actual gradient calculation (i.e. for gradients, the model pretends that it used the continuous approximation rather than the discrete sample). https://i.imgur.com/0RpRJG2.png Coming back to the actual communication problem, the authors do find that under these (admittedly fairly sanitized and contrived) circumstances, agents use series of discrete symbols to communicate goals to other agents, which ends up looking a lot like a very simple language. https://i.imgur.com/ZF0EbN4.png As one might expect, in environments where there were only two agents, there was no symbol that ended up corresponding to “red agent” or “blue agent”, since each could realize that the other was speaking to it. However, in threeagent environments, the agents did develop symbols that clearly mapped to these categories, to specify who directions were being given to. The authors also tried cutting off verbal communication; in these situations, the agents used gaze and movement to try to signal what they wanted other agents to do. Probably most entertainingly, when neither verbal nor visual communication was allowed, agents would move to and “physically” push other agents to the location where their action needed to be performed. 
[link]
This paper continues in the tradition of curiositybased models, which try to reward models for exploring novel parts of their environment, in the hopes this can intrinsically motivate learning. However, this paper argues that it’s insufficient to just treat novelty as an occasional bonus on top of a normal reward function, and that instead you should figure out a process that’s more specifically designed to increase novelty. Specifically: you should design a policy whose goal is to experience transitions and worldstates that are high novelty. In this setup, like in other curiositybased papers, “high novelty” is defined in terms of a state being unpredictable given a prior state, history, and action. However, where other papers saw novelty reward as something only applied when the agent arrived at somewhere novel, here, the authors build a model (technically, an ensemble of models) to predict the state at various future points. The ensemble is important here because it’s (quasi) bootstrapped, and thus gives us a measure of uncertainty. States where the predictions of the ensemble diverge represent places of uncertainty, and thus of high value to explore. I don’t 100% follow the analytic specification of this idea (even though the heuristic/algorithmic description makes sense). The authors frame the Utility function of a state and action as being equivalent to the Jenson Shannon Divergence (~distance between probability distributions) shown below. https://i.imgur.com/YIuomuP.png Here, P(S  S, a, T) is the probability of a state given prior state and action under a given model of the environment (Transition Model), and P(gamma) is the distribution over the space of possible transition models one might learn. A “model” here is one network out of the ensemble of networks that makes up our bootstrapped (trained on different sets) distribution over models. Conceptually, I think this calculation is measuring “how different is each sampled model/state distribution from all the other models in the distribution over possible models”. If the models within the distribution diverge from one another, that indicates a location of higher uncertainty. What’s important about this is that, by building a full transition model, the authors can calculate the expected novelty or “utility” of future transitions it might take, because it can make a best guess based on this transition model (which, while called a “prior”, is really something trained on all data up to this current iteration). My understanding is that these kinds of models function similarly to a Q(s,a) or V(s) in a purereward case: they estimate the “utility reward” of different states and actions, and then the policy is updated to increase that expected reward. I’ve recently read papers on ICM, and I was a little disappointed that this paper didn’t appear to benchmark against that, but against Bootstrapped DQN and Exploration Bonus DQN, which I know less well and can less speak to the conceptual differences from this approach. Another difficulty in actually getting a good sense of results was that the task being tested on is fairly specific, and different from RL results coming out of the world of e.g. Atari and Deep Mind Labs. All of that said, this is a cautiously interesting idea, if the results generate to beat more baselines on more environments.
2 Comments

[link]
This paper proposes a new curiositybased intrinsic reward technique that seeks to address one of the failure modes of previous curiosity methods. The basic idea of curiosity is that, often, exploring novel areas of an environment can be correlated with gaining reward within that environment, and that we can find ways to incentivize the former that don’t require a handdesigned reward function. This is appealing because many usefultolearn environments either lack inherent reward altogether, or have reward that is very sparse (i.e. no signal until you reach the end, at which point you get a reward of 1). In both of these cases, supplementing with some kind of intrinsic incentive towards exploration might improve performance. The existing baseline curiosity technique is called ICM, and works based on “surprisal”: asking the agent to predict the next state as a function of its current state, and incentivizing exploration of areas where the gap between these two quantities is high, to promote exploration of hardertopredict (and presumably more poorly sampled) locations. However, one failure mode of this approach is something called the “noisy TV” problem, whereby if the environment contains something analogous to a television where one can press a button and go to a random channel, that is highly unpredictable, and thus a source of easy rewards, and thus liable to distract the agent from any other actions. As an alternative, the authors here suggest a different way of defining novelty: rather than something that is unpredictable, novelty should be seen as something far away from what I as an agent have seen before. This is more direct than the prior approach, which takes ‘hard to predict’ as a proxy for ‘somewhere I haven’t explored’, which may not necessary be a reasonable assumption. https://i.imgur.com/EfcAOoI.png They implement this idea by keeping a memory of past (embedded) observations that the agent has seen during this episode, and, at each step, check whether the current observation is predicted to be more than K steps away than any of the observations in memory (more on that in a moment). If so, a bonus reward is added, and this observation is added to the aforementioned memory. (Which, waving hands vigorously, kind of ends up functioning as a spanning set of prior experience). https://i.imgur.com/gmHE11s.png The question of “how many steps is observation A from observation B” is answered by a separate Comparator network which is trained in pretty straightforward fashion: a randomsamplling policy is used to collect trajectories, which are then turned into pairs of observations as input, and a 1 if they occurred > k + p steps apart, and a 0 if they occurred < k steps apart. Then, these paired states are passed into a sharedweight convolutional network, which creates an embedding, and, from that embedding, a prediction is made as to whether they’re closer than the thresholds or farther away. This network is pretrained before the actual RL training starts. (Minor sidenote: at RLtraining time, the network is chopped into two, and the embedding read out and stored, and then input as a pair with each current observation to make the prediction). https://i.imgur.com/1oUWKyb.png Overall, the authors find that their method works better than both ICM and nointrinsicreward for VizDoom (a maze + shooting game), and the advantage is stronger in situations more sparse settings of the external reward. https://i.imgur.com/4AURZbX.png On DeepMind Lab tasks, they saw no advantage on tasks with alreadydense extrinsic rewards, and little advantage on the “normally sparse”, which they suggest may be due to it actually being easier than expected. They added doors to a maze navigation task, to ensure the agent couldn’t find the target right away, and this situation brought better performance of their method. They also tried a fully noextrinsicreward situation, and their method strongly performed both the ICM baseline and (obviously) the onlyextrinsicreward baseline, which was basically an untrained random policy in this setting. Regarding the poor performance of the ICM baseline in this environment, “we hypothesise that the agent can most significantly change its current view when it is close to the wall — thus increasing onestep prediction error — so it tends to get stucknear “interesting” diverse textures on the walls.”. 
[link]
I really enjoyed this paper  in addition to being a clean, fundamentally empirical work, it was also clearly written, and had some pretty delightful moments of quotable zen, which I’ll reference at the end. The paper’s goal is to figure out how far curiositydriven learning alone can take reinforcement learning systems, without the presence of an external reward signal. “Intrinsic” reward learning is when you construct a reward out of internal, inherent features of the environment, rather than using an explicit reward function. In some ways, intrinsic learning in RL can be thought of as analogous to unsupervised learning in classification problems, since reward functions are not inherent to most useful environments, and (when outside of game environments that inherently provide rewards), frequently need to be handdesigned. Curiositydriven learning is a subset of intrinsic learning, which uses as a reward signal the difference between a prediction made by the dynamics model (predicting next state, given action) and the true observed next state. Situations where the this prediction area are high generate high reward for the agent, which incentivizes it to reach those states, which allows the dynamics model to then make everbetter predictions about them. Two key questions this paper raises are: 1) Does this approach even work when used on it’s own? Curiosity had previously most often been used as a supplement to extrinsic rewards, and the authors wanted to know how far it could go separately. 2) What is the best feature to do this “surprisal difference” calculation in? Predicting raw pixels is a highdimensional and noisy process, so naively we might want something with fewer, more informationallydense dimensions, but it’s not obvious which methods that satisfy these criteria will work the best, so the paper empirically tried them. The answer to (1) seems to be: yes, at least in the video games tested. Impressively, when you track against extrinsic reward (which, again, these games have, but we’re just ignoring in a curiosityonly setting), the agents manage to increase it despite not optimizing against it directly. There were some Atari games where this effect was stronger than others, but overall performance was stronger than might have been naively expected. One note the authors made, worth keeping in mind, is that it’s unclear how much of this is an artifact of the constraints and incentives surrounding game design, which might reflect back a preference for graduallyincreasing novelty because humans find it pleasant. https://i.imgur.com/zhl39vo.png As for (2), another interesting result of this paper is that random features performed consistently well as a feature space to do these prediction/reality comparisons in. Random features here is really just as simple as “design a convolutional net that compresses down to some dimension, randomly initialize it, and then use those randomly initialized weights to run forward passes of the network to get your lowerdimensional state”. This has the strong disadvantage of (presumably) not capturing any meaningful information about the state, but also has the advantage of being stable: the other techniques tried, like pulling out the center of a VAE bottleneck, changed over time as they were being trained on new states, so they were informative, but nonstationary. My two favorite quotable moments from this paper were: 1) When the authors noted that they had removed the “done” signal associated with an agent “dying,” because it is itself a sort of intrinsic reward. However, “in practice, we do find that the agent avoids dying in the games since that brings it back to the beginning of the game, an area it has already seen many times and where it can predict the dynamics well.”. Short and sweet: “Avoiding death, because it’s really boring” https://i.imgur.com/SOfML8d.png 2) When they noted that an easy way to hack the motivation structure of a curiositydriven agent was through a “noisy tv”, which, every time you pressed the button, jumped to a random channel. As expected, when they put this distraction inside a maze, the agent spent more time jacking up reward through that avenue, rather than exploring. Any resemblance to one’s Facebook feed is entirely coincidental. 
[link]
This paper posits that one of the central problems stopping multitask RL  that is, single models trained to perform multiple tasks well  from reaching better performance, is the inability to balance model resources and capacity between the different tasks the model is being asked to learn. Empirically, prior to this paper, multitask RL could reach ~50% of human accuracy on Atari and Deepmind Lab tasks. The fact that this is lower than human accuracy is actually somewhat less salient than the fact that it’s quite a lot lower than singletask RL  how a single model trained to perform only that task could do. When learning a RL model across multiple tasks, the reward structures of the different tasks can vary dramatically. Some can have highmagnitude, sparse rewards, some can have low magnitude rewards throughout. If a model learns it can gain what it thinks is legitimately more reward by getting better at a game with an average reward of 2500 than it does with an average reward of 15, it will put more capacity into solving the former task. Even if you apply normalization strategies like reward clipping (which treats all rewards as a binary signal, regardless of magnitude, and just seeks to increase the frequency of rewards), that doesn’t deal with some environments having more frequent rewards than others, and thus more total reward when summed over timestep. The authors here try to solve this problem by performing a specific kind of normalization, called Pop Art normalization, on the problem. PopArt normalization (don’t worry about the name) works by adaptively normalizing both the target and the estimate of the target output by the model, at every step. In the ActorCritic case that this model is working on, the target and estimate that are being normalized are, respectively, 1) the aggregated rewards of the trajectories from state S onward, and 2) the value estimate at state S. If your value function is perfect, these two things should be equivalent, and so you optimize your value function to be closer to the true rewards under your policy. And, then, you update your policy to increase probability of actions with higher advantage (expected reward with that action, relative to the baseline Value(S) of that state). The “adaptive” part of that refers to correcting for the fact when you’re estimating, say, a Value function to predict the total future reward of following a policy at a state, that V(S) will be strongly nonstationary, since by improving your policy you are directly optimizing to increase that value. This is done by calculating “scale” and “shift” parameters off of a recent data. The other part of the PopArt algorithm works by actually updating the estimate our model is producing, to stay normalized alongside the continuallybeingrenormalized target. https://i.imgur.com/FedXTfB.png It does this by taking the new and old versions of scale (sigma) and shift (mu) parameters (which will be used to normalize the target) and updates the weights and biases of the last layer, such that the movement of the estimator moves along with the movement in the target. Using this toolkit, this paper proposes learning one *policy* that’s shared over all task, but keeping shared value estimation functions for each task. Then, it normalizes each task’s values independently, meaning that each task ends up contributing equal weight to the gradient updates of the model (both for the Value and Policy updates). In doing this, the authors find dramatically improved performance at both Atari and Deepmind, relative to prior IMPALA work https://i.imgur.com/nnDcjNm.png https://i.imgur.com/Z6JClo3.png 
[link]
This reinforcement learning paper starts with the constraints imposed an engineering problem  the need to scale up learning problems to operate across many GPUs  and ended up, as a result, needing to solve an algorithmic problem along with it. In order to massively scale up their training to be able to train multiple problem domains in a single model, the authors of this paper implemented a system whereby many “worker” nodes execute trajectories (series of actions, states, and reward) and then send those trajectories back to a “learner” node, that calculates gradients and updates a central policy model. However, because these updates are queued up to be incorporated into the central learner, it can frequently happen that the policy that was used to collect the trajectories is a few steps behind from the policy on the central learner to which its gradients will be applied (since other workers have updated the learner since this worker last got a policy download). This results in a need to modify the policy network model design accordingly. IMPALA (Importance Weighted Actor Learner Architectures) uses an “Actor Critic” model design, which means you learn both a policy function and a value function. The policy function’s job is to choose which actions to take at a given state, by making some higher probability than others. The value function’s job is to estimate the reward from a given state onward, if a certain policy p is followed. The value function is used to calculate the “advantage” of each action at a given state, by taking the reward you receive through action a (and reward you expect in the future), and subtracting out the value function for that state, which represents the average future reward you’d get if you just sampled randomly from the policy from that point onward. The policy network is then updated to prioritize actions which are higheradvantage. If you’re onpolicy, you can calculate a value function without needing to explicitly calculate the probabilities of each action, because, by definition, if you take actions according to your policy probabilities, then you’re sampling each action with a weight proportional to its probability. However, if your actions are calculated offpolicy, you need correct for this, typically by calculating an “importance sampling” ratio, that multiplies all actions by a probability under the desired policy divided by the probability under the policy used for sampling. This cancels out the implicit probability under the sampling policy, and leaves you with your actions scaled in proportion to their probability under the policy you’re actually updating. IMPALA shares the basic structure of this solution, but with a few additional parameters to dynamically trade off between the bias and variance of the model. The first parameter, rho, controls how much bias you allow into your model, where bias here comes from your model not being fully corrected to “pretend” that you were sampling from the policy to which gradients are being applied. The tradeoff here is that if your policies are far apart, you might downweight its actions so aggressively that you don’t get a strong enough signal to learn quickly. However, the policy you learn might be statistically biased. Rho does this by weighting each value function update by: https://i.imgur.com/4jKVhCe.png where rhobar is a hyperparameter. If rhobar is high, then we allow stronger weighting effects, whereas if it’s low, we put a cap on those weights. The other parameter is c, and instead of weighting each value function update based on policy drift at that state, it weights each timestep based on how likely or unlikely the action taken at that timestep was under the true policy. https://i.imgur.com/8wCcAoE.png Timesteps that much likelier under the true policy are upweighted, and, once again, we use a hyperparameter, cbar, to put a cap on the amount of allowed upweighting. Where the prior parameter controlled how much bias there was in the policy we learn, this parameter helps control the variance  the higher cbar, the higher the amount of variance there will be in the updates used to train the model, and the longer it’ll take to converge. 
