Paper detail

Uphill Roads to Variational Tightness: Monotonicity and Monte Carlo Objectives

We revisit the theory of importance weighted variational inference (IWVI), a promising strategy for learning latent variable models. IWVI uses new variational bounds, known as Monte Carlo objectives (MCOs), obtained by replacing intractable integrals by Monte Carlo estimates -- usually simply obtained via importance sampling. Burda, Grosse and Salakhutdinov (2016) showed that increasing the number of importance samples provably tightens the gap between the bound and the likelihood. Inspired by this simple monotonicity theorem, we present a series of nonasymptotic results that link properties of Monte Carlo estimates to tightness of MCOs. We challenge the rationale that smaller Monte Carlo variance leads to better bounds. We confirm theoretically the empirical findings of several recent papers by showing that, in a precise sense, negative correlation reduces the variational gap. We also generalise the original monotonicity theorem by considering non-uniform weights. We discuss several practical consequences of our theoretical results. Our work borrows many ideas and results from the theory of stochastic orders.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.