TWO-STEP UNCERTAINTY NETWORK FOR TASKDRIVEN SENSOR PLACEMENT
Authors: Yangyang Sun
Yang Zhang
Hassan Foroosh
Shuo Pang
Venue:  (2020)
Keywords: Uncertainty Estimation
Sensor Placement
Sequential Control
Adaptive Sensing

Abstract: Optimal sensor placement achieves the minimal cost of sensors while obtaining the prespecified objectives. In this work, we propose a framework for sensor placement to maximize the information gain called Two-step Uncertainty Network(TUN). TUN encodes an arbitrary number of measurements, models the conditional distribution of high dimensional data, and estimates the task-specific information gain at un-observed locations. Experiments on the synthetic data show that TUN outperforms the random sampling strategy and Gaussian Process-based strategy consistently.

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2020
TWO-STEP UNCERTAINTY NETWORK FOR TASK- DRIVEN SENSOR PLACEMENT
Anonymous authors Paper under double-blind review
ABSTRACT
Optimal sensor placement achieves the minimal cost of sensors while obtaining the prespecified objectives. In this work, we propose a framework for sensor placement maximize the information gain called Two-step Uncertainty Net- work(TUN). TUN encodes an arbitrary number of measurements, models the con- ditional distribution of high dimensional data, and estimates the task-specific in- formation gain at un-observed locations. Experiments on the synthetic data show that TUN outperforms the random sampling strategy and Gaussian Process-bras based strategy consistently.
INTRODUCTION
Sensor placement is widely studied the areas of environment monitoring (Hu et al., 2018 Nguyen ett al. 2015), structural health
et al., 2019) security screening Masoudi (enegraph((Ouadaaa et 2017). The optimal sensor place-
et al. 2016). and adaptive computed ment maximizes the objectives with minimal cost of sensors. Given the model that maps each possible set of sensor locations to the objectives, the optimal sensor placement can be formulated as optimization problem. However, the optimization is shown to NP-hard(Garey & Johnson 2002). Thus, approximate greedy algorithms of sequential sensor placement are proposed and then proved be near optimal under the assumptions that the objectives are monotone and submodu- lar(Nemhauser et al., 1978).
The diagram of sequential sensor placement is shown in Figure Th with the black arrows. The agent inquires at a feasible location to the physical model in each step and obtains the corresponding measurement. The obtained observations are used make inference for specific tasks. For instance, in security screening tasks the observations are used to predict the distribution of the object's label. To make an accurate inference, the agent often optimizes the information gain in each step with re- spect to the feasible location. The corresponding objective is mutual information which is approved to give near optimal approximations in sequential Aansing(rruss et al. 2008 Nemhauser et al, 1978).
To optimize the objective, a model that estimates the potential information gain at each possible location is necessary. The most generic method to model the unknown spatial phenomenon is Gaus- sian Process(GP) which incorporates the knowledge of observations and predicts the uncertainty at the un-observed locations. However, the Gaussian model assumption in GP does not perform well on high dimensional data such as images as generative models. In addition, GP inherently adapts the assumptions that the uncertainty at the un-observed locations independent of the obtained mea- surements, making the GP based sequential sensing an open-loop control (asmussen 2003). An alternative approach this problem arises recently Reinforcement LLa Schmidd huber 2018). However, the performance in RI. is found to be of large variance and difficult to reproduuce(Henderson al. 2018).
In this work, we propose framework for sensor placement to maximize the information gain called Two-step Uncertainty network (TUN). The pipeline of TUN is shown in Figure with red arrows. TUN consists of two steps, namely the imagination step and the inspection step. TUN firstly "imag- ines" the possible measurements at the un-observed locations. Then it estimates the task-specific information gain with the imagined measurements along with the previous observations in the in- spection step. Both steps are deployed with the pre- trained neural networks. Given the task ssecifcc information gain at all the un-observed locations, the agent adapts a greedy algorithm to select the

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2020
Observations
Imagination Step
Inference
Vožs
Agent
Physical Model
Xohs
Location
Observations
Imagined Observations
Inspection Step
Information Gain
Inspection Step
Vobs
Imaginatio
Xobs
Xk
Un-observed Locations
n Step
Observations
(a)
(b)
Figure 1: (a) The diagram of sensor placement (black arrows) and TUN(red arrows). TUN consists of two steps: imagination step and inspection step to generate the possible measurements and eval- uate the task-specific information gain at un-observed locations. (b) Graphical models of the two steps in TUN, Instances of measurement at un-observed locations are generated in the imagina- tion step. Then those generated measurements are used evaluate the information gain for the task in inspection step.