[link]
This paper’s highlevel goal is to evaluate how well GANtype structures for generating text are performing, compared to more traditional maximum likelihood methods. In the process, it zooms into the ways that the current set of metrics for comparing text generation fail to give a wellrounded picture of how models are performing. In the old paradigm, of maximum likelihood estimation, models were both trained and evaluated on a maximizing the likelihood of each word, given the prior words in a sequence. That is, models were good when they assigned high probability to true tokens, conditioned on past tokens. However, GANs work in a fundamentally new framework, in that they aren’t trained to increase the likelihood of the next (ground truth) word in a sequence, but to generate a word that will make a discriminator more likely to see the sentence as realistic. Since GANs don’t directly model the probability of token t, given prior tokens, you can’t evaluate them using this maximum likelihood framework. This paper surveys a range of prior work that has evaluated GANs and MLE models on two broad categories of metrics, occasionally showing GANs to perform better on one or the other, but not really giving a way to trade off between the two.  The first type of metric, shorthanded as “quality”, measures how aligned the generated text is with some reference corpus of text: to what extent your generated text seems to “come from the same distribution” as the original. BLEU, a heuristic frequently used in translation, and also leveraged here, measures how frequently certain sets of ngrams occur in the reference text, relative to the generated text. N typically goes up to 4, and so in addition to comparing the distributions of single tokens in the reference and generated, BLEU also compares shared bigrams, trigrams, and quadgrams (?) to measure more precise similarity of text.  The second metric, shorthanded as “diversity” measures how different generated sentences are from one another. If you want to design a model to generate text, you presumably want it to be able to generate a diverse range of text  in probability terms, you want to fully sample from the distribution, rather than just taking the expected or mean value. Linguistically, this would be show up as a generator that just generates the same sentence over and over again. This sentence can be highly representative of the original text, but lacks diversity. One metric used for this is the same kind of BLEU score, but for each generated sentence against a corpus of prior generated sentences, and, here, the goal is for the overlap to be as low as possible The trouble with these two metrics is that, in their raw state, they’re pretty incommensurable, and hard to trade off against one another. The authors of this paper try to address this by observing that all models trade off diversity and quality to some extent, just by modifying the entropy of the conditional token distribution they learn. If a distribution is high entropy, that is, if it spreads probability out onto more tokens, it’s likelier to bounce off into a random place, which increases diversity, but also can make the sentence more incoherent. By contrast, if a distribution is too low entropy, only ever putting probability on one or two words, then it will be only ever capable of carving out a small number of distinct paths through word space. The below table shows a good example of what language generation can look like at high and low levels of entropy https://i.imgur.com/YWGXDaJ.png The entropy of a softmax distribution be modified, without changing the underlying model, by changing the *temperature* of the softmax calculation. So, the authors do this, and, as a result, they can chart out that model’s curve on the quality/diversity axis. Conceptually, this is asking “at a range of different quality thresholds, how good is this model’s diversity,” and vice versa. I mentally analogize this to a ROC curve, where it’s not really possible to compare, say, precision of models that use different thresholds, and so you instead need to compare the curve over a range of different thresholds, and compare models on that. https://i.imgur.com/C3zdEjm.png When they do this for GANs and MLEs, they find that, while GANs might dominate on a single metric at a time, when you modulate the temperature of MLE models, they’re able to achieve superior quality when you tune them to commensurate levels of diversity. 
[link]
GANs for images have made impressive progress in recent years, reaching everhigher levels of subjective realism. It’s also interesting to think about domains where the GAN architecture is less of a good fit. An example of one such domain is natural language. As opposed to images, which are made of continuous pixel values, sentences are fundamentally sequences of discrete values: that is, words. In a GAN, when the discriminator makes its assessment of the realness of the image, the gradient for that assessment can be backpropagated through to the pixel level. The discriminator can say “move that pixel just a bit, and this other pixel just a bit, and then I’ll find the image more realistic”. However, there is no smoothly flowing continuous space of words, and, even if you use continuous embeddings of words, it’s still the case that if you tried to apply a small change to a embedding vector, you almost certainly wouldn’t end up with another word, you’d just be somewhere in the middle of nowhere in word space. In short: the discrete nature of language sequences doesn’t allow for gradient flow to propagate backwards through to the generator. The authors of this paper propose a solution: instead of trying to treat their GAN as one big differentiable system, they framed the problem of “generate a sequence that will seem realistic to the discriminator” as a reinforcement learning problem? After all, this property  of your reward just being generated *somewhere* in the environment, not something analytic, not something you can backprop through  is one of the key constraints of reinforcement learning. Here, the more real the discriminator finds your sequence, the higher the reward. One approach to RL, and the one this paper uses, is that of a policy network, where your parametrized network produces a distribution over actions. You can’t update your model to deterministically increase reward, but you can shift around probability in your policy such that your expected reward of following that policy is higher. This key kernel of an idea  GANs for language, but using a policy network framework to get around not having backpropable loss/reward gets you most of the way to understanding what these authors did, but it’s still useful to mechanically walk through specifics. https://i.imgur.com/CIFuGCG.png At each step, the “state” is the existing words in the sequence, and the agent’s “action” the choosing of its next word  The Discriminator can only be applied to completed sequences, since it's difficult to determine whether an incoherent halfsentence is realistic language. So, when the agent is trying to calculate the reward of an action at a state, it uses Monte Carlo Tree Search: randomly “rolling out” many possible futures by randomly sampling from the policy, and then taking the average Discriminator judgment of all those futures resulting from each action as being its expected reward  The Generator is a LSTM that produces a softmax over words, which can be interpreted as a policy if it’s sampled from randomly  One of the nice benefits of this approach is that it can work well for cases where we don't have a handcrafted quality assessment metric, the way we have BLEU score for translation
1 Comments

[link]
I should say from the outset: I have a lot of fondness for this paper. It goes upstream of a lot of researchcommunity 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 ofteninvisible foundation upon which ML research is based, but like realworld 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 “commonsense” reasoning: the ability to understand meaning of a sentence in a way deeper than that allowed by simple syntactic parsing and word cooccurrence 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 cooccurance 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 cooccurance, 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 nonassociative 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. 
[link]
For solving sequence modeling problems, recurrent architectures have been historically the most commonly used solution, but, recently, temporal convolution networks, especially with dilations to help capture longer term dependencies, have gained prominence. RNNs have theoretically much larger capacity to learn long sequences, but also have a lot of difficulty propagating signal forward through long chains of recurrent operations. This paper, which suggests the approach of Trellis Networks, places itself squarely in the middle of the debate between these two paradigms. TrellisNets are designed to be a theoretical bridge between between temporal convolutions and RNNs  more specialized than the former, but more generalized than the latter. https://i.imgur.com/J2xHYPx.png The architecture of TrellisNets is very particular, and, unfortunately, somewhat hard to internalize without squinting at diagrams and equations for awhile. Fundamentally:  At each layer in a TrellisNet, the network creates a “candidate preactivation” by combining information from the input and the layer below, for both the current and former time step.  This candidate preactivation is then nonlinearly combined with the prior layer, priortimestep hidden state  This process continues for some desired number of layers. https://i.imgur.com/f96QgT8.png At first glance, this structure seems pretty arbitrary: a lot of quantities connected together, but without a clear mechanic for what’s happening. However, there are a few things interesting to note here, which will help connect these dots, to view TrellisNet as either a kind of RNN or a kind of CNN:  TrellisNet uses the same weight matrices to process prior and current timestep inputs/hidden states, no matter which timestep or layer it’s on. This is strongly reminiscent of a recurrent architecture, which uses the same calculation loop at each timestep  TrellisNets also reinsert the model’s input at each layer. This also gives it more of a RNNlike structure, where the prior layer’s values act as a kind of “hidden state”, which are then combined with an input value  At a given layer, each timestep only needs access to two elements of the prior layer (in addition to the input); it does not require access to all the priortimestep values of it’s own layer. This is important because it means that you can calculate an entire layer’s values at once, given the values of the prior layer: this means these models can be more easily parallelized for training Seeing TrellisNets as a kind of Temporal CNN is fairly straightforward: each timestep’s value, at a given layer, is based on a “filter” of the lowerlayer value at the current and prior timestep, and this filter is shared across the whole sequence. Framing them as a RNN is certainly trickier, and anyone wanting to understand it in full depth is probably best served by returning to the paper’s equations. At at high level, the authors show that TrellisNets can represent a specific kind of RNN: a truncated RNN, where each timestep only uses history from the prior M time steps, rather than the full sequence. This works by sort of imagining the RNN chains as existing along the diagonals of a TrellisNet architecture diagram: as you reach higher levels, you can also reach farther back in time. Specifically, a TrellisNet that wants to represent a depth K truncated RNN, which is allowed to unroll through M steps of history, can do so using M + K  1 layers. Essentially, by using a fixed operation across layers and timesteps, the TrellisNet authors blur the line between layer and timestep: any chain of operations, across layers, is fundamentally a series of the same operation, performed many times, and is in that way RNNlike. The authors have not yet taken a stab at translation, but tested their model on a number of word and characterlevel language modeling tasks (predicting the next word or character, given prior ones), and were able to successfully beat SOTA on many of them. I’d be curious to see more work broadly in this domain, and also gain a better understanding of areas in which a fixed, recurrentlyused layer operation, like the ones used in RNNs and this paper, is valuables, and areas (like a “normal” CNN) where having specific weights for different levels of the hierarchy is valable. 
[link]
This paper is, on the whole, a refreshing jaunt into the applied side of the research word. It isn’t looking to solve a fundamental machine learning problem in some new way, but it does highlight and explore one potential beneficial application of a common and widely used technique: specifically, combining word embeddings with contextfree grammars (such as: regular expressions), to make the latter less rigid. Regular expressions work by specifying specific hardcoded patterns of symbols, and matching against any strings in some search set that match those patterns. They don’t need to specify specific characters  they can work at higher levels of generality, like “uppercase alphabetic character” or “any character”, but they’re still fundamentally hardcoded, in that the designer of the expression needs to create a specification that will affirmatively catch all the desired cases. This can be a particular challenging task when you’re trying to find  for example  all sentences that match the pattern of someone giving someone else a compliment. You might want to match against “I think you’re smart” and also “I think you’re clever”. However, in the normal use of regular expressions, something like this would be nearly impossible to specify, short of writing out every synonym for “intelligent” that you can think of. The “Embedding Grammars” paper proposes a solution to this problem: instead of enumerating a list of synonyms, simply provide one example term, or, even better, a few examples, and use those term’s word embedding representation to define a “synonym bubble” (my word, not theirs) in continuous space around those examples. This is based on the oftremarkedupon fact that, because word embedding systems are generally trained to push together words that can be used in similar contexts, closeness in word vector space frequently corresponds to words being synonyms, or close in some other sense. So, if you “match” to any term that is sufficiently nearby to your exemplar terms, you are performing something similar to the task of enumerating all of a term’s syllables. Once this general intuition is in hand, the details of the approach are fairly straightforward: the authors try a few approaches, and find that constructing a bubble of some epsilon around each example’s word vector, and matching to anything inside that bubble, works the best as an approach. https://i.imgur.com/j9OSNuE.png Overall, this seems like a clever idea; one imagines that the notion of word embeddings will keep branching out into ever more farflung application as time goes on. There are reasons to be skeptical of this paper, though. Fundamentally, word embedding space is a “here there be dragons” kind of place: we may be able to observe broad patterns, and might be able to say that “nearby words tend to be synonyms,” but we can’t give any kind of guarantee of that being the case. As an example of this problem, often the nearest thing to an example, after direct synonyms, are direct antonyms, so if you set too high a threshold, you’ll potentially match to words exactly the opposite of what you expect. We are probably still a ways away from systems like this one being broady useful, for this and other reasons, but I do think it’s valuable to try to understand what questions we’d want answered, what features of embedding space we’d want more elucidated, before applications like these would be more stably usable. 
[link]
I admit it  the title of the paper pulled me in, existing as it does in the chain of weirdly insidermeme papers, starting with Vaswani’s 2017 “Attention Is All You Need”. That paper has been hugely influential, and the domain of machine translation as a whole has begun to move away from processing (or encoding) source sentences with recurrent architectures, to instead processing them using selfattention architectures. (Selfattention is a little too nuanced to go into in full depth here, but the basic idea is: instead of summarizing varyinglength sequences by feeding each timestep into a recurrent loop and building up hidden states, generate a query, and weight the contribution of each timestep to each “hidden state” based on the dot product between that query and each timestep’s representation). There has been an overall move in recent years away from recurrence being the accepted default for sequence data, and towards attention and (often dilated) convolution taking up more space. I find this an interesting set of developments, and had hopes that this paper would address that arc. However, unfortunately, the title was quite out of sync with the actual focus of the paper  instead of addressing the contribution of attention mechanisms vs recurrence, or even directly addressing any of the particular ideas posed in the “Attention is All You Need” paper, this YMNNA instead takes aim at a more fundamental structural feature of translation models: the encoder/decoder structure. The basic idea of an encoder/decoder approach, in a translation paradigm, is that you process the entire source sentence before you start generating the tokens of the predicted, otherlanguage target sentence. Initially, this would work by running a RNN over the full sentence, and using the final hidden state of that RNN as a compressed representation of the full sentence. More recently, the norm has been to use multiple layers of RNN, and to represent the source sentence via the hidden states at each timestep (so: as many hidden states as you have input tokens), and then at each step in the decoding process, calculate an attentionweighted average over all of those hidden states. But, fundamentally, both of these structures share the fact that some kind of global representation is calculated and made available to the decoder before it starts predicting words in the output sentence. This makes sense for a few reasons. First, and most obviously, languages aren’t naturally aligned with one another, in the sense of one word in language X corresponding to one word in language Y. It’s not possible for you to predict a word in the target sentence if its corresponding source sentence token has not yet been processed. For another, there can be contextual information from the sentence as a whole that can disambiguate between different senses of a word, which may have different translations  think Teddy Bear vs Teddy Roosevelt. However, this paper poses the question: how well can you do if you throw away this structure, and build a model that continually emits tokens of the target sequence as it reads in the source sentence? Using a recurrent model, the YMNNA model takes, at each timestep, the new source token, the previous target token, and the prior hidden state from the last time step of the RNN, and uses that to predict a token. However, that problem mentioned earlier  of languages not natively being aligned such that you have the necessary information to predict a word by the time you get to its point in the target sequence  hasn’t gone away, and is still alive and kicking. This paper solves it in a pretty unsatisfying way  by relying on an external tool, fastalign, that does the work of guessing which source tokens correspond to which target tokens, and inserting buffer tokens into the target, so that you don’t need to predict a word until it’s already been seen by the sourcereading RNN; until then you just predict the buffer. This is fine and clever as a practical heuristic, but it really does make their comparisons against models that do alignment and translation jointly feel a little weak. https://i.imgur.com/Gitpxi7.png An additional heuristic that makes the overall narrative of the paper less compelling is the fact that, in order to get comparable performance to their baselines, they padded the target sequences with between 3 and 5 buffer tokens, meaning that the models learned that they could process the first 35 tokens of the sentence before they need to start emitting the target. Again, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with this, but, since they are consuming a portion of the sentence before they start emitting translations, it does make for a less stark comparison with the “read the whole sentence” encoder/decoder framework. A few other frustrations, and notes from the paper’s results section: As earlier mentioned, the authors don’t actually compare their work against the “Attention is All You Need” paper, but instead to a 2014 paper. This is confusing both in terms of using an old baseline for SOTA, and also in terms of their title implicitly arguing they are refuting a paper they didn’t compare to Comparing against their old baseline, their eager translation model performs worse on all sentences less than 60 tokens in length (which makes up the vast majority of all the sentences there are), and only beats the baseline on sentences > 60 tokens in length Additionally, they note as a sort of throwaway line that their model took almost three times as long to train as the baseline, with the same amount of parameters, simply because it took so much longer to converge. Being charitable, it seems like there is some argument that an eager translation framework performs well on long sentences, and can do so while only keeping a hidden state in memory, rather than having to keep the hidden states for each source sequence element around, like attentionbased decoders require. However, overall, I found this paper to be a frustrating letdown, that used too many heuristics and hacks to be a compelling comparison to prior work.
