http://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Shitawal&feedformat=atomstatwiki - User contributions [US]2021-01-26T03:22:52ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.28.3http://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=MarrNet:_3D_Shape_Reconstruction_via_2.5D_Sketches&diff=35420MarrNet: 3D Shape Reconstruction via 2.5D Sketches2018-03-25T01:03:12Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div>= Introduction =<br />
Humans are able to quickly recognize 3D shapes from images, even in spite of drastic differences in object texture, material, lighting, and background.<br />
<br />
[[File:marrnet_intro_image.png|700px|thumb|center|Objects in real images. The appearance of the same shaped object varies based on colour, texture, lighting, background, etc. However, the 2.5D sketches (e.g. depth or normal maps) of the object remain constant, and can be seen as an abstraction of the object which is used to reconstruct the 3D shape.]]<br />
<br />
In this work, the authors propose a novel end-to-end trainable model that sequentially estimates 2.5D sketches and 3D object shape from images and also enforce the re projection consistency between the 3D shape and the estimated sketch. The two step approach makes the network more robust to differences in object texture, material, lighting and background. Based on the idea from [Marr, 1982] that human 3D perception relies on recovering 2.5D sketches, which include depth and surface normal maps, the author’s design an end-to-end trainable pipeline which they call MarrNet. MarrNet first estimates depth, normal maps, and silhouette, followed by a 3D shape. MarrNet uses an encoder-decoder structure for the sub-components of the framework. <br />
<br />
The authors claim several unique advantages to their method. Single image 3D reconstruction is a highly under-constrained problem, requiring strong prior knowledge of object shapes. As well, accurate 3D object annotations using real images are not common, and many previous approaches rely on purely synthetic data. However, most of these methods suffer from domain adaptation due to imperfect rendering.<br />
<br />
Using 2.5D sketches can alleviate the challenges of domain transfer. It is straightforward to generate perfect object surface normals and depths using a graphics engine. Since 2.5D sketches contain only depth, surface normal, and silhouette information, the second step of recovering 3D shape can be trained purely from synthetic data. As well, the introduction of differentiable constraints between 2.5D sketches and 3D shape makes it possible to fine-tune the system, even without any annotations.<br />
<br />
The framework is evaluated on both synthetic objects from ShapeNet, and real images from PASCAL 3D+, showing good qualitative and quantitative performance in 3D shape reconstruction.<br />
<br />
= Related Work =<br />
<br />
== 2.5D Sketch Recovery ==<br />
Researchers have explored recovering 2.5D information from shading, texture, and colour images in the past. More recently, the development of depth sensors has led to the creation of large RGB-D datasets, and papers on estimating depth, surface normals, and other intrinsic images using deep networks. While this method employs 2.5D estimation, the final output is a full 3D shape of an object.<br />
<br />
[[File:2-5d_example.PNG|700px|thumb|center|Results from the paper: Learning Non-Lambertian Object Intrinsics across ShapeNet Categories. The results show that neural networks can be trained to recover 2.5D information from an image. The top row predicts the albedo and the bottom row predicts the shading. It can be observed that the results are still blurry and the fine details are not fully recovered.]]<br />
<br />
== Single Image 3D Reconstruction ==<br />
The development of large-scale shape repositories like ShapeNet has allowed for the development of models encoding shape priors for single image 3D reconstruction. These methods normally regress voxelized 3D shapes, relying on synthetic data or 2D masks for training. The formulation in the paper tackles domain adaptation better, since the network can be fine-tuned on images without any annotations.<br />
<br />
== 2D-3D Consistency ==<br />
Intuitively, the 3D shape can be constrained to be consistent with 2D observations. This idea has been explored for decades, with the use of depth and silhouettes, as well as some papers enforcing differentiable 2D-3D constraints for joint training of deep networks. In this work, this idea is exploited to develop differentiable constraints for consistency between the 2.5D sketches and 3D shape.<br />
<br />
= Approach =<br />
The 3D structure is recovered from a single RGB view using three steps, shown in the figure below. The first step estimates 2.5D sketches, including depth, surface normal, and silhouette of the object. The second step estimates a 3D voxel representation of the object. The third step uses a reprojection consistency function to enforce the 2.5D sketch and 3D structure alignment.<br />
<br />
[[File:marrnet_model_components.png|700px|thumb|center|MarrNet architecture. 2.5D sketches of normals, depths, and silhouette are first estimated. The sketches are then used to estimate the 3D shape. Finally, re-projection consistency is used to ensure consistency between the sketch and 3D output.]]<br />
<br />
== 2.5D Sketch Estimation ==<br />
The first step takes a 2D RGB image and predicts the surface normal, depth, and silhouette of the object. The goal is to estimate intrinsic object properties from the image, while discarding non-essential information. A ResNet-18 encoder-decoder network is used, with the encoder taking a 256 x 256 RGB image, producing 8 x 8 x 512 feature maps. The decoder is four sets of 5 x 5 convolutional and ReLU layers, followed by four sets of 1 x 1 convolutional and ReLU layers. The output is 256 x 256 resolution depth, surface normal, and silhouette images.<br />
<br />
== 3D Shape Estimation ==<br />
The second step estimates a voxelized 3D shape using the 2.5D sketches from the first step. The focus here is for the network to learn the shape prior that can explain the input well, and can be trained on synthetic data without suffering from the domain adaptation problem. The network architecture is inspired by the TL network, and 3D-VAE-GAN, with an encoder-decoder structure. The normal and depth image, masked by the estimated silhouette, are passed into 5 sets of convolutional, ReLU, and pooling layers, followed by two fully connected layers, with a final output width of 200. The 200-dimensional vector is passed into a decoder of 5 convolutional and ReLU layers, outputting a 128 x 128 x 128 voxelized estimate of the input.<br />
<br />
== Re-projection Consistency ==<br />
The third step consists of a depth re-projection loss and surface normal re-projection loss. Here, <math>v_{x, y, z}</math> represents the value at position <math>(x, y, z)</math> in a 3D voxel grid, with <math>v_{x, y, z} \in [0, 1] ∀ x, y, z</math>. <math>d_{x, y}</math> denotes the estimated depth at position <math>(x, y)</math>, <math>n_{x, y} = (n_a, n_b, n_c)</math> denotes the estimated surface normal. Orthographic projection is used.<br />
<br />
[[File:marrnet_reprojection_consistency.png|700px|thumb|center|Reprojection consistency for voxels. Left and middle: criteria for depth and silhouettes. Right: criterion for surface normals]]<br />
<br />
=== Depths ===<br />
The voxel with depth <math>v_{x, y}, d_{x, y}</math> should be 1, while all voxels in front of it should be 0. The projected depth loss is defined as follows:<br />
<br />
<math><br />
L_{depth}(x, y, z)=<br />
\left\{<br />
\begin{array}{ll}<br />
v^2_{x, y, z}, & z < d_{x, y} \\<br />
(1 - v_{x, y, z})^2, & z = d_{x, y} \\<br />
0, & z > d_{x, y} \\<br />
\end{array}<br />
\right.<br />
</math><br />
<br />
<math><br />
\frac{∂L_{depth}(x, y, z)}{∂v_{x, y, z}} =<br />
\left\{<br />
\begin{array}{ll}<br />
2v{x, y, z}, & z < d_{x, y} \\<br />
2(v_{x, y, z} - 1), & z = d_{x, y} \\<br />
0, & z > d_{x, y} \\<br />
\end{array}<br />
\right.<br />
</math><br />
<br />
When <math>d_{x, y} = \infty</math>, all voxels in front of it should be 0.<br />
<br />
=== Surface Normals ===<br />
Since vectors <math>n_{x} = (0, −n_{c}, n_{b})</math> and <math>n_{y} = (−n_{c}, 0, n_{a})</math> are orthogonal to the normal vector <math>n_{x, y} = (n_{a}, n_{b}, n_{c})</math>, they can be normalized to obtain <math>n’_{x} = (0, −1, n_{b}/n_{c})</math> and <math>n’_{y} = (−1, 0, n_{a}/n_{c})</math> on the estimated surface plane at <math>(x, y, z)</math>. The projected surface normal tried to guarantee voxels at <math>(x, y, z) ± n’_{x}</math> and <math>(x, y, z) ± n’_{y}</math> should be 1 to match the estimated normal. The constraints are only applied when the target voxels are inside the estimated silhouette.<br />
<br />
The projected surface normal loss is defined as follows, with <math>z = d_{x, y}</math>:<br />
<br />
<math><br />
L_{normal}(x, y, z) =<br />
(1 - v_{x, y-1, z+\frac{n_b}{n_c}})^2 + (1 - v_{x, y+1, z-\frac{n_b}{n_c}})^2 + <br />
(1 - v_{x-1, y, z+\frac{n_a}{n_c}})^2 + (1 - v_{x+1, y, z-\frac{n_a}{n_c}})^2<br />
</math><br />
<br />
Gradients along x are:<br />
<br />
<math><br />
\frac{dL_{normal}(x, y, z)}{dv_{x-1, y, z+\frac{n_a}{n_c}}} = 2(v_{x-1, y, z+\frac{n_a}{n_c}}-1)<br />
</math><br />
and<br />
<math><br />
\frac{dL_{normal}(x, y, z)}{dv_{x+1, y, z-\frac{n_a}{n_c}}} = 2(v_{x+1, y, z-\frac{n_a}{n_c}}-1)<br />
</math><br />
<br />
Gradients along y are similar to x.<br />
<br />
= Training =<br />
The 2.5D and 3D estimation components are first pre-trained separately on synthetic data from ShapeNet, and then fine-tuned on real images.<br />
<br />
For pre-training, the 2.5D sketch estimator is trained on synthetic ShapeNet depth, surface normal, and silhouette ground truth, using an L2 loss. The 3D estimator is trained with ground truth voxels using a cross-entropy loss.<br />
<br />
Reprojection consistency loss is used to fine-tune the 3D estimation using real images, using the predicted depth, normals, and silhouette. A straightforward implementation leads to shapes that explain the 2.5D sketches well, but lead to unrealistic 3D appearance due to overfitting.<br />
<br />
Instead, the decoder of the 3D estimator is fixed, and only the encoder is fine-tuned. The model is fine-tuned separately on each image for 40 iterations, which takes up to 10 seconds on the GPU. Without fine-tuning, testing time takes around 100 milliseconds. SGD is used for optimization with batch size of 4, learning rate of 0.001, and momentum of 0.9.<br />
<br />
= Evaluation =<br />
Qualitative and quantitative results are provided using different variants of the framework. The framework is evaluated on both synthetic and real images on three datasets.<br />
<br />
== ShapeNet ==<br />
Synthesized images of 6,778 chairs from ShapeNet are rendered from 20 random viewpoints. The chairs are placed in front of random background from the SUN dataset, and the RGB, depth, normal, and silhouette images are rendered using the physics-based renderer Mitsuba for more realistic images.<br />
<br />
=== Method ===<br />
MarrNet is trained without the final fine-tuning stage, since 3D shapes are available. A baseline is created that directly predicts the 3D shape using the same 3D shape estimator architecture with no 2.5D sketch estimation.<br />
<br />
=== Results ===<br />
The baseline output is compared to the full framework, and the figure below shows that MarrNet provides model outputs with more details and smoother surfaces than the baseline. Quantitatively, the full model also achieves 0.57 IoU, higher than the direct prediction baseline.<br />
<br />
[[File:marrnet_shapenet_results.png|700px|thumb|center|ShapeNet results.]]<br />
<br />
== PASCAL 3D+ ==<br />
Rough 3D models are provided from real-life images.<br />
<br />
=== Method ===<br />
Each module is pre-trained on the ShapeNet dataset, and then fine-tuned on the PASCAL 3D+ dataset. Three variants of the model are tested. The first is trained using ShapeNet data only with no fine-tuning. The second is fine-tuned without fixing the decoder. The third is fine-tuned with a fixed decoder.<br />
<br />
=== Results ===<br />
The figure below shows the results of the ablation study. The model trained only on synthetic data provides reasonable estimates. However, fine-tuning without fixing the decoder leads to impossible shapes from certain views. The third model keeps the shape prior, providing more details in the final shape.<br />
<br />
[[File:marrnet_pascal_3d_ablation.png|600px|thumb|center|Ablation studies using the PASCAL 3D+ dataset.]]<br />
<br />
Additional comparisons are made with the state-of-the-art (DRC) on the provided ground truth shapes. MarrNet achieves 0.39 IoU, while DRC achieves 0.34. However, the authors claim that the IoU metric is sub-optimal for three reasons. First, there is no emphasis on details since the metric prefers models that predict mean shapes consistently. Second, all possible scales are searched during the IoU computation, making it less efficient. Third, PASCAL 3D+ only has rough annotations, with only 10 CAD chair models for all images, and computing IoU with these shapes is not very informative. Instead, human studies are conducted and MarrNet reconstructions are preferred 74% of the time over DRC, and 42% of the time to ground truth. This shows how MarrNet produces nice shapes and also highlights the fact that ground truth shapes are not very good.<br />
<br />
[[File:human_studies.png|400px|thumb|center|Human preferences on chairs in PASCAL 3D+ (Xiang et al. 2014). The numbers show the percentage of how often humans prefered the 3D shape from DRC (state-of-the-art), MarrNet, or GT.]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:marrnet_pascal_3d_drc_comparison.png|600px|thumb|center|Comparison between DRC and MarrNet results.]]<br />
<br />
Several failure cases are shown in the figure below. Specifically, the framework does not seem to work well on thin structures.<br />
<br />
[[File:marrnet_pascal_3d_failure_cases.png|500px|thumb|center|Failure cases on PASCAL 3D+. The algorithm cannot recover thin structures.]]<br />
<br />
== IKEA ==<br />
This dataset contains images of IKEA furniture, with accurate 3D shape and pose annotations. Objects are often heavily occluded or truncated.<br />
<br />
=== Results ===<br />
Qualitative results are shown in the figure below. The model is shown to deal with mild occlusions in real life scenarios. Human studes show that MarrNet reconstructions are preferred 61% of the time to 3D-VAE-GAN.<br />
<br />
[[File:marrnet_ikea_results.png|700px|thumb|center|Results on chairs in the IKEA dataset, and comparison with 3D-VAE-GAN.]]<br />
<br />
== Other Data ==<br />
MarrNet is also applied on cars and airplanes. Shown below, smaller details such as the horizontal stabilizer and rear-view mirrors are recovered.<br />
<br />
[[File:marrnet_airplanes_and_cars.png|700px|thumb|center|Results on airplanes and cars from the PASCAL 3D+ dataset, and comparison with DRC.]]<br />
<br />
MarrNet is also jointly trained on three object categories, and successfully recovers the shapes of different categories. Results are shown in the figure below.<br />
<br />
[[File:marrnet_multiple_categories.png|700px|thumb|center|Results when trained jointly on all three object categories (cars, airplanes, and chairs).]]<br />
<br />
= Commentary =<br />
Qualitatively, the results look quite impressive. The 2.5D sketch estimation seems to distill the useful information for more realistic looking 3D shape estimation. The disentanglement of 2.5D and 3D estimation steps also allows for easier training and domain adaptation from synthetic data.<br />
<br />
As the authors mention, the IoU metric is not very descriptive, and most of the comparisons in this paper are only qualitative, mainly being human preference studies. A better quantitative evaluation metric would greatly help in making an unbiased comparison between different results.<br />
<br />
As seen in several of the results, the network does not deal well with objects that have thin structures, which is particularly noticeable with many of the chair arm rests. As well, looking more carefully at some results, it seems that fine-tuning only the 3D encoder does not seem to transfer well to unseen objects, since shape priors have already been learned by the decoder.<br />
<br />
= Conclusion =<br />
The proposed MarrNet employs a novel model to estimate 2.5D sketches for 3D shape reconstruction. The sketches are shown to improve the model’s performance, and make it easy to adapt to images across different domains and categories. Differentiable loss functions are created such that the model can be fine-tuned end-to-end on images without ground truth. The experiments show that the model performs well, and human studies show that the results are preferred over other methods.<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
# David Marr. Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W. H. Freeman and Company, 1982.<br />
# Shubham Tulsiani, Tinghui Zhou, Alexei A Efros, and Jitendra Malik. Multi-view supervision for single-view reconstruction via differentiable ray consistency. In CVPR, 2017.<br />
# JiajunWu, Chengkai Zhang, Tianfan Xue,William T Freeman, and Joshua B Tenenbaum. Learning a Proba- bilistic Latent Space of Object Shapes via 3D Generative-Adversarial Modeling. In NIPS, 2016b.</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Multi-scale_Dense_Networks_for_Resource_Efficient_Image_Classification&diff=35419Multi-scale Dense Networks for Resource Efficient Image Classification2018-03-25T00:57:26Z<p>Shitawal: Added Problem Setup section</p>
<hr />
<div>= Introduction = <br />
<br />
Multi-Scale Dense Networks, MSDNets, are designed to address the growing demand for efficient object recognition. The issue with existing recognition networks is that they are either:<br />
efficient networks, but don't do well on hard examples, or large networks that do well on all examples but require a large amount of resources.<br />
<br />
In order to be efficient on all difficulties MSDNets propose a structure that can accurately output classifications for varying levels of computational requirements. The two cases that are used to evaluate the network are:<br />
Anytime Prediction: What is the best prediction the network can provide when suddenly prompted.<br />
Budget Batch Predictions: Given a maximum amount of computational resources how well does the network do on the batch.<br />
<br />
= Related Networks =<br />
<br />
== Computationally Efficient Networks ==<br />
<br />
Existing methods for refining an accurate network to be more efficient include weight pruning, quantization of weights (during or after training), and knowledge distillation, which trains smaller network to match teacher network.<br />
<br />
== Resource Efficient Networks == <br />
<br />
Unlike the above, resource efficient concepts consider limited resources as a part of the structure/loss.<br />
Examples of work in this area include: <br />
* Efficient variants to existing state of the art networks<br />
* Gradient boosted decision trees, which incorporate computational limitations into the training<br />
* Fractal nets<br />
* Adaptive computation time method<br />
<br />
== Related architectures ==<br />
<br />
MSDNets pull on concepts from a number of existing networks:<br />
* Neural fabrics and others, are used to quickly establish a low resolution feature map, which is integral for classification.<br />
* Deeply supervised nets, introduced the incorporation of multiple classifiers throughout the network<br />
* The feature concatenation method from DenseNets allows the later classifiers to not be disrupted by the weight updates from earlier classifiers.<br />
<br />
= Problem Setup =<br />
The authors consider two settings that impose computational constraints at prediction time.<br />
<br />
== Anytime Prediction ==<br />
In the anytime prediction setting (Grubb & Bagnell, 2012), there is a finite computational budget <math>B > 0</math> available for each test example <math>x</math>. The budget is nondeterministic and varies per test instance.<br />
<br />
== Budgeted Batch Classification ==<br />
In the budgeted batch classification setting, the model needs to classify a set of examples <math>D_test = {x_1, . . . , x_M}</math> within a finite computational budget <math>B > 0</math> that is known in advance.<br />
<br />
= Multi-Scale Dense Networks =<br />
<br />
== Integral Contributions ==<br />
<br />
The way MSDNets aims to provide efficient classification with varying computational costs is to create one network that outputs results at depths. While this may seem trivial, as intermediate classifiers can be inserted into any existing network, two major problems arise.<br />
<br />
=== Coarse Level Features Needed For Classification ===<br />
<br />
[[File:paper29 fig3.png | 700px|thumb|center]]<br />
<br />
Coarse level features are needed to gain context of scene. In typical CNN based networks, the features propagate from fine to coarse. Classifiers added to the early, fine featured, layers do not output accurate predictions due to the lack of context.<br />
<br />
Figure 3 depicts relative accuracies of the intermediate classifiers and shows that the accuracy of a classifier is highly correlated with its position in the network. It is easy to see, specifically with the case of ResNet, that the classifiers improve in a staircase pattern. All of the experiments were performed on Cifar-100 dataset and it can be seen that the intermediate classifiers perform worst than the final classifiers, thus highlighting the problem with the lack of coarse level features early on.<br />
<br />
To address this issue, MSDNets proposes an architecture in which uses multi scaled feature maps. The network is quickly formed to contain a set number of scales ranging from fine to coarse. These scales are propagated throughout, so that for the length of the network there are always coarse level features for classification and fine features for learning more difficult representations.<br />
<br />
=== Training of Early Classifiers Interferes with Later Classifiers ===<br />
<br />
When training a network containing intermediate classifiers, the training of early classifiers will cause the early layers to focus on features for that classifier. These learned features may not be as useful to the later classifiers and degrade their accuracy.<br />
<br />
MSDNets use dense connectivity to avoid this issue. By concatenating all prior layers to learn future layers, the gradient propagation is spread throughout the available features. This allows later layers to not be reliant on any single prior, providing opportunities to learn new features that priors have ignored.<br />
<br />
== Architecture ==<br />
<br />
[[File:MSDNet_arch.png | 700px|thumb|center|Left: the MSDNet architecture. Right: example calculations for each output given 3 scales and 4 layers.]]<br />
<br />
The architecture of MSDNet is a structure of convolutions with a set number of layers and a set number of scales. Layers allow the network to build on the previous information to generate more accurate predictions, while the scales allow the network to maintain coarse level features throughout.<br />
<br />
The first layer is a special, mini-CNN-network, that quickly fills all required scales with features. The following layers are generated through the convolutions of the previous layers and scales.<br />
<br />
Each output at a given s scale is given by the convolution of all prior outputs of the same scale, and the strided-convolution of all prior outputs from the previous scale. <br />
<br />
The classifiers are run on the concatenation of all of the coarsest outputs from the preceding layers.<br />
<br />
=== Loss Function ===<br />
<br />
The loss is calculated as a weighted sum of each classifier's logistic loss. The weighted loss is taken as an average over a set of training samples. The weights can be determined from a budget of computational power, but results also show that setting all to 1 is also acceptable.<br />
<br />
=== Computational Limit Inclusion ===<br />
<br />
When running in a budgeted batch scenario, the network attempts to provide the best overall accuracy. To do this with a set limit on computational resources, it works to use less of the budget on easy detections in order to allow more time to be spent on hard ones. <br />
In order to facilitate this, the classifiers are designed to exit when the confidence of the classification exceeds a preset threshold. To determine the threshold for each classifier, <math>|D_{test}|\sum_{k}(q_k C_k) \leq B </math> must be true. Where <math>|D_{test}|</math> is the total number of test samples, <math>C_k</math> is the computational requirement to get an output from the <math>k</math>th classifier, and <math>q_k </math> is the probability that a sample exits at the <math>k</math>th classifier. Assuming that all classifiers have the same base probability, <math>q</math>, then <math>q_k</math> can be used to find the threshold.<br />
<br />
= Experiments = <br />
<br />
When evaluating on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 ensembles and multi-classifier versions of ResNets and DenseNets, as well as FractalNet are used to compare with MSDNet. <br />
<br />
When evaluating on ImageNet ensembles and individual versions of ResNets and DenseNets are compared with MSDNets.<br />
<br />
== Anytime Prediction ==<br />
<br />
In anytime prediction MSDNets are shown to have highly accurate with very little budget, and continue to remain above the alternate methods as the budget increases.<br />
<br />
[[File:MSDNet_anytime.png | 700px|thumb|center|Accuracy of the anytime classification models.]]<br />
<br />
== Budget Batch ==<br />
<br />
For budget batch 3 MSDNets are designed with classifiers set-up for varying ranges of budget constraints. On both dataset options the MSDNets exceed all alternate methods with a fraction of the budget required.<br />
<br />
[[File:MSDNet_budgetbatch.png | 700px|thumb|center|Accuracy of the budget batch classification models.]]<br />
<br />
= Critique = <br />
<br />
The problem formulation and scenario evaluation were very well formulated, and according to independent reviews, the results were reproducible. Where the paper could improve is on explaining how to implement the threshold; it isn't very well explained how the use of the validation set can be used to set the threshold value.</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Neural_Audio_Synthesis_of_Musical_Notes_with_WaveNet_autoencoders&diff=35418Neural Audio Synthesis of Musical Notes with WaveNet autoencoders2018-03-25T00:44:45Z<p>Shitawal: Added to NSynth Dataset Motivation</p>
<hr />
<div>= Introduction =<br />
The authors of this paper have pointed out that the method in which most notes are created are hand-designed instruments modifying pitch, velocity and filter parameters to produce the required tone, timbre and dynamics of a sound. The authors suggest that this may be a problem and thus suggest a data-driven approach to audio synthesis. To train such a data expensive model the authors highlight the need for a large dataset much like imagenet for music. <br />
<br />
= Contributions =<br />
To solve the problem highlighted above the authors propose two main contributions of their paper: <br />
* Wavenet-style autoencoder that learn to encode temural data over a long term audio structures without requiring external conditioning<br />
* NSynth: a large dataset of musical notes inspired by the emerging of large image datasets<br />
<br />
<br />
= Models =<br />
<br />
[[File:paper26-figure1-models.png|center]]<br />
<br />
== WaveNet Autoencoder ==<br />
<br />
While the proposed autoencoder structure is very similar to that of WaveNet the authors argue that the algorithm is novel in two ways:<br />
* It is able to attain consistent long-term structure without any external conditioning <br />
* Creating meaningful embedding which can be interpolated between<br />
The authors accomplish this by passing the raw audio throw the encoder to produce an embedding <math>Z = f(x) </math>, next the input is shifted and feed into the decoder which reproduces the input. The resulting probability distribution: <br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
p(x) = \prod_{i=1}^N\{x_i | x_1, … , x_N-1, f(x) \}<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
A detailed block diagram of the modified WaveNet structure can be seen in figure 1b. This diagram demonstrates the encoder as a 30 layer network in each each node is a ReLU nonlinearity followed by a non-causal dilated convolution. Dilated convolution (aka convolutions with holes) is a type of convolution in which the filter skips input values with a certain step (step size of 1 is equivalent to the standard convolution), effectively allowing the network to operate at a coarser scale compared to traditional convolutional layers and have very large receptive fields. The resulting convolution is 128 channels all feed into another ReLU nonlinearity which is feed into another 1x1 convolution before getting down sampled with average pooling to produce a 16 dimension <math>Z </math> distribution. Each <math>Z </math> encoding is for a specific temporal resolution which the authors of the paper tuned to 32ms. This means that there are 125, 16 dimension <math>Z </math> encodings for each 4 second note present in the NSynth database (1984 embeddings). <br />
Before the <math>Z </math> embedding enters the decoder it is first upsampled to the original audio rate using nearest neighbor interpolation. The embedding then passes through the decoder to recreate the original audio note. The input audio data is first quantized using 8-bit mu-law encoding into 256 possible values, and the output prediction is the softmax over the possible values.<br />
<br />
== Baseline: Spectral Autoencoder ==<br />
Being unable to find an alternative fully deep model which the authors could use to compare to there proposed WaveNet autoencoder to, the authors just made a strong baseline. The baseline algorithm that the authors developed is a spectral autoencoder. The block diagram of its architecture can be seen in figure 1a. The baseline network is 10 layer deep. Each layer has a 4x4 kernels with 2x2 strides followed by a leaky-ReLU (0.1) and batch normalization. The final hidden vector(Z) was set to 1984 to exactly match the hidden vector of the WaveNet autoencoder. <br />
<br />
The authors attempted to train the baseline on multiple input: raw waveforms, FFT, and log magnitude of spectrum finding the latter to be best correlated with perceptual distortion. The authors also explored several representations of phase, finding that estimating magnitude and using established iterative techniques to reconstruct phase to be most effective. A final heuristic that was used by the authors to increase the accuracy of the baseline was weighting the mean square error (MSE) loss starting at 10 for 0 HZ and decreasing linearly to 1 at 4000 Hz and above. This is valid as the fundamental frequency of most instrument are found at lower frequencies. <br />
<br />
== Training ==<br />
Both the modified WaveNet and the baseline autoencoder used stochastic gradient descent with an Adam optimizer. The authors trained the baseline autoencoder model asynchronously for 1800000 epocs with a batch size of 8 with a learning rate of 1e-4. Where as the WaveNet modules were trained synchronously for 250000 epocs with a batch size of 32 with a decaying learning rate ranging from 2e-4 to 6e-6.<br />
<br />
= The NSynth Dataset =<br />
To evaluate the WaveNet autoencoder model, the authors' wanted an audio dataset that let them explore the learned embeddings. Musical notes are an ideal setting for this study. While several smaller music datasets exist, as deep networks train better on abundant, high-quality data, the authors decided on the development of a new dataset - NSynth Dataset.<br />
<br />
The NSynth dataset has 306 043 unique musical notes all 4 seconds in length sampled at 16,000 Hz. The data set consists of 1006 different instruments playing on average of 65.4 different pitches across on average 4.75 different velocities. Average pitches and velocities are used as not all instruments, can reach all 88 MIDI frequencies, or the 5 velocities desired by the authors. The dataset has the following split: training set with 289,205 notes, validation set with 12,678 notes, and test set with 4,096 notes.<br />
<br />
Along with each note the authors also included the following annotations:<br />
* Source - The way each sound was produced. There were 3 classes ‘acoustic’, ‘electronic’ and ‘synthetic’<br />
* Family - The family class of instruments that produced each note. There is 11 classes which include: {‘bass’, ‘brass’, ‘vocal’ ext.}<br />
* Qualities - Sonic qualities about each note<br />
<br />
The full dataset is publicly available here: https://magenta.tensorflow.org/datasets/nsynth.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
= Evaluation =<br />
<br />
To fully analyze all aspects of WaveNet the authors proposed three evaluations:<br />
* Reconstruction - Both Quantitative and Qualitative analysis were considered<br />
* Interpolation in Timbre and Dynamics<br />
* Entanglement of Pitch and Timbre <br />
<br />
Sound is historically very difficult to quantify from a picture representation as it requires training and expertise to analyze. Even with expertise it can be difficult to complete a full analyses as two very different sound can look quite similar in the respective pictorial representation. This is why the authors recommend all readers to listen to the created notes which can be sound here: https://magenta.tensorflow.org/nsynth.<br />
<br />
However, even when taking this under consideration the authors do pictorially demonstrate differences in the two proposed algorithms along with the original note, as it is hard to publish a paper with sound included. To demonstrate the pictorial difference the authors demonstrate each note using constant-q transform (CQT) which is able to capture the dynamics of timbre along with representing the frequencies of the sound.<br />
<br />
== Reconstruction ==<br />
<br />
[[File:paper27-figure2-reconstruction.png|center]]<br />
<br />
=== Qualitative Comparison ===<br />
In the Glockenspiel the WaveNet autoencoder is able to reproduce the magnitude, phase of the fundamental frequency (A and C in figure 2), and the attack (B in figure 2) of the instrument; Whereas the Baseline autoencoder introduces non existing harmonics (D in figure 2). The flugelhorn on the other hand, presents the starkest difference between the WaveNet and baseline autoencoders. The WaveNet while not perfect is able to reproduce the verbarto (I and J in figure 2) across multiple frequencies, which results in a natural sounding note. The baseline not only fails to do this but also adds extra noise (K in figure 2). The authors do add that the WaveNet produces some strikes (L in figure 2) however they argue that they are inaudible.<br />
<br />
[[File:paper27-table1.png|center]]<br />
<br />
=== Quantitative Comparison ===<br />
For a quantitative comparison the authors trained a separate multi-task classifier to classify a note using given pitch or quality of a note. The results of both the Baseline and the WaveNet where then inputted and attempted to be classified. As seen in table 1 WaveNet significantly outperformed the Baseline in both metrics posting a ~70% increase when only considering pitch.<br />
<br />
== Interpolation in Timbre and Dynamics ==<br />
<br />
[[File:paper27-figure3-interpolation.png|center]]<br />
<br />
For this evaluation the authors reconstructed from linear interpolations in Z space among different instruments and compared these to superimposed position of the original two instruments. Not surprisingly the model fuse aspects of both instruments during the recreation. The authors claim however, that WaveNet produces much more realistic sounding results. <br />
To support their claim the authors the authors point to WaveNet ability to create dynamic mixing of overtone in time, even jumping to higher harmonics (A in figure 3), capturing the timbre and dynamics of both the bass and flute. This can be once again seen in (B in figure 3) where Wavenet adds additional harmonics as well as a sub-harmonics to the original flute note. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Entanglement of Pitch and Timbre ==<br />
<br />
[[File:paper27-table2.png|center]]<br />
<br />
[[File:paper27-figure4-entanglement.png|center]]<br />
<br />
To study the entanglement between pitch and Z space the authors constructed a classifier which was expected to drop in accuracy if the representation of pitch and timbre is disentangled as it relies heavily on the pitch information. This is clearly demonstrated by the first two rows of table 2 where WaveNet relies more strongly on pitch then the baseline algorithm. The authors provide a more qualitative demonstrating in figure 4. They demonstrate a situation in which a classifier may be confused; a note with pitch of +12 is almost exactly the same as the original apart from an emergence of sub-harmonics.<br />
<br />
Further insight can be gained on the relationship between pitch and timbre by studying the trend amongst the network embeddings among the pitches for specific instruments. This is depicted in figure 5 for several instruments across their entire 88 note range at 127 velocity. It can be noted from the figure that the instruments have unique separation of two or more registers over which the embeddings of notes with different pitches are similar. This is expected since instrumental dynamics and timbre varies dramatically over the range of the instrument.<br />
<br />
= Future Directions =<br />
<br />
One significant area which the authors claim great improvement is needed is the large memory constraints required by there algorithm. Due to the large memory requirement the current WaveNet must rely on down sampling thus being unable to fully capture the global context. <br />
<br />
= Open Source Code base =<br />
<br />
Google has released all code related to this paper at the following open source repository: https://github.com/tensorflow/magenta/tree/master/magenta/models/nsynth<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<br />
# Engel, J., Resnick, C., Roberts, A., Dieleman, S., Norouzi, M., Eck, D. & Simonyan, K.. (2017). Neural Audio Synthesis of Musical Notes with WaveNet Autoencoders. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, in PMLR 70:1068-1077<br />
# NSynth: Neural Audio Synthesis. (2017, April 06). Retrieved March 19, 2018, from https://magenta.tensorflow.org/nsynth <br />
# The NSynth Dataset. (2017, April 05). Retrieved March 19, 2018, from https://magenta.tensorflow.org/datasets/nsynth</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=PointNet%2B%2B:_Deep_Hierarchical_Feature_Learning_on_Point_Sets_in_a_Metric_Space&diff=35221PointNet++: Deep Hierarchical Feature Learning on Point Sets in a Metric Space2018-03-22T16:55:04Z<p>Shitawal: Added to Semantic Scene Labeling</p>
<hr />
<div>= Introduction =<br />
This paper builds off of ideas from PointNet (Qi et al., 2017). The name PointNet is derived from the network's input - a point cloud. A point cloud is a set of three dimensional points that each have coordinates <math> (x,y,z) </math>. These coordinates usually represent the surface of an object. For example, a point cloud describing the shape of a torus is shown below.<br />
<br />
[[File:Point cloud torus.gif|thumb|center|Point cloud torus]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Processing point clouds is important in applications such as autonomous driving where point clouds are collected from an onboard LiDAR sensor. These point clouds can then be used for object detection. However, point clouds are challenging to process because:<br />
<br />
# They are unordered. If <math> N </math> is the number of points in a point cloud, then there are <math> N! </math> permutations that the point cloud can be represented.<br />
# The spatial arrangement of the points contains useful information, thus it needs to be encoded.<br />
# The function processing the point cloud needs to be invariant to transformations such as rotation and translations of all points. <br />
<br />
Previously, typical point cloud processing methods handled the challenges of point clouds by transforming the data with a 3D voxel grid or by representing the point cloud with multiple 2D images. When PointNet was introduced, it was novel because it directly took points as its input. PointNet++ improves on PointNet by using a hierarchical method to better capture local structures of the point cloud. <br />
<br />
[[File:point_cloud.png | 400px|thumb|center|Examples of point clouds and their associated task. Classification (left), part segmentation (centre), scene segmentation (right) ]]<br />
<br />
= Review of PointNet =<br />
<br />
The PointNet architecture is shown below. The input of the network is <math> n </math> points, which each have <math> (x,y,z) </math> coordinates. Each point is processed individually through a multi-layer perceptron (MLP). This network creates an encoding for each point; in the diagram, each point is represented by a 1024 dimension vector. Then, using a max pool layer a vector is created that represents the "global signature" of a point cloud. If classification is the task, this global signature is processed by another MLP to compute the classification scores. If segmentation is the task, this global signature is appended to to each point from the "nx64" layer, and these points are processed by a MLP to compute a semantic category score for each point.<br />
<br />
The core idea of the network is to learn a symmetric function on transformed points. Through the T-Nets and the MLP network, a transformation is learned with the hopes of making points invariant to point cloud transformations. Learning a symmetric function solves the challenge imposed by having unordered points; a symmetric function will produce the same value no matter the order of the input. This symmetric function is represented by the max pool layer.<br />
<br />
[[File:pointnet_arch.png | 700px|thumb|center|PointNet architecture. The blue highlighted region is when it is used for classification, and the beige highlighted region is when it is used for segmentation.]]<br />
<br />
= PointNet++ =<br />
<br />
The motivation for PointNet++ is that PointNet does not capture local, fine-grained details. Since PointNet performs a max pool layer over all of its points, information such as the local interaction between points is lost.<br />
<br />
== Problem Statement ==<br />
<br />
There is a metric space <math> X = (M,d) </math> where <math>d</math> is the metric from a Euclidean space <math>\pmb{\mathbb{R}}^n</math> and <math> M \subseteq \pmb{\mathbb{R}}^n </math> is the set of points. The goal is to learn a function that takes <math>X</math> as the input and output a class or per point label to each member of <math>M</math>.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
<br />
=== High Level Overview ===<br />
[[File:point_net++.png | 700px|thumb|right|PointNet++ architecture]]<br />
<br />
The PointNet++ architecture is shown on the right. The core idea is that a hierarchical architecture is used and at each level of the hierarchy a set of points is processed and abstracted to a new set with less points, i.e.,<br />
<br />
\begin{aligned}<br />
\text{Input at each level: } N \times (d + c) \text{ matrix}<br />
\end{aligned}<br />
<br />
where <math>N</math> is the number of points, <math>d</math> is the coordinate points <math>(x,y,z)</math> and <math>c</math> is the feature representation of each point, and<br />
<br />
\begin{aligned}<br />
\text{Output at each level: } N' \times (d + c') \text{ matrix}<br />
\end{aligned}<br />
<br />
where <math>N'</math> is the new number (smaller) of points and <math>c'</math> is the new feature vector.<br />
<br />
<br />
Each level has three layers: Sampling, Grouping, and PointNet. The Sampling layer selects points that will act as centroids of local regions within the point cloud. The Grouping layer then finds points near these centroids. Lastly, the PointNet layer performs PointNet on each group to encode local information.<br />
<br />
=== Sampling Layer ===<br />
<br />
The input of this layer is a set of points <math>{\{x_1,x_2,...,x_n}\}</math>. The goal of this layer is to select a subset of these points <math>{\{\hat{x}_1, \hat{x}_2,...,\hat{x}_m\}} </math> that will define the centroid of local regions.<br />
<br />
To select these points farthest point sampling is used. This is where <math>\hat{x}_j</math> is the most distant point with regards to <math>{\{\hat{x}_1, \hat{x}_2,...,\hat{x}_{j-1}\}}</math>. This ensures coverage of the entire point cloud opposed to random sampling.<br />
<br />
=== Grouping Layer ===<br />
<br />
The objective of the grouping layer is to form local regions around each centroid by grouping points near the selected centroids. The input is a point set of size <math>N \times (d + c)</math> and the coordinates of the centroids <math>N' \times d</math>. The output is the groups of points within each region <math>N' \times k \times (d+c)</math> where <math>k</math> is the number of points in each region.<br />
<br />
Note that <math>k</math> can vary per group. Later, the PointNet layer creates a feature vector that is the same size for all regions at a hierarchical level.<br />
<br />
To determine which points belong to a group a ball query is used; all points within a radius of the centroid are grouped. This is advantageous over nearest neighbour because it guarantees a fixed region space, which is important when learning local structure.<br />
<br />
=== PointNet Layer ===<br />
<br />
After grouping, PointNet is applied to the points. However, first the coordinates of points in a local region are converted to a local coordinate frame by <math> x_i = x_i - \bar{x}</math> where <math>\bar{x}</math> is the coordinates of the centroid.<br />
<br />
=== Robust Feature Learning under Non-Uniform Sampling Density ===<br />
<br />
The previous description of grouping uses a single scale. This is not optimal because the density varies per section of the point cloud. At each level, it would be better if the PointNet layer was applied to adaptively sized groups depending on the point cloud density.<br />
<br />
The two grouping methods the authors propose are shown in the diagram below. Multi-scale grouping (MSG) applies PointNet at various scales per group. The features from the various scales are concatenated. This method, however, is computationally expensive because for each region it always applies PointNet to all points. On the other hand, multi-resolution grouping (MRG) is less computationally expensive but still adaptively collects features. As shown in the diagram, the left vector is obtained by applying PointNet to three points, and these three points obtained information from three groups. This vector is then concatenated by a vector that is created by using PointNet on all the points in the level below. The second vector can be weighed more heavily if the first vector contains a sparse amount of points.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:grouping.png | 300px|thumb|center|Example of the two ways to perform grouping]]<br />
<br />
== Point Cloud Segmentation ==<br />
<br />
If the task is segmentation, the architecture is slightly modified since we want a semantic score for each point. To achieve this, distance-based interpolation and skip-connections are used.<br />
<br />
=== Distance-based Interpolation ===<br />
<br />
Here, point features from <math>N_l \times (d + C)</math> points are propagated to <math>N_{l-1} \times (d + C)</math> points where <math>N_{l-1}</math> is greater than <math>N_l</math>.<br />
<br />
To propagate features an inverse distance weighted average based on <math>k</math> nearest neighbors is used. The <math>p=2</math> and <math>k=3</math>.<br />
<br />
[[File:prop_feature.png | 500px|thumb|center|Feature interpolation during segmentation]]<br />
<br />
=== Skip-connections ===<br />
<br />
In addition, skip connections are used (see the PointNet++ architecture diagram). The features from the the skip layers are concatenated with the interpolated features. Next, a "unit-wise" PointNet is applied, which the authors describe as similar to a one-by-one convolution.<br />
<br />
== Experiments ==<br />
To validate the effectiveness of PointNet++, experiments in three areas were performed - classification in Euclidean metric space, semantic scene labelling, and classification in non-Euclidean space.<br />
<br />
=== Point Set Classification in Euclidean Metric Space ===<br />
<br />
The digit dataset, MNIST, was converted to a 2D point cloud. Pixel intensities were normalized in the range of <math>[0, 1]</math>, and only pixels with intensities larger than 0.5 were considered. The coordinate system was set at the centre of the image. PointNet++ achieved a classification error of 0.51%. The original PointNet had 0.78% classification error. The table below compares these results to the state-of-the-art.<br />
<br />
[[File:mnist_results.png | 300px|thumb|center|MNIST classification results.]]<br />
<br />
In addition, the ModelNet40 dataset was used. This dataset consists of CAD models. Three dimensional point clouds were sampled from mesh surfaces of the ModelNet40 shapes. The classification results from this dataset are shown below.<br />
<br />
[[File:modelnet40.png | 300px|thumb|center|ModelNet40 classification results.]]<br />
<br />
An experiment was performed to show how the accuracy was affected by the number of points used. With PointNet++ using multi-scale grouping and dropout, the performance decreased by less than 1% when 1024 test points were reduced to 256. On the other hand, PointNet's performance was impacted by the decrease in points.<br />
<br />
[[File:paper28_fig4_chair.png | 300px|thumb|center|An example showing the reduction of points visually. At 256 points, the points making up the object is very spare, however the accuracy is only reduced by 1%]][[File:num_points_acc.png | 300px|thumb|center|Relationship between accuracy and the number of points used for classification.]]<br />
<br />
=== Semantic Scene Labelling ===<br />
<br />
The ScanNet dataset was used for experiments in semantic scene labelling. This dataset consists of laser scans of indoor scenes where the goal is to predict a semantic label for each point. Example results are shown below.<br />
<br />
[[File:scannet.png | 300px|thumb|center|Example ScanNet semantic segmentation results.]]<br />
<br />
To compare to other methods, the authors convert their point labels to a voxel format, and accuracy is determined on a per voxel basis. The accuracy compared to other methods is shown below.<br />
<br />
[[File:scannet_acc.png | 500px|thumb|center|ScanNet semantic segmentation classification comparison to other methods.]]<br />
<br />
To test how the trained model performed on scans with non-uniform sampling density, virtual scans of Scannet scenes were synthesized and the network was evaluated on this data. It can be seen from the above figures that SSG performance greatly falls due to the sampling density shift. MRG network, on the other hand, is more robust to the sampling density shift since it is able to automatically switch to features depicting coarser granularity when the sampling is sparse. This proves the effectiveness of the proposed density adaptive layer design.<br />
<br />
=== Classification in Non-Euclidean Metric Space ===<br />
<br />
[[File:shrec.png | 300px|thumb|right|Example of shapes from the SHREC15 dataset.]]<br />
<br />
Lastly, experiments were performed on the SHREC15 dataset. This dataset contains shapes that have different poses. This experiment shows that PointNet++ is able to generalize to non-Euclidean spaces. Results from this dataset are provided below.<br />
<br />
[[File:shrec15_results.png | 500px|thumb|center|Results from the SHREC15 dataset.]]<br />
<br />
=== Feature Visualization ===<br />
The figure below visualizes what is learned by just the first layer kernels of the network. The model is trained on a dataset the mostly consisted of furniture which explains the lines, corners, and planes visible in the visualization. Visualization is performed by creating a voxel grid in space and only aggregating point sets that activate specific neurons the most.<br />
<br />
[[File:26_8.PNG | 500px|thumb|center|Pointclouds learned from first layer kernels (red is near, blue is far)]]<br />
<br />
== Critique ==<br />
<br />
It seems clear that PointNet is lacking capturing local context between points. PointNet++ seems to be an important extension, but the improvements in the experimental results seem small. Some computational efficiency experiments would have been nice. For example, the processing speed of the network, and the computational efficiency of MRG over MRG.<br />
<br />
== Code ==<br />
<br />
Code for PointNet++ can be found at: https://github.com/charlesq34/pointnet2 <br />
<br />
<br />
=Sources=<br />
1. Charles R. Qi, Li Yi, Hao Su, Leonidas J. Guibas. PointNet++: Deep Hierarchical Feature Learning on Point Sets in a Metric Space, 2017<br />
<br />
2. Charles R. Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, Leonidas J. Guibas. PointNet: Deep Learning on Point Sets for 3D Classification and Segmentation, 2017</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Spherical_CNNs&diff=35210Spherical CNNs2018-03-22T16:13:39Z<p>Shitawal: Added to Introduction</p>
<hr />
<div>= Introduction =<br />
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), or network architectures involving CNNs, are the current state of the art for learning 2D image processing tasks such as semantic segmentation and object detection. CNNs work well in large part due to the property of being translationally equivariant. This property allows a network trained to detect a certain type of object to still detect the object even if it is translated to another position in the image. However, this does not correspond well to spherical signals since projecting a spherical signal onto a plane will result in distortions, as demonstrated in Figure 1. There are many different types of spherical projections onto a 2D plane, as most people know from the various types of world maps, none of which provide all the necessary properties for rotation-invariant learning.<br />
<br />
[[File:paper26-fig1.png|center]]<br />
<br />
The main contributions of this paper are the following:<br />
# The theory of spherical CNNs.<br />
# The first automatically differentiable implementation of the generalized Fourier transform for <math>S^2</math> and SO(3). The provided PyTorch code by the authors is easy to use, fast, and memory efficient.<br />
# The first empirical support for the utility of spherical CNNs for rotation-invariant learning problems.<br />
<br />
= Notation =<br />
Below are listed several important terms:<br />
* '''Unit Sphere''' <math>S^2</math> is defined as a sphere where all of its points are distance of 1 from the origin. The unit sphere can be parameterized by the spherical coordinates <math>\alpha ∈ [0, 2π]</math> and <math>β ∈ [0, π]</math>. This is a two-dimensional manifold with respect to <math>\alpha</math> and <math>β</math>.<br />
* '''<math>S^2</math> Sphere''' The three dimensional surface from a 3D sphere<br />
* '''Spherical Signals''' In the paper spherical images and filters are modeled as continuous functions <math>f : s^2 → \mathbb{R}^K</math>. K is the number of channels. Such as how RGB images have 3 channels a spherical signal can have numerous channels describing the data. Examples of channels which were used can be found in the experiments section.<br />
* '''Rotations - SO(3)''' The group of 3D rotations on an <math>S^2</math> sphere. Sometimes called the "special orthogonal group". In this paper the ZYZ-Euler parameterization is used to represent SO(3) rotations with <math>\alpha, \beta</math>, and <math>\gamma</math>. Any rotation can be broken down into first a rotation (<math>\alpha</math>) about the Z-axis, then a rotation (<math>\beta</math>) about the new Y-axis (Y'), followed by a rotation (<math>\gamma</math>) about the new Z axis (Z"). [In the rest of this paper, to integrate functions on SO(3), the authors use a rotationally invariant probability measure on the Borel subsets of SO(3). This measure is an example of a Haar measure. Haar measures generalize the idea of rotationally invariant probability measures to general topological groups. For more on Haar measures, see (Feldman 2002) ]<br />
<br />
= Related Work =<br />
The related work presented in this paper is very brief, in large part due to the novelty of spherical CNNs and the length of the rest of the paper. The authors enumerate numerous papers which attempt to exploit larger groups of symmetries such as the translational symmetries of CNNs but do not go into specific details for any of these attempts. They do state that all the previous works are limited to discrete groups with the exception of SO(2)-steerable networks.<br />
The authors also mention that previous works exist that analyze spherical images but that these do not have an equivariant architecture. They claim that Spherical CNNs are "the first to achieve equivariance to a continuous, non-commutative group (SO(3))". They also claim to be the first to use the generalized Fourier transform for speed effective performance of group correlation.<br />
<br />
= Correlations on the Sphere and Rotation Group =<br />
Spherical correlation is like planar correlation except instead of translation, there is rotation. The definitions for each are provided as follows:<br />
<br />
'''Planar correlation''' The value of the output feature map at translation <math>\small x ∈ Z^2</math> is computed as an inner product between the input feature map and a filter, shifted by <math>\small x</math>.<br />
<br />
'''Spherical correlation''' The value of the output feature map evaluated at rotation <math>\small R ∈ SO(3)</math> is computed as an inner product between the input feature map and a filter, rotated by <math>\small R</math>.<br />
<br />
'''Rotation of Spherical Signals''' The paper introduces the rotation operator <math>L_R</math>. The rotation operator simply rotates a function (which allows us to rotate the the spherical filters) by <math>R^{-1}</math>. With this definition we have the property that <math>L_{RR'} = L_R L_{R'}</math>.<br />
<br />
'''Inner Products''' The inner product of spherical signals is simply the integral summation on the vector space over the entire sphere.<br />
<br />
<math>\langle\psi , f \rangle = \int_{S^2} \sum_{k=1}^K \psi_k (x)f_k (x)dx</math><br />
<br />
<math>dx</math> here is SO(3) rotation invariant and is equivalent to <math>d \alpha sin(\beta) d \beta / 4 \pi </math> in spherical coordinates. This comes from the ZYZ-Euler paramaterization where any rotation can be broken down into first a rotation about the Z-axis, then a rotation about the new Y-axis (Y'), followed by a rotation about the new Z axis (Z"). More details on this are given in Appendix A in the paper.<br />
<br />
By this definition, the invariance of the inner product is then guaranteed for any rotation <math>R ∈ SO(3)</math>. In other words, when subjected to rotations, the volume under a spherical heightmap does not change. The following equations show that <math>L_R</math> has a distinct adjoint (<math>L_{R^{-1}}</math>) and that <math>L_R</math> is unitary and thus preserves orthogonality and distances.<br />
<br />
<math>\langle L_R \psi \,, f \rangle = \int_{S^2} \sum_{k=1}^K \psi_k (R^{-1} x)f_k (x)dx</math><br />
<br />
::::<math>= \int_{S^2} \sum_{k=1}^K \psi_k (x)f_k (Rx)dx</math><br />
<br />
::::<math>= \langle \psi , L_{R^{-1}} f \rangle</math><br />
<br />
'''Spherical Correlation''' With the above knowledge the definition of spherical correlation of two signals <math>f</math> and <math>\psi</math> is:<br />
<br />
<math>[\psi \star f](R) = \langle L_R \psi \,, f \rangle = \int_{S^2} \sum_{k=1}^K \psi_k (R^{-1} x)f_k (x)dx</math><br />
<br />
The output of the above equation is a function on SO(3). This can be thought of as for each rotation combination of <math>\alpha , \beta , \gamma </math> there is a different volume under the correlation. The authors make a point of noting that previous work by Driscoll and Healey only ensures circular symmetries about the Z axis and their new formulation ensures symmetry about any rotation.<br />
<br />
'''Rotation of SO(3) Signals''' The first layer of Spherical CNNs take a function on the sphere (<math>S^2</math>) and output a function on SO(3). Therefore, if a Spherical CNN with more than one layer is going to be built there needs to be a way to find the correlation between two signals on SO(3). The authors then generalize the rotation operator (<math>L_R</math>) to encompass acting on signals from SO(3). This new definition of <math>L_R</math> is as follows: (where <math>R^{-1}Q</math> is a composition of rotations, i.e. multiplication of rotation matrices)<br />
<br />
<math>[L_Rf](Q)=f(R^{-1} Q)</math><br />
<br />
'''Rotation Group Correlation''' The correlation of two signals (<math>f,\psi</math>) on SO(3) with K channels is defined as the following:<br />
<br />
<math>[\psi \star f](R) = \langle L_R \psi , f \rangle = \int_{SO(3)} \sum_{k=1}^K \psi_k (R^{-1} Q)f_k (Q)dQ</math><br />
<br />
where dQ represents the ZYZ-Euler angles <math>d \alpha sin(\beta) d \beta d \gamma / 8 \pi^2 </math>. A complete derivation of this can be found in Appendix A.<br />
<br />
'''Equivariance''' The equivariance for the rotation group correlation is similarly demonstrated. A layer is equivariant if for some operator <math>T_R</math>, <math>\Phi \circ L_R = T_R \circ \Phi</math>, and: <br />
<br />
<math>[\psi \star [L_Qf]](R) = \langle L_R \psi , L_Qf \rangle = \langle L_{Q^{-1} R} \psi , f \rangle = [\psi \star f](Q^{-1}R) = [L_Q[\psi \star f]](R) </math>.<br />
<br />
= Implementation with GFFT =<br />
The authors leverage the Generalized Fourier Transform (GFT) and Generalized Fast Fourier Transform (GFFT) algorithms to compute the correlations outlined in the previous section. The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) can compute correlations and convolutions efficiently by means of the Fourier theorem. The Fourier theorem states that a continuous periodic function can be expressed as a sum of a series of sine or cosine terms (called Fourier coefficients). The FFT can be generalized to <math>S^2</math> and SO(3) and is then called the GFT. The GFT is a linear projection of a function onto orthogonal basis functions. The basis functions are a set of irreducible unitary representations for a group (such as for <math>S^2</math> or SO(3)). For <math>S^2</math> the basis functions are the spherical harmonics <math>Y_m^l(x)</math>. For SO(3) these basis functions are called the Wigner D-functions <math>D_{mn}^l(R)</math>. For both sets of functions the indices are restricted to <math>l\geq0</math> and <math>-l \leq m,n \geq l</math>. The Wigner D-functions are also orthogonal so the Fourier coefficients can be computed by the inner product with the Wigner D-functions (See Appendix C for complete proof). The Wigner D-functions are complete which means that any function (which is well behaved) on SO(3) can be expressed as a linear combination of the Wigner D-functions. The GFT of a function on SO(3) is thus:<br />
<br />
<math>\hat{f^l} = \int_X f(x) D^l(x)dx</math><br />
<br />
where <math>\hat{f}</math> represents the Fourier coefficients. For <math>S^2</math> we have the same equation but with the basis functions <math>Y^l</math>.<br />
<br />
The inverse SO(3) Fourier transform is:<br />
<br />
<math>f(R)=[\mathcal{F}^{-1} \hat{f}](R) = \sum_{l=0}^b (2l + 1) \sum_{m=-l}^l \sum_{n=-l}^l \hat{f_{mn}^l} D_{mn}^l(R) </math><br />
<br />
The bandwidth b represents the maximum frequency and is related to the resolution of the spatial grid. Kostelec and Rockmore are referenced for more knowledge on this topic.<br />
<br />
The authors give proofs (Appendix D) that the SO(3) correlation satisfies the Fourier theorem and the <math>S^2</math> correlation of spherical signals can be computed by the outer products of the <math>S^2</math>-FTs (Shown in Figure 2).<br />
<br />
[[File:paper26-fig2.png|center]]<br />
<br />
The GFFT algorithm details are taken from Kostelec and Rockmore. The authors claim they have the first automatically differentiable implementation of the GFT for <math>S^2</math> and SO(3). The authors do not provide any run time comparisons for real time applications (they just mentioned that FFT can be computed in <math>O(n\mathrm{log}n)</math> time) or any comparisons on training times with/without GFFT. However, they do provide the source code of their implementation at: https://github.com/jonas-koehler/s2cnn.<br />
<br />
= Experiments =<br />
The authors provide several experiments. The first set of experiments are designed to show the numerical stability and accuracy of the outlined methods. The second group of experiments demonstrates how the algorithms can be applied to current problem domains.<br />
<br />
==Equivariance Error==<br />
In this experiment the authors try to show experimentally that their theory of equivariance holds. They express that they had doubts about the equivariance in practice due to potential discretization artifacts since equivariance was proven for the continuous case, with the potential consequence of equivariance not holding being that the weight sharing scheme becomes less effective. The experiment is set up by first testing the equivariance of the SO(3) correlation at different resolutions. 500 random rotations and feature maps (with 10 channels) are sampled. They then calculate the approximation error <math>\small\Delta = \dfrac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n std(L_{R_i} \Phi(f_i) - \phi(L_{R_i} f_i))/std(\Phi(f_i))</math><br />
Note: The authors do not mention what the std function is however it is likely the standard deviation function as 'std' is the command for standard deviation in MATLAB.<br />
<math>\Phi</math> is a composition of SO(3) correlation layers with filters which have been randomly initialized. The authors mention that they were expecting <math>\Delta</math> to be zero in the case of perfect equivariance. This is due to, as proven earlier, the following two terms equaling each other in the continuous case: <math>\small L_{R_i} \Phi(f_i) - \phi(L_{R_i} f_i)</math>. The results are shown in Figure 3. <br />
<br />
[[File:paper26-fig3.png|center]]<br />
<br />
<math>\Delta</math> only grows with resolution/layers when there is no activation function. With ReLU activation the error stays constant once slightly higher than 0 resolution. The authors indicate that the error must therefore be from the feature map rotation since this type of error is exact only for bandlimited functions.<br />
<br />
==MNIST Data==<br />
The experiment using MNIST data was created by projecting MNIST digits onto a sphere using stereographic projection to create the resulting images as seen in Figure 4.<br />
<br />
[[File:paper26-fig4.png|center]]<br />
<br />
The authors created two datasets, one with the projected digits and the other with the same projected digits which were then subjected to a random rotation. The spherical CNN architecture used was <math>\small S^2</math>conv-ReLU-SO(3)conv-ReLU-FC-softmax and was attempted with bandwidths of 30,10,6 and 20,40,10 channels for each layer respectively. This model was compared to a baseline CNN with layers conv-ReLU-conv-ReLU-FC-softmax with 5x5 filters, 32,64,10 channels and stride of 3. For comparison this leads to approximately 68K parameters for the baseline and 58K parameters for the spherical CNN. Results can be seen in Table 1. It is clear from the results that the spherical CNN architecture made the network rotationally invariant. Performance on the rotated set is almost identical to the non-rotated set. This is true even when trained on the non-rotated set and tested on the rotated set. Compare this to the non-spherical architecture which becomes unusable when rotating the digits.<br />
<br />
[[File:paper26-tab1.png|center]]<br />
<br />
==SHREC17==<br />
The SHREC dataset contains 3D models from the ShapeNet dataset which are classified into categories. It consists of a regularly aligned dataset and a rotated dataset. The models from the SHREC17 dataset were projected onto a sphere by means of raycasting. Different properties of the objects obtained from the raycast of the original model and the convex hull of the model make up the different channels which are input into the spherical CNN.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:paper26-fig5.png|center]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The network architecture used is an initial <math>\small S^2</math>conv-BN-ReLU block which is followed by two SO(3)conv-BN-ReLU blocks. The output is then fed into a MaxPool-BN block then a linear layer to the output for final classification. The architecture for this experiment has ~1.4M parameters, far exceeding the scale of the spherical CNNs in the other experiments.<br />
<br />
This architecture achieves state of the art results on the SHREC17 tasks. The model places 2nd or 3rd in all categories but was not submitted as the SHREC17 task is closed. Table 2 shows the comparison of results with the top 3 submissions in each category. In the table, P@N stands for precision, R@N stands for recall, F1@N stands for F-score, mAP stands for mean average precision, and NDCG stands for normalized discounted cumulative gain in relevance based on whether the category and subcategory labels are predicted correctly. The authors claim the results show empirical proof of the usefulness of spherical CNNs. They elaborate that this is largely due to the fact that most architectures on the SHREC17 competition are highly specialized whereas their model is fairly general.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:paper26-tab2.png|center]]<br />
<br />
==Molecular Atomization==<br />
In this experiment a spherical CNN is implemented with an architecture resembling that of ResNet. They use the QM7 dataset which has the task of predicting atomization energy of molecules. The positions and charges given in the dataset are projected onto the sphere using potential functions. This is done as follows. First, for each atom, a sphere is defined around its position with the radius of the sphere kept uniform across all atoms. The radius is chosen as the minimal radius so no intersections between atoms occur in the training set. Finally, using potential functions, a T channel spherical signal is produced for each atom in the molecule as shown in the figure below. A summary of their results is shown in Table 3 along with some of the spherical CNN architecture details. It shows the different RMSE obtained from different methods. The results from this final experiment also seem to be promising as the network the authors present achieves the second best score. They also note that the first place method grows exponentially with the number of atoms per molecule so is unlikely to scale well.<br />
<br />
[[File:paper26-tab3.png|center]]<br />
<br />
[[File:paper26-f6.png|center]]<br />
<br />
= Conclusions =<br />
This paper presents a novel architecture called Spherical CNNs. The paper defines <math>\small S^2</math> and SO(3) cross correlations, shows the theory behind their rotational invariance for continuous functions, and demonstrates that the invariance also applies to the discrete case. An effective GFFT algorithm was implemented and evaluated on two very different datasets with close to state of the art results, demonstrating that there are practical applications to Spherical CNNs.<br />
<br />
For future work the authors believe that improvements can be obtained by generalizing the algorithms to the SE(3) group (SE(3) simply adds translations in 3D space to the SO(3) group). The authors also briefly mention their excitement for applying Spherical CNNs to omnidirectional vision such as in drones and autonomous cars. They state that there is very little publicly available omnidirectional image data which could be why they did not conduct any experiments in this area.<br />
<br />
= Commentary =<br />
The reviews on Spherical CNNs are very positive and it is ranked in the top 1% of papers submitted to ICLR 2018. Positive points are the novelty of the architecture, the wide variety of experiments performed, and the writing. One critique of the original submission is that the related works section only lists, instead of describing, previous methods and that a description of the methods would have provided more clarity. The authors have since expanded the section however I found that it is still limited which the authors attribute to length limitations. Another critique is that the evaluation does not provide enough depth. For example, it would have been great to see an example of omnidirectional vision for spherical networks. However, this is to be expected as it is just the introduction of spherical CNNs and more work is sure to come.<br />
<br />
= Source Code =<br />
Source code is available at:<br />
https://github.com/jonas-koehler/s2cnn<br />
<br />
= Sources =<br />
* T. Cohen et al. Spherical CNNs, 2018.<br />
* J. Feldman. Haar Measure. http://www.math.ubc.ca/~feldman/m606/haar.pdf<br />
* P. Kostelec, D. Rockmore. FFTs on the Rotation Group, 2008.</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Do_Deep_Neural_Networks_Suffer_from_Crowding&diff=35193Do Deep Neural Networks Suffer from Crowding2018-03-22T14:56:21Z<p>Shitawal: Added to DNNs trained with Images with Target in Isolation from Supplemental</p>
<hr />
<div>= Introduction =<br />
Ever since the evolution of Deep Networks, there has been a tremendous amount of research and effort that has been put into making machines capable of recognizing objects the same way as humans do. Humans can recognize objects in a way that is invariant to scale, translation, and clutter. Crowding is another visual effect suffered by humans, in which an object that can be recognized in isolation can no longer be recognized when other objects, called flankers, are placed close to it and this is a very common real-life experience. This paper focuses on studying the impact of crowding on Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) by adding clutter to the images and then analyzing which models and settings suffer less from such effects. <br />
<br />
[[File:paper25_fig_crowding_ex.png|center|600px]]<br />
The figure shows a visual example of crowding [3]. Keep your eyes still and look at the dot in the center and try to identify the "A" in the two circles. You should see that it is much easier to make out the "A" in the right than in the left circle. The same "A" exists in both circles, however, the left circle contains flankers which are those line segments.<br />
<br />
The paper investigates two types of DNNs for crowding: traditional deep convolutional neural networks(DCNN) and a multi-scale eccentricity-dependent model which is an extension of the DCNNs and inspired by the retina where the receptive field size of the convolutional filters in the model grows with increasing distance from the center of the image, called the eccentricity and will be explained below. The authors focus on the dependence of crowding on image factors, such as flanker configuration, target-flanker similarity, target eccentricity and premature pooling in particular.<br />
<br />
= Models =<br />
== Deep Convolutional Neural Networks ==<br />
The DCNN is a basic architecture with 3 convolutional layers, spatial 3x3 max-pooling with varying strides and a fully connected layer for classification as shown in the below figure. <br />
