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: Deep reinforcement learning (DRL) algorithms have demonstrated progress in learning to find a goal in challenging environments. As the title of the paper by Mirowski et al. (2016) suggests, one might assume that DRL-based algorithms are able to “learn to navigate” and are thus ready to replace classical mapping and path-planning algorithms, at least in simulated environments. Yet, from experiments and analysis in this earlier work, it is not clear what strategies are used by these algorithms in navigating the mazes and finding the goal. In this paper, we pose and study this underlying question: are DRL algorithms doing some form of mapping and/or path-planning? Our experiments show that the algorithms are not memorizing the maps of mazes at the testing stage but, rather, at the training stage. Hence, the DRL algorithms fall short of qualifying as mapping or path-planning algorithms with any reasonable definition of mapping. We extend the experiments in Mirowski et al. (2016) by separating the set of training and testing maps and by a more ablative coverage of the space of experiments. Our systematic experiments show that the NavA3C-D1-D2-L algorithm, when trained and tested on the same maps, is able to choose the shorter paths to the goal. However, when tested on unseen maps the algorithm utilizes a wall-following strategy to find the goal without doing any mapping or path planning.

A: We quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate deep reinforcement learning based navigation methods under a variety of conditions to answer the question of how close they are to replacing classical path planners and mapping algorithms.
****
Q: In this paper we propose to view the acceptance rate of the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm as a universal objective for learning to sample from target distribution -- given either as a set of samples or in the form of unnormalized density. This point of view unifies the goals of such approaches as Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), variational inference. To reveal the connection we derive the lower bound on the acceptance rate and treat it as the objective for learning explicit and implicit samplers. The form of the lower bound allows for doubly stochastic gradient optimization in case the target distribution factorizes (i.e. over data points). We empirically validate our approach on Bayesian inference for neural networks and generative models for images.

A: Learning to sample via lower bounding the acceptance rate of the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm
****
Q: It has been shown that using geometric spaces with non-zero curvature instead of plain Euclidean spaces with zero curvature improves performance on a range of Machine Learning tasks for learning representations. Recent work has leveraged these geometries to learn latent variable models like Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) in spherical and hyperbolic spaces with constant curvature. While these approaches work well on particular kinds of data that they were designed for e.g.~tree-like data for a hyperbolic VAE, there exists no generic approach unifying all three models. We develop a Mixed-curvature Variational Autoencoder, an efficient way to train a VAE whose latent space is a product of constant curvature Riemannian manifolds, where the per-component curvature can be learned. This generalizes the Euclidean VAE to curved latent spaces, as the model essentially reduces to the Euclidean VAE if curvatures of all latent space components go to 0.

A:
Variational Autoencoders with latent spaces modeled as products of constant curvature Riemannian manifolds improve on image reconstruction over single-manifold variants.
****