1 Comments

[link]
The last two years have seen a number of improvements in the field of language model pretraining, and BERT  Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers  is the most recent entry into this canon. The general problem posed by language model pretraining is: can we leverage huge amounts of raw text, which aren’t labeled for any specific classification task, to help us train better models for supervised language tasks (like translation, question answering, logical entailment, etc)? Mechanically, this works by either 1) training word embeddings and then using those embeddings as input feature representations for supervised models, or 2) treating the problem as a transfer learning problem, and finetune to a supervised task  similar to how you’d finetune a model trained on ImageNet by carrying over parameters, and then training on your new task. Even though the text we’re learning on is strictly speaking unsupervised (lacking a supervised label), we need to design a task on which we calculate gradients in order to train our representations. For unsupervised language modeling, that task is typically structured as predicting a word in a sequence given prior words in that sequence. Intuitively, in order for a model to do a good job at predicting the word that comes next in a sentence, it needs to have learned patterns about language, both on grammatical and semantic levels. A notable change recently has been the shift from learning unconditional word vectors (where the word’s representation is the same globally) to contextualized ones, where the representation of the word is dependent on the sentence context it’s found in. All the baselines discussed here are of this second type. The two main baselines that the BERT model compares itself to are OpenAI’s GPT, and Peters et al’s ELMo. The GPT model uses a selfattentionbased Transformer architecture, going through each word in the sequence, and predicting the next word by calculating an attentionweighted representation of all prior words. (For those who aren’t familiar, attention works by multiplying a “query” vector with every word in a variablelength sequence, and then putting the outputs of those multiplications into a softmax operator, which inherently gets you a weighting scheme that adds to one). ELMo uses models that gather context in both directions, but in a fairly simple way: it learns one deep LSTM that goes from left to right, predicting word k using words 0k1, and a second LSTM that goes from right to left, predicting word k using words k+1 onward. These two predictions are combined (literally: just summed together) to get a representation for the word at position k. https://i.imgur.com/2329e3L.png BERT differs from prior work in this area in several small ways, but one primary one: instead of representing a word using only information from words before it, or a simple sum of prior information and subsequent information, it uses the full context from before and after the word in each of its multiple layers. It also uses an attentionbased Transformer structure, but instead of incorporating just prior context, it pulls in information from the full sentence. To allow for a model that actually uses both directions of context at a time in its unsupervised prediction task, the authors of BERT slightly changed the nature of that task: it replaces the word being predicted with the “mask” token, so that even with multiple layers of context aggregation on both sides, the model doesn’t have any way of knowing what the token is. By contrast, if it weren’t masked, after the first layer of context aggregation, the representations of other words in the sequence would incorporate information about the predicted word k, making it trivial, if another layer were applied on top of that first one, for the model to directly have access to the value it’s trying to predict. This problem can either be solved by using multiple layers, each of which can only see prior context (like GPT), by learning fully separate LR and RL models, and combining them at the final layer (like ELMo) or by masking tokens, and predicting the value of the masked tokens using the full remainder of the context. This task design crucially allows for a multilayered bidirectional architecture, and consequently a much richer representation of context in each word’s pretrained representation. BERT demonstrates dramatic improvements over prior work when fine tuned on a small amount of supervised data, suggesting that this change added substantial value. 
[link]
This recent paper, a collaboration involving some of the authors of MAML, proposes an intriguing application of techniques developed in the field of meta learning to the problem of unsupervised learning  specifically, the problem of developing representations without labeled data, which can then be used to learn quickly from a small amount of labeled data. As a reminder, the idea behind meta learning is that you train models on multiple different tasks, using only a small amount of data from each task, and update the model based on the test set performance of the model. The conceptual advance proposed by this paper is to adopt the broad strokes of the meta learning framework, but apply it to unsupervised data, i.e. data with no predefined supervised tasks. The goal of such a project is, as so often is the case with unsupervised learning, to learn representations, specifically, representations we believe might be useful over a whole distribution of supervised tasks. However, to apply traditional meta learning techniques, we need that aforementioned distribution of tasks, and we’ve defined our problem as being over unsupervised data. How exactly are we supposed to construct the former out of the latter? This may seem a little circular, or strange, or definitionally impossible: how can we generate supervised tasks without supervised labels? https://i.imgur.com/YaU1y1k.png The artificial tasks created by this paper are rooted in mechanically straightforward operations, but conceptually interesting ones all the same: it uses an off the shelf unsupervised learning algorithm to generate a fixedwidth vector embedding of your input data (say, images), and then generates multiple different clusterings of the embedded data, and then uses those cluster IDs as labels in a fauxsupervised task. It manages to get multiple different tasks, rather than just one  remember, the premise of meta learning is in models learned over multiple tasks  by randomly up and downscaling dimensions of the embedding before clustering is applied. Different scalings of dimensions means different points close to one another, which means the partition of the dataset into different clusters. With this distribution of “supervised” tasks in hand, the paper simply applies previously proposed meta learning techniques  like MAML, which learns a model which can be quickly fine tuned on a new task, or prototypical networks, which learn an embedding space in which observations from the same class, across many possible class definitions are close to one another. https://i.imgur.com/BRcg6n7.png An interesting note from the evaluation is that this method  which is somewhat amusingly dubbed “CACTUs”  performs best relative to alternative baselines in cases where the true underlying class distribution on which the model is metatrained is the most different from the underlying class distribution on which the model is tested. Intuitively, this makes reasonable sense: meta learning is designed to trade off knowledge of any given specific task against the flexibility to be performant on a new class division, and so it gets the most value from trade off where a genuinely dissimilar class split is seen during testing. One other quick thing I’d like to note is the set of implicit assumptions this model builds on, in the way it creates its unsupervised tasks. First, it leverages the smoothness assumptions of classes  that is, it assumes that the kinds of classes we might want our model to eventually perform on are close together, in some idealized conceptual space. While not a perfect assumption (there’s a reason we don’t use KNN over embeddings for all of our ML tasks) it does have a general reasonableness behind it, since rarely are the kinds of classes very conceptually heterogenous. Second, it assumes that a truly unsupervised learning method can learn a representation that, despite being itself suboptimal as a basis for supervised tasks, is a wellenough designed feature space for the general heuristic of “nearby things are likely of the same class” to at least approximately hold. I find this set of assumptions interesting because they are so simplifying that it’s a bit of a surprise that they actually work: even if the “classes” we metatrain our model on are defined with simple Euclidean rules, optimizing to be able to perform that separation using little data does indeed seem to transfer to the general problem of “separating real world, messierinembeddingspace classes using little data”. 
[link]
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(zx)  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 
[link]
This paper draws from two strains of recent work: the hierarchical music modeling of MusicVAE  which intentionally model musical structure at both local and more global levels  , and the discrete autoencoder approaches of Vector Quantized VAEs  which seek to maintain the overall structure of a VAE, but apply a less aggressive form of regularization. The goal of this paper is to build a model that can generate music, not from that music’s symbolic representation  lists of notes  but from actual waveform audio. This is a more difficult task because the model now has to learn mappings between waveforms and symbolic notes, but confers the advantage of being able to model expressive dimensions of music that are difficult to capture in a pure symbolic representation. Models of pure waveform data have been used before  Wavenet is a central example  but typically they are learned alongside some kind of text conditioning structure, which is to say, you tell the model to say “Hello there, world” and the model is only responsible for building local mappings between those phonemes and waveforms, not actually modeling coherent words to follow after “Hello”. To try to address this problem, the authors of the paper propose the solution of learning an autoencoded representation over the full music sample, to try to capture global structure. Each predicted value of the global structure sequence then represents some number of timesteps of the generated sequence: say, 20. The idea here is: learn a global model that produces 1/N (1/20, in this case) fewer sequence points, whose job is ensuring long term consistency. Then, the authors also suggest the use of a lower level decoder model that uses the conditioning information from the autoencoder, and, in a similar fashion to a text to speech wavenet, captures a high fidelity mapping between that conditioning and the output waveform. This overall structure has a lot in common with the recently released MusicVAE paper. The most salient architectural change proposed by this paper is that of Argmax VAEs, rather than VQ VAEs. Overall, the reason for training discrete autoencoders is to have a more easily adjustable way of regularizing the bottlenecked representation, to avoid the fact that for some challenging problems, excessively strong VAE regularization can lead to that high level representational space just not being used. To understand the difference, it’s worth understanding that VQ VAEs work by generating a continuous encoding vector (the same as a typical VAE) but then instead of passing that continuous vector itself directly on to the decoder, the VQ VAE instead fits what is basically a K means operation: it maps the continuous vector to one of it’s “prototypical” or “codebook” vectors based on closeness in Euclidean distance (these codebook vectors are learned in a separate trading loop, in a K Means style algorithm). The Argmax VAE is similar, but instead of needing to take that alternating step of learning the codebook vectors via K Means, it performs a much simpler quantization operation: just taking the argmax of indices across the continuous vector, so that the output is the onehot vector closest to the continuous input. While this reduces the capacity of the model, it also limits the problem of “codebook collapse”, which is a failure mode that can happen during the K Means iteration (I’m actually not entirely clear on the prototypical example of codebook collapse, or exactly why it happens). https://i.imgur.com/H5YqSZG.png Combining these ideas together: this paper’s model works by learning an Argmax VAE over a larger and courser timeframe of the model, and then learning a local, high resolution decoder  similar to Wavenet  over the smaller time scales, conditioned on the output of the Argmax VAE making high level decisions. This combination balances the needs of coherent musical structure and local fidelity, and allows for different weighing of those tradeoffs in a fairly flexible way, by changing the frequency at which you produce Argmax VAE conditioning output. 
[link]
A central question of this paper is: under what circumstances will you see agents that have been trained to optimize their own reward implement strategies  like tit for tat  that are are more sophisticated and higher overall reward than each agent simply pursuing its dominant strategy. The games under consideration here are “general sum” games like Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma, where each agent’s dominant strategy is to defect, but with some amount of coordination or reciprocity, better overall outcomes are possible. Previously, models have achieved this via explicit hardcoding, but this paper strove to use a simpler, more general approach: allowing each agent A to optimize its reward not only with regard to a fixed opponent, but with regard to an opponent that will make a predictable update move in response to the action A is about to take. Specifically, this model  shorthanded as LOLA, Learning with OpponentLearning Awareness  maximizes a given agent’s expected discount reward, but looks at reward *conditional on* the ways the opponent will update to a given action. In a simplified world where the explicit reward function is known, it’s possible to literally take the derivative through the opponent’s expected update step, taking into account the ways your expected reward is changed by the response you expect of your opponent. Outside of this simplified framework, in the world of policy gradients, there’s no analytic loss function; you can no longer directly differentiate your reward function with respect to your opponent’s actions, but you can differentiate your expected reward estimator with respect to them. This concept is quite similar to a 2016 paper, Metz et al, that used this concept to train a more effective GAN, by allowing each network in the adversarial pair to “look ahead” to their opponent’s expected response as a way to avoid getting stuck in repetitive action/response cycles. In circumstances where the parameters of the opponent are not known  obviously closer to realistic for an adversarial scenario  the paper demonstrates proof of concept ability to model an opponent’s strategy based on their past actions, and use that to conduct responsestep estimates. https://i.imgur.com/5xddJRj.png It should of course be said in all this: even though this setup did produce results closer to what we would expect in rational reciprocity, it’s still very simplified. In most of the experiments, each agent had perfect knowledge of the opponent’s priorities and likely responses; in most game theory scenarios, constructing a model of your opponent is a nontrivial part of the difficulty. Nonetheless, I found it a 
[link]
The overall goal of the paper is measure how similar different layer activation profiles are to one another, in hopes of being able to quantify the similarity of the representations that different layers are learning. If you had a measure that captured this, you could ask questions like: “how similar are the representations that are learned by different networks on the same task”, and “what is the dynamic of representational change in a given layer throughout training”? Canonical Correlation Analysis is one way of approaching this question, and the way taken by this paper. The premise of CCA is that you have two multidimensional variable sets, where each set is made up of vectors representing dimensions within that variable set. Concretely, in this paper, the sets under examination are the activation profiles of two layers (either the same layer at different points in training, or different layers in the same network, or layers in different networks). An activation profile is thought of in terms of multiple vectors, where each vector represents a given neuron’s activation value, evaluated over some observation set X. Importantly, for the two layers that you’re comparing, the set of observations X needs to be of the same length, but the layers can have different number of neurons (and, consequently, different numbers of vectors making up that layer’s multivariate set). Given this setup, the goal of CCA is to find vectors that are linear combinations of the basis vectors of each set, to satisfy some constraint. In that broad sense, this is similar to the project of PCA, which also constructs linearcombination principal components to better represent the underlying data space. However, in PCA, the constraints that define these combinations are based on one multidimensional feature space, not two. In CCA, instead of generating k principal components, you generate k *pairs* of canonical correlates. Each canonical correlate pair, (U1, V1) is a linear combination of the activation vectors of sets L1 and L2 respectively, and is chosen with the goal of minimizing the the angle (cosine) distance between the correlates in each pair. If you think about L1 and L2 each only having two activations (that is: if you think about them as being twodimensional spaces) then the goal of CCA is to find the cosine distance between the planes defined by the two activation spaces. An important intuition here is that in this framing, vector sets that are just linear transformations of one another (scalings, rotations, swaps in the arbitrary order of activations) will look the same, which wouldn’t be the case if you just looked at raw correlations between the individual activations. This is connected to the linear algebra idea that, if you have two vectors, and a third that is just a linear combination of the first two, the span of those vectors is still just that twodimensional space. This property is important for the analysis of neural network representations because it means it will be able to capture similarities between representational spaces that have fundamental geometric similarities, even if they’re different on a more surface level. In prior papers, CCA had been used by calculating the CCA vectors between varying sets of layers, and then taking the mean CCA value over all of the pairs of vectors. This paper argues against that approach, on the theory that network layers are probably not using the full representational capacity of their activation dimensions (think, as analogy: a matrix with three columns, that only actually spans two), and so including in your average very loworder correlations is mostly adding uninformative noise to your similarity measure. Instead, this paper weights the correlation coefficients according to the magnitudes of the correlate vectors in the pair; as best I can tell, this is roughly analogous to weighting according to eigenvalues, in a PCA setting. Using this weightedaverage similarity measure, the authors do some really interesting investigations into learning dynamics. These include: * Comparing the intermediatelayer representations learned by networks that achieve low train error via memorization vs via actuallygeneralizing solutions, and show that, during training, the intermediate representations of generalizing networks are more similar to one another than memorizing networks are to one another. Intuitively, this aligns with the idea that there are many ways to noisily memorize, but a more constrained number of ways to actually learn meaningful information about a dataset. A super interesting implication of this is the idea that representational similarity *on the training set* across multiple bootstrapped or randomized trainings could be used as a proxy for test set performance, which could be particularly valuable in contexts where test data is limited https://i.imgur.com/JwyHFmN.png * Across networks, lower layers tend to be more similar to one another than layers closer to the output; said another way, the very simple (e.g. edge detectors) tend to be quite similar across networks, but the higher level representations are more divergent and influenceable by smaller quirks of the training set. * Within a given dataset, you can cluster learned internal representations across many training sets and recover groups trained with the same learning rate, even though the final layer softmax is inherently similar across models that achieve the same training error. This implies that metrics like this can give us some idea of the different minima that the optimization algorithm finds, as a function of different learning rates. Overall, I found this paper a great example of a straightforward idea used to clearly answer important and interesting questions, which is always refreshing amidst a sea of “tiny hack for an extra 0.05 accuracy”. 