[[File:DCNN.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
The network is fed with images resized to 60x60, with mini-batches of 128 images, 32 feature channels for all convolutional layers, and convolutional filters of size 5x5 and stride 1.<br />
<br />
As highlighted earlier, the effect of pooling is into main consideration and hence three different configurations have been investigated as below: <br />
<br />
1. '''No total pooling''' Feature maps sizes decrease only due to boundary effects, as the 3x3 max pooling has stride 1. The square feature maps sizes after each pool layer are 60-54-48-42.<br />
2. '''Progressive pooling''' 3x3 pooling with a stride of 2 halves the square size of the feature maps, until we pool over what remains in the final layer, getting rid of any spatial information before the fully connected layer. (60-27-11-1).<br />
3. '''At end pooling''' Same as no total pooling, but before the fully connected layer, max-pool over the entire feature map. (60-54-48-1).<br />
<br />
===What is the problem in CNNs?===<br />
CNNs fall short in explaining human perceptual invariance. First, CNNs typically take input at a single uniform resolution. Biological measurements suggest that resolution is not uniform across the human visual field, but rather decays with eccentricity, i.e. distance from the center of focus Even more importantly, CNNs rely on data augmentation to achieve transformation-invariance and obviously a lot of processing is needed for CNNs.<br />
<br />
==Eccentricity-dependent Model==<br />
In order to take care of the scale invariance in the input image, the eccentricity dependent DNN is utilized. The main intuition behind this architecture is that as we increase eccentricity, the receptive fields also increase and hence the model will become invariant to changing input scales. It emphasizes scale invariance over translation invariance, in contrast to traditional DCNNs. In this model, the input image is cropped into varying scales (11 crops increasing by a factor of <math>\sqrt{2}</math> which are then resized to 60x60 pixels) and then fed to the network. The model computes an invariant representation of the input by sampling the inverted pyramid at a discrete set of scales with the same number of filters at each scale. Since the same number of filters are used for each scale, the smaller crops will be sampled at a high resolution while the larger crops will be sampled with a low resolution. These scales are fed into the network as an input channel to the convolutional layers and share the weights across scale and space.<br />
[[File:EDM.png|2000x450px|center]]<br />
<br />
The architecture of this model is the same as the previous DCNN model with the only change being the extra filters added for each of the scales, so the number of parameters remains the same as DCNN models. The authors perform spatial pooling, the aforementioned ''At end pooling'' is used here, and scale pooling which helps in reducing a number of scales by taking the maximum value of corresponding locations in the feature maps across multiple scales. It has three configurations: (1) at the beginning, in which all the different scales are pooled together after the first layer, 11-1-1-1-1 (2) progressively, 11-7-5-3-1 and (3) at the end, 11-11-11-11-1, in which all 11 scales are pooled together at the last layer.<br />
<br />
===Contrast Normalization===<br />
Since we have multiple scales of an input image, in some experiments, we perform normalization such that the sum of the pixel intensities in each scale is in the same range [0,1] (this is to prevent smaller crops, which have more non-black pixels, from disproportionately dominating max-pooling across scales). The normalized pixel intensities are then divided by a factor proportional to the crop area [[File:sqrtf.png|60px]] where i=1 is the smallest crop.<br />
<br />
=Experiments and its Set-Up =<br />
Targets are the set of objects to be recognized and flankers are the set of objects the model has not been trained to recognize, which act as clutter with respect to these target objects. The target objects are the even MNIST numbers having translational variance (shifted at different locations of the image along the horizontal axis), while flankers are from odd MNIST numbers, notMNIST dataset (contains alphabet letters) and Omniglot dataset (contains characters). Examples of the target and flanker configurations are shown below: <br />
[[File:eximages.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
The target and the object are referred to as ''a'' and ''x'' respectively with the below four configurations: <br />
# No flankers. Only the target object. (a in the plots) <br />
# One central flanker closer to the center of the image than the target. (xa) <br />
# One peripheral flanker closer to the boundary of the image that the target. (ax) <br />
# Two flankers spaced equally around the target, being both the same object (xax).<br />
<br />
==DNNs trained with Target and Flankers==<br />
This is a constant spacing training setup where identical flankers are placed at a distance of 120 pixels either side of the target(xax) with the target having translational variance. The tests are evaluated on (i) DCNN with at the end pooling, and (ii) eccentricity-dependent model with 11-11-11-11-1 scale pooling, at the end spatial pooling and contrast normalization. The test data has different flanker configurations as described above.<br />
[[File:result1.png|x450px|center]]<br />
<br />
===Observations===<br />
* With the flanker configuration same as the training one, models are better at recognizing objects in clutter rather than isolated objects for all image locations<br />
* If the target-flanker spacing is changed, then models perform worse<br />
* the eccentricity model is much better at recognizing objects in isolation than the DCNN because the multi-scale crops divide the image into discrete regions, letting the model learn from image parts as well as the whole image<br />
* Only the eccentricity-dependent model is robust to different flanker configurations not included in training when the target is centered.<br />
<br />
==DNNs trained with Images with the Target in Isolation==<br />
Here the target objects are in isolation and with translational variance while the test-set is the same set of flanker configurations as used before.<br />
[[File:result2.png|750x400px|center]]<br />
In addition to the evaluation of DCNNs in constant target eccentricity at 240 pixels, here they are tested with images in which the target is fixed at 720 pixels from the center of the image, as shown in Fig 3. Since the target is already at the edge of the visual field, a flanker cannot be more peripheral in the image than the target. Same results as for the 240 pixels target eccentricity can be extracted. The closer the flanker is to the target, the more accuracy decreases. Also, it can be seen that when the target is close to the image boundary, recognition is poor because of boundary effects eroding away information about the target<br />
[[File:paper25_supplemental1.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
===DCNN Observations===<br />
* The recognition gets worse with the increase in the number of flankers.<br />
* Convolutional networks are capable of being invariant to translations.<br />
* In the constant target eccentricity setup, where the target is fixed at the center of the image with varying target-flanker spacing, we observe that as the distance between target and flankers increase, recognition gets better.<br />
* Spatial pooling helps in learning invariance.<br />
*Flankers similar to the target object helps in recognition since they don't activate the convolutional filter more.<br />
* notMNIST data affects leads to more crowding since they have many more edges and white image pixels which activate the convolutional layers more.<br />
<br />
===Eccentric Model===<br />
The set-up is the same as explained earlier.<br />
[[File:result3.png|750x400px|center]]<br />
<br />
====Observations====<br />
* If the target is placed at the center and no contrast normalization is done, then the recognition accuracy is high since this model concentrates the most on the central region of the image.<br />
* If contrast normalization is done, then all the scales will contribute equal amount and hence the eccentricity dependence is removed.<br />
* Early pooling is harmful since it might take away the useful information very early which might be useful to the network.<br />
<br />
==Complex Clutter==<br />
Here, the targets are randomly embedded into images of the Places dataset and shifted along horizontally in order to investigate model robustness when the target is not at the image center. Tests are performed on DCNN and the eccentricity model with and without contrast normalization using at end pooling. The results are shown in Figure 9 below. <br />
<br />
[[File:result4.png|750x400px|center]]<br />
<br />
====Observations====<br />
- Only eccentricity model without contrast normalization can recognize the target and only when the target is close to the image center.<br />
- The eccentricity model does not need to be trained on different types of clutter to become robust to those types of clutter, but it needs to fixate on the relevant part of the image to recognize the target.<br />
<br />
=Conclusions=<br />
We often think that just training the network with data similar to the test data would achieve good results in a general scenario too but that's not the case as we trained the model with flankers and it did not give us the ideal results for the target objects.<br />
*'''Flanker Configuration''': When models are trained with images of objects in isolation, adding flankers harms recognition. Adding two flankers is the same or worse than adding just one and the smaller the spacing between flanker and target, the more crowding occurs. This is because the pooling operation merges nearby responses, such as the target and flankers if they are close.<br />
*'''Similarity between target and flanker''': Flankers more similar to targets cause more crowding, because of the selectivity property of the learned DNN filters.<br />
*'''Dependence on target location and contrast normalization''': In DCNNs and eccentricity-dependent models with contrast normalization, recognition accuracy is the same across all eccentricities. In eccentricity-dependent networks without contrast normalization, recognition does not decrease despite the presence of clutter when the target is at the center of the image.<br />
*'''Effect of pooling''': adding pooling leads to better recognition accuracy of the models. Yet, in the eccentricity model, pooling across the scales too early in the hierarchy leads to lower accuracy.<br />
<br />
=Critique=<br />
This paper just tries to check the impact of flankers on targets as to how crowding can affect recognition but it does not propose anything novel in terms of architecture to take care of such a type of crowding. The eccentricity based model does well only when the target is placed at the center of the image but maybe windowing over the frames instead of taking crops starting from the middle might help.<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
1) Volokitin A, Roig G, Poggio T:"Do Deep Neural Networks Suffer from Crowding?" Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS). 2017<br />
2) Francis X. Chen, Gemma Roig, Leyla Isik, Xavier Boix and Tomaso Poggio: "Eccentricity Dependent Deep Neural Networks for Modeling Human Vision" Journal of Vision. 17. 808. 10.1167/17.10.808.<br />
3) J Harrison, W & W Remington, R & Mattingley, Jason. (2014). Visual crowding is anisotropic along the horizontal meridian during smooth pursuit. Journal of vision. 14. 10.1167/14.1.21. http://willjharrison.com/2014/01/new-paper-visual-crowding-is-anisotropic-along-the-horizontal-meridian-during-smooth-pursuit/</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=File:paper25_supplemental1.png&diff=35192File:paper25 supplemental1.png2018-03-22T14:49:49Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Do_Deep_Neural_Networks_Suffer_from_Crowding&diff=35191Do Deep Neural Networks Suffer from Crowding2018-03-22T14:43:21Z<p>Shitawal: Editing and Numbering</p>
<hr />
<div>= Introduction =<br />
Ever since the evolution of Deep Networks, there has been a tremendous amount of research and effort that has been put into making machines capable of recognizing objects the same way as humans do. Humans can recognize objects in a way that is invariant to scale, translation, and clutter. Crowding is another visual effect suffered by humans, in which an object that can be recognized in isolation can no longer be recognized when other objects, called flankers, are placed close to it and this is a very common real-life experience. This paper focuses on studying the impact of crowding on Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) by adding clutter to the images and then analyzing which models and settings suffer less from such effects. <br />
<br />
[[File:paper25_fig_crowding_ex.png|center|600px]]<br />
The figure shows a visual example of crowding [3]. Keep your eyes still and look at the dot in the center and try to identify the "A" in the two circles. You should see that it is much easier to make out the "A" in the right than in the left circle. The same "A" exists in both circles, however, the left circle contains flankers which are those line segments.<br />
<br />
The paper investigates two types of DNNs for crowding: traditional deep convolutional neural networks(DCNN) and a multi-scale eccentricity-dependent model which is an extension of the DCNNs and inspired by the retina where the receptive field size of the convolutional filters in the model grows with increasing distance from the center of the image, called the eccentricity and will be explained below. The authors focus on the dependence of crowding on image factors, such as flanker configuration, target-flanker similarity, target eccentricity and premature pooling in particular.<br />
<br />
= Models =<br />
== Deep Convolutional Neural Networks ==<br />
The DCNN is a basic architecture with 3 convolutional layers, spatial 3x3 max-pooling with varying strides and a fully connected layer for classification as shown in the below figure. <br />
[[File:DCNN.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
The network is fed with images resized to 60x60, with mini-batches of 128 images, 32 feature channels for all convolutional layers, and convolutional filters of size 5x5 and stride 1.<br />
<br />
As highlighted earlier, the effect of pooling is into main consideration and hence three different configurations have been investigated as below: <br />
<br />
1. '''No total pooling''' Feature maps sizes decrease only due to boundary effects, as the 3x3 max pooling has stride 1. The square feature maps sizes after each pool layer are 60-54-48-42.<br />
<br />
2. '''Progressive pooling''' 3x3 pooling with a stride of 2 halves the square size of the feature maps, until we pool over what remains in the final layer, getting rid of any spatial information before the fully connected layer. (60-27-11-1).<br />
<br />
3. '''At end pooling''' Same as no total pooling, but before the fully connected layer, max-pool over the entire feature map. (60-54-48-1).<br />
<br />
===What is the problem in CNNs?===<br />
CNNs fall short in explaining human perceptual invariance. First, CNNs typically take input at a single uniform resolution. Biological measurements suggest that resolution is not uniform across the human visual field, but rather decays with eccentricity, i.e. distance from the center of focus Even more importantly, CNNs rely on data augmentation to achieve transformation-invariance and obviously a lot of processing is needed for CNNs.<br />
<br />
==Eccentricity-dependent Model==<br />
In order to take care of the scale invariance in the input image, the eccentricity dependent DNN is utilized. The main intuition behind this architecture is that as we increase eccentricity, the receptive fields also increase and hence the model will become invariant to changing input scales. It emphasizes scale invariance over translation invariance, in contrast to traditional DCNNs. In this model, the input image is cropped into varying scales (11 crops increasing by a factor of <math>\sqrt{2}</math> which are then resized to 60x60 pixels) and then fed to the network. The model computes an invariant representation of the input by sampling the inverted pyramid at a discrete set of scales with the same number of filters at each scale. Since the same number of filters are used for each scale, the smaller crops will be sampled at a high resolution while the larger crops will be sampled with a low resolution. These scales are fed into the network as an input channel to the convolutional layers and share the weights across scale and space.<br />
[[File:EDM.png|2000x450px|center]]<br />
<br />
The architecture of this model is the same as the previous DCNN model with the only change being the extra filters added for each of the scales, so the number of parameters remains the same as DCNN models. The authors perform spatial pooling, the aforementioned ''At end pooling'' is used here, and scale pooling which helps in reducing a number of scales by taking the maximum value of corresponding locations in the feature maps across multiple scales. It has three configurations: (1) at the beginning, in which all the different scales are pooled together after the first layer, 11-1-1-1-1 (2) progressively, 11-7-5-3-1 and (3) at the end, 11-11-11-11-1, in which all 11 scales are pooled together at the last layer.<br />
<br />
===Contrast Normalization===<br />
Since we have multiple scales of an input image, in some experiments, we perform normalization such that the sum of the pixel intensities in each scale is in the same range [0,1] (this is to prevent smaller crops, which have more non-black pixels, from disproportionately dominating max-pooling across scales). The normalized pixel intensities are then divided by a factor proportional to the crop area [[File:sqrtf.png|60px]] where i=1 is the smallest crop.<br />
<br />
=Experiments and its Set-Up =<br />
Targets are the set of objects to be recognized and flankers are the set of objects the model has not been trained to recognize, which act as clutter with respect to these target objects. The target objects are the even MNIST numbers having translational variance (shifted at different locations of the image along the horizontal axis), while flankers are from odd MNIST numbers, notMNIST dataset (contains alphabet letters) and Omniglot dataset (contains characters). Examples of the target and flanker configurations are shown below: <br />
[[File:eximages.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
The target and the object are referred to as ''a'' and ''x'' respectively with the below four configurations: <br />
# No flankers. Only the target object. (a in the plots) <br />
# One central flanker closer to the center of the image than the target. (xa) <br />
# One peripheral flanker closer to the boundary of the image that the target. (ax) <br />
# Two flankers spaced equally around the target, being both the same object (xax).<br />
<br />
==DNNs trained with Target and Flankers==<br />
This is a constant spacing training setup where identical flankers are placed at a distance of 120 pixels either side of the target(xax) with the target having translational variance. The tests are evaluated on (i) DCNN with at the end pooling, and (ii) eccentricity-dependent model with 11-11-11-11-1 scale pooling, at the end spatial pooling and contrast normalization. The test data has different flanker configurations as described above.<br />
[[File:result1.png|x450px|center]]<br />
<br />
===Observations===<br />
* With the flanker configuration same as the training one, models are better at recognizing objects in clutter rather than isolated objects for all image locations<br />
<br />
* If the target-flanker spacing is changed, then models perform worse<br />
<br />
* the eccentricity model is much better at recognizing objects in isolation than the DCNN because the multi-scale crops divide the image into discrete regions, letting the model learn from image parts as well as the whole image<br />
<br />
* Only the eccentricity-dependent model is robust to different flanker configurations not included in training when the target is centered.<br />
<br />
==DNNs trained with Images with the Target in Isolation==<br />
Here the target objects are in isolation and with translational variance while the test-set is the same set of flanker configurations as used before.<br />
[[File:result2.png|750x400px|center]]<br />
===DCNN Observations===<br />
* The recognition gets worse with the increase in the number of flankers.<br />
<br />
* Convolutional networks are capable of being invariant to translations.<br />
<br />
* In the constant target eccentricity setup, where the target is fixed at the center of the image with varying target-flanker spacing, we observe that as the distance between target and flankers increase, recognition gets better.<br />
<br />
* Spatial pooling helps in learning invariance.<br />
<br />
*Flankers similar to the target object helps in recognition since they don't activate the convolutional filter more.<br />
<br />
* notMNIST data affects leads to more crowding since they have many more edges and white image pixels which activate the convolutional layers more.<br />
===Eccentric Model===<br />
The set-up is the same as explained earlier.<br />
[[File:result3.png|750x400px|center]]<br />
====Observations====<br />
* If the target is placed at the center and no contrast normalization is done, then the recognition accuracy is high since this model concentrates the most on the central region of the image.<br />
<br />
* If contrast normalization is done, then all the scales will contribute equal amount and hence the eccentricity dependence is removed.<br />
<br />
* Early pooling is harmful since it might take away the useful information very early which might be useful to the network.<br />
<br />
==Complex Clutter==<br />
Here, the targets are randomly embedded into images of the Places dataset and shifted along horizontally in order to investigate model robustness when the target is not at the image center. Tests are performed on DCNN and the eccentricity model with and without contrast normalization using at end pooling. The results are shown in Figure 9 below. <br />
<br />
[[File:result4.png|750x400px|center]]<br />
<br />
====Observations====<br />
- Only eccentricity model without contrast normalization can recognize the target and only when the target is close to the image center.<br />
<br />
- The eccentricity model does not need to be trained on different types of clutter to become robust to those types of clutter, but it needs to fixate on the relevant part of the image to recognize the target.<br />
<br />
=Conclusions=<br />
We often think that just training the network with data similar to the test data would achieve good results in a general scenario too but that's not the case as we trained the model with flankers and it did not give us the ideal results for the target objects.<br />
*'''Flanker Configuration''': When models are trained with images of objects in isolation, adding flankers harms recognition. Adding two flankers is the same or worse than adding just one and the smaller the spacing between flanker and target, the more crowding occurs. This is because the pooling operation merges nearby responses, such as the target and flankers if they are close.<br />
<br />
*'''Similarity between target and flanker''': Flankers more similar to targets cause more crowding, because of the selectivity property of the learned DNN filters.<br />
<br />
*'''Dependence on target location and contrast normalization''': In DCNNs and eccentricity-dependent models with contrast normalization, recognition accuracy is the same across all eccentricities. In eccentricity-dependent networks without contrast normalization, recognition does not decrease despite the presence of clutter when the target is at the center of the image.<br />
<br />
*'''Effect of pooling''': adding pooling leads to better recognition accuracy of the models. Yet, in the eccentricity model, pooling across the scales too early in the hierarchy leads to lower accuracy.<br />
<br />
=Critique=<br />
This paper just tries to check the impact of flankers on targets as to how crowding can affect recognition but it does not propose anything novel in terms of architecture to take care of such a type of crowding. The eccentricity based model does well only when the target is placed at the center of the image but maybe windowing over the frames instead of taking crops starting from the middle might help.<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
1) Volokitin A, Roig G, Poggio T:"Do Deep Neural Networks Suffer from Crowding?" Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS). 2017<br />
<br />
2) Francis X. Chen, Gemma Roig, Leyla Isik, Xavier Boix and Tomaso Poggio: "Eccentricity Dependent Deep Neural Networks for Modeling Human Vision" Journal of Vision. 17. 808. 10.1167/17.10.808.<br />
<br />
3) J Harrison, W & W Remington, R & Mattingley, Jason. (2014). Visual crowding is anisotropic along the horizontal meridian during smooth pursuit. Journal of vision. 14. 10.1167/14.1.21. http://willjharrison.com/2014/01/new-paper-visual-crowding-is-anisotropic-along-the-horizontal-meridian-during-smooth-pursuit/</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Wavelet_Pooling_CNN&diff=35190Wavelet Pooling CNN2018-03-22T14:36:50Z<p>Shitawal: Added References and Editing</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
Convolutional neural networks (CNN) have been proven to be powerful in image classification. Over the past few years, researchers have put efforts in improving fundamental components of CNNs such as the pooling operation. Various pooling methods exist; deterministic methods include max pooling and average pooling and probabilistic methods include mixed pooling and stochastic pooling. All these methods employ a neighborhood approach to the sub-sampling which, albeit fast and simple, can produce artifacts such as blurring, aliasing, and edge halos (Parker et al., 1983).<br />
<br />
This paper introduces a novel pooling method based on the discrete wavelet transform. Specifically, it uses a second-level wavelet decomposition for the sub-sampling. This method, instead of nearest neighbor interpolation uses a sub-band method that the authors' claim produces fewer artifacts and represents the underlying features more accurately. Therefore, if pooling is viewed as a lossy process, the reason for employing a wavelet approach is to try to minimize this loss.<br />
<br />
== Pooling Background ==<br />
Pooling essentially means sub-sampling. After the pooling layer, the spatial dimensions of the data is reduced to some degree, with the goal being to compress the data rather than discard some of it. Typical approaches to pooling reduce the dimensionality by using some method to combine a region of values into one value. Max pooling and Mean/Average pooling are the 2 most commonly used pooling methods. For max pooling, this can be represented by the equation <math>a_{kij} = max_{(p,q) \epsilon R_{ij}} (a_{kpq})</math> where <math>a_{kij}</math> is the output activation of the <math>k^th</math> feature map at <math>(i,j)</math>, <math>a_{kpq}</math> is input activation at <math>(p,q)</math> within <math>R_{ij}</math>, and <math>|R_{ij}|</math> is the size of the pooling region. Mean pooling can be represented by the equation <math>a_{kij} = \frac{1}{|R_{ij}|} \sum_{(p,q) \epsilon R_{ij}} (a_{kpq})</math> with everything defined as before. Figure 1 provides a numerical example that can be followed.<br />
<br />
[[File:WT_Fig1.PNG|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
The paper mentions that these pooling methods, although simple and effective, have shortcomings. Max pooling can omit details from an image if the important features have less intensity than the insignificant ones, and also commonly overfits. On the other hand, average pooling can dilute important features if the data is averaged with values of significantly lower intensities. Figure 2 displays an image of this.<br />
<br />
[[File:WT_Fig2.PNG|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
To account for the above-mentioned issues, probabilistic pooling methods were introduced, namely mixed pooling and; stochastic pooling. Mixed pooling is a simple method which just combines the max and the average pooling by randomly selecting one method over the other during training. Stochastic pooling on the other hand randomly samples within a receptive field with the activation values as the probabilities. These are calculated by taking each activation value and dividing it by the sum of all activation values in the grid so that the probabilities sum to 1.<br />
<br />
Figure 3 shows an example of how stochastic pooling works. On the left is a 3x3 grid filled with activations. The middle grid is the corresponding probability for each activation. The activation in the middle was randomly selected (it had a 13% chance of getting selected). Because the stochastic pooling is based on the probability of the pixels, it is able to avoid the shortcomings of max and mean pooling mentioned above.<br />
<br />
[[File:paper21-stochasticpooling.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
== Wavelet Background ==<br />
Data or signals tend to be composed of slowly changing trends (low frequency) as well as fast-changing transients (high frequency). Similarly, images have smooth regions of intensity which are perturbed by edges or abrupt changes. We know that these abrupt changes can represent features that are of great importance to us when we perform deep learning. Wavelets are a class of functions that are well localized in time and frequency. Compare this to the Fourier transform which represents signals as the sum of sine waves which oscillate forever (not localized in time and space). The ability of wavelets to be localized in time and space is what makes it suitable for detecting the abrupt changes in an image well. <br />
<br />
Essentially, a wavelet is a fast decaying oscillating signal with zero mean that only exists for a fixed duration and can be scaled and shifted in time. There are some well-defined types of wavelets as shown in Figure 3. The key characteristic of wavelets for us is that they have a band-pass characteristic, and the band can be adjusted based on the scaling and shifting. <br />
<br />
[[File:WT_Fig3.jpg|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
The paper uses discrete wavelet transform and more specifically a faster variation called Fast Wavelet Transform (FWT) using the Haar wavelet. There also exists a continuous wavelet transform. The main difference in these is how the scale and shift parameters are selected.<br />
<br />
== Discrete Wavelet Transform General==<br />
The discrete wavelet transforms for images is essentially applying a low pass and high pass filter to your image where the transfer functions of the filters are related and defined by the type of wavelet used (Haar in this paper). This is shown in the figures below, which also show the recursive nature of the transform. For an image, the per-row transform is taken first. This results in a new image where the first half is a low-frequency sub-band and the second half is the high-frequency sub-band. Then this new image is transformed again per column, resulting in four sub-bands. Generally, the low-frequency content approximates the image and the high-frequency content represents abrupt changes. Therefore, one can simply take the LL band and perform the transformation again to sub-sample even more.<br />
<br />
[[File:WT_Fig8.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
[[File:WT_Fig9.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
== DWT example using Haar Wavelet ==<br />
Suppose we have an image represented by the following pixels:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\begin{bmatrix} <br />
100 & 50 & 60 & 150 \\<br />
20 & 60 & 40 & 30 \\<br />
50 & 90 & 70 & 82 \\<br />
74 & 66 & 90 & 58 \\<br />
\end{bmatrix}<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
For each level of the DWT using the Haar wavelet, we will perform the transform on the rows first and then the columns. For the row pass, we transform each row as follows:<br />
* For each row i = <math>[i_{1}, i_{2}, i_{3}, i_{4}]</math> of the input image, transform the row to <math>i_{t}</math> via<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
i_{t} = [(i_{1} + i_{2}) / 2, (i_{3} + i_{4}) / 2, (i_{1}, - i_{2}) / 2, (i_{3} - i_{4}) / 2]<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
After the row transforms, the images looks as follows:<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\begin{bmatrix} <br />
75 & 105 & 25 & -45 \\<br />
40 & 35 & -20 & 5 \\<br />
70 & 76 & -20 & -6 \\<br />
70 & 74 & 4 & 16 \\<br />
\end{bmatrix}<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
Now we apply the same method to the columns in the exact same way.<br />
<br />
== Proposed Method ==<br />
The proposed method uses subbands from the second level FWT and discards the first level subbands. The authors postulate that this method is more 'organic' in capturing the data compression and will create less artifacts that may affect the image classification.<br />
=== Forward Propagation ===<br />
FWT can be expressed by <math>W_\varphi[j + 1, k] = h_\varphi[-n]*W_\varphi[j,n]|_{n = 2k, k <= 0}</math> and <math>W_\psi[j + 1, k] = h_\psi[-n]*W_\psi[j,n]|_{n = 2k, k <= 0}</math> where <math>\varphi</math> is the approximation function, <math>\psi</math> is the detail function, <math>W_\varphi</math>, <math>W_\psi</math>, are approximation and detail coefficients, <math>h_\varphi[-n]</math> and <math>h_\psi[-n]</math> are time reversed scaling and wavelet vectors, <math>(n)</math> represents the sample in the vector, and <math>j</math> denotes the resolution level. To apply to images, FWT is first applied on the rows and then the columns. If a low (L) and high(H) sub-band is extracted from the rows and similarly for the columns than at each level there is 4 sub-bands (LH, HL, HH, and LL) where LL will further be decomposed into the level 2 decomposition. <br />
<br />
Using the level 2 decomposition sub-bands, the Inverse Fast Wavelet Transform (IFWT) is used to obtain the resulting sub-sampled image, which is sub-sampled by a factor of two. The Equation for IFWT is <math>W_\varphi[j, k] = h_\varphi[-n]*W_\varphi[j + 1,n] + h_\psi[-n]*W_\psi[j + 1,n]|_{n = \frac{k}{2}, k <= 0}</math> where the parameters are the same as previously explained. Figure 4 displays the algorithm for the forward propagation.<br />
<br />
[[File:WT_Fig6.PNG|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
=== Back Propagation ===<br />
This is simply the reverse of the forward propagation. The FWT of the image is upsampled to be used as the level 2 decomposition. Then IFWT is performed to obtain the original image which is upsampled by a factor of two using wavelet methods. Figure 5 displays the algorithm.<br />
<br />
[[File:WT_Fig7.PNG|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
== Results ==<br />
The authors tested on MNIST, CIFAR-10, SHVN, and KDEF and the paper provides comprehensive results for each. Stochastic gradient descent was used and the Haar wavelet is used due to its even, square subbands. The network for all datasets except MNIST is loosely based on (Zeiler & Fergus, 2013). The authors keep the network consistent but change the pooling method for each dataset. They also experiment with dropout and Batch Normalization to examine the effects of regularization on their method. All pooling methods compared use a 2x2 window, and a consistent pooling method was used for all pooling layers of a network. The overall results teach us that the pooling method should be chosen specifically for the type of data we have. In some cases, wavelet pooling may perform the best, and in other cases, other methods may perform better, if the data is more suited for those types of pooling.<br />
<br />
=== MNIST ===<br />
Figure 7 shows the network and Table 1 shows the accuracy. It can be seen that wavelet pooling achieves the best accuracy from all pooling methods compared. Figure 8 shows the energy of each method per epoch.<br />
<br />
[[File:WT_Fig4.PNG|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
[[File:paper21_fig8.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
[[File:WT_Tab1.PNG|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
=== CIFAR-10 ===<br />
In order to investigate the performance of different pooling methods, two types of networks are trained based on CIFAR-10. The first one is the regular CNN and the second one is the network with dropout and batch normalization. Figure 9 shows the network and Tables 2 and 3 shows the accuracy without and with dropout. Average pooling achieves the best accuracy but wavelet pooling is still competitive, while max pooling overfitted on the validation data fairly quickly as shown by the right energy curve in Figure 10 (although the accuracy performance is not significantly worse when dropout and batch normalization are applied).<br />
<br />
[[File:WT_Fig5.PNG|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
[[File:paper21_fig10.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
[[File:WT_Tab2.PNG|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
[[File:WT_Tab3.PNG|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
===SHVN===<br />
Figure 11 shows the network and Tables 4 and 5 shows the accuracy without and with dropout. The proposed method does not perform well in this experiment. <br />
<br />
[[File: a.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
[[File:paper21_fig12.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
[[File: b.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
===KDEF===<br />
The authors experimented with pooling methods + dropout on the KDEF dataset (which consists of 4,900 images of 35 people portraying varying emotions through facial expressions under different poses, 3,900 of which were randomly assigned to be used for training). The data was treated for errors (e.g. corrupt images) and resized to 128x128 for memory and time constraints. <br />
<br />
Figure 13 below shows the network structure. Figure 14 shows the energy curve of the competing models on training and validation sets as the number of epochs increases, and Table 6 shows the accuracy performance. Average pooling demonstrated the highest accuracy, with wavelet pooling coming in second and max-pooling a close third. However, stochastic and wavelet pooling exhibited more stable learning progression compared to the other methods, and max-pooling eventually overfitted. <br />
<br />
[[File:kdef_struc.PNG|700px|center|]]<br />
[[File:kdef_curve.PNG|750px|center|]]<br />
[[File:kdef_accu.PNG|550px|center|]]<br />
<br />
== Computational Complexity ==<br />
The authors explain that their paper is a proof of concept and is not meant to implement wavelet pooling in the most efficient way. The table below displays a comparison of the number of mathematical operations for each method according to the dataset. It can be seen that wavelet pooling is significantly worse. The authors explain that through good implementation and coding practices, the method can prove to be viable.<br />
<br />
[[File:WT_Tab4.PNG|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
== Criticism ==<br />
=== Positive ===<br />
* Wavelet Pooling achieves competitive performance with standard go-to pooling methods<br />
* Leads to a comparison of discrete transformation techniques for pooling (DCT, DFT)<br />
=== Negative ===<br />
* Only 2x2 pooling window used for comparison<br />
* Highly computationally extensive<br />
* Not as simple as other pooling methods<br />
* Only one wavelet used (HAAR wavelet)<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
* Travis Williams and Robert Li. Wavelet Pooling for Convolutional Neural Networks. ICLR 2018.<br />
* J. Anthony Parker, Robert V. Kenyon, and Donald E. Troxel. Comparison of interpolating methods for image resampling. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2(1):31–39, 1983.<br />
* Matthew Zeiler and Robert Fergus. Stochastic pooling for regularization of deep convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representation (ICLR), 2013.</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/MaskRNN:_Instance_Level_Video_Object_Segmentation&diff=35188stat946w18/MaskRNN: Instance Level Video Object Segmentation2018-03-22T14:20:38Z<p>Shitawal: Added to Online Finetuning</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
Deep Learning has produced state of the art results in many computer vision tasks like image classification, object localization, object detection, object segmentation, semantic segmentation and instance level video object segmentation. Image classification classify the image based on the prominent objects. Object localization is the task of finding objects’ location in the frame. Object Segmentation task involves providing a pixel map which represents the pixel wise location of the objects in the image. Semantic segmentation task attempts at segmenting the image into meaningful parts. Instance level video object segmentation is the task of consistent object segmentation in video sequences.<br />
<br />
There are 2 different types of video object segmentation: Unsupervised and Semi-supervised. In unsupervised video object segmentation, the task is to find the salient objects and track the main objects in the video. In an unsupervised setting, the ground truth mask of the salient objects is provided for the first frame. The task is thus simplified to only track the objects required. In this paper we look at an unsupervised video object segmentation technique.<br />
<br />
== Background Papers ==<br />
Video object segmentation has been performed using spatio-temporal graphs and deep learning. The Graph based methods construct 3D spatio-temporal graphs in order to model the inter- and the intra-frame relationship of pixels or superpixels in a video.Hence they are computationally slower than deep learning methods and are unable to run at real-time. There are 2 main deep learning techniques for semi-supervised video object segmentation: One Shot Video Object Segmentation (OSVOS) and Learning Video Object Segmentation from Static Images (MaskTrack). Following a brief description of the new techniques introduced by these papers for semi-supervised video object segmentation task.<br />
<br />
=== OSVOS (One-Shot Video Object Segmentation) ===<br />
<br />
[[File:OSVOS.jpg | 1000px]]<br />
<br />
This paper introduces the technique of using a frame-by-frame object segmentation without any temporal information from the previous frames of the video. The paper uses a VGG-16 network with pre-trained weights from image classification task. This network is then converted into a fully-connected network (FCN) by removing the fully connected dense layers at the end and adding convolution layers to generate a segment mask of the input. This network is then trained on the DAVIS 2016 dataset.<br />
<br />
During testing, the trained VGG-16 FCN is fine-tuned using the first frame of the video using the ground truth. Because this is a semi-supervised case, the segmented mask (ground truth) for the first frame is available. The first frame data is augmented by zooming/rotating/flipping the first frame and the associated segment mask.<br />
<br />
=== MaskTrack (Learning Video Object Segmentation from Static Images) ===<br />
<br />
[[File:MaskTrack.jpg | 500px]]<br />
<br />
MaskTrack takes the output of the previous frame to improve its predictions to generate the segmentation mask for the next frame. Thus the input to the network is 4 channel wide (3 RGB channels from the frame at time <math>t</math> plus one binary segmentation mask from frame <math>t-1</math>). The output of the network is the binary segmentation mask for frame at time <math>t</math>. Using the binary segmentation mask (referred to as guided object segmentation in the paper), the network is able to use some temporal information from the previous frame to improve its segmentation mask prediction for the next frame.<br />
<br />
The model of the MaskTrack network is similar to a modular VGG-16 and is referred to as MaskTrack ConvNet in the paper. The network is trained offline on saliency segmentation datasets: ECSSD, MSRA 10K, SOD and PASCAL-S. The input mask for the binary segmentation mask channel is generated via non-rigid deformation and affine transformation of the ground truth segmentation mask. Similar data-augmentation techniques are also used during online training. Just like OSVOS, MaskTrack uses the first frame ground truth (with augmented images) to fine-tune the network to improve prediction score for the particular video sequence.<br />
<br />
A parallel ConvNet network is used to generate predicted segment mask based on the optical flow magnitude. The optical flow between 2 frames is calculated using the EpicFlow algorithm. The output of the two networks is combined using averaging operation to generate the final predicted segmented mask.<br />
<br />
Table 1 gives a summary comparison of the different state of the art algorithms. The noteworthy information included in this table is that the technique presented in this paper is the only one which takes into account long-term temporal information. This is accomplished with a recurrent neural net. Furthermore, the bounding box is also estimated instead of just a segmentation mask. The authors claim that this allows the incorporation of a location prior from the tracked object.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paper19-SegmentationComp.png]]<br />
<br />
== Dataset ==<br />
The three major datasets used in this paper are DAVIS-2016, DAVIS-2017 and Segtrack v2. DAVIS-2016 dataset provides video sequences with only one segment mask for all salient objects. DAVIS-2017 improves the ground truth data by providing segmentation mask for each salient object as a separate color segment mask. Segtrack v2 also provides multiple segmentation mask for all salient objects in the video sequence. These datasets try to recreate real-life scenarios like occlusions, low resolution videos, background clutter, motion blur, fast motion etc.<br />
<br />
== MaskRNN: Introduction ==<br />
Most techniques mentioned above don’t work directly on instance level segmentation of the objects through the video sequence. The above approaches focus on image segmentation on each frame and using additional information (mask propagation and optical flow) from the preceding frame perform predictions for the current frame. To address the instance level segmentation problem, MaskRNN proposes a framework where the salient objects are tracked and segmented by capturing the temporal information in the video sequence using a recurrent neural network.<br />
<br />
== MaskRNN: Overview ==<br />
In a video sequence <math>I = \{I_1, I_2, …, I_T\}</math>, the sequence of <math>T</math> frames are given as input to the network, where the video sequence contains <math>N</math> salient objects. The ground truth for the first frame <math>y_1^*</math> is also provided for <math>N</math> salient objects.<br />
In this paper, the problem is formulated as a time dependency problem and using a recurrent neural network, the prediction of the previous frame influences the prediction of the next frame. The approach also computes the optical flow between frames (optical flow is the apparent motion of objects between two consecutive frames in the form of a 2D vector field representing the displacement in brightness patterns for each pixel, apparent because it depends on the relative motion between the observer and the scene) and uses that as the input to the neural network. The optical flow is also used to align the output of the predicted mask. “The warped prediction, the optical flow itself, and the appearance of the current frame are then used as input for <math>N</math> deep nets, one for each of the <math>N</math> objects.”[1 - MaskRNN] Each deep net is a made of an object localization network and a binary segmentation network. The binary segmentation network is used to generate the segmentation mask for an object. The object localization network is used to alleviate outliers from the predictions. The final prediction of the segmentation mask is generated by merging the predictions of the 2 networks. For <math>N</math> objects, there are N deep nets which predict the mask for each salient object. The predictions are then merged into a single prediction using an <math>\text{argmax}</math> operation at test time.<br />
<br />
== MaskRNN: Multiple Instance Level Segmentation ==<br />
<br />
[[File:2ObjectSeg.jpg | 850px]]<br />
<br />
Image segmentation requires producing a pixel level segmentation mask and this can become a multi-class problem. Instead, using the approach from [2- Mask R-CNN] this approach is converted into a multiple binary segmentation problem. A separate segmentation mask is predicted separately for each salient object and thus we get a binary segmentation problem. The binary segments are combined using an <math>\text{argmax}</math> operation where each pixel is assigned to the object containing the largest predicted probability.<br />
<br />
=== MaskRNN: Binary Segmentation Network ===<br />
<br />
[[File:MaskRNNDeepNet.jpg | 850px]]<br />
<br />
The above picture shows a single deep net employed for predicting the segment mask for one salient object in the video frame. The network consists of 2 networks: binary segmentation network and object localization network. The binary segmentation network is split into two streams: appearance and flow stream. The input of the appearance stream is the RGB frame at time t and the wrapped prediction of the binary segmentation mask from time <math>t-1</math>. The wrapping function uses the optical flow between frame <math>t-1</math> and frame <math>t</math> to generate a new binary segmentation mask for frame <math>t</math>. The input to the flow stream is the concatenation of the optical flow magnitude between frames <math>t-1</math> to <math>t</math> and frames <math>t</math> to <math>t+1</math> and the wrapped prediction of the segmentation mask from frame <math>t-1</math>. The magnitude of the optical flow is replicated into an RBG format before feeding it to the flow stream. The network architecture closely resembles a VGG-16 network without the pooling or fully connected layers at the end. The fully connected layers are replaced with convolutional and bilinear interpolation upsampling layers which are then linearly combined to form a feature representation that is the same size of the input image. This feature representation is then used to generate a binary segment mask. This technique is borrowed from the Fully Convolutional Network mentioned above. The output of the flow stream and the appearance stream is linearly combined and sigmoid function is applied to the result to generate binary mask for ith object. All parts of the network are fully differentiable and thus it can be fully trained in every pass.<br />
<br />
=== MaskRNN: Object Localization Network: ===<br />
Using a similar technique to the Fast-RCNN method of object localization, where the region of interest (RoI) pooling of the features of the region proposals (i.e. the bounding box proposals here) is performed and passed through fully connected layers to perform regression, the Object localization network generates a bounding box of the salient object in the frame. This bounding box is enlarged by a factor of 1.25 and combined with the output of binary segmentation mask. Only the segment mask available in the bounding box is used for prediction and the pixels outside of the bounding box are marked as zero. MaskRNN uses the convolutional feature output of the appearance stream as the input to the RoI-pooling layer to generate the predicted bounding box. A pixel is classified as foreground if it is both predicted to be in the foreground by the binary segmentation net and within the enlarged estimated bounding box from the object localization net.<br />
<br />
=== Training and Finetuning ===<br />
For training the network depicted in Figure 1, backpropagation through time is used in order to preserve the recurrence relationship connecting the frames of the video sequence. Predictive performance is further improved by following the algorithm for semi-supervised setting for video object segmentation with fine-tuning achieved by using the first frame segmentation mask of the ground truth. In this way, the network is further optimized using the ground truth data.<br />
<br />
== MaskRNN: Implementation Details ==<br />
=== Offline Training ===<br />
The deep net is first trained offline on a set of static images. The ground truth is randomly perturbed locally to generate the imperfect mask from frame <math>t-1</math>. Two different networks are trained offline separately for DAVIS-2016 and DAVIS-2017 datasets for a fair evaluation of both datasets. After both the object localization net and binary segmentation networks have trained, the temporal information in the network is used to further improve the segmented prediction results. Because of GPU memory constraints, the RNN is only able to backpropagate the gradients back 7 frames and learn long-term temporal information. <br />
<br />
For optical flow, a pre-trained flowNet2.0 is used to compute the optical flow between frames. (A flowNet (Dosovitskiy 2015) is a deep neural network trained to predict optical flow. The simplest form of flowNet has an architecture consisting of two parts. The first part accepts the two images between which the optical flow is to be computed as input, as applies a sequence of convolution and max-pooling operations, as in a standard convolutional neural network. In the second part, repeated up-convolution operations are applied, increasing the dimensions of the feature-maps. Besides the output of the previous upconvolution, each upconvolution is also fed as input the output of the corresponding down-convolution from the first part of the network. Thus part of the architecture resembles that of a U-net (Ronneberger, 2015). The output of the network is the predicted optical flow. ) <br />
<br />
=== Online Finetuning ===<br />
The deep nets (without the RNN) are then fine-tuned during test time by online training the networks on the ground truth of the first frame and some augmentations of the first frame data. The learning rate is set to <math>10^{-5}</math> for online training for 200 iterations and the learning rate is gradually decayed over time. Data augmentation techniques similar to those in offline training, namely random resizing, rotating, cropping and flipping is applied. Also, it should be noted that the RNN is ''not'' employed during online finetuning since only a single frame of training data is available.<br />
<br />
== MaskRNN: Experimental Results ==<br />
=== Evaluation Metrics ===<br />
There are 3 different techniques for performance analysis for Video Object Segmentation techniques:<br />
<br />
1. Region Similarity (Jaccard Index): Region similarity or Intersection-over-union is used to capture precision of the area covered by the prediction segmentation mask compared to the ground truth segmentation mask.<br />
<br />
[[File:IoU.jpg | 200px]]<br />
<br />
2. Contour Accuracy (F-score): This metric measures the accuracy in the boundary of the predicted segment mask and the ground truth segment mask using bipartite matching between the bounding pixels of the masks. <br />
<br />
[[File:Fscore.jpg | 200px]]<br />
<br />
3. Temporal Stability : This estimates the degree of deformation needed to transform the segmentation masks from one frame to the next and is measured by the dissimilarity of the set of points on the contours of the segmentation between two adjacent frames.<br />
<br />
Temporal Stability measures how well the pixels of the two masks match, while Contour Accuracy measures the accuracy of the contours.<br />
<br />
=== Ablation Study ===<br />
<br />
The ablation study summarized how the different components contributed to the algorithm evaluated on DAVIS-2016 and DAVIS-2017 datasets.<br />
<br />
[[File:MaskRNNTable2.jpg | 700px]]<br />
<br />
The above table presents the contribution of each component of the network to the final prediction score. We observe that online fine-tuning improves the performance by a large margin. Addition of RNN/Localization Net and FStream all seem to positively affect the performance of the deep net.<br />
<br />
=== Quantitative Evaluation ===<br />
<br />
The authors use DAVIS-2016, DAVIS-2017 and Segtrack v2 to compare the performance of the proposed approach to other methods based on foreground-background video object segmentation and multiple instance-level video object segmentation.<br />
<br />
[[File:MaskRNNTable3.jpg | 700px]]<br />
<br />
The above table shows the results for contour accuracy mean and region similarity. The MaskRNN method seems to outperform all previously proposed methods. The performance gain is significant by employing a Recurrent Neural Network for learning recurrence relationship and using a object localization network to improve prediction results.<br />
<br />
The following table shows the improvements in the state of the art achieved by MaskRNN on the DAVIS-2017 and the SegTrack v2 dataset.<br />
<br />
[[File:MaskRNNTable4.jpg | 700px]]<br />
<br />
=== Qualitative Evaluation ===<br />
The authors showed example qualitative results from the DAVIS and Segtrack datasets. <br />
<br />
Below are some success cases of object segmentation under complex motion, cluttered background, and/or multiple object occlusion.<br />
<br />
[[File:maskrnn_example.png | 700px]]<br />
<br />
Below are a few failure cases. The authors explain two reasons for failure: a) when similar objects of interest are contained in the frame (left two images), and b) when there are large variations in scale and viewpoint (right two images).<br />
<br />
[[File:maskrnn_example_fail.png | 700px]]<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
In this paper a novel approach to instance level video object segmentation task is presented which performs better than current state of the art. The long-term recurrence relationship is learnt using an RNN. The object localization network is added to improve accuracy of the system. Using online fine-tuning the network is adjusted to predict better for the current video sequence.<br />
<br />
== Implementation ==<br />
<br />
The implementation of this paper was produced as part of the NIPS Paper Implementation Challenge. This implementation can be found at the following open source project [2].<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
# Dosovitskiy, Alexey, et al. "Flownet: Learning optical flow with convolutional networks." Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 2015.<br />
# Hu, Y., Huang, J., & Schwing, A. "MaskRNN: Instance level video object segmentation". Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS). 2017<br />
# Ferriere, P. (n.d.). Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation (VOS) with Tensorflow. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from https://github.com/philferriere/tfvos<br />
# Ronneberger, Olaf, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. "U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation." International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. Springer, Cham, 2015.</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/MaskRNN:_Instance_Level_Video_Object_Segmentation&diff=34982stat946w18/MaskRNN: Instance Level Video Object Segmentation2018-03-21T03:32:09Z<p>Shitawal: Added subsections to implementation details</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
Deep Learning has produced state of the art results in many computer vision tasks like image classification, object localization, object detection, object segmentation, semantic segmentation and instance level video object segmentation. Image classification classify the image based on the prominent objects. Object localization is the task of finding objects’ location in the frame. Object Segmentation task involves providing a pixel map which represents the pixel wise location of the objects in the image. Semantic segmentation task attempts at segmenting the image into meaningful parts. Instance level video object segmentation is the task of consistent object segmentation in video sequences.<br />
<br />
There are 2 different types of video object segmentation: Unsupervised and Semi-supervised. In unsupervised video object segmentation, the task is to find the salient objects and track the main objects in the video. In an unsupervised setting, the ground truth mask of the salient objects is provided for the first frame. The task is thus simplified to only track the objects required. In this paper we look at an unsupervised video object segmentation technique.<br />
<br />
== Background Papers ==<br />
Video object segmentation has been performed using spatio-temporal graphs and deep learning. The Graph based methods construct 3D spatio-temporal graphs in order to model the inter- and the intra-frame relationship of pixels or superpixels in a video.Hence they are computationally slower than deep learning methods and are unable to run at real-time. There are 2 main deep learning techniques for semi-supervised video object segmentation: One Shot Video Object Segmentation (OSVOS) and Learning Video Object Segmentation from Static Images (MaskTrack). Following a brief description of the new techniques introduced by these papers for semi-supervised video object segmentation task.<br />
<br />
=== OSVOS (One-Shot Video Object Segmentation) ===<br />
<br />
[[File:OSVOS.jpg | 1000px]]<br />
<br />
This paper introduces the technique of using a frame-by-frame object segmentation without any temporal information from the previous frames of the video. The paper uses a VGG-16 network with pre-trained weights from image classification task. This network is then converted into a fully-connected network (FCN) by removing the fully connected dense layers at the end and adding convolution layers to generate a segment mask of the input. This network is then trained on the DAVIS 2016 dataset.<br />
<br />
During testing, the trained VGG-16 FCN is fine-tuned using the first frame of the video using the ground truth. Because this is a semi-supervised case, the segmented mask (ground truth) for the first frame is available. The first frame data is augmented by zooming/rotating/flipping the first frame and the associated segment mask.<br />
<br />
=== MaskTrack (Learning Video Object Segmentation from Static Images) ===<br />
<br />
[[File:MaskTrack.jpg | 500px]]<br />
<br />
MaskTrack takes the output of the previous frame to improve its predictions to generate the segmentation mask for the next frame. Thus the input to the network is 4 channel wide (3 RGB channels from the frame at time <math>t</math> plus one binary segmentation mask from frame <math>t-1</math>). The output of the network is the binary segmentation mask for frame at time <math>t</math>. Using the binary segmentation mask (referred to as guided object segmentation in the paper), the network is able to use some temporal information from the previous frame to improve its segmentation mask prediction for the next frame.<br />
<br />
The model of the MaskTrack network is similar to a modular VGG-16 and is referred to as MaskTrack ConvNet in the paper. The network is trained offline on saliency segmentation datasets: ECSSD, MSRA 10K, SOD and PASCAL-S. The input mask for the binary segmentation mask channel is generated via non-rigid deformation and affine transformation of the ground truth segmentation mask. Similar data-augmentation techniques are also used during online training. Just like OSVOS, MaskTrack uses the first frame ground truth (with augmented images) to fine-tune the network to improve prediction score for the particular video sequence.<br />
<br />
A parallel ConvNet network is used to generate predicted segment mask based on the optical flow magnitude. The optical flow between 2 frames is calculated using the EpicFlow algorithm. The output of the two networks is combined using averaging operation to generate the final predicted segmented mask.<br />
<br />
Table 1 gives a summary comparison of the different state of the art algorithms. The noteworthy information included in this table is that the technique presented in this paper is the only one which takes into account long-term temporal information. This is accomplished with a recurrent neural net. Furthermore, the bounding box is also estimated instead of just a segmentation mask. The authors claim that this allows the incorporation of a location prior from the tracked object.<br />
<br />
[[File:Paper19-SegmentationComp.png]]<br />
<br />
== Dataset ==<br />
The three major datasets used in this paper are DAVIS-2016, DAVIS-2017 and Segtrack v2. DAVIS-2016 dataset provides video sequences with only one segment mask for all salient objects. DAVIS-2017 improves the ground truth data by providing segmentation mask for each salient object as a separate color segment mask. Segtrack v2 also provides multiple segmentation mask for all salient objects in the video sequence. These datasets try to recreate real-life scenarios like occlusions, low resolution videos, background clutter, motion blur, fast motion etc.<br />
<br />
== MaskRNN: Introduction ==<br />
Most techniques mentioned above don’t work directly on instance level segmentation of the objects through the video sequence. The above approaches focus on image segmentation on each frame and using additional information (mask propagation and optical flow) from the preceding frame perform predictions for the current frame. To address the instance level segmentation problem, MaskRNN proposes a framework where the salient objects are tracked and segmented by capturing the temporal information in the video sequence using a recurrent neural network.<br />
<br />
== MaskRNN: Overview ==<br />
In a video sequence <math>I = \{I_1, I_2, …, I_T\}</math>, the sequence of <math>T</math> frames are given as input to the network, where the video sequence contains <math>N</math> salient objects. The ground truth for the first frame <math>y_1^*</math> is also provided for <math>N</math> salient objects.<br />
In this paper, the problem is formulated as a time dependency problem and using a recurrent neural network, the prediction of the previous frame influences the prediction of the next frame. The approach also computes the optical flow between frames (optical flow is the apparent motion of objects between two consecutive frames in the form of a 2D vector field representing the displacement in brightness patterns for each pixel, apparent because it depends on the relative motion between the observer and the scene) and uses that as the input to the neural network. The optical flow is also used to align the output of the predicted mask. “The warped prediction, the optical flow itself, and the appearance of the current frame are then used as input for <math>N</math> deep nets, one for each of the <math>N</math> objects.”[1 - MaskRNN] Each deep net is a made of an object localization network and a binary segmentation network. The binary segmentation network is used to generate the segmentation mask for an object. The object localization network is used to alleviate outliers from the predictions. The final prediction of the segmentation mask is generated by merging the predictions of the 2 networks. For <math>N</math> objects, there are N deep nets which predict the mask for each salient object. The predictions are then merged into a single prediction using an <math>\text{argmax}</math> operation at test time.<br />
<br />
== MaskRNN: Multiple Instance Level Segmentation ==<br />
<br />
[[File:2ObjectSeg.jpg | 850px]]<br />
<br />
Image segmentation requires producing a pixel level segmentation mask and this can become a multi-class problem. Instead, using the approach from [2- Mask R-CNN] this approach is converted into a multiple binary segmentation problem. A separate segmentation mask is predicted separately for each salient object and thus we get a binary segmentation problem. The binary segments are combined using an <math>\text{argmax}</math> operation where each pixel is assigned to the object containing the largest predicted probability.<br />
<br />
=== MaskRNN: Binary Segmentation Network ===<br />
<br />
[[File:MaskRNNDeepNet.jpg | 850px]]<br />
<br />
The above picture shows a single deep net employed for predicting the segment mask for one salient object in the video frame. The network consists of 2 networks: binary segmentation network and object localization network. The binary segmentation network is split into two streams: appearance and flow stream. The input of the appearance stream is the RGB frame at time t and the wrapped prediction of the binary segmentation mask from time <math>t-1</math>. The wrapping function uses the optical flow between frame <math>t-1</math> and frame <math>t</math> to generate a new binary segmentation mask for frame <math>t</math>. The input to the flow stream is the concatenation of the optical flow magnitude between frames <math>t-1</math> to <math>t</math> and frames <math>t</math> to <math>t+1</math> and the wrapped prediction of the segmentation mask from frame <math>t-1</math>. The magnitude of the optical flow is replicated into an RBG format before feeding it to the flow stream. The network architecture closely resembles a VGG-16 network without the pooling or fully connected layers at the end. The fully connected layers are replaced with convolutional and bilinear interpolation upsampling layers which are then linearly combined to form a feature representation that is the same size of the input image. This feature representation is then used to generate a binary segment mask. This technique is borrowed from the Fully Convolutional Network mentioned above. The output of the flow stream and the appearance stream is linearly combined and sigmoid function is applied to the result to generate binary mask for ith object. All parts of the network are fully differentiable and thus it can be fully trained in every pass.<br />
<br />
=== MaskRNN: Object Localization Network: ===<br />
Using a similar technique to the Fast-RCNN method of object localization, where the region of interest (RoI) pooling of the features of the region proposals (i.e. the bounding box proposals here) is performed and passed through fully connected layers to perform regression, the Object localization network generates a bounding box of the salient object in the frame. This bounding box is enlarged by a factor of 1.25 and combined with the output of binary segmentation mask. Only the segment mask available in the bounding box is used for prediction and the pixels outside of the bounding box are marked as zero. MaskRNN uses the convolutional feature output of the appearance stream as the input to the RoI-pooling layer to generate the predicted bounding box. A pixel is classified as foreground if it is both predicted to be in the foreground by the binary segmentation net and within the enlarged estimated bounding box from the object localization net.<br />
<br />
=== Training and Finetuning ===<br />
For training the network depicted in Figure 1, backpropagation through time is used in order to preserve the recurrence relationship connecting the frames of the video sequence. Predictive performance is further improved by following the algorithm for semi-supervised setting for video object segmentation with fine-tuning achieved by using the first frame segmentation mask of the ground truth. In this way, the network is further optimized using the ground truth data.<br />
<br />
== MaskRNN: Implementation Details ==<br />
=== Offline Training ===<br />
The deep net is first trained offline on a set of static images. The ground truth is randomly perturbed locally to generate the imperfect mask from frame <math>t-1</math>. Two different networks are trained offline separately for DAVIS-2016 and DAVIS-2017 datasets for a fair evaluation of both datasets. After both the object localization net and binary segmentation networks have trained, the temporal information in the network is used to further improve the segmented prediction results. Because of GPU memory constraints, the RNN is only able to backpropagate the gradients back 7 frames and learn long-term temporal information. <br />
<br />
For optical flow, a pre-trained flowNet2.0 is used to compute the optical flow between frames. <br />
<br />
=== Online Finetuning ===<br />
The deep nets (without the RNN) are then fine-tuned during test time by online training the networks on the ground truth of the first frame and some augmentations of the first frame data. The learning rate is set to 10-5 for online training for 200 iterations.<br />
<br />
== MaskRNN: Experimental Results ==<br />
=== Evaluation Metrics ===<br />
There are 3 different techniques for performance analysis for Video Object Segmentation techniques:<br />
<br />
1. Region Similarity (Jaccard Index): Region similarity or Intersection-over-union is used to capture precision of the area covered by the prediction segmentation mask compared to the ground truth segmentation mask.<br />
<br />
[[File:IoU.jpg | 200px]]<br />
<br />
2. Contour Accuracy (F-score): This metric measures the accuracy in the boundary of the predicted segment mask and the ground truth segment mask using bipartite matching between the bounding pixels of the masks. <br />
<br />
[[File:Fscore.jpg | 200px]]<br />
<br />
3. Temporal Stability : This estimates the degree of deformation needed to transform the segmentation masks from one frame to the next and is measured by the dissimilarity of the set of points on the contours of the segmentation between two adjacent frames.<br />
<br />
Temporal Stability measures how well the pixels of the two masks match, while Contour Accuracy measures the accuracy of the contours.<br />
<br />
=== Ablation Study ===<br />
<br />
The ablation study summarized how the different components contributed to the algorithm evaluated on DAVIS-2016 and DAVIS-2017 datasets.<br />
<br />
[[File:MaskRNNTable2.jpg | 700px]]<br />
<br />
The above table presents the contribution of each component of the network to the final prediction score. We observe that online fine-tuning improves the performance by a large margin. Addition of RNN/Localization Net and FStream all seem to positively affect the performance of the deep net.<br />
<br />
=== Quantitative Evaluation ===<br />
<br />
The authors use DAVIS-2016, DAVIS-2017 and Segtrack v2 to compare the performance of the proposed approach to other methods based on foreground-background video object segmentation and multiple instance-level video object segmentation.<br />
<br />
[[File:MaskRNNTable3.jpg | 700px]]<br />
<br />
The above table shows the results for contour accuracy mean and region similarity. The MaskRNN method seems to outperform all previously proposed methods. The performance gain is significant by employing a Recurrent Neural Network for learning recurrence relationship and using a object localization network to improve prediction results.<br />
<br />
The following table shows the improvements in the state of the art achieved by MaskRNN on the DAVIS-2017 and the SegTrack v2 dataset.<br />
<br />
[[File:MaskRNNTable4.jpg | 700px]]<br />
<br />
=== Qualitative Evaluation ===<br />
The authors showed example qualitative results from the DAVIS and Segtrack datasets. <br />