optimal next location inquire. This procedure emulates how human think in such tasks: given the observations, we firstly imagine information pertaining to the task based on those possible outcomes. We will derive the proposed framework in the next section.
the possible outcomes at un-observed locations, then inspect the
2 TWO-STEPS UNCERTAINTY NETWORKS
Consider sequential sensing strategy, we denote locations as and measurements x. At the t step, we have previous A observations Obs = (w1, Ui,,.., Tk- 1 ). the optimal location vi is the one maximizes the mutual information (MI) between the object's label y and the possible measurement Ty given the previous observations:
arg max Obs, vk)
The mutual information can be expressed as
M MI FuLUE, Obs) H (y Obs) Epr(zule,,bss H. (y) Lk, Uk, Obs)
(2)
where E. is the expectation operator. In Equation 2 the first term is the uncertainty of labels con- ditioned on the previous observations. The second term the expected uncertainty conditioned on observations and possible measurements 2y Uk. The subtraction gives the uncertainty reduction or the information gain at the location U/. It is worth noting that the first term independent of tk. and can be treated constant in optimizing Equation 2 with respect to eg- The second term in Equation can be approximated with Monte Carlo estimator as
M Σ m=1
(T =
H (yla Uk. Obs) + Const.
(3)
M
where
2 Pr(xx/1e Obs)
(4)
The summation in Equation (without the negative sign) is the approximate remaining entropy with the measurement at U2 given. Maximizing the mutual information is equivalent to minimizing the remaining entropy. Equation 4 is the conditional distribution of the measurement th-
2

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2020
Imagined Spectrums
Imagined Spectrums
1.0
Obs
Obs
Truth
Truth
0.8
1.0
0.4
0.2
0.28
0.36
0.44
0.52
0.60
0.2
0.28
0.36
0.44
0.52
0.60
wavelength (um)
wavelength (am)
Figure 2: Example of the generation step on 1D spectrum dataset. The dashed line is the true spectrum and the solid spots are the observations. The generated instances are in colorful solid lines. Left: 10 imagined spectrums based on single observation. Right: 10 imagined spectrums based on three observations. The variation in the generated samples is mainly from scales and is independent of the task.
Following Equation 3 is natural to approach the remaining entropy two steps (1), Generating instances of xą that follows the distribution in Equation 4 (2), Evaluating the remaining entropy Σ M (yl=x Uk, Obs) with the generated instances step (1). The graphical models the two steps shown in Figure Dp. The design of Two-step uncertainty network (TUN) follows the same rationale. the imagination step. TUN generates multiple instances with generative neural network. In the inspection step, deterministic deep neural network is used to estimates the label distribution, and thus to evaluate the information gain(or negative remaining entropy).
2.1 IMAGINATION STEP
The first step of TUN to generate instances TV ~ Pr(xx] Obs). Modeling the distribution of high dimensional data such as images is difficult and computationally expensive, even within constrained family of distributions with simplified assumptions. Recently, remarkable progress has been made on modeling complex distribution of high dimensional data with generative neural net- work et 2015| Eslami et al. 2018). GNN maps the instances of re- parameterizable distribution (for example, multivariate normal distributions) to the instances of target complex dis- tribution FributionKinggaa & Welling 2013). GNN is trained to maximize the log likelihood of the generated instances,
log Pr(xx/vx, Obs) = log / Pr(sulz, Un. Pr)
(5)
where is the latent variable of multivariate normal distributions. The log likelihood within the integral is intractable. Thus, the evidence lower bond(ELBO) as an approximation is evaluated instead,
In f (r)
2 Egste) In Pr(xxlz, vk) Dxclao(=):pe(e))
(6)
The posterior distribution 4o (2(22, 0k Obs) is conditioned the previous & observations Obs and the observed 4thh measurement in the training data. The prior distribution po(2|uk, Obs) is only conditioned on Obs. DeL is the KL. divergence measuring the difference between the two distributions. After training, will have generator network G(v,, Obs) that generates instances of measurement TR. The generator network G' is then employed in the imagination step of TUN.
