1 Introduction
The machine learning community is wellpractised at learning representations of
datapoints and sequences. A middleground between these two is representing, or summarizing, datasets unordered collections of vectors, such as photos of a particular person, recordings of a given speaker or a document as a bagofwords. Where these sets take the form of i.i.d samples from some distribution, such summaries are called
statistics. We explore the idea of using neural networks to learn statistics and we refer to our approach as a neural statistician.The key result of our approach is a statistic network
that takes as input a set of vectors and outputs a vector of summary statistics specifying a generative model of that set  a mean and variance specifying a Gaussian distribution in a latent space we term the context. The advantages of our approach are that it is:

Unsupervised: It provides principled and unsupervised way to learn summary statistics as the output of a variational encoder of a generative model.

Data efficient: If one has a large number of small but related datasets, modelling the datasets jointly enables us to gain statistical strength.

Parameter Efficient: By using summary statistics instead of say categorical labellings of each dataset, we decouple the number of parameters of the model from the number of datasets.

Capable of fewshot learning: If the datasets correspond to examples from different classes, class embeddings (summary statistics associated with examples from a class), allow us to handle new classes at test time.
2 Problem Statement
We are given datasets for . Each dataset consists of a number of i.i.d samples from an associated distribution over . The task can be split into learning and inference components. The learning component is to produce a generative model for each dataset . We assume there is a common underlying generative process such that for drawn from . We refer to as the context. The inference component is to give an approximate posterior over the context for a given dataset produced by a statistic network.
3 Neural Statistician
In order to exploit the assumption of a hierarchical generative process over datasets we will use a ‘parametertransfer approach’ (see Pan & Yang, 2010) to extend the variational autoencoder model of Kingma & Welling (2013).

figureLeft: basic hierarchical model, where the plate encodes the fact that the context variable is shared across each item in a given dataset. Center: full neural statistician model with three latent layers
. Each collection of incoming edges to a node is implemented as a neural network, the input of which is the concatenation of the edges’ sources, the output of which is a parameterization of a distribution over the random variable represented by that node.
Right: The statistic network, which combines the data via an exchangeable statistic layer.3.1 Variational Autoencoder
The variational autoencoder is a latent variable model (often called the decoder) with parameters . For each observed , a corresponding latent variable is drawn from so that
(1) 
The generative parameters are learned by introducing a recognition network (also called an encoder) with parameters . The recognition network gives an approximate posterior over the latent variables that can then be used to give the standard variational lower bound (Saul & Jordan, 1996) on the singledatum loglikelihood. I.e. , where
(2) 
Likewise the fulldata log likelihood is lower bounded by the sum of the terms over the whole dataset. We can then optimize this lower bound with respect to and using the reparameterization trick introduced by Kingma & Welling (2013) and Rezende et al. (2014)
to get a MonteCarlo estimate of the gradient.
3.2 Basic Model
We extend the variational autoencoder to the model depicted on the left in Figure 3. This includes a latent variable , the context, that varies between different datasets but is constant, a priori, for items within the same dataset. Now, the likelihood of the parameters for one single particular dataset is given by
(3) 
The prior is chosen to be a spherical Gaussian with zero mean and unit variance. The conditional is Gaussian with diagonal covariance, where all the mean and variance parameters depend on through a neural network. Similarly the observation model will be a simple likelihood function appropriate to the data modality with dependence on parameterized by a neural network. For example, with real valued data, a diagonal Gaussian likelihood could be used where the mean and log variance of are created from via a neural network.
We use approximate inference networks , , with parameters collected into , to once again enable the calculation and optimization of a variational lower bound on the loglikelihood. The single dataset log likelihood lower bound is given by
(4) 
As with the generative distributions, the likelihood forms for and are diagonal Gaussian distributions, where all the mean and log variance parameters in each distribution are produced by a neural network taking the conditioning variables as inputs. Note that accepts as input a dataset and we refer to this as the statistic network. We describe this in Subsection 3.4.
The fulldata variational bound is given by summing the variational bound for each dataset in our collection of datasets. It is by learning the difference of the withindataset and betweendataset distributions that we are able to discover an appropriate statistic network.
3.3 Full Model
The basic model works well for modelling simple datasets, but struggles when the datasets have complex internal structure. To increase the sophistication of the model we use multiple stochastic layers and introduce skipconnections for both the inference and generative networks. The generative model is shown graphically in Figure 3
in the center. The probability of a dataset
is then given by(5) 
where the are again Gaussian distributions where the mean and log variance are given as the output of neural networks. The generative process for the full model is described in Algorithm 1.
The full approximate posterior factorizes analogously as
(6) 
For convenience we give the variational lower bound as sum of a three parts, a reconstruction term , a context divergence and a latent divergence :
(7)  
(8)  
(9)  
(10) 
The skipconnections and allow the context to specify a more precise distribution for each latent variable by explainingaway more generic aspects of the dataset at each stochastic layer. This architecture was inspired by recent work on probabilistic ladder networks in Kaae Sønderby et al. (2016). Complementing these are the skipconnections from each latent variable to the observation , the intuition here is that each stochastic layer can focus on representing a certain level of abstraction, since its information does not need to be copied into the next layer, a similar approach was used in Maaløe et al. (2016).
Once again, note that we are maximizing the lower bound to the log likelihood over many datasets : we want to maximize the expectation of
over all datasets. We do this optimization using stochastic gradient descent. In contrast to a variational autoencoder where a minibatch would consist of a subsample of
datapoints from the dataset, we use minibatches consisting of a subsample of datasets tensors of shape
(batch size, sample size, number of features).3.4 Statistic Network
In addition to the standard inference networks we require a statistic network to give an approximate posterior over the context given a dataset . This inference network must capture the exchangeability of the data in .
We use a feedforward neural network consisting of three main elements:

