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]: We present a hybrid framework that leverages the trade-off between temporal and frequency precision in audio representations to improve the performance of speech enhancement task. We first show that conventional approaches using specific representations such as raw-audio and spectrograms are each effective at targeting different types of noise.
 By integrating both approaches, our model can learn multi-scale and multi-domain features, effectively removing noise existing on different regions on the time-frequency space in a complementary way. Experimental results show that the proposed hybrid model yields better performance and robustness than using each model individually.
[A]: A hybrid model utilizing both raw-audio and spectrogram information for speech enhancement tasks.


[Q]: Stochastic gradient descent (SGD) has been the dominant optimization method for training deep neural networks due to its many desirable properties. One of the more remarkable and least understood quality of SGD is that it generalizes relatively well
 on unseen data even when the neural network has millions of parameters. We hypothesize that in certain cases it is desirable to relax its intrinsic generalization properties and introduce an extension of SGD called deep gradient boosting (DGB). The key idea of DGB is that back-propagated gradients inferred using the chain rule can be viewed as pseudo-residual targets of a gradient boosting problem. Thus at each layer of a neural network the weight update is calculated by solving the corresponding boosting problem using a linear base learner. The resulting weight update formula can also be viewed as a normalization procedure of the data that arrives at each layer during the forward pass. When implemented as a separate input normalization layer (INN) the new architecture shows improved performance on image recognition tasks when compared to the same architecture without normalization layers. As opposed to batch normalization (BN), INN has no learnable parameters however it matches its performance on CIFAR10 and ImageNet classification tasks.
[A]: What can we learn about training neural networks if we treat each layer as a gradient boosting problem?


[Q]: Some recent work has shown separation between the expressive power of depth-2 and depth-3 neural networks. These separation results are shown by constructing functions and input distributions, so that the function is well-approximable by a depth-3 neural network of polynomial size but it cannot be well-approximated under the chosen input distribution by any depth-2 neural network of polynomial size. These results are not robust and require carefully chosen functions as well as input distributions.

 We show a similar separation between the expressive power of depth-2 and depth-3 sigmoidal neural networks over a large class of input distributions, as long as the weights are polynomially bounded. While doing so, we also show that depth-2 sigmoidal neural networks with small width and small weights can be well-approximated by low-degree multivariate polynomials.
[A]:
depth-2-vs-3 separation for sigmoidal neural networks over general distributions