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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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



#### Paper Contribution 

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

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



### Still a draft

This paper presents a linear algebraic trick for computing both the value and the gradient update for a loss function that compares a very high-dimensional target with a (dense) output prediction. Most of the paper exposes the specific case of the squared error loss, though it can also be applied to some other losses such as the so-called spherical softmax. One use case could be for training autoencoders with the squared error on very high-dimensional but sparse inputs. While a naive (i.e. what most people currently do) implementation would scale in $O(Dd)$ where $D$ is the input dimensionality and d the hidden layer dimensionality, they show that their trick allows to scale in $O(d^2)$. 

Their experiments show that they can achieve speedup factors of over 500 on the CPU, and over 1500 on the GPU. 

#### My two cents

This is a really neat, and frankly really surprising, mathematical contribution. I did not suspect getting rid of the dependence on D in the complexity would actually be achievable, even for the "simpler" case of the squared error. 

The jury is still out as to whether we can leverage the full power of this trick in practice. Indeed, the squared error over sparse targets isn't the most natural choice in most situations. The authors did try to use this trick in the context of a version of the neural network language model that uses the squared error instead of the negative log-softmax (or at least I think that's what was done... I couldn't confirm this with 100% confidence). They showed that good measures of word similarity (Simlex-999) could be achieved in this way, though using the hierarchical softmax actually achieves better performance in about the same time. 

But as far as I'm concerned, that doesn't make the trick less impressive. It's still a neat piece of new knowledge to have about reconstruction errors. Also, the authors mention that it would be possible to adapt the trick to the so-called (negative log) spherical softmax, which is like the softmax but where the numerator is the square of the pre-activation, instead of the exponential. I hope someone tries this out in the future, as perhaps it could be key to making this trick a real game changer!

Modelling a distributed system as a replicated state machine provides the illusion that the distributed system is really just a single machine. At the core of the replicated state machine approach is a replicated log that is kept consistent by a consensus algorithm. Traditionally, consensus has been synonymous with Paxos. Paxos is taught in schools, and most consensus algorithm implementations are based on Paxos. However, Paxos has two main disadvantages:

1. It is hard to understand. Single-decree Paxos is nuanced, and composing single-decree Paxos into multi-Paxos is confusing.
2. It is hard to implement efficiently. Multi-Paxos is not very well described in the literature, and the algorithm is difficult to implement efficiently without modification.

This paper presents the Raft consensus algorithm. Raft provides the same performance and safety as multi-Paxos but it is designed to be much easier to understand.

Basics. Every node in a raft cluster is in one of three states: leader, follower, or candidate. The leader receives requests from users and forwards them to followers. Followers are completely passive and receive messages from leaders. Candidates perform leader elections in an attempt to become a leader. In normal operation, there is a single leader, and every other node is a follower.

Raft proceeds in a series of increasingly numbered terms. Each term consists of a leader election followed by (potentially) normal operation. There is exactly one leader elected per term. Moreover, each node participates in monotonically increasing terms. When a node sends a message in Raft, it annotates it with its term. If a leader receives a message from a later term, it immediately becomes a follower. Nodes ignore messages annotated with older terms.

Raft uses two RPCs: RequestVote (for leader election) and AppendEntries (for replication and heartbeats).

Leader Election. Leaders periodically send heartbeats (AppendEntries RPCs without any entries) to followers. As long as a follower continues to receive heartbeats, it continues to be a follower. If a follower does not receive a heartbeat after a certain amount of time, it begins leader election: it increments its term, enters the candidate state, votes for itself, and sends RequestVote RPCs in parallel to all other nodes. Either,

1. It wins. Nodes issue a single vote per term on a first come first serve basis. If a candidate receives a vote from a majority of the nodes, then it becomes leader.
2. It hears from another leader. If a candidate receives a message from another leader in a term at least as large as it, it becomes a follower.
3. It times out. It's possible that a split vote occurs and nobody becomes leader in a particular term. If this happens, the candidate times out after a certain amount of time and begins another election in the next term.

Log Replication. During normal operation, a leader receives a request from a client, appends it to its log annotated with the current term, and issues AppendEntries to all nodes in parallel. An entry is considered committed after it is replicated to a majority of the nodes. Once a log entry is committed, all previous log entries are also committed. Once a log entry is committed, the leader can apply it and respond to the user. Moreover, once an entry is committed, it is guaranteed to eventually execute at all available nodes. The leader keeps track of the index of the largest committed entry and sends it to all other nodes so that they can also apply log entries.

Raft satisfies a powerful log matching invariant:

1. "If two entries in different logs have the same index and term, then they store the same command."
2. "If two entries in different logs have the same index and term, then the logs are identical in all preceding entries."