An instance encoder that takes each individual datapoint to a vector .

An exchangeable instance pooling layer that collapses the matrix to a single prestatistic vector
. Examples include elementwise means, sums, products, geometric means and maximum. We use the sample mean for all experiments.

A final postpooling network that takes to a parameterization of a diagonal Gaussian.
The graphical model for this is given at the right of Figure 3.
We note that the humble sample mean already gives the statistic network a great deal of representational power due to the fact that the instance encoder can learn a representation where averaging makes sense. For example since the instance encoder can approximate a polynomial on a compact domain, and so can the postpooling network, a statistic network can approximate any moment of a distribution.
4 Related Work
Due to the general nature of the problem considered, our work touches on many different topics which we now attempt to summarize.
Topic models and graphical models
The form of the graphical model in Figure 3 on the left is equivalent to that of a standard topic model. In contrast to traditional topic models we do not use discrete latent variables, or restrict to discrete data. Work such as that by Ranganath et al. (2014) has extended topic models in various directions, but importantly we use flexible conditional distributions and dependency structures parameterized by deep neural networks. Recent work has explored neural networks for document models (see e.g. Miao et al., 2015) but has been limited to modelling datapoints with little internal structure. Along related lines are ‘structured variational autoencoders’ (see Johnson et al., 2016), where they treat the general problem of integrating graphical models with variational autoencoders.
Transfer learning
There is a considerable literature on transfer learning, for a survey see
Pan & Yang (2010). There they discuss ‘parametertransfer’ approaches whereby parameters or priors are shared across datasets, and our work fits into that paradigm. For examples see Lawrence & Platt (2004) where share they priors between Gaussian processes, and Evgeniou & Pontil (2004) where they take an SVMlike approach to share kernels.Oneshot Learning
Learning quickly from small amounts of data is a topic of great interest. Lake et al. (2015)
use Bayesian program induction for oneshot generation and classification, and
Koch (2015) train a Siamese (Chopra et al. (2005)) convolutional network for oneshot image classification. We note the relation to the recent work (Rezende et al., 2016) in which the authors use a conditional recurrent variational autoencoder capable of oneshot generalization by taking as extra input a conditioning data point. The important differences here are that we jointly model datasets and datapoints and consider datasets of any size. Recent approaches to oneshot classification are matching networks (Vinyals et al., 2016b) (which was concurrent with the initial preprint of this work), and related previous work (Santoro et al., 2016). The former can be considered a kind of differentiable nearest neighbour classifier, and the latter augments their network with memory to store information about the classification problem. Both are trained endtoend for the classification problem, whereas the present work is a general approach to learning representations of datasets. Probably the closest previous work is by Salakhutdinov et al. (2012) where the authors learn a topic model over the activations of a DBM for oneshot learning. Compared with their work we use modern architectures and easier to train VAEs, in particular we have fast and amortized feedforward inference for test (and training) datasets, avoiding the need for MCMC.MultipleInstance Learning
There is previous work on classifying sets in multipleinstance learning, for a useful survey see Cheplygina et al. (2015). Typical approaches involve adapting kernel based methods such as support measure machines (Muandet et al., 2012), support distribution machines (Póczos et al., 2012) and multipleinstancekernels (Gartner et al., 2002). We do not consider applications to multipleinstance learning type problems here, but it may be fruitful to do so in the future.
Set2Seq
In very related work, Vinyals et al. (2016a) explore architectures for mapping sets to sequences. There they use an LSTM to repeatedly compute weightedaverages of the datapoints and use this to tackle problems such as sorting a list of numbers. The main difference between their work and ours is that they primarily consider supervised problems, whereas we present a general unsupervised method for learning representations of sets of i.i.d instances. In future work we may also explore recurrently computing statistics.
Abc
There has also been work on learning summary statistics for Approximate Bayesian Computation by either learning to predict the parameters generating a sample as a supervised problem, or by using kernel embeddings as infinite dimensional summary statistics. See the work by Fukumizu et al. (2013) for an example of kernelbased approaches. More recently Jiang et al. (2015) used deep neural networks to predict the parameters generating the data. The crucial differences are that their problem is supervised, they do not leverage any exchangeability properties the data may have, nor can it deal with varying sample sizes.
5 Experimental Results
Given an input set we can use the statistic network to calculate an approximate posterior over contexts . Under the generative model, each context specifies a conditional model . To get samples from the model corresponding to the most likely posterior value of , we set to the mean of the approximate posterior and then sample directly from the conditional distributions. This is described in Algorithm 2. We use this process in our experiments to show samples. In all experiments, we use the Adam optimization algorithm (Kingma & Ba, 2014)
to optimize the parameters of the generative models and variational approximations. Batch normalization
(Ioffe & Szegedy, 2015) is implemented for convolutional layers and we always use a batch size of. We primarily use the Theano
(Theano Development Team, 2016) framework with the Lasagne (Dieleman et al., 2015)library, but the final experiments with face data were done using Tensorflow
(Abadi et al., 2015). In all cases experiments were terminated after a given number of epochs when training appeared to have sufficiently converged (
epochs for omniglot, youtube and spatial MNIST examples, and epochs for the synthetic experiment).5.1 Simple 1D Distributions
