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]: Flow-based generative models are powerful exact likelihood models with efficient sampling and inference.
Despite their computational efficiency, flow-based models generally have much worse density modeling performance compared to state-of-the-art autoregressive models. In this paper, we investigate and improve upon three limiting design choices employed by flow-based models in prior work: the use of uniform noise for dequantization, the use of inexpressive affine flows, and the use of purely convolutional conditioning networks in coupling layers. Based on our findings, we propose Flow++, a new flow-based model that is now the state-of-the-art non-autoregressive model for unconditional density estimation on standard image benchmarks. Our work has begun to close the significant performance gap that has so far existed between autoregressive models and flow-based models.
[A]: Improved training of current flow-based generative models (Glow and RealNVP) on density estimation benchmarks

[Q]: We revisit the Recurrent Attention Model (RAM, Mnih et al. (2014)), a recurrent neural network for visual attention, from an active information sampling perspective.

We borrow ideas from neuroscience research on the role of active information sampling in the context of visual attention and gaze (Gottlieb, 2018), where the author suggested three types of motives for active information sampling strategies. We find the original RAM model only implements one of them.

We identify three key weakness of the original RAM and provide a simple solution by adding two extra terms on the objective function. The modified RAM 1) achieves faster convergence, 2) allows dynamic decision making per sample without loss of accuracy, and 3) generalizes much better on longer sequence of glimpses which is not trained for, compared with the original RAM.

[A]: Inspired by neuroscience research, solve three key weakness of the widely-cited recurrent attention model by simply adding two terms on the objective function.

[Q]: In this paper, we present a reproduction of the paper of Bertinetto et al. [2019] "Meta-learning with differentiable closed-form solvers" as part of the ICLR 2019 Reproducibility Challenge. In successfully reproducing the most crucial part of the paper, we reach a performance that is comparable with or superior to the original paper on two benchmarks for several settings. We evaluate new baseline results, using a new dataset presented in the paper. Yet, we also provide multiple remarks and recommendations about reproducibility and comparability. After we brought our reproducibility work to the authors' attention, they have updated the original paper on which this work is based and released code as well. Our contributions mainly consist in reproducing the most important results of their original paper, in giving insight in the reproducibility and in providing a first open-source implementation.
[A]:
We successfully reproduce and give remarks on the comparison with baselines of a meta-learning approach for few-shot classification that works by backpropagating through the solution of a closed-form solver.