<br />
Below are some success cases of object segmentation under complex motion, cluttered background, and/or multiple object occlusion.<br />
<br />
[[File:maskrnn_example.png | 700px]]<br />
<br />
Below are a few failure cases. The authors explain two reasons for failure: a) when similar objects of interest are contained in the frame (left two images), and b) when there are large variations in scale and viewpoint (right two images).<br />
<br />
[[File:maskrnn_example_fail.png | 700px]]<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
In this paper a novel approach to instance level video object segmentation task is presented which performs better than current state of the art. The long-term recurrence relationship is learnt using an RNN. The object localization network is added to improve accuracy of the system. Using online fine-tuning the network is adjusted to predict better for the current video sequence.<br />
<br />
== Implementation ==<br />
<br />
The implementation of this paper was produced as part of the NIPS Paper Implementation Challenge. This implementation can be found at the following open source project [2].<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
# Hu, Y., Huang, J., & Schwing, A. "MaskRNN: Instance level video object segmentation". Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS). 2017<br />
# Ferriere, P. (n.d.). Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation (VOS) with Tensorflow. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from https://github.com/philferriere/tfvos</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=End-to-End_Differentiable_Adversarial_Imitation_Learning&diff=34978End-to-End Differentiable Adversarial Imitation Learning2018-03-21T03:20:41Z<p>Shitawal: Added Background on MDPs</p>
<hr />
<div>= Introduction =<br />
The ability to imitate an expert policy is very beneficial in the case of automating human demonstrated tasks. Assuming that a sequence of state action pairs (trajectories) of an expert policy are available, a new policy can be trained that imitates the expert without having access to the original reward signal used by the expert. There are two main approaches to solve the problem of imitating a policy; they are Behavioural Cloning (BC) and Inverse Reinforcement Learning (IRL). BC directly learns the conditional distribution of actions over states in a supervised fashion by training on single time-step state-action pairs. The disadvantage of BC is that the training requires large amounts of expert data, which is hard to obtain. In addition, an agent trained using BC is unaware of how its action can affect future state distribution. The second method using IRL involves recovering a reward signal under which the expert is uniquely optimal; the main disadvantage is that it’s an ill-posed problem.<br />
<br />
To address the problem of imitating an expert policy, techniques based on Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) have been proposed in recent years. GANs use a discriminator to guide the generative model towards producing patterns like those of the expert. This idea was used by (Ho & Ermon, 2016) in their work titled Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL) to imitate an expert policy in a model-free setup. A model free setup is the one where the agent cannot make predictions about what the next state and reward will be before it takes each action since the transition function to move from state A to state B is not learned. The disadvantage of GAIL’s model-free approach is that backpropagation required gradient estimation which tends to suffer from high variance, which results in the need for large sample sizes and variance reduction methods. This paper proposed a model-based method (MGAIL) to address these issues by training a policy which is represented by the information propagated from the discriminator to the generator..<br />
<br />
= Background =<br />
== Markov Decision Process ==<br />
Consider an infinite-horizon discounted Markov decision process (MDP), defined by the tuple <math>(S, A, P, r, \rho_0, \gamma)</math> where <math>S</math> is the set of states, <math>A</math> is a set of actions, <math>P :<br />
S × A × S → [0, 1]</math> is the transition probability distribution, <math>r : (S × A) → R</math> is the reward function, <math>\rho_0 : S → [0, 1]</math> is the distribution over initial states, and <math>γ ∈ (0, 1)</math> is the discount factor. Let <math>π</math> denote a stochastic policy <math>π : S × A → [0, 1]</math>, <math>R(π)</math> denote its expected discounted reward: <math>E_πR = E_π [\sum_{t=0}^T \gamma^t r_t]</math> and <math>τ</math> denote a trajectory of states and actions <math>τ = {s_0, a_0, s_1, a_1, ...}</math>.<br />
<br />
== Imitation Learning ==<br />
A common technique for performing imitation learning is to train a policy <math> \pi </math> that minimizes some loss function <math> l(s, \pi(s)) </math> with respect to a discounted state distribution encountered by the expert: <math> d_\pi(s) = (1-\gamma)\sum_{t=0}^{\infty}\gamma^t p(s_t) </math>. This can be obtained using any supervised learning (SL) algorithm, but the policy's prediction affects future state distributions; this violates the independent and identically distributed (i.i.d) assumption made my most SL algorithms. This process is susceptible to compounding errors since a slight deviation in the learner's behavior can lead to different state distributions not encountered by the expert policy. <br />
<br />
This issue was overcome through the use of the Forward Training (FT) algorithm which trains a non-stationary policy iteratively overtime. At each time step a new policy is trained on the state distribution induced by the previously trained policies. This is continued till the end of the time horizon to obtain a policy that can mimic the expert policy. This requirement to train a policy at each time step till the end makes the FT algorithm impractical for cases where the time horizon is very large or undefined. This short coming is resolved using the Stochastic Mixing Iterative Learning (SMILe) algorithm. SMILe trains a stochastic stationary policy over several iterations under the trajectory distribution induced by the previously trained policy.<br />
<br />
== Generative Adversarial Networks ==<br />
GANs learn a generative model that can fool the discriminator by using a two-player zero-sum game:<br />
<br />
\begin{align} <br />
\underset{G}{\operatorname{argmin}}\; \underset{D\in (0,1)}{\operatorname{argmax}} = \mathbb{E}_{x\sim p_E}[log(D(x)]\ +\ \mathbb{E}_{z\sim p_z}[log(1 - D(G(z)))]<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
In the above equation, <math> p_E </math> represents the expert distribution and <math> p_z </math> represents the input noise distribution from which the input to the generator is sampled. The generator produces patterns and the discriminator judges if the pattern was generated or from the expert data. When the discriminator cannot distinguish between the two distributions the game ends and the generator has learned to mimic the expert. GANs rely on basic ideas such as binary classification and algorithms such as backpropagation in order to learn the expert distribution.<br />
<br />
GAIL applies GANs to the task of imitating an expert policy in a model-free approach. GAIL uses similar objective functions like GANs, but the expert distribution in GAIL represents the joint distribution over state action tuples:<br />
<br />
\begin{align} <br />
\underset{\pi}{\operatorname{argmin}}\; \underset{D\in (0,1)}{\operatorname{argmax}} = \mathbb{E}_{\pi}[log(D(s,a)]\ +\ \mathbb{E}_{\pi_E}[log(1 - D(s,a))] - \lambda H(\pi))<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math> H(\pi) \triangleq \mathbb{E}_{\pi}[-log\: \pi(a|s)]</math> is the entropy.<br />
<br />
This problem cannot be solved using the standard methods described for GANs because the generator in GAIL represents a stochastic policy. The exact form of the first term in the above equation is given by: <math> \mathbb{E}_{s\sim \rho_\pi(s)}\mathbb{E}_{a\sim \pi(\cdot |s)} [log(D(s,a)] </math>.<br />
<br />
The two-player game now depends on the stochastic properties (<math> \theta </math>) of the policy, and it is unclear how to differentiate the above equation with respect to <math> \theta </math>. This problem can be overcome using score functions such as REINFORCE to obtain an unbiased gradient estimation:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\nabla_\theta\mathbb{E}_{\pi} [log\; D(s,a)] \cong \hat{\mathbb{E}}_{\tau_i}[\nabla_\theta\; log\; \pi_\theta(a|s)Q(s,a)]<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math> Q(\hat{s},\hat{a}) </math> is the score function of the gradient:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
Q(\hat{s},\hat{a}) = \hat{\mathbb{E}}_{\tau_i}[log\; D(s,a) | s_0 = \hat{s}, a_0 = \hat{a}]<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
<br />
REINFORCE gradients suffer from high variance which makes them difficult to work with even after applying variance reduction techniques. In order to better understand the changes required to fool the discriminator we need access to the gradients of the discriminator network, which can be obtained from the Jacobian of the discriminator. This paper demonstrates the use of a forward model along with the Jacobian of the discriminator to train a policy, without using high-variance gradient estimations.<br />
<br />
= Algorithm =<br />
This section first analyzes the characteristics of the discriminator network, then describes how a forward model can enable policy imitation through GANs. Lastly, the model based adversarial imitation learning algorithm is presented.<br />
<br />
== The discriminator network ==<br />
The discriminator network is trained to predict the conditional distribution: <math> D(s,a) = p(y|s,a) </math> where <math> y \in (\pi_E, \pi) </math>.<br />
<br />
The discriminator is trained on an even distribution of expert and generated examples; hence <math> p(\pi) = p(\pi_E) = \frac{1}{2} </math>. Given this, we can rearrange and factor <math> D(s,a) </math> to obtain:<br />
<br />
\begin{aligned}<br />
D(s,a) &= p(\pi|s,a) \\<br />
& = \frac{p(s,a|\pi)p(\pi)}{p(s,a|\pi)p(\pi) + p(s,a|\pi_E)p(\pi_E)} \\<br />
& = \frac{p(s,a|\pi)}{p(s,a|\pi) + p(s,a|\pi_E)} \\<br />
& = \frac{1}{1 + \frac{p(s,a|\pi_E)}{p(s,a|\pi)}} \\<br />
& = \frac{1}{1 + \frac{p(a|s,\pi_E)}{p(a|s,\pi)} \cdot \frac{p(s|\pi_E)}{p(s|\pi)}} \\<br />
\end{aligned}<br />
<br />
Define <math> \varphi(s,a) </math> and <math> \psi(s) </math> to be:<br />
<br />
\begin{aligned}<br />
\varphi(s,a) = \frac{p(a|s,\pi_E)}{p(a|s,\pi)}, \psi(s) = \frac{p(s|\pi_E)}{p(s|\pi)}<br />
\end{aligned}<br />
<br />
to get the final expression for <math> D(s,a) </math>:<br />
\begin{aligned}<br />
D(s,a) = \frac{1}{1 + \varphi(s,a)\cdot \psi(s)}<br />
\end{aligned}<br />
<br />
<math> \varphi(s,a) </math> represents a policy likelihood ratio, and <math> \psi(s) </math> represents a state distribution likelihood ratio. Based on these expressions, the paper states that the discriminator makes its decisions by answering two questions. The first question relates to state distribution: what is the likelihood of encountering state <math> s </math> under the distribution induces by <math> \pi_E </math> vs <math> \pi </math>? The second question is about behavior: given a state <math> s </math>, how likely is action a under <math> \pi_E </math> vs <math> \pi </math>? The desired change in state is given by <math> \psi_s \equiv \partial \psi / \partial s </math>; this information can by obtained from the partial derivatives of <math> D(s,a) </math>:<br />
<br />
\begin{aligned}<br />
\nabla_aD &= - \frac{\varphi_a(s,a)\psi(s)}{(1 + \varphi(s,a)\psi(s))^2} \\<br />
\nabla_sD &= - \frac{\varphi_s(s,a)\psi(s) + \varphi(s,a)\psi_s(s)}{(1 + \varphi(s,a)\psi(s))^2} \\<br />
\end{aligned}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Backpropagating through stochastic units ==<br />
There is interest in training stochastic policies because stochasticity encourages exploration for Policy Gradient methods. This is a problem for algorithms that build differentiable computation graphs where the gradients flow from one component to another since it is unclear how to backpropagate through stochastic units. The following subsections show how to estimate the gradients of continuous and categorical stochastic elements for continuous and discrete action domains respectively.<br />
<br />
=== Continuous Action Distributions ===<br />
In the case of continuous action policies, re-parameterization was used to enable computing the derivatives of stochastic models. Assuming that the stochastic policy has a Gaussian distribution the policy <math> \pi </math> can be written as <math> \pi_\theta(a|s) = \mu_\theta(s) + \xi \sigma_\theta(s) </math>, where <math> \xi \sim N(0,1) </math>. This way, the authors are able to get a Monte-Carlo estimator of the derivative of the expected value of <math> D(s, a) </math> with respect to <math> \theta </math>:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\nabla_\theta\mathbb{E}_{\pi(a|s)}D(s,a) = \mathbb{E}_{\rho (\xi )}\nabla_a D(a,s) \nabla_\theta \pi_\theta(a|s) \cong \frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=1}^{M} \nabla_a D(s,a) \nabla_\theta \pi_\theta(a|s)\Bigr|_{\substack{\xi=\xi_i}}<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Categorical Action Distributions ===<br />
In the case of discrete action domains, the paper uses categorical re-parameterization with Gumbel-Softmax. This method relies on the Gumble-Max trick which is a method for drawing samples from a categorical distribution with class probabilities <math> \pi(a_1|s),\pi(a_2|s),...,\pi(a_N|s) </math>:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
a_{argmax} = \underset{i}{argmax}[g_i + log\ \pi(a_i|s)]<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
<br />
Gumbel-Softmax provides a differentiable approximation of the samples obtained using the Gumble-Max trick:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
a_{softmax} = \frac{exp[\frac{1}{\tau}(g_i + log\ \pi(a_i|s))]}{\sum_{j=1}^{k}exp[\frac{1}{\tau}(g_j + log\ \pi(a_i|s))]}<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
<br />
In the above equation, the hyper-parameter <math> \tau </math> (temperature) trades bias for variance. When <math> \tau </math> gets closer to zero, the softmax operator acts like argmax resulting in a low bias, but high variance; vice versa when the <math> \tau </math> is large.<br />
<br />
The authors use <math> a_{softmax} </math> to interact with the environment; argmax is applied over <math> a_{softmax} </math> to obtain a single “pure” action, but the continuous approximation is used in the backward pass using the estimation: <math> \nabla_\theta\; a_{argmax} \approx \nabla_\theta\; a_{softmax} </math>.<br />
<br />
== Backpropagating through a Forward model ==<br />
The above subsections presented the means for extracting the partial derivative <math> \nabla_aD </math>. The main contribution of this paper is incorporating the use of <math> \nabla_sD </math>. In a model-free approach the state <math> s </math> is treated as a fixed input, therefore <math> \nabla_sD </math> is discarded. This is illustrated in Figure 1. This work uses a model-based approach which makes incorporating <math> \nabla_sD </math> more involved. In the model-based approach, a state <math> s_t </math> can be written as a function of the previous state action pair: <math> s_t = f(s_{t-1}, a_{t-1}) </math>, where <math> f </math> represents the forward model. Using the forward model and the law of total derivatives we get:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\nabla_\theta D(s_t,a_t)\Bigr|_{\substack{s=s_t, a=a_t}} &= \frac{\partial D}{\partial a}\frac{\partial a}{\partial \theta}\Bigr|_{\substack{a=a_t}} + \frac{\partial D}{\partial s}\frac{\partial s}{\partial \theta}\Bigr|_{\substack{s=s_t}} \\<br />
&= \frac{\partial D}{\partial a}\frac{\partial a}{\partial \theta}\Bigr|_{\substack{a=a_t}} + \frac{\partial D}{\partial s}\left (\frac{\partial f}{\partial s}\frac{\partial s}{\partial \theta}\Bigr|_{\substack{s=s_{t-1}}} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial a}\frac{\partial a}{\partial \theta}\Bigr|_{\substack{a=a_{t-1}}} \right )<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
<br />
Using this formula, the error regarding deviations of future states <math> (\psi_s) </math> propagate back in time and influence the actions of policies in earlier times. This is summarized in Figure 2.<br />
<br />
[[File:modelFree_blockDiagram.PNG|300px]]<br />
<br />
Figure 1: Block-diagram of the model-free approach: given a state <math> s </math>, the policy outputs <math> \mu </math> which is fed to a stochastic sampling unit. An action <math> a </math> is sampled, and together with <math> s </math> are presented to the discriminator network. In the backward phase, the error message <math> \delta_a </math> is blocked at the stochastic sampling unit. From there, a high-variance gradient estimation is used (<math> \delta_{HV} </math>). Meanwhile, the error message <math> \delta_s </math> is flushed.<br />
<br />
[[File:modelBased_blockDiagram.PNG|1000px]]<br />
<br />
Figure 2: Block diagram of model-based adversarial imitation learning. This diagram describes the computation graph for training the policy (i.e. G). The discriminator network D is fixed at this stage and is trained separately. At time <math> t </math> of the forward pass, <math> \pi </math> outputs a distribution over actions: <math> \mu_t = \pi(s_t) </math>, from which an action at is sampled. For example, in the continuous case, this is done using the re-parametrization trick: <math> a_t = \mu_t + \xi \cdot \sigma </math>, where <math> \xi \sim N(0,1) </math>. The next state <math> s_{t+1} = f(s_t, a_t) </math> is computed using the forward model (which is also trained separately), and the entire process repeats for time <math> t+1 </math>. In the backward pass, the gradient of <math> \pi </math> is comprised of a.) the error message <math> \delta_a </math> (Green) that propagates fluently through the differentiable approximation of the sampling process. And b.) the error message <math> \delta_s </math> (Blue) of future time-steps, that propagate back through the differentiable forward model.<br />
<br />
== MGAIL Algorithm ==<br />
Shalev- Shwartz et al. (2016) and Heess et al. (2015) built a multi-step computation graph for describing the familiar policy gradient objective; in this case it is given by:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
J(\theta) = \mathbb{E}\left [ \sum_{t=0}^{T} \gamma ^t D(s_t,a_t)|\theta\right ]<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
<br />
Using the results from Heess et al. (2015) this paper demonstrates how to differentiate <math> J(\theta) </math> over a trajectory of <math>(s,a,s’) </math> transitions:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
J_s &= \mathbb{E}_{p(a|s)}\mathbb{E}_{p(s'|s,a)}\left [ D_s + D_a \pi_s + \gamma J'_{s'}(f_s + f_a \pi_s) \right] \\<br />
J_\theta &= \mathbb{E}_{p(a|s)}\mathbb{E}_{p(s'|s,a)}\left [ D_a \pi_\theta + \gamma (J'_{s'} f_a \pi_\theta + J'_\theta) \right]<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The policy gradient <math> \nabla_\theta J </math> is calculated by applying equations 12 and 13 recursively for <math> T </math> iterations. The MGAIL algorithm is presented below.<br />
<br />
[[File:MGAIL_alg.PNG]]<br />
<br />
== Forward Model Structure ==<br />
The stability of the learning process depends on the prediction accuracy of the forward model, but learning an accurate forward model is challenging by itself. The authors propose methods for improving the performance of the forward model based on two aspects of its functionality. First, the forward model should learn to use the action as an operator over the state space. To accomplish this, the actions and states, which are sampled form different distributions need to be first represented in a shared space. This is done by encoding the state and action using two separate neural networks and combining their outputs to form a single vector. Additionally, multiple previous states are used to predict the next state by representing the environment as an <math> n^{th} </math> order MDP. A GRU layer is incorporated into the state encoder to enable recurrent connections from previous states. Using these modifications, the model is able to achieve better, and more stable results compared to the standard forward model based on a feed forward neural network. The comparison is presented in Figure 3.<br />
<br />
[[File:performance_comparison.PNG]]<br />
<br />
Figure 3: Performance comparison between a basic forward model (Blue), and the advanced forward model (Green).<br />
<br />
= Experiments =<br />
The proposed algorithm is evaluated on three discrete control tasks (Cartpole, Mountain-Car, Acrobot), and five continuous control tasks (Hopper, Walker, Half-Cheetah, Ant, and Humanoid), which are modeled by the MuJoCo physics simulator (Todorov et al., 2012). Expert policies are trained using the Trust Region Policy Optimization (TRPO) algorithm (Schulman et al., 2015). Different number of trajectories are used to train the expert for each task, but all trajectories are of length 1000.<br />
The discriminator and generator (policy) networks contains two hidden layers with ReLU non-linearity and are trained using the ADAM optimizer. The total reward received over a period of <math> N </math> steps using BC, GAIL and MGAIL is presented in Table 1. The proposed algorithm achieved the highest reward for most environments while exhibiting performance comparable to the expert over all of them.<br />
<br />
[[File:mgail_test_results.PNG]]<br />
<br />
Table 1. Policy performance, boldface indicates better results, <math> \pm </math> represents one standard deviation.<br />
<br />
= Discussion =<br />
This paper presented a model-free algorithm for imitation learning. It demonstrated how a forward model can be used to train policies using the exact gradient of the discriminator network. A downside of this approach is the need to learn a forward model, since this could be difficult in certain domains. Learning the system dynamics directly from raw images is considered as one line of future work. Another future work is to address the violation of the fundamental assumption made by all supervised learning algorithms, which requires the data to be i.i.d. This problem arises because the discriminator and forward models are trained in a supervised learning fashion using data sampled from a dynamic distribution.<br />
<br />
= Source =<br />
# Baram, Nir, et al. "End-to-end differentiable adversarial imitation learning." International Conference on Machine Learning. 2017.<br />
# Ho, Jonathan, and Stefano Ermon. "Generative adversarial imitation learning." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2016.<br />
# Shalev-Shwartz, Shai, et al. "Long-term planning by short-term prediction." arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.01580 (2016).<br />
# Heess, Nicolas, et al. "Learning continuous control policies by stochastic value gradients." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2015.<br />
# Schulman, John, et al. "Trust region policy optimization." International Conference on Machine Learning. 2015.</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/IMPROVING_GANS_USING_OPTIMAL_TRANSPORT&diff=34846stat946w18/IMPROVING GANS USING OPTIMAL TRANSPORT2018-03-20T21:51:53Z<p>Shitawal: Editing</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) are powerful generative models. A GAN model consists of a generator and a discriminator or critic. The generator is a neural network which is trained to generate data having a distribution matched with the distribution of the real data. The critic is also a neural network, which is trained to separate the generated data from the real data. A loss function that measures the distribution distance between the generated data and the real one is important to train the generator.<br />
<br />
Optimal transport theory evaluates the distribution distance between the generated data and the training data based on a metric, which provides another method for generator training. The main advantage of optimal transport theory over the distance measurement in GAN is its closed form solution for having a tractable training process. But the theory might also result in inconsistency in statistical estimation due to the given biased gradients if the mini-batches method is applied (Bellemare et al.,<br />
2017).<br />
<br />
This paper presents a variant GANs named OT-GAN, which incorporates a discriminative metric called 'MIni-batch Energy Distance' into its critic in order to overcome the issue of biased gradients.<br />
<br />
== GANs and Optimal Transport ==<br />
<br />
===Generative Adversarial Nets===<br />
Original GAN was firstly reviewed. The objective function of the GAN: <br />
<br />
[[File:equation1.png|700px]]<br />
<br />
The goal of GANs is to train the generator g and the discriminator d finding a pair of (g,d) to achieve Nash equilibrium(such that either of them cannot reduce their cost without changing the others' parameters). However, it could cause failure of converging since the generator and the discriminator are trained based on gradient descent techniques.<br />
<br />
===Wasserstein Distance (Earth-Mover Distance)===<br />
<br />
In order to solve the problem of convergence failure, Arjovsky et. al. (2017) suggested Wasserstein distance (Earth-Mover distance) based on the optimal transport theory.<br />
<br />
[[File:equation2.png|600px]]<br />
<br />
where <math> \prod (p,g) </math> is the set of all joint distributions <math> \gamma (x,y) </math> with marginals <math> p(x) </math> (real data), <math> g(y) </math> (generated data). <math> c(x,y) </math> is a cost function and the Euclidean distance was used by Arjovsky et. al. in the paper. <br />
<br />
The Wasserstein distance can be considered as moving the minimum amount of points between distribution <math> g(y) </math> and <math> p(x) </math> such that the generator distribution <math> g(y) </math> is similar to the real data distribution <math> p(x) </math>.<br />
<br />
Computing the Wasserstein distance is intractable. The proposed Wasserstein GAN (W-GAN) provides an estimated solution by switching the optimal transport problem into Kantorovich-Rubinstein dual formulation using a set of 1-Lipschitz functions. A neural network can then be used to obtain an estimation.<br />
<br />
[[File:equation3.png|600px]]<br />
<br />
W-GAN helps to solve the unstable training process of original GAN and it can solve the optimal transport problem approximately, but it is still intractable.<br />
<br />
===Sinkhorn Distance===<br />
Genevay et al. (2017) proposed to use the primal formulation of optimal transport instead of the dual formulation to generative modeling. They introduced Sinkhorn distance which is a smoothed generalization of the Wasserstein distance.<br />
[[File: equation4.png|600px]]<br />
<br />
It introduced entropy restriction (<math> \beta </math>) to the joint distribution <math> \prod_{\beta} (p,g) </math>. This distance could be generalized to approximate the mini-batches of data <math> X ,Y</math> with <math> K </math> vectors of <math> x, y</math>. The <math> i, j </math> th entry of the cost matrix <math> C </math> can be interpreted as the cost it needs to transport the <math> x_i </math> in mini-batch X to the <math> y_i </math> in mini-batch <math>Y </math>. The resulting distance will be:<br />
<br />
[[File: equation5.png|550px]]<br />
<br />
where <math> M </math> is a <math> K \times K </math> matrix, each row of <math> M </math> is a joint distribution of <math> \gamma (x,y) </math> with positive entries. The summmation of rows or columns of <math> M </math> is always equal to 1. <br />
<br />
This mini-batch Sinkhorn distance is not only fully tractable but also capable of solving the instability problem of GANs. However, it is not a valid metric over probability distribution when taking the expectation of <math> \mathcal{W}_{c} </math> and the gradients are biased when the mini-batch size is fixed.<br />
<br />
===Energy Distance (Cramer Distance)===<br />
In order to solve the above problem, Bellemare et al. proposed Energy distance:<br />
<br />
[[File: equation6.png|700px]]<br />
<br />
where <math> x, x' </math> and <math> y, y'</math> are independent samples from data distribution <math> p </math> and generator distribution <math> g </math>, respectively. Based on the Energy distance, Cramer GAN is to minimize the ED distance metric when training the generator.<br />
<br />
==Mini-Batch Energy Distance==<br />
Salimans et al. (2016) mentioned that comparing to use distributions over individual images, mini-batch GAN is more powerful when using the distributions over mini-batches <math> g(X), p(X) </math>. The distance measure is generated for mini-batches.<br />
<br />
===Generalized Energy Distance===<br />
The generalized energy distance allowed to use non-Euclidean distance functions d. It is also valid for mini-batches and is considered better than working with individual data batch.<br />
<br />
[[File: equation7.png|670px]]<br />
<br />
Similarly as defined in the Energy distance, <math> X, X' </math> and <math> Y, Y'</math> can be the independent samples from data distribution <math> p </math> and the generator distribution <math> g </math>, respectively. While in Generalized engergy distance, <math> X, X' </math> and <math> Y, Y'</math> can also be valid for mini-batches. The <math> D_{GED}(p,g) </math> is a metric when having <math> d </math> as a metric. Thus, taking the triangle inequality of <math> d </math> into account, <math> D(p,g) \geq 0,</math> and <math> D(p,g)=0 </math> when <math> p=g </math>.<br />
<br />
===Mini-Batch Energy Distance===<br />
As <math> d </math> is free to choose, authors proposed Mini-batch Energy Distance by using entropy-regularized Wasserstein distnace as <math> d </math>. <br />
<br />
[[File: equation8.png|650px]]<br />
<br />
where <math> X, X' </math> and <math> Y, Y'</math> are independent sampled mini-batches from the data distribution <math> p </math> and the generator distribution <math> g </math>, respectively. This distance metric combines the energy distance with primal form of optimal tranport over mini-batch distributions <math> g(Y) </math> and <math> p(X) </math>. Inside the generalized energy distance, the Sinkhorn distance is a valid metric between each mini-batches. By adding the <math> - \mathcal{W}_c (Y,Y')</math> and <math> \mathcal{W}_c (X,Y)</math> to equation (5) and using enregy distance, the objective becomes statistically consistent and mini-batch gradients are unbiased.<br />
<br />
==Optimal Transport GAN (OT-GAN)==<br />
<br />
In order to secure the statistical efficiency, authors suggested using cosine distance between vectors <math> v_\eta (x) </math> and <math> v_\eta (y) </math> based on the deep neural network that maps the mini-batch data to a learned latent space. The reason for not using Euclidean distance is because of its poor performance in the high dimensional space. Here is the transportation cost:<br />
<br />
[[File: euqation9.png|370px]]<br />
<br />
where the <math> v_\eta </math> is chosen to maximize the resulting minibatch energy distance.<br />
<br />
Unlike the practice when using the original GANs, the generator was trained more often than the critic, which keep the cost function from degeneration. The resulting generator in OT-GAN has a well defined and statistically consistent objective through the training process.<br />
<br />
The algorithm is defined below. The backpropagation is not used in the algorithm due to the envelope theorem. Stochastic gradient descent is used as the optimization method. <br />
<br />
[[File: al.png|600px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File: al_figure.png|600px]]<br />
<br />
==Experiments==<br />
<br />
In order to demonstrate the supermum performance of the OT-GAN, authors compared it with the original GAN and other popular models based on four experiments: Dataset recovery; CIFAR-10 test; ImageNet test; and the conditional image synthesis test.<br />
<br />
===Mixture of Gaussian Dataset===<br />
OT-GAN has a statistically consistent objective when it is compared with the original GAN (DC-GAN), such that the generator would not update to a wrong direction even if the signal provided by the cost function to the generator is not good. In order to prove this advantage, authors compared the OT-GAN with the original GAN loss (DAN-S) based on a simple task. The task was set to recover all of the 8 modes from 8 Gaussian mixers in which the means were arranged in a circle. MLP with RLU activation functions were used in this task. The critic was only updated for 15K iterations. The generator distribution was tracked for another 25K iteration. The results showed that the original GAN experiences the model collapse after fixing the discriminator while the OT-GAN recovered all the 8 modes from the mixed Gaussian data.<br />
<br />
[[File: 5_1.png|600px]]<br />
<br />
===CIFAR-10===<br />
<br />
The dataset CIFAR-10 was then used for inspecting the effect of batch-size to the model training process and the image quality. OT-GAN and four other methods were compared using "inception score" as the criteria for comparison. Figure 3 shows the change of inceptions scores (y-axis) by the increased of the iteration number. Scores of four different batch sizes (200, 800, 3200 and 8000) were compared. The results show that a larger batch size would lead to a more stable model showing a larger value in inception score. However, a large batch size would also require a high-performance computational environment. The sample quality across all 5 methods are compared in Table 1 where the OT_GAN has the best score.<br />
<br />
[[File: 5_2.png|600px]]<br />
<br />
===ImageNet Dogs===<br />
<br />
In order to investigate the performance of OT-GAN when dealing with the high-quality images, the dog subset of ImageNet (128*128) was used to train the model. Figure 6 shows that OT-GAN produces less nonsensical images and it has a higher inception score compare to the DC-GAN. <br />
<br />
[[FIle: 5_3.png|600px]]<br />
<br />
===Conditional Generation of Birds===<br />
<br />
The last experiment was to compare OT-GAN with three popular GAN models for processing the text-to-image generation demonstrating the performance on conditional image synthesis. As can be found from Table 2, OT-GAN received the highest inception score than the scores of the other three models. <br />
<br />
[[File: 5_4.png|600px]]<br />
<br />
The algorithm used to obtain the results above is conditional generation generalized from '''Algorithm 1''' to include conditional information <math>s</math> such as some text description of an image. The modified algorithm is outlined in '''Algorithm 2'''.<br />
<br />
[[File: paper23_alg2.png|600px]]<br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
<br />
In this paper, an OT-GAN method was proposed based on the optimal transport theory. A distance metric that combines the primal form of the optimal transport and the energy distance was given was presented for realizing the OT-GAN. One of the advantages of OT-GAN over other GAN models is that OT-GAN can stay on the correct track with an unbiased gradient even if the training on critic is stopped or presents a weak cost signal. The performance of the OT-GAN can be maintained when the batch size is increasing, though the computational cost has to be taken into consideration.<br />
<br />
==Critique==<br />
<br />
The paper presents a variant of GANs by defining a new distance metric based on the primal form of optimal transport and the mini-batch energy distance. The stability was demonstrated based on the four experiments that comparing OP-GAN with other popular methods. However, limitations in computational efficiency were not discussed much. Furthermore, in section 2, the paper is lack of explanation on using mini-batches instead of a vector as input when applying Sinkhorn distance. It is also confusing when explaining the algorithm in section 4 about choosing M for minimizing <math> \mathcal{W}_c </math>. Lastly, it is found that it is lack of parallel comparison with existing GAN variants in this paper. Readers may feel jumping from one algorithm to another without necessary explanations.<br />
<br />
==Reference==<br />
Salimans, Tim, Han Zhang, Alec Radford, and Dimitris Metaxas. "Improving GANs using optimal transport." (2018).</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/Implicit_Causal_Models_for_Genome-wide_Association_Studies&diff=34845stat946w18/Implicit Causal Models for Genome-wide Association Studies2018-03-20T21:45:26Z<p>Shitawal: Added Proposition</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction and Motivation==<br />
There is progression in probabilistic models which could develop rich generative models. The models have been expanded with neural network, implicit densities, and with scalable algorithms to very large data for their Bayesian inference. However, most of the models are focus on capturing statistical relationships rather than causal relationships. Causal models give us a sense on how manipulate the generative process could change the final results. <br />
<br />
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are examples of causal relationship. Specifically, GWAS is about figuring out how genetic factors cause disease among humans. Here the genetic factors we are referring to is single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and getting a particular disease is treated as a trait, i.e., the outcome. In order to know about the reason of developing a disease and to cure it, the causation between SNPs and diseases is interested: first, predict which one or multiple SNPs cause the disease; second, target the selected SNPs to cure the disease. <br />
<br />
The figure below depicts an example Manhattan plot for a GWAS. Each dot represents a SNP. x-axis is the chromosome location, and y-axis is the negative log of the association p-value between the SNP and the disease, so points with the largest values represent strongly associated risk loci.<br />
<br />
[[File:gwas-example.jpg|500px|center]]<br />
<br />
This paper dealt with two questions. The first one is how to build rich causal models with specific needs by GWAS. In general, probabilistic causal models involve a function <math>f</math> and a noise <math>n</math>. For the working simplicity, we usually assume <math>f</math> as a linear model with a Gaussian noise. However, proof has shown that in GWAS, it is necessary to accommodate non-linearity and interactions between multiple genes into the models.<br />
<br />
The second accomplishment of this paper is that it addressed the problem caused by latent confounders. Latent confounders are issues when we apply the causal models since we cannot observe them nor knowing the underlying structure. In this paper, they developed implicit causal models which can adjust for confounders.<br />
<br />
There has been growing works on causal models which focus on causal discovery and typically have strong assumptions such as Gaussian processes on noise variable or nonlinearities for the main function.<br />
<br />
==Implicit Causal Models==<br />
Implicit causal models are an extension of probabilistic causal models. Probabilistic causal models will be introduced first.<br />
<br />
=== Probabilistic Causal Models ===<br />
Probabilistic causal models have two parts: deterministic functions of noise and other variables. Consider a global variable <math>\beta</math> and noise <math>\epsilon</math>, where<br />
<br />
[[File: eq1.1.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
Each <math>\beta</math> and <math>x</math> is a function of noise; <math>y</math> is a function of noise and <math>x</math>，<br />
<br />
[[File: eqt1.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
The target is the causal mechanism <math>f_y</math> so that the causal effect <math>p(y|do(X=x),\beta)</math> can be calculated. <math>do(X=x)</math> means that we specify a value of <math>X</math> under the fixed structure <math>\beta</math>. By other paper’s work, it is assumed that <math>p(y|do(x),\beta) = p(y|x, \beta)</math>.<br />
<br />
[[File: f_1.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
<br />
An example of probabilistic causal models is additive noise model. <br />
<br />
[[File: eq2.1.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
<math>f(.)</math> is usually a linear function or spline functions for nonlinearities. <math>\epsilon</math> is assumed to be standard normal, as well as <math>y</math>. Thus the posterior <math>p(\theta | x, y, \beta)</math> can be represented as <br />
<br />
[[File: eqt2.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
where <math>p(\theta)</math> is the prior which is known. Then, variational inference or MCMC can be applied to calculate the posterior distribution. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Implicit Causal Models===<br />
The difference between implicit causal models and probabilistic causal models is the noise variable. Instead of an additive noise term, implicit causal models directly take noise <math>\epsilon</math> into a neural network and output <math>x</math>.<br />
<br />
The causal diagram has changed to:<br />
<br />
[[File: f_2.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
<br />
They used fully connected neural network with a fair amount of hidden units to approximate each causal mechanism. Below is the formal description: <br />
<br />
[[File: theorem.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Implicit Causal Models with Latent Confounders==<br />
Previously, they assumed the global structure is observed. Next, the unobserved scenario is being considered.<br />
<br />
===Causal Inference with a Latent Confounder===<br />
Same as before, the interest is the causal effect <math>p(y|do(x_m), x_{-m})</math>. Here, the SNPs other than <math>x_m</math> is also under consideration. However, it is confounded by the unobserved confounder <math>z_n</math>. As a result, the standard inference method cannot be used in this case.<br />
<br />
The paper proposed a new method which include the latent confounders. For each subject <math>n=1,…,N</math> and each SNP <math>m=1,…,M</math>,<br />
<br />
[[File: eqt4.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The mechanism for latent confounder <math>z_n</math> is assumed to be known. SNPs depend on the confounders and the trait depends on all the SNPs and the confounders as well. <br />
<br />
The posterior of <math>\theta</math> is needed to be calculate in order to estimate the mechanism <math>g_y</math> as well as the causal effect <math>p(y|do(x_m), x_{-m})</math>, so that it can be explained how changes to each SNP <math>X_m</math> cause changes to the trait <math>Y</math>.<br />
<br />
[[File: eqt5.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
Note that the latent structure <math>p(z|x, y)</math> is assumed known.<br />
<br />
In general, causal inference with latent confounders can be dangerous: it uses the data twice, and thus it may bias the estimates of each arrow <math>X_m → Y</math>. Why is this justified? This is answered below:<br />
<br />
'''Proposition 1'''. Assume the causal graph of Figure 2 (left) is correct and that the true distribution resides in some configuration of the parameters of the causal model (Figure 2 (right)). Then the posterior <math>p(θ | x, y)<br />
</math> provides a consistent estimator of the causal mechanism <math>f_y</math>.<br />
<br />
Proposition 1 rigorizes previous methods in the framework of probabilistic causal models. The intuition is that as more SNPs arrive (“M → ∞, N fixed”), the posterior concentrates at the true confounders <math>z_n</math>, and thus we can estimate the causal mechanism given each data point’s confounder <math>z_n</math>. As more data points arrive (“N → ∞, M fixed”), we can estimate the causal mechanism given any confounder <math>z_n</math> as there is an infinity of them.<br />
<br />
===Implicit Causal Model with a Latent Confounder===<br />
This section is the algorithm and functions to implementing an implicit causal model for GWAS.<br />
<br />
====Generative Process of Confounders <math>z_n</math>.====<br />
The distribution of confounders is set as standard normal. <math>z_n \in R^K</math> , where <math>K</math> is the dimension of <math>z_n</math> and <math>K</math> should make the latent space as close as possible to the true population structural. <br />
<br />
====Generative Process of SNPs <math>x_{nm}</math>.====<br />
Given SNP is coded for,<br />
<br />
[[File: SNP.png|300px|center]]<br />
<br />
The authors defined a <math>Binomial(2,\pi_{nm})</math> distribution on <math>x_{nm}</math>. And used logistic factor analysis to design the SNP matrix.<br />
<br />
[[File: gpx.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
A SNP matrix looks like this:<br />
[[File: SNP_matrix.png|200px|center]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Since logistic factor analysis makes strong assumptions, this paper suggests using a neural network to relax these assumptions,<br />
<br />
[[File: gpxnn.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
This renders the outputs to be a full <math>N*M</math> matrix due the the variables <math>w_m</math>, which act as principal component in PCA. Here, <math>\phi</math> has a standard normal prior distribution. The weights <math>w</math> and biases <math>\phi</math> are shared over the <math>m</math> SNPs and <math>n</math> individuals, which makes it possible to learn nonlinear interactions between <math>z_n</math> and <math>w_m</math>.<br />
<br />
====Generative Process of Traits <math>y_n</math>.====<br />
Previously, each trait is modeled by a linear regression,<br />
<br />
[[File: gpy.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
This also has very strong assumptions on SNPs, interactions, and additive noise. It can also be replaced by a neural network which only outputs a scalar,<br />
<br />
[[File: gpynn.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Likelihood-free Variational Inference==<br />
Calculating the posterior of <math>\theta</math> is the key of applying the implicit causal model with latent confounders.<br />
<br />
[[File: eqt5.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
could be reduces to <br />
<br />
[[File: lfvi1.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
However, with implicit models, integrating over a nonlinear function could be suffered. The authors applied likelihood-free variational inference (LFVI). LFVI proposes a family of distribution over the latent variables. Here the variables <math>w_m</math> and <math>z_n</math> are all assumed to be Normal,<br />
<br />
[[File: lfvi2.png|700px|center]]<br />
<br />
For LFVI applied to GWAS, the algorithm which similar to the EM algorithm has been used:<br />
[[File: em.png|800px|center]]<br />
<br />
==Empirical Study==<br />
The authors performed simulation on 100,000 SNPs, 940 to 5,000 individuals, and across 100 replications of 11 settings. <br />
Four methods were compared: <br />
<br />
* implicit causal model (ICM);<br />
* PCA with linear regression (PCA); <br />
* a linear mixed model (LMM); <br />
* logistic factor analysis with inverse regression (GCAT).<br />
<br />
The feedforward neural networks for traits and SNPs are fully connected with two hidden layers using ReLU activation function, and batch normalization. <br />
<br />
===Simulation Study===<br />
Based on real genomic data, a true model is applied to generate the SNPs and traits for each configuration. <br />
There are four datasets used in this simulation study: <br />
<br />
# HapMap [Balding-Nichols model]<br />
# 1000 Genomes Project (TGP) [PCA]<br />
#* Human Genome Diversity project (HGDP) [PCA]<br />
#* HGDP [Pritchard-Stephens-Donelly model] <br />
# A latent spatial position of individuals for population structure [spatial]<br />
<br />
<br />
The table shows the prediction accuracy. The accuracy is calculated by the rate of the number of true positives divide the number of true positives plus false positives. True positives measure the proportion of positives that are correctly identified as such (e.g. the percentage of SNPs which are correctly identified as having the causal relation with the trait). In contrast, false positives state the SNPs has the causal relation with the trait when they don’t. The closer the rate to 1, the better the model is since false positives are considered as the wrong prediction.<br />
<br />
[[File: table_1.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
The result represented above shows that the implicit causal model has the best performance among these four models in every situation. Especially, other models tend to do poorly on PSD and Spatial when <math>a</math> is small, but the ICM achieved a significantly high rate. The only comparable method to ICM is GCAT, when applying to simpler configurations.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Real-data Analysis===<br />
They also applied ICM to a real-world GWAS of Northern Finland Birth Cohorts which contain 324,160 SNPs and 5,027 individuals. Ten implicit causal models were fitted and the 2 neural networks both with two hidden layers were used for SNP and trait. The dimension of confounders (<math>K</math>) was set to be six, same as what was used in the paper by Song et al. for comparable models in Table 2.<br />
<br />
[[File: table_2.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
The numbers in the above table are the number of significant loci for each of the 10 traits. The number for other methods, such as GCAT, LMM, PCA, and "uncorrected" (association tests without accounting for hidden relatedness of study samples) are obtained from other papers. By comparison, the ICM reached the level of the best previous model for each trait.<br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
This paper introduced implicit causal models in order to account for nonlinear complex causal relationships, and applied the method to GWAS. It can not only capture important interactions between genes within an individual and among population level, but also can adjust for latent confounders by taking account of the latent variables into the model.<br />
<br />
By the simulation study, the authors proved that the implicit causal model could beat other methods by 15-45.3% on a variety of datasets with variations on parameters.<br />
<br />
The authors also believed this GWAS application is only a start of the usage of implicit causal models. It might also be used in physics or economics. <br />
<br />
==Critique==<br />
I think this paper is an interesting and novel work. The main contribution of this paper is to connect the statistical genetics and the machine learning methodology. The method is technically sound and does indeed generalize techniques currently used in statistical genetics.<br />
<br />
The neural network used in this paper is a very simple feedforward 2 hidden layers neural network, but the idea of where to use the neural network is crucial and might be significant in GWAS.<br />
<br />
It has limitations as well. The empirical example in this paper is too easy, and far away from the realistic situation. Despite the simulation study showed some competing results, the Northern Finland Birth Cohort Data application did not demonstrate the advantage of using implicit causal model whether are better than the previous methods, such as GCAT or LMM.<br />
<br />
Another limitation is about linkage disequilibrium as the authors stated as well. SNPs are not completely independent of each other; usually they have correlations when the alleles at close locus. They did not consider this complex case, rather they only considered the simplest case where they assumed all the SNPs are independent.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, one SNP maybe does not have enough power to explain the causal relationship. Recent papers indicate that causation to a trait may involve multiple SNPs.<br />
This could be a future work as well.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
Tran D, Blei D M. Implicit Causal Models for Genome-wide Association Studies[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10742, 2017.<br />
<br />
Patrik O Hoyer, Dominik Janzing, Joris M Mooij, Jonas Peters, and Prof Bernhard Schölkopf. Non- linear causal discovery with additive noise models. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2009.<br />
<br />
Alkes L Price, Nick J Patterson, Robert M Plenge, Michael E Weinblatt, Nancy A Shadick, and David Reich. Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies. Nature Genetics, 38(8):904–909, 2006.<br />
<br />
Minsun Song, Wei Hao, and John D Storey. Testing for genetic associations in arbitrarily structured populations. Nature, 47(5):550–554, 2015.<br />
<br />
Dustin Tran, Rajesh Ranganath, and David M Blei. Hierarchical implicit models and likelihood-free variational inference. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017.</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Wasserstein_Auto-Encoders&diff=34095Wasserstein Auto-Encoders2018-03-14T22:41:46Z<p>Shitawal: Added to results</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
= Introduction =<br />
Recent years have seen a convergence of two previously distinct approaches: representation learning from high dimensional data, and unsupervised generative modeling. In the field that formed at their intersection, Variational Auto-Encoders (VAEs) and Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) have emerged to become well-established. VAEs are theoretically elegant but with the drawback that they tend to generate blurry samples when applied to natural images. GANs on the other hand produce better visual quality of sampled images, but come without an encoder, are harder to train and suffer from the mode-collapse problem when the trained model is unable to capture all the variability in the true data distribution. Thus there has been a push to come up with the best way to combine them together, but a principled unifying framework is yet to be discovered.<br />
<br />
This work proposes a new family of regularized auto-encoders called the Wasserstein Auto-Encoder (WAE). The proposed method provides a novel theoretical insight into setting up an objective function for auto-encoders from the point of view of of optimal transport (OT). This theoretical formulation leads the authors to examine adversarial and maximum mean discrepancy based regularizers for matching a prior and the distribution of encoded data points in the latent space. An empirical evaluation is performed on MNIST and CelebA datasets, where WAE is found to generate samples of better quality than VAE while preserving training stability, encoder-decoder structure and nice latent manifold structure.<br />
<br />
The main contribution of the proposed algorithm is to provide theoretical foundations for using optimal transport cost as the auto-encoder objective function, while blending auto-encoders and GANs in a principled way. It also theoretically and experimentally explores the interesting relationships between WAEs, VAEs and adversarial auto-encoders.<br />
<br />
= Proposed Approach =<br />
==Theory of Optimal Transport and Wasserstein Distance==<br />
Wasserstein Distance is a measure of the distance between two probability distributions. It is also called Earth Mover’s distance, short for EM distance, because informally it can be interpreted as moving piles of dirt that follow one probability distribution at a minimum cost to follow the other distribution. The cost is quantified by the amount of dirt moved times the moving distance. <br />
A simple case where the probability domain is discrete is presented below.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:em_distance.PNG|thumb|upright=1.4|center|Step-by-step plan of moving dirt between piles in ''P'' and ''Q'' to make them match (''W'' = 5).]]<br />
<br />
<br />
When dealing with the continuous probability domain, the EM distance or the minimum one among the costs of all dirt moving solutions becomes:<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\small W(p_r, p_g) = \underset{\gamma\sim\Pi(p_r, p_g)} {\inf}\pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{(x,y)\sim\gamma}[\parallel x-y\parallel]<br />
\end{align}<br />
The Wasserstein distance or the cost of Optimal Transport (OT) provides a much weaker topology, which informally means that it makes it easier for a sequence of distribution to converge as compared to other ''f''-divergences. This is particularly important in applications where data is supported on low dimensional manifolds in the input space. As a result, stronger notions of distances such as KL-divergence, often max out, providing no useful gradients for training. In contrast, OT has a much nicer linear behaviour even upon saturation. It can be shown that the Wasserstein distance has guarantees of continuity and differentiability (Arjovsky et al., 2017). Moreover, Arjovsky et al. show there is a nice relationship between the magnitude of the Wasserstein distance and the distance between distributions; a smaller distance nicely corresponds to a smaller distance between the two distributions, and vice versa.<br />
<br />
==Problem Formulation and Notation==<br />
In this paper, calligraphic letters, i.e. <math>\small {\mathcal{X}}</math>, are used for sets, capital letters, i.e. <math>\small X</math>, are used for random variables and lower case letters, i.e. <math>\small x</math>, for their values. Probability distributions are denoted with capital letters, i.e. <math>\small P(X)</math>, and corresponding densities with lower case letters, i.e. <math>\small p(x)</math>.<br />
<br />
This work aims to minimize OT <math>\small W_c(P_X, P_G)</math> between the true (but unknown) data distribution <math>\small P_X</math> and a latent variable model <math>\small P_G</math> specified by the prior distribution <math>\small P_Z</math> of latent codes <math>\small Z \in \pmb{\mathbb{Z}}</math> and the generative model <math>\small P_G(X|Z)</math> of the data points <math>\small X \in \pmb{\mathbb{X}}</math> given <math>\small Z</math>. <br />
<br />
Kantorovich's formulation of the OT problem is given by:<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\small W_c(P_X, P_G) := \underset{\Gamma\sim {\mathcal{P}}(X \sim P_X, Y \sim P_G)}{\inf} {\pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{(X,Y)\sim\Gamma}[c(X,Y)]}<br />
\end{align}<br />
where <math>\small c(x,y)</math> is any measurable cost function and <math>\small {\mathcal{P}(X \sim P_X,Y \sim P_G)}</math> is a set of all joint distributions of <math>\small (X,Y)</math> with marginals <math>\small P_X</math> and <math>\small P_G</math>. When <math>\small c(x,y)=d(x,y)</math>, the following Kantorovich-Rubinstein duality holds for the <math>\small 1^{st}</math> root of <math>\small W_c</math>:<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\small W_1(P_X, P_G) := \underset{f \in {\mathcal{F_L}}} {\sup} {\pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{X \sim P_X}[f(X)]} -{\pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{Y \sim P_G}[f(Y)]}<br />
\end{align}<br />
where <math>\small {\mathcal{F_L}}</math> is the class of all bounded Lipschitz continuous functions.<br />
<br />
==Wasserstein Auto-Encoders==<br />
The proposed method focuses on latent variables <math>\small P_G </math> defined by a two step procedure, where first a code <math>\small Z</math> is sampled from a fixed prior distribution <math>\small P_Z</math> on a latent space <math>\small {\mathcal{Z}}</math> and then <math>\small Z</math> is mapped to the image <math>\small X \in {\mathcal{X}}</math> with a transformation. This results in a density of the form<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\small p_G(x) := \int_{{\mathcal{Z}}} p_G(x|z)p_z(z)dz, \forall x\in{\mathcal{X}}<br />
\end{align}<br />
assuming all the densities are properly defined. It turns out that if the focus is only on generative models deterministically mapping <math>\small Z </math> to <math>\small X = G(Z) </math>, then the OT cost takes a much simpler form as stated below by Theorem 1.<br />
<br />
'''Theorem 1''' For any function <math>\small G:{\mathcal{Z}} \rightarrow {\mathcal{X}}</math>, where <math>\small Q(Z) </math> is the marginal distribution of <math>\small Z </math> when <math>\small X \in P_X </math> and <math>\small Z \in Q(Z|X) </math>,<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\small \underset{\Gamma\sim {\mathcal{P}}(X \sim P_X, Y \sim P_G)}{\inf} {\pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{(X,Y)\sim\Gamma}[c(X,Y)]} = \underset{Q : Q_z=P_z}{\inf} {{\pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{P_X}}{\pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{Q(Z|X)}}[c(X,G(Z))]}<br />
\end{align}<br />
This essentially means that instead of finding a coupling <math>\small \Gamma </math> between two random variables living in the <math>\small {\mathcal{X}} </math> space, one distributed according to <math>\small P_X </math> and the other one according to <math>\small P_G </math>, it is sufficient to find a conditional distribution <math>\small Q(Z|X) </math> such that its <math>\small Z </math> marginal <math>\small Q_Z(Z) := {\pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{X \sim P_X}[Q(Z|X)]} </math> is identical to the prior distribution <math>\small P_Z </math>. In order to implement a numerical solution to Theorem 1, the constraints on <math>\small Q(Z|X) </math> and <math>\small P_Z </math> are relaxed and a penalty function is added to the objective leading to the WAE objective function given by:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\small D_{WAE}(P_X, P_G):= \underset{Q(Z|X) \in Q}{\inf} {{\pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{P_X}}{\pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{Q(Z|X)}}[c(X,G(Z))]} + {\lambda} {{\mathcal{D}}_Z(Q_Z,P_Z)}<br />
\end{align}<br />
where <math>\small Q </math> is any non-parametric set of probabilistic encoders, <math>\small {\mathcal{D}}_Z </math> is an arbitrary divergence between <br />
<math>\small Q_Z </math> and <math>\small P_Z </math>, and <math>\small \lambda > 0 </math> is a hyperparameter. The authors propose two different penalties <math>\small {\mathcal{D}}_Z(Q_Z,P_Z) </math> based on adversarial training (GANs) and maximum mean discrepancy (MMD).<br />
<br />
===WAE-GAN: GAN-based===<br />
The first option is to choose <math>\small {\mathcal{D}}_Z(Q_Z,P_Z) = D_{JS}(Q_Z,P_Z)</math>, where <math>\small D_{JS} </math> is the Jensen-Shannon divergence metric, and use adversarial training to estimate it. Specifically a discriminator is introduced in the latent space <math>\small {\mathcal{Z}} </math> trying to separate true points sampled from <math>\small P_Z </math> from fake ones sampled from <math>\small Q_Z </math>. This results in Algorithm 1. It is interesting that the min-max problem is moved from the input pixel space to the latent space.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:wae-gan.PNG|270px|center]]<br />
<br />
===WAE-MMD: MMD-based===<br />
For a positive definite kernel <math>\small k: {\mathcal{Z}} \times {\mathcal{Z}} \rightarrow {\mathcal{R}}</math>, the following expression is called the maximum mean discrepancy:<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\small {MMD}_k(P_Z,Q_Z) = \parallel \int_{{\mathcal{Z}}} k(z,\cdot)dP_z(z) - \int_{{\mathcal{Z}}} k(z,\cdot)dQ_z(z) \parallel_{\mathcal{H}_k},<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math>\mathcal{H}_k</math> is the reproducing kernel Hilbert space of real-valued functions mapping <math>\mathcal{Z}</math> to <math>\mathcal{R}</math>. This can be used as a divergence measure and the authors propose to use <math>\small {\mathcal{D}}_Z(Q_Z,P_Z) = MMD_k(P_Z,Q_Z) </math>, which leads to Algorithm 2.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:wae-mmd.PNG|270px|center]]<br />
<br />
= Comparison with Related Work =<br />
==Auto-Encoders, VAEs and WAEs==<br />
Classical unregularized encoders only minimized the reconstruction cost, and resulted in training points being chaotically scattered across the latent space with holes in between, where the decoder had never been trained. They were hard to sample from and did not provide a useful representation. VAEs circumvented this problem by maximizing a variational lower-bound term comprising of a reconstruction cost and a KL-divergence measure which captures how distinct each training example is from the prior <math>\small P_Z</math>. This however does not guarantee that the overall encoded distribution <math>\small {{\pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{P_X}}}[Q(Z|X)]</math> matches <math>\small P_Z</math>. This is ensured by WAE however, is a direct consequence of our objective function derived from Theorem 1, and is visually represented in the figure below. It is also interesting to note that this also allows WAE to have deterministic encoder-decoder pairs.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:vae-wae.PNG|500px|thumb|center|WAE and VAE regularization]]<br />
<br />
<br />
It is also shown that if <math>\small c(x,y)={\parallel x-y \parallel}_2^2</math>, WAE-GAN is equivalent to adversarial autoencoders (AAE). Thus the theory suggests that AAE minimize the 2-Wasserstein distance between <math>\small P_X</math> and <math>\small P_G</math>.<br />
<br />
==OT, W-GAN and WAE==<br />
The Wasserstein GAN (W-GAN) minimizes the 1-Wasserstein distance <math>\small W_1(P_X,P_G)</math> for generative modeling. The W-GAN formulation is approached from the dual form and thus it cannot be applied to another other cost <math>\small W_c</math> as the neat form of the Kantorovich-Rubinstein duality holds only for <math>\small W_1</math>. WAE approaches the same problem from the primal form, can be applied to any cost function <math>\small c</math> and comes naturally with an encoder. The constraint on OT in Theorem 1, is relaxed in line with theory on unbalanced optimal transport by adding a penalty or additional divergences to the objective.<br />
<br />
==GANs and WAEs==<br />
Many of the GAN variations including f-GAN and W-GAN come without an encoder. Often it may be desirable to reconstruct the latent codes and use the learned manifold in which case they won't be applicable. For works which try to blend adversarial auto-encoder structures, encoders and decoders do not have incentive to be reciprocal. WAE does not necessarily lead to a min-max game and has a clear theoretical foundation for using penalties for regularization.<br />
<br />
=Experimental Results=<br />
The authors empirically evaluate the proposed WAE generative model by specifically testing if data points are accurately reconstructed, if the latent manifold has reasonable geometry, and if random samples of good visual quality are generated. <br />
<br />
'''Experimental setup:'''<br />
Gaussian prior distribution <math> \small P_Z</math> and squared cost function <math> \small c(x,y)</math> are used for data-points. The encoder-decoder pairs were deterministic. The convolutional deep neural network for encoder mapping and decoder mapping are similar to DC-GAN with batch normalization. Real world datasets, MNIST with 70k images and CelebA with 203k images were used for training and testing.<br />
<br />
'''WAE-GAN and WAE-MMD:'''<br />
In WAE-GAN, the discriminator <math> \small D </math> composed of several fully connected layers with ReLu. For WAE-MMD, the RBF kernel failed to penalize outliers and thus the authors resorted to using inverse multiquadratics kernel <math> \small k(x,y)=C/(C+\parallel{x-y}_2^2\parallel) </math>. Trained models are presented in the figure below.<br />
As far as random sampled results are concerned, WAE-GAN seems to be highly unstable but do lead to better matching scores among WAE-GAN, WAE-MMD and VAE. WAE-MMD on the other hand has much more stable training and fairly good quality of sampled results.<br />
<br />
'''Qualitative assessment:'''<br />
In order to quantitatively assess the quality of the generated images, they use the Fréchet Inception Distance (which measures the similarity between two sets of images, by comparing the Fréchet distance of multivariate Gaussian distributions fitted to their feature representations) and report the results on CelebA. These results confirm that the sampled images from WAE are of better quality than from VAE (score: 82), and WAE-GAN gets a slightly better score (score:42) than WAE-MMD (score:55), which correlates with visual inspection of the images.<br />
<br />
[[File:results.png|800px|thumb|center|Results on MNIST and Celeb-A dataset. In "test reconstructions" (middle row of images), odd rows correspond to the real test points.]]<br />
<br />
The authors also heuristically evaluate the sharpness of generated samples using the Laplace filter. The numbers, summarized in Table below, show that WAE-MMD has samples of slightly better quality than VAE, while WAE-GAN achieves the best results overall.<br />
<br />
[[File: paper17_Table.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
= Commentary and Conclusion =<br />
This paper presents an interesting theoretical justification for a new family of auto-encoders called Wasserstein Auto-Encoders (WAE). The objective function minimizes the optimal transport cost in the form of the Wasserstein distance, but relaxes theoretical constraints to separate it into a reconstruction cost and a regularization penalty. The regularization penalizes divergences between a prior and the distribution of encoded latent space training data, and is estimated by means of adversarial training (WAE-GAN), or kernel-based techniques (WAE-MMD). They show that they achieve samples of better visual quality than VAEs, while achieving stable training at the same time. They also theoretically show that WAEs are a generalization of adversarial auto-encoders (AAEs).<br />
<br />
Although the paper mentions that encoder-decoder pairs can be deterministic, they do not show the geometry of the latent space that is obtained. It is necessary to study the effect of randomness of encoders on the quality of obtained samples. While this method is evaluated on MNIST and CelebA datasets, it is also important to see their performance on other real world data distributions. The authors do not provide a comprehensive evaluation of WAE-GAN regularization, thus making it hard to comment on whether moving an adversarial problem to the latent space results in less instability. Reasons for better sample quality of WAE-GAN over WAE-MMD also need to be inspected. In the future it would be interesting to investigate different ways to compute the divergences between the encoded distribution and the prior distribution.<br />
<br />
=Open Source Code=<br />
1. https://github.com/tolstikhin/wae <br />
<br />
2. https://github.com/maitek/waae-pytorch<br />
<br />
=Sources=<br />
1. Ilya Tolstikhin, Olivier Bousquet, Sylvain Gelly, Bernhard Scholkopf. Wasserstein Auto-Encoders, 2017<br />
<br />
2. M. Arjovsky, S. Chintala, and L. Bottou. Wasserstein GAN, 2017<br />
<br />
3. https://lilianweng.github.io/lil-log/2017/08/20/from-GAN-to-WGAN.html</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=File:paper17_Table.png&diff=34094File:paper17 Table.png2018-03-14T22:39:37Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Label-Free_Supervision_of_Neural_Networks_with_Physics_and_Domain_Knowledge&diff=34093Label-Free Supervision of Neural Networks with Physics and Domain Knowledge2018-03-14T22:30:57Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
Applications of machine learning are often encumbered by the need for large amounts of labeled training data. Neural networks have made large amounts of labeled data even more crucial to success (LeCun, Bengio, and Hinton 2015[1]). Nonetheless, Humans are often able to learn without direct examples, opting instead for high level instructions for how a task should be performed, or what it will look like when completed. This work explores whether a similar principle can be applied to teaching machines: can we supervise networks without individual examples by instead describing only the structure of desired outputs.<br />
<br />
[[File:c433li-1.png]]<br />
<br />
Unsupervised learning methods such as autoencoders, also aim to uncover hidden structure in the data without having access to any label. Such systems succeed in producing highly compressed, yet informative representations of the inputs (Kingma and Welling 2013; Le 2013). However, these representations differ from ours as they are not explicitly constrained to have a particular meaning or semantics. This paper attempts to explicitly provide the semantics of the hidden variables we hope to discover, but still train without labels by learning from constraints that are known to hold according to prior domain knowledge. By training without direct examples of the values our hidden (output) variables take, several advantages are gained over traditional supervised learning, including:<br />
* a reduction in the amount of work spent labeling, <br />
* an increase in generality, as a single set of constraints can be applied to multiple data sets without relabeling.<br />
<br />
== Problem Setup ==<br />
In a traditional supervised learning setting, we are given a training set <math>D=\{(x_1, y_1), \cdots, (x_n, y_n)\}</math> of <math>n</math> training examples. Each example is a pair <math>(x_i,y_i)</math> formed by an instance <math>x_i \in X</math> and the corresponding output (label) <math>y_i \in Y</math>. The goal is to learn a function <math>f: X \rightarrow Y</math> mapping inputs to outputs. To quantify performance, a loss function <math>\ell:Y \times Y \rightarrow \mathbb{R}</math> is provided, and a mapping is found via <br />
<br />
::<math> f^* = \text{argmin}_{f \in \mathcal{F}} \sum_{i=1}^n \ell(f(x_i),y_i) </math><br />
<br />
where the optimization is over a pre-defined class of functions <math>\mathcal{F}</math> (hypothesis class). In our case, <math>\mathcal{F}</math> will be (convolutional) neural networks parameterized by their weights. The loss could be for example <math>\ell(f(x_i),y_i) = 1[f(x_i) \neq y_i]</math>. By restricting the space of possible functions specifying the hypothesis class <math>\mathcal{F}</math>, we are leveraging prior knowledge about the specific problem we are trying to solve. Informally, the so-called No Free Lunch Theorems state that every machine learning algorithm must make such assumptions in order to work. Another common way in which a modeler incorporates prior knowledge is by specifying an a-priori preference for certain functions in <math>\mathcal{F}</math>, incorporating a regularization term <math>R:\mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}</math>, and solving for <math> f^* = argmin_{f \in \mathcal{F}} \sum_{i=1}^n \ell(f(x_i),y_i) + R(f)</math>. Typically, the regularization term <math>R:\mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}</math> specifies a preference for "simpler' functions (Occam's razor).<br />
<br />
In this paper, prior knowledge on the structure of the outputs is modelled by providing a weighted constraint function <math>g:X \times Y \rightarrow \mathbb{R}</math>, used to penalize “structures” that are not consistent with our prior knowledge. And whether this weak form of supervision is sufficient to learn interesting functions is explored. While one clearly needs labels <math>y</math> to evaluate <math>f^*</math>, labels may not be necessary to discover <math>f^*</math>. If prior knowledge informs us that outputs of <math>f^*</math> have other unique properties among functions in <math>\mathcal{F}</math>, we may use these properties for training rather than direct examples <math>y</math>. <br />