2.2 INSPECTION STEP
The second step TUN is inspection, which estimates the task-specific information goin nega- tive remaining entropy) ey. With the generated M instances of a% in the imagination step, the
3

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2020
remaining entropy in Equation 3
can be expressed as
M
H(yla,, Uk,
Us, Obs) -
Σ Pr(ulax' Uk; Obs) log Pr(y (ax Uhs Obs)
(7)
The remaining entropy is function of the conditional distribution of the label Pr(ylæ Uk. Obs). We approximate this conditional distribution with a deterministic neural network, the inspector net- work ( Uk, Obs). Then the remaining entropy is evaluated as Equation The most informative location to inquire the one with the lowest remaining entropy. The procedure is summarized in algorithm 1. It can be shown that the true parameters of the model can be recovered by symptomati- cally maximizing a proper scoring rule & Rattery (007). A proper scoring rule S rewards the true distribution p more than any other distributions ý on the training data
J( p(a)s(t d) J. p(d))(p,)))
(8)
It is shown that optimizing the softmax cross entropy loss function in the case of multi-class clas- sification is equivalent to optimizing a proper scoring alaeinaasmmnn et al. (017). Thus, the inspector network D is trained with the softmax cross entropy loss. It is worth noting that the inspector network D takes different number of observations at different steps. To accept arbitrary number of observations, each observation is encoded separately with a shared-weight encoder, and the encoded vectors are fed into an aggregator and aggregated to a fixed-length vector before the succeeding networks. To enforce the commutative property in the sequential sensing problem, we adapt a "mean operator" as the aggregator in TUN, which takes the average of the input vectors. We take random number of observations the randomly selected locations in the training stage.
Algorithm At the th step of TUN
Require: Obs, G, D. m 1
Ensure: The optimal k4th location og for j is in un un-observed locations do 0k jj
for m I M do ry G(Obs, vk)
pm D(Oss, Uk. (k m Hm pm In pm
y
m+
end for
Hj =
M Σm Hm
end for
return o = arg max Hjj
j
EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS
To evaluate the feasibility of TUN, experimented with synthetic datasets. In the first experiment, we visualize the imagination step in TUN with simple ID spectrum dataset. The spectrum dataset generated from the spectrums of five minerals including Augite, Allanite, Xenotime, Bikitaitem and Pseudobrookite. We re-sampled the spectrums from 0.2pmm to 0.6μmm with 100 points and nor- malized them. The normalized spectrums are then scaled by a random factor ranging from 0.025 to 2.5 and corrupted by a zero-mean Gaussian noise with standard deviation of 0.03. The random scaling creates the intra-class uncertainty the dataset. We prepared 5000 instances the training dataset and 500 instances in the test dataset. The generator network G was trained to generate the instances of the spectrum with several observations given. The number and locations of the observa- tions are randomly selected in the training process. In the test stage, we show 10 generated instances in colorful solid lines in Figure 2 with different observations. The observations are indicated as filled circle, and the true spectrum is shown in the dashed line. Given the single observation, the generated instances vary in both mineral types(inter-class uncertainty) and scales uncer- tainty). While with three selected observations, the imagined spectrums mainly vary in scales. The
4

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2020
Loc.
Measurements without obstacle
Object
Measurements with obstacle
Security screening system
Loc.
Loc.
