GibbsNet: Iterative Adversarial Inference for Deep Graphical Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Directed latent variable models that formulate the joint distribution as $p(x,z) = p(z) p(x \mid z)$ have the advantage of fast and exact sampling. However, these models have the weakness of needing to specify $p(z)$, often with a simple fixed prior that limits the expressiveness of the model. Undirected latent variable models discard the requirement that $p(z)$ be specified with a prior, yet sampling from them generally requires an iterative procedure such as blocked Gibbs-sampling that may require many steps to draw samples from the joint distribution $p(x, z)$. We propose a novel approach to learning the joint distribution between the data and a latent code which uses an adversarially learned iterative procedure to gradually refine the joint distribution, $p(x, z)$, to better match with the data distribution on each step. GibbsNet is the best of both worlds both in theory and in practice. Achieving the speed and simplicity of a directed latent variable model, it is guaranteed (assuming the adversarial game reaches the virtual training criteria global minimum) to produce samples from $p(x, z)$ with only a few sampling iterations. Achieving the expressiveness and flexibility of an undirected latent variable model, GibbsNet does away with the need for an explicit $p(z)$ and has the ability to do attribute prediction, class-conditional generation, and joint image-attribute modeling in a single model which is not trained for any of these specific tasks. We show empirically that GibbsNet is able to learn a more complex $p(z)$ and show that this leads to improved inpainting and iterative refinement of $p(x, z)$ for dozens of steps and stable generation without collapse for thousands of steps, despite being trained on only a few steps.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".