ELVAE exposes a controllable sensitivity mechanism whose trained four-output realization is operationally informative, while the exact reconstruction-visible information remains three-dimensional and baseline image quality is a separate question.
Abstract
ELVAE places an input-dependent normal--inverse-gamma (NIG) hierarchy at each VAE latent coordinate, separating location uncertainty $u_{\mathrm{epi}}=\beta/[\nu(\alpha-1)]$ from conditional variability $u_{\mathrm{var}}=\beta/(\alpha-1)$. The marginalized latent law, however, identifies only the three quotient coordinates $(\gamma,\alpha,c)$ with $c=\beta(1+1/\nu)$; reconstruction is blind to one $(\nu,\beta)$ fiber direction. A companion theoretical analysis shows that the complete NIG prior and forward KL select a unique prior-relative canonical representative on each fiber, so canonical inverse allocation is not a fourth independent information channel. Empirically, trained inverse evidence $1/\nu$ remains the strongest sensitivity-ranking score. At $\tau_{\mathrm{epi}}=1$, the three-seed mean high/low-$u_{\mathrm{epi}}$ semantic-transition ratios are 1.98 on MNIST and 1.66 on Fashion-MNIST, falling to 1.33 and 1.16 under scale-matched controls. In the 20-draw MNIST component study with equal per-anchor perturbation energy, $1/\nu$ gives high/low ratios 1.69 and 1.65 under the $u_{\mathrm{epi}}$ and $u_{\mathrm{var}}$ fields and 1.69 (95\% interval 1.45--1.97) under a geometry-free isotropic field, whereas $u_{\mathrm{var}}$ reverses the isotropic ordering to 0.76. Under the experimental prior, canonical $1/\nu_{\mathrm{can}}$ is a strictly increasing transform of $T=c/[\alpha(\gamma^2+2)]$ and is bounded above by $3+\sqrt{10}$. Thus ELVAE exposes a controllable sensitivity mechanism whose trained four-output realization is operationally informative, while the exact reconstruction-visible information remains three-dimensional and baseline image quality is a separate question.
A normal--inverse-gamma (NIG) latent hierarchy has four parameters, but its induced latent law does not identify all four. For $\sigma^2\sim\mathrm{InvGamma}(\alpha,\beta)$, $\mu\mid\sigma^2\sim\mathcal{N}(\gamma,\sigma^2/\nu)$, and $z\mid\mu,\sigma^2\sim\mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma^2)$, the marginal law of $z$ depends on $(...
It is shown that pooling augmentations together, despite inter-dependencies, is a better alternative than the baseline of partitioning the data into subsets of independent data and provides an intuition behind the practical preference towards using many augmentations.
Maximilian Fleissner, D. Ghoshdastidar, Samory Kpotufe· 0 citations
The variational graph autoencoder (VGAE) regularizes its posterior toward the prior with the Kullback-Leibler divergence, a choice inherited from the variational autoencoder rather than argued for. We introduce the generalized graph variational autoencoder (GGVA), which replaces that term with any member of the R\'enyi...
Kleyton da Costa, Bernardo Modenesi, I. Menezes et al.· 0 citations
An AIM framework based on residual-penalty variable splitting, which interprets momentum as a multiplier-like correction driven by the splitting residual, and RADAR, which combines relativistic adaptive geometry, decoupled residual correction, and second-order momentum filtering to improve the update direction and mome...
Zhi-Xin Ren, Yao Lyu, Cong-Rong Li et al.· 2 citations
Causal tabular foundation models amortize effect estimation across synthetic mechanisms, but latent-effect supervision rewards posterior shrinkage rather than encoding the repeated-sample response needed in a fixed deployment population. We introduce fluctuation-supervised pretraining (FSP): each synthetic table is lab...
One implicit DDIM inversion step is the cheapest probe of whether a pretrained diffusion model encodes local manifold geometry at the Bayes limit, strongly convex at the Bayes limit.
G. Verbii· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.