This paper’s high-level goal is to evaluate how well GAN-type structures for generating text are performing, compared to more traditional maximum likelihood methods. In the process, it zooms into the ways that the current set of metrics for comparing text generation fail to give a well-rounded picture of how models are performing. 

In the old paradigm, of maximum likelihood estimation, models were both trained and evaluated on a maximizing the likelihood of each word, given the prior words in a sequence. That is, models were good when they assigned high probability to true tokens, conditioned on past tokens. However, GANs work in a fundamentally new framework, in that they aren’t trained to increase the likelihood of the next (ground truth) word in a sequence, but to generate a word that will make a discriminator more likely to see the sentence as realistic. Since GANs don’t directly model the probability of token t, given prior tokens, you can’t evaluate them using this maximum likelihood framework. 

This paper surveys a range of prior work that has evaluated GANs and MLE models on two broad categories of metrics, occasionally showing GANs to perform better on one or the other, but not really giving a way to trade off between the two. 
- The first type of metric, shorthanded as “quality”, measures how aligned the generated text is with some reference corpus of text: to what extent your generated text seems to “come from the same distribution” as the original. BLEU, a heuristic frequently used in translation, and also leveraged here, measures how frequently certain sets of n-grams occur in the reference text, relative to the generated text. N typically goes up to 4, and so in addition to comparing the distributions of single tokens in the reference and generated, BLEU also compares shared bigrams, trigrams, and quadgrams (?) to measure more precise similarity of text. 
- The second metric, shorthanded as “diversity” measures how different generated sentences are from one another. If you want to design a model to generate text, you presumably want it to be able to generate a diverse range of text - in probability terms, you want to fully sample from the distribution, rather than just taking the expected or mean value. Linguistically, this would be show up as a generator that just generates the same sentence over and over again. This sentence can be highly representative of the original text, but lacks diversity. One metric used for this is the same kind of BLEU score, but for each generated sentence against a corpus of prior generated sentences, and, here, the goal is for the overlap to be as low as possible 

The trouble with these two metrics is that, in their raw state, they’re pretty incommensurable, and hard to trade off against one another. The authors of this paper try to address this by observing that all models trade off diversity and quality to some extent, just by modifying the entropy of the conditional token distribution they learn. If a distribution is high entropy, that is, if it spreads probability out onto more tokens, it’s likelier to bounce off into a random place, which increases diversity, but also can make the sentence more incoherent. By contrast, if a distribution is too low entropy, only ever putting probability on one or two words, then it will be only ever capable of carving out a small number of distinct paths through word space. 
The below table shows a good example of what language generation can look like at high and low levels of entropy 
https://i.imgur.com/YWGXDaJ.png

The entropy of a softmax distribution be modified, without changing the underlying model, by changing the *temperature* of the softmax calculation. So, the authors do this, and, as a result, they can chart out that model’s curve on the quality/diversity axis. Conceptually, this is asking “at a range of different quality thresholds, how good is this model’s diversity,” and vice versa. I mentally analogize this to a ROC curve, where it’s not really possible to compare, say, precision of models that use different thresholds, and so you instead need to compare the curve over a range of different thresholds, and compare models on that.  

https://i.imgur.com/C3zdEjm.png

When they do this for GANs and MLEs, they find that, while GANs might dominate on a single metric at a time, when you modulate the temperature of MLE models, they’re able to achieve superior quality when you tune them to commensurate levels of diversity. 

**Summary**: This paper presents three tricks that make model-based reinforcement more reliable when tested in tasks that require walking and balancing. The tricks are 1) are planning based on features, 2) using a recursive network that mixes probabilistic and deterministic information, and 3) looking forward multiple steps.

**Longer summary**

Imagine playing pool, armed with a tablet that can predict exactly where the ball will bounce, and the next bounce, and so on. That would be a huge advantage to someone learning pool, however small inaccuracies in the model could mislead you especially when thinking ahead to the 2nd and third bounce. 

The tablet is analogous to the dynamics model in model-based reinforcement learning (RL). Model based RL promises to solve a lot of the open problems with RL, letting the agent learn with less experience, transfer well, dream, and many others advantages. Despite the promise, dynamics models are hard to get working: they often suffer from even small inaccuracies, and need to be redesigned for specific tasks.

Enter PlaNet, a clever name, and a net that plans well in range of environments. To increase the challenge the model must predict directly from pixels in fairly difficult tasks such as teaching a cheetah to run or balancing a ball in a cup.


How do they do this? Three main tricks.

- Planning in latest space: this means that the policy network doesn't need to look at the raw image, but looks at a summary of it as represented by a feature vector.
- Recurrent state space models: They found that probabilistic information helps describe the space of possibilities but makes it harder for their RNN based model to look back multiple steps. However mixing probabilistic information and deterministic information gives it the best of both worlds, and they have results that show a starting performance increase when both compared to just one.
- Latent overshooting: They train the model to look more than one step ahead, this helps prevent errors that build up over time

Overall this paper shows great results that tackle the shortfalls of model based RL. I hope the results remain when tested on different and more complex environments.

How can humans help an agent perform at a task that has no clear reward? Imitation, demonstration, and preferences. This paper asks which combinations of imitation, demonstration, and preferences will best guide an agent in Atari games.