[link]
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 metanetwork 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 trainingset 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 trainingset 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 nonlinear relationships between your features, which the composability of multilayer 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 pdimensional 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 (numdimensions) * (numclasses), rather than (numdimensions) * (numtrainingexamples). 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 (crossentropy) 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 themeaningoflife), 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 fewshot learning (matching networks, and the aforementioned metalearning). 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/meetthebregmandivergences.html
1 Comments

[link]
The core goal of this paper is to perform in an unsupervised (read: without parallel texts) way what other machine translation researchers had previously only effectively performed in a supervised way: the creation of a wordtoword translational mapping between natural languages. To frame the problem concretely: the researchers start with word embeddings learned in each language independently, and their desired output is a set of nearest neighbors for a source word that contains the true target (i.e. translated) word as often a possible. An interesting bit of background for this paper is that Mikilov, who was the initial progenitor of the word embedding approach, went on to posit, based on experiments he’d conducted, that the embeddings produced by different languages share characteristics in vector space, such that one could expect a linear translation (i.e. taking a set of points and rotating, shifting, and/or scaling them) to be able to map from one language to another. This assumption is relied on heavily in this paper. A notional note: when I refer to “a mapped source embedding” or “mapped source”, that just means that a matrix transformation, captured in a weight matrix W, is being used to do some form of rotation, scaling, or shifting, to “map” between the source embedding space and the shared space. The three strategies this paper employs are: 1. Using adversarial training to try to force the distributions of the embeddings in source and target languages to be similar to one another 2. Taking examples where method (1) has high confidence, and borrowing a method from supervised wordtoword translation, called the Procrustes method, to further optimize the mapping into the shared vector space 3. Calculating the nearest neighbors of a source word using an approach they develop called “CrossDomain Similarity Local Scaling”. At a high level, this conducts nearest neighbors, but “normalizes” for density, so that, on an intuitive level, it’s basically scaling distances up in dense regions of the space, and scaling them down in sparse regions Focusing on (1) first, the notion here goes back to that assumption I mentioned earlier: that internal relationships within embedding space are similar across languages, such that if you able to align the overall distributions of target embedding with a mapped source embedding, then you might  if you take Mikilov’s assumption seriously  reasonably expect this to push words in the mappedsource space close to their corresponding words in target space. And this does work, to some degree, but the researchers found that this approach on it’s own didn’t get them to where they wanted to be in terms of accuracy. To further refine the mapping created by the adversarial training, the authors use something called the “Procrustes Method”. They go into it in more detail in the paper, but at a high level, it turns out that if you’re trying to solve the problem of minimizing the sum of squared distances between a mappedsource embedding and a target embedding, assuming that that mapping is linear, and that you want the weight matrix to be orthogonal, that problem reduces to doing the singular value decomposition of the matrix of source embeddings multiplied by the (transposed) matrix of target embeddings, for a set of ground truth shared words. Now, you may reasonably note: this is an unsupervised method, we don’t have access to ground truth embeddings across languages. And you would be correct. So, here, what the authors do is take words that are *mutual* nearest neighbors (according to the CSLS metric of nearest neighbors I’ll describe in (3) ) after conducting their adversariallylearned rotation, and take that mutualnearestneighbordom as a marker of high confidence in that word pair. They took these mutuallynearestneighbor pairs, and used those as “ground truth” to conduct this singular value decomposition, which was applied on top of the adversariallylearned rotation to get to their final mapping. (3) is described well in equation form in the paper itself, and is just a way of constructing a similarity metric between a mappedsource embedding and a target embedding that does some clever normalization. Specifically, it takes two times the (cosine) distance between Ws (mapped source) and t (target), and subtracts out the average (cosine) distance of Ws to its k nearest target words, as well as the (average) cosine distance of t to its k nearest source words. In this way, it normalizes the distance between Ws and t based on how dense each of their neighborhoods is. Using all of these approaches together, the authors really do get quite impressive performance. For ENES, ESEN, ENFR, FREN, ENDE, DEEN, and EO (Esperanto)EN, the performance of the adversarial method is within 0.5 accuracy score of the supervised method, with the adversarial method being higher in 5 of those 7 cases (note: I read this as "functionally equivalent"). Interestingly, though, for ENRU, RUEN, ENCHN, and CHNEN, the adversarial method was dramatically less effective, with accuracy deltas ranging from 5 to 10 points between the adversarial and the supervised method, with the supervised method prevailing in all cases. This suggests that the assumption of a simple linear mapping between the vector spaces of different languages may be a more valid one when the languages are more closely related, and thus closer in their structure. I'd be really interested in any experiments that try to actually confirm this by testing on a wider array of languages, or testing on subgroups of languages that are closer or farther (i.e. you would expect ESFR to do even better than ENFR, and you would expect ESDE to do worse than ENDE). 
[link]
A finding first publicized by Geoff Hinton is the fact that, when you train a simple, lower capacity module on the probability outputs of another model, you can often get a model that has comparable performance, despite that lowered capacity. Another, even more interesting finding is that, if you take a trained model, and train a model with identical structure on its probability outputs, you can often get a model with better performance than the original teacher, with quicker convergence. This paper addresses, and tries to specifically test, a few theories about why this effect might be observed. One idea is that the "student" model can learn more quickly because getting to see the full probability distribution over a welltrained models outputs gives it a more valuable signal, specifically because the trained model is able to better rank the classes that aren't the true class. For example, if you're training on Imagenet, on an image of a huskies, you're only told "this is a husky (1), and not one of 100 other classes, which are all 0". Whereas a trained model might say "'this is most likely a husky, but the probability of wolf is way higher than that of teapot". This inherently gives you more useful signal to train on, because you’re given a full distribution of classes that an image is most like. This theory goes by the name of the “Dark Knowledge” theory (a truly delightful name), because it pulls all of this knowledge that is hidden in a 0/1 label into the light. An alternative explanation for the strong performance of distillation techniques is that the student model is just benefitting from the implicit importance weighting of having a stronger gradient on examples where the teacher model is more confident. You could think of this as leading the student towards examples that are the most clear or unambiguous examples of a class, rather than more fuzzy and uncertain ones. Along with a few other tests (which I won’t address here, for sake of time and focus), the authors design a few experiments to test these possible mechanisms of action. The first test involved doing an explicit importance weighting of examples according to how confident the teacher model is, but including no information about the incorrect classes. The second was similar, but instead involved perturbing the probabilities of the classes that weren’t the max probability. In this situation, the student model gets some information in terms of the overall magnitudes of the notmax class, but can’t leverage it as usefully because it’s been randomized. In both situations, they found that there still was some value  in other words, that the student outperformed the teacher  but it outperformed by less than the case where the teacher could see the full probability distribution. This supports the case that both the inclusion of probabilities for the less probable classes, as well as the “confidence weighting” effect of weighting the student to learn more from examples on which the “teacher” model was more confident. 
[link]
Last year, a machine translation paper came out, with an unfortunately unmemorable name (the Transformer network) and a dramatic proposal for sequence modeling that eschewed both Recurrent NNN and Convolutional NN structures, and, instead, used selfattention as its mechanism for “remembering” or aggregating information from across an input. Earlier this month, the same authors released an extension of that earlier paper, called Image Transformer, that applies the same attentiononly approach to image generation, and also achieved state of the art performance there. The recent paper offers a framing of attention that I find valuable and compelling, and that I’ll try to explicate here. They describe attention as being a middle ground between the approaches of CNNs and RNNs, and one that, to use an overabused cliche, gets the best of both worlds. CNNs are explicitly local: each convolutional filter only gathers information from the cells that fall in specific locations along some predefined grid. And, because convolutional filters have a unique parameter for every relative location in the grid they’re applied to, increasing the size of any given filter’s receptive field would engender an exponential increase in parameters: to go from a 3x3 grid to a 4x4 one, you go from 9 parameters to 16. Convolutional networks typically increase their receptive field through the mechanism of adding additional layers, but there is still this fundamental limitation that for a given number of layers, CNNs will be fairly constrained in their receptive field. On the other side of the receptive field balance, we have RNNs. RNNs have an effectively unlimited receptive field, because they just apply one operation again and again: take in a new input, and decide to incorporate that information into the hidden state. This gives us the theoretical ability to access things from the distant past, because they’re stored somewhere in the hidden state. However, each element is only seen once and needs to be stored in the hidden state in a way that sort of “averages over” all of the ways it’s useful for various points in the decoding/translation process. (My mental image basically views RNN hidden state as packing for a long trip in a small suitcase: you have to be very clever about what you decide to pack, averaging over all the possible situations you might need to be prepared for. You can’t go back and pull different things into your suitcase as a function of the situation you face; you had to have chosen to add them at the time you encountered them). All in all, RNNs are tricky both because they have difficulty storing information efficiently over long time frames, and also because they can be monstrously slow to train, since you have to run through the full sequence to built up hidden state, and can’t chop it into localized bits the way you can with CNNs. So, between CNN  with its locallyspecific hidden state  and RNN  with its large receptive field but difficulty in information storage  the selfattention approach interposes itself. Attention works off of three main objects: a query, and a set of keys, each one is attached to a value. In general, all of these objects take the form of vectors. For a given query, you calculate its similarity with each key, and then normalize those into a distribution (a set of weights, all of which sum to 1) that is used as the weights in calculating a weighted average of the values. As a motivating example, think of a model that is “unrolling” or decoding a translated sentence. In order to translate a sentence properly, the model needs to “remember” not only the conceptual content of the sentence, but what it has already generated. So, at each given point in the unrolling, the model can “query” the past and get a weighted distribution over what’s relevant to it in its current context. In the original Transformer, and also in the new one, the models use “multiheaded attention”, which I think is best compared to convolution filters: in the same way that you learn different convolution filters, each with different parameters, to pick up on different features, you learn different “heads” of the attention apparatus for the same purpose. To go back to our CNN  Attention  RNN schematic from earlier: Attention makes it a lot easier to query a large receptive field, since you don’t need an additional set of learned parameters for each location you expand to; you just use the same query weights and key weights you use for every other key and query. And, it allows you to contextually extract information from the past, depending on the needs you have right now. That said, it’s still the case that it becomes infeasible to make the length of the past you calculate your attention distribution over excessively long, but that cost is in terms of computation, not additional parameters, and thus is a question of training time, rather than essential model complexity, the way additional parameters is. Jumping all the way back up the stack, to the actual most recent image paper, this question of how best to limit the receptive field is one of the more salient questions, since it still is the case that conducting attention over every prior pixel would be a very large number of calculations. The Image Transformer paper solves this in a slightly hacky way: by basically subdividing the image into chunks, and having each chunk operate over the same fixed memory region (rather than scrolling the memory region with each pixel shift) to take better advantage of the speed of batched big matrix multiplies. Overall, this paper showed an advantage for the Image Transformer approach relevative to PixelCNN autoregressive generation models, and cited the ability for a larger receptive field during generation  without explosion in number of parameters  as the most salient reason why. 
[link]
It’s a commonly understood problem in Reinforcement Learning: that it is difficult to fully specify your exact reward function for an agent you’re training, especially when that agent will need to operate in conditions potentially different than those it was trained in. The canonical example of this, used throughout the Inverse Rewards Design paper, is that of an agent trained on an environment of grass and dirt, that now encounters an environment with lava. In a typical problem setup, the agent would be indifferent to passing or not passing over the lava, because it was never disincentivized from doing so during training. The fundamental approach this paper takes is to explicitly assume that there exists a program designer who gave the agent some proxy reward, and that that proxy reward is a good approximation of the true reward on training data, but might not be so on testing. This framing, of the reward as a noisy signal, allows the model to formalize its uncertainty about scenarios where the proxy reward might be a poor mapping to the real one. The way the paper tests this is through a pretty simplified model. In the example, the agent is given a reward function expressed by a weighting of different squares it could navigate into: it has a strong positive weight on dirt, and a strong negative one on grass. The agent then enters an environment where there is lava, which, implicitly, it has a 0 penalty for in its rewards function. However, it’s the case that, if you integrate over all possible weight values for “lava”, none of them would have produced different behavior over the training trajectories. Thus, if you assume high uncertainty, and adopt a riskaverse policy where under cases of uncertainty you assume bad outcomes, this leads to avoiding values of the environment feature vector that you didn’t have data weighting against during training. Overall, the intuition of this paper makes sense to me, but it’s unclear to me if the formulation it uses generalizes outside of a very trivial setting, where your reward function is an explicit and given function of your feature vectors, rather than (as is typical) a scalar score not explicitly parametrized by the states of game prior to the very last one. It’s certainly possible that it might, but, I don’t feel like I quite have the confidence to say at this point. 
