Understanding Minimum Probability Flow for RBMs Under Various Kinds of Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy-based models are popular in machine learning due to the elegance of their formulation and their relationship to statistical physics. Among these, the Restricted Boltzmann Machine (RBM), and its staple training algorithm contrastive divergence (CD), have been the prototype for some recent advancements in the unsupervised training of deep neural networks. However, CD has limited theoretical motivation, and can in some cases produce undesirable behavior. Here, we investigate the performance of Minimum Probability Flow (MPF) learning for training RBMs. Unlike CD, with its focus on approximating an intractable partition function via Gibbs sampling, MPF proposes a tractable, consistent, objective function defined in terms of a Taylor expansion of the KL divergence with respect to sampling dynamics. Here we propose a more general form for the sampling dynamics in MPF, and explore the consequences of different choices for these dynamics for training RBMs. Experimental results show MPF outperforming CD for various RBM configurations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".