In this task, you are given the abstract of a research paper. Your task is to generate a summary of this abstract. Your summary should not be very short, but it's better if it's not more than 30 words.

Example Input: We extend the Consensus Network framework to Transductive Consensus Network (TCN), a semi-supervised multi-modal classification framework, and identify its two mechanisms: consensus and classification. By putting forward three variants as ablation studies, we show both mechanisms should be functioning together. Overall, TCNs outperform or align with the best benchmark algorithms when only 20 to 200 labeled data points are available.
Example Output: A semi-supervised multi-modal classification framework, TCN, that outperforms various benchmarks.

Example Input: The goal of imitation learning (IL) is to learn a good policy from high-quality demonstrations. However, the quality of demonstrations in reality can be diverse, since it is easier and cheaper to collect demonstrations from a mix of experts and amateurs. IL in such situations can be challenging, especially when the level of demonstrators' expertise is unknown. We propose a new IL paradigm called Variational Imitation Learning with Diverse-quality demonstrations (VILD), where we explicitly model the level of demonstrators' expertise with a probabilistic graphical model and estimate it along with a reward function. We show that a naive estimation approach is not suitable to large state and action spaces, and fix this issue by using a variational approach that can be easily implemented using existing reinforcement learning methods. Experiments on continuous-control benchmarks demonstrate that VILD outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Our work enables scalable and data-efficient IL under more realistic settings than before.
Example Output: We propose an imitation learning method to learn from diverse-quality demonstrations collected by demonstrators with different level of expertise.

Example Input: 
Neural Architecture Search (NAS) aims to facilitate the design of deep networks for new tasks. Existing techniques rely on two stages: searching over the architecture space and validating the best architecture. NAS algorithms are currently compared solely based on their results on the downstream task. While intuitive, this fails to explicitly evaluate the effectiveness of their search strategies. In this paper, we propose to evaluate the NAS search phase.
 To this end, we compare the quality of the solutions obtained by NAS search policies with that of random architecture selection. We find that: (i) On average, the state-of-the-art NAS algorithms perform similarly to the random policy; (ii) the widely-used weight sharing strategy degrades the ranking of the NAS candidates to the point of not reflecting their true performance, thus reducing the effectiveness of the search process.
 We believe that our evaluation framework will be key to designing NAS strategies that consistently discover architectures superior to random ones.
Example Output:
We empirically disprove a fundamental hypothesis of the widely-adopted weight sharing strategy in neural architecture search and explain why the state-of-the-arts NAS algorithms performs similarly to random search.