In our first experiment we wanted to know if the neural statistician will learn to cluster synthetic D datasets by distribution family. We generated a collection of synthetic D datasets each containing samples. Datasets consist of samples from either an Exponential, Gaussian, Uniform or Laplacian distribution with equal probability. Means and variances are sampled from and respectively. The training data contains sets.
The architecture for this experiment contains a single stochastic layer with units for and units for , . The model and variational approximation
are each a diagonal Gaussian distribution with all mean and log variance parameters given by a network composed of three dense layers with ReLU activations and
units. The statistic network determining the mean and log variance parameters of posterior over context variables is composed of three dense layers before and after pooling, each withunits with Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) activations.
Figure 1 shows 3D scatter plots of the summary statistics learned. Notice that the different families of distribution cluster. It is interesting to observe that the Exponential cluster is differently orientated to the others, perhaps reflecting the fact that it is the only nonsymmetric distribution. We also see that between the Gaussian and Laplacian clusters there is an area of ambiguity which is as one might expect. We also see that within each cluster the mean and variance are mapped to orthogonal directions.
5.2 Spatial MNIST
Building on the previous experiments we investigate 2D datasets that have complex structure, but the datapoints contain little information by themselves, making it a good test of the statistic network. We created a dataset called spatial MNIST. In spatial MNIST each image from MNIST (LeCun et al., 1998) is turned into a dataset by interpreting the normalized pixel intensities as a probability density and sampling coordinate values. An example is shown in Figure 2. This creates twodimensional spatial datasets. We used a sample size of . Note that since the pixel coordinates are discrete, it is necessary to dequantize them by adding uniform noise to the coordinates if one models them as real numbers, else you can get arbitrarily high densities (see Theis et al. (2016) for a discussion of this point).
The generative architecture for this experiment contains stochastic layers, each with units, and a single layer with units. The means and log variances of the Gaussian likelihood for , and each subnetwork for in both the encoder and decoder contained dense layers with ReLU units each. The statistic network also contained 3 dense layers prepooling and 3 dense layers post pooling with 256 ReLU units.
In addition to being able to sample from the model conditioned on a set of inputs, we can also summarize a dataset by choosing a subset to minimise the KL divergence of from . We do this greedily by iteratively discarding points from the full sample. Pseudocode for this process is given in Algorithm 3. The results are shown in Figure 3. We see that the model is capable of handling complex arrangements of datapoints. We also see that it can select sensible subsets of a dataset as a summary.
5.3 Omniglot
Next we work with the OMNIGLOT data (Lake et al., 2015). This contains 1628 classes of handwritten characters but with just 20 examples per class. This makes it an excellent testbed for transfer / fewshot learning. We constructed datasets by splitting each class into datasets of size 5. We train on datasets drawn from 1200 classes and reserve the remaining classes to test fewshot sampling and classification. We created new classes by rotating and reflecting characters. We resized the images to
. We sampled a binarization of each image for each epoch. We also randomly applied the dilation operator from computer vision as further data augmentation since we observed that the stroke widths are quite uniform in the OMNIGLOT data, whereas there is substantial variation in MNIST, this augmentation improved the visual quality of the fewshot MNIST samples considerably and increased the fewshot classification accuracy by about
percent. Finally we used ‘sample dropout’ whereby a random subset of each dataset was removed from the pooling in the statistic network, and then included the number of samples remaining as an extra feature. This was beneficial since it reduced overfitting and also allowed the statistic network to learn to adjust the approximate posterior over based on the number of samples.We used a single stochastic layer with 16 units for , and units for . We used a shared convolutional encoder between the inference and statistic networks and a deconvolutional decoder network. Full details of the networks are given in Appendix B.1. The decoder used a Bernoulli likelihood.
In Figure 4 we show two examples of fewshot learning by conditioning on samples of unseen characters from OMNIGLOT, and conditioning on samples of digits from MNIST. The samples are mostly of a highquality, and this shows that the neural statistician can generalize even to new datasets.
As a further test we considered fewshot classification of both unseen OMNIGLOT characters and MNIST digits. Given a sets of labelled examples of each class (for MNIST say), we computed the approximate posteriors using the statistic network. Then for each test image we also computed the posterior and classified it according to the training dataset minimizing the KL divergence from the test context to the training context. This process is described in Algorithm 4. We tried this with either 1 or 5 labelled examples per class and either or classes. For each trial we randomly select classes, randomly select training examples for each class, and test on the remaining examples. This process is repeated 100 times and the results averaged. The results are shown in Table 1. We compare to a number of results reported in Vinyals et al. (2016b) including Santoro et al. (2016) and Koch (2015). Overall we see that the neural statistician model can be used as a strong classifier, particularly for the way tasks, but performs worse than matching networks for the way tasks. One important advantage that matching networks have is that, whilst each class is processed independently in our model, the representation in matching networks is conditioned on all of the classes in the fewshot problem. This means that it can exaggerate differences between similar classes, which are more likely to appear in a 20way problem than a 5way problem.
Task  Method  

