3
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to implement a variational auto-encoder (as seen in Section 3.1 here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.06271.pdf).

It differs from a traditional VAE because it encodes its input images to three-dimensional latent feature maps. In other words, the latent feature maps have a width, height and channel dimension rather than just a channel dimension like a traditional VAE.

When calculating the Kullback-Liebler divergence as part of the loss function, I need the mean and covariance that is the output of the encoder. However, if the latent feature maps are three-dimensional, this means that the output of the encoder is three-dimensional, and therefore each latent feature is a 2D matrix.

How can I derive a mean and covariance from a 2D matrix to calculate the KL divergence?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Your three dimensional latent representation consists of two images of mean pixels and covariance pixels as shown in Fig. 3. Which represents a Gaussian distribution with the mean and covariance for each pixel in the latent representation. Each pixel value is a random variable.

Now, have a close look at KL-loss Eq. 3 and it's corresponding description in the paper:

$$\mathcal{L}_{KL} = \frac{1}{2 \times (\frac{W}{16} \times \frac{H}{16}) } \sum^M_{m = 1}[\mu^2_m + \sigma^2_m - \log(\sigma^2_m) - 1]$$

Finally, $M$ is the dimensionality of the latent features $\theta \in \mathbb{R}^M$ with mean $\mu = [\mu_1,...,\mu_M]$ and covariance matrix $\Sigma = \text{diag}(\sigma_1^2,...,\sigma_M^2)$, [...].

The covariance matrix is diagonal, thus all pixel values are independent of each other. That is the reason why we have this nice analytical form for the KL-divergence given by Eq. 3. Therefore you can treat your 2D random matrix simply as a random vector of size $M = \frac{W}{16} \times \frac{H}{16}$ ($\times 3$ if you like to include color dimension). The third dimension (RGB channel) can be considered independent as well, therefore it can be also flattened to a vector and appended. Indeed this is what is done in the paper indicated by the second half of the sentence from above:

that are reparameterized by via sampling from a standard multivariate Gaussian $\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(0,I_M)$, i.e. $\theta = \mu + \Sigma^{\frac{1}{2}}\epsilon$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ To clarify, will flattening the W/16 x H/16 matrix into a vector of size M maintain the spatial correspondence because the pixel values are independent of each other? When I say spatial correspondence, I refer to this part of the paper: "we use three-dimensional latent feature maps, i.e., channel, height and width dimensions, rather than one-dimensional latent vectors with only channel dimension, for improving the reconstruction quality and preserve more spatial information." $\endgroup$ – magmacollaris Feb 15 at 13:23
  • $\begingroup$ As an additional point of clarification, does this mean that each mean pixel will get its own covariance? Since the covariance is diagonal, would this mean that the covariance matrix is (H/16 x W/16) x (H/16 x W/16) in size? $\endgroup$ – magmacollaris Feb 16 at 13:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.