This paper describes a class of algorithms for classification or regression in the on-line setting.  That is, the data is a bunch of pairs $(X_t,Y_t)$ (where X may be a vector), and these data items arrive in some order: the algorithm must predict each $\hat{Y}_t$ using only the $X_t$ and previously seen pairs. In the regression setting, each mis-prediction has a loss that is like $(Y_t - \hat{Y}_t)^2$, and in the classification setting $Y_t$ is always 0 or 1 and the loss is $| Y_t - \hat{Y}_t |$.

Roughly, the algorithm makes linear predictions using some internal weight vector $(\hat{y} = w  * X)$, and does a gradient-descent like weight update. However, it tries to keep the q-norm (q can be any number) of the weight vector "small", preventing the weights themselves from becoming too large. The algorithm is actually simple, and the weight update takes advantage of link functions, which the author defines.  The majority of the paper is focused on deriving loss bounds, showing that the loss incurred by this algorithm isn't much worse than that incurred by the best weight vector, chosen in hindsight.  Typical readers will be interested in the first few pages, as the latter part of the paper is mainly technical proofs.

Carlini and Wagner propose three novel methods/attacks for adversarial examples and show that defensive distillation is not effective. In particular, they devise attacks for all three commonly used norms $L_1$, $L_2$ and $L_\infty$ – which are used to measure the deviation of the adversarial perturbation from the original testing sample. In the course of the paper, starting with the targeted objective
$\min_\delta d(x, x + \delta)$ s.t. $f(x + \delta) = t$ and $x+\delta \in [0,1]^n$,
they consider up to 7 different surrogate objectives to express the constraint $f(x + \delta) = t$. Here, $f$ is the neural network to attack and $\delta$ denotes the perturbation. This leads to the formulation

$\min_\delta \|\delta\|_p + cL(x + \delta)$ s.t. $x + \delta \in [0,1]^n$

where $L$ is the surrogate loss. After extensive evaluation, the loss $L$ is taken to be

$L(x') = \max(\max\{Z(x')_i : i\neq t\} - Z(x')_t, -\kappa)$

where $x' = x + \delta$ and $Z(x')_i$ refers to the logit for class $i$; $\kappa$ is a constant ($=0$ in their experiments) that can be used to control the confidence of the adversarial example. In practice, the box constraint $[0,1]^n$ is encoded through a change of variable by expressing $\delta$ in terms of the hyperbolic tangent, see the paper for details. Carlini and Wagner then discuss the detailed attacks for all three norms, i.e. $L_1$, $L_2$ and $L_\infty$ where the first and latter are discussed in more detail as they impose non-differentiability.

Hosseini and Poovendran propose semantic adversarial examples by randomly manipulating hue and saturation of images. In particular, in an iterative algorithm, hue and saturation are randomly perturbed and projected back to their valid range. If this results in mis-classification the perturbed image is returned as the adversarial example and the algorithm is finished; if not, another iteration is run. The result is shown in Figure 1. As can be seen, the structure of the images is retained while hue and saturation changes, resulting in mis-classified images.

https://i.imgur.com/kFcmlE3.jpg
Figure 1: Examples of the computed semantic adversarial examples.

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

Ongoing declines in production of the world's fisheries may have serious ecological and socioeconomic consequences. As a result, a number of international efforts have sought to improve management and prevent overexploitation, while helping to maintain biodiversity and a sustainable food supply. Although these initiatives have received broad acceptance, the extent to which corrective measures have been implemented and are effective remains largely unknown. We used a survey approach, validated with empirical data, and enquiries to over 13,000 fisheries experts (of which 1,188 responded) to assess the current effectiveness of fisheries management regimes worldwide; for each of those regimes, we also calculated the probable sustainability of reported catches to determine how management affects fisheries sustainability. Our survey shows that 7% of all coastal states undergo rigorous scientific assessment for the generation of management policies, 1.4% also have a participatory and transparent processes to convert scientific recommendations into policy, and 0.95% also provide for robust mechanisms to ensure the compliance with regulations; none is also free of the effects of excess fishing capacity, subsidies, or access to foreign fishing. A comparison of fisheries management attributes with the sustainability of reported fisheries catches indicated that the conversion of scientific advice into policy, through a participatory and transparent process, is at the core of achieving fisheries sustainability, regardless of other attributes of the fisheries. Our results illustrate the great vulnerability of the world's fisheries and the urgent need to meet well-identified guidelines for sustainable management; they also provide a baseline against which future changes can be quantified. Author Summary Top Global fisheries are in crisis: marine fisheries provide 15% of the animal protein consumed by humans, yet 80% of the world's fish stocks are either fully exploited, overexploited or have collapsed. Several international initiatives have sought to improve the management of marine fisheries, hoping to reduce the deleterious ecological and socioeconomic consequence of the crisis. Unfortunately, the extent to which countries are improving their management and whether such intervention ensures the sustainability of the fisheries remain unknown. Here, we surveyed 1,188 fisheries experts from every coastal country in the world for information about the effectiveness with which fisheries are being managed, and related those results to an index of the probable sustainability of reported catches. We show that the management of fisheries worldwide is lagging far behind international guidelines recommended to minimize the effects of overexploitation. Only a handful of countries have a robust scientific basis for management recommendations, and transparent and participatory processes to convert those recommendations into policy while also ensuring compliance with regulations. Our study also shows that the conversion of scientific advice into policy, through a participatory and transparent process, is at the core of achieving fisheries sustainability, regardless of other attributes of the fisheries. These results illustrate the benefits of participatory, transparent, and science-based management while highlighting the great vulnerability of the world's fisheries services. The data for each country can be viewed at http://as01.ucis.dal.ca/ramweb/surveys/fishery_assessment .

