Alert button

Tighter Variational Bounds are Not Necessarily Better

Add code
Bookmark button
Alert button
Jun 25, 2018
Tom Rainforth, Adam R. Kosiorek, Tuan Anh Le, Chris J. Maddison, Maximilian Igl, Frank Wood, Yee Whye Teh

Figure 1 for Tighter Variational Bounds are Not Necessarily Better
Figure 2 for Tighter Variational Bounds are Not Necessarily Better
Figure 3 for Tighter Variational Bounds are Not Necessarily Better
Figure 4 for Tighter Variational Bounds are Not Necessarily Better

Share this with someone who'll enjoy it:

Twitter IconFacebook IconLinkedin IconWhatsapp IconMessenger Icon

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.

* To appear at ICML 2018  
View paper onarxiv icon

Share this with someone who'll enjoy it:

Twitter IconFacebook IconLinkedin IconWhatsapp IconMessenger Icon