[link]
This paper has an unusual and interesting goal, compared to those I more typically read: it wants to develop a “translation” between the messages produced by a model, and natural language used by a human. More specifically, the paper seeks to do this in the context of an twoplayer game, where one player needs to communicate information to the other. A few examples of this are:  Being shown a color, and needing to communicate to your partner so they can choose that color  Driving, in an environment where you can’t see the other car, but you have to send a coordinating message so that you don’t collide Recently, people have started training multiagent that play games like these, where they send “message” vectors back and forth, in a way fully integrated with the rest of the backpropogation procedure. From just observing the agents’ actions, it’s not necessarily clear which communication strategy they’re using. That’s why this paper poses as an explicit problem: how can we map between the communication vectors produced by the agents and the words that would be produced by a human in a similar environment? Interestingly, the paper highlights two different ways you could think about structuring a translation objective. The first is “pragmatic interpretation,” under which you optimize what you communicate about something according to the operation that needs to be performed afterwards. To make that more clear, take a look at the attached picture. Imagine that player one is shown a shape, and needs to use a phrase from the bottom language (based on how many sides the shape has) to describe it to player two, who then needs to guess the size of the shape (big or small), and is rewarded for guessing correctly. Because “many” corresponds to both a large and a small shape, the strategy that optimizes the action that player two takes, conditional on getting player one’s message, is to lie and describe a hexagon as “few”, since that will lead to correct inference about the size of the shape, which is what’s most salient here. This example shows how, if you optimize a translation mapping by trying to optimize the reward that the posttranslation agent can get, you might get a semantically incorrect translation. That might be good for the task at hand, but, because it leaves you with incorrect beliefs about the true underlying mapping, it will generalize poorly to different tasks. The alternate approach, championed by the paper, is to train a translation such that the utterances in both languages are similar insofar as, conditional on hearing them, and having some value for their own current state, the listening player arrives at similar beliefs about the current state of the player sending the message. This is mathematically framed as by defining a metric q, representing the quality of the translation between two z vectors, as: “taking an expectation over all possible contextual states of (player 1, player 2), what is the difference between the distribution of beliefs about the state of player 1 (the sending player) induced in player 2 by hearing each of the z vectors. Because taking the full expectation over this joint distribution is intractable, the approach is instead done by sampling. These equations require that you have reasonable models of human language, and understanding of human language, in the context of games. To do this, the authors used two types of datasets: 1. Linguistic descriptions of objects of things, like the xkcd color dataset. Here, the player’s hidden state is the color that they are trying to describe using some communication scheme. 2. Mechanical turk game runs playing the aforementioned driver game, where they have to communicate to the other driver. Here, the player’s “hidden state” represents a combination of its current location and intentions. From these datasets, they can train simple emulator models that learn “what terms is a human most likely to use for a given color” [p(zx)], and “what colors will a human guess, conditional on those terms”. The paper closes by providing a proof as to how much rewardbased value is lost by optimizing for the true semantic meaning, rather than the most pragmatically useful translation. They find that there is a bound on the gap, and that, in many empirical cases, the observed gap is quite small. Overall, this paper was limited in scope, but provided an interesting conceptual framework for thinking about how you might structure a translation, and the different implications that structure might have on your results. 
[link]
At NIPS 2017, Ali Rahimi was invited on stage to give a keynote after a paper he was on received the “Test of Time” award. While there, in front of several thousand researchers, he gave an impassioned argument for more rigor: more small problems to validate our assumptions, more visibility into why our optimization algorithms work the way they do. The nowfamous catchphrase of the talk was “alchemy”; he argued that the machine learning community has been effective at finding things that work, but less effective at understanding why the techniques we use work. A central example he used in his talk is that of Batch Normalization: a now nearlyuniversal step in optimizing deep nets, but one where our accepted explanation of “reducing internal covariate shift” is less rigorous than one might hope. With apologies for the long preamble, this is the context in which today’s paper is such a welcome push in the direction of what Rahimi was advocating for  small, focused experimentation that tries to build up knowledge from principles, and, specifically, asks the question: “Does Batch Norm really work via reducing covariate shift”. To answer the question of whether internal covariate shift is a likely mechanism of the  empirically very solid  improved performance of Batch Norm, the authors do a few simple experience. First, and most straightforwardly, they train a basic convolutional net with and without BatchNorm, pick a layer, and visualize the activation distribution of that layer over time, both in the Batch Norm and nonBatch Norm case. While they saw the expected performance boost, the Batch Norm case didn’t seem to be meaningfully more stable over time, relative to the normal case. Second, the authors tested what would happen if they added nonzeromean random noise *after* Batch Norm in the network. The upshot of this was that they were explicitly engineering internal covariate shift, and, if control thereof was the primary useful purpose of Batch Norm, you would expect that to neutralize BN’s good performance. In this experiment, while the authors did indeed see noisier, less stable activation distributions in the noise + BN case (in particular: look at layer 13 activations in the attached image), but noisy BN performed nearly as well as nonnoisy, and meaningfully better than the standard model without noise, but also without BN. As a final test, they approached the idea of “internal covariate shift” from a different definitional standpoint. Maybe a better way of thinking about it is in terms of stability of your gradients, in the face of updates made by lower layers of the network. That is to say: each parameter of the network pushes itself in the direction of lower loss all else held equal, but in practice, you change lowerlevel parameters simultaneously, which could cause the directional change the higherlayer parameter thought it needed to be off. So, the authors calculated the “gradient delta” between the gradient the model trains on, and what the gradient would be if you estimated it *after* all of the lower layers of the model had updated, such that the distribution of inputs to that layer has changed. Although the expectation would be that this gradient delta is smaller for batch norm, in fact, the authors found that, if anything, the opposite was true. So, in the face of none of these ideas panning out, the authors then introduce the best idea they’ve found for what motivates BN’s improved performance: a smoothing out of the loss function that SGD is optimizing. A smoother curve means, generally speaking, that the magnitudes of your gradients will be smaller, and also that the value of the gradient will change more slowly (i.e. low second derivative). As support for this idea, they show really different results for BN vs standard models in terms of, for example, how predictive a gradient at one point is of a gradient taken after you take a step in the direction of the first gradient. BN has meaningfully more predictive gradients, tied to lower variance in the values of the loss function in the direction of the gradient. The logic for why the mechanism of BN would cause this outcome is a bit tied up in math that’s hard to explain without LaTeX visuals, but basically comes from the idea that Batch Norm decreases the magnitude of the gradient of each layer output with respect to individual weight parameters, by averaging out those magnitudes over the batch. As Rahimi said in his initial talk, a lot of modern modeling is “applying brittle optimization techniques to loss surfaces we don’t understand.” And, by and large, that is in fact true: it’s devilishly difficult to get a good handle on what loss surfaces are doing when they’re doing it in severalmilliondimensional space. But, it being hard doesn’t mean we should just give up on searching for principles we can build our understanding on, and I think this paper is a really fantastic example of how that can be done well.
1 Comments

[link]
If you were to survey researchers, and ask them to name the 5 most broadly influential ideas in Machine Learning from the last 5 years, I’d bet good money that Batch Normalization would be somewhere on everyone’s lists. Before Batch Norm, training meaningfully deep neural networks was an unstable process, and one that often took a long time to converge to success. When we added Batch Norm to models, it allowed us to increase our learning rates substantially (leading to quicker training) without the risk of activations either collapsing or blowing up in values. It had this effect because it addressed one of the key difficulties of deep networks: internal covariate shift. To understand this, imagine the smaller problem, of a onelayer model that’s trying to classify based on a set of input features. Now, imagine that, over the course of training, the input distribution of features moved around, so that, perhaps, a value that was at the 70th percentile of the data distribution initially is now at the 30th. We have an obvious intuition that this would make the model quite hard to train, because it would learn some mapping between feature values and class at the beginning of training, but that would become invalid by the end. This is, fundamentally, the problem faced by higher layers of deep networks, since, if the distribution of activations in a lower layer changed even by a small amount, that can cause a “butterfly effect” style outcome, where the activation distributions of higher layers change more dramatically. Batch Normalization  which takes each feature “channel” a network learns, and normalizes [normalize = subtract mean, divide by variance] it by the mean and variance of that feature over spatial locations and over all the observations in a given batch  helps solve this problem because it ensures that, throughout the course of training, the distribution of inputs that a given layer sees stays roughly constant, no matter what the lower layers get up to. On the whole, Batch Norm has been wildly successful at stabilizing training, and is now canonized  along with the likes of ReLU and Dropout  as one of the default sensible training procedures for any given network. However, it does have its difficulties and downsides. One salient one of these comes about when you train using very small batch sizes  in the range of 216 examples per batch. Under these circumstance, the mean and variance calculated off of that batch are noisy and high variance (for the general reason that statistics calculated off of small sample sizes are noisy and high variance), which takes away from the stability that Batch Norm is trying to provide. One proposed alternative to Batch Norm, that didn’t run into this problem of small sample sizes, is Layer Normalization. This operates under the assumption that the activations of all feature “channels” within a given layer hopefully have roughly similar distributions, and, so, you an normalize all of them by taking the aggregate mean over all channels, *for a given observation*, and use that as the mean and variance you normalize by. Because there are typically many channels in a given layer, this means that you have many “samples” that go into the mean and variance. However, this assumption  that the distributions for each feature channel are roughly the same  can be an incorrect one. A useful model I have for thinking about the distinction between these two approaches is the idea that both are calculating approximations of an underlying abstract notion: the inthelimit mean and variance of a single feature channel, at a given point in time. Batch Normalization is an approximation of that insofar as it only has a small sample of points to work with, and so its estimate will tend to be high variance. Layer Normalization is an approximation insofar as it makes the assumption that feature distributions are aligned across channels: if this turns out not to be the case, individual channels will have normalizations that are biased, due to being pulled towards the mean and variance calculated over an aggregate of channels that are different than them. Group Norm tries to find a balance point between these two approaches, one that uses multiple channels, and normalizes within a given instance (to avoid the problems of small batch size), but, instead of calculating the mean and variance over all channels, calculates them over a group of channels that represents a subset. The inspiration for this idea comes from the fact that, in old school computer vision, it was typical to have parts of your feature vector that  for example  represented a histogram of some value (say: localized contrast) over the image. Since these multiple values all corresponded to a larger shared “group” feature. If a group of features all represent a similar idea, then their distributions will be more likely to be aligned, and therefore you have less of the bias issue. One confusing element of this paper for me was that the motivation part of the paper strongly implied that the reason group norm is sensible is that you are able to combine statistically dependent channels into a group together. However, as far as I an tell, there’s no actually clustering or similarity analysis of channels that is done to place certain channels into certain groups; it’s just done so semirandomly based on the index location within the feature channel vector. So, under this implementation, it seems like the benefits of group norm are less because of any explicit seeking out of dependant channels, and more that just having fewer channels in each group means that each individual channel makes up more of the weight in its group, which does something to reduce the bias effect anyway. The upshot of the Group Norm paper, resultswise, is that Group Norm performs better than both Batch Norm and Layer Norm at very low batch sizes. This is useful if you’re training on very dense data (e.g. high res video), where it might be difficult to store more than a few observations in memory at a time. However, once you get to batch sizes of ~24, Batch Norm starts to do better, presumably since that’s a large enough sample size to reduce variance, and you get to the point where the variance of BN is preferable to the bias of GN. 
[link]
I have a lot of fondness for this paper as a result of its impulse towards clear explanations, simplicity, and pushing back against complexity for complexity’s sake. The goal of the paper is pretty straightforward. Long Short Term Memory networks (LSTM) work by having a memory vector, and pulling information into and out of that vector through a gating system. These gates take as input the context of the network at a given timestep (the prior hidden state, and the current input), apply weight matrices and a sigmoid activation, and produce “mask” vectors with values between 0 and 1. A typical LSTM learns three separate gates: a “forget” gate that controls how much of the old memory vector is remembered, an “input” gate that controls how much new contextual information is added to the memory, an “output” gate that controls how much of the output (a sum of the gated memory information, and the gated input information) is passed outward into a hidden state context that’s visible to the rest of the network. Note here that “hidden” is an unfortunate word here, since this is actually the state that is visible to the rest of the network, whereas the “memory” vector is only visible to the nextstep memory updating calculations. Also note that “forget gate” is an awkward name insofar as the higher the value of the forget gate, the more that the model *remembers* of its past memory. This is confusing, but we appear to be stuck with this terminology The Gated Recurrent Unit, or GRU, did away with the output gate. In this system, the difference between “hidden” and “memory” vectors is removed, and so the network no longer has separate information channels for communicating with subsequent layers, and simple memory passed to future timesteps. On a wide range of problems, the GRU has performed comparably to the LSTM. This makes the authors ask: if a twogate model can do as well, can a single gate model? In particular: how well does a LSTMstyle model perform, if it only has a forget gate. The answer, to not bury the probablyobvious lede, is: quite well. Models that only have a forget gate perform comparably to or better than traditional LSTM models for the tasks at which they were tried. On a mechanical level, not having an input gate means that, instead of having individual scaling for “how much old memory do you remember” and “how much new context do you take in”, so that those values could be, for example, 0.2 and 0.15, these numbers are defined as a convex combination of a single value, which is the forget gate. That’s a fancy way of saying: we calculate some x between 0 and 1, and that’s the weight on the forget gate, and then (1x) is the weight on the input gate. This model, for reasons that are entirely unjustified, and obviously the result of some In Joke, is called JANET, because with a single gate, it’s Just Another NETwork. Image is attached to prove I’m Not Making This Shit Up. The authors go down a few pathways of explaining why this forgetonly model performs well, of which the most compelling is that it gives the model an easier and more efficient way to learn a skip connection, where information is passed down more or less intact to a future point in the model. It’s more straightforward to learn because the “skipness” of the connection, or, how strongly the information wants to propogate into the future, is just controlled by one set of parameters, and not a complex interaction of input, forget, and output. An interesting side investigation they perform is how the initialization of the bias term in the forget gate (which is calculated by applying weights to the input and former hidden state, and then adding a constant bias term) effects a model’s ability to learn long term dependencies. In particular, they discuss the situation where the model gets some signal, and then a long string of 0 values. If the bias term of the model is quite low, then all of those 0 values being used to calculate the forget gate will mean that only the bias is left, and the more times the bias is multiplied by itself, the smaller and closer to 0 it gets. The paper suggests initializing the bias of the forget gate according to the longest dependencies you expect the model to have, with the idea that you should more strongly bias your model towards remembering old information, regardless of what new information comes in, if you expect long term dependencies to be strongly relevant. 
[link]
The general goal of metalearning systems is to learn useful shared structure across a broad distribution of tasks, in such a way that learning on a new task can be faster. Some of the historical ways this has been done have been through initializations (i.e. initializing the network at a point such that it is easy to further optimize on each individual task, drawn from some distribution of tasks), and recurrent network structures (where you treat the multiple timesteps of a recurrent network as the training iterations on a single task, and train the recurrent weights of the network based on generalization performance on a wide range of tasks). This paper proposes a different approach: a learned proxy loss function. The idea here is that, often, early in the learning process, handcoded rewards aren’t the best or most valuable signal to use to guide a network, both because they may be high variance, and because they might not natively incentivize things like exploration rather than just exploitation. A better situation would be if we had some more farsighted loss function we could use, that had proved to be a good proxy over a variety of different rewards. This is exactly what this method proposes to give us. Training consists of an inner loop, and an outer loop. Each instantiation of the inner loop corresponds to a single RL task, drawn from a distribution over tasks (for example, all tasks involving the robot walking to a position, with a single instantiated task being the task of walking to one specific position). Within the inner loop, we apply a typical policy gradient loop of optimizing the parameters of our policy, except, instead of expected rewards, we optimize our policy parameters according to a loss function we specifically parametrize. Within the outer loop, we take as signal the final reward on the trained policy on this task, and use that to update our parametrized loss. This parametrized loss is itself a neural network, that takes in the agent’s most recent set of states, actions, and rewards at a rolling window of recent timesteps, and performs temporal convolutions on those, to get a final loss value out the other side. In short, this auxiliary network takes in information about the agent’s recent behavior, and outputs an assessment of how well the agent is doing according to this longerview loss criteria. Because it’s not possible to directly formulate the test performance of a policy in terms of the loss function that was used to train the policy (which would be necessary for backprop), the weights of this losscalculating network are instead learned via evolutionary strategies. At a zoomedout level of complexity, this means: making small random perturbations to the current parameters of the network, and moving in the direction of the random change that works the best. So, ultimately, you end up with a loss network that takes in recent environmental states and the behavior of the agent, and returns an estimate of the proxy loss value, that has hopefully been trained such that it captures environmental factors that indicate progress on the task, over a wide variety of similar tasks. Then, during testing, the RL agent can use that loss function to adapt its behavior. An interesting note here is that for tasks where the parameters of the task being learned are inferable from the environment  for example, where the goal is “move towards the green dot”, you don’t actually need to give the agent the rewards from a new task; ideally, it will have learned how to infer the task from the environment. One of the examples they use to prove their method has done something useful is train their model entirely on tasks where an antagent’s goal is to move towards various different targets on the right, and then shift it to a scenario where its target is towards the left. In the EPG case, the ant was able to quickly learn to move left, because it’s loss function was able to adapt to the new environment where the target had moved. By contrast, RL^2 (a trained learning algorithm implemented as a recurrent network) kept on moving right as its initial strategy, and seemed unable to learn the specifics of a task outside its original task distribution of “always move right”. I think this paper could benefit from being a little bit more concrete about what it’s expected use cases are (like: what kinds of environments lend themselves to having proxy loss functions inferred from environmental data? Which don’t?), but overall, I find the kernel of idea this model introduces interesting, and will be interested to see if other researchers run with it. 