Loc. 8
Figure 3: Left: x-ray security screening system. 8 different directions(locations) uniformly dis- tributed within 180" are available to illuminate the object The object is randomly rotated along axis with an obstacle. Additive Gaussian noise is adapted on the measurements. Right: examples of measurements at 8 locations.
intra-class uncertainty in the latter case is task-independent information indicating that the generator network G' believes not much information of label remaining given the observations. In the case of that, taking more measurements may not benefit the label prediction much. Thus, the agent may stop inquiring avoid redundant inquiries. We will show more quantitative results of the evaluation of the task-specific information gain in the inspection step of TUN in high dimensional dataset.
To quantitatively evaluate the information gain(or uncertainty reduction), we created a high dimen- sional synthetic dataset from x-ray baggage scanning system in security screening. The physical model is shown Figure 3 The objects to be screened are 3D digits with an obstacle that par- tially blocks the objects. The existence of the obstacle results in significant variation of information among different locations. There are 8 locations(angles) to illuminate the x-ray onto the object (ranging from 09 to 157.5%). Inquiry each location returns 2D projected image. The goal is to recognize the label of the object confidently with least number inquiries. Before any inquiries, a randomized rotation is applied on the object along axis. An additive Gaussian noise (0, 0.02) adopted on the observed images. TUN is trained on 5000 objects with random locations, effec- tively making the training dataset much larger. TUN is tested 3000 set of observations generated from 1000 held-out un-seen objects. The generator network G firstly encodes the information of one more observations into fixed length representation vector. Then it generates M instances of possible measurements at the un un-observed locations. based on the representation vector. In our model, M = 10. We show this process in Figure In Figure 4 Left, the first measurement at loca- tion 4 is observed. We can see corner feature in the measurement in the yellow box. Obviously the information from the observation is insufficient to reconstruct the 3D object not to mention the label of the object. We show three generated instances from the generator network at location 6 and which are different labels(digit and 0) and fonts, yet consistent with the observation. Figure Middle, measurements at location 4 and 5 are both obtained. The generated samples at location and are more convergent to the ground truth as more information in observations are extracted. The generator network in this situation almost collapses that our generator network generates the samples following the distribution 2g Pr(xk (2,, Obs).
deterministic neural network. This shows
In the second step of TUN, the generated samples are fed into the inspector network D, which estimates the probability of the labels Pr(y|æx, UN Obs) and evaluates the task specific information gain. We will perform both qualitative and quantitative analysis on the task specific information gain with TUN in the following paragraph. Firstly, we visualize the intermediate feature space in the initial sensing step of an example shown in 5 The obtained observations at location 5 is non- innoioformaaie.. We generated 100 instances at each location and fed them into the inspector Hinton,
network and visualized the feature space in the inspector network using t-SNE(Maaten 2008). We select the vector at the layer before logits in the inspector network to visualize. The feature space is colored by locations and divided into three regions. The region I covers the features of the generated instances from exact observed location (location 5). Region 2 covers the features from the locations close to the observed one (location and from the locations far from the observed location. Clearly the features get more disperse as the distance to the observed location increases. This indicates that rich information lies in the locations in region 3. Although this is qualitative analysis the feature space, justifies the necessity to
6). Region 3 contains the features
5

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2020
Obs.
Generations
Obs.
Generations
Ground Truth
Loc.
Loc.
Loc.
Loc.
Loc.
Loc.
Figure 4: The imagination step of TUN on high dimensional dataset. Left: The 3 instances of the generations location 6 and given the observations at location 4. The generated instances are different in labels(digit 0 and 7) and fonts, but they all keep the comner feature occurred in the IiiservatinnMMidee
The generations given two observations at location and The generated instances are much more convergent as more information is extracted from the observations. Right: The ground truth of the measurements location and
Feature Space
Object
Region 3
Region 2
Region
Obs.
loc1
loc2
loc3
loc4
loc5
loc6
loc7
loc8
Figure 5: Task-specific feature distribution. We visualize the initial intermediate feature distribution in the inspector network using t-SNE. Clearly the features become more scatty at further locations from the observed location. The feature space colored by locations. Region 1: Features of gener- ated instances at the observed location. Region 2: Features at locations that are close to the observed location. Region 3: away from observed location. Region 3: Features at locations from the ob- served locations.
sample multiple instances from the generator network. We will perform quantitative analysis of this example with the inspector network in next paragraph.