The paper introduces a new framework called Spark which focuses on use cases where MapReudce fails. While a lot of applications fit the MapReduce’s acyclic data flow model, there are use cases requiring iterative jobs where MapReduce is not greatly efficient. Many machine learning algorithms fall into this category. Secondly with MapReduce, each query incurs a significant overhead because it is effectively a different job each time. So MapReduce is not the ideal solution for doing interactive analysis. This is the space which Spark intends to fill in. Spark is implemented in Scala and now supports API in Java, Python, and R

#### Programming Model
The model supports RDDs, parallel operations and 2 type of shared variables. A driver program implements the high-level control flow and launches different operations in parallel.

Resilient Distributed Datasets (RDDs) are a read-only collection of objects, partitioned across a set of machines in a cluster. A handle to RDD contains enough information to compute the RDD from data in case of partition failure. RDDs can be constructed:

1. From a file in a Hadoop supported file system.
2. By “parallelizing” a Scala collection.
3. By transforming an existing RDD using operations like flatMap, map, and filter.
4. By changing persistence of an existing RDD.

flatMap, map and filter are standard operations as supported by various functional programming languages. For example map will take as input a list of items and return a new list of items after applying a function to each item of the original list.

RDDs are lazy and ephemeral. They are constructed on demand and discarded after use. The persistence can be changed to cache which means they are still lazy but are kept in memory (or disk if they can not fit memory) or to save where they are saved to disk only.

Some supported parallel operations(at time of writing the paper) include:

1. reduce: Combines dataset elements using an associative function to produce a result at the driver program.
2. collect: Sends all elements of the dataset to the driver program.
3. foreach: Passes each element through a user-provided function

Since the paper was authored, Spark has come a long way and support much more transformations (sample, union, distinct, groupByKey, reduceByKey, sortByKey, join, cartesian, etc), parallel operations (shuffle, count, first, take, takeSample etc), and persistence options (memory only, memory and disk, disk only, memory only serialized, etc).

Spark supports 2 kinds of shared variables:

Broadcast variables — These are read-only variables that are distributed to worker nodes for once and can be used multiple times (for reading). A use case of this variable would be training data which can be sent to all the worker nodes once and can be used for learning different models instead of sending the same data with each model.

Accumulators — These variables are also shared with workers, the different being that the driver program can only read them and workers can perform only associative operations on them. A use case could be when we want to count the total number of entries in a data set, each worker fills up its count accumulator and sends it to the driver which adds up all the received values.

#### Implementation
The core of Spark is the implementation of RDDs. Suppose we start by reading a file, then filtering the lines to get lines with the word “ERROR” in them, then we cache the results and then count the number of such lines using the standard map-reduce trick. RDDs will be formed corresponding to each of these steps and these RDDs will be stored as a link-list to capture the lineage of each RDD.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*6I7aiD2bPrsw32U76Q5q2g.png

Lineage chain for distributed dataset objects
Each RDD contains a pointer to its parent and information about how it was transformed. This lineage information is sufficient to reconstruct any lost partition and checkpointing of any kind is not required. There is no overhead if no node fails and even if some nodes fails, only select RDDs need to be reconstructed.

Internally an RDD object implements a simple interface consisting of three operations:

1. getPartitions, which returns a list of partition IDs.
2. getIterator(partition), which iterates over a partition.
3. getPreferredLocations(partition), which is used for task scheduling to achieve data locality.

Spark is similar to MapReduce — it sends computation to data instead of the other way round. This requires shipping closures to workers — closures to define and process a distributed dataset. This is easy given Scala uses Java serialization. However unlike MapReduce, operations are performed on RDDs that can persist across operations.

Shared variables are implemented using classes with custom serialization formats. When a broadcast variable b is created with a value v, v is saved to a file in the shared file system. The serialized form of b is a path to this file. When b’s value is queried, Spark checks if v is in the local cache. If not, it is read from the file system. For accumulators, each accumulator is given a unique ID upon creation and its serialized form contains its ID and the “zero” value. On the workers, a separate copy of the accumulator is created for each thread and is reset to “zero” value. Once the task finishes, the updated value is sent to the driver program.

#### Future Work
The paper describes how an early stage implementation performs on Logistic Regression, Alternating Least Square, and interactive mode. The results seem to outperform MapReduce largely because of caching the results of previous computations. This makes Spark a good alternative for use cases where same data is read into memory again and again (iterative jobs fit the category.) Spark has come a long way since the paper was written. It now supports libraries for handling SQL-like queries (SparkSQL), streaming data (Spark streaming), graphs (GraphX) and machine learning (MLlib) along with more transformations and parallel operations. I came across Spark while working at Adobe Analytics and have been reading about it to learn more. The cool thing about Spark is that it supports interactive analysis and has APIs in Python, R and Java thus making it easy to adopt. While I have not done some much work around Spark, I am looking forward to making something on top of it.