[link]
Meta learning is an area sparking a lot of research curiosity these days. It’s framed in different ways: models that can adapt, models that learn to learn, models that can learn a new task quickly. This paper uses a somewhat different lens: that of neural plasticity, and argues that applying the concept to modern neural networks will give us an effective, and biologically inspired way of building adaptable models. The basic premise of plasticity from a neurobiology perspective (at least how it was framed in the paper: I’m not a neuroscientist myself, and may be misunderstanding) is that plasticity performs a kind of gating function on the strength of a neural link being upregulated by experience. The most plastic a connection is, the more quickly it can get modified by new data; the less plastic, the more fixed it is. In concrete terms, this is implemented by subdividing the weight on each connection in the network into two parts: the “fixed” component, and the “plastic” component. (see picture). The fixed component acts like a typical weight: it gets modified during training, but stays fixed once training is done. The plastic component is composed of an alpha weight, multiplied by a term H. H is basically a decaying running average of the past input*output activations of this weight. Activations that are high in magnitude, and the same sign, for both the input and the output will lead to H being pushed higher. Note that that this H can continue to be updated even after the model is done training, because it builds up information whenever you pass a new input X through the network. The plastic component’s learned weight, alpha, controls how strong the influence of this is on the model. If alpha is near zero, then the connection behaves basically identically to a “typical” neural network, with weights that don’t change as a function of activation values. If alpha is positive, that means that strong coactivation within H will tend to make the connection weight higher. If alpha is negative, the opposite is true, and strong coactivation will make the connection weight more negative. (As an aside, I’d be really interested to see the distribution over alpha values in a trained model, relative to the weight values, and look at how often they go in the same direction as the weights, and increase magnitude, and how often they have the opposite direction and attenuate the weight towards zero). These models are trained by running them for fixed size “episodes” during which the H value gets iteratively changed, and then the alpha parameters of H get updated in the way that would have reduced error over the episode. One area in which they seem to show strong performance is that of memorization (where the network is shown an image once, and needs to reconstruct it later). The theory for why this is true is that the weights are able to store shortterm information about which pixels are in the images it sees by temporarily boosting themselves higher for inputs and activations they’ve recently seen. There are definitely some intuitional gaps for me in this paper. The core one is: this framework just makes weights able to update themselves as a function of the values of their activations, not as a function of an actual loss function. That is to say: it seems like a potentially better analogy to neural plasticity is just a network that periodically gets more training data, and has some amount of connection plasticity to update as a result of that. 
[link]
DeepMind’s recently released paper (one of a boatload coming out in the wake of ICLR, which just finished in Vancouver) addresses the problem of building an algorithm that can perform well on tasks that don’t just stay fixed in their definition, but instead evolve and change, without giving the agent a chance to retrain in the middle. An example of this, is one used at various points in the paper: of an agent trying to run East, that finds two of its legs (a different two each time) slowly less functional. The theoretical framework they use to approach this problem is that of meta learning. Meta Learning is typically formulated as: how can I learn to do well on a new task, given only a small number of examples of that task? That’s why it’s called “meta”: it’s an extra, higherlevel optimization loop applied around the process of learning. Typical learning learns parameters of some task, meta learning learns longerscale parameters that make the shortscale, typical learning work better. Here, the task that evolves and changes over time (i.e. a nonstationary task) is seen as a close variant of the the multitask problem. And, so, the hope is that a model that can quickly adapt to arbitrary new tasks can also be used to learn the ability to adapt to a gradually changing task environment. The meta learning algorithm that got most directly adapted for this paper is MAML: Model Agnostic Meta Learning. This algorithm works by, for a large number of tasks, initializing the model at some parameter set theta, evaluating the loss for a few examples on that task, and moving the gradients from the initialization theta, to a taskspecific parameter set phi. Then, it calculating the “test set” performance of the onestep phi parameters, on the task. But then  the crucial thing here  the meta learning model updates its initialization parameters, theta. So, the meta learning model is learning a set of parameters that provides a good jumping off point for any given task within the distribution of tasks the model is trained on. In order to do this well, the theta parameters need to both 1) learn any general information, shared across all tasks, and 2) position the parameters such that an initial update step moves the model in the profitable direction. They adapted this idea, of training a model that could quickly update to multiple tasks, to the environment of a slowly/continuously changing environment, where certain parameters of the task the agent is facing. In this formulation, our set of tasks is no longer random draws from the distribution of possible tasks, but a smooth, Markovwalk gradient over tasks. The main change that the authors made to the original MAML algorithm was to say that each general task would start at theta, but then, as that task gradually evolved, it would perform multiple updates: theta to phi1, phi1 to phi2, and so on. The original theta parameters would then be updated according to a similar principle as the MAML parameters: so as to make the loss, summed over the full nonstationary task (notionally composed of many little subtasks) is as low as possible. 
[link]
The problem setting of the paper is the desire to perform translation in a monolingual setting, where datasets exist of each language independently, but little or no paired sentence data (paired here meaning that you know you have the same sentence or text in both languages). The paper outlines the prior methods in this area as being, first, training a singlelanguage language model (i.e. train a model to take in a sentence, and return how coherent of a sentence it is in a given language) and using that to supplement a machine translation system. The authors honestly don’t go into this much, so I can’t tell exactly what they mean by it. The second baseline they talk about is bootstrapping themselves additional training data, by training a model using a small amount of training data, then using that mediocre model to translate additional sentences, which they use as additional training data to train the mediocre model to a higher performance. It doesn’t seem like this should work, but I’ve seen this or similar approaches used in a few cases, and it typically does add benefit. But, the authors claim, they can do better. The core intuition of this paper is pretty simple, and will be familiar to anyone who read my summary of CycleGAN, lo these many weeks ago. Their approach rests on the idea that, even if you can’t push translation models to be objectively correct in a paired sense, you can push translation models to be symmetric with one another, insofar as translating from language A to B (let’s say English to French), and then back from French to English, gets you something in English that looks like your original input. This forces the model to maintain an informative mapping, so that enough information about the English sentence is stored to allow it to be reconstructed.However, unconstrained, the model could just develop a 1:1 word mapping that gives you information about the English input, but doesn’t actually map to the translation in French. If you can additionally confirm that the translation into French looks like a coherent French sentence (which, recall, we can do with a language model trained on French independently), we can get closer to to generating a mapping that is hopefully more coherent. One interesting aspect of this paper is the fact that the model they describe is trained with reinforcement learning. Typically, reinforcement learning is used for scenarios where you don’t have direct visibility into how the actions you take impact your loss function. Compare this to a supervised network (where you can take the derivative of your loss with respect to the last layer, and backpropogate that back through to your inputs), or even a GAN, where you can take the derivative of the discriminatorcreated loss back through the input the discriminator, and through into the GAN that created it. This model treats the translation models that are learned as policies; that is, probability distributions over sets of words. It samples multiple A > B translations using something called beam search, which, as it samples the sequence of words, samples several at each timestep, and then keeps that chain alive by continuing to sample along it. This helps the sequential translation not fall into a pit where it samples one highly probable word, but then, as you add more words, it doesn’t lead towards a good sentence. This ultimately results in taking multiple (k=12, in this case) samples from each translation distribution, and so the model uses as its objective the expected rewards over these samples, where the rewards is constructed as a combination of inlanguage coherence loss (scored by using the log likelihood of a trained singlelanguage model) and reconstruction loss (scored by close the A > B > A’ is to the original A). My confusion about the use of reinforcement loss here mostly comes from the question of whether it just wasn’t possible to build an end to end model, where, like a GAN, you backpropogated through a constructed input, back to the model that constructed it (in this case, through both translator models). Is the issue just that a sequence of words is fundamentally discrete, in a way that images aren’t, and in a way that impedes backprop? That seems possible, but also, I think it’s the case that a typical encoderdecoder model, that outputs softmaxes over words, is able to be backpropogated through. Overall, it’s hard for me to tell if I’m missing something basic about why reinforcement learning is the obvious choice here, or if other more GANlike approaches were an option, but that meme hadn’t spread into the literature yet, and RL was the more historically canonical choice. One other minor disappointing note: it looks like their results are based on a scenario that does use a small number of bilingual training pairs, as a way to pretrain the translation models to a reasonable, nonrandom starting point. It’s not clear whether this method would have worked with an actual cold start, i.e. a translation model that has no idea what it’s doing, and is using only this as signal. That said, they used a much smaller number of bilingual pairs than a true supervised method, and so even with a need for a warm start, a method like this could still give you leverage over language pairs where there exists some paired data, but not enough to build a full, sophisticated model on top of. 
[link]
This paper builds on the paper "Learned in Translation: Contextualized Word Vectors" , which learned contextualized word representations by using the sequence of encodings generated by a Bidirectional LSTM as the representation of the sequence of input words. This paper says “if we're learning a deep LSTM, ie one with more than one layer, why should we use only the last layer that it produces as the representation of the word?”. This paper instead suggests that it could be valuable for transfer learning if each task can learn a weighting of layer encodings that is most valuable for that task. In a prime example of “your model is a special case of my model,” they note that this framework can easily learn the approach of only using the final encoding layer by just only giving that layer a nonzero weight. As intuition for why this might be a valuable thing to do: different layers tend to capture different levels of meaning, with lower layers more likely to capture part of speech information, and higher layers more likely to capture more rich semantic context. https://i.imgur.com/s8Qn6YY.png One difficulty in comparing this paper directly to the “take the top layer encoding from a LSTM” paper is that they were trained on different problems: the top layer paper learned using a machine translation objective, where, by contrast, this one learns by using a much simpler language model. Here, a simple language model means a RNN that is trained to predict the next word, given the hidden state built up over all prior words. Because we want to pull in word context from both directions, this is’t just a LSTM but a bidirectional LSTM, which  surprise surprise  tries to pick the word *before* a word in a sentence by using all of the words that come after it. This has the advantage of not requiring parallel data, the way machine translation does, but also makes it difficult to make direct comparisons to prior work that isolate the effect of multilayer combination, as separate from the switch between machine translation and direct language modeling. Although this is likely also a benefit you see with just toplayer contextual vectors, it is interesting to examine the attached table, and look at how effectively the model is able to learn different representations of the word “play” depending on the context in which it appears; in each case, the nearest neighbor of a context of “play” is a sentence in which the word is used in the same context. 
[link]
This paper is a clever but conceptually simple idea to improve the vectors learned for individual words. In this proposed approach, instead of learning a distinct vector per word in the word, the model instead views a word as being composed of overlapping ngrams, which are combined to make the full word. Recall: in the canonical skipgram approach to learning word embeddings, each word is represented by a single vector. The word might be tokenized first (for example, depluralized), but, fundamentally, there isn’t any way for the network to share information about the meanings of “liberty” and “liberation”; even though a human could see that they share root structure, for a skipgram model, they are two totally distinct concepts that need to be separately learned. The premise of this paper is that this approach leaves valuable information on the table, and that by learning vectors for subcomponents of words, and combining them to represent the whole word, we can more easily identify and capture shared patterns. On a technical level, this is done by:  For each n value in the range selected (typically 36 inclusive), representing each input word as a set of overlapping windows of that n, with special characters for Start and End. For example, if n=3, and the word is “where”, it could be represented as [“<wh”, “whe”, “her”, “ere>”]  In addition to the set of ngrams, additionally representing each word through its fullword representation of “<where>”, to “catch” any leftover meaning not captured in the smaller ngrams.  When you’re calculating loss, representing each word as simply being the sum of all of its component ngrams https://i.imgur.com/NP5qFEV.png This has some interesting consequences. First off, the perplexity of the model, which you can think of as a measure of unsupervised goodness of fit, is equivalent or improved by this approach relative to baselines on all but one model. Intriguingly, and predictably once you think about it, the advantage of the subword approach is much stronger for languages like German, Russian, and Arabic, which have strong reuse and aggregation of root words, and also strong patterns of morphological mutation of words. Additionally, the authors found that the subword model got to its minimum loss value using much less data than the canonical approach. This makes decent sense if you think about the fact that subcomponent reuse means there are fewer meaningful word subcomponents than their are unique words, and seeing a subcomponent used across many words means that you need fewer words to learn the patterns it corresponds to. https://i.imgur.com/EmN167L.png A lot of the benefit of this approach seems to be through better representation of syntax; when tested on an analogy task, embeddings trained with subword information did meaningfully better on syntactic analogies (“swim is to swum as ran is to <>”) but equivalent or worse on semantic analogies (“mother is to girl as father is to <>”). One theory about this is that focusing on the subword elements does a better job of more quickly getting the representation of the word to be close to it’s exact meaning, but has a harder time learning precise semantics, relative to a fullword model. 