The information gain is evaluated from the averaged entropy in Equation 7 from M samples. The averaged entropy indicates the estimated remaining uncertainty of the labels after we obtain the observation at location U/. Our strategy is to pick the location with least remaining uncertainty, which equivalently maximizes the mutual information in Equation 2 (note the negative sign before
the entropy). We show this quantitatively in the example Figure 6 This the same example described in Figure The first observation is location 5 shown in yellow box in Figure 6 bottom, which non-informative observation. The averaged entropy for next step is shown in Figure (6 top. The entropy plot estimates the potential remaining uncertainty the un-observed

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2020
Remaining Entropy (nat)
Remaining Entropy (nat)
2.0
1.5
3.5e-4
1.0
2.5e-4
0.5
1.5e-4
0.0
Location Index
Location Index
Observation at location
Observations at locations 2 and
(a)
(b)
Figure 6: Entropy estimation: (a) The remaining entropy at un-observed locations given single observation at location 5. The optimal next location in this step location at which the expected remaining entropy is least. (b) As we obtain the measurement at location 2 following TUN, the estimated remaining entropy at all the un-observed locations are almost zeros, indicating that the model is quite confident about the label with those observations.
Accuracy
Entropy of label (nat)
0.90
0.7
RS
0.85
0.6
GP
0.5
TUNs
0.80
0.4
0.75
0.3
0.70
GP
0.2
TUNs
0.1
0.65
3
Number
Number of sensors
Figure 7: Accuracy and entropy different numbers of inquiries for TUN, Gaussian process(GP) based and random sampling(RS) strategies. The advantages of sensor placement strategies starts at two observations. The proposed framework, TUN, outperforms GP and RS strategies consistently.
locations, thus the less remaining uncertainty the better the location is. The entropy averaged from 10 samples, and the standard deviation is shown bars in Figure 6 The entropy plot the initial step indicates that our model believes there is less remaining uncertainty after we obtain the measurement location 1,2, than that at location 3,4.6, Thus the next location selected by TUN is location 2 (which has least averaged remaining entropy). The successive estimation for the entropy is shown Figure/oh in which the agent inquires and obtains the observation location following TUN. With the observations at location 2 and 5, the remaining entropy is very low with neglectable variance. This entropy plot shows TUN quite confident on the label the object, and believes there is not much information left at un-observed locations. A threshold can be used as stopping criterion in practice.
We compare TUN with random sampling strategy(RS) and Gaussian Process(GP) strategy. We adapt squared exponential kernel in GP and employ the 2D coordinates and the projection angle [x, y, cos0, sin0] as features. The GP model is fitted with training data and performs the predic- tion of measurement at un-observed locations. To evaluate the quality of the strategies, we trained classifiers with different number of the observations. The training data for the classifiers erated from 5000 held-out objects with random noise and rotation. All the observations in training the classifiers taken from random sampling strategy. The performance in both accuracy and
gen-
7

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2020
(ntropy(confidencc) with different sensing budget are shown in Figure 7 The first location is ran- domly selected in all three strategies, thus, the performances are the same for all strategies. Start from the second step. TUN outperforms other strategies consistently with higher accuracy and less uncertainty.
4 CONCLUSION
In this work, we present task-driven sensor placement framework to maximize the information gain. The proposed framework (TUN) is able to perceive and understand the observation, approx- imate the conditional distribution of the object, and estimate the information gain pertaining to the task. In the security screening experiment we demonstrated, TUN outperforms random strategy and GP strategy consistently.
REFERENCES
SM Ali Eslami, Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Frederic Besse, Fabio Viola, Ari S Morcos, Marta Gar- nelo, Avraham Ruderman, Andrei A Rusu, Ivo Danihelka, Karol Gregor, al. Neural scene representation and rendering. Science, 3606639);12044-2110 2018.
Michael R Garey and David S Johnson. Computers and intractabiliity volume 29, wh freeman New York, 2002.
Tilmann Gneiting and Adrian E Raftery. Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102(477):359-378 2007.
Karol Gregor, Ivo Danihelka, Alex Graves, Danilo Jimenez Rezende, and Daan Wierstra. Draw: A recurrent neural network for image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.0462. 2015.