1 is ensured by the fact that a single leader is elected for any given term, the fact that a leader only creates a single log entry per index, and the fact that once a log entry is created, it never changes index. 2 is ensured by a runtime check. When a leader sends an AppendEntries RPC for a particular index, it also sends its log entry for the previous index. The follower only applies the AppendEntries RPC if it agrees on the previous index. Inductively, this guarantees 2.

Followers may have missing or extraneous log entries. When this happens, the leader identifies the longest prefix on which the two agree. It then sends the rest of its log. The follower overwrites its log to match the leader.

Safety. The protocol described so far is unsafe. If a new leader is elected, it can accidentally force followers to overwrite committed values with uncommitted values. Thus, we must ensure that leaders contain all committed entries. Other consensus algorithms ensure this by shipping committed values to newly elected leaders. Raft takes an alternative approach and guarantees that if a leader is elected, it has every committed entry. To ensure this, Raft must restrict which nodes can be elected.

A follower rejects a RequestVote RPC if the requesting candidate's log is not as up-to-date as its log. One log is as up-to-date as another if its last entry has a higher term or has the same term but is longer.

Since a candidate must receive a majority of votes and committed values have been replicated to a majority of nodes, a candidate must contact a node with all committed values during its election which will prevent it from being elected if it doesn't have all the committed log entries.

To prevent another subtle bug, leaders also do not directly commit values from previous terms. They only commit values from their own term which indirectly commits previous log entries from previous terms.

Cluster Membership Changes. A Raft cluster cannot be instantaneously switched from one configuration to another. For example consider a cluster moving from 3 to 5 nodes. It's possible that two nodes are elected master for the same term which can lead to a safety violation. Instead, the cluster transitions to a joint consensus phase where decisions require a majority from both the old and new configuration. Once a majority of nodes accept the new configuration, the cluster can transition to it.

[code](https://github.com/openai/improved-gan),
[demo](http://infinite-chamber-35121.herokuapp.com/cifar-minibatch/1/?),
[related](http://www.inference.vc/understanding-minibatch-discrimination-in-gans/)

### Feature matching
problem: overtraining on the current discriminator

solution:
$||E_{x \sim p_{\text{data}}}f(x) - E_{z \sim p_{z}(z)}f(G(z))||_{2}^{2}$

were f(x) activations intermediate layer in discriminator
### Minibatch discrimination
problem: generator to collapse to a single point

solution: for each sample i, concatenate to $f(x_i)$ features $b$ measuring its distance to other samples j (i and j are both real or generated samples in same batch):
$\sum_j \exp(-||M_{i, b} - M_{j, b}||_{L_1})$

this generates visually appealing samples very quickly
### Historical averaging
problem: SGD fails by going into extended orbits

solution: parameters revert to the mean
$|| \theta - \frac{1}{t} \sum_{i=1}^t \theta[i] ||^2$

### One-sided label smoothing
problem: discriminator vulnerability to adversarial examples

solution: discriminator target for positive samples is 0.9 instead of 1

### Virtual batch normalization
problem: using BN cause output of examples in batch to be dependent

solution: use reference batch chosen once at start of training and each sample is normalized using itself and the reference. It's
expensive so used only on generation

### Assessment of image quality
problem: MTurk not reliable

solution: use inception model p(y|x) to compute 
$\exp(\mathbb{E}_x \text{KL}(p(y | x) || p(y)))$
on 50K generated images x

### Semi-supervised learning
use the discriminator to also classify on K labels when known and
use all real samples (labels and unlabeled) in the discrimination task
$D(x) = \frac{Z(x)}{Z(x) + 1}, \text{ where } Z(x) = \sum_{k=1}^{K} \exp[l_k(x)]$.
In this case use feature matching but not minibatch discrimination.
It also improves the quality of generated images.

This article makes the argument for *interactive* language learning, motivated by some nice recent small-domain success. I can certainly agree with the motivation: if language is used in conversation, shouldn't we be building models which know how to behave in conversation?

The authors develop a standard multi-agent communication paradigm, where two agents learn communicate in a single-round reference game. (No references to e.g. Kirby or any [ILM][1] work, which is in the same space.) Agent `A1` examines a referent `R` and "transmits" a one-hot utterance representation to `A2`, who must successfully identify `R` given the utterance. The one-round conversations are a success when `A2` picks the correct referent `R`. The two agents are jointly trained to maximize this success metric via REINFORCE (policy gradient).

**This is mathematically equivalent to [the NVIL model (Mnih and Gregor, 2014)][2]**, an autoencoder with "hard" latent codes which is likewise trained by policy gradient methods.

They perform a nice thorough evaluation on both successful and "cheating" models. This will serve as a useful reference point / starting point for people interested in interactive language acquisition.

The way clear is forward, I think: let's develop agents in more complex environments, interacting in multi-round conversations, with more complex / longer utterances.

[1]: http://cocosci.berkeley.edu/tom/papers/IteratedLearningEvolutionLanguage.pdf
[2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0030