<br />
Specifically, an unsupervised approach where the labels <math>y_i</math> are not provided to us is considered, where a necessary property of the output <math>g</math> is optimized instead.<br />
::<math>\hat{f}^* = \text{argmin}_{f \in \mathcal{F}} \sum_{i=1}^n g(x_i,f(x_i))+ R(f) </math><br />
<br />
If the optimizing the above equation is sufficient to find <math>\hat{f}^*</math>, we can use it in replace of labels. If it's not sufficient, additional regularization terms are added. The idea is illustrated with three examples, as described in the next section.<br />
<br />
== Experiments ==<br />
=== Tracking an object in free fall ===<br />
In the first experiment, they record videos of an object being thrown across the field of view, and aim to learn the object's height in each frame. The goal is to obtain a regression network mapping from <math>{(R^{\text{height} \times \text{width} \times 3})}^N \rightarrow \mathbb{R}</math>, where <math>\text{height}</math> and <math>\text{width}</math> are the number of vertical and horizontal pixels per frame, and each pixel has 3 color channels. this network is trained as a structured prediction problem operating on a sequence of <math>N</math> images to produce a sequence of <math>N</math> heights, <math>\left(R^{\text{height} \times \text{width} \times 3} \right)^N \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^N</math>, and each piece of data <math>x_i</math> will be a vector of images, <math>\mathbf{x}</math>.<br />
Rather than supervising the network with direct labels, <math>\mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^N</math>, the network is instead supervised to find an object obeying the elementary physics of free falling objects. An object acting under gravity will have a fixed acceleration of <math>a = -9.8 m / s^2</math>, and the plot of the object's height over time will form a parabola:<br />
::<math>\mathbf{y}_i = y_0 + v_0(i\Delta t) + \frac{1}{2} a(i\Delta t)^2</math><br />
<br />
The idea is, given any trajectory of <math>N</math> height predictions, <math>f(\mathbf{x})</math>, we fit a parabola with fixed curvature to those predictions, and minimize the resulting residual. Formally, if we specify <math>\mathbf{a} = [\frac{1}{2} a\Delta t^2, \frac{1}{2} a(2 \Delta t)^2, \ldots, \frac{1}{2} a(N \Delta t)^2]</math>, the prediction produced by the fitted parabola is:<br />
::<math> \mathbf{\hat{y}} = \mathbf{a} + \mathbf{A} (\mathbf{A}^T\mathbf{A})^{-1} \mathbf{A}^T (f(\mathbf{x}) - \mathbf{a}) </math><br />
<br />
where<br />
::<math><br />
\mathbf{A} = <br />
\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br />
\Delta t & 1 \\<br />
2\Delta t & 1 \\<br />
3\Delta t & 1 \\<br />
\vdots & \vdots \\<br />
N\Delta t & 1 \\<br />
\end{array} } \right]<br />
</math><br />
<br />
The constraint loss is then defined as<br />
::<math>g(\mathbf{x},f(\mathbf{x})) = g(f(\mathbf{x})) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} |\mathbf{\hat{y}}_i - f(\mathbf{x})_i|</math><br />
<br />
Note that <math>\hat{y}</math> is not the ground truth labels. Because <math>g</math> is differentiable almost everywhere, it can be optimized with SGD. They find that when combined with existing regularization methods for neural networks, this optimization is sufficient to recover <math>f^*</math> up to an additive constant <math>C</math> (specifying what object height corresponds to 0).<br />
<br />
[[File:c433li-2.png]]<br />
<br />
The data set is collected on a laptop webcam running at 10 frames per second (<math>\Delta t = 0.1s</math>). The camera position is fixed and 65 diverse trajectories of the object in flight, totalling 602 images are recorded. For each trajectory, the network is trained on randomly selected intervals of <math>N=5</math> contiguous frames. Images are resized to <math>56 \times 56</math> pixels before going into a small, randomly initialized neural network with no pretraining. The network consists of 3 Conv/ReLU/MaxPool blocks followed by 2 Fully Connected/ReLU layers with probability 0.5 dropout and a single regression output.<br />
<br />
Since scaling the <math>y_0</math> and <math>v_0</math> results in the same constraint loss <math>g</math>, the authors evaluate the result by the correlation of predicted heights with ground truth pixel measurements (which in my opinion is not a bullet proof evaluation, as described in the critique section). We see from the table below that, under their evaluation criteria, the result is pretty satisfying.<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+ style="text-align: left;" | Evaluation <br />
|-<br />
! scope="col" | Method !! scope="col" | Random Uniform Output !! scope="col" | Supervised with Labels !! scope="col" | Approach in this Paper<br />
|-<br />
! scope="row" | Correlation <br />
| 12.1% || 94.5% || 90.1%<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Tracking the position of a walking man ===<br />
In the second experiment, they aim to detect the horizontal position of a person walking across a frame without providing direct labels <math>y \in \mathbb{R}</math> by exploiting the assumption that the person will be walking at a constant velocity over short periods of time. This is formulated as a structured prediction problem <math>f: \left(R^{\text{height} \times \text{width} \times 3} \right)^N \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^N</math>, and each training instances <math>x_i</math> are a vector of images, <math>\mathbf{x}</math>, being mapped to a sequence of predictions, <math>\mathbf{y}</math>. Given the similarities to the first experiment with free falling objects, we might hope to simply remove the gravity term from equation and retrain. However, in this case, that is not possible, as the constraint provides a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for convergence.<br />
<br />
Given any sequence of correct outputs, <math>(\mathbf{y}_1, \ldots, \mathbf{y}_N)</math>, the modified sequence, <math>(\lambda * \mathbf{y}_1 + C, \ldots, \lambda * \mathbf{y}_N + C)</math> (<math>\lambda, C \in \mathbb{R}</math>) will also satisfy the constant velocity constraint. In the worst case, when <math>\lambda = 0</math>, <math>f \equiv C</math>, and the network can satisfy the constraint while having no dependence on the image. The trivial output is avoided by adding two two additional loss terms.<br />
<br />
::<math>h_1(\mathbf{x}) = -\text{std}(f(\mathbf{x}))</math><br />
which seeks to maximize the standard deviation of the output, and<br />
<br />
::<math>\begin{split}<br />
h_2(\mathbf{x}) = \hphantom{'} & \text{max}(\text{ReLU}(f(\mathbf{x}) - 10)) \hphantom{\text{ }}+ \\<br />
& \text{max}(\text{ReLU}(0 - f(\mathbf{x})))<br />
\end{split}<br />
</math><br />
which limit the output to a fixed ranged <math>[0, 10]</math>, the final loss is thus:<br />
<br />
::<math><br />
\begin{split}<br />
g(\mathbf{x}) = \hphantom{'} & ||(\mathbf{A} (\mathbf{A}^T\mathbf{A})^{-1} \mathbf{A}^T - \mathbf{I}) * f(\mathbf{x})||_1 \hphantom{\text{ }}+ \\<br />
& \gamma_1 * h_1(\mathbf{x}) <br />
\hphantom{\text{ }}+ \\<br />
& \gamma_2 * h_2(\mathbf{x})<br />
% h_2(y) & = \text{max}(\text{ReLU}(y - 10)) + \\<br />
% & \hphantom{=}\hphantom{a} \text{max}(\text{ReLU}(0 - y))<br />
\end{split}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
[[File:c433li-3.png]]<br />
<br />
The data set contains 11 trajectories across 6 distinct scenes, totalling 507 images resized to <math>56 \times 56</math>. The network is trained to output linearly consistent positions on 5 strided frames from the first half of each trajectory, and is evaluated on the second half. The boundary violation penalty is set to <math>\gamma_2 = 0.8</math> and the standard deviation bonus is set to <math>\gamma_1 = 0.6</math>.<br />
<br />
As in the previous experiment, the result is evaluated by the correlation with the ground truth. The result is as follows:<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+ style="text-align: left;" | Evaluation <br />
|-<br />
! scope="col" | Method !! scope="col" | Random Uniform Output !! scope="col" | Supervised with Labels !! scope="col" | Approach in this Paper<br />
|-<br />
! scope="row" | Correlation <br />
| 45.9% || 80.5% || 95.4%<br />
|}<br />
Surprisingly, the approach in this paper beats the same network trained with direct labeled supervision on the test set, which can be attributed to overfitting on the small amount of training data available.<br />
<br />
=== Detecting objects with causal relationships ===<br />
In the previous experiments, the authors explored options for incorporating constraints pertaining to dynamics equations in real-world phenomena, i.e., prior knowledge derived from elementary physics. In this experiment, the authors explore the possibilities of learning from logical constraints imposed on single images. More specifically, they ask whether it is possible to learn from causal phenomena.<br />
<br />
[[File:paper18_Experiment_3.png|400px]]<br />
<br />
Here, the authors provide images containing a stochastic collection of up to four characters: Peach, Mario, Yoshi, and Bowser, with each character having small appearance changes across frames due to rotation and reflection. Example images can be seen in Fig. (4). While the existence of objects in each frame is non-deterministic, the generating distribution encodes the underlying phenomenon that Mario will always appear whenever Peach appears. The aim is to create a pair of neural networks <math>f_1, f_2</math> for identifying Peach and Mario, respectively. The networks, <math>f_k : R^{height×width×3} → {0, 1}</math>, map the image to the discrete boolean variables, <math>y_1</math> and <math>y_2</math>. Rather than supervising with direct labels, the authors train the networks by constraining their outputs to have the logical relationship <math>y_1 ⇒ y_2</math>. This problem is challenging because the networks must simultaneously learn to recognize the characters and select them according to logical relationships.<br />
<br />
'''Evaluation'''<br />
<br />
The input images, shown in Fig. (4), are 56 × 56 pixels. This experiment demonstrates that networks can learn from constraints that operate over discrete sets with potentially complex logical rules. Removing constraints will cause learning to fail. Thus, the experiment also shows that sophisticated sufficiency conditions can be key to success when learning from constraints.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion and Critique ==<br />
This paper has introduced a method for using physics and other domain constraints to supervise neural networks. However, the approach described in this paper are not entirely new. Similar ideas are already widely used in Q learning, where the Q value are not available, and the network is supervised by the constraint, as in Deep Q learning (Mnih, Riedmiller et al. 2013[2]).<br />
::<math>Q(s,a) = R(r,s) + \gamma \sum_{s' ~ P_{sa}}{\text{max}_{a'}Q(s',a')}</math><br />
<br />
<br />
ALso, the paper has a mistake where they quote the free fall equation as<br />
::<math>\mathbf{y}_i = y_0 + v_0(i\Delta t) + a(i\Delta t)^2</math><br />
which should be<br />
::<math>\mathbf{y}_i = y_0 + v_0(i\Delta t) + \frac{1}{2} a(i\Delta t)^2</math><br />
Although in this case it doesn't affect the result<br />
<br />
<br />
For the evaluation of the experiments, they used correlation with ground truth as the metric to avoid the fact that the output can be scaled without affecting the constraint loss. This is fine if the network gives output of the same scale. However, there's no such guarantee, and the network may give output of varying scale, in which case, we can't say that the network has learnt the correct thing, although it may have a high correlation with ground truth. In fact, to solve the scaling issue, an obvious way is to combine the constraints introduced in this paper with some labeled training data. It's not clear why the author didn't experiment with a combination of these two loss.<br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, this paper only picks the examples where the constraints are easy to design, while in some more common tasks such as image classification, what kind of constraints are needed is not straightforward at all.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
[1] LeCun, Y.; Bengio, Y.; and Hinton, G. 2015. Deep learning. Nature 521(7553):436–444.<br />
<br />
[2] Mnih, V. and Riedmiller M. et al. arxiv 1312.5602.</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Label-Free_Supervision_of_Neural_Networks_with_Physics_and_Domain_Knowledge&diff=34092Label-Free Supervision of Neural Networks with Physics and Domain Knowledge2018-03-14T22:29:43Z<p>Shitawal: Added experiment on detecting objects with causal relationships</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
Applications of machine learning are often encumbered by the need for large amounts of labeled training data. Neural networks have made large amounts of labeled data even more crucial to success (LeCun, Bengio, and Hinton 2015[1]). Nonetheless, Humans are often able to learn without direct examples, opting instead for high level instructions for how a task should be performed, or what it will look like when completed. This work explores whether a similar principle can be applied to teaching machines: can we supervise networks without individual examples by instead describing only the structure of desired outputs.<br />
<br />
[[File:c433li-1.png]]<br />
<br />
Unsupervised learning methods such as autoencoders, also aim to uncover hidden structure in the data without having access to any label. Such systems succeed in producing highly compressed, yet informative representations of the inputs (Kingma and Welling 2013; Le 2013). However, these representations differ from ours as they are not explicitly constrained to have a particular meaning or semantics. This paper attempts to explicitly provide the semantics of the hidden variables we hope to discover, but still train without labels by learning from constraints that are known to hold according to prior domain knowledge. By training without direct examples of the values our hidden (output) variables take, several advantages are gained over traditional supervised learning, including:<br />
* a reduction in the amount of work spent labeling, <br />
* an increase in generality, as a single set of constraints can be applied to multiple data sets without relabeling.<br />
<br />
== Problem Setup ==<br />
In a traditional supervised learning setting, we are given a training set <math>D=\{(x_1, y_1), \cdots, (x_n, y_n)\}</math> of <math>n</math> training examples. Each example is a pair <math>(x_i,y_i)</math> formed by an instance <math>x_i \in X</math> and the corresponding output (label) <math>y_i \in Y</math>. The goal is to learn a function <math>f: X \rightarrow Y</math> mapping inputs to outputs. To quantify performance, a loss function <math>\ell:Y \times Y \rightarrow \mathbb{R}</math> is provided, and a mapping is found via <br />
<br />
::<math> f^* = \text{argmin}_{f \in \mathcal{F}} \sum_{i=1}^n \ell(f(x_i),y_i) </math><br />
<br />
where the optimization is over a pre-defined class of functions <math>\mathcal{F}</math> (hypothesis class). In our case, <math>\mathcal{F}</math> will be (convolutional) neural networks parameterized by their weights. The loss could be for example <math>\ell(f(x_i),y_i) = 1[f(x_i) \neq y_i]</math>. By restricting the space of possible functions specifying the hypothesis class <math>\mathcal{F}</math>, we are leveraging prior knowledge about the specific problem we are trying to solve. Informally, the so-called No Free Lunch Theorems state that every machine learning algorithm must make such assumptions in order to work. Another common way in which a modeler incorporates prior knowledge is by specifying an a-priori preference for certain functions in <math>\mathcal{F}</math>, incorporating a regularization term <math>R:\mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}</math>, and solving for <math> f^* = argmin_{f \in \mathcal{F}} \sum_{i=1}^n \ell(f(x_i),y_i) + R(f)</math>. Typically, the regularization term <math>R:\mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}</math> specifies a preference for "simpler' functions (Occam's razor).<br />
<br />
In this paper, prior knowledge on the structure of the outputs is modelled by providing a weighted constraint function <math>g:X \times Y \rightarrow \mathbb{R}</math>, used to penalize “structures” that are not consistent with our prior knowledge. And whether this weak form of supervision is sufficient to learn interesting functions is explored. While one clearly needs labels <math>y</math> to evaluate <math>f^*</math>, labels may not be necessary to discover <math>f^*</math>. If prior knowledge informs us that outputs of <math>f^*</math> have other unique properties among functions in <math>\mathcal{F}</math>, we may use these properties for training rather than direct examples <math>y</math>. <br />
<br />
Specifically, an unsupervised approach where the labels <math>y_i</math> are not provided to us is considered, where a necessary property of the output <math>g</math> is optimized instead.<br />
::<math>\hat{f}^* = \text{argmin}_{f \in \mathcal{F}} \sum_{i=1}^n g(x_i,f(x_i))+ R(f) </math><br />
<br />
If the optimizing the above equation is sufficient to find <math>\hat{f}^*</math>, we can use it in replace of labels. If it's not sufficient, additional regularization terms are added. The idea is illustrated with three examples, as described in the next section.<br />
<br />
== Experiments ==<br />
=== Tracking an object in free fall ===<br />
In the first experiment, they record videos of an object being thrown across the field of view, and aim to learn the object's height in each frame. The goal is to obtain a regression network mapping from <math>{(R^{\text{height} \times \text{width} \times 3})}^N \rightarrow \mathbb{R}</math>, where <math>\text{height}</math> and <math>\text{width}</math> are the number of vertical and horizontal pixels per frame, and each pixel has 3 color channels. this network is trained as a structured prediction problem operating on a sequence of <math>N</math> images to produce a sequence of <math>N</math> heights, <math>\left(R^{\text{height} \times \text{width} \times 3} \right)^N \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^N</math>, and each piece of data <math>x_i</math> will be a vector of images, <math>\mathbf{x}</math>.<br />
Rather than supervising the network with direct labels, <math>\mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^N</math>, the network is instead supervised to find an object obeying the elementary physics of free falling objects. An object acting under gravity will have a fixed acceleration of <math>a = -9.8 m / s^2</math>, and the plot of the object's height over time will form a parabola:<br />
::<math>\mathbf{y}_i = y_0 + v_0(i\Delta t) + \frac{1}{2} a(i\Delta t)^2</math><br />
<br />
The idea is, given any trajectory of <math>N</math> height predictions, <math>f(\mathbf{x})</math>, we fit a parabola with fixed curvature to those predictions, and minimize the resulting residual. Formally, if we specify <math>\mathbf{a} = [\frac{1}{2} a\Delta t^2, \frac{1}{2} a(2 \Delta t)^2, \ldots, \frac{1}{2} a(N \Delta t)^2]</math>, the prediction produced by the fitted parabola is:<br />
::<math> \mathbf{\hat{y}} = \mathbf{a} + \mathbf{A} (\mathbf{A}^T\mathbf{A})^{-1} \mathbf{A}^T (f(\mathbf{x}) - \mathbf{a}) </math><br />
<br />
where<br />
::<math><br />
\mathbf{A} = <br />
\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br />
\Delta t & 1 \\<br />
2\Delta t & 1 \\<br />
3\Delta t & 1 \\<br />
\vdots & \vdots \\<br />
N\Delta t & 1 \\<br />
\end{array} } \right]<br />
</math><br />
<br />
The constraint loss is then defined as<br />
::<math>g(\mathbf{x},f(\mathbf{x})) = g(f(\mathbf{x})) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} |\mathbf{\hat{y}}_i - f(\mathbf{x})_i|</math><br />
<br />
Note that <math>\hat{y}</math> is not the ground truth labels. Because <math>g</math> is differentiable almost everywhere, it can be optimized with SGD. They find that when combined with existing regularization methods for neural networks, this optimization is sufficient to recover <math>f^*</math> up to an additive constant <math>C</math> (specifying what object height corresponds to 0).<br />
<br />
[[File:c433li-2.png]]<br />
<br />
The data set is collected on a laptop webcam running at 10 frames per second (<math>\Delta t = 0.1s</math>). The camera position is fixed and 65 diverse trajectories of the object in flight, totalling 602 images are recorded. For each trajectory, the network is trained on randomly selected intervals of <math>N=5</math> contiguous frames. Images are resized to <math>56 \times 56</math> pixels before going into a small, randomly initialized neural network with no pretraining. The network consists of 3 Conv/ReLU/MaxPool blocks followed by 2 Fully Connected/ReLU layers with probability 0.5 dropout and a single regression output.<br />
<br />
Since scaling the <math>y_0</math> and <math>v_0</math> results in the same constraint loss <math>g</math>, the authors evaluate the result by the correlation of predicted heights with ground truth pixel measurements (which in my opinion is not a bullet proof evaluation, as described in the critique section). We see from the table below that, under their evaluation criteria, the result is pretty satisfying.<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+ style="text-align: left;" | Evaluation <br />
|-<br />
! scope="col" | Method !! scope="col" | Random Uniform Output !! scope="col" | Supervised with Labels !! scope="col" | Approach in this Paper<br />
|-<br />
! scope="row" | Correlation <br />
| 12.1% || 94.5% || 90.1%<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Tracking the position of a walking man ===<br />
In the second experiment, they aim to detect the horizontal position of a person walking across a frame without providing direct labels <math>y \in \mathbb{R}</math> by exploiting the assumption that the person will be walking at a constant velocity over short periods of time. This is formulated as a structured prediction problem <math>f: \left(R^{\text{height} \times \text{width} \times 3} \right)^N \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^N</math>, and each training instances <math>x_i</math> are a vector of images, <math>\mathbf{x}</math>, being mapped to a sequence of predictions, <math>\mathbf{y}</math>. Given the similarities to the first experiment with free falling objects, we might hope to simply remove the gravity term from equation and retrain. However, in this case, that is not possible, as the constraint provides a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for convergence.<br />
<br />
Given any sequence of correct outputs, <math>(\mathbf{y}_1, \ldots, \mathbf{y}_N)</math>, the modified sequence, <math>(\lambda * \mathbf{y}_1 + C, \ldots, \lambda * \mathbf{y}_N + C)</math> (<math>\lambda, C \in \mathbb{R}</math>) will also satisfy the constant velocity constraint. In the worst case, when <math>\lambda = 0</math>, <math>f \equiv C</math>, and the network can satisfy the constraint while having no dependence on the image. The trivial output is avoided by adding two two additional loss terms.<br />
<br />
::<math>h_1(\mathbf{x}) = -\text{std}(f(\mathbf{x}))</math><br />
which seeks to maximize the standard deviation of the output, and<br />
<br />
::<math>\begin{split}<br />
h_2(\mathbf{x}) = \hphantom{'} & \text{max}(\text{ReLU}(f(\mathbf{x}) - 10)) \hphantom{\text{ }}+ \\<br />
& \text{max}(\text{ReLU}(0 - f(\mathbf{x})))<br />
\end{split}<br />
</math><br />
which limit the output to a fixed ranged <math>[0, 10]</math>, the final loss is thus:<br />
<br />
::<math><br />
\begin{split}<br />
g(\mathbf{x}) = \hphantom{'} & ||(\mathbf{A} (\mathbf{A}^T\mathbf{A})^{-1} \mathbf{A}^T - \mathbf{I}) * f(\mathbf{x})||_1 \hphantom{\text{ }}+ \\<br />
& \gamma_1 * h_1(\mathbf{x}) <br />
\hphantom{\text{ }}+ \\<br />
& \gamma_2 * h_2(\mathbf{x})<br />
% h_2(y) & = \text{max}(\text{ReLU}(y - 10)) + \\<br />
% & \hphantom{=}\hphantom{a} \text{max}(\text{ReLU}(0 - y))<br />
\end{split}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
[[File:c433li-3.png]]<br />
<br />
The data set contains 11 trajectories across 6 distinct scenes, totalling 507 images resized to <math>56 \times 56</math>. The network is trained to output linearly consistent positions on 5 strided frames from the first half of each trajectory, and is evaluated on the second half. The boundary violation penalty is set to <math>\gamma_2 = 0.8</math> and the standard deviation bonus is set to <math>\gamma_1 = 0.6</math>.<br />
<br />
As in the previous experiment, the result is evaluated by the correlation with the ground truth. The result is as follows:<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+ style="text-align: left;" | Evaluation <br />
|-<br />
! scope="col" | Method !! scope="col" | Random Uniform Output !! scope="col" | Supervised with Labels !! scope="col" | Approach in this Paper<br />
|-<br />
! scope="row" | Correlation <br />
| 45.9% || 80.5% || 95.4%<br />
|}<br />
Surprisingly, the approach in this paper beats the same network trained with direct labeled supervision on the test set, which can be attributed to overfitting on the small amount of training data available.<br />
<br />
=== Detecting objects with causal relationships ===<br />
In the previous experiments, the authors explored options for incorporating constraints pertaining to dynamics equations in real-world phenomena, i.e., prior knowledge derived from elementary physics. In this experiment, the authors explore the possibilities of learning from logical constraints imposed on single images. More specifically, they ask whether it is possible to learn from causal phenomena.<br />
<br />
[[File:paper18_Experiment_3.png|400px]]<br />
<br />
Here, the authors provide images containing a stochastic collection of up to four characters: Peach, Mario, Yoshi, and Bowser, with each character having small appearance changes across frames due to rotation and reflection. Example images can be seen in Fig. (4). While the existence of objects in each frame is non-deterministic, the generating distribution encodes the underlying phenomenon that Mario will always appear whenever Peach appears. The aim is to create a pair of neural networks <math>f_1, f_2</math> for identifying Peach and Mario, respectively. The networks, <math>f_k : R^{height×width×3} → {0, 1}</math>, map the image to the discrete boolean variables, <math>y_1</math> and <math>y_2</math>. Rather than supervising with direct labels, the authors train the networks by constraining their outputs to have the logical relationship <math>y_1 ⇒ y_2</math>. This problem is challenging because the networks must simultaneously learn to recognize the characters and select them according to logical relationships.<br />
<br />
Evaluation<br />
<br />
The input images, shown in Fig. (4), are 56 × 56 pixels. This experiment demonstrates that networks can learn from constraints that operate over discrete sets with potentially complex logical rules. Removing constraints will cause learning to fail. Thus, the experiment also shows that sophisticated sufficiency conditions can be key to success when learning from constraints.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion and Critique ==<br />
This paper has introduced a method for using physics and other domain constraints to supervise neural networks. However, the approach described in this paper are not entirely new. Similar ideas are already widely used in Q learning, where the Q value are not available, and the network is supervised by the constraint, as in Deep Q learning (Mnih, Riedmiller et al. 2013[2]).<br />
::<math>Q(s,a) = R(r,s) + \gamma \sum_{s' ~ P_{sa}}{\text{max}_{a'}Q(s',a')}</math><br />
<br />
<br />
ALso, the paper has a mistake where they quote the free fall equation as<br />
::<math>\mathbf{y}_i = y_0 + v_0(i\Delta t) + a(i\Delta t)^2</math><br />
which should be<br />
::<math>\mathbf{y}_i = y_0 + v_0(i\Delta t) + \frac{1}{2} a(i\Delta t)^2</math><br />
Although in this case it doesn't affect the result<br />
<br />
<br />
For the evaluation of the experiments, they used correlation with ground truth as the metric to avoid the fact that the output can be scaled without affecting the constraint loss. This is fine if the network gives output of the same scale. However, there's no such guarantee, and the network may give output of varying scale, in which case, we can't say that the network has learnt the correct thing, although it may have a high correlation with ground truth. In fact, to solve the scaling issue, an obvious way is to combine the constraints introduced in this paper with some labeled training data. It's not clear why the author didn't experiment with a combination of these two loss.<br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, this paper only picks the examples where the constraints are easy to design, while in some more common tasks such as image classification, what kind of constraints are needed is not straightforward at all.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
[1] LeCun, Y.; Bengio, Y.; and Hinton, G. 2015. Deep learning. Nature 521(7553):436–444.<br />
<br />
[2] Mnih, V. and Riedmiller M. et al. arxiv 1312.5602.</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=File:paper18_Experiment_3.png&diff=34091File:paper18 Experiment 3.png2018-03-14T22:10:09Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/Synthetic_and_natural_noise_both_break_neural_machine_translation&diff=33799stat946w18/Synthetic and natural noise both break neural machine translation2018-03-13T22:16:51Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
* Humans have surprisingly robust language processing systems which can easily overcome typos, e.g.<br />
<br />
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.<br />
<br />
* A person's ability to read this text comes as no surprise to the Psychology literature<br />
*# Saberi & Perrott (1999) found that this robustness extends to audio as well.<br />
*# Rayner et al. (2006) found that in noisier settings reading comprehension only slowed by 11%.<br />
*# McCusker et al. (1981) found that the common case of swapping letters could often go unnoticed by the reader.<br />
*# Mayall et al (1997) shows that we rely on word shape.<br />
*# Reicher, 1969; Pelli et al., (2003) found that we can switch between whole word recognition but the first and last letter positions are required to stay constant for comprehension<br />
<br />
However, NMT(neural machine translation) systems are brittle. i.e. The Arabic word<br />
[[File:Good_morning.PNG]] means a blessing for good morning, however [[File:Hunt.PNG]] means hunt or slaughter. <br />
<br />
Facebook's MT system mistakenly confused two words that only differ by one character, a situation that is challenging for a character-based NMT system.<br />
<br />
Figure 1 shows the performance translating German to English as a function of the percent of German words modified. Here we show two types of noise: (1) Random permutation of the word and (2) Swapping a pair of adjacent letters that does not include the first or last letter of the word. The important thing to note is that even small amounts of noise lead to substantial drops in performance.<br />
<br />
[[File:BLEU_plot.PNG]] <br />
<br />
BLEU (bilingual evaluation understudy) is an algorithm for evaluating the quality of text which has been machine-translated from one natural language to another. Quality is considered to be the correspondence between a machine's output and that of a human: "the closer a machine translation is to a professional human translation, the better it is". BLEU is between 0 and 1.<br />
<br />
This paper explores two simple strategies for increasing model robustness:<br />
# using structure-invariant representations ( character CNN representation)<br />
# robust training on noisy data, a form of adversarial training.<br />
<br />
The goal of the paper is two-fold:<br />
# to initiate a conversation on robust training and modeling techniques in NMT<br />
# to promote the creation of better and more linguistically accurate artificial noise to be applied to new languages and tasks<br />
<br />
== Adversarial examples ==<br />
The growing literature on adversarial examples has demonstrated how dangerous it can be to have brittle machine learning systems being used so pervasively in the real world. Small changes to the input can lead to dramatic<br />
failures of deep learning models. This leads to a potential for malicious attacks using adversarial examples. An important distinction is often drawn between white-box attacks, where adversarial examples are generated with<br />
access to the model parameters, and black-box attacks, where examples are generated without such access.<br />
<br />
The paper devises simple methods for generating adversarial examples for NMT. They do not assume any access to the NMT models' gradients, instead relying on cognitively-informed and naturally occurring language errors to generate noise.<br />
<br />
== MT system ==<br />
We experiment with three different NMT systems with access to character information at different levels.<br />
# Use <code>char2char</code>, the fully character-level model of (Lee et al. 2017). This model processes a sentence as a sequence of characters. The encoder works as follows: the characters are embedded as vectors, and then the sequence of vectors is fed to a convolutional layer. The sequence output by the convolutional layer is then shortened by max pooling in the time dimension. The output of the max-pooling layer is then fed to a four-layer highway network (Srivasta et al. 2015), and the output of the highway network is in turn fed to a bidirectional GRU, producing a sequence of hidden units. The sequence of hidden units is then processed by the decoder, a GRU with attention, to produce probabilities over sequences of output characters.<br />
# Use <code>Nematus</code> (Sennrich et al., 2017), a popular NMT toolkit. It is another sequence-to-sequence model with several architecture modifications, especially operating on sub-word units using byte-pair encoding. Byte-pair encoding (Sennich et al. 2015, Gage 1994) is an algorithm according to which we begin with a list of characters as our symbols, and repeatedly fuse common combinations to create new symbols. For example, if we begin with the letters a to z as our symbol list, and we find that "th" is the most common two-letter combination in a corpus, then we would add "th" to our symbol list in the first iteration. After we have used this algorithm to create a symbol list of the desired size, we apply a standard encoder-decoder with attention.<br />
# Use an attentional sequence-to-sequence model with a word representation based on a character convolutional neural network (<code>charCNN</code>). The <code>charCNN</code> model is similar to <code>char2char</code>, but uses a shallower highway network and, although it reads the input sentence as characters, it produces as output a probability distribution over words, not characters.<br />
<br />
== Data ==<br />
=== MT Data ===<br />
We use the TED talks parallel corpus prepared for IWSLT 2016 (Cettolo et al., 2012) for testing all of the NMT systems.<br />
[[File:Table1x.PNG]]<br />
<br />
=== Natural and Artificial Noise ===<br />
==== Natural Noise ====<br />
The three different languages French, German and Czech, they have their own frequent natural errors. The corpora of edits used for these languages are:<br />
<br />
# French : Wikipedia Correction aqnd Paraphrase Corpus (WiCoPaCo)<br />
# German : RWSE Wikipedia Correction Dataset and The MERLIN corpus<br />
# Czech : Manually annotated essays written by non-native speakers<br />
<br />
The author harvests naturally occurring errors (typos, misspellings, etc.) corresponding to these three languages from available corpora of edits to build a look-up table of possible lexical replacements.<br />
<br />
==== Synthetic Noise ====<br />
In addition to naturally collected sources of error, we also experiment with four types of synthetic noise: Swap, Middle Random, Fully Random, and Key Typo. <br />
# <code>Swap</code>: The first and simplest source of noise is swapping two letters (do not alter the first or last letters, only apply to words of length >=4).<br />
# <code>Middle Random</code>: Randomize the order of all the letters in a word except for the first and last (only apply to words of length >=4).<br />
# <code>Fully Random</code> Completely randomized words.<br />
# <code>Keyboard Typo</code> Randomly replace one letter in each word with an adjacent key<br />
<br />
[[File:Table3x.PNG]]<br />
<br />
Table 3 shows BLEU scores of models trained on clean (Vanilla) texts and tested on clean and noisy<br />
texts. All models suffer a significant drop in BLEU when evaluated on noisy texts. This is true<br />
for both natural noise and all kinds of synthetic noise. The more noise in the text, the worse the<br />
translation quality, with random scrambling producing the lowest BLEU scores.<br />
<br />
== Dealing with noise ==<br />
=== Structure Invariant Representations ===<br />
The three NMT models are all sensitive to word structure. The <code>char2char</code> and <code>charCNN</code> models both have convolutional layers on character sequences, designed to capture character n-grams. The model in <code>Nematus</code> is based on sub-word units obtained with BPE. It thus relies on character order.<br />
<br />
The simplest to improve such model is to take the average character embeddings as a word representation. This model, referred to as <code>meanChar</code>, first generates a word representation by averaging character embeddings, and then proceeds with a word-level encoder similar to the <code>charCNN</code> model.<br />
<br />
[[File:Table5x.PNG]]<br />
<br />
<code>meanChar</code> is good with the other three scrambling errors (Swap, Middle Random and Fully Random), but bad with Keyboard error and Natural errors.<br />
<br />
=== Black-Box Adversarial Training ===<br />
<br />
<code>charCNN</code> Performance<br />
[[File:Table6x.PNG]]<br />
<br />
== Analysis ==<br />
=== Learning Multiple Kinds of Noise in <code>charCNN</code> ===<br />
They analyze the weights learned by <code>charCNN</code> models trained on two kinds of input: completely scrambled words (Rand) without other kinds of noise, and a mix of Rand+Key+Nat kinds of noise.<br />
<br />
For each model, they compute the variance across the filter dimension for each one of the 1000 filters and for each one out of 25 character embedding dimensions. The we average the variances across the 1000 filters. <br />
<br />
[[File:Table7x.PNG]]<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
In this work, they have shown that character-based NMT models are extremely brittle and tend to break when presented with both natural and synthetic kinds of noise. After models comparison, they found that a character-based CNN can learn to<br />
address multiple types of errors that are seen in training.<br />
For the future work, the author suggested generating more realistic synthetic noise by using phonetic and syntactic structure. Also, they suggested that a better NMT architecture could be designed which can be robust to noise without seeing it in the training data.<br />
<br />
== Criticism ==<br />
A major critique of this paper is that the solutions presented do not adequately solve the problem. The response to the meanChar architecture has been mostly negative and the method of noise injection has been seen as a simple start. However, the authors have acknowledged these critiques stating that they realize their solution is just a starting point. They argue that this paper has opened the discussion on dealing with noise in machine translation which has been mostly left untouched.</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/Synthetic_and_natural_noise_both_break_neural_machine_translation&diff=33798stat946w18/Synthetic and natural noise both break neural machine translation2018-03-13T22:13:51Z<p>Shitawal: Modified Intro, adversarial examples and natural noise sections</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
* Humans have surprisingly robust language processing systems which can easily overcome typos, e.g.<br />
<br />
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.<br />
<br />
* A person's ability to read this text comes as no surprise to the Psychology literature<br />
*# Saberi & Perrott (1999) found that this robustness extends to audio as well.<br />
*# Rayner et al. (2006) found that in noisier settings reading comprehension only slowed by 11%.<br />
*# McCusker et al. (1981) found that the common case of swapping letters could often go unnoticed by the reader.<br />
*# Mayall et al (1997) shows that we rely on word shape.<br />
*# Reicher, 1969; Pelli et al., (2003) found that we can switch between whole word recognition but the first and last letter positions are required to stay constant for comprehension<br />
<br />
However, NMT(neural machine translation) systems are brittle. i.e. The Arabic word<br />
[[File:Good_morning.PNG]] means a blessing for good morning, however [[File:Hunt.PNG]] means hunt or slaughter. <br />
<br />
Facebook's MT system mistakenly confused two words that only differ by one character, a situation that is challenging for a character-based NMT system.<br />
<br />
Figure 1 shows the performance translating German to English as a function of the percent of German words modified. Here we show two types of noise: (1) Random permutation of the word and (2) Swapping a pair of adjacent letters that does not include the first or last letter of the word. The important thing to note is that even small amounts of noise lead to substantial drops in performance.<br />
<br />
[[File:BLEU_plot.PNG]] <br />
<br />
BLEU (bilingual evaluation understudy) is an algorithm for evaluating the quality of text which has been machine-translated from one natural language to another. Quality is considered to be the correspondence between a machine's output and that of a human: "the closer a machine translation is to a professional human translation, the better it is". BLEU is between 0 and 1.<br />
<br />
This paper explores two simple strategies for increasing model robustness:<br />
# using structure-invariant representations ( character CNN representation)<br />
# robust training on noisy data, a form of adversarial training.<br />
<br />
The goal of the paper is two-fold:<br />
# to initiate a conversation on robust training and modeling techniques in NMT<br />
# to promote the creation of better and more linguistically accurate artificial noise to be applied to new languages and tasks<br />
<br />
== Adversarial examples ==<br />
The growing literature on adversarial examples has demonstrated how dangerous it can be to have brittle machine learning systems being used so pervasively in the real world. Small changes to the input can lead to dramatic<br />
failures of deep learning models. This leads to a potential for malicious attacks using adversarial examples. An important distinction is often drawn between white-box attacks, where adversarial examples are generated with<br />
access to the model parameters, and black-box attacks, where examples are generated without such access.<br />
<br />
The paper devises simple methods for generating adversarial examples for NMT. They do not assume any access to the NMT models' gradients, instead relying on cognitively-informed and naturally occurring language errors to generate noise.<br />
<br />
== MT system ==<br />
We experiment with three different NMT systems with access to character information at different levels.<br />
# Use <code>char2char</code>, the fully character-level model of (Lee et al. 2017). This model processes a sentence as a sequence of characters. The encoder works as follows: the characters are embedded as vectors, and then the sequence of vectors is fed to a convolutional layer. The sequence output by the convolutional layer is then shortened by max pooling in the time dimension. The output of the max-pooling layer is then fed to a four-layer highway network (Srivasta et al. 2015), and the output of the highway network is in turn fed to a bidirectional GRU, producing a sequence of hidden units. The sequence of hidden units is then processed by the decoder, a GRU with attention, to produce probabilities over sequences of output characters.<br />
# Use <code>Nematus</code> (Sennrich et al., 2017), a popular NMT toolkit. It is another sequence-to-sequence model with several architecture modifications, especially operating on sub-word units using byte-pair encoding. Byte-pair encoding (Sennich et al. 2015, Gage 1994) is an algorithm according to which we begin with a list of characters as our symbols, and repeatedly fuse common combinations to create new symbols. For example, if we begin with the letters a to z as our symbol list, and we find that "th" is the most common two-letter combination in a corpus, then we would add "th" to our symbol list in the first iteration. After we have used this algorithm to create a symbol list of the desired size, we apply a standard encoder-decoder with attention.<br />
# Use an attentional sequence-to-sequence model with a word representation based on a character convolutional neural network (<code>charCNN</code>). The <code>charCNN</code> model is similar to <code>char2char</code>, but uses a shallower highway network and, although it reads the input sentence as characters, it produces as output a probability distribution over words, not characters.<br />
<br />
== Data ==<br />
=== MT Data ===<br />
We use the TED talks parallel corpus prepared for IWSLT 2016 (Cettolo et al., 2012) for testing all of the NMT systems.<br />
[[File:Table1x.PNG]]<br />
<br />
=== Natural and Artificial Noise ===<br />
==== Natural Noise ====<br />
The three different languages French, German and Czech, they have their own frequent natural errors. The corpora of edits used for these languages are:<br />
<br />
# French : Wikipedia Correction aqnd Paraphrase Corpus (WiCoPaCo)<br />
# German : RWSE Wikipedia Correction Dataset and The MERLIN corpus<br />
# Czech : Manually annotated essays written by non-native speakers<br />
<br />
The author harvests naturally occurring errors (typos, misspellings, etc.) corresponding to these three languages from available corpora of edits to build a look-up table of possible lexical replacements.<br />
<br />
==== Synthetic Noise ====<br />
In addition to naturally collected sources of error, we also experiment with four types of synthetic noise: Swap, Middle Random, Fully Random, and Key Typo. <br />
# <code>Swap</code>: The first and simplest source of noise is swapping two letters (do not alter the first or last letters, only apply to words of length >=4).<br />
# <code>Middle Random</code>: Randomize the order of all the letters in a word except for the first and last (only apply to words of length >=4).<br />
# <code>Fully Random</code> Completely randomized words.<br />
# <code>Keyboard Typo</code> Randomly replace one letter in each word with an adjacent key<br />
<br />
[[File:Table3x.PNG]]<br />
<br />
Table 3 shows BLEU scores of models trained on clean (Vanilla) texts and tested on clean and noisy<br />
texts. All models suffer a significant drop in BLEU when evaluated on noisy texts. This is true<br />
for both natural noise and all kinds of synthetic noise. The more noise in the text, the worse the<br />
translation quality, with random scrambling producing the lowest BLEU scores.<br />
<br />
== Dealing with noise ==<br />
=== STRUCTURE INVARIANT REPRESENTATIONS ===<br />
The three NMT models are all sensitive to word structure. The <code>char2char</code> and <code>charCNN</code> models both have convolutional layers on character sequences, designed to capture character n-grams. The model in <code>Nematus</code> is based on sub-word units obtained with BPE. It thus relies on character order.<br />
<br />
The simplest to improve such model is to take the average character embeddings as a word representation. This model, referred to as <code>meanChar</code>, first generates a word representation by averaging character embeddings, and then proceeds with a word-level encoder similar to the <code>charCNN</code> model.<br />
<br />
[[File:Table5x.PNG]]<br />
<br />
<code>meanChar</code> is good with the other three scrambling errors (Swap, Middle Random and Fully Random), but bad with Keyboard error and Natural errors.<br />
<br />
=== BLACK-BOX ADVERSARIAL TRAINING ===<br />
<br />
<code>charCNN</code> Performance<br />
[[File:Table6x.PNG]]<br />
<br />
== Analysis ==<br />
=== LEARNING MULTIPLE KINDS OF NOISE IN <code>charCNN</code> ===<br />
They analyze the weights learned by <code>charCNN</code> models trained on two kinds of input: completely scrambled words (Rand) without other kinds of noise, and a mix of Rand+Key+Nat kinds of noise.<br />
<br />
For each model, they compute the variance across the filter dimension for each one of the 1000 filters and for each one out of 25 character embedding dimensions. The we average the variances across the 1000 filters. <br />
<br />
[[File:Table7x.PNG]]<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
In this work, they have shown that character-based NMT models are extremely brittle and tend to break when presented with both natural and synthetic kinds of noise. After models comparison, they found that a character-based CNN can learn to<br />
address multiple types of errors that are seen in training.<br />
For the future work, the author suggested generating more realistic synthetic noise by using phonetic and syntactic structure. Also, they suggested that a better NMT architecture could be designed which can be robust to noise without seeing it in the training data.<br />
<br />
== Criticism ==<br />
A major critique of this paper is that the solutions presented do not adequately solve the problem. The response to the meanChar architecture has been mostly negative and the method of noise injection has been seen as a simple start. However, the authors have acknowledged these critiques stating that they realize their solution is just a starting point. They argue that this paper has opened the discussion on dealing with noise in machine translation which has been mostly left untouched.</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=A_Neural_Representation_of_Sketch_Drawings&diff=33794A Neural Representation of Sketch Drawings2018-03-13T21:28:52Z<p>Shitawal: Added Model Configuration section and Unconditional Generation image</p>
<hr />
<div>= Introduction =<br />
<br />
There have been many recent advances in neural generative models for low resolution pixel-based images. Humans, however, do not see the world in a grid of pixels and more typically communicate drawings of the things we see using a series of pen strokes that represent components of objects. These pen strokes are similar to the way vector-based images store data. This paper proposes a new method for creating conditional and unconditional generative models for creating these kinds of vector sketch drawings based on recurrent neural networks (RNNs). The paper explores many applications of these kinds of models, especially creative applications and makes available their unique dataset of vector images.<br />
<br />
= Related Work =<br />
<br />
Previous work related to sketch drawing generation includes methods that focussed primarily on converting input photographs into equivalent vector line drawings. Image generating models using neural networks also exist but focussed more on generation of pixel-based imagery. Some recent work has focussed on handwritten character generation using RNNs and Mixture Density Networks to generate continuous data points. This work has been extended somewhat recently to conditionally and unconditionally generate handwritten vectorized Chinese Kanji characters by modeling them as a series of pen strokes. Furthermore, this paper builds on work that employed Sequence-to-Sequence models with Variational Autencoders to model English sentences in latent vector space.<br />
<br />
One of the limiting factors for creating models that operate on vector datasets has been the dearth of publicly available data. Previously available datasets include Sketch, a set of 20K vector drawings; Sketchy, a set of 70K vector drawings; and ShadowDraw, a set of 30K raster images with extracted vector drawings.<br />
<br />
= Methodology =<br />
<br />
=== Dataset ===<br />
<br />
The “QuickDraw” dataset used in this research was assembled from 75K user drawings extracted from the game “Quick, Draw!” where users drew objects from one of hundreds of classes in 20 seconds or less. The dataset is split into 70K training samples and 2.5K validation and test samples each and represents each sketch a set of “pen stroke actions”. Each action is provided as a vector in the form <math>(\Delta x, \Delta y, p_{1}, p_{2}, p_{3})</math>. For each vector, <math>\Delta x</math> and <math>\Delta y</math> give the movement of the pen from the previous point, with the initial location being the origin. The last three vector elements are a one-hot representation of pen states; <math>p_{1}</math> indicates that the pen is down and a line should be drawn between the current point and the next point, <math>p_{2}</math> indicates that the pen is up and no line should be drawn between the current point and the next point, and <math>p_{3}</math> indicates that the drawing is finished and subsequent points and the current point should not be drawn.<br />
<br />
=== Sketch-RNN ===<br />
[[File:sketchrnn.PNG]]<br />
<br />
The model is a Sequence-to-Sequence Variational Autoencoder (VAE). The encoder model is a symmetric and parallel set of two RNNs that individually process the sketch drawings in forward and reverse order, respectively. The hidden state produced by each encoder model is then concatenated into a single hidden state <math>h</math>. <br />
<br />
The concatenated hidden state <math>h</math> is then projected into two vectors <math>\mu</math> and <math>\hat{\sigma}</math> each of size <math>N_{z}</math> using a fully connected layer. <math>\hat{\sigma}</math> is then converted into a non-negative standard deviation parameter <math>\sigma</math> using an exponential operator. These two parameters <math>\mu</math> and <math>\sigma</math> are then used along with an IID Gaussian vector distributed as <math>\mathcal{N}(0, I)</math> of size <math>N_{z}</math> to construct a random vector <math>z \in ℝ^{N_{z}}</math>, similar to the method used for VAE:<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\mu = W_{\mu}h + b_{mu}\textrm{, }\hat{\sigma} = W_{\sigma}h + b_{\sigma}\textrm{, }\sigma = exp\bigg{(}\frac{\hat{\sigma}}{2}\bigg{)}\textrm{, }z = \mu + \sigma \odot \mathcal{N}(0,I)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The decoder model is another RNN that samples output sketches from the latent vector <math>z</math>. The initial hidden states of each recurrent neuron are determined using <math>[h_{0}, c_{0}] = tanh(W_{z}z + b_{z})</math>. Each step of the decoder RNN accepts the previous point <math>S_{i-1}</math> and the latent vector <math>z</math> as concatenated input. The initial point given is the origin point with pen state down. The output at each step are the parameters for a probability distribution of the next point <math>S_{i}</math>. Outputs <math>\Delta x</math> and <math>\Delta y</math> are modelled using a Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) with M normal distributions and output pen states <math>(q_{1}, q_{2}, q_{3})</math> modelled as a categorical distribution with one-hot encoding.<br />
\begin{align}<br />
P(\Delta x, \Delta y) = \sum_{j=1}^{M}\Pi_{j}\mathcal{N}(\Delta x, \Delta y | \mu_{x, j}, \mu_{y, j}, \sigma_{x, j}, \sigma_{y, j}, \rho_{xy, j})\textrm{, where }\sum_{j=1}^{M}\Pi_{j} = 1<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
For each of the M distributions in the GMM, parameters <math>\mu</math> and <math>\sigma</math> are output for both the x and y locations signifying the mean location of the next point and the standard deviation, respectively. Also output from each model is parameter <math>\rho_{xy}</math> signifying correlation of each bivariate normal distribution. An additional vector <math>\Pi</math> is an output giving the mixture weights for the GMM. The output <math>S_{i}</math> is determined from each of the mixture models using softmax sampling from these distributions.<br />
<br />
One of the key difficulties in training this model is the highly imbalanced class distribution of pen states. In particular, the state that signifies a drawing is complete will only appear one time per each sketch and is difficult to incorporate into the model. In order to have the model stop drawing, the authors introduce a hyperparameter that limits the number of points per drawing to being no more than <math>N_{max}</math>, after which all output states form the model are set to (0, 0, 0, 0, 1) to force the drawing to stop.<br />
<br />
To sample from the model, the parameters required by the GMM and categorical distributions are generated at each time step and the model is sampled until a “stop drawing” state appears or the time state reaches time <math>N_{max}</math>. The authors also introduce a “temperature” parameter <math>\tau</math> that controls the randomness of the drawings by modifying the pen states, model standard deviations, and mixture weights as follows:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\hat{q}_{k} \rightarrow \frac{\hat{q}_{k}}{\tau}\textrm{, }\hat{\Pi}_{k} \rightarrow \frac{\hat{\Pi}_{k}}{\tau}\textrm{, }\sigma^{2}_{x} \rightarrow \sigma^{2}_{x}\tau\textrm{, }\sigma^{2}_{y} \rightarrow \sigma^{2}_{y}\tau<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
This parameter <math>\tau</math> lies in the range (0, 1]. As the parameter approaches 0, the model becomes more deterministic and always produces the point locations with the maximum likelihood for a given timestep.<br />
<br />
=== Unconditional Generation ===<br />
<br />
[[File:paper15_Unconditional_Generation.png|800px|]]<br />
<br />
The authors also explored unconditional generation of sketch drawings by only training the decoder RNN module. To do this, the initial hidden states of the RNN were set to 0, and only vectors from the drawing input are used as input without any conditional latent variable <math>z</math>. Different sketches are sampled from the network by only varying the temperature parameter <math>\tau</math> between 0.2 and 0.9<br />
<br />
=== Training ===<br />
The training procedure follows the same approach as training for VAE and uses a loss function that consists of the sum of Reconstruction Loss <math>L_{R}</math> and KL Divergence Loss <math>L_{KL}</math>. The reconstruction loss term is composed of two terms; <math>L_{s}</math>, which tries to maximize the log-likelihood of the generated probability distribution explaining the training data <math>S</math> and <math>L_{p}</math> which is the log loss of the pen state terms.<br />
\begin{align}<br />
L_{s} = -\frac{1}{N_{max}}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{S}}log\bigg{(}\sum_{j=1}^{M}\Pi_{j,i}\mathcal{N}(\Delta x_{i},\Delta y_{i} | \mu_{x,j,i},\mu_{y,j,i},\sigma_{x,j,i},\sigma_{y,j,i},\rho_{xy,j,i})\bigg{)}<br />
\end{align}<br />
\begin{align}<br />
L_{p} = -\frac{1}{N_{max}}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{max}} \sum_{k=1}^{3}p_{k,i}log(q_{k,i})<br />
\end{align}<br />
\begin{align}<br />
L_{R} = L_{s} + L{p}<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The KL divergence loss <math>L_{KL}</math> measures the difference between the latent vector <math>z</math> and an IID Gaussian distribution with 0 mean and unit variance. This term, normalized by the number of dimensions <math>N_{z}</math> is calculated as:<br />
\begin{align}<br />
L_{KL} = -\frac{1}{2N_{z}}\big{(}1 + \hat{\sigma} - \mu^{2} – exp(\hat{\sigma})\big{)}<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The loss for the entire model is thus the weighted sum:<br />
\begin{align}<br />
Loss = L_{R} + w_{KL}L_{KL}<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The value of the weight parameter <math>w_{KL}</math> has the effect that as <math>w_{KL} \rightarrow 0</math>, there is a loss in ability to enforce a prior over the latent space and the model assumes the form of a pure autoencoder. As with VAEs, there is a trade-off between optimizing for the two loss terms (i.e. between how precisely the model can regenerate training data <math>S</math> and how closely the latent vector <math>z</math> follows a standard normal distribution) - smaller values of <math>w_{KL}</math> lead to better <math>L_R</math> and worse <math>L_{KL}</math> compared to bigger values of <math>w_{KL}</math>.<br />
<br />
=== Model Configuration ===<br />
In the given model, the encoder and decoder RNNs consist of 512 and 2048 nodes respectively. Also, M = 20 mixture components are used for the decoder RNN. Layer Normalization is applied to the model, and during training recurrent dropout is applied with a keep probability of 90%. The model is trained with batch sizes of 100 samples, using Adam with a learning rate of 0.0001 and gradient clipping of 1.0. During training, simple data augmentation is performed by multiplying the offset columns by two IID random factors. <br />
<br />
= Experiments =<br />
The authors trained multiple conditional and unconditional models using varying values of <math>w_{KL}</math> and recorded the different <math>L_{R}</math> and <math>L_{KL}</math> values at convergence. The network used LSTM as it’s encoder RNN and HyperLSTM as the decoder network. The HyperLSTM model was used for decoding because it has a history of being useful in sequence generation tasks. (A HyperLSTM consists of two coupled LSTMS: an auxiliary LSTM and a main LSTM. At every time step, the auxiliary LSTM reads the previous hidden state and the current input vector, and computes an intermediate vector <math display="inline"> z </math>. The weights of the main LSTM used in the current time step are then a learned function of this intermediate vector <math display="inline"> z </math>. That is, the weights of the main LSTM are allowed to vary between time steps as a function of the output of the auxiliary LSTM. See Ha et al. (2016) for details)<br />
<br />
=== Conditional Reconstruction ===<br />
[[File:conditional_generation.PNG]]<br />
<br />
The authors qualitatively assessed the reconstructed images <math>S’</math> given input sketch <math>S</math> using different values for the temperature hyperparameter <math>\tau</math>. The figure above shows the results for different values of <math>\tau</math> starting with 0.01 at the far left and increasing to 1.0 on the far right. Interestingly, sketches with extra features like a cat with 3 eyes are reproduced as a sketch of a cat with two eyes and sketches of object of a different class such as a toothbrush are reproduced as a sketch of a cat that maintains several of the input toothbrush sketches features.<br />
<br />
=== Latent Space Interpolation ===<br />
[[File:latent_space_interp.PNG]]<br />
<br />
The latent space vectors <math>z</math> have few “gaps” between encoded latent space vectors due to the enforcement of a Guassian prior. This allowed the authors to do simple arithmetic on the latent vectors from different sketches and produce logical resulting images in the same style as latent space arithmetic on Word2Vec vectors.<br />
<br />
=== Sketch Drawing Analogies ===<br />
Given the latent space arithmetic possible, it was found that features of a sketch could be added after some sketch input was encoded. For example, a drawing of a cat with a body could be produced by providing the network with a drawing of a cat’s head, and then adding a latent vector to the embedding layer that represents “body”. As an example, this “body” vector might be produced by taking a drawing of a pig with a body and subtracting a vector representing the pigs head.<br />
<br />
=== Predicting Different Endings of Incomplete Sketches ===<br />
[[File:predicting_endings.PNG]]<br />
<br />
Using the decoder RNN only, it is possible to finish sketches by conditioning future vector line predictions on the previous points. To do this, the decoder RNN is first used to encode some existing points into the hidden state of the decoder network and then generating the remaining points of the sketch.<br />
<br />
= Applications and Future Work =<br />
Sketch-rnn may enable the production of several creative applications. These might include applications that help suggest ways an artist could finish a sketch, enable artists to explore latent space arithmetic to find interesting outputs given different sketch inputs, or allow the production of multiple different sketches of some object as a purely generative application. The authors suggest that providing some conditional sketch of an object to a model designed to produce output of a different class might be useful for producing sketches that morph the two different object classes into one sketch. For example, the image below was trained on drawing cats, but a chair was used as the input. This results in a chair looking cat.<br />
<br />
[[File:cat-chair.png]]<br />
<br />
Sketch-rnn may also be useful as a teaching tool to help people learn how to draw, especially if it were to be trained on higher quality images. Teaching tools might suggest to students how to proceed to finish a sketch, or intake low fidelity sketches to produce a higher quality and “more coherent” output sketch.<br />
<br />
The authors noted that sketch-rnn is not as effective at generating coherent sketches when trained on a large number of classes simultaneously (experiments shown mostly used datasets consisting of one or two object classes), and plan to use class information outside the latent space to try to model a greater number of classes.<br />
<br />
Finally the authors suggest that combining this model with another that produces photorealistic pixel-based images using sketch input, such as Pix2Pix may be an interesting direction for future research. In this case, the output from the sketch-rnn model would be used as input for Pix2Pix and could produce photorealistic images given some crude sketch from a user.<br />
<br />
= Limitations =<br />
The authors note a major limitation to the model is the training time relative to the number of data points. When sketches surpass 300 data points the model is difficult to train. To counteract this effect the Ramer-Douglas-Peucker algorithm was used to reduce the number of data points per sketch. This algorithm attempts to significantly reduce the number of data points while keeping the sketch as close to the original as possible.<br />
<br />
Another limitation is the effectiveness of generating sketches as the complexity of the class increases. Below are sketches of a few classes which show how the less complex classes such as cats and crabs are more accurately generated. Frogs (more complex) tend to have overly smooth lines drawn which do not seem to be part of realistic frog samples.<br />
<br />
[[File:paper15_classcomplexity.png]]<br />
<br />
= Conclusion =<br />
The authors presented sketch-rnn, a RNN model for modelling and generating vector-based sketch drawings. The VAE inspired architecture allows sampling the latent space to generate new drawings and also allows for applications that use latent space arithmetic in the style of Word2Vec to produce new drawings given operations on embedded sketch vectors. The authors also made available a large dataset of sketch drawings in the hope of encouraging more research in the area of vector-based image modelling.<br />
<br />
= Criticisms =<br />
The paper produces an interesting model that can effectively model vector-based images instead of traditional pixel-based images. This is an interesting problem because vector based images require producing a new way to encode the data. While the results from this paper are interesting, most of the techniques used are borrowed ideas from Variational Autoencoders and the main architecture is not terribly groundbreaking. <br />
<br />
One novel part about the architecture presented was the way the authors used GMMs in the decoder network. While this was interesting and seemed to allow the authors to produce different outputs given the same latent vector input <math>z</math> by manipulating the <math>\tau</math> hyperparameter, it was not that clear in the article why GMMs were used instead of a more simple architecture. Much time was spent explaining basics about GMM parameters like <math>\mu</math> and <math>\sigma</math>, but there was comparatively little explanation about how points were actually sampled from these mixture models.<br />
<br />
Finally, the authors gloss somewhat over how they were able to encode previous sketch points using only the decoder network into the hidden state of the decoder RNN to finish partially finished sketches. I can only assume that some kind of back-propagation was used to encode the expected sketch points into the hidden parameters of the decoder, but no explanation was given in the paper.<br />
<br />
= Source =<br />
<br />
Ha, D., & Eck, D. A neural representation of sketch drawings. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (2018).</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=File:paper15_Unconditional_Generation.png&diff=33789File:paper15 Unconditional Generation.png2018-03-13T21:15:31Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/Predicting_Floor-Level_for_911_Calls_with_Neural_Networks_and_Smartphone_Sensor_Data&diff=33784stat946w18/Predicting Floor-Level for 911 Calls with Neural Networks and Smartphone Sensor Data2018-03-13T20:53:09Z<p>Shitawal: Modularized the Experiments</p>
<hr />
<div>= Introduction =<br />
During emergency 911 calls, knowing the exact position of the victim is crucial to a fast response and a successful rescue. Problems arise when the caller is unable to give their physical position accurately. This can happen for instance when the caller is disoriented, held hostage, or a child is calling on behalf of the victim. GPS sensors on smartphones can provide the rescuers with the geographic location. However GPS fails to give an accurate floor level inside a tall building. Previous works have explored using Wi-Fi signal or beacons placed inside the buildings, but these methods are not self-contained and require prior infrastructure knowledge.<br />
<br />
Fortunately, today’s smartphones are equipped with many more sensors including barometers and magnetometers. Deep learning can be applied to predict floor level based on these sensor readings. <br />
Firstly, an LSTM is trained to classify whether the caller is indoors or outdoors using GPS, RSSI (Received Signal Strength Indication), and magnetometer sensor readings. Next, an unsupervised clustering algorithm is used to predict the floor level depending on the barometric pressure difference. With these two parts working together, a self-contained floor level prediction system can achieve 100% accuracy, without any external prior knowledge.<br />
<br />
= Data Description =<br />
The authors developed an iOS app called Sensory and used it to collect data on an iPhone 6. The following sensor readings were recorded: indoors, created at, session id, floor, RSSI strength, GPS latitude, GPS longitude, GPS vertical accuracy, GPS horizontal accuracy, GPS course, GPS speed, barometric relative altitude, barometric pressure, environment context, environment mean building floors, environment activity, city name, country name, magnet x, magnet y, magnet z, magnet total.<br />
<br />
The indoor-outdoor data has to be manually entered as soon as the user enters or exits a building. To gather the data for floor level prediction, the authors conducted 63 trials among five different buildings throughout New York City. The actual floor level was recorded manually for validation purposes only, since unsupervised learning is being used.<br />
<br />
= Methods =<br />
The proposed method first determines if the user is indoors or outdoors and detects the instances of transition between them. When a outdoor to indoor transition event occurs, the elevation of the user is saved using an estimation from the cellphone barometer. Finally, the exact floor level is predicted through clustering techniques. Indoor/outdoor classification is critical to the working of this method. Once the user is detected to be outdoors, he is assumed to be at the ground level. The vertical height and floor estimation is applied only when the user is indoors. The indoor/outdoor transitions are used to save the barometer readings at the ground level for use as reference pressure.<br />
<br />
=== Indoor/Outdoor Classification === <br />
<br />
An LSTM network is used to solve the indoor-outdoor classification problem. Here is a diagram of the network architecture.<br />
<br />
[[File:lstm.jpg | 500px]]<br />
<br />
Figure 1: LSTM network architecture. A 3-layer LSTM. Inputs are sensor readings for d consecutive time-steps. Target is y = 1 if indoors and y = 0 if outdoors.<br />
<br />
<math> X_i</math> contains a set of <math>d</math> consecutive sensor readings, i.e. <math> X_i = [x_1, x_2,...,x_d] </math>. <math>Y</math> is labelled as 0 for outdoors and 1 for indoors. <math>d</math> is chosen to be 3 by random-search so that <math>X</math> has 3 points <math>X_i = [x_{j-1}, x_j, x_{j+1}]</math> and the middle <math>x_j</math> is used for the <math>y</math> label.<br />
The LSTM contains three layers. Layers one and two have 50 neurons followed by a dropout layer set to 0.2. Layer 3 has two neurons fed directly into a one-neuron feedforward layer with a sigmoid activation function. The input is the sensor readings, and the output is the indoor-outdoor label. The objective function is the cross-entropy between the true label and the prediction.<br />
<br />
\begin{equation}<br />
C(y_i, \hat{y}_i) = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} -(y_i log(\hat{y_i}) + (1 - y_i) log(1 - \hat{y_i}))<br />
\label{equation:binCE}<br />
\end{equation}<br />
<br />
The main reason why the neural network is able to predict whether the user is indoors or outdoors is that it learns a pattern of how the walls of buildings interfere with the GPS signals. The LSTM is able to find the pattern in the GPS signal strength in combination with other sensor readings to give an accurate prediction. However, the change in GPS signal does not happen instantaneously as the user walks indoor. Thus, a window of 20 seconds is allowed, and the minimum barometric pressure reading within that window is recorded as the ground floor.<br />
<br />
=== Indoor/Outdoor Transition === <br />
To determine the exact time the user makes an indoor/outdoor transition, two vector masks are convolved across the LSTM predictions.<br />
<br />
\begin{equation}<br />
V_1 = [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]<br />
\end{equation} <br />
<br />
\begin{equation}<br />
V_2 = [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]<br />
\end{equation}<br />
<br />
The Jaccard distances measures the similarity of two sets and is calculated with the following equation:<br />
<br />
\begin{equation}<br />
J_j = J(s_i, V_j) = \frac{|s_i \cap V_j|}{|s_i| + |V_j| - |s_i \cap V_j|} <br />
\label{equation:Jaccard}<br />
\end{equation}<br />
<br />
If the Jaccard distance between <math>V_{1}</math> and sub-sequence <math> s_i </math> is greater or equal to the threshold 0.4, it means there was a transition from indoors to outdoors in the vicinity of the 20 second range of the vector mask. Similarly, a distance of to 0.4 or greater to <math>V_{2}</math> indicates a transition from outdoors to indoors. Sets of transition windows are merged together if they occur close in time to each other, with the average transition time of both windows being used as the new transition time.<br />