David Ha and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Recurrent world models facilitate policy evolution. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 2450-2462, 2018.
Peter Henderson, Riashat Islam, Philip Bachman, Joelle Pineau, Doina Precup, and David Meger. Deep reinforcement learning that matters. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence, 2018
Chengyu Hu, Ming Li, Deze Zeng, and Song Guo. survey on sensor placement for contamination detection in water distribution systems. Wireless Networks, 24(2):647-661. 2018.
Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes. 13X2v:1312.61 2013.
arXiv preprint
Andreas Krause, Ajit Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. Near-optimal sensor placements in gaussian processes: Theory, efficient algorithms and empirical studies. Journal of Machine Learning Re- search, 9(Feb):235 284, 2008
Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Alexander Pritzel, and Charles Blundell. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 6402-6413, 2017.
Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research, 9(Nov):2579-25) 2605, 2008
Ahmad Masoudi, Ratchaneekorn Thamvichai, and Mark A Neifeld. Shape threat detection via adaptive computed tomography. In Anomaly Detection and Imaging with X-Rays (ADIX), volume 9847, pp. 98470H. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2016.
George L Nemhauser, Laurence A Wolsey, and Marshall L Fisher. An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functionsi. Mathematical programming, 14(1):265-25 2944, 1978.
Linh V Nguyen, Sarath Kodagoda, Ravindra Ranasinghe, and Gamini Dissanayake. Information- driven adaptive sampling strategy for mobile robotic wireless sensor network. IEEE Transactions Control Systems Technology, 24(1 ):32-3799 2015.
8

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2020
Wieslaw Ostachowicz, Rohan Soman, and Pawel Malinowski. Optimization of sensor placement for structural health monitoring: review. Structural Health Monitoring, 18(3):963- 988, 2019.
S Ouadah, M Jacobson, Joseph Webster Stayman, T Ehtiati, Clifford Weiss, and JH Siewerdsen. Task-driven orbit design and implementation a robotic c-arm system for cone-beam ct. In Medical Imaging 2017: Physics of Medical Imaging, volume 10132, pp. 101320H. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2017.
Carl Edward Rasmussen. Gaussian processes in machine learning. In Summer School on Machine Learning, pp. 63-71. Springer, 2003.


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "BJgf-t36YB", "reviewer": "AnonReviewer1", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 1, "confidence": null, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "main_review": "", "summary_of_the_paper": "", "summary_of_the_review": "", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "This paper describes a sensor placement strategy based on information gain on an unknown quantity of interest, which already exists in the active learning literature. As is well-known in the literature, this is equivalent to minimizing the expected remaining entropy. What the authors have done differently is to consider the use of neural nets (as opposed to the widely-used Gaussian process) as the learning models in this sensor placement problem, specifically to (a) approximate the expectation using a set of samples generated from a generator neural net and to (b) estimate the probability term in the entropy by a deterministic/inspector neural net. The authors have performed some simple synthetic experiments to elucidate the behavior and performance of their proposed strategy. \n\nConventionally, the sensor placement strategy is tasked to gather the most informative observations (given a limited sensing budget) for maximimally improving the model(s) of choice (in the context of this paper, the neural networks) so as to maximize the information gain. The authors seem to have adopted a different paradigm in this paper: Large training datasets are needed for the prior training of both neural nets (in the order of thousands as reported in the experiments). This seems to be defeating the original aim/objective of sensor placement, as described above. Consequently, it is not clear to me whether their proposed strategy would be general enough for use in sensor placement for a wide variety of environmental monitoring applications. Random sampling and GP-based sensor placement strategies do not face such a severe practical limitation. \n\nThe paper is also missing several important technical details and clarity of presentation is poor. For example,\n\n(a) The configurations and training procedure of generator NN G and deterministic NN D for the experiments are not sufficiently described for each experiment.\n\n(b) What do the authors do with the new observations obtained from placing the sensors in the last experiment? Do they adopt an open-loop sensor placement strategy?