[link]
This paper’s approach goes a step further away from the traditional word embedding approach  of training embeddings as the lookuptable first layer of an unsupervised monolingual network  and proposes a more holistic form of transfer learning that involves not just transferring over learned knowledge contained in a set of vectors, but a fully trained model. Transfer learning is the general idea of using part or all of a network trained on one task to perform a different task. The most common kind of transfer learning is in the image domain, where models are first trained on the enormous ImageNet dataset, and then several of the lower layers of the network (where more local, smallpixelrange patterns are detected) are transferred, with their weights fixed in place to a new network. The modeler then attaches a few more layers to the top, connects it to a new target, and then is able to much more quickly learn their new target, because the pretraining has gotten them into a useful region of parameterspace. https://i.imgur.com/wjloHdi.png Within NLP, the most common form of transfer learning is initializing the lookup table of vectors that’s used to convert discrete words in to vectors (also known as an embedding) with embeddings pretrained on huge unsupervised datasets, like GloVe, trained on all of English Wikipedia. Again, this makes your overall task easier to train, because you’ve already converted words from their unuseful binary representation (where the word cat is just as far from Peru as it is from kitten) to a meaningful realvalued representation. The approach suggested in this paper goes beyond simply learning the vector input representation of words. Instead, the authors suggest using as word vectors the sequence of encodings produced by an encoderdecoder bidirectional recurrent model. An encoderdecoder model means that you have one part of the network that maps from input sentence to an “encoded” representation of the sentence, and then another part that maps that encoded representation into the proper tokens in the target language. Historically, this encoding had been a single vector for the whole sentence, which tried to conceptually capture all of the words into one vector. More recently, a different approach has grown popular, where the RNN produces a number of encodings equal to the number of input words. Then, when the decoder is producing words in the target sentence, it uses something called “attention” to select a weighted combination of these encodings at each point in time. Under this scheme, the decoder might pull out information about verbs when its own hidden state suggests it needs a verb, and might pull out information about pronoun referents when its own hidden state asks for that. The upshot of all of this is that you end up with a sequence of encoded vectors equal in length to your number of inputs. Because the RNN is bidirectional, which means the encoding is a concatenation of the forward RNN and backward RNN, that means that each of these encodings captures both information about its corresponding word, and contextual information about the rest of the sentence. The proposal of the authors is to train the encoderdecoder outlined above, and, once it is trained, lop off the decoder, and use the encoded sequence of words as your representation of the input sequence of words. An important note in all this is that recurrent encoderdecoder model was itself trained using a lookup table initialized with learned GloVe vectors, so in a sense they’re not substituting for the unsupervised embeddings so much as learning marginal information on top of them. The authors went on to test this approach on a few problems  question answering, logical entailment, and sentiment classification. They compared their use of the RNN encoded word vectors (which they call Context Vectors, or CoVE) with models initialized just using the fixed GloVE word vectors. One important note here is that, because each word vector is learned fully in context, the same word will have a different vector in each sentence it appears in. That’s why you can’t transfer one single vector per word, but instead have to transfer the recurrent model that can produce the vectors. All in all, the authors found that concatenating CoVe vectors to GloVe vectors, and using the concatenated version as input, produced sizable gains on the problems where it was tried. That said, it’s a pretty heavy lift to integrate someone else’s learned weights into your own model, just in terms of getting all the code to play together nicely. I’m not sure if this is a compelling enough result, a la ImageNet pretraining, for practitioners to want to go to the trouble of tacking a nontraining RNN onto the bottom of all their models. If I ever get a chance, I’d be interested to play with the vectors you get out of this model, and look at how much variance you see in the vectors learned for different words across different sentences. Do you see clusters that correspond to sense disambiguation, (a la state of mind, vs a rogue state)? And, how does this contextual approach to the paper I reviewed yesterday, that also learns embeddings on a machine translation task, but does so in terms of training a lookup table, rather than using trained encodings? All in all, I enjoyed this paper: it was a simple idea, and I’m not sure whether it was a compelling one, but it did leave me with some interesting questions. 
[link]
If you’ve been paying any attention to the world of machine learning in the last five years, you’ve likely seen everyone’s favorite example for how Word2Vec word embeddings work: king  man + woman = queen. Given the ubiquity of Word2Vec, and similar unsupervised embeddings, it can be easy to start thinking of them as the canonical definition of what a word embedding *is*. But that’s a little oversimplified. In the context of machine learning, an embedding layer simply means any layer structured in the form of a lookup table, where there is some predetermined number of discrete objects (for example: a vocabulary of words), each of which corresponds to a ddimensional vector in the lookup table (where d is the number of dimensions you as the model designer arbitrarily chose). These embeddings are initialized in some way, and trained jointly with the rest of the network, using some kind of objective function. Unsupervised, monolingual word embeddings are typically learned by giving a model as input a sample of words that come before and after a given target word in a sentence, and then asking it to predict the target word in the center. Conceptually, if there are words that appear in very similar contexts, they will tend to have similar word vectors. This happens because scores are calculated using the dot product of the target vector with each of the context words, and if two words are to both score highly in that context, the dot product with their commoncontext vectors must be high for both, which pushes them towards similar values. For the last 34 years, unsupervised word vectors like these  which were made widely available for download  became a canonical starting point for NLP problems; this starting representation of words made it easier to learn from smaller datasets, since knowledge about the relationships between words was being transferred from the larger original word embedding training set, through the embeddings themselves. This paper seeks to challenge the unitary dominance of monolingual embeddings, by examining the embeddings learned when the objective is, instead, machine translation, where given a sentence in one language, you must produce it in another. Remember: an embedding is just a lookup table of vectors, and you can use it as the beginning of a machine translation model just as you can the beginning of a monolingual model. In theory, if the embeddings learned by a machine translation model had desirable properties, they could also be widely shared and used for transfer learning, like Word2Vec embeddings often are. When the authors of the paper dive into comparing the embeddings from both of these two approaches, they find some interesting results, such as: while the monolingual embeddings do a better job at analogybased tests, machine translation embeddings do better at having similarity, within their vector space, map to true similarity of concept. Put another way, while monolingual systems push together words that appear in similar contexts (Teacher, Student, Principal), machine translation systems push words together when they map to the same or similar words in the target language (Teacher, Professor). The attached image shows some examples of this effect; the first three columns are all monolingual approaches, the final two are machine translation ones. When it comes to analogies, machine translation embeddings perform less well at semantic analogies (Ottowa is to Canada as Paris is to France) but does better at syntactic analogies (fast is to fastest as heavier is to heaviest). While I don’t totally understand why monolingual would be better at semantic analogies, it does make sense that the machine translation model would do a better job of encoding syntactic information, since such information is necessarily to sensibly structure a sentence. 
[link]
This paper outlines (yet another) variation on a variational autoencoder (VAE), which is, at a high level, a model that seeks to 1) learn to construct realistic samples from the data distribution, and 2) capture meaningful information about the data within its latent space. The “latent space” is a way of referring to the information bottleneck that happens when you compress the input (typically for these examples: an image) into a lowdimensional vector, before trying to predict that input out again using that lowdimensional vector as a seed or conditional input. In a typical VAE, the objective function is composed of two terms: a reconstruction loss that captures how well your Decoder distribution captures the X that was passed in as input, and a regularization loss that pushes the latent z code you create to be close to some input prior distribution. Pushing your learned z codes to be closer to a prior is useful because you can then sample using that prior, and have those draws map to the coheret regions of the space, where you’ve trained in the past. The Implicit Autoencoder proposal changes both elements of this objective function, but since one  the modification of the regularization term  is actually drawn from another (Adversarial Autoencoders), I’m primarily going to be focusing on the changes to the reconstruction term. In a typical variational autoencoder, the model is incentivized to perform an exact reconstruction of the input X, by using the latent code as input. Since this distance is calculated on a pixelwise basis, this puts a lot of pressure on the latent z code to learn ways of encoding this detailed local information, rather than what we’d like it to be capturing, which is broader, global structure of the data. In the IAE approach, instead of incentivizing the input x to be high probability in the distribution conditioned by the z that the encoder embedded off of x, we instead try to match the joint distributions of (x, z) and (reconstructedx, z). This is done by taking these two pairs, and running them through a GAN, which needs to tell which pair represents the reconstructed x, and which the input x. Here, the GAN takes as input a concatenation of z (the embedded code for this image), and n, which is a random vector. Since a GAN is a deterministic mapping, this random vector n is what allows for sampling from this model, rather than just pulling the same output every time. Under this system, the model is under less pressure to recreate the details from the particular image that was input. Instead, it just needs to synchronize the use of z between the encoder and the decoder. To understand why this is true, imagine if you had an MNIST set of 1 and 2s, and a binary number for your z distribution. If you encode a 2, you can do so by setting that binary float to 0. Now, as long as your decoder realizes what the encoder was trying to do, and reconstructs a 2, then the joint distribution will be similar between the encoder and decoder, and our new objective function will be happy. An important fact here is: this doesn’t require that the decoder reconstruct the *exact* 2 that was passed in, as long as it matches, in distribution, the set of images that the encoder is choosing to map to the same z code, the decoder can do well. A consequence of this approach is an ability to modulate how much information you actually want to pull out into your latent vector, and how much you just want to be represented by your random noise vector, which will control randomness in the GAN and, to continue the example above, allow you to draw more than one distinct 2 off of the ‘2” latent code. If you have a limited set of z dimensionality, the they will represent high level concepts (for example: MNIST digits) and the rest of the variability in images will be modeled through the native GAN framework. If you have a high dimensional z, then more and more detaillevel information will get encoded into the z vector, rather than just being left to the noise. 
[link]
These days, a bulk of recent work in Variational AutoEncoders  a type of generative model  focuses on the question of how to add recently designed, powerful decoders (the part that maps from the compressed information bottleneck to the reconstruction) to VAEs, but still cause them to capture high level, conceptual information within the aforementioned information bottleneck (also know as a latent code). In the status quo, it’s the case that the decoder can do well enough even without conditioning on conceptual variables stored in the latent codes, that it’s not worth storing information there. The reason why VAEs typically make it costly to store information in latent codes is the typical inclusion of a term that measures the KL divergence (distributional distance, more or less) between an uninformative unit Gaussian (the prior) and distribution of latent z codes produced for each individual input x (the posterior). Intuitively, if the distribution for each input x just maps to the prior, then that gives the decoder no information about what x was initially passed in: this means the encoder has learned to ignore the latent code. The question of why this penalty term is included in the VAE has two answers, depending on whether you’re asking from a theoretical or practical standpoint. Theoretically, it’s because the original VAE objective function could be interpreted as a lower bound on the true p(x) distribution. Practically, pulling the individual distributions closer to that prior often has a regularizing effect, that causes z codes for individual files to be closer together, and also for closeness in z space to translate more to closeness in recreation concept. That happens because the encoder is disincentivized from making each individual z distribution that far from a prior. The upshot of this is that there’s a lot of overlap between the distributions learned for various input x values, and so it’s in the model’s interest to make the reconstruction of those nearby elements similar as well. The argument of this paper starts from the compression cost side. If you look at the KL divergence term with the prior from an information theory, you can see it as the “cost of encoding your posterior, using a codebook developed from your prior”. This is a bit of an opaque framing, but the right mental image is the morse code tree, the way that the most common character in the English language corresponds to the shortest morse symbol, and so on. This tree was optimized to make messages as short as possible, and was done so by mapping common letters to short symbols. But, if you were to encode a message in, say, Russian, you’d no longer be well optimized for the letter distribution in Russian, and your messages would generally be longer. So, in the typical VAE setting, we’re imagining a receiver who has no idea what message he’ll be sent yes, and so uses the global prior to inform their codebook. By contrast, the authors suggest a world in which we meaningfully order the entries sent to the receiver in terms of similarity. Then, if you use the heuristic “each message provides a good prior for the next message I’ll receive, you incur a lot less coding cost than, because the “prior” is designed to be a good distribution to use to encode this sample, which will hopefully be quite similar to the next one. On a practical level, this translates to: 1. Encoding a z distribution 2. Choosing one of that z code’s K closest neighbors 3. Putting that as input into a “prior network” that takes in the randomly chosen nearby c, and spits out distributional parameters for another distribution over zs, which we’ll call the “prior”. Intuitively, a lot of the trouble with the constraint that all z encodings be close to the same global prior is that that was just too restrictive. This paper tries to impose a local prior instead, that’s basically enforcing local smoothness, by pulling the z value closer to others already nearby it,but without forcing everything to look like a global prior. 
[link]
Variational Autoencoders are a type of generative model that seek to learn how to generate new data by incentivizing the model to be able to reconstruct input data, after compressing it to a lowdimensional space. Typically, the way that the reconstruction is scored against the original is by comparing the pixel by pixel values: a reconstruction gets a high score if it is able to place pixels of color in the same places that the original did. However, there are compelling reasons why this is a subpar way of scoring images. The central one is: it focuses on and penalizes superficial differences, so if the model accurately reproduces the focal object of the image, but does so, say, 10 pixels to the right of where it was previously, that will incur a penalty we might not actually want to apply. The flip side of this is that a direct pixelcomparison loss doesn’t differentiate between pixel differences that do or don’t change the fundamental substance of the image. For instance, having 100 pixels wrong around the border of a dog, making it seem very slightly larger, would be the same amount of error as having 100 pixels concentrated in a weird bulb that appears to be growing out of a dog’s ear, even though the former does a better job of being recognizable as a dog. The authors of the VAE/GAN paper have a clever approach to solving this problem, that involves taking the typical pixel loss, and breaking it up into two conceptual parts. The first focuses on aligning the conceptual features of the reconstructed image with the conceptual features of the input image. It does so by running both the input and the reconstruction through a discriminative convolutional model which  in the typical way of deep learning  learns ever more abstract features at each layer of the network. These “conceptual features” abstract out the precise pixel values, and instead capture the higher level features of the image. So, instead of calculating the pixelwise squared loss between the specific input x, and its afterbottleneck reconstruction x~, you take the squared loss between the feature maps at some layer for both x and x~, and push them to be closer together, so that the reconstruction shares the same features as the original. The second focuses on detaillevel specifics of images, but, cleverly, does so in a general, rather than a observationspecific way. This is done by training a GANstyle discriminator to tell the difference between generated images* and original image, and then using that loss to train the decoder part of the VAE. The cleverness of this comes from the fact that they are still enforcing that the details and structural features of the reconstructed image are not distinguishable from real images, but doing so in a general sense, rather than requiring the details to be an exact match to the details found in a given input x. https://i.imgur.com/Bmtmac2.png The authors freely admit that existing metrics of scoring images (which themselves *use* pixelwise similarity) rate their method as being worse than existing VAEs. However, they argue, that’s inherently a flawed metric, that doesn’t capture the aspects of clean visual quality we want in generated image. A metric they propose instead involves using an dataset where a list of attributes are attached to each image (old, black, blond, etc). They add these as additional input while training the network, so that whatever signals the decoder part of the model needs to turn someone blonde, it gets those from the externallygiven attribute vector, rather than a learned representation. This means that, once the model is trained, we can set some value of the attribute vector, and have the decoder generate samples conditional on that. The metric is constructed by taking the decoded samples conditioned on some attribute set, and then taking a classifier model that is trained on the real images to detect attribute values from the images. The generated images are then scored by how closely the predictions from the classifier model match the true values of the attributes. If the generator model were working perfectly, this error rate would as low as for real data. By this metric (which: grain of salt, since they invented), the VAE/GAN model is superior to both GANs and vanilla VAEs. 