Test Dataset  K Shot  K Way  Siamese  MANN  Matching  Ours 
MNIST  1  10  70    72  78.6 
MNIST  5  10        93.2 
OMNIGLOT  1  5  97.3  82.8  98.1  98.1 
OMNIGLOT  5  5  98.4  94.9  98.9  99.5 
OMNIGLOT  1  20  88.1    93.8  93.2 
OMNIGLOT  5  20  97.0    98.7  98.1 
5.4 Youtube Faces
Finally, we provide a proof of concept for generating faces of a particular person. We use the Youtube Faces Database from Wolf et al. (2011). It contains videos of different people. We use the aligned and cropped to face version, resized to . The validation and test sets contain unique people each, and there is no overlap of persons between data splits. The sets were created by sampling frames randomly without replacement from each video, we use a set size of frames. We resample the sets for the training data each epoch.
Our architecture for this problem is based on one presented in Lamb et al. (2016). We used a single stochastic layer with dimensional latent and dimensional variable. The statistic network and the inference network share a common convolutional encoder, and the deocder uses deconvolutional layers. For full details see Appendix B.2. The likelihood function is a Gaussian, but where the variance parameters are shared across all datapoints, this was found to make training faster and more stable.
The results are shown in Figure 5. Whilst there is room for improvement, we see that it is possible to specify a complex distribution onthefly with a set of photos of a previously unseen person. The samples conditioned on an input set have a reasonable likeness of the input faces. We also show the ability of the model to generate new datasets and see that the samples have a consistent identity and varied poses.
6 Conclusion
We have demonstrated a highly flexible model on a variety of tasks. Going forward our approach will naturally benefit from advances in generative models as we can simply upgrade our base generative model, and so future work will pursue this. Compared with some other approaches in the literature for fewshot learning, our requirement for supervision is weaker: we only ask at training time that we are given datasets, but we do not need labels for the datasets, nor even information on whether two datasets represent the same or different classes. It would be interesting then to explore application areas where only this weaker form of supervision is available. There are two important limitations to this work, firstly that the method is dataset hungry: it will likely not learn useful representations of datasets given only a small number of them. Secondly at test time the fewshot fit of the generative model will not be greatly improved by using larger datasets unless the model was also trained on similarly large datasets. The latter limitation seems like a promising future research direction  bridging the gap between fast adaptation and slow training.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Data Science, funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (grant EP/L016427/1) and the University of Edinburgh.
References
 Abadi et al. (2015) Martín Abadi, Ashish Agarwal, Paul Barham, Eugene Brevdo, and Zhifeng Chen et al. TensorFlow: Largescale machine learning on heterogeneous systems, 2015. URL http://tensorflow.org/. Software available from tensorflow.org.
 Cheplygina et al. (2015) Veronika Cheplygina, David M.J. Tax, and Marco Loog. On classification with bags, groups and sets. Pattern Recognition Letters, 59:11 – 17, 2015.
 Chopra et al. (2005) S. Chopra, R. Hadsell, and Y. LeCun. Learning a similarity metric discriminatively, with application to face verification. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2005. CVPR 2005. IEEE Computer Society Conference on, pp. 539–546 Vol. 1, June 2005.
 Dieleman et al. (2015) Sander Dieleman, Jan Schlüter, Colin Raffel, Eben Olson, SK Sønderby, D Nouri, D Maturana, M Thoma, E Battenberg, J Kelly, et al. Lasagne: First release. Zenodo: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
 Evgeniou & Pontil (2004) Theodoros Evgeniou and Massimiliano Pontil. Regularized multi–task learning. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pp. 109–117. ACM, 2004.

