This is another "learning the learning rate" paper, which predates (and might have inspired) the "Speed learning on the fly" paper I recently wrote notes about (see \cite{journals/corr/MasseO15}). In this paper, they consider the off-line training scenario, and propose to do gradient descent on the learning rate by unrolling the *complete* training procedure and treating it all as a function to optimize, with respect to the learning rate. This way, they can optimize directly the validation set loss.

The paper in fact goes much further and can tune many other hyper-parameters of the gradient descent procedure: momentum, weight initialization distribution parameters, regularization and input preprocessing.

#### My two cents

This is one of my favorite papers of this year. While the method of unrolling several steps of gradient descent (100 iterations in the paper) makes it somewhat impractical for large networks (which is probably why they considered 3-layer networks with only 50 hidden units per layer), it provides an incredibly interesting window on what are good hyper-parameter choices for neural networks. Note that, to substantially reduce the memory requirements of the method, the authors had to be quite creative and smart about how to encode changes in the network's weight changes.

There are tons of interesting experiments, which I encourage the reader to go check out (see section 3).

One experiment on training the learning rates, separately for each iteration (i.e. learning a learning rate schedule), for each layer and for either weights or biases (800 hyper-parameters total) shows that a good schedule is one where the top layer first learns quickly (large learning), then the bottom layer starts training faster, and finally the learning rates of all layers is decayed towards zero. Note that some of the experiments presented actually optimized the training error, instead of the validation set error.

Another looked at finding optimal scales for the weight initialization. Interestingly, the values found weren't that far from an often prescribed scale of $1 / \sqrt{N}$, where $N$ is the number of units in the previous layer.

The experiment on "training the training set", i.e. generating the 10 examples (one per class) that would minimize the validation set loss of a network trained on these examples is a pretty cool idea (it essentially learns prototypical images of the digits from 0 to 9 on MNIST).

Another experiment tried to optimize a multitask regularization matrix, in order to encourage forms of soft-weight-tying across tasks.

Note that approaches like the one in this paper make tools for automatic differentiation incredibly valuable. Python autograd, the author's automatic differentiation Python library https://github.com/HIPS/autograd (which inspired our own Torch autograd https://github.com/twitter/torch-autograd) was in fact developed in the context of this paper.

Finally, I'll end with a quote from the paper, that I found particularly funny: "The last remaining parameter to SGD is the initial parameter vector. Treating this vector as a hyperparameter blurs the distinction between learning and meta-learning. In the extreme case where all elementary learning rates are set to zero, the training set ceases to matter and the meta-learning procedure exactly reduces to elementary learning on the validation set. Due to philosophical vertigo, we chose not to optimize the initial parameter vector."

A paper in the intersection for Computer Vision and Machine Learning. They propose a method (network in network) to reduce parameters. Essentially, it boils down to a pattern of (conv with size > 1) -> (1x1 conv) -> (1x1 conv) -> repeat

## Datasets
state-of-the-art classification performances with NIN on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, and reasonable performances on SVHN and MNIST

## Implementations

* [Lasagne](https://github.com/Lasagne/Recipes/blob/master/modelzoo/cifar10_nin.py)

The paper discusses and empirically investigates by empirical testing the effect of "catastrophic forgetting" (**CF**), i.e. the inability of a model to perform a task it was previously trained to perform if retrained to perform a second task. 

An illuminating example is what happens in ML systems with convex objectives: regardless of the initialization (i.e. of what was learnt by doing the first task), the training of the second task will always end in the global minimum, thus totally "forgetting" the first one. 

Neuroscientific evidence (and common sense) suggest that the outcome of the experiment is deeply influenced by the similarity of the tasks involved. Namely, if (i) the two tasks are *functionally identical but input is presented in a different format* or if (ii)  *tasks are similar* and the third case for (iii) *dissimilar tasks*. 

Relevant examples may be provided respectively by (i) performing the same image classification task starting from two different image representations as RGB or HSL, (ii) performing image classification tasks with semantically similar as classifying two similar animals and (iii) performing a text classification followed by image classification. 

