#### Very Brief Summary:

This paper combines stochastic variational inference with memory-augmented recurrent neural networks. The authors test 4 variants of their models against the Variational Recurrent Neural Network on 7 artificial tasks requiring long term memory. The reported log-likelihood lower bound is not obviously improved by the new models on all tasks but is slightly better on tasks requiring high capacity memory.

#### Slightly Less Brief Summary:

The authors propose a general class of generative models for time-series data with both deterministic and stochastic latents. The deterministic latents, $h_t$, evolve as a recurrent net with augmented memory and the stochastic latents, $z_t$ are gaussians whose mean and variance are a deterministic function of $h_t$. The observations at each time-step $x_t$ are also gaussians whose mean and variance are parametrised by a function of $h_{<t}, x_{<t}$.

#### Generative Temporal Models without Augmented Memory:

The family of generative temporal models is fairly broad and includes kalman filters, non-linear dynamical systems, hidden-markov models and switching state-space models. More recent non-linear models such as the variational RNN are most similar to the new models in this paper. In general all of the mentioned temporal models can be written as: 


$P_\theta(x_{\leq T}, z_{\leq T} ) = \prod_t P_\theta(x_t | f_x(z_{\leq t}, x_{\leq t}))P_\theta(z_t | f_z(z_{\leq t}, x_{\leq t}))$

The differences between models then come from the the exact forms of  $f_x$ and $f_z$ with most models making strong conditional independence assumptions and/or having linear dependence. For example in a Gaussian State Space model both $f_x$ and $f_z$ are linear, the latents form a first order Markov chain and the observations $x_t$ are conditionally independent of everything given $z_t$.

In the Variational Recurrent Neural Net (VRNN) an additional deterministic latent variable $h_t$ is introduced and at each time-step $x_t$ is the output of a VAE whose prior $z_t$ is conditioned on $h_t$. $h_t$ evolves as an RNN.

#### Types of Model with Augmented Memory:

This paper follows the same strategy as the VRNN but adds more structure to the underlying recurrent neural net. The authors motivate this by saying that the VRNN "scales poorly when higher capacity storage is required".

* "Introspective" Model: In the first augmented memory model, the deterministic latent M_t is simply a concatenation of the last $L$ latent stochastic variables $z_t$. A soft method of attention over the latent memory is used to generate a "memory context" vector at each time step. The observed output $x_t$ is a gaussian with mean and variance parameterised by the "memory context' and the stochastic latent $z_t$. Because this model does not learn to write to memory it is faster to train.

* In the later models the memory read and write operations are the same as those in the neural turing machine or differentiable neural computer.

#### My Two Cents:

In some senses this paper feels fairly inevitable since VAE's have already been married with RNNs and so it's a small leap to add augmented memory.

The actual read write operations introduced in the "introspective" model feel a little hacky and unprincipled.

The actual images generated are quite impressive.

I'd like to see how these kind of models do on language generation tasks and wether they can be adapted for question answering.

It's not clear to me how predicting the variance with a neural network is a robust estimator of uncertainty. We all know the adversarial examples where we can simply fool a neural network with an example that is a little off. By a same argument, we could make adversarial examples to _fool_ the uncertainty estimator. I would like to see more work on this

TLDR; The authors present Residual Nets, which achieve 3.57% error on the ImageNet test set and won the 1st place on the ILSVRC 2015 challenge. ResNets work by introducing "shortcut" connections across stacks of layers, allowing the optimizer to learn an easier residual function instead of the original mapping. This allows for efficient training of very deep nets without the introduction of additional parameters or training complexity. The authors present results on ImageNet and CIFAR-100 with nets as deep as 152 layers (and one ~1000 layer deep net).