For example an agent that is playing Pong on the Atari, but can't access the score. You might help it by demonstrating your play style for a few hours. To help the agent further you are shown two short clips of it playing and you are asked to indicate which one, if any, you prefer.

To avoid spending many hours rating videos the authors sometimes used an automated approach where the game's score decides which clip is preferred, but they also compared this approach to human preferences. It turns out that human preferences are often worse because of reward traps. These happen, for example, when the human tries to encourage the agent to explore ladders, resulting in the agent obsessing about ladders instead of continuing the game.

They also observed that the agent often misunderstood the preferences it was given, causing unexpected behavior called reward hacking. The only solution they mention was to have someone keep an eye on it and continue giving it preferences, but this isn't always feasible. This is the alignment problem which is a hard problem in AGI research.

Results: adding merely a few thousand preferences can help in most games, unless they have sparse rewards. Demonstrations, on the other hand, tend to help those games with sparse rewards but only if the demonstrator is good at the game.

**TL;DR**: Rearranging the terms in Maximum Mean Discrepancy yields a much better loss function for the discriminator of Generative Adversarial Nets.

**Keywords**: Generative adversarial nets, Maximum Mean Discrepancy, spectral normalization, convolutional neural networks, Gaussian kernel, local stability.

**Summary**

Generative adversarial nets (GANs) are widely used to learn the data sampling process and are notoriously difficult to train. The training of GANs may be improved from three aspects: loss function, network architecture, and training process.

This study focuses on a loss function called the Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD), defined as:
$$
MMD^2(P_X,P_G)=\mathbb{E}_{P_X}k_{D}(x,x')+\mathbb{E}_{P_G}k_{D}(y,y')-2\mathbb{E}_{P_X,P_G}k_{D}(x,y)
$$
where $G,D$ are the generator and discriminator networks, $x,x'$ are real samples, $y,y'$ are generated samples, $k_D=k\circ D$ is a learned kernel that calculates the similariy between two samples. Overall, MMD calculates the distance between the real and the generated sample distributions. Thus, traditionally, the generator is trained to minimize $L_G=MMD^2(P_X,P_G)$, while the discriminator minimizes $L_D=-MMD^2(P_X,P_G)$.

This study makes three contributions:
-  It argues that $L_D$ encourages the discriminator to ignores the fine details in real data. By minimizing $L_D$, $D$ attempts to maximize $\mathbb{E}_{P_X}k_{D}(x,x')$, the similarity between real samples scores. Thus, $D$ has to focus on common features shared by real samples rather than fine details that separate them. This may slow down training. Instead, a repulsive loss is proposed, with no additional computational cost to MMD:
$$
L_D^{rep}=\mathbb{E}_{P_X}k_{D}(x,x')-\mathbb{E}_{P_G}k_{D}(y,y')
$$
- Inspired by the hinge loss, this study proposes a bounded Gaussian kernel for the discriminator to facilitate stable training of MMD-GAN.
- The spectral normalization method divides the weight matrix at each layer by its spectral norm to enforce that each layer is Lipschitz continuous. This study proposes a simple method to calculate the spectral norm of a convolutional kernel.

The results show the efficiency of proposed methods on CIFAR-10, STL-10, CelebA and LSUN-bedroom datasets. In Appendix, we prove that MMD-GAN training using gradient method is locally exponentially stable (a property that the Wasserstein loss does not have), and show that the repulsive loss works well with gradient penalty. 

The paper has been accepted at ICLR 2019 ([OpenReview link](https://openreview.net/forum?id=HygjqjR9Km)). The code is available at [GitHub link](https://github.com/richardwth/MMD-GAN). 

How can we learn causal relationships that explain data? We can learn from non-stationary distributions. If we experiment with different factorizations of relationships between variables we can observe which ones provide better sample complexity when adapting to distributional shift and therefore are likely to be causal.

If we consider the variables A and B we can factor them in two ways:

$P(A,B) = P(A)P(B|A)$ representing a causal graph like $A\rightarrow B$

$P(A,B) = P(A|B)P(B)$ representing a causal graph like $A \leftarrow B$

The idea is if we train a model with one of these structures; when adapting to a new shifted distribution of data it will take longer to adapt if the model does not have the correct inductive bias. For example let's say that the true relationship is $A$=Raining causes $B$=Open Umbrella (and not vice-versa). Changing the marginal probability of Raining (say because the weather changed) does not change the mechanism that relates $A$ and $B$ (captured by $P(B|A)$), but will have an impact on the marginal $P(B)$. 

So after this distributional shift the function that modeled $P(B|A)$ will not need to change because the relationship is the same.  Only the function that modeled $P(A)$ will need to change. Under the incorrect factorization $P(B)P(A|B)$, adaptation to the change will be slow because both $P(B)$ and $P(A|B)$ need to be modified to account for the change in $P(A)$ (due to Bayes rule).

Here a difference in sample complexity can be observed when modeling the joint of the shifted distribution.  $B\rightarrow A$ takes longer to adapt:
https://i.imgur.com/B9FEmA7.png

Here the idea is that sample complexity when adapting to a new distribution of data is a heuristic to inform us which causal graph inductive bias is correct.

Experimentally this works and they also observe that when models have more capacity it seems that the difference between the models grows.

This summary was written with the help of Yoshua Bengio.