When do GFlowNets learn the right distribution?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generative Flow Networks (GFlowNets) are an emerging class of sampling methods for distributions over discrete and compositional objects, e.g., graphs. In spite of their remarkable success in problems such as drug discovery and phylogenetic inference, the question of when and whether GFlowNets learn to sample from the target distribution remains underexplored. To tackle this issue, we first assess the extent to which a violation of the detailed balance of the underlying flow network might hamper the correctness of GFlowNet's sampling distribution. In particular, we demonstrate that the impact of an imbalanced edge on the model's accuracy is influenced by the total amount of flow passing through it and, as a consequence, is unevenly distributed across the network. We also argue that, depending on the parameterization, imbalance may be inevitable. In this regard, we consider the problem of sampling from distributions over graphs with GFlowNets parameterized by graph neural networks (GNNs) and show that the representation limits of GNNs delineate which distributions these GFlowNets can approximate. Lastly, we address these limitations by proposing a theoretically sound and computationally tractable metric for assessing GFlowNets, experimentally showing it is a better proxy for correctness than popular evaluation protocols.
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 | 0.008 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".