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 one-layer 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 2-16 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 in-the-limit 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 semi-randomly 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, results-wise, 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.  

Kumar et al. propose an algorithm to learn in batch reinforcement learning (RL), a setting where an agent learns purely form a fixed batch of data, $B$, without any interactions with the environments. The data in the batch is collected according to a batch policy $\pi_b$. Whereas most previous methods (like BCQ) constrain the learned policy to stay close to the behavior policy, Kumar et al. propose bootstrapping error accumulation reduction (BEAR), which constrains the newly learned policy to place some probability mass on every non negligible action. 
The difference is illustrated in the picture from the BEAR blog post:
https://i.imgur.com/zUw7XNt.png
The behavior policy is in both images the dotted red line, the left image shows the policy matching where the algorithm is constrained to the purple choices, while the right image shows the support matching. 

**Theoretical Contribution:**
The paper analysis formally how the use of out-of-distribution actions to compute the target in the Bellman equation influences the back-propagated error.

Firstly a distribution constrained backup operator is defined as
$T^{\Pi}Q(s,a) = \mathbb{E}[R(s,a) + \gamma \max_{\pi \in \Pi} \mathbb{E}_{P(s' \vert s,a)} V(s')]$ and $V(s) = \max_{\pi \in \Pi} \mathbb{E}_{\pi}[Q(s,a)]$
which considers only policies $\pi \in \Pi$. 

It is possible that the optimal policy $\pi^*$ is not contained in the policy set $\Pi$, thus there is a suboptimallity constant $\alpha (\Pi) = \max_{s,a} \vert \mathcal{T}^{\Pi}Q^{*}(s,a) - \mathcal{T}Q^{*}(s,a) ]\vert $ which captures how far $\pi^{*}$ is from $\Pi$. 

Letting $P^{\pi_i}$ be the transition-matrix when following policy $\pi_i$, $\rho_0$ the state marginal distribution of the training data in the batch and $\pi_1, \dots, \pi_k \in \Pi $. The error analysis relies upon a concentrability assumption $\rho_0 P^{\pi_1} \dots P^{\pi_k} \leq c(k)\mu(s)$, with $\mu(s)$ the state marginal. Note that $c(k)$ might be infinite if the support of $\Pi$ is not contained in the state marginal of the batch. Using the coefficients $c(k)$ a concentrability coefficient is defined as:
$C(\Pi) = (1-\gamma)^2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k \gamma^{k-1}c(k).$
The concentrability takes values between 1 und $\infty$, where 1 corresponds to the case that the batch data were collected by $\pi$ and $\Pi = \{\pi\}$ and $\infty$ to cases where $\Pi$ has support outside of $\pi$. 

Combining this Kumar et a. get a bound of the Bellman error for distribution constrained value iteration with the constrained Bellman operator $T^{\Pi}$:

$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \mathbb{E}_{\rho_0}[\vert V^{\pi_k}(s)- V^{*}(s)]  \leq  \frac{\gamma}{(1-\gamma^2)} [C(\Pi) \mathbb{E}_{\mu}[\max_{\pi \in \Pi}\mathbb{E}_{\pi}[\delta(s,a)] + \frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}\alpha(\Pi)  ] ]$, where $\delta(s,a)$ is the Bellman error. 

This presents the inherent batch RL trade-off between keeping policies close to the behavior policy of the batch (captured by $C(\Pi)$ and keeping $\Pi$ sufficiently large (captured by $\alpha(\Pi)$). 

It is finally proposed to use support sets to construct $\Pi$, that is $\Pi_{\epsilon} = \{\pi \vert \pi(a \vert s)=0 \text{ whenever } \beta(a \vert s) < \epsilon \}$. This amounts to the set of all policies that place probability on all non-negligible actions of the behavior policy. For this particular choice of $\Pi = \Pi_{\epsilon}$ the concentrability coefficient can be bounded. 

**Algorithm**:
The algorithm has an actor critic style, where the Q-value to update the policy is taken to be the minimum over the ensemble. The support constraint to place at least some probability mass on every non negligible action from the batch is enforced via sampled MMD. The proposed algorithm is a member of the policy regularized algorithms as the policy is updated to optimize:
$\pi_{\Phi} = \max_{\pi} \mathbb{E}_{s \sim B} \mathbb{E}_{a \sim \pi(\cdot \vert s)} [min_{j = 1 \dots, k} Q_j(s,a)] s.t. \mathbb{E}_{s \sim B}[MMD(D(s), \pi(\cdot \vert s))] \leq \epsilon$

The Bellman target to update the Q-functions is computed as the convex combination of minimum and maximum of the ensemble. 

