arxiv: v2 [stat.ml] 15 Aug 2017

Transcription

1 Worshop trac - ICLR 207 REINTERPRETING IMPORTANCE-WEIGHTED AUTOENCODERS Chris Cremer, Quaid Morris & David Duvenaud Department of Computer Science University of Toronto {ccremer,duvenaud}@cs.toronto.edu {quaid.morris}@utoronto.ca arxiv: v2 [stat.ml] 5 Aug 207 ABSTRACT The standard interpretation of importance-weighted autoencoders is that they maximie a tighter lower bound on the marginal lielihood than the standard evidence lower bound. We give an alternate interpretation of this procedure: that it optimies the standard variational lower bound, but using a more complex distribution. We formally derive this result, present a tighter lower bound, and visualie the implicit importance-weighted distribution. BACKGROUND The importance-weighted autoencoder IWAE; Burda et al. 206)) is a variational inference strategy capable of producing arbitrarily tight evidence lower bounds. IWAE maximies the following multisample evidence lower bound ELBO): log px) E... q x) [ log i )] px, i ) L IW AE [q] IWAE ELBO) q i x) which is a tighter lower bound than the ELBO maximied by the variational autoencoder VAE; Kingma & Welling 204)): )] px, ) log px) E q x) [log L V AE [q]. VAE ELBO) q x) 2 DEFINING THE IMPLICIT DISTRIBUTION q IW In this section, we derive the implicit distribution that arises from importance sampling from a distribution p using q as a proposal distribution. Given a batch of samples 2... from q x), the following is the unnormalied importance-weighted distribution: q IW x, 2: ) px,) q x) px, j) j q j x) q x) px, ) px,) q x) + ) ) px, j) j2 q j x) True posterior 0 00 Figure : Approximations to a complex true distribution, defined via q EW. As grows, this approximation approaches the true distribution.

2 Worshop trac - ICLR 207 Here are some properties of the approximate IWAE posterior: When, q IW x, 2: ) equals q x). When >, the form of q IW x, 2: ) depends on the true posterior p x). As, E 2... [ q IW x, 2: )] approaches the true posterior p x) pointwise. See the appendix for details. Importantly, q IW x, 2: ) is dependent on the batch of samples See Fig. 3 in the appendix for a visualiation of q IW with different batches of RECOVERING THE IWAE BOUND FROM THE VAE BOUND Here we show that the IWAE ELBO is equivalent to the VAE ELBO in expectation, but with a more flexible, unnormalied q IW distribution, implicitly defined by importance reweighting. If we replace q x) with q IW x, 2: ) and tae an expectation over 2..., then we recover the IWAE ELBO: [ ) ] px, ) E 2... q x) [L V AE [ q IW 2: )]] E 2... q x) q IW 2: ) log d q IW x, 2: ) [ ) ] px, i ) E 2... q x) q IW 2: ) log d q i i x) [ )] px, i ) E... q x) log L IW AE [q] q i x) For a more detailed derivation, see the appendix. Note that we are abusing the VAE lower bound notation because this implies an expectation over an unnormalied distribution. Consequently, we replace the expectation with an equivalent integral. i 2.2 EXPECTED IMPORTANCE WEIGHTED DISTRIBUTION q EW We can achieve a tighter lower bound than L IW AE [q] by taing the expectation over 2... of q IW. The expected importance-weighted distribution q EW x) is a distribution given by: q EW x) E 2... q x) [ q IW x, 2: )] E 2... px, ) q x) px,) q x) + ) px, j) j2 q j x) 2) See section 5.2 for a proof that q EW is a normalied distribution. Using q EW in the VAE ELBO, L V AE [q EW ], results in an upper bound of L IW AE [q]. See section 5.3 for the proof, which is a special case of the proof in Naesseth et al. 207). The procedure to sample from q EW x) is shown in Algorithm. It is equivalent to sampling-importance-resampling SIR). 2.3 VISUALIZING THE NONPARAMETERIC APPROXIMATE POSTERIOR The IWAE approximating distribution is nonparametric in the sense that, as the true posterior grows more complex, so does the shape of q IW and q EW. This maes plotting these distributions challenging. A ernel-density-estimation approach could be used, but requires many samples. Thanfully, equations ) and 2) give us a simple and fast way to approximately plot q IW and q EW without introducing artifacts due to ernel density smoothing. Figure visualies q EW on a 2D distribution approximation problem using Algorithm 2. The base distribution q is a Gaussian. As we increase the number of samples and eep the base distribution fixed, we see that the approximation approaches the true distribution. See section 5.6 for D visualiations of q IW and q EW with 2. 3 RESAMPLING FOR PREDICTION During training, we sample the q distribution and implicitly weight them with the IWAE ELBO. After training, we need to explicitly reweight samples from q. 2

