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.

[Q]: To understand how object vision develops in infancy and childhood, it will be necessary to develop testable computational models. Deep neural networks (DNNs) have proven valuable as models of adult vision, but it is not yet clear if they have any value as models of development. As a first model, we measured learning in a DNN designed to mimic the architecture and representational geometry of the visual system (CORnet). We quantified the development of explicit object representations at each level of this network through training by freezing the convolutional layers and training an additional linear decoding layer. We evaluate decoding accuracy on the whole ImageNet validation set, and also for individual visual classes. CORnet, however, uses supervised training and because infants have only extremely impoverished access to labels they must instead learn in an unsupervised manner. We therefore also measured learning in a state-of-the-art unsupervised network (DeepCluster). CORnet and DeepCluster differ in both supervision and in the convolutional networks at their heart, thus to isolate the effect of supervision, we ran a control experiment in which we trained the convolutional network from DeepCluster (an AlexNet variant) in a supervised manner. We make predictions on how learning should develop across brain regions in infants. In all three networks, we also tested for a relationship in the order in which infants and machines acquire visual classes, and found only evidence for a counter-intuitive relationship. We discuss the potential reasons for this.
[A]: Unsupervised networks learn from bottom up; machines and infants acquire visual classes in different orders


[Q]: Whereas it is believed that techniques such as Adam, batch normalization and, more recently, SeLU nonlinearities ``solve'' the exploding gradient problem, we show that this is not the case and that in a range of popular MLP architectures, exploding gradients exist and that they limit the depth to which networks can be effectively trained, both in theory and in practice. We explain why exploding gradients occur and highlight the {\it collapsing domain problem}, which can arise in architectures that avoid exploding gradients. 

 ResNets have significantly lower gradients and thus can circumvent the exploding gradient problem, enabling the effective training of much deeper networks, which we show is a consequence of a surprising mathematical property. By noticing that {\it any neural network is a residual network}, we devise the {\it residual trick}, which reveals that introducing skip connections simplifies the network mathematically, and that this simplicity may be the major cause for their success.
[A]: We show that in contras to popular wisdom, the exploding gradient problem has not been solved and that it limits the depth to which MLPs can be effectively trained. We show why gradients explode and how ResNet handles them.


[Q]: Many machine learning algorithms represent input data with vector embeddings or discrete codes. When inputs exhibit compositional structure (e.g. objects built from parts or procedures from subroutines), it is natural to ask whether this compositional structure is reflected in the the inputs’ learned representations. While the assessment of compositionality in languages has received significant attention in linguistics and adjacent fields, the machine learning literature lacks general-purpose tools for producing graded measurements of compositional structure in more general (e.g. vector-valued) representation spaces. We describe a procedure for evaluating compositionality by measuring how well the true representation-producing model can be approximated by a model that explicitly composes a collection of inferred representational primitives. We use the procedure to provide formal and empirical characterizations of compositional structure in a variety of settings, exploring the relationship between compositionality and learning dynamics, human judgments, representational similarity, and generalization.
[A]:
This paper proposes a simple procedure for evaluating compositional structure in learned representations, and uses the procedure to explore the role of compositionality in four learning problems.