[link]
There are mathematicians, still today, who look at deep learning, and get real salty over the lack of convex optimization. That is to say: convex functions are ones where you have an actual guarantees that gradient descent will converge, and mathematicians of olden times (i.e. 2006) spent reams of paper arguing that this or that function had convex properties, and thus could be guaranteed to converge, under this or that set of arcane conditions. And then, Deep Learning came along, with its huge, nonlinear, very much nonconvex objective functions, that it was nonetheless trying to optimize via gradient descent. From the perspective of an optimization theorist, this had the whiff of heresy, but exceptionally effective heresy. And, so, the field of DL has halfexploded, halfstumbled along, showcasing a portfolio of very impressive achievements, but with theory very much a secondary priority relative to performance. Something else that gradient descent isn’t supposed to be able to do is learn models that include discrete (i.e. noncontinuous) operators. Without continuous gradients, the functions don’t have an obvious way to “push” in a certain direction, to modulate the loss at the end of the network. Discrete nodes mean that the value just jumps from being in one state, to being in the other, with no intermediate values. This has historically posed a problem for algorithms fueled by gradient descent. The authors of this paper came up with a solution that is 60% cleverness, and 40% just guessing that “even if we ignore the theory, things will probably work well enough”. But, first, their overall goal: to create a Variational Auto Encoder where the latent states, the compressed internal representation that is typically an array of continuous values, is instead an array of categorical values. The goal of this was 1) to have a representation type that was a better match for the discrete nature of data types like speech (which has distinct phonemes we might like to discretely capture), and, 2) to have a more compressed latent space that would (of necessity) focus on more global information, and leave local pixellevel information to be learned by the expressive PixelCNN decoder. The way they do this is remarkably simple. First, they learn a typical VAE encoder, mapping from the input pixels to a continuous z space. (An interesting sidenote here is that this paper uses spatially organized z; instead of using one single z vector to represent the whole image, they may have 32x32 spatial locations, each of which has its own z vector, to represent at 128x128 image). Then, for each of the spatial regions, they take the continuous vector produced by the network, and compare it to a fixed set of “embedding” vectors, of the same shape. That spatial location is then lumped into the category of the embedding that it’s closest to, meaning that you end up with a compressed layer of 32x32 (in this case) spatial regions, each of which is represented by a categorical number between 0 and maxnumcategories. Then, the network passes forward the embedding that this input vector was just “snapped” to being, Then, the decoder uses the full spatial location set of embeddings to do its decoding. https://i.imgur.com/P8LQRYJ.png The clever thing here comes when you ask how to train the encoder to produce a different embedding, when there was this discrete “jump” that happened. The authors choose to just avoid the problem, more or less. They do that by just taking the gradient signals that come back from the end of the network to the embedding, and just pass those directly to the vector that was used to nearestneighborslookup the embedding. Basically, they pretend that they passed the vector through the rest of the network, rather than the embedding. The embeddings are then trained in a K Means Clustering kind of way; with the embeddings being iteratively updated to be closer to the points that were assigned to their embedding in each round of training. This is the “Vector Quantization” part of VQVAE Overall, this seems to perform quite well: with the low capacity of the latente space meaning that it is incentivized to handle more global structure, while leaving low level pixel details to the decoder. It is also much easier to fit afterthefact distributions over; once we’ve trained a VQVAE, we can easily learn a global model that represents the location by location dependencies between the categories (i.e. a 1 in this corner means at 5 in this other corner is more probable). This gives us the ability to have an analytically specified distribution, in latent space, that actually represents the structure of how these “concept level categories” relate to each other. By contrast, with most continuous latent spaces, it’s intractable to learn an explicit density function after the fact, and thus if we want to be able to sample we need to specify and enforce a prior distribution over z ahead of time. 
[link]
I’ve spent the last few days pretty deep in the weeds of GAN theory  with all its attendant samplesquinting and arcane training diagnosis  and so today I’m shifting gears to an applied paper, that mostly showcases some clever modifications of an underlying technique. The goal of the MusicVAE is as you might expect: to make music. But the goal isn’t just the ability to produce patterns of notes that sound musical, it’s the ability to learn a vector space where we can modify the values along each dimension, and cause the music we produce to vary along conceptually meaningful directions. In an ideal world, we might learn a dimension that corresponds to tempo, another that corresponds to the key we’re in, etc. To achieve this goal, the modelers use the structure of a Variational AutoEncoder, a model where we pass in the input, compress it down to some latent code (read: a lowdimensional vector of continuous values), and then, starting from that latent code, use a decoder to try to recreate (or “reconstruct”) the output. Think of this as describing a scene to a friend behind their back, and trying to describe it in a maximally informative way, so that they can draw it themselves, and get as close as possible to the original. Ideally, this set of constraints incentives you to learn an informative code, which will contain the kind of conceptually meaningful information that we want it to. One problem this can run into is that, given certain mathematical facts about the structure of autoencoders, if you use a decoder with a lot of capacity, like a RNN, the model can “decide” to use the RNN to model the data directly, storing all that conceptual information we’d like to have pulled out in the latent code in the parameters of the RNN instead. And, so, to solve this, the authors of the paper came up with a clever solution: instead of generating the full piece of music at once, they would instead build a hierarchical model, with a “conductor” layer that prescribes what a mediumsized chunk of the reconstructed piece will sound like, and a lower level “decoder” layer that takes the conductor’s direction for that chunk, and unspools it into a series of notes. On a more mechanical level, when the encoder spits out a latent code for a given piece of music, we pass that to the conductor. The conductor then produces  say  10 embeddings, with each embedding corresponding to a set of 4 measures. Each decoder only sees the embedding for its chunk, and is only responsible for mapping that embedding into a series of concrete notes. This inability of each decoder to see what the decoders before and after it are doing means that, in order for the piece to sound coherent, the network needs to learn to develop a condensed set of instructions to give to the conductor. https://i.imgur.com/PQKoraX.png In practice, they come up with some really neat results: the example they show on the linked page demonstrates a learned conceptdimension that maps to “how much is this piece composed of long, held notes, vs short staccato ones”. They show that they can “interpolate” across this dimension (that is: slowly change its value) and see that the output slowly morphs from very long held notes, to a high density of different ones. 
[link]
Despite their difficulties in training, Generative Adversarial Networks are still one of the most exciting recent ideas in machine learning; a way to generate data without the fuzziness and averaging of earlier methods. However, up until recently, there had been major way in which the GAN’s primary competitor in the field, the Variational Autoencoder, was superior: it could do inference. Intuitively, inference is the inverse of generation. Whereas generation works by taking some source of randomness  a random vector, the setting of some latent code  and transforming that recipe into an observation, an inference process tries to work in reverse, taking in the observation as input and trying to guess what “recipe” was used to generate it. (As a note: in real world data, it’s generally not the case that there were explicit numerical factors used to generate data; this framing is a simplified model meant to represent the way a small set of latent settings of an object jointly cause a lot of that object’s feature values). The authors of this paper proposed the BiGAN to fix that deficiency in GAN literature. https://i.imgur.com/vZZzWH5.png The BiGAN  short for Bidirectional GAN  works by having two generators, not one. One generator works in the typical fashion of a GAN: taking in a random vector z, and transforming that into G(z) = x. The second generator works in reverse, taking in as input data from the underlying dataset, and transforming it into a code z, E(x) = z. Once these generators are in place, the discriminators work, not by trying to differentiate the x and z values separately, but all together. That works by giving the discriminator a pair, (x, z), and asking the discriminator to decide whether that pair came from the z > x decoder, or the x > z encoder. If this model fully converges, it becomes the case that G(z) and E(x) are inverse transformations, giving us a way to take in a new input x, and infer its underlying factors z. This is valuable because it’s been shown that, in typical GANs, changes in z often correspond to latent values we care about, and it would be useful to be able to generate z from x for purposes of representation learning. The authors offer quite a nice intuitive proof for why the model learns this inverse mapping. For each pair of (x, z), it’s either the case that E(x) = z (if the pair came from the encoder), or that G(z) = x (if the pair came from the decoder). But if only one of those is the case, then it’s easy for the discriminator to tell which generation process produced the pair. So, in order to fool the discriminator, G(z) and E(x) need to synchronize their decoding and encoding processes. The authors also tried a method where, instead of having this bidirectional GAN structure, they instead simply built a network on top of the generated samples, that tries to predict the original z used, taking the generated x as input. They show that this performs less well on subjective quality measures of the learned representation, which they attribute to the fact that GANs notoriously only learn some modes of the data, and thus a x > z encoder that only takes the generated z as input will not have good coverage over the full distribution of x. 
[link]
Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) are an exciting technique, a kernel of an effective concept that has been shown to be able to overcome many of the problems of previous generative models: particularly the fuzziness of VAEs. But, as I’ve mentioned before, and as you’ve doubtless read if you’re read any material about the topic, they’re finicky things, difficult to train in a stable way, and particularly difficult to not devolve into mode collapse. Mode collapse is a phenomenon where, at each iteration, the generator places all of its mass on one single output or dense cluster of outputs, instead of representing the full distribution of output space, they way we’d like it to. One proposed solution to this is the one I discussed yesterday, of explicitly optimizing the generator according to not only what the discriminator thinks about its current allocation of probability, but what the discriminator’s next move will be (thus incentivizing the generator not to take indefensible strategies like “put all your mass in one location the discriminator can push down next round”. An orthogonal approach to that one is the one described in LSGANs: to change the objective function of the network, away from sigmoid crossentropy, and instead to a least squares loss. While I don’t have the latex capabilities to walk through the exact mathematics in this format, what this means on a conceptual level is that instead of incentivizing the generator to put all of its mass on places that the discriminator is sure is a “true data” region, we’re instead incentivizing the generator to put mass right on the true/fake data decision boundary. Likely this doesn’t make very much sense yet (it didn’t for me, at this point in reading). Occasionally, delving deeper into math and theory behind an idea provides you rigor, but without much intuition. I found the opposite to be true in this case, where learning more (for the first time!) about f divergences actually made this method make more sense. So, bear with me, and hopefully trust me not to take you to deep into the weeds without a good reason. On a theoretical level, this paper’s loss function means that you end up minimizing a chi squared divergence between the distributions, instead of a KL divergence. "F divergences" are a quantity that calculates a measure of how different two distributions are from one another, and does that by taking an average of the density q, weighted at each point by f, which is some function of the ratio of densities, p/q. (You could also think of this as being an average of the function f, weighted by the density q; they’re equivalent statements). For the KL divergence, this function is x*logx. For chi squared it’s (x1)^2. All of this starts to coalesce into meaning with the information that, typically the behavior of a typical GAN looks like the divergence FROM the generator’s probability mass, TO the discriminator’s probability mass. That means that we take the ratio of how much mass a generator puts somewhere to how much mass the data has there, and we plug it into the x*logx function seen below. https://i.imgur.com/BYRfi0u.png Now, look how much the function value spikes when that ratio goes over 1. Intuitively, what this means is that we heavily punish the generator when it puts mass in a place that’s unrealistic, i.e. where there isn’t representation from the data distribution. But  and this is the important thing  we don’t symmetrically punish it when it its mass at a point is far higher than the mass put their in the real data; or when the ratio is much smaller than one. This means that we don’t have a way of punishing mode collapse, the scenario where the generator puts all of its mass on one of the modes of the data; we don’t do a good job of pushing the generator to have mass everywhere that the data has mass. By contrast, the Chi Squared divergence pushes the ratio of (generator/data) to be equal to 1 *from both directions*. So, if there’s more generator mass than data mass somewhere, that’s bad, but it’s also bad for there to be more data mass than generator mass. This gives the network a stronger incentive to not learn mode collapsed solutions. 
[link]
If you’ve ever read a paper on Generative Adversarial Networks (from now on: GANs), you’ve almost certainly heard the author refer to the scourge upon the land of GANs that is mode collapse. When a generator succumbs to mode collapse, that means that, instead of modeling the full distribution, of input data, it will choose one region where there is a high density of data, and put all of its generated probability weight there. Then, on the next round, the discriminator pushes strongly away from that region (since it now is majorityoccupied by fake data), and the generator finds a new mode. In the view of the authors of the Unrolled GANs paper, one reason why this happens is that, in the typical GAN, at each round the generator implicitly assumes that it’s optimizing itself against the final and optimal discriminator. And, so, it makes its best move given that assumption, which is to put all its mass on a region the discriminator assigns high probability. Unfortunately for our shortsighted robot friend, this isn’t a oneround game, and this massconcentrating strategy gives the discriminator a really good way to find fake data during the next round: just dramatically downweight how likely you think data is in the generator’s priorround sweet spot, which it’s heavy concentration allows you to do without impacting your assessment of other data. Unrolled GANs operate on this key question: what if we could give the generator an ability to be less shortsighted, and make moves that aren’t just optimizing for the present, but are also defensive against the future, in ways that will hopefully tamp down on this runningaroundincircles dynamic illustrated above. If the generator was incentivized not only to make moves that fool the current discriminator, but also make moves that make the nextstep discriminator less likely to tell it apart, the hope is that it will spread out its mass more, and be less likely to fall into the hole of a mode collapse. This intuition was realized in UnrolledGANs, through a mathematical approach that is admittedly a little complex for this discussion format. Essentially, in addition to the typical GAN loss (which is based on the current values of the generator and discriminator), this model also takes one “step forward” of the discriminator (calculates what the new parameters of the discriminator would be, if it took one update step), and backpropogates backward through that step. The loss under the nextstep discriminator parameters is a function of both the current generator, and the nextstep parameters, which come from the way the discriminator reacts to the current generator. When you take the gradient with respect to the generator of both of these things, you get something very like the ideal we described earlier: a generator that is trying to put its mass into areas the current discriminator sees as highprobability, but also change its parameters such that it gives the discriminator a less effective response strategy. https://i.imgur.com/0eEjm0g.png Empirically: UnrolledGANs do a quite good job at their stated aim of reducing mode collapse, and the unrolled training procedure is now a common buildingblock technique used in other papers. 
[link]
Over the last five years, artificial creative generation powered by ML has blossomed. We can now imagine buildings based off of a sketch, peer into the dogtiled “dreams” of a convolutional net, and, as of 2017, turn images of horses into ones of zebras. This last problem  typically termed imagetoimage translation is the one that CycleGAN focuses on. The kinds of transformations that can full under this category is pretty conceptually broad: zebras to horses, summer scenes to winter ones, images to Monet paintings. (Note: I switch between using horse/zebra as my explanatory example, and using summer/winter. Both have advantages for explaining different conceptual poinfts) However, the idea is the same: you start with image a, which belongs to set A, and you want to generate a mapping of that image into set B, where the only salient change is that it’s now in set B. As a clarifying example: if you started out with a horse, and your goal was to translate it into a zebra, you would hope that the animal is in the same size, relative position, and pose, and that the only element that changed was changing the quality of “horseness” for the quality of “zebraness”. https://i.imgur.com/NCExS7A.png The real trick of CycleGAN is the fact that, unlike prior attempts to solve this problem, they didn’t use paired data. This is understandable, given the prior example: while it’s possible to take a picture of a scene in both summer and winter, you obviously can’t convert a horse into a zebra so that you can take a “paired” picture of it in both forms. When you have paired data, this is a reasonably welldefined problem: you want to learn some mathematical transformation to turn a specific summer image into a specific winter one, and you can use the ground truth winter image as explicit supervision. Since they lack this perimage crossdomain ground truth, the authors of this paper take what would be one question (“is the winter version of this image that the network generated close to the actual known winter version of this image”) and decompose it into two: Does the winter version of this original summer image looks like it belongs to the set of winter images? This is enforced by a GANstyle discriminator, which takes in outputs of the summer>winter generator, and true images of winter, and tries to tell them apart. This loss component pushes generated winter images to have the quality of “winterness”. This is the “Adversarial Loss” Does the winter version of this image contain enough information about this specific original summer image to accurately reconstruct it with an inverted (winter > summer) generator? This constraint pushes the generator to actually translate aspects of this specific image between summer and winter. Without it, as the authors of the paper showed, the model has no incentive to actually do translation, and instead just generates winter images that have nothing to do with the summer image (and, frequently experience mode collapse: only generating a single winter image over and over again). This is termed the “Cycle Consistency Loss” It’s actually the case that there are two versions of both of the above networks; that’s what puts the “cycle” in CycleGAN. In addition to a loss ensuring you can map summer > winter > summer, there’s another one ensuring the other direction, winter > summer > winter holds as well. And, for both of those directions, we use the adversarial loss on the middle “translated” image, and a cycle consistency loss on the last “reconstructed” image. A key point here is that, because of the inherent structure of this loss function requires mapping networks going in both directions, training a winter>summer generator gets you a summer> winter one for free. (Note: this is a totally different model architecture than most of the “style transfer” applications you likely previously seen, though when applied to photograph > painting translation, it can have similar results) 