fnet, llm architecture
FNet replaces attention with Fourier transforms for efficiency.
3,145 technical terms and definitions
FNet replaces attention with Fourier transforms for efficiency.
Replace attention with Fourier transform.
Focal loss down-weights easy examples by adding a modulating factor to cross-entropy addressing class imbalance and hard example mining.
Down-weight easy examples.
Use ion beam to repair mask defects.
Create parameters for MD simulations.
Force field learning predicts molecular forces and energies using equivariant graph neural networks.
Forecast error variance decomposition attributes forecast uncertainty to shocks in different variables.
Loss of earlier learned information.
Format verification checks outputs conform to required patterns.
Forward planning reasons from current state toward goal exploring possible paths.
Forward scheduling starts from earliest possible time scheduling operations forward.
Distributed systems and practices for training large models.
Contract manufacturing.
Foundry model separates design and manufacturing where foundries fabricate chips for fabless companies.
Encode inputs with Fourier basis.
Neural operator using Fourier transforms.
Half-precision training.
Field-programmable gate arrays customized for ML.
Frame interpolation generates intermediate frames between existing frames.
Train robustness with negligible overhead.
Free cooling uses ambient conditions when cold enough eliminating mechanical chiller operation.
Compute binding free energy.
Vacancy-interstitial pair.
Frequency penalty decreases probability proportional to token occurrence count.
Frontier models represent state-of-the-art capabilities at largest scale.
Frontier models are most capable systems. Special safety considerations. Regulatory focus.
Frozen graphs convert variables to constants enabling optimization and preventing modification.
Use full gradient information for saliency.
LLM outputs structured function calls with parameters to invoke external tools.
Functional causal models represent causal relationships as structural equations with noise terms.
Progressively reduce sequence length.
Generate inputs for fuzzing.
Generate test inputs to find bugs.
GAIA tests general AI assistants on questions requiring reasoning and tool use.
# GAIL: Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning ## Advanced Reinforcement Learning Guide ## 1. Introduction and Core Concept GAIL (Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning), introduced by Ho and Ermon (2016), is an imitation learning algorithm that combines ideas from **inverse reinforcement learning (IRL)** and **generative adversarial networks (GANs)** to learn policies directly from expert demonstrations. The fundamental insight is that imitation learning can be cast as a **distribution matching problem**: we want the state-action occupancy measure of our learned policy to match that of the expert. ## 2. The Occupancy Measure Perspective ### 2.1 Definition For a policy $\pi$, the **occupancy measure** $\rho_\pi(s,a)$ represents the distribution of state-action pairs encountered when following $\pi$: $$ \rho_\pi(s,a) = \pi(a|s) \sum_{t=0}^{\infty} \gamma^t P(s_t = s \mid \pi) $$ Where: - $\pi(a|s)$ — Policy: probability of taking action $a$ in state $s$ - $\gamma$ — Discount factor: $\gamma \in [0, 1)$ - $P(s_t = s \mid \pi)$ — Probability of being in state $s$ at time $t$ under policy $\pi$ ### 2.2 Key Theoretical Result There exists a **bijection** between policies and valid occupancy measures: - Every policy induces a unique occupancy measure - Every valid occupancy measure corresponds to a unique policy **Implication:** Matching occupancy measures $\Leftrightarrow$ Matching policies $$ \rho_\pi = \rho_{\pi_E} \iff \pi \equiv \pi_E $$ ## 3. From Inverse RL to GAIL ### 3.1 Maximum Entropy IRL Formulation Traditional Maximum Entropy IRL solves the following optimization: $$ \max_{c \in \mathcal{C}} \left( \min_\pi -H(\pi) + \mathbb{E}_\pi[c(s,a)] \right) - \mathbb{E}_{\pi_E}[c(s,a)] $$ Where: - $c(s,a)$ — Cost function to be learned - $H(\pi)$ — Causal entropy of policy $\pi$ - $\pi_E$ — Expert policy - $\mathcal{C}$ — Set of candidate cost functions ### 3.2 The Computational Problem This is computationally expensive because: - The inner RL problem must be solved **to completion** for each update to the cost function - Requires nested optimization loops - Poor scalability to complex environments ### 3.3 Ho & Ermon's Key Insight With a specific choice of regularizer $\psi$ (convex conjugate of entropy-regularized term), the problem reduces to minimizing **Jensen-Shannon divergence**: $$ \min_\pi D_{JS}(\rho_\pi \| \rho_{\pi_E}) $$ The Jensen-Shannon divergence is defined as: $$ D_{JS}(P \| Q) = \frac{1}{2} D_{KL}(P \| M) + \frac{1}{2} D_{KL}(Q \| M) $$ Where $M = \frac{1}{2}(P + Q)$ is the mixture distribution. ## 4. The GAIL Algorithm ### 4.1 Adversarial Framework GAIL operationalizes the distribution matching as an adversarial game between two networks: #### Discriminator Objective The discriminator $D_\phi(s,a)$ is trained to distinguish expert state-action pairs from policy-generated ones: $$ \max_{D_\phi} \mathbb{E}_{(s,a) \sim \pi_E}[\log D_\phi(s,a)] + \mathbb{E}_{(s,a) \sim \pi_\theta}[\log(1 - D_\phi(s,a))] $$ #### Policy Objective The policy $\pi_\theta$ is trained via policy gradient methods using the discriminator's output as a reward signal: $$ \max_{\pi_\theta} \mathbb{E}_{(s,a) \sim \pi_\theta}[\log D_\phi(s,a)] + \lambda H(\pi_\theta) $$ Where $\lambda$ is an entropy regularization coefficient. ### 4.2 Reward Formulations Two equivalent reward formulations are commonly used: **Formulation 1 (Log-likelihood):** $$ r(s,a) = -\log(1 - D_\phi(s,a)) $$ **Formulation 2 (Log-odds ratio):** $$ r(s,a) = \log D_\phi(s,a) - \log(1 - D_\phi(s,a)) $$ ### 4.3 Algorithm Pseudocode ``` Algorithm: GAIL ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Input: Expert trajectories τ_E, initial policy π_θ, discriminator D_φ 1. Initialize policy parameters θ and discriminator parameters φ 2. For iteration i = 1, 2, ..., N do: 2.1 Sample trajectories τ_i ~ π_θ from current policy 2.2 Update discriminator φ via gradient ascent: ∇_φ [ E_{τ_E}[log D_φ(s,a)] + E_{τ_i}[log(1 - D_φ(s,a))] ] 2.3 Compute rewards: r(s,a) = -log(1 - D_φ(s,a)) 2.4 Update policy θ using TRPO/PPO with rewards r(s,a) 3. Return: Learned policy π_θ ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ``` ## 5. Theoretical Properties ### 5.1 Convergence Guarantee At the **Nash equilibrium** of the adversarial game: $$ \rho_{\pi^*} = \rho_{\pi_E} $$ The optimal discriminator at equilibrium outputs: $$ D^*(s,a) = \frac{\rho_{\pi_E}(s,a)}{\rho_{\pi_E}(s,a) + \rho_\pi(s,a)} = 0.5 $$ ### 5.2 Reward Ambiguity Like all IRL methods, GAIL faces **reward ambiguity**: - Many reward functions can explain the same behavior - Set of equivalent rewards forms an equivalence class GAIL sidesteps this by: - Never explicitly recovering a reward function - Using the discriminator as an implicit, adaptive reward signal ### 5.3 Sample Efficiency Analysis **Behavioral Cloning (BC):** $$ \text{Error}_{\text{BC}} = O\left(\frac{|S|}{N_{\text{expert}}}\right) $$ **GAIL:** $$ \text{Error}_{\text{GAIL}} = O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_{\text{expert}}}}\right) $$ GAIL achieves better dependence on expert data due to leveraging the MDP structure. ## 6. Advanced Extensions ### 6.1 AIRL (Adversarial Inverse Reinforcement Learning) Fu et al. (2018) modified GAIL to recover **disentangled, transferable** reward functions: $$ D_\theta(s,a,s') = \frac{\exp(f_\theta(s,a,s'))}{\exp(f_\theta(s,a,s')) + \pi(a|s)} $$ The reward function $f_\theta$ can be decomposed: $$ f_\theta(s,a,s') = g_\theta(s,a) + \gamma h_\phi(s') - h_\phi(s) $$ Where: - $g_\theta(s,a)$ — True reward component - $h_\phi(s)$ — Shaping potential function **Key benefit:** Enables reward transfer across different dynamics. ### 6.2 InfoGAIL Addresses **multimodal expert behavior** by adding a latent code $c$: **Objective:** $$ \max_\pi \mathbb{E}_{c \sim p(c), \tau \sim \pi(\cdot|c)}[I(c; \tau)] - D_{JS}(\rho_\pi \| \rho_{\pi_E}) $$ Where $I(c; \tau)$ is the mutual information between latent codes and trajectories. **Capabilities:** - Discovers distinct strategies from mixed demonstrations - Reproduces different expert modes with different latent codes - Enables controllable imitation ### 6.3 Off-Policy GAIL Variants Standard GAIL requires **on-policy** samples (computationally expensive). Extensions include: #### DAC (Discriminator-Actor-Critic) Combines GAIL with off-policy actor-critic: $$ \mathcal{L}_{\text{DAC}} = \mathbb{E}_{(s,a) \sim \mathcal{B}}[Q_\phi(s,a) - r_D(s,a) - \gamma \mathbb{E}_{s'}[V_\phi(s')]] $$ Where $\mathcal{B}$ is a replay buffer. #### ValueDICE Uses distribution correction estimation: $$ \min_\pi D_{KL}\left(\rho_\pi \| \rho_{\pi_E}\right) \approx \min_\pi \max_\nu \mathbb{E}_{\rho_\pi}[\nu(s,a)] - \log \mathbb{E}_{\rho_{\pi_E}}[e^{\nu(s,a)}] $$ ### 6.4 PWIL (Primal Wasserstein Imitation Learning) Replaces Jensen-Shannon divergence with **Wasserstein distance**: $$ W_1(\rho_\pi, \rho_{\pi_E}) = \inf_{\gamma \in \Pi(\rho_\pi, \rho_{\pi_E})} \mathbb{E}_{(x,y) \sim \gamma}[\|x - y\|] $$ **Advantages:** - More stable gradients when distributions have limited overlap - Better behavior in high-dimensional spaces - Does not require adversarial training ### 6.5 SQIL (Soft Q Imitation Learning) A simplified approach: $$ r(s,a) = \begin{cases} +1 & \text{if } (s,a) \in \mathcal{D}_{\text{expert}} \\ 0 & \text{if } (s,a) \in \mathcal{D}_{\text{agent}} \end{cases} $$ Then run soft Q-learning. Surprisingly effective and avoids discriminator training instabilities. ## 7. Practical Challenges and Solutions ### 7.1 Mode Collapse / Reward Hacking **Problem:** Policy finds degenerate solutions that fool the discriminator without actually imitating the expert. **Solutions:** - Gradient penalties (WGAN-GP style): $$ \mathcal{L}_{\text{GP}} = \lambda \mathbb{E}_{\hat{x} \sim P_{\hat{x}}}[(|\nabla_{\hat{x}} D(\hat{x})|_2 - 1)^2] $$ - Spectral normalization of discriminator weights - Careful architecture design with limited discriminator capacity ### 7.2 Discriminator Overfitting **Problem:** With limited expert data, the discriminator memorizes rather than generalizes. **Solutions:** - Dropout regularization: $p_{\text{drop}} \in [0.1, 0.5]$ - Data augmentation on state observations - Limiting discriminator capacity (fewer layers/units) - Early stopping based on validation performance ### 7.3 Reward Signal Instability **Problem:** As the discriminator improves, rewards become sparse (always $\approx 0$ or $\approx 1$). **Solutions:** - Gradient penalty regularization - Reward clipping: $r(s,a) = \text{clip}(r(s,a), -R_{\max}, R_{\max})$ - Reward normalization with running statistics - Soft labels for discriminator training ### 7.4 Covariate Shift **Problem:** Early in training, policy visits very different states than the expert. **Solutions:** - Curriculum learning (start from expert states) - Demonstrations covering diverse initial conditions - State resetting to expert states during training - Importance weighting of samples ### 7.5 Hyperparameter Sensitivity **Critical hyperparameters:** | Parameter | Typical Range | Notes | |-----------|---------------|-------| | Discriminator LR | $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-3}$ | Often lower than policy LR | | Policy LR | $3 \times 10^{-4}$ | Standard for PPO | | Discriminator updates per policy update | 1-5 | More can cause instability | | Entropy coefficient $\lambda$ | 0.001 to 0.01 | Encourages exploration | | Batch size | 64-2048 | Larger for stability | ## 8. Comparison with Other Methods ### 8.1 Method Comparison Table | Method | Expert Data | Env. Interactions | Recovers Reward | Online Learning | |--------|-------------|-------------------|-----------------|-----------------| | Behavioral Cloning | High | None | No | No | | DAgger | Medium | Expert queries | No | Yes | | MaxEnt IRL | Low | Many | Yes | Yes | | GAIL | Low | Many | No (implicit) | Yes | | AIRL | Low | Many | Yes | Yes | | SQIL | Low | Many | No | Yes | ### 8.2 Sample Complexity Comparison **Expert demonstrations required for $\epsilon$-optimal policy:** - Behavioral Cloning: $O(|S|^2 / \epsilon^2)$ - GAIL: $O(1 / \epsilon^2)$ - AIRL: $O(1 / \epsilon^2)$ **Environment interactions required:** - GAIL/AIRL: $O(\text{poly}(|S|, |A|, H) / \epsilon^2)$ Where $H$ is the horizon length. ## 9. When to Use GAIL ### 9.1 Good Fit - Limited expert demonstrations available ($<$ 100 trajectories) - Can interact extensively with environment/simulator - Expert behavior is unimodal (or use InfoGAIL for multimodal) - Don't need an interpretable reward function - Continuous control problems - Complex state spaces