3 Worshop trac - ICLR 207 Algorithm Sampling q EW x) : number of importance samples 2: for i in... do 3: i q x) 4: w i px,i) q i x) 5: Each w i w i / i w i 6: j Categorical w) 7: Return j Algorithm 2 Plotting q EW x) : number of importance samples 2: S number of function samples 3: L locations to plot 4: ˆf eros L ) 5: for s in...s do 6: 2... q x) 7: ˆpx) i2 8: for in L do px, i) q i x) 9: ˆf[] + px,) 0: Return ˆf/S px,) +ˆpx)) q x) Real Sample q x) Sample q EW x) Figure 2: Reconstructions of MNIST samples from q x) and q EW. The model was trained by maximiing the IWAE ELBO with K50 and 2 latent dimensions. The reconstructions from q x) are greatly improved with the sampling-resampling step of q EW. In figure 2, we demonstrate the need to sample from q EW rather than q x) for reconstructing MNIST digits. We trained the model to maximie the IWAE ELBO with K50 and 2 latent dimensions, similar to Appendix C in Burda et al. 206). When we sample from q x) and reconstruct the samples, we see a number of anomalies. However, if we perform the sampling-resampling step Alg. ), then the reconstructions are much more accurate. The intuition here is that we trained the model with q EW with K 50 then sampled from q x) q EW with K ), which are very different distributions, as seen in Fig.. 4 DISCUSSION Bachman & Precup 205) also showed that the IWAE objective is equivalent to stochastic variational inference with a proposal distribution corrected towards the true posterior via normalied importance sampling. We build on this idea by further examining q IW and by providing visualiations to help better grasp the interpretation. To summarie our observations, the following is the ordering of lower bounds given specific proposal distributions, log px) L V AE [q EW ] E 2... q x) [L V AE [ q IW 2: )]] L IW AE [q] L V AE [q] In light of this, IWAE can be seen as increasing the complexity of the approximate distribution q, similar to other methods that increase the complexity of q, such as Normaliing Flows Jimene Reende & Mohamed, 205), Variational Boosting Miller et al., 206) or Hamiltonian variational inference Salimans et al., 205). With this interpretation in mind, we can possibly generalie q IW to be applicable to other divergence measures. An interesting avenue of future wor is the comparison of IW-based variational families with alpha-divergences or operator variational objectives. 3

4 Worshop trac - ICLR 207 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We d lie to than an anonymous ICLR reviewer for providing insightful future directions for this wor. We d lie to than Yuri Burda, Christian Naesseth, and Scott Linderman for bringing our attention to oversights in the paper. We d also lie to than Christian Naesseth for the derivation in section 5.3 and for providing many helpful comments. REFERENCES Philip Bachman and Doina Precup. Training Deep Generative Models: Variations on a Theme. NIPS Approximate Inference Worshop, 205. Yuri Burda, Roger Grosse, and Ruslan Salahutdinov. Importance weighted autoencoders. In ICLR, 206. Danilo Jimene Reende and Shair Mohamed. Variational Inference with Normaliing Flows. In ICML, 205. Diederi P. Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes. In ICLR, 204. Andrew C. Miller, Nicholas Foti, and Ryan P. Adams. Variational Boosting: Iteratively Refining Posterior Approximations. Advances in Approximate Bayesian Inference, NIPS Worshop, 206. C. A. Naesseth, S. W. Linderman, R. Ranganath, and D. M. Blei. Variational Sequential Monte Carlo. ArXiv preprint, 207. Tim Salimans, Diederi P. Kingma, and Max Welling. Marov chain monte carlo and variational inference: Bridging the gap. In ICML,

5 Worshop trac - ICLR APPENDIX 5. DETAILED DERIVATION OF THE EQUIVALENCE OF VAE AND IWAE BOUND Here we show that the expectation over 2... of the VAE lower bound with the unnomalied importance-weighted distribution q IW, L VAE [ q IW 2: )], is equivalent to the IWAE bound with the original q distribution, L IWAE [q]. E 2... q x)[l VAE [ q IW 2: )]] E 2... q x) [ E 2... q x) E 2... q x) E 2... q x) [ [ E 2... q x) E 2... q x) E... q x) E... q x) E... q x) q IW x, 2: ) log q IW x, 2: ) log q IW x, 2: ) log q IW x, 2: ) log px,) q x) px, j) j q j x) j px, ) q x) px, j) q j x) px, ) q x) px, j) j q j x) px, j) j q j x) px, j) j q j x) [ log i log log px, i ) q i x) px, ) q IW x, 2: ) px, ) px,) px, i ) i q i x) i ) ] d 3) d ) px, i ) d q i x) 4) ] 5) ) ] px, i ) d q i x) i q x) log q x) log )] i i i i 6) px, i ) q i x) 7) px, i ) q i x) 8) ) px, i ) 9) q i x) px, i ) q i x) ) 0) ) L IWAE [q] 2) 8): Change of notation. 0): i has the same expectation as so we can replace with the sum of terms. ) d ) d 5