Fukumizu et al. (2013)
Kenji Fukumizu, Le Song, and Arthur Gretton.
Kernel Bayes’ rule: Bayesian inference with positive definite kernels.
The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 14(1):3753–3783, 2013.  Gartner et al. (2002) Thomas Gartner, Peter A. Flach, Adam Kowalczyk, and Alex J. Smola. Multiinstance kernels. In In Proc. 19th International Conf. on Machine Learning, pp. 179–186. Morgan Kaufmann, 2002.
 Ioffe & Szegedy (2015) Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In Proceedings of The 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 448–456, 2015.
 Jiang et al. (2015) Bai Jiang, Tungyu Wu, Charles Zheng, and Wing H Wong. Learning summary statistic for approximate Bayesian computation via deep neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.02175, 2015.
 Johnson et al. (2016) Matthew J Johnson, David Duvenaud, Alexander B Wiltschko, Sandeep R Datta, and Ryan P Adams. Structured vaes: Composing probabilistic graphical models and variational autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.06277, 2016.
 Kaae Sønderby et al. (2016) Casper Kaae Sønderby, Tapani Raiko, Lars Maaløe, Søren Kaae Sønderby, and Ole Winther. How to train deep variational autoencoders and probabilistic ladder networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.02282, 2016.
 Kingma & Ba (2014) Diederik Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014.
 Kingma & Welling (2013) Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Autoencoding variational Bayes. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), number 2014, 2013.
 Koch (2015) Gregory Koch. Siamese neural networks for oneshot image recognition. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, 2015.
 Lake et al. (2015) Brenden M Lake, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Joshua B Tenenbaum. Humanlevel concept learning through probabilistic program induction. Science, 350(6266):1332–1338, 2015.
 Lamb et al. (2016) Alex Lamb, Vincent Dumoulin, and Aaron Courville. Discriminative regularization for generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.03220, 2016.
 Lawrence & Platt (2004) Neil D Lawrence and John C Platt. Learning to learn with the informative vector machine. In Proceedings of the twentyfirst international conference on Machine learning, pp. 65. ACM, 2004.
 LeCun et al. (1998) Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. Gradientbased learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278–2324, 1998.
 Maaløe et al. (2016) Lars Maaløe, Casper Kaae Sønderby, Søren Kaae Sønderby, and Ole Winther. Auxiliary deep generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.05473, 2016.
 Miao et al. (2015) Yishu Miao, Lei Yu, and Phil Blunsom. Neural variational inference for text processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06038, 2015.
 Muandet et al. (2012) Krikamol Muandet, Kenji Fukumizu, Francesco Dinuzzo, and Bernhard Schölkopf. Learning from distributions via support measure machines. In P. Bartlett, FCN. Pereira, CJC. Burges, L. Bottou, and KQ. Weinberger (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25, pp. 10–18. 2012.
 Pan & Yang (2010) Sinno Jialin Pan and Qiang Yang. A survey on transfer learning. Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 22(10):1345–1359, 2010.
 Póczos et al. (2012) Barnabás Póczos, Liang Xiong, Dougal J Sutherland, and Jeff Schneider. Support distribution machines. Technical Report, 2012. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.0302.
 Ranganath et al. (2014) Rajesh Ranganath, Sean Gerrish, and David M Blei. Black box variational inference. In AISTATS, pp. 814–822, 2014.

