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]: Reinforcement learning (RL) methods achieved major advances in multiple tasks surpassing human performance. However, most of RL strategies show a certain degree of weakness and may become computationally intractable when dealing with high-dimensional and non-stationary environments. In this paper, we build a meta-reinforcement learning (MRL) method embedding an adaptive neural network (NN) controller for efficient policy iteration in changing task conditions. Our main goal is to extend RL application to the challenging task of urban autonomous driving in CARLA simulator.
[EX A]: A meta-reinforcement learning approach embedding a neural network controller applied to autonomous driving with Carla simulator.

[EX Q]: The embedding layers transforming input words into real vectors are the key components of deep neural networks used in natural language processing. However, when the vocabulary is large, the corresponding weight matrices can be enormous, which precludes their deployment in a limited resource setting. We introduce a novel way of parametrizing embedding layers based on the Tensor Train (TT) decomposition, which allows compressing the model significantly at the cost of a negligible drop or even a slight gain in performance. We evaluate our method on a wide range of benchmarks in natural language processing and analyze the trade-off between performance and compression ratios for a wide range of architectures, from MLPs to LSTMs and Transformers.
[EX A]: Embedding layers are factorized with Tensor Train decomposition to reduce their memory footprint.

[EX Q]: Neural network training relies on our ability to find ''''''''"good" minimizers of highly non-convex loss functions. It is well known that certain network architecture designs (e.g., skip connections) produce loss functions that train easier, and well-chosen training parameters (batch size, learning rate, optimizer) produce minimizers that generalize better. However, the reasons for these differences, and their effect on the underlying loss landscape, is not well understood.

In this paper, we explore the structure of neural loss functions, and the effect of loss landscapes on generalization, using a range of visualization methods. First, we introduce a simple ''"filter normalization" method that helps us visualize loss function curvature, and make meaningful side-by-side comparisons between loss functions. Then, using a variety of visualizations, we explore how network architecture effects the loss landscape, and how training parameters affect the shape of minimizers.
[EX A]:
We explore the structure of neural loss functions, and the effect of loss landscapes on generalization, using a range of visualization methods.