6 Worshop trac - ICLR PROOF THAT q EW IS A NORMALIZED DISTRIBUTION q EW x)d E 2... q x) [ q IW x, 2: )] d 3) E 2... px, ) q x) px,) q x) + ) d 4) px, j) j2 q j x) q x) q x) E 2... px, ) q x) px,) q x) + ) d 5) px, j) j2 q j x) E q x) E 2... q x) E... q x) E... q x) i E... q x) px, ) q x) j i E... q x) j px,) px,) q x) q x) + px, j) q j x) px, ) q x) px, j) j q j x) px, i) q i x) px, j) j q j x) px, i) q i x) px, j) q j x) j2 px, j) q j x) ) 6) ) 7) 8) 9) 20) E... q x) [] 2) 22) 7): Change of notation. 9): i has the same expectation as so we can replace with the sum of terms. 20): Linearity of expectation. 6

7 Worshop trac - ICLR PROOF THAT L V AE [q EW ] IS AN UPPER BOUND OF L IW AE [q] Proof provided by Christian Naesseth. Let ˆpx : ) px,) q x) + j2 px, j) q j x) )] px, ) L V AE [q EW ] E qew [log q EW x) E qew log px, ) E qew log ) E q2: x) E q2: x) [ px,) ˆpx : ) [ ˆpx : ) 23) ] 24) ] 25) [ E qew log Eq2: x) [ˆpx : ) ])] 26) px, )E q2: x) [ˆpx : ) ] log E q2: x) [ˆpx : ) ]) d 27) px, )E q2: x) [ˆpx : ) log ˆpx : ) )] d 28) px, ) q 2: x)ˆpx : ) log ˆpx : ) ) d 29) 2: q x) : q x) px, )q 2: x)ˆpx : ) log ˆpx : ) ) d 30) px, ) : q x) q : x)ˆpx : ) log ˆpx : ) ) d 3) px, ) q x) : ˆpx : ) q : x)log ˆpx : )) d 32) px, ) q x) q px, : x)log px, j ) d 33) j) : q j q j x) j j x) px, i) q i x) q px, : x)log px, j ) d 34) j) i : q j q j x) j j x) px, i) i q i x) q px, : x)log px, j ) d 35) j) : q j q j x) j j x) q : x)log px, j ) d 36) : q j j x) E q: ) log px, j ) 37) q j x) j L IW AE [q] 38) 28): Given that fa) AlogA is concave for A > 0, and fe[x]) E[fx)], then fe[x]) E[x]logE[x] E[ xlogx]. 30): Change of notation. 34): i has the same expectation as so we can replace with the sum of terms. 7

8 Worshop trac - ICLR PROOF THAT q EW IS CLOSER TO THE TRUE POSTERIOR THAN q The previous section showed that L IW AE q) L V AE q EW ). That is, the IWAE ELBO with the base q is a lower bound to the VAE ELBO with the importance weighted q EW. Due to Jensen's inequality and as shown in Burda et al. 206), we now that the IWAE ELBO is an upper bound of the VAE ELBO: L IW AE q) L V AE q). Furthermore, the log marginal lielihood can be factoried into: logpx)) L V AE q) + KLq p), and rearranged to: KLq p) logpx)) L V AE q). Following the observations above and substituting q EW for q: KLq EW p) logpx)) L V AE [q EW ] 39) logpx)) L IW AE [q] 40) logpx)) L V AE [q] KLq p) 4) Thus, KLq EW p) KLq p), meaning q EW is closer to the true posterior than q in terms of KL divergence. 5.5 IN THE LIMIT OF THE NUMBER OF SAMPLES Another perspective is in the limit of. Recall that the marginal lielihood can be approximated by importance sampling: [ ] px, ) px) E q x) px, i ) 42) q x) q i x) where i is sampled from q x). We see that the denominator of q IW is approximating px). If px,) q x) is bounded, then it follows from the strong law of large numbers that, as approaches infinity, q IW converges to the true posterior p x) almost surely. This interpretation becomes clearer when we factor out the true posterior from q IW : q IW x, 2: ) i px) px,) q x) + )p x) 43) px, j) j2 q j x) We see that the closer the denominator becomes to px), the closer q IW is to the true posterior. 5.6 VISUALIZING q IW AND q EW IN D Figure 3: Visualiation of D q IW and q EW distributions. The blue p) distribution and the green q) distribution are both normalied. The three instances of q IW 2 ) 2) have different 2 samples from q) and we can see that they are unnormalied. q EW ) is normalied and is the expectation over 30 q IW 2 ) distributions. The q IW distributions were plotted using Algorithm 2 with S. 8