<br />
[[File:FindIOIndexes.png | 700px]]<br />
<br />
=== Vertical Height Estimation === <br />
Once the barometric pressure of the ground floor is known, the user’s current relative altitude can be calculated by the international pressure equation, where <math>m_\Delta</math> is the estimated height, <math> p_1 </math> is the pressure reading of the device, and <math> p_0 </math> is the reference pressure at ground level while transitioning from outdoor to indoor.<br />
<br />
\begin{equation}<br />
m_\Delta = f_{floor}(p_0, p_1) = 44330 (1 - (\frac{p_1}{p_0})^{\frac{1}{5.255}})<br />
\label{equation:baroHeight}<br />
\end{equation}<br />
<br />
=== Floor Estimation === <br />
Given the user’s relative altitude, the floor level can be determined. However, this is not a straightforward task because different buildings have different floor heights, different floor labeling (E.g. not including the 13th floor), and floor heights within the same building can vary from floor to floor. To solve these problems, altitude data collected are clustered into groups. Each cluster represents the approximate altitude of a floor.<br />
<br />
Here is an example of altitude data collected across 41 trials in the Uris Hall building in New York City. Each dashed line represent the center of a cluster.<br />
<br />
[[File:clusters.png | 500px]]<br />
<br />
Figure 2: Distribution of measurements across 41 trials in the Uris Hall building in New York City. A clear size difference is specially noticeable at the lobby. Each dotted line corresponds to an actual floor in the building learned from clustered data-points.<br />
<br />
Here is the algorithm for the floor level prediction.<br />
<br />
[[File:PredictFloor.png | 700px]]<br />
<br />
= Experiments and Results =<br />
The authors performed evaluation on two different tasks: The indoor-outdoor classification task and the floor level prediction task. In the indoor-outdoor detection task, they compared six different models, LSTM, feedforward neural networks, logistic regression, SVM, HMM and Random Forests. In the floor level prediction task, they evaluated the full system.<br />
<br />
== Indoor-Outdoor Classification Results ==<br />
Here are the results for the indoor-outdoor classification problem using different machine learning techniques. LSTM has the best performance on the test set.<br />
The LSTM is trained for 24 epochs with a batch size of 128. All the hyper-parameters such as learning rate(0.006), number of layers, d size, number of hidden units and dropout rate were searched through random search algorithm.<br />
<br />
[[File:IOResults.png]]<br />
<br />
== Floor Level Prediction Results ==<br />
The following are the results for the floor level prediction from the 63 collected samples. Results are given as the percent which matched the floor exactly, off by one, or off by more than one. In each column, the left number is the accuracy using a fixed floor height, and the number on the right is the accuracy when clustering was used to calculate a variable floor height. It was found that using the clustering technique produced 100% accuracy on floor predictions. The conclusion from these results is that using building-specific floor heights produces significantly better results.<br />
<br />
[[File:FloorLevelResults.png]]<br />
<br />
== Floor Level Clustering Results == <br />
Here is the comparison between the estimated floor height and the ground truth in the Uris Hall building.<br />
<br />
[[File:FloorComparison.png]]<br />
<br />
= Criticism =<br />
This paper is an interesting application of deep learning and achieves an outstanding result of 100% accuracy. However, it offers no new theoretical discoveries. The machine learning techniques used are fairly standard. The neural networks used in this paper only contains 3 layers, and the clustering is applied on one-dimensional data. This leads to the question whether deep learning is necessary and suitable for this task.<br />
<br />
It was explained in the paper that there are many cases where the system does not work. Some cases that were mentioned include: buildings with glass walls, delayed GPS signals, <br />
and pressure changes caused by air conditioning. Other examples I can think of are: uneven floors with some area higher than others, floors rarely visited, and tunnels from one building to another. These special cases are not mentioned in the paper.<br />
<br />
Another weakness of the method comes from the clustering technique. It requires a fair bit of training data. The author suggested two approaches. First, the data can be stored in the individual smartphone. This is not realistic as most people do not visit every single floor of every building, even if it is their own apartment buildings. The second approach is to let a central system (emergency department) to collect data from multiple users (which is what the paper’s results are based on). This is a serious violation of personal privacy and should not be legal.<br />
<br />
Aside from all the technical issues, would it be easier to let the rescuers carry a barometer with them and search for the floor with the transmitted pressure reading?</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Word_translation_without_parallel_data&diff=33087Word translation without parallel data2018-03-09T20:17:46Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Toy_example.png]]<br />
<br />
= Presented by =<br />
<br />
Xia Fan<br />
<br />
= Introduction =<br />
<br />
Many successful methods for learning relationships between languages stem from the hypothesis that there is a relationship between the context of words and their meanings. This means that if an adequate representation of a language is found in a high dimensional space (this is called an embedding), then words similar to a given word are close to one another in this space (ex. some norm can be minimized to find a word with similar context). Historically, another significant hypothesis is that these embedding spaces show similar structures over different languages. That is to say that given an embedding space for English and one for Spanish, a mapping could be found that aligns the two spaces and such a mapping could be used as a tool for translation. Many papers exploit these hypotheses, but use large parallel datasets for training. Recently, to remove the need for supervised training, methods have been implemented that utilize identical character strings (ex. letters or digits) in order to try to align the embeddings. The downside of this approach is that the two languages need to be similar to begin with as they need to have some shared basic building block. The method proposed in this paper uses an adversarial method to find this mapping between the embedding spaces of two languages without the use of large parallel datasets.<br />
<br />
This paper introduces a model that either is on par, or outperforms supervised state-of-the-art methods, without employing any cross-lingual annotated data. This method uses an idea similar to GANs: it leverages adversarial training to learn a linear mapping from a source to distinguish between the mapped source embeddings and the target embeddings, while the mapping is jointly trained to fool the discriminator. Second, this paper extracts a synthetic dictionary from the resulting shared embedding space and fine-tunes the mapping with the closed-form Procrustes solution from Schonemann (1966). Third, this paper also introduces an unsupervised selection metric that is highly correlated with the mapping quality and that the authors use both as a stopping criterion and to select the best hyper-parameters.<br />
<br />
= Model =<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space ===<br />
<br />
This model focuses on learning a mapping between the two sets such that translations are close in the shared space. Before talking about the model it used, a model which can exploit the similarities of monolingual embedding spaces should be introduced. Mikolov et al.(2013) use a known dictionary of n=5000 pairs of words <math> \{x_i,y_i\}_{i\in{1,n}} </math>. and learn a linear mapping W between the source and the target space such that <br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
W^*=argmin_{W{\in}M_d(R)}||WX-Y||_F \hspace{1cm} (1)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where d is the dimension of the embeddings, <math> M_d(R) </math> is the space of d*d matrices of real numbers, and X and Y are two aligned matrices of size d*n containing the embeddings of the words in the parallel vocabulary. <br />
<br />
Xing et al. (2015) showed that these results are improved by enforcing orthogonality constraint on W. In that case, equation (1) boils down to the Procrustes problem, which advantageously offers a closed form solution obtained from the singular value decomposition (SVD) of <math> YX^T </math> :<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
W^*=argmin_{W{\in}M_d(R)}||WX-Y||_F=UV^T, with U\Sigma V^T=SVD(YX^T).<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This can be proven as follows. First note that <br />
\begin{align}<br />
&||WX-Y||_F\\<br />
&= \langle WX, WX \rangle_F -2 \langle W X, Y \rangle_F + \langle Y, Y \rangle_F \\<br />
&= ||X||_F^2 -2 \langle W X, Y \rangle_F + || Y||_F^2, <br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math display="inline"> \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_F </math> denotes the Frobenius inner-product and we have used the orthogonality of <math display="inline"> W </math>. It follows that we need only maximize the inner-product above. Let <math display="inline"> u_1, \ldots, u_d </math> denote the columns of <math display="inline"> U </math>. Let <math display="inline"> v_1, \ldots , v_d </math> denote the columns of <math display="inline"> V </math>. Let <math display="inline"> \sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_d </math> denote the diagonal entries of <math display="inline"> \Sigma </math>. We have<br />
\begin{align}<br />
&\langle W X, Y \rangle_F \\<br />
&= \text{Tr} (W^T Y X^T)\\<br />
&=\sum_i \sigma_i \text{Tr}(W^T u_i v_i^T)\\<br />
&=\sum_i \sigma_i ((Wv_i)^T u_i )\\<br />
&\le \sum_i \sigma_i ||Wv_i|| ||u_i||\\<br />
&= \sum_i \sigma_i<br />
\end{align}<br />
where we have used the invariance of trace under cyclic permutations, Cauchy-Schwarz, and the orthogonality of the columns of U and V. Note that choosing <br />
\begin{align}<br />
W=UV^T<br />
\end{align}<br />
achieves the bound. This completes the proof.<br />
<br />
=== Domain-adversarial setting ===<br />
<br />
This paper shows how to learn this mapping W without cross-lingual supervision. An illustration of the approach is given in Fig. 1. First, this model learn an initial proxy of W by using an adversarial criterion. Then, it use the words that match the best as anchor points for Procrustes. Finally, it improve performance over less frequent words by changing the metric of the space, which leads to spread more of those points in dense region. <br />
<br />
[[File:Toy_example.png |frame|none|alt=Alt text|Figure 1: Toy illustration of the method. (A) There are two distributions of word embeddings, English words in red denoted by X and Italian words in blue denoted by Y , which we want to align/translate. Each dot represents a word in that space. The size of the dot is proportional to the frequency of the words in the training corpus of that language. (B) Using adversarial learning, we learn a rotation matrix W which roughly aligns the two distributions. The green stars are randomly selected words that are fed to the discriminator to determine whether the two word embeddings come from the same distribution. (C) The mapping W is further refined via Procrustes. This method uses frequent words aligned by the previous step as anchor points, and minimizes an energy function that corresponds to a spring system between anchor points. The refined mapping is then used to map all words in the dictionary. (D) Finally, we translate by using the mapping W and a distance metric, dubbed CSLS, that expands the space where there is high density of points (like the area around the word “cat”), so that “hubs” (like the word “cat”) become less close to other word vectors than they would otherwise (compare to the same region in panel (A)).]]<br />
<br />
Let <math> X={x_1,...,x_n} </math> and <math> Y={y_1,...,y_m} </math> be two sets of n and m word embeddings coming from a source and a target language respectively. A model is trained is trained to discriminate between elements randomly sampled from <math> WX={Wx_1,...,Wx_n} </math> and Y, We call this model the discriminator. W is trained to prevent the discriminator from making accurate predictions. As a result, this is a two-player game, where the discriminator aims at maximizing its ability to identify the origin of an embedding, and W aims at preventing the discriminator from doing so by making WX and Y as similar as possible. This approach is in line with the work of Ganin et al.(2016), who proposed to learn latent representations invariant to the input domain, where in this case, a domain is represented by a language(source or target).<br />
<br />
1. Discriminator objective<br />
<br />
Refer to the discriminator parameters as <math> \theta_D </math>. Consider the probability <math> P_{\theta_D}(source = 1|z) </math> that a vector z is the mapping of a source embedding (as opposed to a target embedding) according to the discriminator. The discriminator loss can be written as:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
L_D(\theta_D|W)=-\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n log P_{\theta_D}(source=1|Wx_i)-\frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^m log P_{\theta_D}(source=0|y_i)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
2. Mapping objective <br />
<br />
In the unsupervised setting, W is now trained so that the discriminator is unable to accurately predict the embedding origins: <br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
L_W(W|\theta_D)=-\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n log P_{\theta_D}(source=0|Wx_i)-\frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^m log P_{\theta_D}(source=1|y_i)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
3. Learning algorithm <br />
To train the model, the authors follow the standard training procedure of deep adversarial networks of Goodfellow et al. (2014). For every input sample, the discriminator and the mapping matrix W are trained successively with stochastic gradient updates to respectively minimize <math> L_D </math> and <math> L_W </math><br />
<br />
=== Refinement procedure ===<br />
<br />
The matrix W obtained with adversarial training gives good performance (see Table 1), but the results are still not on par with the supervised approach. In fact, the adversarial approach tries to align all words irrespective of their frequencies. However, rare words have embeddings that are less updated and are more likely to appear in different contexts in each corpus, which makes them harder to align. Under the assumption that the mapping is linear, it is then better to infer the global mapping using only the most frequent words as anchors. Besides, the accuracy on the most frequent word pairs is high after adversarial training.<br />
To refine the mapping, this paper build a synthetic parallel vocabulary using the W just learned with adversarial training. Specifically, this paper consider the most frequent words and retain only mutual nearest neighbors to ensure a high-quality dictionary. Subsequently, this paper apply the Procrustes solution in (2) on this generated dictionary. Considering the improved solution generated with the Procrustes algorithm, it is possible to generate a more accurate dictionary and apply this method iteratively, similarly to Artetxe et al. (2017). However, given that the synthetic dictionary obtained using adversarial training is already strong, this paper only observe small improvements when doing more than one iteration, i.e., the improvements on the word translation task are usually below 1%.<br />
<br />
=== Cross-Domain Similarity Local Scaling (CSLS) ===<br />
<br />
This paper considers a bi-partite neighborhood graph, in which each word of a given dictionary is connected to its K nearest neighbors in the other language. <math> N_T(Wx_s) </math> is used to denote the neighborhood, on this bi-partite graph, associated with a mapped source word embedding <math> Wx_s </math>. All K elements of <math> N_T(Wx_s) </math> are words from the target language. Similarly we denote by <math> N_S(y_t) </math> the neighborhood associated with a word t of the target language. Consider the mean similarity of a source embedding <math> x_s </math> to its target neighborhood as<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
r_T(Wx_s)=\frac{1}{K}\sum_{y\in N_T(Wx_s)}cos(Wx_s,y_t)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where cos(,) is the cosine similarity. Likewise, the mean similarity of a target word <math> y_t </math> to its neighborhood is denotes as <math> r_S(y_t) </math>. This is used to define similarity measure CSLS(.,.) between mapped source words and target words,as <br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
CSLS(Wx_s,y_t)=2cos(Wx_s,y_t)-r_T(Wx_s)-r_S(y_t)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
This process increases the similarity associated with isolated word vectors, but decreases the similarity of vectors lying in dense areas.<br />
<br />
= Training and architectural choices =<br />
=== Architecture ===<br />
<br />
This paper use unsupervised word vectors that were trained using fastText2. These correspond to monolingual embeddings of dimension 300 trained on Wikipedia corpora; therefore, the mapping W has size 300 × 300. Words are lower-cased, and those that appear less than 5 times are discarded for training. As a post-processing step, only the first 200k most frequent words were selected in the experiments.<br />
For the discriminator, it use a multilayer perceptron with two hidden layers of size 2048, and Leaky-ReLU activation functions. The input to the discriminator is corrupted with dropout noise with a rate of 0.1. As suggested by Goodfellow (2016), a smoothing coefficient s = 0.2 is included in the discriminator predictions. This paper use stochastic gradient descent with a batch size of 32, a learning rate of 0.1 and a decay of 0.95 both for the discriminator and W . <br />
<br />
=== Discriminator inputs ===<br />
The embedding quality of rare words is generally not as good as the one of frequent words (Luong et al., 2013), and it is observed that feeding the discriminator with rare words had a small, but not negligible negative impact. As a result, this paper only feed the discriminator with the 50,000 most frequent words. At each training step, the word embeddings given to the discriminator are sampled uniformly. Sampling them according to the word frequency did not have any noticeable impact on the results.<br />
<br />
=== Orthogonality===<br />
In this work, it propose to use a simple update step to ensure that the matrix W stays close to an orthogonal matrix during training (Cisse et al. (2017)). Specifically, the following update rule on the matrix W is used :<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
W \leftarrow (1+\beta)W-\beta(WW^T)W<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where β = 0.01 is usually found to perform well. This method ensures that the matrix stays close to the manifold of orthogonal matrices after each update.<br />
<br />
This update rule can be justified as follows. Consider the function <br />
\begin{align}<br />
g: \mathbb{R}^{d\times d} \to \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}<br />
\end{align}<br />
defined by<br />
\begin{align}<br />
g(W)= W^T W -I.<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The derivative of g at W is is the linear map<br />
\begin{align}<br />
Dg[W]: \mathbb{R}^{d \times d} \to \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}<br />
\end{align}<br />
defined by<br />
\begin{align}<br />
Dg[W](H)= H^T W + W^T H.<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The adjoint of this linear map is<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
D^\ast g[W](H)= WH^T +WH.<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
Now consider the function f<br />
\begin{align}<br />
f: \mathbb{R}^{d \times d} \to \mathbb{R}<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
defined by<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
f(W)=||g(W) ||_F^2=||W^TW -I ||_F^2.<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
f has gradient:<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\nabla f (W) = 2D^\ast g[W] (g(W ) ) =2W(W^TW-I) +2W(W^TW-I)=4W W^TW-4W.<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
Thus the update<br />
\begin{align}<br />
W \leftarrow (1+\beta)W-\beta(WW^T)W<br />
\end{align}<br />
amounts to a step in the direction opposite the gradient of f. That is, a step toward the set of orthogonal matrices.<br />
<br />
=== Dictionary generation ===<br />
The refinement step requires to generate a new dictionary at each iteration. In order for the Procrustes solution to work well, it is best to apply it on correct word pairs. As a result, the CSLS method is used to select more accurate translation pairs in the dictionary. To increase even more the quality of the dictionary, and ensure that W is learned from correct translation pairs, only mutual nearest neighbors were considered, i.e. pairs of words that are mutually nearest neighbors of each other according to CSLS. This significantly decreases the size of the generated dictionary, but improves its accuracy, as well as the overall performance.<br />
<br />
=== Validation criterion for unsupervised model selection ===<br />
<br />
This paper consider the 10k most frequent source words, and use CSLS to generate a translation for each of them, then compute the average cosine similarity between these deemed translations, and use this average as a validation metric. Figure 2 shows the correlation between the evaluation score and this unsupervised criterion (without stabilization by learning rate shrinkage)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:fig2_fan.png |frame|none|alt=Alt text|Figure 2: Unsupervised model selection.<br />
Correlation between the unsupervised validation criterion (black line) and actual word translation accuracy (blue line). In this particular experiment, the selected model is at epoch 10. Observe how the criterion is well correlated with translation accuracy.]]<br />
<br />
= Results =<br />
<br />
In what follows, the results on word translation retrieval using the bilingual dictionaries were presented in Table 1 and the comparison to previous work in Table 2 where unsupervised model significantly outperform previous approaches. The results on the sentence translation retrieval task were also presented in Table 3 and the cross-lingual word similarity task in Table 4. Finally, the results on word-by-word translation for English-Esperanto was presented in Table 5.<br />
<br />
[[File:table1_fan.png |frame|none|alt=Alt text|Table 1: Word translation retrieval P@1 for the released vocabularies in various language pairs. The authors consider 1,500 source test queries, and 200k target words for each language pair. The authors use fastText embeddings trained on Wikipedia. NN: nearest neighbors. ISF: inverted softmax. (’en’ is English, ’fr’ is French, ’de’ is German, ’ru’ is Russian, ’zh’ is classical Chinese and ’eo’ is Esperanto)]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:table2_fan.png |frame|none|alt=Alt text|English-Italian word translation average precisions (@1, @5, @10) from 1.5k source word queries using 200k target words. Results marked with the symbol † are from Smith et al. (2017). Wiki means the embeddings were trained on Wikipedia using fastText. Note that the method used by Artetxe et al. (2017) does not use the same supervision as other supervised methods, as they only use numbers in their ini- tial parallel dictionary.]]<br />
<br />
[[File:table3_fan.png |frame|none|alt=Alt text|Table 3: English-Italian sentence translation retrieval. The authors report the average P@k from 2,000 source queries using 200,000 target sentences. The authors use the same embeddings as in Smith et al. (2017). Their results are marked with the symbol †.]]<br />
<br />
[[File:table4_fan.png |frame|none|alt=Alt text|Table 4: Cross-lingual wordsim task. NASARI<br />
(Camacho-Collados et al. (2016)) refers to the official SemEval2017 baseline. The authors report Pearson correlation.]]<br />
<br />
[[File:table5_fan.png |frame|none|alt=Alt text|Table 5: BLEU score on English-Esperanto.<br />
Although being a naive approach, word-by- word translation is enough to get a rough idea of the input sentence. The quality of the gener- ated dictionary has a significant impact on the BLEU score.]]<br />
<br />
= Conclusion =<br />
This paper shows for the first time that one can align word embedding spaces without any cross-lingual supervision, i.e., solely based on unaligned datasets of each language, while reaching or outperforming the quality of previous supervised approaches in several cases. Using adversarial training, the model is able to initialize a linear mapping between a source and a target space, which is also used to produce a synthetic parallel dictionary. It is then possible to apply the same techniques proposed for supervised techniques, namely a Procrustean optimization.<br />
<br />
= Source =<br />
Lample, Guillaume; Denoyer, Ludovic; Ranzato, Marc'Aurelio <br />
| Unsupervised Machine Translation Using Monolingual Corpora Only<br />
| arVix: 1701.04087</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/Rethinking_the_Smaller-Norm-Less-Informative_Assumption_in_Channel_Pruning_of_Convolutional_Layers&diff=33086stat946w18/Rethinking the Smaller-Norm-Less-Informative Assumption in Channel Pruning of Convolutional Layers2018-03-09T19:33:07Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
With the recent and ongoing surge in low-power, intelligent agents (such as wearables, smartphones, and IoT devices), there exists a growing need for machine learning models to work well in memory and CPU-constrained environments. Deep learning models have achieved state-of-the-art on a broad range of tasks; however, they are difficult to deploy in their original forms. For example, AlexNet (Krizhevsky et al., 2012), a model for image classification, contains 61 million parameters and requires 1.5 billion floating point operations per second (FLOPs) in one inference pass. A more accurate model, ResNet-50 (He et al., 2016), has 25 million parameters but requires 4.08 billion FLOPs. Clearly, it would be difficult to deploy and run these models on low-power devices.<br />
<br />
In general, model compression can be accomplished using four main non-exclusive methods (Cheng et al., 2017): weight pruning, quantization, matrix transformations, and weight tying. By non-exclusive, we mean that these methods can be used in combination for pruning a single model; the use of one method does not exclude any of the other methods from being viable. <br />
<br />
Ye et al. (2018) explores pruning entire channels in a convolutional neural network. Past work has mostly focused on norm or error-based heuristics to prune channels; instead, Ye et al. (2018) show that their approach is, "mathematically appealing from an optimization perspective and easy to reproduce" (Ye et al., 2018). In other words, they argue that the norm-based assumption is not as informative or theoretically justified as their approach, and provide strong empirical findings.<br />
<br />
== Motivation ==<br />
<br />
Some previous works on pruning channel filters (Li et al., 2016; Molchanov et al., 2016) have focused on using the L1 norm to determine the importance of a channel. Ye et al. (2018) show that, in the deep linear convolution case, penalizing the per-layer norm is coarse-grained; they argue that one cannot assign different coefficients to L1 penalties associated with different layers without risking the loss function being susceptible to trivial re-parameterizations. As an example, consider the following deep linear convolutional neural network with modified LASSO loss:<br />
<br />
$$\min \mathbb{E}_D \lVert W_{2n} * \dots * W_1 x - y\rVert^2 + \lambda \sum_{i=1}^n \lVert W_{2i} \rVert_1$$<br />
<br />
where W are the weights and * is convolution. Here we have chosen the coefficient 0 for the L1 penalty associated with odd-numbered layers and the coefficient 1 for the L1 penalty associated with even-numbered layers. This loss is susceptible to trivial re-parameterizations: without affecting the least-squares loss, we can always reduce the LASSO loss by halving the weights of all even-numbered layers and doubling the weights of all odd-numbered layers.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, batch normalization (Ioffe, 2015) is incompatible with this method of weight regularization. Consider batch normalization at the <math>l</math>-th layer.<br />
<br />
<center><math>x^{l+1} = max\{\gamma \cdot BN_{\mu,\sigma,\epsilon}(W^l * x^l) + \beta, 0\}</math></center><br />
<br />
Due to the batch normalization, any uniform scaling of <math>W^l</math> which would change <math>l_1</math> and <math>l_2</math> norms, but has no have no effect on <math>x^{l+1}</math>. Thus, when trying to minimize weight norms of multiple layers, it is unclear how to properly choose penalties for each layer. Therefore, penalizing the norm of a filter in a deep convolutional network is hard to justify from a theoretical perspective.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thus, although not providing a complete theoretical guarantee on loss, Ye et al. (2018) develop a pruning technique that claims to be more justified than norm-based pruning is.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
<br />
At a high level, Ye et al. (2018) propose that, instead of discovering sparsity via penalizing the per-filter or per-channel norm, penalize the batch normalization scale parameters ''gamma'' instead. The reasoning is that by having fewer parameters to constrain and working with normalized values, sparsity is easier to enforce, monitor, and learn. Having sparse batch normalization terms has the effect of pruning '''entire''' channels: if ''gamma'' is zero, then the output at that layer becomes constant (the bias term), and thus the preceding channels can be pruned.<br />
<br />
=== Summary ===<br />
<br />
The basic algorithm can be summarized as follows:<br />
<br />
1. Penalize the L1-norm of the batch normalization scaling parameters in the loss<br />
<br />
2. Train until loss plateaus<br />
<br />
3. Remove channels that correspond to a downstream zero in batch normalization<br />
<br />
4. Fine-tune the pruned model using regular learning<br />
<br />
=== Details ===<br />
<br />
There still exist a few problems that this summary has not addressed so far. Sub-gradient descent is known to have inverse square root convergence rate on subdifferentials (Gordon et al., 2012), so the sparsity gradient descent update may be suboptimal. Furthermore, the sparse penalty needs to be normalized with respect to previous channel sizes, since the penalty should be roughly equally distributed across all convolution layers.<br />
<br />
==== Slow Convergence ====<br />
To address the issue of slow convergence, Ye et al. (2018) use an iterative shrinking-thresholding algorithm (ISTA) (Beck & Teboulle, 2009) to update the batch normalization scale parameter. The intuition for ISTA is that the structure of the optimization objective can be taken advantage of. Consider: $$L(x) = f(x) + g(x).$$<br />
<br />
Let ''f'' be the model loss and ''g'' be the non-differentiable penalty (LASSO). ISTA is able to use the structure of the loss and converge in O(1/n), instead of O(1/sqrt(n)) when using subgradient descent, which assumes no structure about the loss. Even though ISTA is used in convex settings, Ye et. al (2018) argue that it still performs better than gradient descent.<br />
<br />
==== Penalty Normalization ====<br />
<br />
In the paper, Ye et al. (2018) normalize the per-layer sparse penalty with respect to the global input size, the current layer kernel areas, the previous layer kernel areas, and the local input feature map area.<br />
<br />
[[File:Screenshot_from_2018-02-28_17-06-41.png]] (Ye et al., 2018)<br />
<br />
To control the global penalty, a hyperparamter ''rho'' is multiplied with all the per-layer ''lambda'' in the final loss.<br />
<br />
=== Steps ===<br />
<br />
The final algorithm can be summarized as follows:<br />
<br />
1. Compute the per-layer normalized sparse penalty constant ''lambda''<br />
<br />
2. Compute the global LASSO loss with global scaling constant ''rho''<br />
<br />
3. Until convergence, train scaling parameters using ISTA and non-scaling parameters using regular gradient descent.<br />
<br />
4. Remove channels that correspond to a downstream zero in batch normalization<br />
<br />
5. Fine-tune the pruned model using regular learning<br />
<br />
== Results ==<br />
<br />
The authors show state-of-the-art performance, compared with other channel-pruning approaches. It is important to note that it would be unfair to compare against general pruning approaches; channel pruning specifically removes channels without introducing '''intra-kernel sparsity''', whereas other pruning approaches introduce irregular kernel sparsity and hence computational inefficiencies.<br />
<br />
Results on CIFAR-10:<br />
<br />
[[File:Screenshot_from_2018-02-28_17-24-25.png]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Results on ILSVRC2012:<br />
<br />
[[File:Screenshot_from_2018-02-28_17-24-36.png]]<br />
<br />
Results on Image foreground-background segmentation experiment<br />
<br />
[[File:paper8_Segmentation.png|700px]]<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
<br />
Pruning large neural architectures to fit on low-power devices is an important task. For a real quantitative measure of efficiency, it would be interesting to conduct actual power measurements on the pruned models versus baselines; reduction in FLOPs doesn't necessarily correspond with vastly reduced power since memory accesses dominate energy consumption (Han et al., 2015). However, the reduction in the number of FLOPs and parameters is encouraging, so moderate power savings should be expected.<br />
<br />
It would also be interesting to combine multiple approaches, or "throw the whole kitchen sink" at this task. Han et al. (2015) sparked much recent interest by successfully combining weight pruning, quantization, and Huffman coding without loss in accuracy. However, their approach introduced irregular sparsity in the convolutional layers, so a direct comparison cannot be made.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, this novel, theoretically-motivated interpretation of channel pruning was successfully applied to several important tasks.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2012). Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 1097-1105).<br />
* He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016). Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 770-778).<br />
* Cheng, Y., Wang, D., Zhou, P., & Zhang, T. (2017). A Survey of Model Compression and Acceleration for Deep Neural Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.09282.<br />
* Ye, J., Lu, X., Lin, Z., & Wang, J. Z. (2018). Rethinking the Smaller-Norm-Less-Informative Assumption in Channel Pruning of Convolution Layers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.00124.<br />
* Li, H., Kadav, A., Durdanovic, I., Samet, H., & Graf, H. P. (2016). Pruning filters for efficient convnets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.08710.<br />
* Molchanov, P., Tyree, S., Karras, T., Aila, T., & Kautz, J. (2016). Pruning convolutional neural networks for resource efficient inference.<br />
* Ioffe, S., & Szegedy, C. (2015, June). Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In International conference on machine learning (pp. 448-456).<br />
* Gordon, G., & Tibshirani, R. (2012). Subgradient method. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ggordon/10725-F12/slides/06-sg-method.pdf<br />
* Beck, A., & Teboulle, M. (2009). A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems. SIAM journal on imaging sciences, 2(1), 183-202.<br />
* Han, S., Mao, H., & Dally, W. J. (2015). Deep compression: Compressing deep neural networks with pruning, trained quantization and huffman coding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.00149</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/Rethinking_the_Smaller-Norm-Less-Informative_Assumption_in_Channel_Pruning_of_Convolutional_Layers&diff=33085stat946w18/Rethinking the Smaller-Norm-Less-Informative Assumption in Channel Pruning of Convolutional Layers2018-03-09T19:32:26Z<p>Shitawal: Segmentation Experiment Results</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
With the recent and ongoing surge in low-power, intelligent agents (such as wearables, smartphones, and IoT devices), there exists a growing need for machine learning models to work well in memory and CPU-constrained environments. Deep learning models have achieved state-of-the-art on a broad range of tasks; however, they are difficult to deploy in their original forms. For example, AlexNet (Krizhevsky et al., 2012), a model for image classification, contains 61 million parameters and requires 1.5 billion floating point operations per second (FLOPs) in one inference pass. A more accurate model, ResNet-50 (He et al., 2016), has 25 million parameters but requires 4.08 billion FLOPs. Clearly, it would be difficult to deploy and run these models on low-power devices.<br />
<br />
In general, model compression can be accomplished using four main non-exclusive methods (Cheng et al., 2017): weight pruning, quantization, matrix transformations, and weight tying. By non-exclusive, we mean that these methods can be used in combination for pruning a single model; the use of one method does not exclude any of the other methods from being viable. <br />
<br />
Ye et al. (2018) explores pruning entire channels in a convolutional neural network. Past work has mostly focused on norm or error-based heuristics to prune channels; instead, Ye et al. (2018) show that their approach is, "mathematically appealing from an optimization perspective and easy to reproduce" (Ye et al., 2018). In other words, they argue that the norm-based assumption is not as informative or theoretically justified as their approach, and provide strong empirical findings.<br />
<br />
== Motivation ==<br />
<br />
Some previous works on pruning channel filters (Li et al., 2016; Molchanov et al., 2016) have focused on using the L1 norm to determine the importance of a channel. Ye et al. (2018) show that, in the deep linear convolution case, penalizing the per-layer norm is coarse-grained; they argue that one cannot assign different coefficients to L1 penalties associated with different layers without risking the loss function being susceptible to trivial re-parameterizations. As an example, consider the following deep linear convolutional neural network with modified LASSO loss:<br />
<br />
$$\min \mathbb{E}_D \lVert W_{2n} * \dots * W_1 x - y\rVert^2 + \lambda \sum_{i=1}^n \lVert W_{2i} \rVert_1$$<br />
<br />
where W are the weights and * is convolution. Here we have chosen the coefficient 0 for the L1 penalty associated with odd-numbered layers and the coefficient 1 for the L1 penalty associated with even-numbered layers. This loss is susceptible to trivial re-parameterizations: without affecting the least-squares loss, we can always reduce the LASSO loss by halving the weights of all even-numbered layers and doubling the weights of all odd-numbered layers.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, batch normalization (Ioffe, 2015) is incompatible with this method of weight regularization. Consider batch normalization at the <math>l</math>-th layer.<br />
<br />
<center><math>x^{l+1} = max\{\gamma \cdot BN_{\mu,\sigma,\epsilon}(W^l * x^l) + \beta, 0\}</math></center><br />
<br />
Due to the batch normalization, any uniform scaling of <math>W^l</math> which would change <math>l_1</math> and <math>l_2</math> norms, but has no have no effect on <math>x^{l+1}</math>. Thus, when trying to minimize weight norms of multiple layers, it is unclear how to properly choose penalties for each layer. Therefore, penalizing the norm of a filter in a deep convolutional network is hard to justify from a theoretical perspective.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thus, although not providing a complete theoretical guarantee on loss, Ye et al. (2018) develop a pruning technique that claims to be more justified than norm-based pruning is.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
<br />
At a high level, Ye et al. (2018) propose that, instead of discovering sparsity via penalizing the per-filter or per-channel norm, penalize the batch normalization scale parameters ''gamma'' instead. The reasoning is that by having fewer parameters to constrain and working with normalized values, sparsity is easier to enforce, monitor, and learn. Having sparse batch normalization terms has the effect of pruning '''entire''' channels: if ''gamma'' is zero, then the output at that layer becomes constant (the bias term), and thus the preceding channels can be pruned.<br />
<br />
=== Summary ===<br />
<br />
The basic algorithm can be summarized as follows:<br />
<br />
1. Penalize the L1-norm of the batch normalization scaling parameters in the loss<br />
<br />
2. Train until loss plateaus<br />
<br />
3. Remove channels that correspond to a downstream zero in batch normalization<br />
<br />
4. Fine-tune the pruned model using regular learning<br />
<br />
=== Details ===<br />
<br />
There still exist a few problems that this summary has not addressed so far. Sub-gradient descent is known to have inverse square root convergence rate on subdifferentials (Gordon et al., 2012), so the sparsity gradient descent update may be suboptimal. Furthermore, the sparse penalty needs to be normalized with respect to previous channel sizes, since the penalty should be roughly equally distributed across all convolution layers.<br />
<br />
==== Slow Convergence ====<br />
To address the issue of slow convergence, Ye et al. (2018) use an iterative shrinking-thresholding algorithm (ISTA) (Beck & Teboulle, 2009) to update the batch normalization scale parameter. The intuition for ISTA is that the structure of the optimization objective can be taken advantage of. Consider: $$L(x) = f(x) + g(x).$$<br />
<br />
Let ''f'' be the model loss and ''g'' be the non-differentiable penalty (LASSO). ISTA is able to use the structure of the loss and converge in O(1/n), instead of O(1/sqrt(n)) when using subgradient descent, which assumes no structure about the loss. Even though ISTA is used in convex settings, Ye et. al (2018) argue that it still performs better than gradient descent.<br />
<br />
==== Penalty Normalization ====<br />
<br />
In the paper, Ye et al. (2018) normalize the per-layer sparse penalty with respect to the global input size, the current layer kernel areas, the previous layer kernel areas, and the local input feature map area.<br />
<br />
[[File:Screenshot_from_2018-02-28_17-06-41.png]] (Ye et al., 2018)<br />
<br />
To control the global penalty, a hyperparamter ''rho'' is multiplied with all the per-layer ''lambda'' in the final loss.<br />
<br />
=== Steps ===<br />
<br />
The final algorithm can be summarized as follows:<br />
<br />
1. Compute the per-layer normalized sparse penalty constant ''lambda''<br />
<br />
2. Compute the global LASSO loss with global scaling constant ''rho''<br />
<br />
3. Until convergence, train scaling parameters using ISTA and non-scaling parameters using regular gradient descent.<br />
<br />
4. Remove channels that correspond to a downstream zero in batch normalization<br />
<br />
5. Fine-tune the pruned model using regular learning<br />
<br />
== Results ==<br />
<br />
The authors show state-of-the-art performance, compared with other channel-pruning approaches. It is important to note that it would be unfair to compare against general pruning approaches; channel pruning specifically removes channels without introducing '''intra-kernel sparsity''', whereas other pruning approaches introduce irregular kernel sparsity and hence computational inefficiencies.<br />
<br />
Results on CIFAR-10:<br />
<br />
[[File:Screenshot_from_2018-02-28_17-24-25.png]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Results on ILSVRC2012:<br />
<br />
[[File:Screenshot_from_2018-02-28_17-24-36.png]]<br />
<br />
Results on Image foreground-background segmentation experiment<br />
<br />
[[File:paper8_Segmentation.png]]<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
<br />
Pruning large neural architectures to fit on low-power devices is an important task. For a real quantitative measure of efficiency, it would be interesting to conduct actual power measurements on the pruned models versus baselines; reduction in FLOPs doesn't necessarily correspond with vastly reduced power since memory accesses dominate energy consumption (Han et al., 2015). However, the reduction in the number of FLOPs and parameters is encouraging, so moderate power savings should be expected.<br />
<br />
It would also be interesting to combine multiple approaches, or "throw the whole kitchen sink" at this task. Han et al. (2015) sparked much recent interest by successfully combining weight pruning, quantization, and Huffman coding without loss in accuracy. However, their approach introduced irregular sparsity in the convolutional layers, so a direct comparison cannot be made.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, this novel, theoretically-motivated interpretation of channel pruning was successfully applied to several important tasks.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2012). Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 1097-1105).<br />
* He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016). Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 770-778).<br />
* Cheng, Y., Wang, D., Zhou, P., & Zhang, T. (2017). A Survey of Model Compression and Acceleration for Deep Neural Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.09282.<br />
* Ye, J., Lu, X., Lin, Z., & Wang, J. Z. (2018). Rethinking the Smaller-Norm-Less-Informative Assumption in Channel Pruning of Convolution Layers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.00124.<br />
* Li, H., Kadav, A., Durdanovic, I., Samet, H., & Graf, H. P. (2016). Pruning filters for efficient convnets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.08710.<br />
* Molchanov, P., Tyree, S., Karras, T., Aila, T., & Kautz, J. (2016). Pruning convolutional neural networks for resource efficient inference.<br />
* Ioffe, S., & Szegedy, C. (2015, June). Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In International conference on machine learning (pp. 448-456).<br />
* Gordon, G., & Tibshirani, R. (2012). Subgradient method. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ggordon/10725-F12/slides/06-sg-method.pdf<br />
* Beck, A., & Teboulle, M. (2009). A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems. SIAM journal on imaging sciences, 2(1), 183-202.<br />
* Han, S., Mao, H., & Dally, W. J. (2015). Deep compression: Compressing deep neural networks with pruning, trained quantization and huffman coding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.00149</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=File:paper8_Segmentation.png&diff=33084File:paper8 Segmentation.png2018-03-09T19:31:51Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/AmbientGAN:_Generative_Models_from_Lossy_Measurements&diff=33083stat946w18/AmbientGAN: Generative Models from Lossy Measurements2018-03-09T19:16:22Z<p>Shitawal: Datasets, Model Architectures and Conclusion</p>
<hr />
<div>= Introduction =<br />
Generative Adversarial Networks operate by simulating complex distributions but training them requires access to large amounts of high quality data. Often times we only have access to noisy or partial observations, which will from here on be referred to as measurements of the true data. If we know the measurement function and would like to train a generative model for the true data, there are several ways to continue which have varying degrees of success. We will use noisy MNIST data as an illustrative example. Suppose we only see MNIST data that has been run through a Gaussian kernel (blurred) with some noise from a <math>N(0, 0.5^2)</math> distribution added to each pixel:<br />
<br />
<gallery mode="packed"><br />
File:mnist.png| True Data (Unobserved)<br />
File:mnistmeasured.png| Measured Data (Observed)<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
<br />
=== Ignore the problem ===<br />
[[File:GANignore.png|500px]] [[File:mnistignore.png|300px]]<br />
<br />
Train a generative model directly on the measured data. This will obviously be unable to generate the true distribution before measurement has occurred. <br />
<br />
<br />
=== Try to recover the information lost ===<br />
[[File:GANrecovery.png|420px]] [[File:mnistrecover.png|300px]]<br />
<br />
Works better than ignoring the problem but depends on how easily the measurement function can be inverted.<br />
<br />
=== AmbientGAN ===<br />
[[File:GANambient.png|500px]] [[File:mnistambient.png|300px]]<br />
<br />
Ashish Bora, Eric Price and Alexandros G. Dimakis propose AmbientGAN as a way to recover the true underlying distribution from measurements of the true data. <br />
<br />
AmbientGAN works by training a generator which attempts to have the measurements of the output it generates fool the discriminator. The discriminator must distinguish between real and generated measurements.<br />
<br />
= Datasets and Model Architectures=<br />
We used three datasets for our experiments: MNIST, CelebA and CIFAR-10 datasets We briefly describe the generative models used for the experiments. For the MNIST dataset, we use two GAN models. The first model is a conditional DCGAN, while the second model is an unconditional Wasserstein GAN with gradient penalty (WGANGP). For the CelebA dataset, we use an unconditional DCGAN. For the CIFAR-10 dataset, we use an Auxiliary Classifier Wasserstein GAN with gradient penalty (ACWGANGP). For measurements with 2D outputs, i.e. Block-Pixels, Block-Patch, Keep-Patch, Extract-Patch, and Convolve+Noise, we use the same discriminator architectures as in the original work. For 1D projections, i.e. Pad-Rotate-Project, Pad-Rotate-Project-θ, we use fully connected discriminators. The architecture of the fully connected discriminator used for the MNIST dataset was 25-25-1 and for the CelebA dataset was 100-100-1.<br />
<br />
= Model =<br />
For the following variables superscript <math>r</math> represents the true distributions while superscript <math>g</math> represents the generated distributions. Let <math>x</math>, represent the underlying space and <math>y</math> for the measurement.<br />
<br />
Thus, <math>p_x^r</math> is the real underlying distribution over <math>\mathbb{R}^n</math> that we are interested in. However if we assume that our (known) measurement functions, <math>f_\theta: \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}^m</math> are parameterized by <math>\Theta \sim p_\theta</math>, we can then observe <math>Y = f_\theta(x) \sim p_y^r</math> where <math>p_y^r</math> is a distribution over the measurements <math>y</math>.<br />
<br />
Mirroring the standard GAN setup we let <math>Z \in \mathbb{R}^k, Z \sim p_z</math> and <math>\Theta \sim p_\theta</math> be random variables coming from a distribution that is easy to sample. <br />
<br />
If we have a generator <math>G: \mathbb{R}^k \to \mathbb{R}^n</math> then we can generate <math>X^g = G(Z)</math> which has distribution <math>p_x^g</math> a measurement <math>Y^g = f_\Theta(G(Z))</math> which has distribution <math>p_y^g</math>. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately we do not observe any <math>X^g \sim p_x</math> so we can use the discriminator directly on <math>G(Z)</math> to train the generator. Instead we will use the discriminator to distinguish between the <math>Y^g -<br />
f_\Theta(G(Z))</math> and <math>Y^r</math>. That is we train the discriminator, <math>D: \mathbb{R}^m \to \mathbb{R}</math> to detect if a measurement came from <math>p_y^r</math> or <math>p_y^g</math>.<br />
<br />
AmbientGAN has the objective function:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\min_G \max_D \mathbb{E}_{Y^r \sim p_y^r}[q(D(Y^r))] + \mathbb{E}_{Z \sim p_z, \Theta \sim p_\theta}[q(1 - D(f_\Theta(G(Z))))]<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math>q(.)</math> is the quality function; for the standard GAN <math>q(x) = log(x)</math> and for Wasserstein GAN <math>q(x) = x</math>.<br />
<br />
As a technical limitation we require <math>f_\theta</math> to be differentiable with the respect each input for all values of <math>\theta</math>.<br />
<br />
With this set up we sample <math>Z \sim p_z</math>, <math>\Theta \sim p_\theta</math>, and <math>Y^r \sim U\{y_1, \cdots, y_s\}</math> each iteration and use them to compute the stochastic gradients of the objective function. We alternate between updating <math>G</math> and updating <math>D</math>. <br />
<br />
= Empirical Results =<br />
<br />
The paper continues to present results of AmbientGAN under various measurement functions when compared to baseline models. We have already seen one example in the introduction: a comparison of AmbientGAN in the Convolve + Noise Measurement case compared to the ignore-baseline, and the unmeasure-baseline. <br />
<br />
=== Convolve + Noise ===<br />
Additional results with the convolve + noise case with the celebA dataset, with the AmbientGAN compared to the baseline results with Wiener deconvolution. It is clear that AmbientGAN has superior performance in this case. The measurement is created from <math>f_{\Theta}(x) = k*x + \Theta</math>, where <math>*</math> is the convolution operatorm, <math>k</math> is the convolution kernel, and <math>\Theta \sim p_{\theta}</math> is the noise distribution.<br />
<br />
[[File:paper7_fig3.png]]<br />
<br />
Images undergone convolve + noise transformations (left). Results with Wiener deconvolution (middle). Results with AmbientGAN (right).<br />
<br />
=== Block-Pixels ===<br />
With the block-pixels measurement function each pixel is independently set to 0 with probability <math>p</math>.<br />
<br />
[[File:block-pixels.png]]<br />
<br />
Measurements from the celebA dataset with <math>p=0.95</math> (left). Images generated from GAN trained on unmeasured (via blurring) data (middle). Results generated from AmbientGAN (right).<br />
<br />
=== Block-Patch ===<br />
<br />
[[File:block-patch.png]]<br />
<br />
A random 14x14 patch is set to zero (left). Unmeasured using-navier-stoke inpainting (middle). AmbientGAN (right). <br />
<br />
=== Pad-Rotate-Project-<math>\theta</math> ===<br />
<br />
[[File:pad-rotate-project-theta.png]]<br />
<br />
Results generated by AmbientGAN where the measurement function 0 pads the images, rotates it by <math>\theta</math>, and projects it on to the x axis. For each measurement the value of <math>\theta</math> is known. <br />
<br />
The generated images only have the basic features of a face and is referred to as a failure case in the paper. However the measurement function performs relatively well given how lossy the measurement function is. <br />
<br />
=== Explanation of Inception Score ===<br />
To evaluate GAN performance, the authors make use of the inception score, a metric introduced by Salimans et al.(2016). To evaluate the inception score on a datapoint, a pre-trained inception classification model (Szegedy et al. 2016) is applied to that datapoint, and the KL divergence between its label distribution conditional on the datapoint and its marginal label distribution is computed. This KL divergence is the inception score. The idea is that meaningful images should be recognized by the inception model as belonging to some class, and so the conditional distribution should have low entropy, while the model should produce a variety of images, so the marginal should have high entropy. Thus an effective GAN should have a high inception score.<br />
<br />
=== MNIST Inception ===<br />
<br />
[[File:MNIST-inception.png]]<br />
<br />
AmbientGAN was compared with baselines through training several models with different probability <math>p</math> of blocking pixels. The plot on the left shows that the inception scores change as the block probability <math>p</math> changes. All four models are similar when no pixels are blocked <math>(p=0)</math>. By the increase of the blocking probability, AmbientGAN models present a relatively stable performance and perform better than the baseline models. Therefore, AmbientGAN is more robust than all other baseline models.<br />
<br />
The plot on the right reveals the changes in inception scores while the standard deviation of the additive Gaussian noise increased. Baselines perform better when the noise is small. By the increase of the variance, AmbientGAN models present a much better performance compare to the baseline models. Further AmbientGAN retains high inception scores as measurements become more and more lossy.<br />
<br />
=== CIFAR-10 Inception ===<br />
<br />
[[File:CIFAR-inception.png]]<br />
<br />
AmbientGAN is faster to train and more robust even on more complex distributions such as CIFAR-10. <br />
<br />
= Theoretical Results =<br />
<br />
The theoretical results in the paper prove the true underlying distribution of <math>p_x^r</math> can be recovered when we have data that comes from the Gaussian-Projection measurement, Fourier transform measurement and the block-pixels measurement. The do this by showing the distribution of the measurements <math>p_y^r</math> corresponds to a unique distribution <math>p_x^r</math>. Thus even when the measurement itself is non-invertible the effect of the measurement on the distribution <math>p_x^r</math> is invertible. Lemma 5.1 ensures this is sufficient to provide the AmbientGAN training process with a consistency guarantee. For full proofs of the results please see appendix A. <br />
<br />
=== Lemma 5.1 === <br />
Let <math>p_x^r</math> be the true data distribution, and <math>p_\theta</math> be the distributions over the parameters of the measurement function. Let <math>p_y^r</math> be the induced measurement distribution. <br />
<br />
Assume for <math>p_\theta</math> there is a unique probability distribution <math>p_x^r</math> that induces <math>p_y^r</math>. <br />
<br />
Then for the standard GAN model if the discriminator <math>D</math> is optimal such that <math>D(\cdot) = \frac{p_y^r(\cdot)}{p_y^r(\cdot) + p_y^g(\cdot)}</math>, then a generator <math>G</math> is optimal if and only if <math>p_x^g = p_x^r</math>. <br />
<br />
=== Theorems 5.2===<br />
For the Gussian-Projection measurement model, there is a unique underlying distribution <math>p_x^{r} </math> that can induce the observed measurement distribution <math>p_y^{r} </math>.<br />
<br />
=== Theorems 5.3===<br />
Let <math> \mathcal{F} (\cdot) </math> denote the Fourier transform and let <math>supp (\cdot) </math> be the support of a function. Consider the Convolve+Noise measurement model with the convolution kernel <math> k </math>and additive noise distribution <math>p_\theta </math>. If <math> supp( \mathcal{F} (k))^{c}=\phi </math> and <math> supp( \mathcal{F} (p_\theta))^{c}=\phi </math>, then there is a unique distribution <math>p_x^{r} </math> that can induce the measurement distribution <math>p_y^{r} </math>.<br />
<br />
=== Theorems 5.4===<br />
Assume that each image pixel takes values in a finite set P. Thus <math>x \in P^n \subset \mathbb{R}^{n} </math>. Assume <math>0 \in P </math>, and consider the Block-Pixels measurement model with <math>p </math> being the probability of blocking a pixel. If <math>p <1</math>, then there is a unique distribution <math>p_x^{r} </math> that can induce the measurement distribution <math>p_y^{r} </math>. Further, for any <math> \epsilon > 0, \delta \in (0, 1] </math>, given a dataset of<br />
\begin{equation}<br />
s=\Omega \left( \frac{|P|^{2n}}{(1-p)^{2n} \epsilon^{2}} log \left( \frac{|P|^{n}}{\delta} \right) \right)<br />
\end{equation}<br />
IID measurement samples from pry , if the discriminator D is optimal, then with probability <math> \geq 1 - \delta </math> over the dataset, any optimal generator G must satisfy <math> d_{TV} \left( p^g_x , p^r_x \right) \leq \epsilon </math>, where <math> d_{TV} \left( \cdot, \cdot \right) </math> is the total variation distance.<br />
<br />
= Conclusion =<br />
Generative models are powerful tools, but constructing a generative model requires a large, highquality dataset of the distribution of interest. We show how to relax this requirement, by learning a distribution from a dataset that only contains incomplete, noisy measurements of the distribution. We hope that this will allow for the construction of new generative models of distributions for which no high-quality dataset exists.<br />
<br />
= Future Research =<br />
<br />
One critical weakness of AmbientGAN is the assumption that the measurement model is known. It would be nice to be able to train an AmbientGAN model when we have an unknown measurement model but also a small sample of unmeasured data.<br />
<br />
A related piece of work is [https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.01284 here]. In particular, Algorithm 2 in the paper excluding the discriminator is similar to AmbientGAN.<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
# https://openreview.net/forum?id=Hy7fDog0b<br />
# Salimans, Tim, et al. "Improved techniques for training gans." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2016.<br />
# Szegedy, Christian, et al. "Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision." Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2016.</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/AmbientGAN:_Generative_Models_from_Lossy_Measurements&diff=33082stat946w18/AmbientGAN: Generative Models from Lossy Measurements2018-03-09T19:10:27Z<p>Shitawal: Theorem 5.1</p>
<hr />
<div>= Introduction =<br />
Generative Adversarial Networks operate by simulating complex distributions but training them requires access to large amounts of high quality data. Often times we only have access to noisy or partial observations, which will from here on be referred to as measurements of the true data. If we know the measurement function and would like to train a generative model for the true data, there are several ways to continue which have varying degrees of success. We will use noisy MNIST data as an illustrative example. Suppose we only see MNIST data that has been run through a Gaussian kernel (blurred) with some noise from a <math>N(0, 0.5^2)</math> distribution added to each pixel:<br />
<br />
<gallery mode="packed"><br />
File:mnist.png| True Data (Unobserved)<br />
File:mnistmeasured.png| Measured Data (Observed)<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
<br />
=== Ignore the problem ===<br />
[[File:GANignore.png|500px]] [[File:mnistignore.png|300px]]<br />
<br />
Train a generative model directly on the measured data. This will obviously be unable to generate the true distribution before measurement has occurred. <br />
<br />
<br />
=== Try to recover the information lost ===<br />
[[File:GANrecovery.png|420px]] [[File:mnistrecover.png|300px]]<br />
<br />
Works better than ignoring the problem but depends on how easily the measurement function can be inverted.<br />
<br />
=== AmbientGAN ===<br />
[[File:GANambient.png|500px]] [[File:mnistambient.png|300px]]<br />
<br />
Ashish Bora, Eric Price and Alexandros G. Dimakis propose AmbientGAN as a way to recover the true underlying distribution from measurements of the true data. <br />
<br />
AmbientGAN works by training a generator which attempts to have the measurements of the output it generates fool the discriminator. The discriminator must distinguish between real and generated measurements.<br />
<br />
= Model =<br />
For the following variables superscript <math>r</math> represents the true distributions while superscript <math>g</math> represents the generated distributions. Let <math>x</math>, represent the underlying space and <math>y</math> for the measurement.<br />
<br />
Thus, <math>p_x^r</math> is the real underlying distribution over <math>\mathbb{R}^n</math> that we are interested in. However if we assume that our (known) measurement functions, <math>f_\theta: \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}^m</math> are parameterized by <math>\Theta \sim p_\theta</math>, we can then observe <math>Y = f_\theta(x) \sim p_y^r</math> where <math>p_y^r</math> is a distribution over the measurements <math>y</math>.<br />
<br />
Mirroring the standard GAN setup we let <math>Z \in \mathbb{R}^k, Z \sim p_z</math> and <math>\Theta \sim p_\theta</math> be random variables coming from a distribution that is easy to sample. <br />
<br />
If we have a generator <math>G: \mathbb{R}^k \to \mathbb{R}^n</math> then we can generate <math>X^g = G(Z)</math> which has distribution <math>p_x^g</math> a measurement <math>Y^g = f_\Theta(G(Z))</math> which has distribution <math>p_y^g</math>. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately we do not observe any <math>X^g \sim p_x</math> so we can use the discriminator directly on <math>G(Z)</math> to train the generator. Instead we will use the discriminator to distinguish between the <math>Y^g -<br />
f_\Theta(G(Z))</math> and <math>Y^r</math>. That is we train the discriminator, <math>D: \mathbb{R}^m \to \mathbb{R}</math> to detect if a measurement came from <math>p_y^r</math> or <math>p_y^g</math>.<br />
<br />
AmbientGAN has the objective function:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\min_G \max_D \mathbb{E}_{Y^r \sim p_y^r}[q(D(Y^r))] + \mathbb{E}_{Z \sim p_z, \Theta \sim p_\theta}[q(1 - D(f_\Theta(G(Z))))]<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math>q(.)</math> is the quality function; for the standard GAN <math>q(x) = log(x)</math> and for Wasserstein GAN <math>q(x) = x</math>.<br />
<br />
As a technical limitation we require <math>f_\theta</math> to be differentiable with the respect each input for all values of <math>\theta</math>.<br />
<br />
With this set up we sample <math>Z \sim p_z</math>, <math>\Theta \sim p_\theta</math>, and <math>Y^r \sim U\{y_1, \cdots, y_s\}</math> each iteration and use them to compute the stochastic gradients of the objective function. We alternate between updating <math>G</math> and updating <math>D</math>. <br />
<br />
= Empirical Results =<br />
<br />
The paper continues to present results of AmbientGAN under various measurement functions when compared to baseline models. We have already seen one example in the introduction: a comparison of AmbientGAN in the Convolve + Noise Measurement case compared to the ignore-baseline, and the unmeasure-baseline. <br />
<br />
=== Convolve + Noise ===<br />
Additional results with the convolve + noise case with the celebA dataset, with the AmbientGAN compared to the baseline results with Wiener deconvolution. It is clear that AmbientGAN has superior performance in this case. The measurement is created from <math>f_{\Theta}(x) = k*x + \Theta</math>, where <math>*</math> is the convolution operatorm, <math>k</math> is the convolution kernel, and <math>\Theta \sim p_{\theta}</math> is the noise distribution.<br />
<br />
[[File:paper7_fig3.png]]<br />
<br />
Images undergone convolve + noise transformations (left). Results with Wiener deconvolution (middle). Results with AmbientGAN (right).<br />
<br />
=== Block-Pixels ===<br />
With the block-pixels measurement function each pixel is independently set to 0 with probability <math>p</math>.<br />
<br />
[[File:block-pixels.png]]<br />
<br />
Measurements from the celebA dataset with <math>p=0.95</math> (left). Images generated from GAN trained on unmeasured (via blurring) data (middle). Results generated from AmbientGAN (right).<br />
<br />
=== Block-Patch ===<br />
<br />
[[File:block-patch.png]]<br />
<br />
A random 14x14 patch is set to zero (left). Unmeasured using-navier-stoke inpainting (middle). AmbientGAN (right). <br />
<br />
=== Pad-Rotate-Project-<math>\theta</math> ===<br />
<br />
[[File:pad-rotate-project-theta.png]]<br />
<br />
Results generated by AmbientGAN where the measurement function 0 pads the images, rotates it by <math>\theta</math>, and projects it on to the x axis. For each measurement the value of <math>\theta</math> is known. <br />
<br />
The generated images only have the basic features of a face and is referred to as a failure case in the paper. However the measurement function performs relatively well given how lossy the measurement function is. <br />
<br />
=== Explanation of Inception Score ===<br />
To evaluate GAN performance, the authors make use of the inception score, a metric introduced by Salimans et al.(2016). To evaluate the inception score on a datapoint, a pre-trained inception classification model (Szegedy et al. 2016) is applied to that datapoint, and the KL divergence between its label distribution conditional on the datapoint and its marginal label distribution is computed. This KL divergence is the inception score. The idea is that meaningful images should be recognized by the inception model as belonging to some class, and so the conditional distribution should have low entropy, while the model should produce a variety of images, so the marginal should have high entropy. Thus an effective GAN should have a high inception score.<br />
<br />
=== MNIST Inception ===<br />
<br />
[[File:MNIST-inception.png]]<br />
<br />
AmbientGAN was compared with baselines through training several models with different probability <math>p</math> of blocking pixels. The plot on the left shows that the inception scores change as the block probability <math>p</math> changes. All four models are similar when no pixels are blocked <math>(p=0)</math>. By the increase of the blocking probability, AmbientGAN models present a relatively stable performance and perform better than the baseline models. Therefore, AmbientGAN is more robust than all other baseline models.<br />
<br />
The plot on the right reveals the changes in inception scores while the standard deviation of the additive Gaussian noise increased. Baselines perform better when the noise is small. By the increase of the variance, AmbientGAN models present a much better performance compare to the baseline models. Further AmbientGAN retains high inception scores as measurements become more and more lossy.<br />
<br />
=== CIFAR-10 Inception ===<br />
<br />
[[File:CIFAR-inception.png]]<br />
<br />
AmbientGAN is faster to train and more robust even on more complex distributions such as CIFAR-10. <br />
<br />
= Theoretical Results =<br />
<br />
The theoretical results in the paper prove the true underlying distribution of <math>p_x^r</math> can be recovered when we have data that comes from the Gaussian-Projection measurement, Fourier transform measurement and the block-pixels measurement. The do this by showing the distribution of the measurements <math>p_y^r</math> corresponds to a unique distribution <math>p_x^r</math>. Thus even when the measurement itself is non-invertible the effect of the measurement on the distribution <math>p_x^r</math> is invertible. Lemma 5.1 ensures this is sufficient to provide the AmbientGAN training process with a consistency guarantee. For full proofs of the results please see appendix A. <br />
<br />
=== Lemma 5.1 === <br />
Let <math>p_x^r</math> be the true data distribution, and <math>p_\theta</math> be the distributions over the parameters of the measurement function. Let <math>p_y^r</math> be the induced measurement distribution. <br />
<br />
Assume for <math>p_\theta</math> there is a unique probability distribution <math>p_x^r</math> that induces <math>p_y^r</math>. <br />
<br />
Then for the standard GAN model if the discriminator <math>D</math> is optimal such that <math>D(\cdot) = \frac{p_y^r(\cdot)}{p_y^r(\cdot) + p_y^g(\cdot)}</math>, then a generator <math>G</math> is optimal if and only if <math>p_x^g = p_x^r</math>. <br />
<br />
=== Theorems 5.2===<br />
For the Gussian-Projection measurement model, there is a unique underlying distribution <math>p_x^{r} </math> that can induce the observed measurement distribution <math>p_y^{r} </math>.<br />
<br />
=== Theorems 5.3===<br />
Let <math> \mathcal{F} (\cdot) </math> denote the Fourier transform and let <math>supp (\cdot) </math> be the support of a function. Consider the Convolve+Noise measurement model with the convolution kernel <math> k </math>and additive noise distribution <math>p_\theta </math>. If <math> supp( \mathcal{F} (k))^{c}=\phi </math> and <math> supp( \mathcal{F} (p_\theta))^{c}=\phi </math>, then there is a unique distribution <math>p_x^{r} </math> that can induce the measurement distribution <math>p_y^{r} </math>.<br />
<br />
=== Theorems 5.4===<br />
Assume that each image pixel takes values in a finite set P. Thus <math>x \in P^n \subset \mathbb{R}^{n} </math>. Assume <math>0 \in P </math>, and consider the Block-Pixels measurement model with <math>p </math> being the probability of blocking a pixel. If <math>p <1</math>, then there is a unique distribution <math>p_x^{r} </math> that can induce the measurement distribution <math>p_y^{r} </math>. Further, for any <math> \epsilon > 0, \delta \in (0, 1] </math>, given a dataset of<br />
\begin{equation}<br />
s=\Omega \left( \frac{|P|^{2n}}{(1-p)^{2n} \epsilon^{2}} log \left( \frac{|P|^{n}}{\delta} \right) \right)<br />
\end{equation}<br />
IID measurement samples from pry , if the discriminator D is optimal, then with probability <math> \geq 1 - \delta </math> over the dataset, any optimal generator G must satisfy <math> d_{TV} \left( p^g_x , p^r_x \right) \leq \epsilon </math>, where <math> d_{TV} \left( \cdot, \cdot \right) </math> is the total variation distance.<br />
<br />
= Future Research =<br />
<br />
One critical weakness of AmbientGAN is the assumption that the measurement model is known. It would be nice to be able to train an AmbientGAN model when we have an unknown measurement model but also a small sample of unmeasured data.<br />
<br />
A related piece of work is [https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.01284 here]. In particular, Algorithm 2 in the paper excluding the discriminator is similar to AmbientGAN.<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
# https://openreview.net/forum?id=Hy7fDog0b<br />
# Salimans, Tim, et al. "Improved techniques for training gans." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2016.<br />
# Szegedy, Christian, et al. "Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision." Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2016.</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/AmbientGAN:_Generative_Models_from_Lossy_Measurements&diff=33081stat946w18/AmbientGAN: Generative Models from Lossy Measurements2018-03-09T19:04:13Z<p>Shitawal: Model</p>
<hr />
<div>= Introduction =<br />
Generative Adversarial Networks operate by simulating complex distributions but training them requires access to large amounts of high quality data. Often times we only have access to noisy or partial observations, which will from here on be referred to as measurements of the true data. If we know the measurement function and would like to train a generative model for the true data, there are several ways to continue which have varying degrees of success. We will use noisy MNIST data as an illustrative example. Suppose we only see MNIST data that has been run through a Gaussian kernel (blurred) with some noise from a <math>N(0, 0.5^2)</math> distribution added to each pixel:<br />
