TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you are given a part of an article. Your task is to generate headline (title) for this text. Preferred headlines are under fifteen words.
PROBLEM: We train a generator by maximum likelihood and we also train the same generator architecture by Wasserstein GAN. We then compare the generated samples, exact log-probability densities and approximate Wasserstein distances. We show that an independent critic trained to approximate Wasserstein distance between the validation set and the generator distribution helps detect overfitting. Finally, we use ideas from the one-shot learning literature to develop a novel fast learning critic.

SOLUTION: Comparison of Maximum Likelihood and GAN-based training of Real NVPs

PROBLEM: Unsupervised classification algorithm based on clonal selection principle named Unsupervised Clonal Selection Classification (UCSC) is proposed in this paper. The new proposed algorithm is data driven and self-adaptive, it adjusts its parameters to the data to make the classification operation as fast as possible. The performance of UCSC is evaluated by comparing it with the well known K-means algorithm using several artificial and real-life data sets. The experiments show that the proposed UCSC algorithm is more reliable and has high classification precision comparing to traditional classification methods such as K-means. General Terms Pattern Recognition, Algorithms.

SOLUTION: Unsupervised Classification Using Immune Algorithm

PROBLEM: In recent years we have seen rapid and significant progress in automatic image description but what are the open problems in this area? Most work has been evaluated using text-based similarity metrics, which only indicate that there have been improvements, without explaining what has improved. In this paper, we present a detailed error analysis of the descriptions generated by a state-of-the-art attentionbased model. Our analysis operates on two levels: first we check the descriptions for accuracy, and then we categorize the types of errors we observe in the inaccurate descriptions. We find only 20% of the descriptions are free from errors, and surprisingly that 26% are unrelated to the image. Finally, we manually correct the most frequently occurring error types (e.g. gender identification) to estimate the performance reward for addressing these errors, observing gains of 0.2–1 BLEU point per type.

SOLUTION:
Room for improvement in automatic image description: an error analysis