To validate the effectiveness of SHOT, we conduct empirical tests on standard few-shot learning tasks and qualitatively analyze its dynamics.

However, the theoretical convergence of ANIL has not been studied yet.

Based on this hypothesis, we introduce an algorithm called SHOT (Suppressing the Hessian along the Optimization Trajectory) that minimizes the distance between the parameters of the target and reference models to suppress the Hessian in the inner loop. Despite dealing with high-order terms, SHOT does not increase the computational complexity of the baseline model much. It is agnostic to both the algorithm and architecture used in GBML, making it highly versatile and applicable to any GBML baseline. To validate the effectiveness of SHOT, we conduct empirical tests on standard few-shot learning tasks and qualitatively analyze its dynamics. We confirm our hypothesis empirically and demonstrate that SHOT outperforms the corresponding baseline.

Although model-agnostic meta-learning (MAML) is a very successful algorithm in meta-learning practice, it can have high computational cost because it updates all model parameters over both the inner loop of task-specific adaptation and the outer-loop of meta initialization training. A more efficient algorithm ANIL (which refers to almost no inner loop) was proposed recently by Raghu et al. 2019, which adapts only a small subset of parameters in the inner loop and thus has substantially less computational cost than MAML as demonstrated by extensive experiments. However, the theoretical convergence of ANIL has not been studied yet. In this paper, we characterize the convergence rate and the computational complexity for ANIL under two representative inner-loop loss geometries, i.e., strongly-convexity and nonconvexity. Our results show that such a geometric property can significantly affect the overall convergence performance of ANIL. For example, ANIL achieves a faster convergence rate for a strongly-convex inner-loop loss as the number $N$ of inner-loop gradient descent steps increases, but a slower convergence rate for a nonconvex inner-loop loss as $N$ increases. Moreover, our complexity analysis provides a theoretical quantification on the improved efficiency of ANIL over MAML.

We propose a new method that uses deep learning techniques to accelerate the popular alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) solution for inverse problems. The ADMM updates consist of a proximity operator, a least squares regression that includes a big matrix inversion, and an explicit solution for updating the dual variables. Typically, inner loops are required to solve the first two sub-minimization problems due to the intractability of the prior and the matrix inversion. To avoid such drawbacks or limitations, we propose an inner-loop free update rule with two pre-trained deep convolutional architectures. More specifically, we learn a conditional denoising auto-encoder which imposes an implicit data-dependent prior/regularization on ground-truth in the first sub-minimization problem. This design follows an empirical Bayesian strategy, leading to so-called amortized inference. For matrix inversion in the second sub-problem, we learn a convolutional neural network to approximate the matrix inversion, i.e., the inverse mapping is learned by feeding the input through the learned forward network. Note that training this neural network does not require ground-truth or measurements, i.e., data-independent. Extensive experiments on both synthetic data and real datasets demonstrate the efficiency and accuracy of the proposed method compared with the conventional ADMM solution using inner loops for solving inverse problems.

Current domain adaptation methods have made substantial advances in adapting discrete domains.

We are grateful for the reviewers' constructive feedback. We agree with the Reviewer that our "specific implementation has sufficient novelty and should be of interest to the To answer R3's question, this is not because the meta-training becomes unstable when We will include these results and discussion in the camera-ready version of the paper. R3 asks whether the feature reuse baseline would be stronger if we used a shallower network. R2 asked how the learning speed of our method compares to that of the gradient-based baseline. We will add learning and meta-learning trajectories to the final version of this paper.