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.

[Q]: 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.
[A]: Comparison of Maximum Likelihood and GAN-based training of Real NVPs


[Q]: There is overwhelming evidence that human intelligence is a product of Darwinian evolution. Investigating the consequences of self-modification, and more precisely, the consequences of utility function self-modification, leads to the stronger claim that not only human, but any form of intelligence is ultimately only possible within evolutionary processes. Humandesigned artificial intelligences can only remain stable until they discover how to manipulate their own utility function. By definition, a human designer cannot prevent a superhuman intelligence from modifying itself, even if protection mechanisms against this action are put in place. Without evolutionary pressure, sufficiently advanced artificial intelligences become inert by simplifying their own utility function. Within evolutionary processes, the implicit utility function is always reducible to persistence, and the control of superhuman intelligences embedded in evolutionary processes is not possible. Mechanisms against utility function self-modification are ultimately futile. Instead, scientific effort toward the mitigation of existential risks from the development of superintelligences should be in two directions: understanding consciousness, and the complex dynamics of evolutionary systems.
[A]: Non-Evolutionary Superintelligences Do Nothing, Eventually


[Q]: Problem solving in Answer Set Programming consists of two steps, a first grounding phase, systematically replacing all variables by terms, and a second solving phase computing the stable models of the obtained ground program. An intricate part of both phases is the treatment of aggregates, which are popular language constructs that allow for expressing properties over sets. In this paper, we elaborate upon the treatment of aggregates during grounding in gringo series 4. Consequently, our approach is applicable to grounding based on semi-naive database evaluation techniques. In particular, we provide a series of algorithms detailing the treatment of recursive aggregates and illustrate this by a running example.
[A]:
Grounding Recursive Aggregates: Preliminary Report