CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 66Gaussian Processes and Bayesian InferenceTopic ModelingMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tighter Variational Bounds are Not Necessarily Better

Open access
Rainforth, Tom, Kosiorek, Adam R., Le, Tuan Anh, Maddison, Chris J., Igl, Maximilian, Wood, Frank, Teh, Yee Whye·2018·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1802.04537arXiv 1802.04537
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We provide theoretical and empirical evidence that using tighter evidence lower bounds (ELBOs) can be detrimental to the process of learning an inference network by reducing the signal-to-noise ratio of the gradient estimator. Our results call into question common implicit assumptions that tighter ELBOs are better variational objectives for simultaneous model learning and inference amortization schemes. Based on our insights, we introduce three new algorithms: the partially importance weighted auto-encoder (PIWAE), the multiply importance weighted auto-encoder (MIWAE), and the combination importance weighted auto-encoder (CIWAE), each of which includes the standard importance weighted auto-encoder (IWAE) as a special case. We show that each can deliver improvements over IWAE, even when performance is measured by the IWAE target itself. Furthermore, our results suggest that PIWAE may be able to deliver simultaneous improvements in the training of both the inference and generative networks.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1802.04537

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Bamler, R., Zhang, C., Opper, M., and Mandt, S. Perturbative black box variational inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.07433 , 2017. · arXiv
  2. Bourlard, H. and Kamp, Y. Auto-association by multilayer perceptrons and singular value decomposition. Biological cybernetics , 59(4-5):291-294, 1988.
  3. Burda, Y., Grosse, R., and Salakhutdinov, R. Importance weighted autoencoders. In ICLR , 2016.
  4. Chen, X., Kingma, D. P., Salimans, T., Duan, Y., Dhariwal, P., Schulman, J., Sutskever, I., and Abbeel, P. Variational lossy autoencoder. In ICLR , 2017.
  5. Cremer, C., Morris, Q., and Duvenaud, D. Reinterpreting importance-weighted autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.02916 , 2017. · arXiv
  6. Fort, G., Gobet, E., and Moulines, E. Mcmc design-based non-parametric regression for rare event. application to nested risk computations. Monte Carlo Methods and Applications , 23(1):21-42, 2017.
  7. Gregor, K., Besse, F., Rezende, D. J., Danihelka, I., and Wierstra, D. Towards conceptual compression. In NIPS , 2016. Hesterberg, T. C. Advances in importance sampling . PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1988.
  8. Hinton, G. E. and Zemel, R. S. Autoencoders, minimum description length and helmholtz free energy. In NIPS , 1994.
  9. Hoffman, M. D., Blei, D. M., Wang, C., and Paisley, J. Stochastic variational inference. The Journal of Machine Learning Research , 14(1):1303-1347, 2013.
  10. Kingma, D. P. and Welling, M. Auto-encoding variational Bayes. In ICLR , 2014.
  11. Kingma, D. P., Salimans, T., and Welling, M. Improving variational inference with inverse autoregressive flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.04934 , 2016. · arXiv
  12. Le, T. A., Baydin, A. G., and Wood, F. Inference compilation and universal probabilistic programming. In AISTATS , 2017.
  13. Le, T. A., Igl, M., Rainforth, T., Jin, T., and Wood, F. Auto-encoding sequential Monte Carlo. In ICLR , 2018.
  14. Li, Y. and Turner, R. E. R´ enyi divergence variational inference. In NIPS , 2016.
  15. Maaløe, L., Sønderby, C. K., Sønderby, S. K., and Winther, O. Auxiliary deep generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.05473 , 2016. · arXiv
  16. Maddison, C. J., Lawson, D., Tucker, G., Heess, N., Norouzi, M., Mnih, A., Doucet, A., and Teh, Y. W. Filtering variational objectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.09279 , 2017. · arXiv
  17. Paige, B. and Wood, F. Inference networks for sequential Monte Carlo in graphical models. In ICML , 2016.
  18. Rainforth, T. Automating Inference, Learning, and Design using Probabilistic Programming . PhD thesis, 2017.
  19. Rainforth, T., Cornish, R., Yang, H., Warrington, A., and Wood, F. On nesting Monte Carlo estimators. In ICML , 2018.
  20. Ranganath, R., Gerrish, S., and Blei, D. Black box variational inference. In AISTATS , 2014.
  21. Ranganath, R., Tran, D., and Blei, D. Hierarchical variational models. In ICML , 2016.
  22. Rezende, D. and Mohamed, S. Variational inference with normalizing flows. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 1530-1538, 2015.
  23. Rezende, D. J., Mohamed, S., and Wierstra, D. Stochastic backpropagation and approximate inference in deep generative models. In ICML , 2014.
  24. Roberts, J. W. and Tedrake, R. Signal-to-noise ratio analysis of policy gradient algorithms. In NIPS , 2009.
  25. Salimans, T., Kingma, D., and Welling, M. Markov chain Monte Carlo and variational inference: Bridging the gap. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-15) , pp. 1218-1226, 2015.
  26. Tran, D., Ranganath, R., and Blei, D. M. The variational Gaussian process. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06499 , 2015. · arXiv
  27. Turner, R. E. and Sahani, M. Two problems with variational expectation maximisation for time-series models. Bayesian Time series models , pp. 115-138, 2011.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Rainforth, T., Kosiorek, A. R., Le, T. A., Maddison, C. J., Igl, M., Wood, F., & Teh, Y. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
Pages
4277-4285
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1802.04537
arXiv
1802.04537
OpenAlex
W2785811906
Cited by
66
References
2
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • International Conference on Machine Learning
Funders
  • DeepMind
  • European Commission (2007–2013, FP7 2007-2013, FP7/2007)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (FP7/2007–2013)
  • Air Force Research Laboratory
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (617071)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Gaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Markov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
Keywords
evidence lower bound, variational inference, importance sampling, amortized inference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review