where BC fails ### 9.2 Poor Fit - No simulator available (pure offline setting) - Need to transfer learned behavior to different dynamics - Expert demonstrations are highly multimodal without labels - Need sample efficiency in environment interactions - Reward function interpretability is required - Very limited computational budget ## 10. Mathematical Derivations ### 10.1 Occupancy Measure Properties The occupancy measure satisfies the **Bellman flow constraint**: $$ \sum_a \rho(s,a) = (1-\gamma) p_0(s) + \gamma \sum_{s',a'} P(s|s',a') \rho(s',a') $$ Where $p_0(s)$ is the initial state distribution. ### 10.2 Dual Formulation The GAIL objective can be written in dual form: $$ \min_\pi \max_D \mathbb{E}_{\rho_\pi}[\log(1 - D(s,a))] + \mathbb{E}_{\rho_{\pi_E}}[\log D(s,a)] + \lambda H(\pi) $$ At optimality: $$ D^*(s,a) = \frac{\rho_{\pi_E}(s,a)}{\rho_\pi(s,a) + \rho_{\pi_E}(s,a)} $$ ### 10.3 Policy Gradient for GAIL Using the REINFORCE estimator: $$ \nabla_\theta J(\theta) = \mathbb{E}_{\tau \sim \pi_\theta}\left[\sum_{t=0}^{T} \nabla_\theta \log \pi_\theta(a_t|s_t) \cdot \hat{A}_t \right] $$ Where the advantage is computed using GAIL rewards: $$ \hat{A}_t = \sum_{k=0}^{T-t} (\gamma \lambda)^k \delta_{t+k} $$ $$ \delta_t = r_D(s_t, a_t) + \gamma V(s_{t+1}) - V(s_t) $$ ## 11. Implementation Checklist ### 11.1 Network Architectures **Discriminator:** - Input: $(s, a)$ concatenated - Hidden layers: 2-3 layers, 256-512 units each - Activation: Tanh or ReLU - Output: Sigmoid for $D(s,a) \in (0,1)$ **Policy (Actor):** - Input: State $s$ - Hidden layers: 2-3 layers, 256-512 units - Output: Gaussian parameters $(\mu, \sigma)$ for continuous actions **Value Function (Critic):** - Input: State $s$ - Hidden layers: 2-3 layers, 256-512 units - Output: Scalar $V(s)$ ### 11.2 Training Loop ```python Pseudocode structure for iteration in range(num_iterations): 1. Collect trajectories trajectories = collect_trajectories(policy, env, num_steps) 2. Update discriminator for _ in range(disc_updates): expert_batch = sample(expert_demos) policy_batch = sample(trajectories) disc_loss = compute_disc_loss(expert_batch, policy_batch) discriminator.update(disc_loss) 3. Compute GAIL rewards rewards = -log(1 - discriminator(trajectories)) 4. Update policy with PPO advantages = compute_gae(rewards, values, gamma, lambda) policy.update(trajectories, advantages) ``` ## 12. Recent Research Directions ### 12.1 Offline Imitation Learning Learning from fixed datasets without environment interaction: $$ \min_\pi D_f(\rho_\pi \| \rho_{\pi_E}) + \alpha \cdot \text{Constraint}(\pi, \mathcal{D}) $$ ### 12.2 GAIL from Observations Only Learning without action labels, using only state sequences: $$ \min_\pi D_{JS}(\rho_\pi^s \| \rho_{\pi_E}^s) $$ Where $\rho^s$ denotes the marginal state occupancy. ### 12.3 Multi-Agent GAIL Extending to settings with multiple interacting agents: $$ \min_{\pi_1, ..., \pi_n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} D_{JS}(\rho_{\pi_i} \| \rho_{\pi_E^i}) $$ ### 12.4 Model-Based GAIL Using learned dynamics models to improve sample efficiency: $$ \hat{P}(s'|s,a) \approx P(s'|s,a) $$ Enables planning and reduces real environment interactions.
GANs for time series anomaly detection learn normal data distribution flagging samples with low discriminator scores.
Find latent code for real image.
GAN inversion finds latent codes that reconstruct real images enabling editing.
GANs for time series learn distribution of normal patterns flagging samples discriminator rejects as anomalies.
Generalized AutoRegressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity models time-varying volatility in financial time series.
Multi-head attention in GAT computes multiple attention mechanisms in parallel stabilizing learning and improving expressiveness.
Graph Attention Networks compute node representations by applying self-attention to neighborhood aggregation with learned attention coefficients.
Thin high-quality oxide under transistor gate critical for performance.
Gated convolutions use multiplicative gates controlling information flow.
Use gates to control information flow.
Combine linear transform with gating.
Convolutional networks with gating.
Use gates to control information flow.
Decides which experts to activate for each input.