<br />
<gallery mode="packed"><br />
File:mnist.png| True Data (Unobserved)<br />
File:mnistmeasured.png| Measured Data (Observed)<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
<br />
=== Ignore the problem ===<br />
[[File:GANignore.png|500px]] [[File:mnistignore.png|300px]]<br />
<br />
Train a generative model directly on the measured data. This will obviously be unable to generate the true distribution before measurement has occurred. <br />
<br />
<br />
=== Try to recover the information lost ===<br />
[[File:GANrecovery.png|420px]] [[File:mnistrecover.png|300px]]<br />
<br />
Works better than ignoring the problem but depends on how easily the measurement function can be inverted.<br />
<br />
=== AmbientGAN ===<br />
[[File:GANambient.png|500px]] [[File:mnistambient.png|300px]]<br />
<br />
Ashish Bora, Eric Price and Alexandros G. Dimakis propose AmbientGAN as a way to recover the true underlying distribution from measurements of the true data. <br />
<br />
AmbientGAN works by training a generator which attempts to have the measurements of the output it generates fool the discriminator. The discriminator must distinguish between real and generated measurements.<br />
<br />
= Model =<br />
For the following variables superscript <math>r</math> represents the true distributions while superscript <math>g</math> represents the generated distributions. Let <math>x</math>, represent the underlying space and <math>y</math> for the measurement.<br />
<br />
Thus, <math>p_x^r</math> is the real underlying distribution over <math>\mathbb{R}^n</math> that we are interested in. However if we assume that our (known) measurement functions, <math>f_\theta: \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}^m</math> are parameterized by <math>\Theta \sim p_\theta</math>, we can then observe <math>Y = f_\theta(x) \sim p_y^r</math> where <math>p_y^r</math> is a distribution over the measurements <math>y</math>.<br />
<br />
Mirroring the standard GAN setup we let <math>Z \in \mathbb{R}^k, Z \sim p_z</math> and <math>\Theta \sim p_\theta</math> be random variables coming from a distribution that is easy to sample. <br />
<br />
If we have a generator <math>G: \mathbb{R}^k \to \mathbb{R}^n</math> then we can generate <math>X^g = G(Z)</math> which has distribution <math>p_x^g</math> a measurement <math>Y^g = f_\Theta(G(Z))</math> which has distribution <math>p_y^g</math>. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately we do not observe any <math>X^g \sim p_x</math> so we can use the discriminator directly on <math>G(Z)</math> to train the generator. Instead we will use the discriminator to distinguish between the <math>Y^g -<br />
f_\Theta(G(Z))</math> and <math>Y^r</math>. That is we train the discriminator, <math>D: \mathbb{R}^m \to \mathbb{R}</math> to detect if a measurement came from <math>p_y^r</math> or <math>p_y^g</math>.<br />
<br />
AmbientGAN has the objective function:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\min_G \max_D \mathbb{E}_{Y^r \sim p_y^r}[q(D(Y^r))] + \mathbb{E}_{Z \sim p_z, \Theta \sim p_\theta}[q(1 - D(f_\Theta(G(Z))))]<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math>q(.)</math> is the quality function; for the standard GAN <math>q(x) = log(x)</math> and for Wasserstein GAN <math>q(x) = x</math>.<br />
<br />
As a technical limitation we require <math>f_\theta</math> to be differentiable with the respect each input for all values of <math>\theta</math>.<br />
<br />
With this set up we sample <math>Z \sim p_z</math>, <math>\Theta \sim p_\theta</math>, and <math>Y^r \sim U\{y_1, \cdots, y_s\}</math> each iteration and use them to compute the stochastic gradients of the objective function. We alternate between updating <math>G</math> and updating <math>D</math>. <br />
<br />
= Empirical Results =<br />
<br />
The paper continues to present results of AmbientGAN under various measurement functions when compared to baseline models. We have already seen one example in the introduction: a comparison of AmbientGAN in the Convolve + Noise Measurement case compared to the ignore-baseline, and the unmeasure-baseline. <br />
<br />
=== Convolve + Noise ===<br />
Additional results with the convolve + noise case with the celebA dataset, with the AmbientGAN compared to the baseline results with Wiener deconvolution. It is clear that AmbientGAN has superior performance in this case. The measurement is created from <math>f_{\Theta}(x) = k*x + \Theta</math>, where <math>*</math> is the convolution operatorm, <math>k</math> is the convolution kernel, and <math>\Theta \sim p_{\theta}</math> is the noise distribution.<br />
<br />
[[File:paper7_fig3.png]]<br />
<br />
Images undergone convolve + noise transformations (left). Results with Wiener deconvolution (middle). Results with AmbientGAN (right).<br />
<br />
=== Block-Pixels ===<br />
With the block-pixels measurement function each pixel is independently set to 0 with probability <math>p</math>.<br />
<br />
[[File:block-pixels.png]]<br />
<br />
Measurements from the celebA dataset with <math>p=0.95</math> (left). Images generated from GAN trained on unmeasured (via blurring) data (middle). Results generated from AmbientGAN (right).<br />
<br />
=== Block-Patch ===<br />
<br />
[[File:block-patch.png]]<br />
<br />
A random 14x14 patch is set to zero (left). Unmeasured using-navier-stoke inpainting (middle). AmbientGAN (right). <br />
<br />
=== Pad-Rotate-Project-<math>\theta</math> ===<br />
<br />
[[File:pad-rotate-project-theta.png]]<br />
<br />
Results generated by AmbientGAN where the measurement function 0 pads the images, rotates it by <math>\theta</math>, and projects it on to the x axis. For each measurement the value of <math>\theta</math> is known. <br />
<br />
The generated images only have the basic features of a face and is referred to as a failure case in the paper. However the measurement function performs relatively well given how lossy the measurement function is. <br />
<br />
=== Explanation of Inception Score ===<br />
To evaluate GAN performance, the authors make use of the inception score, a metric introduced by Salimans et al.(2016). To evaluate the inception score on a datapoint, a pre-trained inception classification model (Szegedy et al. 2016) is applied to that datapoint, and the KL divergence between its label distribution conditional on the datapoint and its marginal label distribution is computed. This KL divergence is the inception score. The idea is that meaningful images should be recognized by the inception model as belonging to some class, and so the conditional distribution should have low entropy, while the model should produce a variety of images, so the marginal should have high entropy. Thus an effective GAN should have a high inception score.<br />
<br />
=== MNIST Inception ===<br />
<br />
[[File:MNIST-inception.png]]<br />
<br />
AmbientGAN was compared with baselines through training several models with different probability <math>p</math> of blocking pixels. The plot on the left shows that the inception scores change as the block probability <math>p</math> changes. All four models are similar when no pixels are blocked <math>(p=0)</math>. By the increase of the blocking probability, AmbientGAN models present a relatively stable performance and perform better than the baseline models. Therefore, AmbientGAN is more robust than all other baseline models.<br />
<br />
The plot on the right reveals the changes in inception scores while the standard deviation of the additive Gaussian noise increased. Baselines perform better when the noise is small. By the increase of the variance, AmbientGAN models present a much better performance compare to the baseline models. Further AmbientGAN retains high inception scores as measurements become more and more lossy.<br />
<br />
=== CIFAR-10 Inception ===<br />
<br />
[[File:CIFAR-inception.png]]<br />
<br />
AmbientGAN is faster to train and more robust even on more complex distributions such as CIFAR-10. <br />
<br />
= Theoretical Results =<br />
<br />
The theoretical results in the paper prove the true underlying distribution of <math>p_x^r</math> can be recovered when we have data that comes from the Gaussian-Projection measurement, Fourier transform measurement and the block-pixels measurement. The do this by showing the distribution of the measurements <math>p_y^r</math> corresponds to a unique distribution <math>p_x^r</math>. Thus even when the measurement itself is non-invertible the effect of the measurement on the distribution <math>p_x^r</math> is invertible. Lemma 5.1 ensures this is sufficient to provide the AmbientGAN training process with a consistency guarantee. For full proofs of the results please see appendix A. <br />
<br />
=== Lemma 5.1 === <br />
Let <math>p_x^r</math> be the true data distribution, and <math>p_\theta</math> be the distributions over the parameters of the measurement function. Let <math>p_y^r</math> be the induced measurement distribution. <br />
<br />
Assume for <math>p_\theta</math> there is a unique probability distribution <math>p_x^r</math> that induces <math>p_y^r</math>. <br />
<br />
Then for the standard GAN model if the Discriminator is optimal, then a generator <math>G</math> is optimal if and only if <math>p_x^g = p_x^r</math>. <br />
<br />
=== Theorems 5.2===<br />
For the Gussian-Projection measurement model, there is a unique underlying distribution <math>p_x^{r} </math> that can induce the observed measurement distribution <math>p_y^{r} </math>.<br />
<br />
=== Theorems 5.3===<br />
Let <math> \mathcal{F} (\cdot) </math> denote the Fourier transform and let <math>supp (\cdot) </math> be the support of a function. Consider the Convolve+Noise measurement model with the convolution kernel <math> k </math>and additive noise distribution <math>p_\theta </math>. If <math> supp( \mathcal{F} (k))^{c}=\phi </math> and <math> supp( \mathcal{F} (p_\theta))^{c}=\phi </math>, then there is a unique distribution <math>p_x^{r} </math> that can induce the measurement distribution <math>p_y^{r} </math>.<br />
<br />
=== Theorems 5.4===<br />
Assume that each image pixel takes values in a finite set P. Thus <math>x \in P^n \subset \mathbb{R}^{n} </math>. Assume <math>0 \in P </math>, and consider the Block-Pixels measurement model with <math>p </math> being the probability of blocking a pixel. If <math>p <1</math>, then there is a unique distribution <math>p_x^{r} </math> that can induce the measurement distribution <math>p_y^{r} </math>. Further, for any <math> \epsilon > 0, \delta \in (0, 1] </math>, given a dataset of<br />
\begin{equation}<br />
s=\Omega \left( \frac{|P|^{2n}}{(1-p)^{2n} \epsilon^{2}} log \left( \frac{|P|^{n}}{\delta} \right) \right)<br />
\end{equation}<br />
IID measurement samples from pry , if the discriminator D is optimal, then with probability <math> \geq 1 - \delta </math> over the dataset, any optimal generator G must satisfy <math> d_{TV} \left( p^g_x , p^r_x \right) \leq \epsilon </math>, where <math> d_{TV} \left( \cdot, \cdot \right) </math> is the total variation distance.<br />
<br />
= Future Research =<br />
<br />
One critical weakness of AmbientGAN is the assumption that the measurement model is known. It would be nice to be able to train an AmbientGAN model when we have an unknown measurement model but also a small sample of unmeasured data.<br />
<br />
A related piece of work is [https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.01284 here]. In particular, Algorithm 2 in the paper excluding the discriminator is similar to AmbientGAN.<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
# https://openreview.net/forum?id=Hy7fDog0b<br />
# Salimans, Tim, et al. "Improved techniques for training gans." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2016.<br />
# Szegedy, Christian, et al. "Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision." Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2016.</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=One-Shot_Imitation_Learning&diff=33062One-Shot Imitation Learning2018-03-09T04:27:42Z<p>Shitawal: Added Visualization</p>
<hr />
<div>= Introduction =<br />
Robotic systems can be used for many applications, but to truly be useful for complex applications, they need to overcome 2 challenges: having the intent of the task at hand communicated to them, and being able to perform the manipulations necessary to complete this task. It is preferable to use demonstration to teach the robotic systems rather than natural language, as natural language may often fail to convey the details and intricacies required for the task. However, current work on learning from demonstrations is only successful with large amounts of feature engineering or a large number of demonstrations. The proposed model aims to achieve 'one-shot' imitation learning, ie. learning to complete a new task from just a single demonstration of it without any other supervision. As input, the proposed model takes the observation of the current instance a task, and a demonstration of successfully solving a different instance of the same task. Strong generalization was achieved by using a soft attention mechanism on both the sequence of actions and states that the demonstration consists of, as well as on the vector of element locations within the environment. The success of this proposed model at completing a series of block stacking tasks can be viewed at http://bit.ly/nips2017-oneshot.<br />
<br />
= Related Work =<br />
While one-shot imitation learning is a novel combination of ideas, each of the components has previously been studied.<br />
* Imitation Learning: <br />
** Behavioural learning uses supervised learning to map from observations to actions<br />
** Inverse reinforcement learning estimates a reward function that considers demonstrations as optimal behavior<br />
* One-Shot Learning:<br />
** Typically a form of meta-learning<br />
** Previously used for variety of tasks but all domain-specific<br />
** [https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.03400 (Finn et al. 2017)] proposed a generic solution but excluded imitation learning<br />
* Reinforcement Learning:<br />
** Demonstrated to work on variety of tasks and environments, in particular on games and robotic control<br />
** Requires large amount of trials and a user-specified reward function<br />
* Multi-task/Transfer Learning:<br />
** Shown to be particularly effective at computer vision tasks<br />
** Not meant for one-shot learning<br />
* Attention Modelling:<br />
** The proposed model makes use of the attention model from [https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0473 (Bahdanau et al. 2016)]<br />
** The attention modelling over demonstration is similar in nature to the seq2seq models from the well known [https://papers.nips.cc/paper/5346-sequence-to-sequence-learning-with-neural-networks.pdf (Sutskever et al. 2014)]<br />
<br />
= One-Shot Imitation Learning =<br />
<br />
[[File:oneshot1.jpg|1000px]]<br />
<br />
The figure shoulds the differences between traditional and one-shot imitation learning. In a), the traditional method may require training different policies for performing similar tasks that are similar in nature. For example, stacking blocks in a height of 2 and in a height of 3. In b), the one-shot imitation learning allows the same policy to be used for these tasks given a single demonstration, achieving good performance without any additional system interactions. In c), the policy is trained by using a set of different training tasks, with enough examples so that the learned results can be generalized to other similar tasks. Each task has a set of successful demonstrations. Each iteration of training uses two demonstrations from a task, one is used as the input passing into the algorithm and the other is used at the output, the results from the two are then conditioned to produce the correct action.<br />
<br />
== Problem Formalization ==<br />
The problem is briefly formalized with the authors describing a distribution of tasks, an individual task, a distribution of demonstrations for this task, and a single demonstration respecitvely as \[T, t\sim T, D(t), d\sim D(t)\]<br />
In addition, an action, an observation, parameters, and a policy are respectively defined as \[a, o, \theta, \pi_\theta(a|o,d)\]<br />
In particular, a demonstration is a sequence of observation and action pairs \[d = [(o_1, a_1),(o_2, a_2), . . . ,(o_T , a_T )]\]<br />
Assuming that $$T$$ and some evaluation function $$R_t(d): R^T \rightarrow R$$ are given, and that succesful demonstrations are available for each task, then the objective is to maximize expectation of the policy performance over \[t\sim T, d\sim D(t)\].<br />
<br />
== Block Stacking Tasks ==<br />
The tasks that the authors focus on is block stacking. A user specifies in what final configuration cubic blocks should be stacked, and the goal is to use a 7-DOF Fetch robotic arm to arrange the blocks in this configuration. The number of blocks, and their desired configuration (ie. number of towers, the height of each tower, and order of blocks within each tower) can be varied and encoded as a string. For example, 'abc def' would signify 2 towers of height 3, with block A on block B on block C in one tower, and block D on block E on block F in a second tower. To add complexity, the initial configuration of the blocks can vary and is encoded as a set of 3-dimensional vectors describing the position of each block relative to the robotic arm.<br />
<br />
== Algorithm ==<br />
To avoid needing to specify a reward function, the authors use behavioral cloning and DAGGER, 2 imitation learning methods that require only demonstrations, for training. In each training step, a list of tasks is sampled, and for each, a demonstration with injected noise along with some observation-action pairs are sampled. Given the current observation and demonstration as input, the policy is trained against the sampled actions by minimizing L2 norm for continuous actions, and cross-entropy for discrete ones. Adamax is used as the optimizer with a learning rate of 0.001.<br />
<br />
= Architecture =<br />
The authors propose a novel architecture for imitation learning, consisting of 3 networks.<br />
<br />
[[File:oneshot2.jpg|1000px]]<br />
<br />
== Demonstration Network ==<br />
This network takes a demonstration as input and produces an embedding with size linearly proportional to the number of blocks and the size of the demonstration.<br />
=== Temporal Dropout: ===<br />
Since a demonstration for block stacking can be very long, the authors randomly discard 95% of the time steps, a process they call 'temporal dropout'. The reduced size of the demonstrations allows multiple trajectories to be explored during testing to calculate an ensemble estimate. Dilated temporal convolutions and neighborhood attention are then repeatedly applied to the downsampled demonstrations.<br />
<br />
=== Neighborhood Attention: ===<br />
Since demonstration sizes can vary, a mechanism is needed that is not restricted to fixed-length inputs. While soft attention is one such mechanism, the problem with it is that there may be increasingly large amounts of information lost if soft attention is used to map longer demonstrations to the same fixed length as shorter demonstrations. As a solution, the authors propose having the same number of outputs as inputs, but with attention performed on other inputs relative to the current input.<br />
<br />
A query, a list of context vectors, and a list of memory vectors are given as input to soft attention. Each attention weight is given by the product of a learned weight vector and a nonlinearity applied to the sum of the query and corresponding context vector. Softmaxed weights applied to the corresponding memory vector form the output of the soft attention.<br />
<br />
\[Inputs: q, \{c_j\}, \{m_j\}\]<br />
\[Weights: w_i \leftarrow v^Ttanh(q+c_i)\]<br />
\[Output: \sum_i{m_i\frac{\exp(w_i)}{\sum_j{\exp(w_j)}}}\]<br />
<br />
A list of same-length embeddings, coming from a previous neighbourhood attention layer or a projection from the list of block coordinates, is given as input to neighborhood attention. For each block, two separate linear layers produce a query vector and a context vector, while a memory vector is a list of tuples that describe the position of each block joined with the input embedding for that block. Soft attention is then performed on this query, context vector, and memory vector. The authors claim that the intuition behind this process is to allow each block to provide information about itself relative to the other blocks in the environment. Finally, for each block, a linear transformation is performed on the vector composed by concatenating the input embedding, the result of the soft attention for that block, and the robot's state.<br />
<br />
For an environment with B blocks:<br />
\[State: s\]<br />
\[Block_i: b_i \leftarrow (x_i, y_i, z_i)\]<br />
\[Embeddings: h_1^{in}, ..., h_B^{in}\] <br />
\[Query_i: q_i \leftarrow Linear(h_i^{in})\]<br />
\[Context_i: c_i \leftarrow Linear(h_i^{in})\]<br />
\[Memory_i: m_i \leftarrow (b_i, h_i^{in}) \]<br />
\[Result_i: result_i \leftarrow SoftAttn(q_i, \{c_j\}_{j=1}^B, \{m_k\}_{k=1}^B)\]<br />
\[Output_i: output_i \leftarrow Linear(concat(h_i^{in}, result_i, b_i, s))\]<br />
<br />
== Context network ==<br />
This network takes the current state and the embedding produced by the demonstration network as inputs and outputs a fixed-length "context embedding" which captures only the information relevant for the manipulation network at this particular step.<br />
=== Attention over demonstration: ===<br />
The current state is used to compute a query vector which is then used for attending over all the steps of the embedding. Since at each time step there are multiple blocks, the weights for each are summed together to produce a scalar for each time step. Neighbourhood attention is then applied several times, using an LSTM with untied weights, since the information at each time steps needs to be propagated to each block's embedding. <br />
<br />
Performing attention over the demonstration yields a vector whose size is independent of the demonstration size; however, it is still dependent on the number of blocks in the environment, so it is natural to now attend over the state in order to get a fixed-length vector.<br />
=== Attention over current state: ===<br />
The authors propose that in general, within each subtask, only a limited number of blocks are relevant for performing the subtask. If the subtask is to stack A on B, then intuitively, one would suppose that only block A and B are relevant, and perhaps any blocks that may be blocking access to either A or B. This is not enforced during training, but once soft attention is applied to the current state to produce a fixed-length context embedding, the authors believe that the model does indeed learn in this way.<br />
<br />
== Manipulation network ==<br />
Given the context embedding as input, this simple feedforward network decides on the particular action needed, to complete the subtask of stacking one particular 'source' block on top of another 'target' block.<br />
<br />
= Experiments = <br />
The proposed model was tested on the block stacking tasks. the experiments were designed at answering the following questions:<br />
* How does training with behavioral cloning compare with DAGGER?<br />
* How does conditioning on the entire demonstration compare to conditioning on the final state?<br />
• How does conditioning on the entire demonstration compare to conditioning on a “snapshot” of the trajectory?<br />
* Can the authors' framework generalize to tasks that it has never seen during training?<br />
For the experiments, 140 training tasks and 43 testing tasks were collected, each with between 2 to 10 blocks and a different, desired final layout. Over 1000 demonstrations for each task were collected using a hard-coded policy rather than a human user. The authors compare 4 different architectures in these experiments:<br />
* Behavioural cloning used to train the proposed model<br />
* DAGGER used to train the proposed model<br />
* The proposed model, trained with DAGGER, but conditioned on the desired final state rather than an entire demonstration<br />
* The proposed model, trained with DAGGER, but conditioned on a 'snapshot' of the environment at the end of each subtask (ie every time a block is stacked on another block)<br />
<br />
== Performance Evaluation ==<br />
[[File:oneshot3.jpg|1000px]]<br />
<br />
The most confident action at each timestep is chosen in 100 different task configurations, and results are averaged over tasks that had the same number of blocks. The results suggest that the performance of each of the architectures is comparable to that of the hard-coded policy which they aim to imitate. Performance degrades similarly across all architectures and the hard-coded policy as the number of blocks increases. On the harder tasks, conditioning on the entire demonstration led to better performance than conditioning on snapshots or on the final state. The authors believe that this may be due to the lack of information when conditioning only on the final state as well as due to regularization caused by temporal dropout which leads to data augmentation when conditioning on the full demonstration but is omitted when conditioning only on the snapshots or final state. Both DAGGER and behavioral cloning performed comparably well. As mentioned above, noise injection was used in training to improve performance; in practice, additional noise can still be injected but some may already come from other sources.<br />
<br />
== Visualization ==<br />
The authors visualize the attention mechanisms underlying the main policy architecture to have a better understanding about how it operates. There are two kinds of attention that the authors are mainly interested in, one where the policy attends to different time steps in the demonstration, and the other where the policy attends to different blocks in the current state. Figure below shows some of the attention heatmaps.<br />
<br />
[[File:paper6_Visualization.png|800px]]<br />
<br />
= Conclusions =<br />
The proposed model successfully learns to complete new instances of a new task from just a single demonstration. The model was demonstrated to work on a series of block stacking tasks. The authors propose several extensions including enabling few-shot learning when one demonstration is insufficient, using image data as the demonstrations, and attempting many other tasks aside from block stacking.<br />
<br />
= Criticisms =<br />
While the paper shows an incredibly impressive result: the ability to learn a new task from just a single demonstration, there are a few points that need clearing up.<br />
Firstly, the authors use a hard-coded policy in their experiments rather than a human. It is clear that the performance of this policy begins to degrade quickly as the complexity of the task increases. It would be useful to know what this hard-coded policy actually was, and if the proposed model could still have comparable performance if a more successful demonstration, perhaps one by a human user, were performed. Give the current popularity of adversarial examples, it would also be interesting to see the performance when conditioned on an "adversarial" demonstration, that achieves the correct final state, but intentionally performs complex or obfuscated steps to get there.<br />
Second, it would be useful to see the model's performance on a more complex family of tasks than block stacking, since although each block stacking task is slightly different, the differences may turn out be insignificant compared to other tasks that this model should work on if it is to be a general imitation learning architecture. Regardless, this work is a big step forward for imitation learning, permitting a wider range of tasks for which there is little training data and no reward function available, to still be successfully solved.<br />
<br />
= Illustrative Example: Particle Reaching =<br />
<br />
[[File:f1.png]]<br />
<br />
Figure 1: [Left] Agent, [Middle] Orange square is target, [Right] Green triangle is target [2].<br />
<br />
Another simple yet insightful example of the One-Shot Imitation Learning is the particle reaching problem which provides a relatively simple suite of tasks from which the network needs to solve an arbitrary one. The problem is formulated such that for each task: there is an agent which can move based on a 2D force vector, and n landmarks at varying 2D locations (n varies from task to task) with the goal of moving the agent to the specific landmark reached in the demonstration. This is illustrated in Figure 1. <br />
<br />
[[File:f2.png|450px]]<br />
<br />
Figure 2: Experimental results [2].<br />
<br />
Some insight comes from the use of different network architectures to solve this problem. The three architectures to compare (described below) are plain LSTM, LSTM with attention, and final state with attention. The key insight is that the architectures go from generic to specific, with the best generalization performance achieved with the most specific architecture, final state with attention, as seen in Figure 2. It is important to note that this conclusion does not carry forward to more complicated tasks such as the block stacking task.<br />
*Plain LSTM: 512 hidden units, with the input being the demonstration trajectory (the position of the agent changes over time and approaches one of the targets). Output of the LSTM with the current state (from the task needed to be solved) is the input for a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) for finding the solution.<br />
*LSTM with attention: Output of LSTM is now a set of weights for the different targets during training. These weights and the test state are used in the test task. The, now, 2D output is the input for an MLP as before.<br />
*Final state with attention: Looks only at the final state of the demonstration since it can sufficiently provide the needed detail of which target to reach (trajectory is not required). Similar to previous architecture, produces weights used by MLP.<br />
<br />
= Source =<br />
# Bahdanau, Dzmitry, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. "Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate." arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473 (2014).<br />
# Duan, Yan, Marcin Andrychowicz, Bradly Stadie, OpenAI Jonathan Ho, Jonas Schneider, Ilya Sutskever, Pieter Abbeel, and Wojciech Zaremba. "One-shot imitation learning." In Advances in neural information processing systems, pp. 1087-1098. 2017.<br />
# Y. Duan, M. Andrychowicz, B. Stadie, J. Ho, J. Schneider, I. Sutskever, P. Abbeel, and W. Zaremba. One-shot imitation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.07326, 2017. (Newer revision)<br />
# Finn, Chelsea, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. "Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks." arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.03400 (2017).<br />
# Sutskever, Ilya, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V. Le. "Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks." Advances in neural information processing systems. 2014.</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=File:paper6_Visualization.png&diff=33061File:paper6 Visualization.png2018-03-09T04:25:20Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/Unsupervised_Machine_Translation_Using_Monolingual_Corpora_Only&diff=33060stat946w18/Unsupervised Machine Translation Using Monolingual Corpora Only2018-03-09T03:38:11Z<p>Shitawal: Added model architecture image</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
[[File:MC_Translation_Example.png]]<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
Neural machine translation systems are usually trained on large corpora consisting of pairs of pre-translated sentences. The paper ''Unsupervised Machine Translation Using Monolingual Corpora Only'' by Guillaume Lample, Ludovic Denoyer, and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato proposes an unsupervised neural machine translation system, which can be trained without such parallel data.<br />
<br />
==Motivation==<br />
The authors offer two motivations for their work:<br />
# To translate between languages for which large parallel corpora does not exist<br />
# To provide a strong lower bound that any semi-supervised machine translation system is supposed to yield<br />
<br />
== Overview of unsupervised translation system ==<br />
The unsupervised translation scheme has the following outline:<br />
* The word-vector embeddings of the source and target languages are aligned in an unsupervised manner.<br />
* Sentences from the source and target language are mapped to a common latent vector space by an encoder, and then mapped to probability distributions over sentences in the target or source language by a decoder.<br />
* A de-noising auto-encoder loss encourages the latent-space representations to be insensitive to noise.<br />
* An adversarial loss encourages the latent-space representations of source and target sentences to be indistinguishable from each other. It is intended that the latent-space representation of a sentence should reflect its meaning, and not the particular language in which it is expressed.<br />
* A reconstruction loss encourages the model to improve on the translation model of the previous epoch.<br />
<br />
[[File:paper4_fig1.png|frame|none|alt=Alt text|A toy example of illustrating the training process which guides the design of the objective function. The key idea here is to build a common latent space between languages. On the left, the model is trained to reconstruct a sentence from a noisy version of it in the same language. On the right, the model is trained to reconstruct a sentence given the same sentence but in another language.]]<br />
<br />
==Notation==<br />
Let <math display="inline">S</math> denote the set of words in the source language, and let <math display="inline">T</math> denote the set of words in the target language. Let <math display="inline">H \subset \mathbb{R}^{n_H}</math> denote the latent vector space. Moreover, let <math display="inline">S'</math> and <math display="inline">T'</math> denote the sets of finite sequences of words in the source and target language, and let <math display="inline">H'</math> denote the set of finite sequences of vectors in the latent space. For any set X, elide measure-theoretic details and let <math display="inline">\mathcal{P}(X)</math> denote the set of probability distributions over X.<br />
<br />
==Word vector alignment ==<br />
<br />
Conneau et al. (2017) describe an unsupervised method for aligning word vectors across languages. By "alignment", I mean that their method maps words with related meanings to nearby vectors, regardless of the language of the words. Moreover, if two words are one another's literal translations, their word vectors tend to be mutual nearest neighbors. <br />
<br />
The underlying idea of the alignment scheme can be summarized as follows: methods like word2vec or GLoVe generate vectors for which there is a correspondence between semantics and geometry. If <math display="inline">f</math> maps English words to their corresponding vectors, we have the approximate equation<br />
\begin{align}<br />
f(\text{king}) -f(\text{man}) +f(\text{woman})\approx f(\text{queen}).<br />
\end{align}<br />
Furthermore, if <math display="inline">g</math> maps French words to their corresponding vectors, then <br />
\begin{align}<br />
g(\text{roi}) -g(\text{homme}) +g(\text{femme})\approx g(\text{reine}).<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
Thus if <math display="inline">W</math> maps the word vectors of English words to the word vectors of their French translations, we should expect <math display="inline">W</math> to be linear. As was observed by Mikolov et al. (2013), the problem of word-vector alignment then becomes a problem of learning the linear transformation that best aligns two point clouds, one from the source language and one from the target language. For more on the history of the word-vector alignment problem, see my CS698 project ([https://uwaterloo.ca/scholar/sites/ca.scholar/files/pa2forsy/files/project_dec_3_0.pdf link]).<br />
<br />
Conneau et al. (2017)'s word vector alignment scheme is unique in that it requires no parallel data, and uses only the shapes of the two word-vector point clouds to be aligned. I will not go into detail, but the heart of the method is a special GAN, in which only the discriminator is a neural network, and the generator is the map corresponding to an orthogonal matrix.<br />
<br />
This unsupervised alignment method is crucial to the translation scheme of the current paper. From now on we denote by <br />
<math display="inline">A: S' \cup T' \to \mathcal{Z}'</math> the function that maps a source- or target- language word sequence to the corresponding aligned word vector sequence.<br />
<br />
==Encoder ==<br />
The encoder <math display="inline">E </math> reads a sequence of word vectors <math display="inline">(z_1,\ldots, z_m) \in \mathcal{Z}'</math> and outputs a sequence of hidden states <math display="inline">(h_1,\ldots, h_m) \in H'</math> in the latent space. Crucially, because the word vectors of the two languages have been aligned, the same encoder can be applied to both. That is, to map a source sentence <math display="inline">x=(x_1,\ldots, x_M)\in S'</math> to the latent space, we compute <math display="inline">E(A(x))</math>, and to map a target sentence <math display="inline">y=(y_1,\ldots, y_K)\in T'</math> to the latent space, we compute <math display="inline">E(A(y))</math>.<br />
<br />
The encoder consists of two LSTMs, one of which reads the word-vector sequence in the forward direction, and one of which reads it in the backward direction. The hidden state sequence is generated by concatenating the hidden states produced by the forward and backward LSTMs at each word vector.<br />
<br />
==Decoder==<br />
<br />
The decoder is a mono-directional LSTM that accepts a sequence of hidden states <math display="inline">h=(h_1,\ldots, h_m) \in H'</math> from the latent space and a language <math display="inline">L \in \{S,T \}</math> and outputs a probability distribution over sentences in that language. We have<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
D: H' \times \{S,T \} \to \mathcal{P}(S') \cup \mathcal{P}(T').<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The decoder makes use of the attention mechanism of Bahdanau et al. (2014). To compute the probability of a given sentence <math display="inline">y=(y_1,\ldots,y_K)</math> , the LSTM processes the sentence one word at a time, accepting at step <math display="inline">k</math> the aligned word vector of the previous word in the sentence <math display="inline">A(y_{k-1})</math> and a context vector <math display="inline">c_k\in H</math> computed from the hidden sequence <math display="inline">h\in H'</math>, and outputting a probability distribution over possible next words. The LSTM is initiated with a special, language-specific start-of-sequence token. Otherwise, the decoder is does not depend on the language of the sentence it is producing. The context vector is computed as described by Bahdanau et al. (2014), where we let <math display="inline">l_{k}</math> denote the hidden state of the LSTM at step <math display="inline">k</math>, and where <math display="inline">U,W</math> are learnable weight matrices, and <math display="inline">v</math> is a learnable weight vector:<br />
\begin{align}<br />
c_k&= \sum_{m=1}^M \alpha_{k,m} h_m\\<br />
\alpha_{k,m}&= \frac{\exp(e_{k,m})}{\sum_{m'=1}^M\exp(e_{k,m'}) },\\<br />
e_{k,m} &= v^T \tanh (Wl_{k-1} + U h_m ).<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
<br />
By learning <math display="inline">U,W</math> and <math display="inline">v</math>, the decoder can learn to decide which vectors in the sequence <math display="inline">h</math> are relevant to computing which words in the output sentence.<br />
<br />
At step <math display="inline">k</math>, after receiving the context vector <math display="inline">c_k\in H</math> and the aligned word vector of the previous word in the sequence,<math display="inline">A(y_{k-1})</math>, the LSTM outputs a probability distribution over words, which should be interpreted as the distribution of the next word according to the decoder. The probability the decoder assigns to a sentence is then the product of the probabilities computed for each word in this manner.<br />
<br />
[[File:paper4_fig2.png|700px|]]<br />
<br />
==Overview of objective ==<br />
The objective function is the sum of:<br />
# The de-noising auto-encoder loss,<br />
# The translation loss,<br />
# The adversarial loss.<br />
I shall describe these in the following sections.<br />
<br />
==De-noising Auto-encoder Loss == <br />
A de-noising auto-encoder is a function optimized to map a corrupted sample from some dataset to the original un-corrupted sample. De-noising auto-encoders were introduced by Vincent et al. (2008), who provided numerous justifications, one of which is particularly illuminating. If we think of the dataset of interest as a thin manifold in a high-dimensional space, the corruption process is likely perturbed a datapoint off the manifold. To learn to restore the corrupted datapoint, the de-noising auto-encoder must learn the shape of the manifold.<br />
<br />
Hill et al. (2016), used a de-noising auto-encoder to learn vectors representing sentences. They corrupted input sentences by randomly dropping and swapping words, and then trained a neural network to map the corrupted sentence to a vector, and then map the vector to the un-corrupted sentence. Interestingly, they found that sentence vectors learned this way were particularly effective when applied to tasks that involved generating paraphrases. This makes some sense: for a vector to be useful in restoring a corrupted sentence, it must capture something of the sentence's underlying meaning.<br />
<br />
The present paper uses the principal of de-noising auto-encoders to compute one of the terms in its loss function. In each iteration, a sentence is sampled from the source or target language, and a corruption process <math display="inline"> C</math> is applied to it. <math display="inline"> C</math> works by deleting each word in the sentence with probability <math display="inline">p_C</math> and applying to the sentence a permutation randomly selected from those that do not move words more than <math display="inline">k_C</math> spots from their original positions. The authors select <math display="inline">p_C=0.1</math> and <math display="inline">k_C=3</math>. The corrupted sentence is then mapped to the latent space using <math display="inline">E\circ A</math>. The loss is then the negative log probability of the original un-corrupted sentence according to the decoder <math display="inline">D</math> applied to the latent-space sequence.<br />
<br />
The explanation of Vincent et al. (2008) can help us understand this loss-function term: the de-noising auto-encoder loss forces the translation system to learn the shapes of the manifolds of the source and target languages.<br />
<br />
==Translation Loss==<br />
To compute the translation loss, we sample a sentence from one of the languages, translate it with the encoder and decoder of the previous epoch, and then corrupt its output with <math display="inline">C</math>. We then use the current encoder <math display="inline">E</math> to map the corrupted translation to a sequence <math display="inline">h \in H'</math> and the decoder <math display="inline">D</math> to map <math display="inline">h</math> to a probability distribution over sentences. The translation loss is the negative log probability the decoder assigns to the original uncorrupted sentence. <br />
<br />
It is interesting and useful to consider why this translation loss, which depends on the translation model of the previous iteration, should promote an improved translation model in the current iteration. One loose way to understand this is to think of the translator as a de-noising translator. We are given a sentence perturbed from the manifold of possible sentences from a given language both by the corruption process and by the poor quality of the translation. The model must learn to both project and translate. The technique employed here resembles that used by Sennrich et al. (2014), who trained a neural machine translation system using both parallel and monolingual data. To make use of the monolingual target-language data, they used an auxiliary model to translate it to the source language, then trained their model to reconstruct the original target-language data from the source-language translation. Sennrich et al. argued that training the model to reconstruct true data from synthetic data was more robust than the opposite approach. The authors of the present paper use similar reasoning.<br />
<br />
==Adversarial Loss ==<br />
The intuition underlying the latent space is that it should encode the meaning of a sentence in a language-independent way. Accordingly, the authors introduce an adversarial loss, to encourage latent-space vectors mapped from the source and target languages to be indistinguishable. Central to this adversarial loss is the discriminator <math display="inline">R:H' \to [0,1]</math>, which makes use of <math display="inline">r: H\to [0,1]</math> a three-layer fully-connected neural network with 1024 hidden units per layer. Given a sequence of latent-space vectors <math display="inline">h=(h_1,\ldots,h_m)\in H'</math> the discriminator assigns probability <math display="inline">R(h)=\prod_{i=1}^m r(h_i)</math> that they originated in the target space. Each iteration, the discriminator is trained to maximize the objective function<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
I_T(q) \log (R(E(q))) +(1-I_T(q) )\log(1-R(E(q)))<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math display="inline">q</math> is a randomly selected sentence, and <math display="inline">I_T(q)</math> is 1 when <math display="inline">q\in I_T</math> is from the source language and 0 if <math display="inline">q\in I_S</math><br />
<br />
The same term is added to the primary objective function, which the encoder and decoder are trained to minimize. The result is that the encoder and decoder learn to fool the discriminator by mapping sentences from the source and target language to similar sequences of latent-space vectors.<br />
<br />
<br />
The authors note that they make use of label smoothing, a technique recommended by Goodfellow (2016) for regularizing GANs, in which the objective described above is replaced by <br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
I_T(q)( (1-\alpha)\log (R(E(q))) +\alpha\log(1-R(E(q))) )+(1-I_T(q) ) ( (1-\beta) \log(1-R(E(q))) +\beta\log (R(E(q)) ))<br />
\end{align}<br />
for some small nonnegative values of <math display="inline">\alpha, \beta</math>, the idea being to prevent the discriminator from making extreme predictions. While one-sided label smoothing (<math display="inline">\beta = 0</math>) is generally recommended, the present model differs from a standard GAN in that it is symmetric, and hence two-sided label smoothing would appear more reasonable.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is interesting to observe that while the intuition justifying the use of the latent space suggests that the latent space representation of a sentence should be language-independent, this is not actually true: if two sentences are translations of one another, but have different lengths, their latent-space representations will necessarily be different, since a a sentence's latent space representation has the same length as the sentence itself.<br />
<br />
==Objective Function==<br />
<br />
Combining the above-described terms, we can write the overall objective function. Let <math display="inline">Q_S</math> denote the monolingual dataset for the source language, and let <math display="inline">Q_T</math> denote the monolingual dataset for the target language. Let <math display="inline">D_S:= D(\cdot, S)</math> and<math display="inline">D_T= D(\cdot, T)</math> (i.e. <math display="inline">D_S, D_T</math>) be the decoder restricted to the source or target language, respectively. Let <math display="inline"> M_S </math> and <math display="inline"> M_T </math> denote the target-to-source and source-to-target translation models of the previous epoch. Then our objective function is<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\mathcal{L}(D,E,R)=\text{T Translation Loss}+\text{T De-noising Loss} +\text{T Adversarial Loss} +\text{S Translation Loss} +\text{S De-noising Loss} +\text{S Adversarial Loss}\\<br />
\end{align}<br />
\begin{align}<br />
=\sum_{q\in Q_T}\left( -\log D_T \circ E \circ C \circ M _S(q) (q) -\log D_T \circ E \circ C (q) (q)+(1-\alpha)\log (R\circ E(q)) +\alpha\log(1-R\circ E(q)) \right)+\sum_{q\in Q_S}\left( -\log D_S \circ E \circ C \circ M_T (q) (q) -\log D_S \circ E \circ C (q) (q)+(1-\beta) \log(1-R \circ E(q)) +\beta\log (R\circ E(q) \right).<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
They alternate between iterations minimizing <math display="inline">\mathcal{L} </math> with respect to <math display="inline">E, D</math> and iterations maximizing with respect to <math display="inline">R</math>. ADAM is used for minimization, while RMSprop is used for maximization. After each epoch, M is updated so that <math display="inline">M_S=D_S \circ E</math> and <math display="inline">M_T=D_T \circ E</math>, after which <math display="inline"> M </math> is frozen until the next epoch.<br />
<br />
==Validation==<br />
The authors' aim is for their method to be completely unsupervised, so they do not use parallel corpora even for the selection of hyper-parameters. Instead, they validate by translating sentences to the other language and back, and comparing the resulting sentence with the original according to BLEU, a similarity metric frequently used in translation (Papineni et al. 2002).<br />
<br />
==Experimental Procedure and Results==<br />
<br />
The authors test their method on four data sets. The first is from the English-French translation task of the Workshop on Machine Translation 2014 (WMT14). This data set consists of parallel data. The authors generate a monolingual English corpus by randomly sampling 15 million sentence pairs, and choosing only the English sentences. They then generate a French corpus by selecting the French sentences from those pairs that were not previous chosen. Importantly, this means that the monolingual data sets have no parallel sentences. The second data set is generated from the English-German translation task from WMT14 using the same procedure.<br />
<br />
The third and fourth data sets are generated from Multi30k data set, which consists of multilingual captions of various images. The images are discarded and the English, French, and German captions are used to generate monolingual data sets in the manner described above. These monolingual corpora are much smaller, consisting of 14500 sentences each.<br />
<br />
The unsupervised translation scheme performs well, though not as well as a supervised translation scheme. It converges after a small number of epochs. Besides supervised translation, the authors compare their method with three other baselines: "Word-by-Word" uses only the previously-discussed word-alignment scheme; "Word-Reordering" uses a simple LSTM based language model and a greedy algorithm to select a reordering of the words produced by "Word-by-Word". "Oracle Word Reordering" means the optimal reordering of the words produced by "Word-by-Word".<br />
<br />
==Result Figures==<br />
[[File:MC_Translation Results.png]]<br />
[[File:MC_Translation_Convergence.png]]<br />
<br />
==Commentary==<br />
This paper's results are impressive: that it is even possible to translate between languages without parallel data suggests that languages are more similar than we might initially suspect, and that the method the authors present has, at least in part, discovered some common deep structure. As the authors point out, using no parallel data at all, their method is able to produce results comparable to those produced by neural machine translation methods trained on hundreds of thousands of a parallel sentences on the WMT dataset. On the other hand, the results they offer come with a few significant caveats.<br />
<br />
The first caveat is that the workhorse of the method is the unsupervised word-vector alignment scheme presented in Conneau et al. (2017) (that paper shares 3 authors with this one). As the ablation study reveals, without word-vector alignment, this method preforms extremely poorly. Moreover, word-by-word translation using word-vector alignment alone performs well, albeit not as well as this method. This suggests that the method of this paper mainly learns to perform (sometimes significant) corrections to word-by-word translations by reordering and occasional word substitution. Presumably, it does this by learning something of the natural structure of sentences in each of the two languages, so that it can correct the errors made by word-by-word translation.<br />
<br />
The second caveat is that the best results are attained translating between English and French, two very closely related languages, and the quality of translation between English and German, a slightly-less related pair, is significantly worse ( according to the ''Shorter Oxford English Dictionary'', 28.3 percent of the English vocabulary is French-derived, 28.2 percent is Latin-derived, and 25 percent is derived from Germanic languages. This probably understates the degree of correspondence between the French and English vocabularies, since French likely derives from Latin many of the same words English does. ). The authors do not report results with more distantly-related pairs, but it is reasonable to expect that performance would degrade significantly, for two reasons. Firstly, Conneau et al. (2017) shows that the word-alignment scheme performs much worse on more distant language pairs. This may be because there are more one-to-one correspondences between the words of closely related languages than there are between more distant languages. Secondly, because the same encoder is used to read sentences of both languages, the encoder cannot adapt to the unique word-order properties of either language. This would become a problem for language pairs with very different grammar. The authors suggest that their scheme could be a useful tool for translating between language pairs for which their are few parallel corpora. However, language pairs lacking parallel corpora are often (though not always) distantly related, and it is for such pairs that the performance of the present method likely suffers.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The proposed method always beats Oracle Word Reordering on the Multi30k data set, but sometimes does not on the WMT data set. This may be because the WMT sentences are much more syntactically complex than the simple image captions of the Multi30k data set.<br />
<br />
The ablation study also reveals the importance of the corruption process <math display="inline">C</math>: the absence of <math display="inline">C</math> significantly degrades translation quality, though not as much as the absence of word-vector alignment. We can understand this in two related ways. First of all, if we view the model as learning to correct structural errors in word-by-word translations, then the corruption process introduces more errors of this kind, and so provides additional data upon which the model can train. Second, as Vincent et al. (2008) point out, de-noising auto-encoder training encourages a model to learn the structure of the manifold from which the data is drawn. By learning the structure of the source and target languages, the model can better correct the errors of word-by-word translation.<br />
<br />
[[File:MC_Alignment_Results.png|frame|none|alt=Alt text|From Conneau et al. (2017). The final row shows the performance of alignment method used in the present paper. Note the degradation in performance for more distant languages.]]<br />
<br />
[[File:MC_Translation_Ablation.png|frame|none|alt=Alt text|From the present paper. Results of an ablation study. Of note are the first, third, and forth rows, which demonstrate that while the translation component of the loss is relatively unimportant, the word vector alignment scheme and de-noising auto-encoder matter a great deal.]]<br />
<br />
==Future Work==<br />
The principal of performing unsupervised translation by starting with a rough but reasonable guess, and then improving it using knowledge of the structure of target language seems promising. Word by word translation using word-vector alignment works well for closely related languages like English and French, but is unlikely to work as well for more distant languages. For those languages, a better method for getting an initial guess is required.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
#Bahdanau, Dzmitry, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. "Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate." arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473 (2014).<br />
#Conneau, Alexis, Guillaume Lample, Marc’Aurelio Ranzato, Ludovic Denoyer, Hervé Jégou. "Word Translation without Parallel Data". arXiv:1710.04087, (2017)<br />
# Dictionary, Shorter Oxford English. "Shorter Oxford english dictionary." (2007).<br />
#Goodfellow, Ian. "NIPS 2016 tutorial: Generative adversarial networks." arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.00160 (2016).<br />
# Hill, Felix, Kyunghyun Cho, and Anna Korhonen. "Learning distributed representations of sentences from unlabelled data." arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.03483 (2016).<br />
# Lample, Guillaume, Ludovic Denoyer, and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato. "Unsupervised Machine Translation Using Monolingual Corpora Only." arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.00043 (2017).<br />
#Papineni, Kishore, et al. "BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation." Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2002.<br />
# Mikolov, Tomas, Quoc V Le, and Ilya Sutskever. "Exploiting similarities among languages for machine translation." arXiv preprint arXiv:1309.4168. (2013).<br />
#Sennrich, Rico, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. "Improving neural machine translation models with monolingual data." arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06709 (2015).<br />
# Sutskever, Ilya, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V. Le. "Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks." Advances in neural information processing systems. 2014.<br />
# Vincent, Pascal, et al. "Extracting and composing robust features with denoising autoencoders." Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning. ACM, 2008.</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=File:paper4_fig2.png&diff=33059File:paper4 fig2.png2018-03-09T03:34:48Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/Unsupervised_Machine_Translation_Using_Monolingual_Corpora_Only&diff=33058stat946w18/Unsupervised Machine Translation Using Monolingual Corpora Only2018-03-09T03:23:53Z<p>Shitawal: Modified introduction and motivation</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
[[File:MC_Translation_Example.png]]<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
Neural machine translation systems are usually trained on large corpora consisting of pairs of pre-translated sentences. The paper ''Unsupervised Machine Translation Using Monolingual Corpora Only'' by Guillaume Lample, Ludovic Denoyer, and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato proposes an unsupervised neural machine translation system, which can be trained without such parallel data.<br />
<br />
==Motivation==<br />
The authors offer two motivations for their work:<br />
# To translate between languages for which large parallel corpora does not exist<br />
# To provide a strong lower bound that any semi-supervised machine translation system is supposed to yield<br />
<br />
== Overview of unsupervised translation system ==<br />
The unsupervised translation scheme has the following outline:<br />
* The word-vector embeddings of the source and target languages are aligned in an unsupervised manner.<br />
* Sentences from the source and target language are mapped to a common latent vector space by an encoder, and then mapped to probability distributions over sentences in the target or source language by a decoder.<br />
* A de-noising auto-encoder loss encourages the latent-space representations to be insensitive to noise.<br />
* An adversarial loss encourages the latent-space representations of source and target sentences to be indistinguishable from each other. It is intended that the latent-space representation of a sentence should reflect its meaning, and not the particular language in which it is expressed.<br />
* A reconstruction loss encourages the model to improve on the translation model of the previous epoch.<br />
<br />
[[File:paper4_fig1.png|frame|none|alt=Alt text|A toy example of illustrating the training process which guides the design of the objective function. The key idea here is to build a common latent space between languages. On the left, the model is trained to reconstruct a sentence from a noisy version of it in the same language. On the right, the model is trained to reconstruct a sentence given the same sentence but in another language.]]<br />
<br />
==Notation==<br />
Let <math display="inline">S</math> denote the set of words in the source language, and let <math display="inline">T</math> denote the set of words in the target language. Let <math display="inline">H \subset \mathbb{R}^{n_H}</math> denote the latent vector space. Moreover, let <math display="inline">S'</math> and <math display="inline">T'</math> denote the sets of finite sequences of words in the source and target language, and let <math display="inline">H'</math> denote the set of finite sequences of vectors in the latent space. For any set X, elide measure-theoretic details and let <math display="inline">\mathcal{P}(X)</math> denote the set of probability distributions over X.<br />
<br />
==Word vector alignment ==<br />
<br />
Conneau et al. (2017) describe an unsupervised method for aligning word vectors across languages. By "alignment", I mean that their method maps words with related meanings to nearby vectors, regardless of the language of the words. Moreover, if two words are one another's literal translations, their word vectors tend to be mutual nearest neighbors. <br />
<br />
The underlying idea of the alignment scheme can be summarized as follows: methods like word2vec or GLoVe generate vectors for which there is a correspondence between semantics and geometry. If <math display="inline">f</math> maps English words to their corresponding vectors, we have the approximate equation<br />
\begin{align}<br />
f(\text{king}) -f(\text{man}) +f(\text{woman})\approx f(\text{queen}).<br />
\end{align}<br />
Furthermore, if <math display="inline">g</math> maps French words to their corresponding vectors, then <br />
\begin{align}<br />
g(\text{roi}) -g(\text{homme}) +g(\text{femme})\approx g(\text{reine}).<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
Thus if <math display="inline">W</math> maps the word vectors of English words to the word vectors of their French translations, we should expect <math display="inline">W</math> to be linear. As was observed by Mikolov et al. (2013), the problem of word-vector alignment then becomes a problem of learning the linear transformation that best aligns two point clouds, one from the source language and one from the target language. For more on the history of the word-vector alignment problem, see my CS698 project ([https://uwaterloo.ca/scholar/sites/ca.scholar/files/pa2forsy/files/project_dec_3_0.pdf link]).<br />
<br />
Conneau et al. (2017)'s word vector alignment scheme is unique in that it requires no parallel data, and uses only the shapes of the two word-vector point clouds to be aligned. I will not go into detail, but the heart of the method is a special GAN, in which only the discriminator is a neural network, and the generator is the map corresponding to an orthogonal matrix.<br />
<br />
This unsupervised alignment method is crucial to the translation scheme of the current paper. From now on we denote by <br />
<math display="inline">A: S' \cup T' \to \mathcal{Z}'</math> the function that maps a source- or target- language word sequence to the corresponding aligned word vector sequence.<br />
<br />
==Encoder ==<br />
The encoder <math display="inline">E </math> reads a sequence of word vectors <math display="inline">(z_1,\ldots, z_m) \in \mathcal{Z}'</math> and outputs a sequence of hidden states <math display="inline">(h_1,\ldots, h_m) \in H'</math> in the latent space. Crucially, because the word vectors of the two languages have been aligned, the same encoder can be applied to both. That is, to map a source sentence <math display="inline">x=(x_1,\ldots, x_M)\in S'</math> to the latent space, we compute <math display="inline">E(A(x))</math>, and to map a target sentence <math display="inline">y=(y_1,\ldots, y_K)\in T'</math> to the latent space, we compute <math display="inline">E(A(y))</math>.<br />
<br />
The encoder consists of two LSTMs, one of which reads the word-vector sequence in the forward direction, and one of which reads it in the backward direction. The hidden state sequence is generated by concatenating the hidden states produced by the forward and backward LSTMs at each word vector.<br />
<br />
==Decoder==<br />
<br />
The decoder is a mono-directional LSTM that accepts a sequence of hidden states <math display="inline">h=(h_1,\ldots, h_m) \in H'</math> from the latent space and a language <math display="inline">L \in \{S,T \}</math> and outputs a probability distribution over sentences in that language. We have<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
D: H' \times \{S,T \} \to \mathcal{P}(S') \cup \mathcal{P}(T').<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The decoder makes use of the attention mechanism of Bahdanau et al. (2014). To compute the probability of a given sentence <math display="inline">y=(y_1,\ldots,y_K)</math> , the LSTM processes the sentence one word at a time, accepting at step <math display="inline">k</math> the aligned word vector of the previous word in the sentence <math display="inline">A(y_{k-1})</math> and a context vector <math display="inline">c_k\in H</math> computed from the hidden sequence <math display="inline">h\in H'</math>, and outputting a probability distribution over possible next words. The LSTM is initiated with a special, language-specific start-of-sequence token. Otherwise, the decoder is does not depend on the language of the sentence it is producing. The context vector is computed as described by Bahdanau et al. (2014), where we let <math display="inline">l_{k}</math> denote the hidden state of the LSTM at step <math display="inline">k</math>, and where <math display="inline">U,W</math> are learnable weight matrices, and <math display="inline">v</math> is a learnable weight vector:<br />
\begin{align}<br />
c_k&= \sum_{m=1}^M \alpha_{k,m} h_m\\<br />
\alpha_{k,m}&= \frac{\exp(e_{k,m})}{\sum_{m'=1}^M\exp(e_{k,m'}) },\\<br />
e_{k,m} &= v^T \tanh (Wl_{k-1} + U h_m ).<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
<br />
By learning <math display="inline">U,W</math> and <math display="inline">v</math>, the decoder can learn to decide which vectors in the sequence <math display="inline">h</math> are relevant to computing which words in the output sentence.<br />
<br />
At step <math display="inline">k</math>, after receiving the context vector <math display="inline">c_k\in H</math> and the aligned word vector of the previous word in the sequence,<math display="inline">A(y_{k-1})</math>, the LSTM outputs a probability distribution over words, which should be interpreted as the distribution of the next word according to the decoder. The probability the decoder assigns to a sentence is then the product of the probabilities computed for each word in this manner.<br />
<br />
==Overview of objective ==<br />
The objective function is the sum of:<br />
# The de-noising auto-encoder loss,<br />
# The translation loss,<br />
# The adversarial loss.<br />
I shall describe these in the following sections.<br />
<br />
==De-noising Auto-encoder Loss == <br />
A de-noising auto-encoder is a function optimized to map a corrupted sample from some dataset to the original un-corrupted sample. De-noising auto-encoders were introduced by Vincent et al. (2008), who provided numerous justifications, one of which is particularly illuminating. If we think of the dataset of interest as a thin manifold in a high-dimensional space, the corruption process is likely perturbed a datapoint off the manifold. To learn to restore the corrupted datapoint, the de-noising auto-encoder must learn the shape of the manifold.<br />
<br />
Hill et al. (2016), used a de-noising auto-encoder to learn vectors representing sentences. They corrupted input sentences by randomly dropping and swapping words, and then trained a neural network to map the corrupted sentence to a vector, and then map the vector to the un-corrupted sentence. Interestingly, they found that sentence vectors learned this way were particularly effective when applied to tasks that involved generating paraphrases. This makes some sense: for a vector to be useful in restoring a corrupted sentence, it must capture something of the sentence's underlying meaning.<br />
<br />
The present paper uses the principal of de-noising auto-encoders to compute one of the terms in its loss function. In each iteration, a sentence is sampled from the source or target language, and a corruption process <math display="inline"> C</math> is applied to it. <math display="inline"> C</math> works by deleting each word in the sentence with probability <math display="inline">p_C</math> and applying to the sentence a permutation randomly selected from those that do not move words more than <math display="inline">k_C</math> spots from their original positions. The authors select <math display="inline">p_C=0.1</math> and <math display="inline">k_C=3</math>. The corrupted sentence is then mapped to the latent space using <math display="inline">E\circ A</math>. The loss is then the negative log probability of the original un-corrupted sentence according to the decoder <math display="inline">D</math> applied to the latent-space sequence.<br />
<br />
The explanation of Vincent et al. (2008) can help us understand this loss-function term: the de-noising auto-encoder loss forces the translation system to learn the shapes of the manifolds of the source and target languages.<br />
<br />
==Translation Loss==<br />
To compute the translation loss, we sample a sentence from one of the languages, translate it with the encoder and decoder of the previous epoch, and then corrupt its output with <math display="inline">C</math>. We then use the current encoder <math display="inline">E</math> to map the corrupted translation to a sequence <math display="inline">h \in H'</math> and the decoder <math display="inline">D</math> to map <math display="inline">h</math> to a probability distribution over sentences. The translation loss is the negative log probability the decoder assigns to the original uncorrupted sentence. <br />
<br />
It is interesting and useful to consider why this translation loss, which depends on the translation model of the previous iteration, should promote an improved translation model in the current iteration. One loose way to understand this is to think of the translator as a de-noising translator. We are given a sentence perturbed from the manifold of possible sentences from a given language both by the corruption process and by the poor quality of the translation. The model must learn to both project and translate. The technique employed here resembles that used by Sennrich et al. (2014), who trained a neural machine translation system using both parallel and monolingual data. To make use of the monolingual target-language data, they used an auxiliary model to translate it to the source language, then trained their model to reconstruct the original target-language data from the source-language translation. Sennrich et al. argued that training the model to reconstruct true data from synthetic data was more robust than the opposite approach. The authors of the present paper use similar reasoning.<br />
<br />
==Adversarial Loss ==<br />
The intuition underlying the latent space is that it should encode the meaning of a sentence in a language-independent way. Accordingly, the authors introduce an adversarial loss, to encourage latent-space vectors mapped from the source and target languages to be indistinguishable. Central to this adversarial loss is the discriminator <math display="inline">R:H' \to [0,1]</math>, which makes use of <math display="inline">r: H\to [0,1]</math> a three-layer fully-connected neural network with 1024 hidden units per layer. Given a sequence of latent-space vectors <math display="inline">h=(h_1,\ldots,h_m)\in H'</math> the discriminator assigns probability <math display="inline">R(h)=\prod_{i=1}^m r(h_i)</math> that they originated in the target space. Each iteration, the discriminator is trained to maximize the objective function<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
I_T(q) \log (R(E(q))) +(1-I_T(q) )\log(1-R(E(q)))<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math display="inline">q</math> is a randomly selected sentence, and <math display="inline">I_T(q)</math> is 1 when <math display="inline">q\in I_T</math> is from the source language and 0 if <math display="inline">q\in I_S</math><br />
<br />
The same term is added to the primary objective function, which the encoder and decoder are trained to minimize. The result is that the encoder and decoder learn to fool the discriminator by mapping sentences from the source and target language to similar sequences of latent-space vectors.<br />
<br />
<br />
The authors note that they make use of label smoothing, a technique recommended by Goodfellow (2016) for regularizing GANs, in which the objective described above is replaced by <br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
I_T(q)( (1-\alpha)\log (R(E(q))) +\alpha\log(1-R(E(q))) )+(1-I_T(q) ) ( (1-\beta) \log(1-R(E(q))) +\beta\log (R(E(q)) ))<br />
\end{align}<br />
for some small nonnegative values of <math display="inline">\alpha, \beta</math>, the idea being to prevent the discriminator from making extreme predictions. While one-sided label smoothing (<math display="inline">\beta = 0</math>) is generally recommended, the present model differs from a standard GAN in that it is symmetric, and hence two-sided label smoothing would appear more reasonable.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is interesting to observe that while the intuition justifying the use of the latent space suggests that the latent space representation of a sentence should be language-independent, this is not actually true: if two sentences are translations of one another, but have different lengths, their latent-space representations will necessarily be different, since a a sentence's latent space representation has the same length as the sentence itself.<br />
<br />
==Objective Function==<br />
<br />
