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.

[EX Q]: Supervised deep learning methods require cleanly labeled large-scale datasets, but collecting such data is difficult and sometimes impossible. There exist two popular frameworks to alleviate this problem: semi-supervised learning and robust learning to label noise. Although these frameworks relax the restriction of supervised learning, they are studied independently. Hence, the training scheme that is suitable when only small cleanly-labeled data are available remains unknown. In this study, we consider learning from bi-quality data as a generalization of these studies, in which a small portion of data is cleanly labeled, and the rest is corrupt. Under this framework, we compare recent algorithms for semi-supervised and robust learning. The results suggest that semi-supervised learning outperforms robust learning with noisy labels. We also propose a training strategy for mixing mixup techniques to learn from such bi-quality data effectively.
[EX A]: We propose to compare semi-supervised and robust learning to noisy label under a shared setting

[EX Q]: Deep ensembles have been empirically shown to be a promising approach for improving accuracy, uncertainty  and out-of-distribution robustness of deep learning models. While deep ensembles were theoretically motivated by the bootstrap, non-bootstrap ensembles trained with just random initialization also perform well in practice, which suggests that there could be other explanations for why deep ensembles work well. Bayesian neural networks, which learn distributions over the parameters of the network, are theoretically well-motivated by Bayesian principles, but do not perform as well as deep ensembles in practice, particularly under dataset shift. One possible explanation for this gap between theory and practice is that popular scalable approximate Bayesian methods tend to focus on a single mode, whereas deep ensembles tend to explore diverse modes in function space. We investigate this hypothesis by building on recent work on understanding the loss landscape of neural networks and adding our own exploration to measure the similarity of functions in the space of predictions. Our results show that random initializations explore entirely different modes, while functions along an optimization trajectory or sampled from the subspace thereof cluster within a single mode predictions-wise, while often deviating significantly in the weight space. We demonstrate that while low-loss connectors between modes exist, they are not connected in the space of predictions. Developing the concept of the diversity--accuracy plane, we show that the decorrelation power of random initializations is unmatched by popular subspace sampling methods.
[EX A]: We study deep ensembles through the lens of loss landscape and the space of predictions, demonstrating that the decorrelation power of random initializations is unmatched by subspace sampling that only explores a single mode.

[EX Q]: Understanding procedural language requires anticipating the causal effects of actions, even when they are not explicitly stated. In this work, we introduce Neural Process Networks to understand procedural text through (neural) simulation of action dynamics.    Our model complements existing memory architectures with dynamic entity tracking by explicitly modeling actions as state transformers. The model updates the states of the entities by executing learned action operators. Empirical results demonstrate that our proposed model can reason about the unstated causal effects of actions, allowing it to provide more accurate contextual information for understanding and generating procedural text, all while offering more interpretable internal representations than existing alternatives.
[EX A]:
We propose a new recurrent memory architecture that can track common sense state changes of entities by simulating the causal effects of actions.