**Experiments**
The experiments use the Mujoco environments Halfcheetah, Walker, Hopper and Ant. Three scenarios of batch collection, always consisting of 1Mio. samples,  are considered:
- completely random behavior policy
- partially trained behavior policy
- optimal policy as behavior policy

The experiments confirm that BEAR outperforms other off-policy methods like BCQ or KL-control. The ablations show further that the choice of MMD is crucial as it is sometimes on par and sometimes substantially better than choosing KL-divergence. 

  * Usually GANs transform a noise vector `z` into images. `z` might be sampled from a normal or uniform distribution.
  * The effect of this is, that the components in `z` are deeply entangled.
    * Changing single components has hardly any influence on the generated images. One has to change multiple components to affect the image.
    * The components end up not being interpretable. Ideally one would like to have meaningful components, e.g. for human faces one that controls the hair length and a categorical one that controls the eye color.
  * They suggest a change to GANs based on Mutual Information, which leads to interpretable components.
    * E.g. for MNIST a component that controls the stroke thickness and a categorical component that controls the digit identity (1, 2, 3, ...).
    * These components are learned in a (mostly) unsupervised fashion.

### How
  * The latent code `c`
    * "Normal" GANs parameterize the generator as `G(z)`, i.e. G receives a noise vector and transforms it into an image.
    * This is changed to `G(z, c)`, i.e. G now receives a noise vector `z` and a latent code `c` and transforms both into an image.
    * `c` can contain multiple variables following different distributions, e.g. in MNIST a categorical variable for the digit identity and a gaussian one for the stroke thickness.
  * Mutual Information
    * If using a latent code via `G(z, c)`, nothing forces the generator to actually use `c`. It can easily ignore it and just deteriorate to `G(z)`.
    * To prevent that, they force G to generate images `x` in a way that `c` must be recoverable. So, if you have an image `x` you must be able to reliable tell which latent code `c` it has, which means that G must use `c` in a meaningful way.
    * This relationship can be expressed with mutual information, i.e. the mutual information between `x` and `c` must be high.
      * The mutual information between two variables X and Y is defined as `I(X; Y) = entropy(X) - entropy(X|Y) = entropy(Y) - entropy(Y|X)`.
      * If the mutual information between X and Y is high, then knowing Y helps you to decently predict the value of X (and the other way round).
      * If the mutual information between X and Y is low, then knowing Y doesn't tell you much about the value of X (and the other way round).
    * The new GAN loss becomes `old loss - lambda * I(G(z, c); c)`, i.e. the higher the mutual information, the lower the result of the loss function.
  * Variational Mutual Information Maximization
    * In order to minimize `I(G(z, c); c)`, one has to know the distribution `P(c|x)` (from image to latent code), which however is unknown.
    * So instead they create `Q(c|x)`, which is an approximation of `P(c|x)`.
    * `I(G(z, c); c)` is then computed using a lower bound maximization, similar to the one in variational autoencoders (called "Variational Information Maximization", hence the name "InfoGAN").
    * Basic equation: `LowerBoundOfMutualInformation(G, Q) = E[log Q(c|x)] + H(c) <= I(G(z, c); c)`
      * `c` is the latent code.
      * `x` is the generated image.
      * `H(c)` is the entropy of the latent codes (constant throughout the optimization).
      * Optimization w.r.t. Q is done directly.
      * Optimization w.r.t. G is done via the reparameterization trick.
    * If `Q(c|x)` approximates `P(c|x)` *perfectly*, the lower bound becomes the mutual information ("the lower bound becomes tight").
    * In practice, `Q(c|x)` is implemented as a neural network. Both Q and D have to process the generated images, which means that they can share many convolutional layers, significantly reducing the extra cost of training Q.