Combining the above-described terms, we can write the overall objective function. Let <math display="inline">Q_S</math> denote the monolingual dataset for the source language, and let <math display="inline">Q_T</math> denote the monolingual dataset for the target language. Let <math display="inline">D_S:= D(\cdot, S)</math> and<math display="inline">D_T= D(\cdot, T)</math> (i.e. <math display="inline">D_S, D_T</math>) be the decoder restricted to the source or target language, respectively. Let <math display="inline"> M_S </math> and <math display="inline"> M_T </math> denote the target-to-source and source-to-target translation models of the previous epoch. Then our objective function is<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
\mathcal{L}(D,E,R)=\text{T Translation Loss}+\text{T De-noising Loss} +\text{T Adversarial Loss} +\text{S Translation Loss} +\text{S De-noising Loss} +\text{S Adversarial Loss}\\<br />
\end{align}<br />
\begin{align}<br />
=\sum_{q\in Q_T}\left( -\log D_T \circ E \circ C \circ M _S(q) (q) -\log D_T \circ E \circ C (q) (q)+(1-\alpha)\log (R\circ E(q)) +\alpha\log(1-R\circ E(q)) \right)+\sum_{q\in Q_S}\left( -\log D_S \circ E \circ C \circ M_T (q) (q) -\log D_S \circ E \circ C (q) (q)+(1-\beta) \log(1-R \circ E(q)) +\beta\log (R\circ E(q) \right).<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
They alternate between iterations minimizing <math display="inline">\mathcal{L} </math> with respect to <math display="inline">E, D</math> and iterations maximizing with respect to <math display="inline">R</math>. ADAM is used for minimization, while RMSprop is used for maximization. After each epoch, M is updated so that <math display="inline">M_S=D_S \circ E</math> and <math display="inline">M_T=D_T \circ E</math>, after which <math display="inline"> M </math> is frozen until the next epoch.<br />
<br />
==Validation==<br />
The authors' aim is for their method to be completely unsupervised, so they do not use parallel corpora even for the selection of hyper-parameters. Instead, they validate by translating sentences to the other language and back, and comparing the resulting sentence with the original according to BLEU, a similarity metric frequently used in translation (Papineni et al. 2002).<br />
<br />
==Experimental Procedure and Results==<br />
<br />
The authors test their method on four data sets. The first is from the English-French translation task of the Workshop on Machine Translation 2014 (WMT14). This data set consists of parallel data. The authors generate a monolingual English corpus by randomly sampling 15 million sentence pairs, and choosing only the English sentences. They then generate a French corpus by selecting the French sentences from those pairs that were not previous chosen. Importantly, this means that the monolingual data sets have no parallel sentences. The second data set is generated from the English-German translation task from WMT14 using the same procedure.<br />
<br />
The third and fourth data sets are generated from Multi30k data set, which consists of multilingual captions of various images. The images are discarded and the English, French, and German captions are used to generate monolingual data sets in the manner described above. These monolingual corpora are much smaller, consisting of 14500 sentences each.<br />
<br />
The unsupervised translation scheme performs well, though not as well as a supervised translation scheme. It converges after a small number of epochs. Besides supervised translation, the authors compare their method with three other baselines: "Word-by-Word" uses only the previously-discussed word-alignment scheme; "Word-Reordering" uses a simple LSTM based language model and a greedy algorithm to select a reordering of the words produced by "Word-by-Word". "Oracle Word Reordering" means the optimal reordering of the words produced by "Word-by-Word".<br />
<br />
==Result Figures==<br />
[[File:MC_Translation Results.png]]<br />
[[File:MC_Translation_Convergence.png]]<br />
<br />
==Commentary==<br />
This paper's results are impressive: that it is even possible to translate between languages without parallel data suggests that languages are more similar than we might initially suspect, and that the method the authors present has, at least in part, discovered some common deep structure. As the authors point out, using no parallel data at all, their method is able to produce results comparable to those produced by neural machine translation methods trained on hundreds of thousands of a parallel sentences on the WMT dataset. On the other hand, the results they offer come with a few significant caveats.<br />
<br />
The first caveat is that the workhorse of the method is the unsupervised word-vector alignment scheme presented in Conneau et al. (2017) (that paper shares 3 authors with this one). As the ablation study reveals, without word-vector alignment, this method preforms extremely poorly. Moreover, word-by-word translation using word-vector alignment alone performs well, albeit not as well as this method. This suggests that the method of this paper mainly learns to perform (sometimes significant) corrections to word-by-word translations by reordering and occasional word substitution. Presumably, it does this by learning something of the natural structure of sentences in each of the two languages, so that it can correct the errors made by word-by-word translation.<br />
<br />
The second caveat is that the best results are attained translating between English and French, two very closely related languages, and the quality of translation between English and German, a slightly-less related pair, is significantly worse ( according to the ''Shorter Oxford English Dictionary'', 28.3 percent of the English vocabulary is French-derived, 28.2 percent is Latin-derived, and 25 percent is derived from Germanic languages. This probably understates the degree of correspondence between the French and English vocabularies, since French likely derives from Latin many of the same words English does. ). The authors do not report results with more distantly-related pairs, but it is reasonable to expect that performance would degrade significantly, for two reasons. Firstly, Conneau et al. (2017) shows that the word-alignment scheme performs much worse on more distant language pairs. This may be because there are more one-to-one correspondences between the words of closely related languages than there are between more distant languages. Secondly, because the same encoder is used to read sentences of both languages, the encoder cannot adapt to the unique word-order properties of either language. This would become a problem for language pairs with very different grammar. The authors suggest that their scheme could be a useful tool for translating between language pairs for which their are few parallel corpora. However, language pairs lacking parallel corpora are often (though not always) distantly related, and it is for such pairs that the performance of the present method likely suffers.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The proposed method always beats Oracle Word Reordering on the Multi30k data set, but sometimes does not on the WMT data set. This may be because the WMT sentences are much more syntactically complex than the simple image captions of the Multi30k data set.<br />
<br />
The ablation study also reveals the importance of the corruption process <math display="inline">C</math>: the absence of <math display="inline">C</math> significantly degrades translation quality, though not as much as the absence of word-vector alignment. We can understand this in two related ways. First of all, if we view the model as learning to correct structural errors in word-by-word translations, then the corruption process introduces more errors of this kind, and so provides additional data upon which the model can train. Second, as Vincent et al. (2008) point out, de-noising auto-encoder training encourages a model to learn the structure of the manifold from which the data is drawn. By learning the structure of the source and target languages, the model can better correct the errors of word-by-word translation.<br />
<br />
[[File:MC_Alignment_Results.png|frame|none|alt=Alt text|From Conneau et al. (2017). The final row shows the performance of alignment method used in the present paper. Note the degradation in performance for more distant languages.]]<br />
<br />
[[File:MC_Translation_Ablation.png|frame|none|alt=Alt text|From the present paper. Results of an ablation study. Of note are the first, third, and forth rows, which demonstrate that while the translation component of the loss is relatively unimportant, the word vector alignment scheme and de-noising auto-encoder matter a great deal.]]<br />
<br />
==Future Work==<br />
The principal of performing unsupervised translation by starting with a rough but reasonable guess, and then improving it using knowledge of the structure of target language seems promising. Word by word translation using word-vector alignment works well for closely related languages like English and French, but is unlikely to work as well for more distant languages. For those languages, a better method for getting an initial guess is required.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
#Bahdanau, Dzmitry, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. "Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate." arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473 (2014).<br />
#Conneau, Alexis, Guillaume Lample, Marc’Aurelio Ranzato, Ludovic Denoyer, Hervé Jégou. "Word Translation without Parallel Data". arXiv:1710.04087, (2017)<br />
# Dictionary, Shorter Oxford English. "Shorter Oxford english dictionary." (2007).<br />
#Goodfellow, Ian. "NIPS 2016 tutorial: Generative adversarial networks." arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.00160 (2016).<br />
# Hill, Felix, Kyunghyun Cho, and Anna Korhonen. "Learning distributed representations of sentences from unlabelled data." arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.03483 (2016).<br />
# Lample, Guillaume, Ludovic Denoyer, and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato. "Unsupervised Machine Translation Using Monolingual Corpora Only." arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.00043 (2017).<br />
#Papineni, Kishore, et al. "BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation." Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2002.<br />
# Mikolov, Tomas, Quoc V Le, and Ilya Sutskever. "Exploiting similarities among languages for machine translation." arXiv preprint arXiv:1309.4168. (2013).<br />
#Sennrich, Rico, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. "Improving neural machine translation models with monolingual data." arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06709 (2015).<br />
# Sutskever, Ilya, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V. Le. "Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks." Advances in neural information processing systems. 2014.<br />
# Vincent, Pascal, et al. "Extracting and composing robust features with denoising autoencoders." Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning. ACM, 2008.</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18&diff=32909stat946w182018-03-07T19:18:24Z<p>Shitawal: Added Summary Link to Robust Imitation of Diverse Behaviors</p>
<hr />
<div>=[https://piazza.com/uwaterloo.ca/fall2017/stat946/resources List of Papers]=<br />
<br />
= Record your contributions here [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fU746Cld_mSqQBCD5qadvkXZW1g-j-kHvmHQ6AMeuqU/edit?usp=sharing]=<br />
<br />
Use the following notations:<br />
<br />
P: You have written a summary/critique on the paper.<br />
<br />
T: You had a technical contribution on a paper (excluding the paper that you present).<br />
<br />
E: You had an editorial contribution on a paper (excluding the paper that you present).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdcfYZu5cvpsbzf0Nlxh9TFk8k1m5vUgU1vCLHQNmJog4xSHw/viewform?usp=sf_link Your feedback on presentations]<br />
<br />
=Paper presentation=<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
<br />
{| border="1" cellpadding="3"<br />
|-<br />
|width="60pt"|Date<br />
|width="100pt"|Name <br />
|width="30pt"|Paper number <br />
|width="700pt"|Title<br />
|width="30pt"|Link to the paper<br />
|width="30pt"|Link to the summary<br />
|-<br />
|Feb 15 (example)||Ri Wang || ||Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks.||[http://papers.nips.cc/paper/5346-sequence-to-sequence-learning-with-neural-networks.pdf Paper] || [http://wikicoursenote.com/wiki/Stat946f15/Sequence_to_sequence_learning_with_neural_networks#Long_Short-Term_Memory_Recurrent_Neural_Network Summary]<br />
|-<br />
|Feb 27 || || 1|| || || <br />
|-<br />
|Feb 27 || || 2|| || || <br />
|-<br />
|Feb 27 || || 3|| || || <br />
|-<br />
|Mar 1 || Peter Forsyth || 4|| Unsupervised Machine Translation Using Monolingual Corpora Only || [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.00043.pdf Paper] || [[https://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/Unsupervised_Machine_Translation_Using_Monolingual_Corpora_Only Summary]]<br />
|-<br />
|Mar 1 || wenqing liu || 5|| Spectral Normalization for Generative Adversarial Networks || [https://openreview.net/pdf?id=B1QRgziT- Paper] || [https://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/Spectral_normalization_for_generative_adversial_network Summary]<br />
|-<br />
|Mar 1 || Ilia Sucholutsky || 6|| One-Shot Imitation Learning || [https://papers.nips.cc/paper/6709-one-shot-imitation-learning.pdf Paper] || [https://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=One-Shot_Imitation_Learning Summary]<br />
|-<br />
|Mar 6 || George (Shiyang) Wen || 7|| AmbientGAN: Generative models from lossy measurements || [https://openreview.net/pdf?id=Hy7fDog0b Paper] || [https://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/AmbientGAN:_Generative_Models_from_Lossy_Measurements Summary]<br />
|-<br />
|Mar 6 || Raphael Tang || 8|| Rethinking the Smaller-Norm-Less-Informative Assumption in Channel Pruning of Convolutional Layers || [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.00124.pdf Paper] || [https://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/Rethinking_the_Smaller-Norm-Less-Informative_Assumption_in_Channel_Pruning_of_Convolutional_Layers Summary]<br />
|-<br />
|Mar 6 ||Fan Xia || 9|| Word translation without parallel data ||[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.04087.pdf Paper] || [https://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Word_translation_without_parallel_data Summary]<br />
|-<br />
|Mar 8 || Alex (Xian) Wang || 10 || Self-Normalizing Neural Networks || [http://papers.nips.cc/paper/6698-self-normalizing-neural-networks.pdf Paper] || [https://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/Self_Normalizing_Neural_Networks Summary] <br />
|-<br />
|Mar 8 || Michael Broughton || 11|| Convergence of Adam and beyond || [https://openreview.net/pdf?id=ryQu7f-RZ Paper] || <br />
|-<br />
|Mar 8 || Wei Tao Chen || 12|| Predicting Floor-Level for 911 Calls with Neural Networks and Smartphone Sensor Data || [https://openreview.net/forum?id=ryBnUWb0b Paper] || [https://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/Predicting_Floor-Level_for_911_Calls_with_Neural_Networks_and_Smartphone_Sensor_Data Summary]<br />
|-<br />
|Mar 13 || Chunshang Li || 13 || UNDERSTANDING IMAGE MOTION WITH GROUP REPRESENTATIONS || [https://openreview.net/pdf?id=SJLlmG-AZ Paper] || [https://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Image_Motion_with_Group_Representations Summary] <br />
|-<br />
|Mar 13 || Saifuddin Hitawala || 14 || Robust Imitation of Diverse Behaviors || [https://papers.nips.cc/paper/7116-robust-imitation-of-diverse-behaviors.pdf Paper] || [https://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Robust_Imitation_of_Diverse_Behaviors Summary] <br />
|-<br />
|Mar 13 || Taylor Denouden || 15|| A neural representation of sketch drawings || [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.03477.pdf Paper] || [https://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=A_Neural_Representation_of_Sketch_Drawings Summary]<br />
|-<br />
|Mar 15 || Zehao Xu || 16|| Synthetic and natural noise both break neural machine translation || [https://openreview.net/pdf?id=BJ8vJebC- Paper] || [https://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=stat946w18/Synthetic_and_natural_noise_both_break_neural_machine_translation Summary]<br />
|-<br />
|Mar 15 || Prarthana Bhattacharyya || 17|| Wasserstein Auto-Encoders || [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.01558.pdf Paper] || [Summary] <br />
|-<br />
|Mar 15 || Changjian Li || 18|| Imagination-Augmented Agents for Deep Reinforcement Learning || [https://papers.nips.cc/paper/7152-imagination-augmented-agents-for-deep-reinforcement-learning.pdf Paper] || <br />
|-<br />
|Mar 20 || Travis Dunn || 19|| Continuous Adaptation via Meta-Learning in Nonstationary and Competitive Environments || [https://openreview.net/pdf?id=Sk2u1g-0- Paper] || [Summary]<br />
|-<br />
|Mar 20 || Sushrut Bhalla || 20|| MaskRNN: Instance Level Video Object Segmentation || [https://papers.nips.cc/paper/6636-maskrnn-instance-level-video-object-segmentation.pdf Paper] || [Summary]<br />
|-<br />
|Mar 20 || Hamid Tahir || 21|| Wavelet Pooling for Convolution Neural Networks || [https://openreview.net/pdf?id=rkhlb8lCZ Paper] || Summary<br />
|-<br />
|Mar 22 || Dongyang Yang|| 22|| Implicit Causal Models for Genome-wide Association Studies || [https://openreview.net/pdf?id=SyELrEeAb Paper] || <br />
|-<br />
|Mar 22 || Yao Li || 23||Improving GANs Using Optimal Transport || [https://openreview.net/pdf?id=rkQkBnJAb Paper] || <br />
|-<br />
|Mar 22 || Sahil Pereira || 24||End-to-End Differentiable Adversarial Imitation Learning|| [http://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/baram17a/baram17a.pdf Paper] || [http://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/baram17a/baram17a.pdf Summary]<br />
|-<br />
|Mar 27 || Jaspreet Singh Sambee || 25|| Gated Recurrent Convolution Neural Network for OCR || [http://papers.nips.cc/paper/6637-gated-recurrent-convolution-neural-network-for-ocr.pdf Paper] || <br />
|-<br />
|Mar 27 || Braden Hurl || 26|| Spherical CNNs || [https://openreview.net/pdf?id=Hkbd5xZRb Paper] || <br />
|-<br />
|Mar 27 || Marko Ilievski || 27|| Neural Audio Synthesis of Musical Notes with WaveNet Autoencoders || [http://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/engel17a/engel17a.pdf Paper] || <br />
|-<br />
|Mar 29 || Alex Pon || 28||Wasserstein GAN || [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.07875.pdf Paper] ||<br />
|-<br />
|Mar 29 || Sean Walsh || 29||Improved Training of Wasserstein GANs || [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.00028.pdf Paper] ||<br />
|-<br />
|Mar 29 || Jason Ku || 30||MarrNet: 3D Shape Reconstruction via 2.5D Sketches ||[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.03129.pdf Paper] ||<br />
|-<br />
|Apr 3 || Tong Yang || 31|| Dynamic Routing Between Capsules. || [http://papers.nips.cc/paper/6975-dynamic-routing-between-capsules.pdf Paper] || <br />
|-<br />
|Apr 3 || Benjamin Skikos || 32|| Training and Inference with Integers in Deep Neural Networks || [https://openreview.net/pdf?id=HJGXzmspb Paper] || <br />
|-<br />
|Apr 3 || Weishi Chen || 33|| Tensorized LSTMs for sequence learning || [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.01577.pdf Paper] || <br />
|-</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Robust_Imitation_of_Diverse_Behaviors&diff=32908Robust Imitation of Diverse Behaviors2018-03-07T19:16:29Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Introduction=<br />
One of the longest standing challenges in AI is building versatile embodied agents, both in the form of real robots and animated avatars, capable of a wide and diverse set of behaviors. State-of-the-art robots cannot compete with the effortless variety and adaptive flexibility of motor behaviors produced by toddlers. Towards addressing this challenge, the authors combine several deep generative approaches to imitation learning in a way that accentuates their individual strengths and addresses their limitations. The end product is a robust neural network policy that can imitate a large and diverse set of behaviors using few training demonstrations.<br />
<br />
=Motivation=<br />
Some of the models that have recently shown great promise in imitation learning for motor control are the deep generative models. The authors primarily talk about two approaches viz. supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations and Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL) and their limitations and try to combine those two approaches in order to address these limitations. Some of these limitations are as follows:<br />
<br />
* Supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations (VAE):<br />
** They require large training datasets in order to work for non-trivial tasks<br />
** They tend to be brittle and fail when the agent diverges too much from the demonstration trajectories<br />
* Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL)<br />
** Adversarial training leads to mode-collapse (the tendency of adversarial generative models to cover only a subset of modes of a probability distribution, resulting in a failure to produce adequately diverse samples)<br />
** More difficult and slow to train as they do not immediately provide a latent representation of the data<br />
<br />
Thus, the former approach can model diverse behaviors without dropping modes but does not learn robust policies, while the latter approach gives robust policies but insufficiently diverse behaviors. Thus, the authors combine the favorable aspects of these two approaches. The base of their model is a new type of variational autoencoder on demonstration trajectories that learns semantic policy embeddings. Leveraging these policy representations, they develop a new version of GAIL that <br />
# is much more robust than the purely-supervised controller, especially with few demonstrations, and <br />
# avoids mode collapse, capturing many diverse behaviors when GAIL on its own does not.<br />
<br />
=Model=<br />
The authors first introduce a variational autoencoder (VAE) for supervised imitation, consisting of a bi-directional LSTM encoder mapping demonstration sequences to embedding vectors, and two decoders. The first decoder is a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) policy mapping a trajectory embedding and the current state to a continuous action vector. The second is a dynamics model mapping the embedding and previous state to the present state while modeling correlations among states with a WaveNet.<br />
<br />
[[File: Model_Architecture.png|700px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==Behavioral cloning with VAE suited for control==<br />
<br />
In this section, the authors follow a similar approach to Duan et al., but opt for stochastic VAEs as having a distribution <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math> to better regularize the latent space. In their VAE, an encoder maps a demonstration sequence to an embedding vector <math display="inline">z</math>. Given <math display="inline">z</math>, they decode both the state and action trajectories as shown in the figure above. To train the model, the following loss is minimized:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
L\left( \alpha, w, \phi; \tau_i \right) = - \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q_{\phi}(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[ \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} log \pi_\alpha \left( a_t^i|x_t^i, z \right) + log p_w \left( x_{t+1}^i|x_t^i, z\right) \right] +D_{KL}\left( q_\phi(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)||p(z) \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The encoder <math display="inline">q</math> uses a bi-directional LSTM. To produce the final embedding, it calculates the average of all the outputs of the second layer of this LSTM before applying a final linear transformation to<br />
generate the mean and standard deviation of a Gaussian. Then, one sample from this Gaussian is taken as the demonstration encoding.<br />
<br />
The action decoder is an MLP that maps the concatenation of the state and the embedding of the parameters of a Gaussian policy. The state decoder is similar to a conditional WaveNet model. In particular, it conditions on the embedding <math display="inline">z</math> and previous state <math display="inline">x_{t-1}</math> to generate the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math> autoregressively. That is, the autoregression is over the components of the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math>. Finally, instead of a Softmax, the model uses a mixture of Gaussians as the output of the WaveNet.<br />
<br />
==Diverse generative adversarial imitiation learning==<br />
To enable GAIL to produce diverse solutions, the authors condition the discriminator on the embeddings generated by the VAE encoder and integrate out the GAIL objective with respect to the variational posterior <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math>. Specifically, the authors train the discriminator by optimizing the following objective:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{max}_{\psi} \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\tau_i \sim \pi_E} \left( \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[\frac{1}{T_i} \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} logD_{\psi} \left( x_t^i, a_t^i | z \right) + \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\pi_\theta} \left[ log(1 - D_\psi(x, a | z)) \right] \right] \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The authors condition on unlabeled trajectories, which have been passed through a powerful encoder, and hence this approach is capable of one-shot imitation learning. Moreover, the VAE encoder enables to obtain a continuous latent embedding space where interpolation is possible.<br />
<br />
To better motivate the objective, the authors propose on temporarily leaving the context of imitation learning and considering an alternative objective for training GANs<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{min}_{G}{max}_{D} V (G, D) = \int_{y} p(y) \int_{z} q(z|y) \left[ log D(y | z) + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dy dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
This function is a simplification of the previous objective function. Furthermore, it satisfies the following property.<br />
<br />
===Lemma 1===<br />
Assuming that <math display="inline">q</math> computes the true posterior distribution that is <math display="inline">q(z|y) = \frac{p(y|z)p(z)}{p(y)}</math> then<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
V (G, D) = \int_{z} p(z) \left[ \int_{y} p(y|z) log D(y|z) dy + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
If an optimal discriminator is further assumed, the cost-optimized by the generator then becomes<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
C(G) = 2 \int_ p p(z) JSD[p(\cdot|z) || G(\cdot|z)] dz - log4<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math display="inline">JSD</math> stands for the Jensen-Shannon divergence.<br />
<br />
=Experiments=<br />
<br />
The primary focus of the paper's experimental evaluation is to demonstrate that the architecture allows learning of robust controllers capable of producing the full spectrum of demonstration behaviors for a diverse range of challenging control problems. The authors consider three bodies: a 9 DoF robotic arm, a 9 DoF planar walker, and a 62 DoF complex humanoid (56-actuated joint angles, and a freely translating and rotating 3d root joint). While for the reaching task BC is sufficient to obtain a working controller, for the other two problems the full learning procedure is critical.<br />
<br />
The authors analyze the resulting embedding spaces and demonstrate that they exhibit a rich and sensible structure that can be exploited for control. Finally, the authors show that the encoder can be used to capture the gist of novel demonstration trajectories which can then be reproduced by the controller.<br />
<br />
==Robotic arm reaching==<br />
In this experiment, the authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their VAE architecture and investigate the nature of the learned embedding space on a reaching task with a simulated Jaco arm.<br />
<br />
To obtain demonstrations, the authors trained 60 independent policies to reach to random target locations in the workspace starting from the same initial configuration. 30 trajectories from each of<br />
the first 50 policies were generated. These served as training data for the VAE model (1500 training trajectories in total). The remaining 10 policies were used to generate test data.<br />
<br />
The reaching task is relatively simple, so with this amount of data the VAE policy is fairly robust. After training, the VAE encodes and reproduces the demonstrations as shown in the figure below.<br />
<br />
[[File: Robotic_arm_reaching.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==2D Walker==<br />
<br />
As a more challenging test compared to the reaching task, the authors consider bipedal locomotion. Here, the authors train 60 neural network policies for a 2d walker to serve as demonstrations. These policies are each trained to move at different speeds both forward and backward depending on a label provided as additional input to the policy. Target speeds for training were chosen from a set of four different speeds (m/s): -1, 0, 1, 3.<br />
<br />
[[File: 2D_Walker.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
The authors trained their model with 20 episodes per policy (1200 demonstration trajectories in total, each with a length of 400 steps or 10s of simulated time). In this experiment a full approach is required: training the VAE with BC alone can imitate some of the trajectories, but it performs poorly in general, presumably because the relatively small training set does not cover the space of trajectories sufficiently densely. On this generated dataset, they also train policies with GAIL using the same architecture and hyper-parameters. Due to the lack of conditioning, GAIL does not reproduce coherently trajectories. Instead, it simply meshes different behaviors together. In addition, the policies trained with GAIL also, exhibit dramatically less diversity; see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIguLQ4OwuM video].<br />
<br />
[[File: 2D_Walker_Optimized.gif|frame|center|In the left panel, the planar walker demonstrates a particular walking style. In the right panel, the model's agent imitates this walking style using a single policy network.]]<br />
<br />
==Complex humanoid==<br />
For this experiment, the authors consider a humanoid body of high dimensionality that poses a hard control problem. They generate training trajectories with the existing controllers, which can produce instances of one of six different movement styles. Examples of such trajectories are shown in Fig. 5.<br />
<br />
[[File: Complex_humanoid.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
The training set consists of 250 random trajectories from 6 different neural network controllers that were trained to match 6 different movement styles from the CMU motion capture database. Each trajectory is 334 steps or 10s long. The authors use a second set of 5 controllers from which they generate trajectories for evaluation (3 of these policies were trained on the same movement styles as the policies used for generating training data).<br />
<br />
Surprisingly, despite the complexity of the body, supervised learning is quite effective at producing sensible controllers: The VAE policy is reasonably good at imitating the demonstration trajectories, although it lacks the robustness to be practically useful. Adversarial training dramatically improves the stability of the controller. The authors analyze the improvement quantitatively by computing the percentage of the humanoid falling down before the end of an episode while imitating either training or test policies. The results are summarized in Figure 5 right. The figure further shows sequences of frames of representative demonstration and associated imitation trajectories. Videos of demonstration and imitation behaviors can be found in the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaohsyUxpxw video].<br />
<br />
[[File: Complex_humanoid_optimized.gif|frame|center|In the left and middle panels we show two demonstrated behaviors. In the right panel, the model's agent produces an unseen transition between those behaviors.]]<br />
<br />
Also, for practical purposes, it is desirable to allow the controller to transition from one behavior to another. The authors test this possibility in an experiment similar to the one for the Jaco arm: They determine the<br />
embedding vectors of pairs of demonstration trajectories, start the trajectory by conditioning on the first embedding vector, and then transition from one behavior to the other half-way through the episode by linearly interpolating the embeddings of the two demonstration trajectories over a window of 20 control steps. Although not always successful the learned controller often transitions robustly, despite not having been trained to do so. An example of this can be seen in the gif above. More examples can be seen in this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBrIll0B24o video].<br />
<br />
=Conclusions=<br />
The authors have proposed an approach for imitation learning that combines the favorable properties of techniques for density modeling with latent variables (VAEs) with those of GAIL. The result is a model that learns, from a moderate number of demonstration trajectories <br />
# a semantically well structured embedding of behaviors, <br />
# a corresponding multi-task controller that allows to robustly execute diverse behaviors from this embedding space, as well as <br />
# an encoder that can map new trajectories into the embedding space and hence allows for one-shot imitation. <br />
The experimental results demonstrate that this approach can work on a variety of control problems and that it scales even to very challenging ones such as the control of a simulated humanoid with a large number of degrees of freedoms.<br />
<br />
=Critique=<br />
The paper proposes a deep-learning-based approach to imitation learning which is sample-efficient and is able to imitate many diverse behaviors. The architecture can be seen as conditional generative adversarial imitation learning (GAIL). The conditioning vector is an embedding of a demonstrated trajectory, provided by a variational autoencoder. This results in one-shot imitation learning: at test time, a new demonstration can be embedded and provided as a conditioning vector to the imitation policy. The authors evaluate the method on several simulated motor control tasks.<br />
<br />
Pros:<br />
* Addresses a challenging problem of learning complex dynamics controllers / control policies<br />
* Well-written introduction / motivation<br />
* The proposed approach is able to learn complex and diverse behaviors and outperforms both the VAE alone (quantitatively) and GAIL alone (qualitatively).<br />
* Appealing qualitative results on the three evaluation problems. Interesting experiments with motion transitioning. <br />
<br />
Cons:<br />
* Comparisons to baselines could be more detailed.<br />
* Many key details are omitted (either on purpose, placed in the appendix, or simply absent, like the lack of definitions of terms in the modeling section, details of the planner model, simulation process, or the details of experimental settings)<br />
* Experimental evaluation is largely subjective (videos of robotic arm/biped/3D human motion)<br />
* A discussion of sample efficiency compared to GAIL and VAE would be interesting.<br />
* The presentation is not always clear, in particular, I had a hard time figuring out the notation in Section 3.<br />
* There has been some work on hybrids of VAEs and GANs, which seem worth mentioning when generative models are discussed, like:<br />
# Autoencoding beyond pixels using a learned similarity metric, Larsen et al., ICML 2016<br />
# Generating Images with Perceptual Similarity Metrics based on Deep Networks, Dosovitskiy&Brox. NIPS 2016<br />
These works share the intuition that good coverage of VAEs can be combined with sharp results generated by GANs.<br />
* Some more extensive analysis of the approach would be interesting. How sensitive is it to hyperparameters? How important is it to use VAE, not usual AE or supervised learning? How difficult will it be for others to apply it to new tasks?<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
# Wang, Z., Merel, J. S., Reed, S. E., de Freitas, N., Wayne, G., & Heess, N. (2017). Robust imitation of diverse behaviors. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 5326-5335).<br />
# https://deepmind.com/blog/producing-flexible-behaviours-simulated-environments/<br />
# https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaohsyUxpxw<br />
# https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBrIll0B24o</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Robust_Imitation_of_Diverse_Behaviors&diff=32907Robust Imitation of Diverse Behaviors2018-03-07T19:15:22Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Introduction=<br />
One of the longest standing challenges in AI is building versatile embodied agents, both in the form of real robots and animated avatars, capable of a wide and diverse set of behaviors. State-of-the-art robots cannot compete with the effortless variety and adaptive flexibility of motor behaviors produced by toddlers. Towards addressing this challenge, the authors combine several deep generative approaches to imitation learning in a way that accentuates their individual strengths and addresses their limitations. The end product is a robust neural network policy that can imitate a large and diverse set of behaviors using few training demonstrations.<br />
<br />
=Motivation=<br />
Some of the models that have recently shown great promise in imitation learning for motor control are the deep generative models. The authors primarily talk about two approaches viz. supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations and Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL) and their limitations and try to combine those two approaches in order to address these limitations. Some of these limitations are as follows:<br />
<br />
* Supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations (VAE):<br />
** They require large training datasets in order to work for non-trivial tasks<br />
** They tend to be brittle and fail when the agent diverges too much from the demonstration trajectories<br />
* Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL)<br />
** Adversarial training leads to mode-collapse (the tendency of adversarial generative models to cover only a subset of modes of a probability distribution, resulting in a failure to produce adequately diverse samples)<br />
** More difficult and slow to train as they do not immediately provide a latent representation of the data<br />
<br />
Thus, the former approach can model diverse behaviors without dropping modes but does not learn robust policies, while the latter approach gives robust policies but insufficiently diverse behaviors. Thus, the authors combine the favorable aspects of these two approaches. The base of their model is a new type of variational autoencoder on demonstration trajectories that learns semantic policy embeddings. Leveraging these policy representations, they develop a new version of GAIL that <br />
# is much more robust than the purely-supervised controller, especially with few demonstrations, and <br />
# avoids mode collapse, capturing many diverse behaviors when GAIL on its own does not.<br />
<br />
=Model=<br />
The authors first introduce a variational autoencoder (VAE) for supervised imitation, consisting of a bi-directional LSTM encoder mapping demonstration sequences to embedding vectors, and two decoders. The first decoder is a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) policy mapping a trajectory embedding and the current state to a continuous action vector. The second is a dynamics model mapping the embedding and previous state to the present state while modeling correlations among states with a WaveNet.<br />
<br />
[[File: Model_Architecture.png|700px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==Behavioral cloning with VAE suited for control==<br />
<br />
In this section, the authors follow a similar approach to Duan et al., but opt for stochastic VAEs as having a distribution <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math> to better regularize the latent space. In their VAE, an encoder maps a demonstration sequence to an embedding vector <math display="inline">z</math>. Given <math display="inline">z</math>, they decode both the state and action trajectories as shown in the figure above. To train the model, the following loss is minimized:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
L\left( \alpha, w, \phi; \tau_i \right) = - \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q_{\phi}(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[ \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} log \pi_\alpha \left( a_t^i|x_t^i, z \right) + log p_w \left( x_{t+1}^i|x_t^i, z\right) \right] +D_{KL}\left( q_\phi(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)||p(z) \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The encoder <math display="inline">q</math> uses a bi-directional LSTM. To produce the final embedding, it calculates the average of all the outputs of the second layer of this LSTM before applying a final linear transformation to<br />
generate the mean and standard deviation of a Gaussian. Then, one sample from this Gaussian is taken as the demonstration encoding.<br />
<br />
The action decoder is an MLP that maps the concatenation of the state and the embedding of the parameters of a Gaussian policy. The state decoder is similar to a conditional WaveNet model. In particular, it conditions on the embedding <math display="inline">z</math> and previous state <math display="inline">x_{t-1}</math> to generate the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math> autoregressively. That is, the autoregression is over the components of the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math>. Finally, instead of a Softmax, the model uses a mixture of Gaussians as the output of the WaveNet.<br />
<br />
==Diverse generative adversarial imitiation learning==<br />
To enable GAIL to produce diverse solutions, the authors condition the discriminator on the embeddings generated by the VAE encoder and integrate out the GAIL objective with respect to the variational posterior <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math>. Specifically, the authors train the discriminator by optimizing the following objective:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{max}_{\psi} \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\tau_i \sim \pi_E} \left( \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[\frac{1}{T_i} \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} logD_{\psi} \left( x_t^i, a_t^i | z \right) + \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\pi_\theta} \left[ log(1 - D_\psi(x, a | z)) \right] \right] \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The authors condition on unlabeled trajectories, which have been passed through a powerful encoder, and hence this approach is capable of one-shot imitation learning. Moreover, the VAE encoder enables to obtain a continuous latent embedding space where interpolation is possible.<br />
<br />
To better motivate the objective, the authors propose on temporarily leaving the context of imitation learning and considering an alternative objective for training GANs<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{min}_{G}{max}_{D} V (G, D) = \int_{y} p(y) \int_{z} q(z|y) \left[ log D(y | z) + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dy dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
This function is a simplification of the previous objective function. Furthermore, it satisfies the following property.<br />
<br />
===Lemma 1===<br />
Assuming that <math display="inline">q</math> computes the true posterior distribution that is <math display="inline">q(z|y) = \frac{p(y|z)p(z)}{p(y)}</math> then<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
V (G, D) = \int_{z} p(z) \left[ \int_{y} p(y|z) log D(y|z) dy + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
If an optimal discriminator is further assumed, the cost-optimized by the generator then becomes<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
C(G) = 2 \int_ p p(z) JSD[p(\cdot|z) || G(\cdot|z)] dz - log4<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math display="inline">JSD</math> stands for the Jensen-Shannon divergence.<br />
<br />
=Experiments=<br />
<br />
The primary focus of the paper's experimental evaluation is to demonstrate that the architecture allows learning of robust controllers capable of producing the full spectrum of demonstration behaviors for a diverse range of challenging control problems. The authors consider three bodies: a 9 DoF robotic arm, a 9 DoF planar walker, and a 62 DoF complex humanoid (56-actuated joint angles, and a freely translating and rotating 3d root joint). While for the reaching task BC is sufficient to obtain a working controller, for the other two problems the full learning procedure is critical.<br />
<br />
The authors analyze the resulting embedding spaces and demonstrate that they exhibit a rich and sensible structure that can be exploited for control. Finally, the authors show that the encoder can be used to capture the gist of novel demonstration trajectories which can then be reproduced by the controller.<br />
<br />
==Robotic arm reaching==<br />
In this experiment, the authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their VAE architecture and investigate the nature of the learned embedding space on a reaching task with a simulated Jaco arm.<br />
<br />
To obtain demonstrations, the authors trained 60 independent policies to reach to random target locations in the workspace starting from the same initial configuration. 30 trajectories from each of<br />
the first 50 policies were generated. These served as training data for the VAE model (1500 training trajectories in total). The remaining 10 policies were used to generate test data.<br />
<br />
The reaching task is relatively simple, so with this amount of data the VAE policy is fairly robust. After training, the VAE encodes and reproduces the demonstrations as shown in the figure below.<br />
<br />
[[File: Robotic_arm_reaching.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==2D Walker==<br />
<br />
As a more challenging test compared to the reaching task, the authors consider bipedal locomotion. Here, the authors train 60 neural network policies for a 2d walker to serve as demonstrations. These policies are each trained to move at different speeds both forward and backward depending on a label provided as additional input to the policy. Target speeds for training were chosen from a set of four different speeds (m/s): -1, 0, 1, 3.<br />
<br />
[[File: 2D_Walker.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
The authors trained their model with 20 episodes per policy (1200 demonstration trajectories in total, each with a length of 400 steps or 10s of simulated time). In this experiment a full approach is required: training the VAE with BC alone can imitate some of the trajectories, but it performs poorly in general, presumably because the relatively small training set does not cover the space of trajectories sufficiently densely. On this generated dataset, they also train policies with GAIL using the same architecture and hyper-parameters. Due to the lack of conditioning, GAIL does not reproduce coherently trajectories. Instead, it simply meshes different behaviors together. In addition, the policies trained with GAIL also, exhibit dramatically less diversity; see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIguLQ4OwuM video].<br />
<br />
[[File: 2D_Walker_Optimized.gif|frame|center|In the left panel, the planar walker demonstrates a particular walking style. In the right panel, the model's agent imitates this walking style using a single policy network.]]<br />
<br />
==Complex humanoid==<br />
For this experiment, the authors consider a humanoid body of high dimensionality that poses a hard control problem. They generate training trajectories with the existing controllers, which can produce instances of one of six different movement styles. Examples of such trajectories are shown in Fig. 5.<br />
<br />
[[File: Complex_humanoid.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
The training set consists of 250 random trajectories from 6 different neural network controllers that were trained to match 6 different movement styles from the CMU motion capture database. Each trajectory is 334 steps or 10s long. The authors use a second set of 5 controllers from which they generate trajectories for evaluation (3 of these policies were trained on the same movement styles as the policies used for generating training data).<br />
<br />
Surprisingly, despite the complexity of the body, supervised learning is quite effective at producing sensible controllers: The VAE policy is reasonably good at imitating the demonstration trajectories, although it lacks the robustness to be practically useful. Adversarial training dramatically improves the stability of the controller. The authors analyze the improvement quantitatively by computing the percentage of the humanoid falling down before the end of an episode while imitating either training or test policies. The results are summarized in Figure 5 right. The figure further shows sequences of frames of representative demonstration and associated imitation trajectories. Videos of demonstration and imitation behaviors can be found in the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaohsyUxpxw video].<br />
<br />
[[File: Complex_humanoid_optimized.gif|frame|center|In the left and middle panels we show two demonstrated behaviors. In the right panel, the model's agent produces an unseen transition between those behaviors.]]<br />
<br />
Also, for practical purposes, it is desirable to allow the controller to transition from one behavior to another. The authors test this possibility in an experiment similar to the one for the Jaco arm: They determine the<br />
embedding vectors of pairs of demonstration trajectories, start the trajectory by conditioning on the first embedding vector, and then transition from one behavior to the other half-way through the episode by linearly interpolating the embeddings of the two demonstration trajectories over a window of 20 control steps. Although not always successful the learned controller often transitions robustly, despite not having been trained to do so. An example of this can be seen in the gif above. More examples can be seen in this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBrIll0B24o video].<br />
<br />
=Conclusions=<br />
The authors have proposed an approach for imitation learning that combines the favorable properties of techniques for density modeling with latent variables (VAEs) with those of GAIL. The result is a model that learns, from a moderate number of demonstration trajectories <br />
# a semantically well structured embedding of behaviors, <br />
# a corresponding multi-task controller that allows to robustly execute diverse behaviors from this embedding space, as well as <br />
# an encoder that can map new trajectories into the embedding space and hence allows for one-shot imitation. <br />
The experimental results demonstrate that this approach can work on a variety of control problems and that it scales even to very challenging ones such as the control of a simulated humanoid with a large number of degrees of freedoms.<br />
<br />
=Critique=<br />
The paper proposes a deep-learning-based approach to imitation learning which is sample-efficient and is able to imitate many diverse behaviors. The architecture can be seen as conditional generative adversarial imitation learning (GAIL). The conditioning vector is an embedding of a demonstrated trajectory, provided by a variational autoencoder. This results in one-shot imitation learning: at test time, a new demonstration can be embedded and provided as a conditioning vector to the imitation policy. The authors evaluate the method on several simulated motor control tasks.<br />
<br />
Pros:<br />
* Addresses a challenging problem of learning complex dynamics controllers / control policies<br />
* Well-written introduction / motivation<br />
* The proposed approach is able to learn complex and diverse behaviors and outperforms both the VAE alone (quantitatively) and GAIL alone (qualitatively).<br />
* Appealing qualitative results on the three evaluation problems. Interesting experiments with motion transitioning. <br />
<br />
Cons:<br />
* Comparisons to baselines could be more detailed.<br />
* Many key details are omitted (either on purpose, placed in the appendix, or simply absent, like the lack of definitions of terms in the modeling section, details of the planner model, simulation process, or the details of experimental settings)<br />
* Experimental evaluation is largely subjective (videos of robotic arm/biped/3D human motion)<br />
* A discussion of sample efficiency compared to GAIL and VAE would be interesting.<br />
* The presentation is not always clear, in particular, I had a hard time figuring out the notation in Section 3.<br />
* There has been some work on hybrids of VAEs and GANs, which seem worth mentioning when generative models are discussed, like:<br />
** Autoencoding beyond pixels using a learned similarity metric, Larsen et al., ICML 2016<br />
** Generating Images with Perceptual Similarity Metrics based on Deep Networks, Dosovitskiy&Brox. NIPS 2016<br />
These works share the intuition that good coverage of VAEs can be combined with sharp results generated by GANs.<br />
* Some more extensive analysis of the approach would be interesting. How sensitive is it to hyperparameters? How important is it to use VAE, not usual AE or supervised learning? How difficult will it be for others to apply it to new tasks?<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
# Wang, Z., Merel, J. S., Reed, S. E., de Freitas, N., Wayne, G., & Heess, N. (2017). Robust imitation of diverse behaviors. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 5326-5335).<br />
# https://deepmind.com/blog/producing-flexible-behaviours-simulated-environments/<br />
# https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaohsyUxpxw<br />
# https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBrIll0B24o</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Robust_Imitation_of_Diverse_Behaviors&diff=32906Robust Imitation of Diverse Behaviors2018-03-07T19:14:57Z<p>Shitawal: Added Critique</p>
<hr />
<div>=Introduction=<br />
One of the longest standing challenges in AI is building versatile embodied agents, both in the form of real robots and animated avatars, capable of a wide and diverse set of behaviors. State-of-the-art robots cannot compete with the effortless variety and adaptive flexibility of motor behaviors produced by toddlers. Towards addressing this challenge, the authors combine several deep generative approaches to imitation learning in a way that accentuates their individual strengths and addresses their limitations. The end product is a robust neural network policy that can imitate a large and diverse set of behaviors using few training demonstrations.<br />
<br />
=Motivation=<br />
Some of the models that have recently shown great promise in imitation learning for motor control are the deep generative models. The authors primarily talk about two approaches viz. supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations and Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL) and their limitations and try to combine those two approaches in order to address these limitations. Some of these limitations are as follows:<br />
<br />
* Supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations (VAE):<br />
** They require large training datasets in order to work for non-trivial tasks<br />
** They tend to be brittle and fail when the agent diverges too much from the demonstration trajectories<br />
* Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL)<br />
** Adversarial training leads to mode-collapse (the tendency of adversarial generative models to cover only a subset of modes of a probability distribution, resulting in a failure to produce adequately diverse samples)<br />
** More difficult and slow to train as they do not immediately provide a latent representation of the data<br />
<br />
Thus, the former approach can model diverse behaviors without dropping modes but does not learn robust policies, while the latter approach gives robust policies but insufficiently diverse behaviors. Thus, the authors combine the favorable aspects of these two approaches. The base of their model is a new type of variational autoencoder on demonstration trajectories that learns semantic policy embeddings. Leveraging these policy representations, they develop a new version of GAIL that <br />
# is much more robust than the purely-supervised controller, especially with few demonstrations, and <br />
# avoids mode collapse, capturing many diverse behaviors when GAIL on its own does not.<br />
<br />
=Model=<br />
The authors first introduce a variational autoencoder (VAE) for supervised imitation, consisting of a bi-directional LSTM encoder mapping demonstration sequences to embedding vectors, and two decoders. The first decoder is a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) policy mapping a trajectory embedding and the current state to a continuous action vector. The second is a dynamics model mapping the embedding and previous state to the present state while modeling correlations among states with a WaveNet.<br />
<br />
[[File: Model_Architecture.png|700px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==Behavioral cloning with VAE suited for control==<br />
<br />
In this section, the authors follow a similar approach to Duan et al., but opt for stochastic VAEs as having a distribution <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math> to better regularize the latent space. In their VAE, an encoder maps a demonstration sequence to an embedding vector <math display="inline">z</math>. Given <math display="inline">z</math>, they decode both the state and action trajectories as shown in the figure above. To train the model, the following loss is minimized:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
L\left( \alpha, w, \phi; \tau_i \right) = - \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q_{\phi}(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[ \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} log \pi_\alpha \left( a_t^i|x_t^i, z \right) + log p_w \left( x_{t+1}^i|x_t^i, z\right) \right] +D_{KL}\left( q_\phi(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)||p(z) \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The encoder <math display="inline">q</math> uses a bi-directional LSTM. To produce the final embedding, it calculates the average of all the outputs of the second layer of this LSTM before applying a final linear transformation to<br />
generate the mean and standard deviation of a Gaussian. Then, one sample from this Gaussian is taken as the demonstration encoding.<br />
<br />
The action decoder is an MLP that maps the concatenation of the state and the embedding of the parameters of a Gaussian policy. The state decoder is similar to a conditional WaveNet model. In particular, it conditions on the embedding <math display="inline">z</math> and previous state <math display="inline">x_{t-1}</math> to generate the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math> autoregressively. That is, the autoregression is over the components of the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math>. Finally, instead of a Softmax, the model uses a mixture of Gaussians as the output of the WaveNet.<br />
<br />
==Diverse generative adversarial imitiation learning==<br />
To enable GAIL to produce diverse solutions, the authors condition the discriminator on the embeddings generated by the VAE encoder and integrate out the GAIL objective with respect to the variational posterior <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math>. Specifically, the authors train the discriminator by optimizing the following objective:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{max}_{\psi} \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\tau_i \sim \pi_E} \left( \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[\frac{1}{T_i} \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} logD_{\psi} \left( x_t^i, a_t^i | z \right) + \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\pi_\theta} \left[ log(1 - D_\psi(x, a | z)) \right] \right] \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The authors condition on unlabeled trajectories, which have been passed through a powerful encoder, and hence this approach is capable of one-shot imitation learning. Moreover, the VAE encoder enables to obtain a continuous latent embedding space where interpolation is possible.<br />
<br />
To better motivate the objective, the authors propose on temporarily leaving the context of imitation learning and considering an alternative objective for training GANs<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{min}_{G}{max}_{D} V (G, D) = \int_{y} p(y) \int_{z} q(z|y) \left[ log D(y | z) + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dy dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
This function is a simplification of the previous objective function. Furthermore, it satisfies the following property.<br />
<br />
===Lemma 1===<br />
Assuming that <math display="inline">q</math> computes the true posterior distribution that is <math display="inline">q(z|y) = \frac{p(y|z)p(z)}{p(y)}</math> then<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
V (G, D) = \int_{z} p(z) \left[ \int_{y} p(y|z) log D(y|z) dy + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
If an optimal discriminator is further assumed, the cost-optimized by the generator then becomes<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
C(G) = 2 \int_ p p(z) JSD[p(\cdot|z) || G(\cdot|z)] dz - log4<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math display="inline">JSD</math> stands for the Jensen-Shannon divergence.<br />
<br />
=Experiments=<br />
<br />
The primary focus of the paper's experimental evaluation is to demonstrate that the architecture allows learning of robust controllers capable of producing the full spectrum of demonstration behaviors for a diverse range of challenging control problems. The authors consider three bodies: a 9 DoF robotic arm, a 9 DoF planar walker, and a 62 DoF complex humanoid (56-actuated joint angles, and a freely translating and rotating 3d root joint). While for the reaching task BC is sufficient to obtain a working controller, for the other two problems the full learning procedure is critical.<br />
<br />
The authors analyze the resulting embedding spaces and demonstrate that they exhibit a rich and sensible structure that can be exploited for control. Finally, the authors show that the encoder can be used to capture the gist of novel demonstration trajectories which can then be reproduced by the controller.<br />
<br />
==Robotic arm reaching==<br />
In this experiment, the authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their VAE architecture and investigate the nature of the learned embedding space on a reaching task with a simulated Jaco arm.<br />
<br />
To obtain demonstrations, the authors trained 60 independent policies to reach to random target locations in the workspace starting from the same initial configuration. 30 trajectories from each of<br />
the first 50 policies were generated. These served as training data for the VAE model (1500 training trajectories in total). The remaining 10 policies were used to generate test data.<br />
<br />
The reaching task is relatively simple, so with this amount of data the VAE policy is fairly robust. After training, the VAE encodes and reproduces the demonstrations as shown in the figure below.<br />
<br />
[[File: Robotic_arm_reaching.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==2D Walker==<br />
<br />
As a more challenging test compared to the reaching task, the authors consider bipedal locomotion. Here, the authors train 60 neural network policies for a 2d walker to serve as demonstrations. These policies are each trained to move at different speeds both forward and backward depending on a label provided as additional input to the policy. Target speeds for training were chosen from a set of four different speeds (m/s): -1, 0, 1, 3.<br />
<br />
[[File: 2D_Walker.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
The authors trained their model with 20 episodes per policy (1200 demonstration trajectories in total, each with a length of 400 steps or 10s of simulated time). In this experiment a full approach is required: training the VAE with BC alone can imitate some of the trajectories, but it performs poorly in general, presumably because the relatively small training set does not cover the space of trajectories sufficiently densely. On this generated dataset, they also train policies with GAIL using the same architecture and hyper-parameters. Due to the lack of conditioning, GAIL does not reproduce coherently trajectories. Instead, it simply meshes different behaviors together. In addition, the policies trained with GAIL also, exhibit dramatically less diversity; see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIguLQ4OwuM video].<br />
<br />
[[File: 2D_Walker_Optimized.gif|frame|center|In the left panel, the planar walker demonstrates a particular walking style. In the right panel, the model's agent imitates this walking style using a single policy network.]]<br />
<br />
==Complex humanoid==<br />
For this experiment, the authors consider a humanoid body of high dimensionality that poses a hard control problem. They generate training trajectories with the existing controllers, which can produce instances of one of six different movement styles. Examples of such trajectories are shown in Fig. 5.<br />
<br />
[[File: Complex_humanoid.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
The training set consists of 250 random trajectories from 6 different neural network controllers that were trained to match 6 different movement styles from the CMU motion capture database. Each trajectory is 334 steps or 10s long. The authors use a second set of 5 controllers from which they generate trajectories for evaluation (3 of these policies were trained on the same movement styles as the policies used for generating training data).<br />
<br />
Surprisingly, despite the complexity of the body, supervised learning is quite effective at producing sensible controllers: The VAE policy is reasonably good at imitating the demonstration trajectories, although it lacks the robustness to be practically useful. Adversarial training dramatically improves the stability of the controller. The authors analyze the improvement quantitatively by computing the percentage of the humanoid falling down before the end of an episode while imitating either training or test policies. The results are summarized in Figure 5 right. The figure further shows sequences of frames of representative demonstration and associated imitation trajectories. Videos of demonstration and imitation behaviors can be found in the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaohsyUxpxw video].<br />
<br />
[[File: Complex_humanoid_optimized.gif|frame|center|In the left and middle panels we show two demonstrated behaviors. In the right panel, the model's agent produces an unseen transition between those behaviors.]]<br />
<br />
Also, for practical purposes, it is desirable to allow the controller to transition from one behavior to another. The authors test this possibility in an experiment similar to the one for the Jaco arm: They determine the<br />
embedding vectors of pairs of demonstration trajectories, start the trajectory by conditioning on the first embedding vector, and then transition from one behavior to the other half-way through the episode by linearly interpolating the embeddings of the two demonstration trajectories over a window of 20 control steps. Although not always successful the learned controller often transitions robustly, despite not having been trained to do so. An example of this can be seen in the gif above. More examples can be seen in this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBrIll0B24o video].<br />
<br />
=Conclusions=<br />
The authors have proposed an approach for imitation learning that combines the favorable properties of techniques for density modeling with latent variables (VAEs) with those of GAIL. The result is a model that learns, from a moderate number of demonstration trajectories <br />
# a semantically well structured embedding of behaviors, <br />
# a corresponding multi-task controller that allows to robustly execute diverse behaviors from this embedding space, as well as <br />
# an encoder that can map new trajectories into the embedding space and hence allows for one-shot imitation. <br />
The experimental results demonstrate that this approach can work on a variety of control problems and that it scales even to very challenging ones such as the control of a simulated humanoid with a large number of degrees of freedoms.<br />
<br />
=Critique=<br />
The paper proposes a deep-learning-based approach to imitation learning which is sample-efficient and is able to imitate many diverse behaviors. The architecture can be seen as conditional generative adversarial imitation learning (GAIL). The conditioning vector is an embedding of a demonstrated trajectory, provided by a variational autoencoder. This results in one-shot imitation learning: at test time, a new demonstration can be embedded and provided as a conditioning vector to the imitation policy. The authors evaluate the method on several simulated motor control tasks.<br />
<br />
Pros:<br />
* Addresses a challenging problem of learning complex dynamics controllers / control policies<br />
* Well-written introduction / motivation<br />
* The proposed approach is able to learn complex and diverse behaviors and outperforms both the VAE alone (quantitatively) and GAIL alone (qualitatively).<br />
* Appealing qualitative results on the three evaluation problems. Interesting experiments with motion transitioning. <br />
<br />
Cons:<br />
* Comparisons to baselines could be more detailed.<br />
* Many key details are omitted (either on purpose, placed in the appendix, or simply absent, like the lack of definitions of terms in the modeling section, details of the planner model, simulation process, or the details of experimental settings)<br />
* Experimental evaluation is largely subjective (videos of robotic arm/biped/3D human motion)<br />
* A discussion of sample efficiency compared to GAIL and VAE would be interesting.<br />
* The presentation is not always clear, in particular, I had a hard time figuring out the notation in Section 3.<br />
* There has been some work on hybrids of VAEs and GANs, which seem worth mentioning when generative models are discussed, like:<br />
Autoencoding beyond pixels using a learned similarity metric, Larsen et al., ICML 2016<br />
Generating Images with Perceptual Similarity Metrics based on Deep Networks, Dosovitskiy&Brox. NIPS 2016<br />
These works share the intuition that good coverage of VAEs can be combined with sharp results generated by GANs.<br />
* Some more extensive analysis of the approach would be interesting. How sensitive is it to hyperparameters? How important is it to use VAE, not usual AE or supervised learning? How difficult will it be for others to apply it to new tasks?<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
# Wang, Z., Merel, J. S., Reed, S. E., de Freitas, N., Wayne, G., & Heess, N. (2017). Robust imitation of diverse behaviors. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 5326-5335).<br />
# https://deepmind.com/blog/producing-flexible-behaviours-simulated-environments/<br />
# https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaohsyUxpxw<br />
# https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBrIll0B24o</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Robust_Imitation_of_Diverse_Behaviors&diff=32902Robust Imitation of Diverse Behaviors2018-03-07T19:00:28Z<p>Shitawal: Added References</p>
<hr />
<div>=Introduction=<br />
One of the longest standing challenges in AI is building versatile embodied agents, both in the form of real robots and animated avatars, capable of a wide and diverse set of behaviors. State-of-the-art robots cannot compete with the effortless variety and adaptive flexibility of motor behaviors produced by toddlers. Towards addressing this challenge, the authors combine several deep generative approaches to imitation learning in a way that accentuates their individual strengths and addresses their limitations. The end product is a robust neural network policy that can imitate a large and diverse set of behaviors using few training demonstrations.<br />
<br />
=Motivation=<br />
Some of the models that have recently shown great promise in imitation learning for motor control are the deep generative models. The authors primarily talk about two approaches viz. supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations and Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL) and their limitations and try to combine those two approaches in order to address these limitations. Some of these limitations are as follows:<br />
<br />
* Supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations (VAE):<br />
** They require large training datasets in order to work for non-trivial tasks<br />
** They tend to be brittle and fail when the agent diverges too much from the demonstration trajectories<br />
* Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL)<br />
** Adversarial training leads to mode-collapse (the tendency of adversarial generative models to cover only a subset of modes of a probability distribution, resulting in a failure to produce adequately diverse samples)<br />
** More difficult and slow to train as they do not immediately provide a latent representation of the data<br />
<br />
Thus, the former approach can model diverse behaviors without dropping modes but does not learn robust policies, while the latter approach gives robust policies but insufficiently diverse behaviors. Thus, the authors combine the favorable aspects of these two approaches. The base of their model is a new type of variational autoencoder on demonstration trajectories that learns semantic policy embeddings. Leveraging these policy representations, they develop a new version of GAIL that <br />
# is much more robust than the purely-supervised controller, especially with few demonstrations, and <br />
# avoids mode collapse, capturing many diverse behaviors when GAIL on its own does not.<br />
<br />
=Model=<br />
The authors first introduce a variational autoencoder (VAE) for supervised imitation, consisting of a bi-directional LSTM encoder mapping demonstration sequences to embedding vectors, and two decoders. The first decoder is a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) policy mapping a trajectory embedding and the current state to a continuous action vector. The second is a dynamics model mapping the embedding and previous state to the present state while modeling correlations among states with a WaveNet.<br />