Rezende et al. (2014)
Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Shakir Mohamed, and Daan Wierstra.
Stochastic backpropagation and approximate inference in deep generative models.
In Proceedings of The 31st International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1278–1286, 2014.  Rezende et al. (2016) Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Shakir Mohamed, Ivo Danihelka, Karol Gregor, and Daan Wierstra. Oneshot generalization in deep generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.05106, 2016.
 Salakhutdinov et al. (2012) Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Antonio Torralba. Oneshot learning with a hierarchical nonparametric bayesian model. In ICML Unsupervised and Transfer Learning, pp. 195–206, 2012.
 Santoro et al. (2016) Adam Santoro, Sergey Bartunov, Matthew Botvinick, Daan Wierstra, and Timothy Lillicrap. Oneshot learning with memoryaugmented neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.06065, 2016.
 Saul & Jordan (1996) Lawrence K Saul and Michael I Jordan. Exploiting tractable substructures in intractable networks. In Advances in Neural Processing Systems 8, 1996.
 Theano Development Team (2016) Theano Development Team. Theano: A Python framework for fast computation of mathematical expressions. arXiv eprints, abs/1605.02688, May 2016. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02688.
 Theis et al. (2016) L. Theis, A. van den Oord, and M. Bethge. A note on the evaluation of generative models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2016.
 Vinyals et al. (2016a) Oriol Vinyals, Samy Bengio, and Manjunath Kudlur. Order matters: sequence to sequence for sets. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2016a.
 Vinyals et al. (2016b) Oriol Vinyals, Charles Blundell, Timothy Lillicrap, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Daan Wierstra. Matching networks for one shot learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.04080, 2016b.
 Wolf et al. (2011) Lior Wolf, Tal Hassner, and Itay Maoz. Face recognition in unconstrained videos with matched background similarity. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2011 IEEE Conference on, pp. 529–534. IEEE, 2011.
Appendix A Appendix A: Pseudocode
Appendix B Appendix B: Further Experimental Details
b.1 Omniglot
Shared encoder 
{ conv2d feature maps with kernels and ELU activations } 
conv2d feature maps with kernels, stride and ELU activations 
{conv2d feature maps with kernels and ELU activations } 
conv2d feature maps with kernels, stride and ELU activations 
{ conv2d feature maps with kernels and ELU activations } 
conv2d feature maps with kernels, stride and ELU activations 
Statistic network 

