Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deep generative models (DGM) are neural networks with many hidden layers trained to approximate complicated, high‐dimensional probability distributions using samples. When trained successfully, we can use the DGM to estimate the likelihood of each observation and to create new samples from the underlying distribution. Developing DGMs has become one of the most hotly researched fields in artificial intelligence in recent years. The literature on DGMs has become vast and is growing rapidly. Some advances have even reached the public sphere, for example, the recent successes in generating realistic‐looking images, voices, or movies; so‐called deep fakes. Despite these successes, several mathematical and practical issues limit the broader use of DGMs: given a specific dataset, it remains challenging to design and train a DGM and even more challenging to find out why a particular model is or is not effective. To help advance the theoretical understanding of DGMs, we introduce DGMs and provide a concise mathematical framework for modeling the three most popular approaches: normalizing flows, variational autoencoders, and generative adversarial networks. We illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of these basic approaches using numerical experiments. Our goal is to enable and motivate the reader to contribute to this proliferating research area. Our presentation also emphasizes relations between generative modeling and optimal transport.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".