<br />
[[File: Model_Architecture.png|700px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==Behavioral cloning with VAE suited for control==<br />
<br />
In this section, the authors follow a similar approach to Duan et al., but opt for stochastic VAEs as having a distribution <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math> to better regularize the latent space. In their VAE, an encoder maps a demonstration sequence to an embedding vector <math display="inline">z</math>. Given <math display="inline">z</math>, they decode both the state and action trajectories as shown in the figure above. To train the model, the following loss is minimized:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
L\left( \alpha, w, \phi; \tau_i \right) = - \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q_{\phi}(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[ \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} log \pi_\alpha \left( a_t^i|x_t^i, z \right) + log p_w \left( x_{t+1}^i|x_t^i, z\right) \right] +D_{KL}\left( q_\phi(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)||p(z) \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The encoder <math display="inline">q</math> uses a bi-directional LSTM. To produce the final embedding, it calculates the average of all the outputs of the second layer of this LSTM before applying a final linear transformation to<br />
generate the mean and standard deviation of a Gaussian. Then, one sample from this Gaussian is taken as the demonstration encoding.<br />
<br />
The action decoder is an MLP that maps the concatenation of the state and the embedding of the parameters of a Gaussian policy. The state decoder is similar to a conditional WaveNet model. In particular, it conditions on the embedding <math display="inline">z</math> and previous state <math display="inline">x_{t-1}</math> to generate the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math> autoregressively. That is, the autoregression is over the components of the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math>. Finally, instead of a Softmax, the model uses a mixture of Gaussians as the output of the WaveNet.<br />
<br />
==Diverse generative adversarial imitiation learning==<br />
To enable GAIL to produce diverse solutions, the authors condition the discriminator on the embeddings generated by the VAE encoder and integrate out the GAIL objective with respect to the variational posterior <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math>. Specifically, the authors train the discriminator by optimizing the following objective:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{max}_{\psi} \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\tau_i \sim \pi_E} \left( \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[\frac{1}{T_i} \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} logD_{\psi} \left( x_t^i, a_t^i | z \right) + \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\pi_\theta} \left[ log(1 - D_\psi(x, a | z)) \right] \right] \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The authors condition on unlabeled trajectories, which have been passed through a powerful encoder, and hence this approach is capable of one-shot imitation learning. Moreover, the VAE encoder enables to obtain a continuous latent embedding space where interpolation is possible.<br />
<br />
To better motivate the objective, the authors propose on temporarily leaving the context of imitation learning and considering an alternative objective for training GANs<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{min}_{G}{max}_{D} V (G, D) = \int_{y} p(y) \int_{z} q(z|y) \left[ log D(y | z) + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dy dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
This function is a simplification of the previous objective function. Furthermore, it satisfies the following property.<br />
<br />
===Lemma 1===<br />
Assuming that <math display="inline">q</math> computes the true posterior distribution that is <math display="inline">q(z|y) = \frac{p(y|z)p(z)}{p(y)}</math> then<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
V (G, D) = \int_{z} p(z) \left[ \int_{y} p(y|z) log D(y|z) dy + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
If an optimal discriminator is further assumed, the cost-optimized by the generator then becomes<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
C(G) = 2 \int_ p p(z) JSD[p(\cdot|z) || G(\cdot|z)] dz - log4<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math display="inline">JSD</math> stands for the Jensen-Shannon divergence.<br />
<br />
=Experiments=<br />
<br />
The primary focus of the paper's experimental evaluation is to demonstrate that the architecture allows learning of robust controllers capable of producing the full spectrum of demonstration behaviors for a diverse range of challenging control problems. The authors consider three bodies: a 9 DoF robotic arm, a 9 DoF planar walker, and a 62 DoF complex humanoid (56-actuated joint angles, and a freely translating and rotating 3d root joint). While for the reaching task BC is sufficient to obtain a working controller, for the other two problems the full learning procedure is critical.<br />
<br />
The authors analyze the resulting embedding spaces and demonstrate that they exhibit a rich and sensible structure that can be exploited for control. Finally, the authors show that the encoder can be used to capture the gist of novel demonstration trajectories which can then be reproduced by the controller.<br />
<br />
==Robotic arm reaching==<br />
In this experiment, the authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their VAE architecture and investigate the nature of the learned embedding space on a reaching task with a simulated Jaco arm.<br />
<br />
To obtain demonstrations, the authors trained 60 independent policies to reach to random target locations in the workspace starting from the same initial configuration. 30 trajectories from each of<br />
the first 50 policies were generated. These served as training data for the VAE model (1500 training trajectories in total). The remaining 10 policies were used to generate test data.<br />
<br />
The reaching task is relatively simple, so with this amount of data the VAE policy is fairly robust. After training, the VAE encodes and reproduces the demonstrations as shown in the figure below.<br />
<br />
[[File: Robotic_arm_reaching.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==2D Walker==<br />
<br />
As a more challenging test compared to the reaching task, the authors consider bipedal locomotion. Here, the authors train 60 neural network policies for a 2d walker to serve as demonstrations. These policies are each trained to move at different speeds both forward and backward depending on a label provided as additional input to the policy. Target speeds for training were chosen from a set of four different speeds (m/s): -1, 0, 1, 3.<br />
<br />
[[File: 2D_Walker.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
The authors trained their model with 20 episodes per policy (1200 demonstration trajectories in total, each with a length of 400 steps or 10s of simulated time). In this experiment a full approach is required: training the VAE with BC alone can imitate some of the trajectories, but it performs poorly in general, presumably because the relatively small training set does not cover the space of trajectories sufficiently densely. On this generated dataset, they also train policies with GAIL using the same architecture and hyper-parameters. Due to the lack of conditioning, GAIL does not reproduce coherently trajectories. Instead, it simply meshes different behaviors together. In addition, the policies trained with GAIL also, exhibit dramatically less diversity; see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIguLQ4OwuM video].<br />
<br />
[[File: 2D_Walker_Optimized.gif|frame|center|In the left panel, the planar walker demonstrates a particular walking style. In the right panel, the model's agent imitates this walking style using a single policy network.]]<br />
<br />
==Complex humanoid==<br />
For this experiment, the authors consider a humanoid body of high dimensionality that poses a hard control problem. They generate training trajectories with the existing controllers, which can produce instances of one of six different movement styles. Examples of such trajectories are shown in Fig. 5.<br />
<br />
[[File: Complex_humanoid.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
The training set consists of 250 random trajectories from 6 different neural network controllers that were trained to match 6 different movement styles from the CMU motion capture database. Each trajectory is 334 steps or 10s long. The authors use a second set of 5 controllers from which they generate trajectories for evaluation (3 of these policies were trained on the same movement styles as the policies used for generating training data).<br />
<br />
Surprisingly, despite the complexity of the body, supervised learning is quite effective at producing sensible controllers: The VAE policy is reasonably good at imitating the demonstration trajectories, although it lacks the robustness to be practically useful. Adversarial training dramatically improves the stability of the controller. The authors analyze the improvement quantitatively by computing the percentage of the humanoid falling down before the end of an episode while imitating either training or test policies. The results are summarized in Figure 5 right. The figure further shows sequences of frames of representative demonstration and associated imitation trajectories. Videos of demonstration and imitation behaviors can be found in the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaohsyUxpxw video].<br />
<br />
[[File: Complex_humanoid_optimized.gif|frame|center|In the left and middle panels we show two demonstrated behaviors. In the right panel, the model's agent produces an unseen transition between those behaviors.]]<br />
<br />
Also, for practical purposes, it is desirable to allow the controller to transition from one behavior to another. The authors test this possibility in an experiment similar to the one for the Jaco arm: They determine the<br />
embedding vectors of pairs of demonstration trajectories, start the trajectory by conditioning on the first embedding vector, and then transition from one behavior to the other half-way through the episode by linearly interpolating the embeddings of the two demonstration trajectories over a window of 20 control steps. Although not always successful the learned controller often transitions robustly, despite not having been trained to do so. An example of this can be seen in the gif above. More examples can be seen in this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBrIll0B24o video].<br />
<br />
=Conclusions=<br />
The authors have proposed an approach for imitation learning that combines the favorable properties of techniques for density modeling with latent variables (VAEs) with those of GAIL. The result is a model that learns, from a moderate number of demonstration trajectories <br />
# a semantically well structured embedding of behaviors, <br />
# a corresponding multi-task controller that allows to robustly execute diverse behaviors from this embedding space, as well as <br />
# an encoder that can map new trajectories into the embedding space and hence allows for one-shot imitation. <br />
The experimental results demonstrate that this approach can work on a variety of control problems and that it scales even to very challenging ones such as the control of a simulated humanoid with a large number of degrees of freedoms.<br />
<br />
=Critique=<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
# Wang, Z., Merel, J. S., Reed, S. E., de Freitas, N., Wayne, G., & Heess, N. (2017). Robust imitation of diverse behaviors. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 5326-5335).<br />
# https://deepmind.com/blog/producing-flexible-behaviours-simulated-environments/<br />
# https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaohsyUxpxw<br />
# https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBrIll0B24o</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Robust_Imitation_of_Diverse_Behaviors&diff=32898Robust Imitation of Diverse Behaviors2018-03-07T18:55:30Z<p>Shitawal: Added Conclusion</p>
<hr />
<div>=Introduction=<br />
One of the longest standing challenges in AI is building versatile embodied agents, both in the form of real robots and animated avatars, capable of a wide and diverse set of behaviors. State-of-the-art robots cannot compete with the effortless variety and adaptive flexibility of motor behaviors produced by toddlers. Towards addressing this challenge, the authors combine several deep generative approaches to imitation learning in a way that accentuates their individual strengths and addresses their limitations. The end product is a robust neural network policy that can imitate a large and diverse set of behaviors using few training demonstrations.<br />
<br />
=Motivation=<br />
Some of the models that have recently shown great promise in imitation learning for motor control are the deep generative models. The authors primarily talk about two approaches viz. supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations and Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL) and their limitations and try to combine those two approaches in order to address these limitations. Some of these limitations are as follows:<br />
<br />
* Supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations (VAE):<br />
** They require large training datasets in order to work for non-trivial tasks<br />
** They tend to be brittle and fail when the agent diverges too much from the demonstration trajectories<br />
* Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL)<br />
** Adversarial training leads to mode-collapse (the tendency of adversarial generative models to cover only a subset of modes of a probability distribution, resulting in a failure to produce adequately diverse samples)<br />
** More difficult and slow to train as they do not immediately provide a latent representation of the data<br />
<br />
Thus, the former approach can model diverse behaviors without dropping modes but does not learn robust policies, while the latter approach gives robust policies but insufficiently diverse behaviors. Thus, the authors combine the favorable aspects of these two approaches. The base of their model is a new type of variational autoencoder on demonstration trajectories that learns semantic policy embeddings. Leveraging these policy representations, they develop a new version of GAIL that <br />
# is much more robust than the purely-supervised controller, especially with few demonstrations, and <br />
# avoids mode collapse, capturing many diverse behaviors when GAIL on its own does not.<br />
<br />
=Model=<br />
The authors first introduce a variational autoencoder (VAE) for supervised imitation, consisting of a bi-directional LSTM encoder mapping demonstration sequences to embedding vectors, and two decoders. The first decoder is a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) policy mapping a trajectory embedding and the current state to a continuous action vector. The second is a dynamics model mapping the embedding and previous state to the present state while modeling correlations among states with a WaveNet.<br />
<br />
[[File: Model_Architecture.png|700px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==Behavioral cloning with VAE suited for control==<br />
<br />
In this section, the authors follow a similar approach to Duan et al., but opt for stochastic VAEs as having a distribution <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math> to better regularize the latent space. In their VAE, an encoder maps a demonstration sequence to an embedding vector <math display="inline">z</math>. Given <math display="inline">z</math>, they decode both the state and action trajectories as shown in the figure above. To train the model, the following loss is minimized:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
L\left( \alpha, w, \phi; \tau_i \right) = - \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q_{\phi}(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[ \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} log \pi_\alpha \left( a_t^i|x_t^i, z \right) + log p_w \left( x_{t+1}^i|x_t^i, z\right) \right] +D_{KL}\left( q_\phi(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)||p(z) \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The encoder <math display="inline">q</math> uses a bi-directional LSTM. To produce the final embedding, it calculates the average of all the outputs of the second layer of this LSTM before applying a final linear transformation to<br />
generate the mean and standard deviation of a Gaussian. Then, one sample from this Gaussian is taken as the demonstration encoding.<br />
<br />
The action decoder is an MLP that maps the concatenation of the state and the embedding of the parameters of a Gaussian policy. The state decoder is similar to a conditional WaveNet model. In particular, it conditions on the embedding <math display="inline">z</math> and previous state <math display="inline">x_{t-1}</math> to generate the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math> autoregressively. That is, the autoregression is over the components of the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math>. Finally, instead of a Softmax, the model uses a mixture of Gaussians as the output of the WaveNet.<br />
<br />
==Diverse generative adversarial imitiation learning==<br />
To enable GAIL to produce diverse solutions, the authors condition the discriminator on the embeddings generated by the VAE encoder and integrate out the GAIL objective with respect to the variational posterior <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math>. Specifically, the authors train the discriminator by optimizing the following objective:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{max}_{\psi} \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\tau_i \sim \pi_E} \left( \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[\frac{1}{T_i} \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} logD_{\psi} \left( x_t^i, a_t^i | z \right) + \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\pi_\theta} \left[ log(1 - D_\psi(x, a | z)) \right] \right] \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The authors condition on unlabeled trajectories, which have been passed through a powerful encoder, and hence this approach is capable of one-shot imitation learning. Moreover, the VAE encoder enables to obtain a continuous latent embedding space where interpolation is possible.<br />
<br />
To better motivate the objective, the authors propose on temporarily leaving the context of imitation learning and considering an alternative objective for training GANs<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{min}_{G}{max}_{D} V (G, D) = \int_{y} p(y) \int_{z} q(z|y) \left[ log D(y | z) + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dy dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
This function is a simplification of the previous objective function. Furthermore, it satisfies the following property.<br />
<br />
===Lemma 1===<br />
Assuming that <math display="inline">q</math> computes the true posterior distribution that is <math display="inline">q(z|y) = \frac{p(y|z)p(z)}{p(y)}</math> then<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
V (G, D) = \int_{z} p(z) \left[ \int_{y} p(y|z) log D(y|z) dy + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
If an optimal discriminator is further assumed, the cost-optimized by the generator then becomes<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
C(G) = 2 \int_ p p(z) JSD[p(\cdot|z) || G(\cdot|z)] dz - log4<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math display="inline">JSD</math> stands for the Jensen-Shannon divergence.<br />
<br />
=Experiments=<br />
<br />
The primary focus of the paper's experimental evaluation is to demonstrate that the architecture allows learning of robust controllers capable of producing the full spectrum of demonstration behaviors for a diverse range of challenging control problems. The authors consider three bodies: a 9 DoF robotic arm, a 9 DoF planar walker, and a 62 DoF complex humanoid (56-actuated joint angles, and a freely translating and rotating 3d root joint). While for the reaching task BC is sufficient to obtain a working controller, for the other two problems the full learning procedure is critical.<br />
<br />
The authors analyze the resulting embedding spaces and demonstrate that they exhibit a rich and sensible structure that can be exploited for control. Finally, the authors show that the encoder can be used to capture the gist of novel demonstration trajectories which can then be reproduced by the controller.<br />
<br />
==Robotic arm reaching==<br />
In this experiment, the authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their VAE architecture and investigate the nature of the learned embedding space on a reaching task with a simulated Jaco arm.<br />
<br />
To obtain demonstrations, the authors trained 60 independent policies to reach to random target locations in the workspace starting from the same initial configuration. 30 trajectories from each of<br />
the first 50 policies were generated. These served as training data for the VAE model (1500 training trajectories in total). The remaining 10 policies were used to generate test data.<br />
<br />
The reaching task is relatively simple, so with this amount of data the VAE policy is fairly robust. After training, the VAE encodes and reproduces the demonstrations as shown in the figure below.<br />
<br />
[[File: Robotic_arm_reaching.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==2D Walker==<br />
<br />
As a more challenging test compared to the reaching task, the authors consider bipedal locomotion. Here, the authors train 60 neural network policies for a 2d walker to serve as demonstrations. These policies are each trained to move at different speeds both forward and backward depending on a label provided as additional input to the policy. Target speeds for training were chosen from a set of four different speeds (m/s): -1, 0, 1, 3.<br />
<br />
[[File: 2D_Walker.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
The authors trained their model with 20 episodes per policy (1200 demonstration trajectories in total, each with a length of 400 steps or 10s of simulated time). In this experiment a full approach is required: training the VAE with BC alone can imitate some of the trajectories, but it performs poorly in general, presumably because the relatively small training set does not cover the space of trajectories sufficiently densely. On this generated dataset, they also train policies with GAIL using the same architecture and hyper-parameters. Due to the lack of conditioning, GAIL does not reproduce coherently trajectories. Instead, it simply meshes different behaviors together. In addition, the policies trained with GAIL also, exhibit dramatically less diversity; see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIguLQ4OwuM video].<br />
<br />
[[File: 2D_Walker_Optimized.gif|frame|center|In the left panel, the planar walker demonstrates a particular walking style. In the right panel, the model's agent imitates this walking style using a single policy network.]]<br />
<br />
==Complex humanoid==<br />
For this experiment, the authors consider a humanoid body of high dimensionality that poses a hard control problem. They generate training trajectories with the existing controllers, which can produce instances of one of six different movement styles. Examples of such trajectories are shown in Fig. 5.<br />
<br />
[[File: Complex_humanoid.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
The training set consists of 250 random trajectories from 6 different neural network controllers that were trained to match 6 different movement styles from the CMU motion capture database. Each trajectory is 334 steps or 10s long. The authors use a second set of 5 controllers from which they generate trajectories for evaluation (3 of these policies were trained on the same movement styles as the policies used for generating training data).<br />
<br />
Surprisingly, despite the complexity of the body, supervised learning is quite effective at producing sensible controllers: The VAE policy is reasonably good at imitating the demonstration trajectories, although it lacks the robustness to be practically useful. Adversarial training dramatically improves the stability of the controller. The authors analyze the improvement quantitatively by computing the percentage of the humanoid falling down before the end of an episode while imitating either training or test policies. The results are summarized in Figure 5 right. The figure further shows sequences of frames of representative demonstration and associated imitation trajectories. Videos of demonstration and imitation behaviors can be found in the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaohsyUxpxw video].<br />
<br />
[[File: Complex_humanoid_optimized.gif|frame|center|In the left and middle panels we show two demonstrated behaviors. In the right panel, the model's agent produces an unseen transition between those behaviors.]]<br />
<br />
Also, for practical purposes, it is desirable to allow the controller to transition from one behavior to another. The authors test this possibility in an experiment similar to the one for the Jaco arm: They determine the<br />
embedding vectors of pairs of demonstration trajectories, start the trajectory by conditioning on the first embedding vector, and then transition from one behavior to the other half-way through the episode by linearly interpolating the embeddings of the two demonstration trajectories over a window of 20 control steps. Although not always successful the learned controller often transitions robustly, despite not having been trained to do so. An example of this can be seen in the gif above. More examples can be seen in this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBrIll0B24o video].<br />
<br />
=Conclusions=<br />
The authors have proposed an approach for imitation learning that combines the favorable properties of techniques for density modeling with latent variables (VAEs) with those of GAIL. The result is a model that learns, from a moderate number of demonstration trajectories <br />
# a semantically well structured embedding of behaviors, <br />
# a corresponding multi-task controller that allows to robustly execute diverse behaviors from this embedding space, as well as <br />
# an encoder that can map new trajectories into the embedding space and hence allows for one-shot imitation. <br />
The experimental results demonstrate that this approach can work on a variety of control problems and that it scales even to very challenging ones such as the control of a simulated humanoid with a large number of degrees of freedoms.<br />
<br />
=Critique=<br />
<br />
=References=</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Robust_Imitation_of_Diverse_Behaviors&diff=32897Robust Imitation of Diverse Behaviors2018-03-07T18:52:33Z<p>Shitawal: Added Complex humanoid experiment</p>
<hr />
<div>=Introduction=<br />
One of the longest standing challenges in AI is building versatile embodied agents, both in the form of real robots and animated avatars, capable of a wide and diverse set of behaviors. State-of-the-art robots cannot compete with the effortless variety and adaptive flexibility of motor behaviors produced by toddlers. Towards addressing this challenge, the authors combine several deep generative approaches to imitation learning in a way that accentuates their individual strengths and addresses their limitations. The end product is a robust neural network policy that can imitate a large and diverse set of behaviors using few training demonstrations.<br />
<br />
=Motivation=<br />
Some of the models that have recently shown great promise in imitation learning for motor control are the deep generative models. The authors primarily talk about two approaches viz. supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations and Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL) and their limitations and try to combine those two approaches in order to address these limitations. Some of these limitations are as follows:<br />
<br />
* Supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations (VAE):<br />
** They require large training datasets in order to work for non-trivial tasks<br />
** They tend to be brittle and fail when the agent diverges too much from the demonstration trajectories<br />
* Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL)<br />
** Adversarial training leads to mode-collapse (the tendency of adversarial generative models to cover only a subset of modes of a probability distribution, resulting in a failure to produce adequately diverse samples)<br />
** More difficult and slow to train as they do not immediately provide a latent representation of the data<br />
<br />
Thus, the former approach can model diverse behaviors without dropping modes but does not learn robust policies, while the latter approach gives robust policies but insufficiently diverse behaviors. Thus, the authors combine the favorable aspects of these two approaches. The base of their model is a new type of variational autoencoder on demonstration trajectories that learns semantic policy embeddings. Leveraging these policy representations, they develop a new version of GAIL that <br />
# is much more robust than the purely-supervised controller, especially with few demonstrations, and <br />
# avoids mode collapse, capturing many diverse behaviors when GAIL on its own does not.<br />
<br />
=Model=<br />
The authors first introduce a variational autoencoder (VAE) for supervised imitation, consisting of a bi-directional LSTM encoder mapping demonstration sequences to embedding vectors, and two decoders. The first decoder is a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) policy mapping a trajectory embedding and the current state to a continuous action vector. The second is a dynamics model mapping the embedding and previous state to the present state while modeling correlations among states with a WaveNet.<br />
<br />
[[File: Model_Architecture.png|700px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==Behavioral cloning with VAE suited for control==<br />
<br />
In this section, the authors follow a similar approach to Duan et al., but opt for stochastic VAEs as having a distribution <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math> to better regularize the latent space. In their VAE, an encoder maps a demonstration sequence to an embedding vector <math display="inline">z</math>. Given <math display="inline">z</math>, they decode both the state and action trajectories as shown in the figure above. To train the model, the following loss is minimized:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
L\left( \alpha, w, \phi; \tau_i \right) = - \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q_{\phi}(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[ \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} log \pi_\alpha \left( a_t^i|x_t^i, z \right) + log p_w \left( x_{t+1}^i|x_t^i, z\right) \right] +D_{KL}\left( q_\phi(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)||p(z) \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The encoder <math display="inline">q</math> uses a bi-directional LSTM. To produce the final embedding, it calculates the average of all the outputs of the second layer of this LSTM before applying a final linear transformation to<br />
generate the mean and standard deviation of a Gaussian. Then, one sample from this Gaussian is taken as the demonstration encoding.<br />
<br />
The action decoder is an MLP that maps the concatenation of the state and the embedding of the parameters of a Gaussian policy. The state decoder is similar to a conditional WaveNet model. In particular, it conditions on the embedding <math display="inline">z</math> and previous state <math display="inline">x_{t-1}</math> to generate the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math> autoregressively. That is, the autoregression is over the components of the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math>. Finally, instead of a Softmax, the model uses a mixture of Gaussians as the output of the WaveNet.<br />
<br />
==Diverse generative adversarial imitiation learning==<br />
To enable GAIL to produce diverse solutions, the authors condition the discriminator on the embeddings generated by the VAE encoder and integrate out the GAIL objective with respect to the variational posterior <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math>. Specifically, the authors train the discriminator by optimizing the following objective:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{max}_{\psi} \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\tau_i \sim \pi_E} \left( \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[\frac{1}{T_i} \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} logD_{\psi} \left( x_t^i, a_t^i | z \right) + \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\pi_\theta} \left[ log(1 - D_\psi(x, a | z)) \right] \right] \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The authors condition on unlabeled trajectories, which have been passed through a powerful encoder, and hence this approach is capable of one-shot imitation learning. Moreover, the VAE encoder enables to obtain a continuous latent embedding space where interpolation is possible.<br />
<br />
To better motivate the objective, the authors propose on temporarily leaving the context of imitation learning and considering an alternative objective for training GANs<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{min}_{G}{max}_{D} V (G, D) = \int_{y} p(y) \int_{z} q(z|y) \left[ log D(y | z) + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dy dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
This function is a simplification of the previous objective function. Furthermore, it satisfies the following property.<br />
<br />
===Lemma 1===<br />
Assuming that <math display="inline">q</math> computes the true posterior distribution that is <math display="inline">q(z|y) = \frac{p(y|z)p(z)}{p(y)}</math> then<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
V (G, D) = \int_{z} p(z) \left[ \int_{y} p(y|z) log D(y|z) dy + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
If an optimal discriminator is further assumed, the cost-optimized by the generator then becomes<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
C(G) = 2 \int_ p p(z) JSD[p(\cdot|z) || G(\cdot|z)] dz - log4<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math display="inline">JSD</math> stands for the Jensen-Shannon divergence.<br />
<br />
=Experiments=<br />
<br />
The primary focus of the paper's experimental evaluation is to demonstrate that the architecture allows learning of robust controllers capable of producing the full spectrum of demonstration behaviors for a diverse range of challenging control problems. The authors consider three bodies: a 9 DoF robotic arm, a 9 DoF planar walker, and a 62 DoF complex humanoid (56-actuated joint angles, and a freely translating and rotating 3d root joint). While for the reaching task BC is sufficient to obtain a working controller, for the other two problems the full learning procedure is critical.<br />
<br />
The authors analyze the resulting embedding spaces and demonstrate that they exhibit a rich and sensible structure that can be exploited for control. Finally, the authors show that the encoder can be used to capture the gist of novel demonstration trajectories which can then be reproduced by the controller.<br />
<br />
==Robotic arm reaching==<br />
In this experiment, the authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their VAE architecture and investigate the nature of the learned embedding space on a reaching task with a simulated Jaco arm.<br />
<br />
To obtain demonstrations, the authors trained 60 independent policies to reach to random target locations in the workspace starting from the same initial configuration. 30 trajectories from each of<br />
the first 50 policies were generated. These served as training data for the VAE model (1500 training trajectories in total). The remaining 10 policies were used to generate test data.<br />
<br />
The reaching task is relatively simple, so with this amount of data the VAE policy is fairly robust. After training, the VAE encodes and reproduces the demonstrations as shown in the figure below.<br />
<br />
[[File: Robotic_arm_reaching.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==2D Walker==<br />
<br />
As a more challenging test compared to the reaching task, the authors consider bipedal locomotion. Here, the authors train 60 neural network policies for a 2d walker to serve as demonstrations. These policies are each trained to move at different speeds both forward and backward depending on a label provided as additional input to the policy. Target speeds for training were chosen from a set of four different speeds (m/s): -1, 0, 1, 3.<br />
<br />
[[File: 2D_Walker.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
The authors trained their model with 20 episodes per policy (1200 demonstration trajectories in total, each with a length of 400 steps or 10s of simulated time). In this experiment a full approach is required: training the VAE with BC alone can imitate some of the trajectories, but it performs poorly in general, presumably because the relatively small training set does not cover the space of trajectories sufficiently densely. On this generated dataset, they also train policies with GAIL using the same architecture and hyper-parameters. Due to the lack of conditioning, GAIL does not reproduce coherently trajectories. Instead, it simply meshes different behaviors together. In addition, the policies trained with GAIL also, exhibit dramatically less diversity; see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIguLQ4OwuM video].<br />
<br />
[[File: 2D_Walker_Optimized.gif|frame|center|In the left panel, the planar walker demonstrates a particular walking style. In the right panel, the model's agent imitates this walking style using a single policy network.]]<br />
<br />
==Complex humanoid==<br />
For this experiment, the authors consider a humanoid body of high dimensionality that poses a hard control problem. They generate training trajectories with the existing controllers, which can produce instances of one of six different movement styles. Examples of such trajectories are shown in Fig. 5.<br />
<br />
[[File: Complex_humanoid.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
The training set consists of 250 random trajectories from 6 different neural network controllers that were trained to match 6 different movement styles from the CMU motion capture database. Each trajectory is 334 steps or 10s long. The authors use a second set of 5 controllers from which they generate trajectories for evaluation (3 of these policies were trained on the same movement styles as the policies used for generating training data).<br />
<br />
Surprisingly, despite the complexity of the body, supervised learning is quite effective at producing sensible controllers: The VAE policy is reasonably good at imitating the demonstration trajectories, although it lacks the robustness to be practically useful. Adversarial training dramatically improves the stability of the controller. The authors analyze the improvement quantitatively by computing the percentage of the humanoid falling down before the end of an episode while imitating either training or test policies. The results are summarized in Figure 5 right. The figure further shows sequences of frames of representative demonstration and associated imitation trajectories. Videos of demonstration and imitation behaviors can be found in the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaohsyUxpxw video].<br />
<br />
[[File: Complex_humanoid_optimized.gif|frame|center|In the left and middle panels we show two demonstrated behaviors. In the right panel, the model's agent produces an unseen transition between those behaviors.]]<br />
<br />
Also, for practical purposes, it is desirable to allow the controller to transition from one behavior to another. The authors test this possibility in an experiment similar to the one for the Jaco arm: They determine the<br />
embedding vectors of pairs of demonstration trajectories, start the trajectory by conditioning on the first embedding vector, and then transition from one behavior to the other half-way through the episode by linearly interpolating the embeddings of the two demonstration trajectories over a window of 20 control steps. Although not always successful the learned controller often transitions robustly, despite not having been trained to do so. An example of this can be seen in the gif above. More examples can be seen in this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBrIll0B24o video].<br />
<br />
=Conclusions=<br />
<br />
=Critique=<br />
<br />
=References=</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Robust_Imitation_of_Diverse_Behaviors&diff=32893Robust Imitation of Diverse Behaviors2018-03-07T17:19:20Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Introduction=<br />
One of the longest standing challenges in AI is building versatile embodied agents, both in the form of real robots and animated avatars, capable of a wide and diverse set of behaviors. State-of-the-art robots cannot compete with the effortless variety and adaptive flexibility of motor behaviors produced by toddlers. Towards addressing this challenge, the authors combine several deep generative approaches to imitation learning in a way that accentuates their individual strengths and addresses their limitations. The end product is a robust neural network policy that can imitate a large and diverse set of behaviors using few training demonstrations.<br />
<br />
=Motivation=<br />
Some of the models that have recently shown great promise in imitation learning for motor control are the deep generative models. The authors primarily talk about two approaches viz. supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations and Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL) and their limitations and try to combine those two approaches in order to address these limitations. Some of these limitations are as follows:<br />
<br />
* Supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations (VAE):<br />
** They require large training datasets in order to work for non-trivial tasks<br />
** They tend to be brittle and fail when the agent diverges too much from the demonstration trajectories<br />
* Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL)<br />
** Adversarial training leads to mode-collapse (the tendency of adversarial generative models to cover only a subset of modes of a probability distribution, resulting in a failure to produce adequately diverse samples)<br />
** More difficult and slow to train as they do not immediately provide a latent representation of the data<br />
<br />
Thus, the former approach can model diverse behaviors without dropping modes but does not learn robust policies, while the latter approach gives robust policies but insufficiently diverse behaviors. Thus, the authors combine the favorable aspects of these two approaches. The base of their model is a new type of variational autoencoder on demonstration trajectories that learns semantic policy embeddings. Leveraging these policy representations, they develop a new version of GAIL that <br />
# is much more robust than the purely-supervised controller, especially with few demonstrations, and <br />
# avoids mode collapse, capturing many diverse behaviors when GAIL on its own does not.<br />
<br />
=Model=<br />
The authors first introduce a variational autoencoder (VAE) for supervised imitation, consisting of a bi-directional LSTM encoder mapping demonstration sequences to embedding vectors, and two decoders. The first decoder is a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) policy mapping a trajectory embedding and the current state to a continuous action vector. The second is a dynamics model mapping the embedding and previous state to the present state while modeling correlations among states with a WaveNet.<br />
<br />
[[File: Model_Architecture.png|700px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==Behavioral cloning with VAE suited for control==<br />
<br />
In this section, the authors follow a similar approach to Duan et al., but opt for stochastic VAEs as having a distribution <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math> to better regularize the latent space. In their VAE, an encoder maps a demonstration sequence to an embedding vector <math display="inline">z</math>. Given <math display="inline">z</math>, they decode both the state and action trajectories as shown in the figure above. To train the model, the following loss is minimized:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
L\left( \alpha, w, \phi; \tau_i \right) = - \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q_{\phi}(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[ \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} log \pi_\alpha \left( a_t^i|x_t^i, z \right) + log p_w \left( x_{t+1}^i|x_t^i, z\right) \right] +D_{KL}\left( q_\phi(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)||p(z) \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The encoder <math display="inline">q</math> uses a bi-directional LSTM. To produce the final embedding, it calculates the average of all the outputs of the second layer of this LSTM before applying a final linear transformation to<br />
generate the mean and standard deviation of a Gaussian. Then, one sample from this Gaussian is taken as the demonstration encoding.<br />
<br />
The action decoder is an MLP that maps the concatenation of the state and the embedding of the parameters of a Gaussian policy. The state decoder is similar to a conditional WaveNet model. In particular, it conditions on the embedding <math display="inline">z</math> and previous state <math display="inline">x_{t-1}</math> to generate the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math> autoregressively. That is, the autoregression is over the components of the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math>. Finally, instead of a Softmax, the model uses a mixture of Gaussians as the output of the WaveNet.<br />
<br />
==Diverse generative adversarial imitiation learning==<br />
To enable GAIL to produce diverse solutions, the authors condition the discriminator on the embeddings generated by the VAE encoder and integrate out the GAIL objective with respect to the variational posterior <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math>. Specifically, the authors train the discriminator by optimizing the following objective:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{max}_{\psi} \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\tau_i \sim \pi_E} \left( \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[\frac{1}{T_i} \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} logD_{\psi} \left( x_t^i, a_t^i | z \right) + \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\pi_\theta} \left[ log(1 - D_\psi(x, a | z)) \right] \right] \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The authors condition on unlabeled trajectories, which have been passed through a powerful encoder, and hence this approach is capable of one-shot imitation learning. Moreover, the VAE encoder enables to obtain a continuous latent embedding space where interpolation is possible.<br />
<br />
To better motivate the objective, the authors propose on temporarily leaving the context of imitation learning and considering an alternative objective for training GANs<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{min}_{G}{max}_{D} V (G, D) = \int_{y} p(y) \int_{z} q(z|y) \left[ log D(y | z) + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dy dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
This function is a simplification of the previous objective function. Furthermore, it satisfies the following property.<br />
<br />
===Lemma 1===<br />
Assuming that <math display="inline">q</math> computes the true posterior distribution that is <math display="inline">q(z|y) = \frac{p(y|z)p(z)}{p(y)}</math> then<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
V (G, D) = \int_{z} p(z) \left[ \int_{y} p(y|z) log D(y|z) dy + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
If an optimal discriminator is further assumed, the cost optimized by the generator then becomes<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
C(G) = 2 \int_ p p(z) JSD[p(\cdot|z) || G(\cdot|z)] dz - log4<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math display="inline">JSD</math> stands for the Jensen-Shannon divergence.<br />
<br />
=Experiments=<br />
<br />
The primary focus of the paper's experimental evaluation is to demonstrate that the architecture allows learning of robust controllers capable of producing the full spectrum of demonstration behaviors for a diverse range of challenging control problems. The authors consider three bodies: a 9 DoF robotic arm, a 9 DoF planar walker, and a 62 DoF complex humanoid (56-actuated joint angles, and a freely translating and rotating 3d root joint). While for the reaching task BC is sufficient to obtain a working controller, for the other two problems the full learning procedure is critical.<br />
<br />
The authors analyze the resulting embedding spaces and demonstrate that they exhibit a rich and sensible structure that can be exploited for control. Finally, the authors show that the encoder can be used to capture the gist of novel demonstration trajectories which can then be reproduced by the controller.<br />
<br />
==Robotic arm reaching==<br />
In this experiment, the authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their VAE architecture and investigate the nature of the learned embedding space on a reaching task with a simulated Jaco arm.<br />
<br />
To obtain demonstrations, the authors trained 60 independent policies to reach to random target locations in the workspace starting from the same initial configuration. 30 trajectories from each of<br />
the first 50 policies were generated. These served as training data for the VAE model (1500 training trajectories in total). The remaining 10 policies were used to generate test data.<br />
<br />
The reaching task is relatively simple, so with this amount of data the VAE policy is fairly robust. After training, the VAE encodes and reproduces the demonstrations as shown in the figure below.<br />
<br />
[[File: Robotic_arm_reaching.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==2D Walker==<br />
<br />
As a more challenging test compared to the reaching task, the authors consider bipedal locomotion. Here, the authors train 60 neural network policies for a 2d walker to serve as demonstrations. These policies are each trained to move at different speeds both forward and backward depending on a label provided as additional input to the policy. Target speeds for training were chosen from a set of four different speeds (m/s): -1, 0, 1, 3.<br />
<br />
The authors trained their model with 20 episodes per policy (1200 demonstration trajectories in total, each with a length of 400 steps or 10s of simulated time). In this experiment a full approach is required: training the VAE with BC alone can imitate some of the trajectories, but it performs poorly in general, presumably because the relatively small training set does not cover the space of trajectories sufficiently densely. On this generated dataset, they also train policies with GAIL using the same architecture and hyper-parameters. Due to the lack of conditioning, GAIL does not reproduce coherently trajectories. Instead, it simply meshes different behaviors together. In addition, the policies trained with GAIL also, exhibit dramatically less diversity; see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIguLQ4OwuM video].<br />
<br />
[[File: 2D_Walker.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
[[File: 2D_Walker_Optimized.gif|350px|center|]]<br />
==Complex humanoid==<br />
<br />
[[File: Complex_humanoid.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
[[File: Complex_humanoid_optimized.gif|350px|center|]]<br />
<br />
=Conclusions=<br />
<br />
=Critique=<br />
<br />
=References=</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=File:Complex_humanoid.png&diff=32892File:Complex humanoid.png2018-03-07T17:18:44Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Robust_Imitation_of_Diverse_Behaviors&diff=32891Robust Imitation of Diverse Behaviors2018-03-07T17:14:31Z<p>Shitawal: Added images and gifs for experiments</p>
<hr />
<div>=Introduction=<br />
One of the longest standing challenges in AI is building versatile embodied agents, both in the form of real robots and animated avatars, capable of a wide and diverse set of behaviors. State-of-the-art robots cannot compete with the effortless variety and adaptive flexibility of motor behaviors produced by toddlers. Towards addressing this challenge, the authors combine several deep generative approaches to imitation learning in a way that accentuates their individual strengths and addresses their limitations. The end product is a robust neural network policy that can imitate a large and diverse set of behaviors using few training demonstrations.<br />
<br />
=Motivation=<br />
Some of the models that have recently shown great promise in imitation learning for motor control are the deep generative models. The authors primarily talk about two approaches viz. supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations and Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL) and their limitations and try to combine those two approaches in order to address these limitations. Some of these limitations are as follows:<br />
<br />
* Supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations (VAE):<br />
** They require large training datasets in order to work for non-trivial tasks<br />
** They tend to be brittle and fail when the agent diverges too much from the demonstration trajectories<br />
* Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL)<br />
** Adversarial training leads to mode-collapse (the tendency of adversarial generative models to cover only a subset of modes of a probability distribution, resulting in a failure to produce adequately diverse samples)<br />
** More difficult and slow to train as they do not immediately provide a latent representation of the data<br />
<br />
Thus, the former approach can model diverse behaviors without dropping modes but does not learn robust policies, while the latter approach gives robust policies but insufficiently diverse behaviors. Thus, the authors combine the favorable aspects of these two approaches. The base of their model is a new type of variational autoencoder on demonstration trajectories that learns semantic policy embeddings. Leveraging these policy representations, they develop a new version of GAIL that <br />
# is much more robust than the purely-supervised controller, especially with few demonstrations, and <br />
# avoids mode collapse, capturing many diverse behaviors when GAIL on its own does not.<br />
<br />
=Model=<br />
The authors first introduce a variational autoencoder (VAE) for supervised imitation, consisting of a bi-directional LSTM encoder mapping demonstration sequences to embedding vectors, and two decoders. The first decoder is a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) policy mapping a trajectory embedding and the current state to a continuous action vector. The second is a dynamics model mapping the embedding and previous state to the present state while modeling correlations among states with a WaveNet.<br />
<br />
[[File: Model_Architecture.png|700px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==Behavioral cloning with VAE suited for control==<br />
<br />
In this section, the authors follow a similar approach to Duan et al., but opt for stochastic VAEs as having a distribution <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math> to better regularize the latent space. In their VAE, an encoder maps a demonstration sequence to an embedding vector <math display="inline">z</math>. Given <math display="inline">z</math>, they decode both the state and action trajectories as shown in the figure above. To train the model, the following loss is minimized:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
L\left( \alpha, w, \phi; \tau_i \right) = - \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q_{\phi}(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[ \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} log \pi_\alpha \left( a_t^i|x_t^i, z \right) + log p_w \left( x_{t+1}^i|x_t^i, z\right) \right] +D_{KL}\left( q_\phi(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)||p(z) \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The encoder <math display="inline">q</math> uses a bi-directional LSTM. To produce the final embedding, it calculates the average of all the outputs of the second layer of this LSTM before applying a final linear transformation to<br />
generate the mean and standard deviation of a Gaussian. Then, one sample from this Gaussian is taken as the demonstration encoding.<br />
<br />
The action decoder is an MLP that maps the concatenation of the state and the embedding of the parameters of a Gaussian policy. The state decoder is similar to a conditional WaveNet model. In particular, it conditions on the embedding <math display="inline">z</math> and previous state <math display="inline">x_{t-1}</math> to generate the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math> autoregressively. That is, the autoregression is over the components of the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math>. Finally, instead of a Softmax, the model uses a mixture of Gaussians as the output of the WaveNet.<br />
<br />
==Diverse generative adversarial imitiation learning==<br />
To enable GAIL to produce diverse solutions, the authors condition the discriminator on the embeddings generated by the VAE encoder and integrate out the GAIL objective with respect to the variational posterior <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math>. Specifically, the authors train the discriminator by optimizing the following objective:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{max}_{\psi} \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\tau_i \sim \pi_E} \left( \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[\frac{1}{T_i} \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} logD_{\psi} \left( x_t^i, a_t^i | z \right) + \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\pi_\theta} \left[ log(1 - D_\psi(x, a | z)) \right] \right] \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The authors condition on unlabeled trajectories, which have been passed through a powerful encoder, and hence this approach is capable of one-shot imitation learning. Moreover, the VAE encoder enables to obtain a continuous latent embedding space where interpolation is possible.<br />
<br />
To better motivate the objective, the authors propose on temporarily leaving the context of imitation learning and considering an alternative objective for training GANs<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{min}_{G}{max}_{D} V (G, D) = \int_{y} p(y) \int_{z} q(z|y) \left[ log D(y | z) + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dy dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
This function is a simplification of the previous objective function. Furthermore, it satisfies the following property.<br />
<br />
===Lemma 1===<br />
Assuming that <math display="inline">q</math> computes the true posterior distribution that is <math display="inline">q(z|y) = \frac{p(y|z)p(z)}{p(y)}</math> then<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
V (G, D) = \int_{z} p(z) \left[ \int_{y} p(y|z) log D(y|z) dy + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
If an optimal discriminator is further assumed, the cost optimized by the generator then becomes<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
C(G) = 2 \int_ p p(z) JSD[p(\cdot|z) || G(\cdot|z)] dz - log4<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math display="inline">JSD</math> stands for the Jensen-Shannon divergence.<br />
<br />
=Experiments=<br />
<br />
The primary focus of the paper's experimental evaluation is to demonstrate that the architecture allows learning of robust controllers capable of producing the full spectrum of demonstration behaviors for a diverse range of challenging control problems. The authors consider three bodies: a 9 DoF robotic arm, a 9 DoF planar walker, and a 62 DoF complex humanoid (56-actuated joint angles, and a freely translating and rotating 3d root joint). While for the reaching task BC is sufficient to obtain a working controller, for the other two problems the full learning procedure is critical.<br />
<br />
The authors analyze the resulting embedding spaces and demonstrate that they exhibit a rich and sensible structure that can be exploited for control. Finally, the authors show that the encoder can be used to capture the gist of novel demonstration trajectories which can then be reproduced by the controller.<br />
<br />
==Robotic arm reaching==<br />
In this experiment, the authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their VAE architecture and investigate the nature of the learned embedding space on a reaching task with a simulated Jaco arm.<br />
<br />
To obtain demonstrations, the authors trained 60 independent policies to reach to random target locations in the workspace starting from the same initial configuration. 30 trajectories from each of<br />
the first 50 policies were generated. These served as training data for the VAE model (1500 training trajectories in total). The remaining 10 policies were used to generate test data.<br />
<br />
The reaching task is relatively simple, so with this amount of data the VAE policy is fairly robust. After training, the VAE encodes and reproduces the demonstrations as shown in the figure below.<br />
<br />
[[File: Robotic_arm_reaching.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==2D Walker==<br />
<br />
As a more challenging test compared to the reaching task, the authors consider bipedal locomotion. Here, the authors train 60 neural network policies for a 2d walker to serve as demonstrations. These policies are each trained to move at different speeds both forward and backward depending on a label provided as additional input to the policy. Target speeds for training were chosen from a set of four different speeds (m/s): -1, 0, 1, 3.<br />
<br />
The authors trained their model with 20 episodes per policy (1200 demonstration trajectories in total, each with a length of 400 steps or 10s of simulated time). In this experiment a full approach is required: training the VAE with BC alone can imitate some of the trajectories, but it performs poorly in general, presumably because the relatively small training set does not cover the space of trajectories sufficiently densely. On this generated dataset, they also train policies with GAIL using the same architecture and hyper-parameters. Due to the lack of conditioning, GAIL does not reproduce coherently trajectories. Instead, it simply meshes different behaviors together. In addition, the policies trained with GAIL also, exhibit dramatically less diversity; see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIguLQ4OwuM video].<br />
<br />
[[File: 2D_Walker.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
[[File: 2D_Walker_Optimized.gif|350px|center|]]<br />
==Complex humanoid==<br />
[[File: Complex_humanoid_optimized.gif|350px|center|]]<br />
<br />
=Conclusions=<br />
<br />
=Critique=<br />
<br />
=References=</div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=File:Complex_humanoid_optimized.gif&diff=32890File:Complex humanoid optimized.gif2018-03-07T17:10:37Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=File:2D_Walker_Optimized.gif&diff=32889File:2D Walker Optimized.gif2018-03-07T16:56:55Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=File:2D_Walker.png&diff=32885File:2D Walker.png2018-03-07T16:47:34Z<p>Shitawal: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Shitawalhttp://wiki.math.uwaterloo.ca/statwiki/index.php?title=Robust_Imitation_of_Diverse_Behaviors&diff=32884Robust Imitation of Diverse Behaviors2018-03-07T16:47:08Z<p>Shitawal: Added 2D Walker experiment</p>
<hr />
<div>=Introduction=<br />
One of the longest standing challenges in AI is building versatile embodied agents, both in the form of real robots and animated avatars, capable of a wide and diverse set of behaviors. State-of-the-art robots cannot compete with the effortless variety and adaptive flexibility of motor behaviors produced by toddlers. Towards addressing this challenge, the authors combine several deep generative approaches to imitation learning in a way that accentuates their individual strengths and addresses their limitations. The end product is a robust neural network policy that can imitate a large and diverse set of behaviors using few training demonstrations.<br />
<br />
=Motivation=<br />
Some of the models that have recently shown great promise in imitation learning for motor control are the deep generative models. The authors primarily talk about two approaches viz. supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations and Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL) and their limitations and try to combine those two approaches in order to address these limitations. Some of these limitations are as follows:<br />
<br />
* Supervised approaches that condition on demonstrations (VAE):<br />
** They require large training datasets in order to work for non-trivial tasks<br />
** They tend to be brittle and fail when the agent diverges too much from the demonstration trajectories<br />
* Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning (GAIL)<br />
** Adversarial training leads to mode-collapse (the tendency of adversarial generative models to cover only a subset of modes of a probability distribution, resulting in a failure to produce adequately diverse samples)<br />
** More difficult and slow to train as they do not immediately provide a latent representation of the data<br />
<br />
Thus, the former approach can model diverse behaviors without dropping modes but does not learn robust policies, while the latter approach gives robust policies but insufficiently diverse behaviors. Thus, the authors combine the favorable aspects of these two approaches. The base of their model is a new type of variational autoencoder on demonstration trajectories that learns semantic policy embeddings. Leveraging these policy representations, they develop a new version of GAIL that <br />
# is much more robust than the purely-supervised controller, especially with few demonstrations, and <br />
# avoids mode collapse, capturing many diverse behaviors when GAIL on its own does not.<br />
<br />
=Model=<br />
The authors first introduce a variational autoencoder (VAE) for supervised imitation, consisting of a bi-directional LSTM encoder mapping demonstration sequences to embedding vectors, and two decoders. The first decoder is a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) policy mapping a trajectory embedding and the current state to a continuous action vector. The second is a dynamics model mapping the embedding and previous state to the present state while modeling correlations among states with a WaveNet.<br />
<br />
[[File: Model_Architecture.png|700px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==Behavioral cloning with VAE suited for control==<br />
<br />
In this section, the authors follow a similar approach to Duan et al., but opt for stochastic VAEs as having a distribution <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math> to better regularize the latent space. In their VAE, an encoder maps a demonstration sequence to an embedding vector <math display="inline">z</math>. Given <math display="inline">z</math>, they decode both the state and action trajectories as shown in the figure above. To train the model, the following loss is minimized:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
L\left( \alpha, w, \phi; \tau_i \right) = - \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q_{\phi}(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[ \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} log \pi_\alpha \left( a_t^i|x_t^i, z \right) + log p_w \left( x_{t+1}^i|x_t^i, z\right) \right] +D_{KL}\left( q_\phi(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)||p(z) \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The encoder <math display="inline">q</math> uses a bi-directional LSTM. To produce the final embedding, it calculates the average of all the outputs of the second layer of this LSTM before applying a final linear transformation to<br />
generate the mean and standard deviation of a Gaussian. Then, one sample from this Gaussian is taken as the demonstration encoding.<br />
<br />
The action decoder is an MLP that maps the concatenation of the state and the embedding of the parameters of a Gaussian policy. The state decoder is similar to a conditional WaveNet model. In particular, it conditions on the embedding <math display="inline">z</math> and previous state <math display="inline">x_{t-1}</math> to generate the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math> autoregressively. That is, the autoregression is over the components of the vector <math display="inline">x_t</math>. Finally, instead of a Softmax, the model uses a mixture of Gaussians as the output of the WaveNet.<br />
<br />
==Diverse generative adversarial imitiation learning==<br />
To enable GAIL to produce diverse solutions, the authors condition the discriminator on the embeddings generated by the VAE encoder and integrate out the GAIL objective with respect to the variational posterior <math display="inline">q_\phi(z|x_{1:T})</math>. Specifically, the authors train the discriminator by optimizing the following objective:<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{max}_{\psi} \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\tau_i \sim \pi_E} \left( \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{q(z|x_{1:T_i}^i)} \left[\frac{1}{T_i} \sum_{t=1}^{T_i} logD_{\psi} \left( x_t^i, a_t^i | z \right) + \pmb{\mathbb{E}}_{\pi_\theta} \left[ log(1 - D_\psi(x, a | z)) \right] \right] \right)<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
The authors condition on unlabeled trajectories, which have been passed through a powerful encoder, and hence this approach is capable of one-shot imitation learning. Moreover, the VAE encoder enables to obtain a continuous latent embedding space where interpolation is possible.<br />
<br />
To better motivate the objective, the authors propose on temporarily leaving the context of imitation learning and considering an alternative objective for training GANs<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
{min}_{G}{max}_{D} V (G, D) = \int_{y} p(y) \int_{z} q(z|y) \left[ log D(y | z) + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dy dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
This function is a simplification of the previous objective function. Furthermore, it satisfies the following property.<br />
<br />
===Lemma 1===<br />
Assuming that <math display="inline">q</math> computes the true posterior distribution that is <math display="inline">q(z|y) = \frac{p(y|z)p(z)}{p(y)}</math> then<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
V (G, D) = \int_{z} p(z) \left[ \int_{y} p(y|z) log D(y|z) dy + \int_{\hat{y}} G(\hat{y} | z) log (1 - D(\hat{y} | z)) d\hat{y} \right] dz<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
If an optimal discriminator is further assumed, the cost optimized by the generator then becomes<br />
<br />
\begin{align}<br />
C(G) = 2 \int_ p p(z) JSD[p(\cdot|z) || G(\cdot|z)] dz - log4<br />
\end{align}<br />
<br />
where <math display="inline">JSD</math> stands for the Jensen-Shannon divergence.<br />
<br />
=Experiments=<br />
<br />
The primary focus of the paper's experimental evaluation is to demonstrate that the architecture allows learning of robust controllers capable of producing the full spectrum of demonstration behaviors for a diverse range of challenging control problems. The authors consider three bodies: a 9 DoF robotic arm, a 9 DoF planar walker, and a 62 DoF complex humanoid (56-actuated joint angles, and a freely translating and rotating 3d root joint). While for the reaching task BC is sufficient to obtain a working controller, for the other two problems the full learning procedure is critical.<br />
<br />
The authors analyze the resulting embedding spaces and demonstrate that they exhibit a rich and sensible structure that can be exploited for control. Finally, the authors show that the encoder can be used to capture the gist of novel demonstration trajectories which can then be reproduced by the controller.<br />
<br />
==Robotic arm reaching==<br />
In this experiment, the authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their VAE architecture and investigate the nature of the learned embedding space on a reaching task with a simulated Jaco arm.<br />
<br />
To obtain demonstrations, the authors trained 60 independent policies to reach to random target locations in the workspace starting from the same initial configuration. 30 trajectories from each of<br />
the first 50 policies were generated. These served as training data for the VAE model (1500 training trajectories in total). The remaining 10 policies were used to generate test data.<br />
<br />
The reaching task is relatively simple, so with this amount of data the VAE policy is fairly robust. After training, the VAE encodes and reproduces the demonstrations as shown in the figure below.<br />
<br />
[[File: Robotic_arm_reaching.png|650px|center|]]<br />
<br />
==2D Walker==<br />
<br />
As a more challenging test compared to the reaching task, the authors consider bipedal locomotion. Here, the authors train 60 neural network policies for a 2d walker to serve as demonstrations. These policies are each trained to move at different speeds both forward and backward depending on a label provided as additional input to the policy. Target speeds for training were chosen from a set of four different speeds (m/s): -1, 0, 1, 3.<br />
<br />
The authors trained their model with 20 episodes per policy (1200 demonstration trajectories in total, each with a length of 400 steps or 10s of simulated time). In this experiment a full approach is required: training the VAE with BC alone can imitate some of the trajectories, but it performs poorly in general, presumably because the relatively small training set does not cover the space of trajectories sufficiently densely. On this generated dataset, they also train policies with GAIL using the same architecture and hyper-parameters. Due to the lack of conditioning, GAIL does not reproduce coherently trajectories. Instead, it simply meshes different behaviors together. In addition, the policies trained with GAIL also, exhibit dramatically less diversity; see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIguLQ4OwuM video].<br />
<br />
==Complex humanoid==<br />
<br />
=Conclusions=<br />
<br />
=Critique=<br />
<br />
=References=</div>Shitawal