\n\n(c) The setup for the last experiment is not clear. Is it still the same object classification task? Is the GP receiving an exclusive set of 4D features that are different from the other two methods? I get the impression that the classifiers are trained a priori. For the GP classifier, isn't it the case that one should gather the most informative observations to maximally improve its classification accuracy?\n\n\nThough I like the authors' motivation of the setup of the x-ray baggage scanning system in security screening, what has really been done in their experiments appears to be still quite far from this real-world setup. Furthermore, their proposed strategy has been used to gather only 1 to 4 observations. More extensive empirical evaluation with real-world datasets (inspired by realistic problem motivation) is necessary.\n\nFig. 2: I find it surprising that with a single observation, it is possible to generate the instance/imagined spectrum in orange that resembles that of the true spectrum. Similarly, with 3 observations, all 10 instances/imagined spectrums can exhibit the first spike (without observations on it). Can the authors explain this phenomena?\n\n\n\nMinor issues\nThe authors need to put a space in front of all opening round bracket. Other formatting issues exist.\nEquation 3: v_k is missing from the conditioned part on the lefthand side of the equation.\nPage 3: to estimates?\nPage 3: evidence lower bond?\nFigure 2 appears on page 3 and is only referenced on page 4.\nAlgorithm 1: The use of subscript j in x^m_j to represent an unobserved location confuses with that of subscript k in x^m_k to denote the time step.\nFigure 3 captions: adapted on the measurements?\nFigure 4 captions: corner feature occurred?\n", "extra_scores": {"experience_assessment": "I have published in this field for several years.", "review_assessment:_thoroughness_in_paper_reading": "I read the paper thoroughly.", "review_assessment:_checking_correctness_of_experiments": "I carefully checked the experiments.", "review_assessment:_checking_correctness_of_derivations_and_theory": "I carefully checked the derivations and theory."}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "BJeSdnb1qr", "reviewer": "AnonReviewer3", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 1, "confidence": null, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "main_review": "", "summary_of_the_paper": "", "summary_of_the_review": "", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "Summary:\nThis paper addresses the issue of how to optimize sensor placement. The authors propose a framework for sensor placement called Two-step Uncertainty Network (TUN) based on the idea of information gain maximization. More concretely, the proposed method encodes an arbitrary number of measurements, models the conditional distribution of high dimensional data, and estimates the task-specific information gain at unobserved locations. Experimental results on the synthetic data clearly show that TUN outperforms current state-of-the-art methods, such as random sampling strategy and Gaussian Process-based strategy.\n\nComments:\n- On page 1, the phrase “… on high dimensional data such as images as generative models” seems unclear.\n- The lhs of Eq 3. should be MI(y,x_k|v_k, Obs)?\n- In Fig. 1a, the “red arrows” for indicating TUM look like brown?   \n- In Fig. 1b, only the variable x_k is mentioned in the caption.\n- If I understand correctly, on page 3 in Sect. 2.1, the imagination step is basically the same as VAE? After all, there does not seem to be any discussion on the choice of variational approximation q_{\\phi} and prior p_{\\theta}(z), where is crucial for performing variational inference.\n\nThough I am not an expert in this domain, I find the basic idea is simple and easy to understand. However, my major concern is about the novelty of this work, given the fact that the theoretical contribution is quite limited.", "extra_scores": {"experience_assessment": "I have read many papers in this area.", "review_assessment:_thoroughness_in_paper_reading": "I read the paper at least twice and used my best judgement in assessing the paper.", "review_assessment:_checking_correctness_of_experiments": "I assessed the sensibility of the experiments.", "review_assessment:_checking_correctness_of_derivations_and_theory": "I assessed the sensibility of the derivations and theory."}, "extra_text": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Meta-review: This paper proposes a sensor placement strategy based on maximising the information gain. Instead of using Gaussian process, the authors apply neural nets as function approximators. A limited empirical evaluation is performed to assess the performance of the proposed strategy. 
The reviewers have raised several major issues, including the lack of novelty, clarity, and missing critical details in the exposition. The authors didn’t address any of the raised concerns in the rebuttal. I will hence recommend rejection of this paper.
Decision: Reject