fullyconnected layer with units and ELU activations 
sampledropout and concatenation with number of samples 
average pooling within each dataset 
{fullyconnected layer with units and ELU activations } 
fullyconnected linear layers to and 
Inference network 

concatenate and 
{fullyconnected layer with units and ELU activations } 
fullyconnected linear layers to and 
Latent decoder network 

{fullyconnected layer with units and ELU activations } 
fullyconnected linear layers to and 
Observation decoder network 
concatenate and 
fullyconnected linear layers with units 
{ conv2d feature maps with kernels and ELU activations } 
deconv2d feature maps with kernels, stride 2, ELU activations 
{ conv2d feature maps with kernels and ELU activations } 
deconv2d feature maps with kernels, stride 2, ELU activations 
{ conv2d feature maps with kernels and ELU activations } 
deconv2d feature maps with kernels, stride 2, ELU activations 
conv2d feature map with kernels, sigmoid activations 
b.2 Youtube faces
Shared encoder 
{ conv2d feature maps with kernels and ELU activations } 
conv2d feature maps with kernels, stride and ELU activations 
{conv2d feature maps with kernels and ELU activations } 
conv2d feature maps with kernels, stride and ELU activations 
{ conv2d feature maps with kernels and ELU activations } 
conv2d feature maps with kernels, stride and ELU activations 
{ conv2d feature maps with kernels and ELU activations } 
conv2d feature maps with kernels, stride and ELU activations 
Statistic network 

fullyconnected layer with units and ELU activations 
average pooling within each dataset 
fullyconnected linear layers to and 
Inference network 

concatenate and 
fullyconnected layer with units and ELU activations 
fullyconnected linear layers to and 
Latent decoder network 

fullyconnected layer with units and ELU activations 
fullyconnected linear layers to and 
Observation decoder network 
concatenate and 
fullyconnected layer with units and ELU activations 
fullyconnected linear layer with units 
{ conv2d feature maps with kernels and ELU activations } 
deconv2d feature maps with kernels, stride 2, ELU activations 
{ conv2d feature maps with kernels and ELU activations } 
deconv2d feature maps with kernels, stride 2, ELU activations 
{ conv2d feature maps with kernels and ELU activations } 
deconv2d feature maps with kernels, stride 2, ELU activations 
{ conv2d feature maps with kernels and ELU activations } 
deconv2d feature maps with kernels, stride 2, ELU activations 
conv2d feature maps with kernels, sigmoid activations 
Comments
There are no comments yet.