#### Key Points

- Problem: Deeper networks experience a *degradation* problem. They don't overfit but nonetheless perform worse than shallower networks on both training and test data due to being more difficult to optimize. 
- Because Deep Nets can in theory learn an identity mapping for their additional layers they should strict outperform shallower nets. In practice however, optimizers have problems learning identity (or near-identity) mappings. Learning residual mappings is easier, mitigating this problem.
- Residual Mapping: If the desired mapping is H(x), let the layers learn F(x) = H(x) - x and add x back through a shortcut connection H(x) = F(x) + x. An identity mapping can then be learned easily by driving the learned mapping F(x) to 0.
- No additional parameters or computational complexity are introduced by residuals nets.
- Similar to Highway Networks, but gates are not data-dependent (no extra parameters) and are always open.
- Due the the nature of the residual formula, input and output must be of same size (just like Highway Networks). We can do size transformation by zero-padding or projections. Projections introduce additional parameters. Authors found that projections perform slightly better, but are "not worth" the large number of extra parameters.
- 18 and 34-layer VGG-like plain net gets 27.94 and 28.54 error respectively, not that higher error for deeper net. ResNet gets 27.88 and 25.03 respectively. Error greatly reduces for deeper net.
- Use Bottleneck architecture with 1x1 convolutions to change dimensions.
- Single ResNet outperforms previous start of the art ensembles. ResNet ensemble even better.


#### Notes/Questions

- Love the simplicity of this.
- I wonder how performance depends on the number of layers skipped by the shortcut connections. The authors only present results with 2 or 3 layers.
- "Stacked" or recursive residuals?
- In principle Highway Networks should be able to learn the same mappings quite easily. Is this an optimization problem? Do we just not have enough data. What if we made the gates less fine-grained and substituted sigmoid with something else?
- Can we apply this to RNNs, similar to LSTM/GRU? Seems good for learning long-range dependencies.

This paper presents a feed-forward neural network architecture for processing graphs as inputs, inspired from previous work on Graph Neural Networks.

In brief, the architecture of the GG-NN corresponds to $T$ steps of GRU-like (gated recurrent units) updates, where T is a hyper-parameter. At each step, a vector representation is computed for all nodes in the graph, where a node's representation at step t is computed from the representation of nodes at step $t-1$. Specifically, the representation of a node will be updated based on the representation of its neighbors in the graph. Incoming and outgoing edges in the graph are treated differently by the neural network, by using different parameter matrices for each. Moreover, if edges have labels, separate parameters can be learned for the different types of edges (meaning that edge labels determine the configuration of parameter sharing in the model). Finally, GG-NNs can incorporate node-level attributes, by using them in the initialization (time step 0) of the nodes' representations.

GG-NNs can be used to perform a variety of tasks on graphs. The per-node representations can be used to make per-node predictions by feeding them to a neural network (shared across nodes). A graph-level predictor can also be obtained using a soft attention architecture, where per-node outputs are used as scores into a softmax in order to pool the representations across the graph, and feed this graph-level representation to a neural network. The attention mechanism can be conditioned on a "question" (e.g. on a task to predict the shortest path in a graph, the question would be the identity of the beginning and end nodes of the path to find), which is fed to the node scorer of the soft attention mechanism. Moreover, the authors describe how to chain GG-NNs to go beyond predicting individual labels and predict sequences.

Experiments on several datasets are presented. These include tasks where a single output is required (on a few bAbI tasks) as well as tasks where a sequential output is required, such as outputting the shortest path or the Eulerian circuit of a graph. Moreover, experiments on a much more complex and interesting program verification task are presented.

Sinha et al. introduce a variant of adversarial training based on distributional robust optimization. I strongly recommend reading the paper for understanding the introduced theoretical framework. The authors also provide guarantees on the obtained adversarial loss – and show experimentally that this guarantee is a realistic indicator. The adversarial training variant itself follows the general strategy of training on adversarially perturbed training samples in a min-max framework. In each iteration, an attacker crafts an adversarial examples which the network is trained on. In a nutshell, their approach differs from previous ones (apart from the theoretical framework) in the used attacker. Specifically, their attacker optimizes

$\arg\max_z l(\theta, z) - \gamma \|z – z^t\|_p^2$

where $z^t$ is a training sample chosen randomly during training.

On a side note, I also recommend reading the reviews of this paper: https://openreview.net/forum?id=Hk6kPgZA-

Also view this summary at [davidstutz.de](https://davidstutz.de/category/reading/).