Paper:
Few-shot models have become a popular topic of research in the past years. They offer the possibility to determine class belongings for unseen examples using just a handful of examples for each class. Such models are trained on a wide range of classes and their respective examples, learning a decision metric in the process. Types of few-shot models include matching networks and prototypical networks. We show a new way of training prototypical few-shot models for just a single class. These models have the ability to predict the likelihood of an unseen query belonging to a group of examples without any given counterexamples. The difficulty here lies in the fact that no relative distance to other classes can be calculated via softmax. We solve this problem by introducing a "null class" centered around zero, and enforcing centering with batch normalization. Trained on the commonly used Omniglot data set, we obtain a classification accuracy of .98 on the matched test set, and of .8 on unmatched MNIST data. On the more complex MiniImageNet data set, test accuracy is .8. In addition, we propose a novel Gaussian layer for distance calculation in a prototypical network, which takes the support examples' distribution rather than just their centroid into account. This extension shows promising results when a higher number of support examples is available.

Review:
This paper looks at the problem of few-shot classification in the regime when only a single class is present. The task at hand is as follows: given a number of support images of a previously unseen class (not present during training) and a single unlabeled image, we need to decide if this image belongs to the class or not. While previous approaches would explicitly construct negative examples to contrast the positive ones with during training, the authors bypass this by using batch norm in the last layer, which, on average, centers embedding feature vectors at 0, defining effectively the embedding for the negative class. In addition, the authors look at modelling the distribution of support image embeddings to improve the performance of their model.
Overview:
I like the general idea and find the paper easy to follow. Using the centering effect of batch norm to effectively bypass the need to define the universal negative class embedding is an interesting approach. I think it is especially compelling due to the special role of the \vec{0} point in the embedding space, where all embedding vectors of length 0, regardless of their direction, meet. I also appreciate that the authors used multiple training runs and their averages as their results, rather than the best result.
I have a few points that I believe should be clarified:
-- Point 1 --
Are you assuming that the trainable offset in the batch norm will be close to \vec{0}, or are you identically setting it to \vec{0}? Since your definition of the “garbage” class relies on this, it might be worth checking what the actual learned parameters in the batch norm end up being, and if they are small, possibly fixing them to 0?
-- Point 2 --
I didn’t get what distance metric in particular you were using to determine if the unlabeled example X is closer to the centroid of the class c or the origin 0. If I understood it correctly, you effectively look at length(c-X) > length(X-0) as your condition determining if X belongs to c. What metric did you use as your length measure?
-- Point 3 --
When using the Gaussian approximation estimating the distribution of the support images in the embedding space, how does it affect the condition  length(c-X) > length(X-0)? In “Gaussian Prototypical Networks for Few-Shot Learning on Omniglot” by Stanislav Fort you cite, they incorporate the covariance of the Gaussian S in the length function, effectively using length(c,X,S). Their Euclidean metric uses the covariance matrix is a metric tensor to weight different axes differently. How exactly do you use yours?
-- Point 4 --
When comparing to the previous algorithms in the single-class (one-way) regime, you use a random image from one (at random) of the C_train - 1 remaining training classes as your negative example / example of the other class. Is that a fair comparison? How many images of those classes do you use? If it were the case that for a problem with the support size of 1 (or a few), sampling from these C-1 other classes might provide very unrepresentative embedding vector for the negative class. Might it be fairer to look at the average embedding vector over more images from the negative classes?
-- Typos --
= 2 typos on page 4 at the bottom: “*Is* is then taken into account *explictly* in the distance metric.”
= 1 typo on page 5 at the bottom: “standard deviation between runs is generally very low (¡.01). Each train”
-- Conclusion --
Overall, I think the problem and solution proposed are interesting. The authors provide a large enough set of comparisons to existing algorithms, and explain their approach well.