The problem is investigated by an empirical study covering two methods of training ("SGD" and "dropout") combined with 4 activations functions (logistic sigmoid, RELU, LWTA, Maxout). A random search is carried out on these parameters. 

From a practitioner's point of view, it is interesting to note that dropout has been set to 0.5 in hidden units and 0.2 in the visible one since this is a reasonably well-known parameter. 

## Why the paper is important
It is apparently the first to provide a systematic empirical analysis of CF. Establishes a framework and baselines to face the problem.

## Key conclusions, takeaways and modelling remarks
* dropout helps in preventing CF
* dropout seems to increase the optimal model size with respect to the model without dropout 
* choice of activation function has a less consistent effect than dropout\no dropout choice
* dissimilar task experiment provides a  notable exception of then dissimilar task experiment
* the previous hypothesis that LWTA activation is particularly resistant to CF is rejected  (even if it performs best in the new task in the dissimilar task pair the behaviour is inconsistent)
* choice of activation function should always be cross-validated
* If computational resources are insufficient for cross-validation the combination dropout + maxout activation function is recommended.

The main contribution of [Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks](http://jmlr.org/proceedings/papers/v9/glorot10a/glorot10a.pdf) by Glorot et al. is a **normalized weight initialization**

$$W \sim U \left [  - \frac{\sqrt{6}}{\sqrt{n_j + n_{j+1}}}, \frac{\sqrt{6}}{\sqrt{n_j + n_{j+1}}} \right ]$$

where $n_j \in \mathbb{N}^+$ is the number of neurons in the layer $j$.

Showing some ways **how to debug neural networks** might be another reason to read the paper.

The paper analyzed standard multilayer perceptrons (MLPs) on a artificial dataset of $32 \text{px} \times 32 \text{px}$ images with either one or two of the 3 shapes: triangle, parallelogram and ellipse. The MLPs varied in the activation function which was used (either sigmoid, tanh or softsign).

However, no regularization was used and many mini-batch epochs were learned. It might be that batch normalization / dropout might change the influence of initialization very much.

Questions that remain open for me:

* [How is weight initialization done today?](https://www.reddit.com/r/MLQuestions/comments/4jsge9)
* Figure 4: Why is this plot not simply completely dependent on the data?
* Is softsign still used? Why not?
* If the only advantage of softsign is that is has the plateau later, why doesn't anybody use $\frac{1}{1+e^{-0.1 \cdot x}}$ or something similar instead of the standard sigmoid activation function?

This paper deals with the question what / how exactly CNNs learn, considering the fact that they usually have more trainable parameters than data points on which they are trained.

When the authors write "deep neural networks", they are talking about Inception V3, AlexNet and MLPs.

## Key contributions

* Deep neural networks easily fit random labels (achieving a training error of 0 and a test error which is just randomly guessing labels as expected). $\Rightarrow$Those architectures can simply brute-force memorize the training data.
* Deep neural networks fit random images (e.g. Gaussian noise) with 0 training error. The authors conclude that VC-dimension / Rademacher complexity, and uniform stability are bad explanations for generalization capabilities of neural networks
* The authors give a construction for a 2-layer network with $p = 2n+d$ parameters - where $n$ is the number of samples and $d$ is the dimension of each sample - which can easily fit any labeling. (Finite sample expressivity). See section 4.


## What I learned

* Any measure $m$ of the generalization capability of classifiers $H$ should take the percentage of corrupted labels ($p_c \in [0, 1]$, where $p_c =0$ is a perfect labeling and $p_c=1$ is totally random) into account: If $p_c = 1$, then $m()$ should be 0, too, as it is impossible to learn something meaningful with totally random labels.
* We seem to have built models which work well on image data in general, but not "natural" / meaningful images as we thought.


## Funny

> deep neural nets remain mysterious for many reasons

> Note that this is not exactly simple as the kernel matrix requires 30GB to store in memory. Nonetheless, this system can be solved in under 3 minutes in on a commodity workstation with 24 cores and 256 GB of RAM with a conventional LAPACK call.


## See also

* [Deep Nets Don't Learn Via Memorization](https://openreview.net/pdf?id=rJv6ZgHYg)