### Results
  * MNIST
    * They use for `c` one categorical variable (10 values) and two continuous ones (uniform between -1 and +1).
    * InfoGAN learns to associate the categorical one with the digit identity and the continuous ones with rotation and width.
    * Applying Q(c|x) to an image and then classifying only on the categorical variable (i.e. fully unsupervised) yields 95% accuracy.
    * Sampling new images with exaggerated continuous variables in the range `[-2,+2]` yields sound images (i.e. the network generalizes well).
    * ![MNIST examples](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aleju/papers/master/neural-nets/images/InfoGAN__mnist.png?raw=true "MNIST examples")
  * 3D face images
    * InfoGAN learns to represent the faces via pose, elevation, lighting.
    * They used five uniform variables for `c`. (So two of them apparently weren't associated with anything sensible? They are not mentioned.)
  * 3D chair images
    * InfoGAN learns to represent the chairs via identity (categorical) and rotation or width (apparently they did two experiments).
    * They used one categorical variable (four values) and one continuous variable (uniform `[-1, +1]`).
  * SVHN
    * InfoGAN learns to represent lighting and to spot the center digit.
    * They used four categorical variables (10 values each) and two continuous variables (uniform `[-1, +1]`). (Again, a few variables were apparently not associated with anything sensible?)
  * CelebA
    * InfoGAN learns to represent pose, presence of sunglasses (not perfectly), hair style and emotion (in the sense of "smiling or not smiling").
    * They used 10 categorical variables (10 values each). (Again, a few variables were apparently not associated with anything sensible?)
    * ![CelebA examples](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aleju/papers/master/neural-nets/images/InfoGAN__celeba.png?raw=true "CelebA examples")

This paper explores the use of convolutional (PixelCNN) and recurrent units (PixelRNN) for modeling the distribution of images, in the framework of autoregression distribution estimation. In this framework, the input distribution $p(x)$ is factorized into a product of conditionals $\Pi p(x_i | x_i-1)$. Previous work has shown that very good models can be obtained by using a neural network parametrization of the conditionals (e.g. see our work on NADE \cite{journals/jmlr/LarochelleM11}). Moreover, unlike other approaches based on latent stochastic units that are directed or undirected, the autoregressive approach is able to compute log-probabilities tractably. 

So in this paper, by considering the specific case of x being an image, they exploit the topology of pixels and investigate appropriate architectures for this.

Among the paper's contributions are:

1. They propose Diagonal BiLSTM units for the PixelRNN, which are efficient (thanks to the use of convolutions) while making it possible to, in effect, condition a pixel's distribution on all the pixels above it (see Figure 2 for an illustration).

2. They demonstrate that the use of residual connections (a form of skip connections, from hidden layer i-1 to layer $i+1$) are very effective at learning very deep distribution estimators (they go as deep as 12 layers).

3. They show that it is possible to successfully model the distribution over the pixel intensities (effectively an integer between 0 and 255) using a softmax of 256 units.

4. They propose a multi-scale extension of their model, that they apply to larger 64x64 images.

The experiments show that the PixelRNN model based on Diagonal BiLSTM units achieves state-of-the-art performance on the binarized MNIST benchmark, in terms of log-likelihood. They also report excellent log-likelihood on the CIFAR-10 dataset, comparing to previous work based on real-valued density models. Finally, they show that their model is able to generate high quality image samples.

During the past few years, sellers have increasingly offered discounted or free products to selected reviewers of ecommerce platforms in exchange for their reviews. Such incentivized (and often very positive) reviews can improve the rating of a product which in turn sways other users’ opinions about the product. 

Here, we examine the problem of detecting and characterizing incentivized reviews in two primary categories of Amazon products.  We show that the key features of EIRs and normal reviews exhibit different characteristics. 

https://i.imgur.com/1BdwsK4.png

Furthermore, we illustrate how the prevalence of EIRs has evolved and been affected by Amazon’s ban. 

https://i.imgur.com/1XsSaxX.png

Our examination of the temporal pattern of submitted reviews for sample products reveals promotional campaigns by the corresponding sellers and their effectiveness in attracting other users. 
https://i.imgur.com/TvQiDlc.png

Finally, we demonstrate that a classifier that is trained by EIRs (without explicit keywords) and normal reviews can accurately detect other EIRs as well as implicitly incentivized reviews. Overall, this analysis sheds an insightful light on the impact of EIRs on Amazon products and users.