The ELBO objective is described as follows

$$ ELBO(\phi,\theta) = E_{q_\phi(z|x)}[log p_\theta (x|z)] - KL[q_\phi (z|x)||p(z)] $$

This form of ELBO includes a regularisation term in the form of the KL divergence which drives $q_\phi(z|x) \rightarrow p(z)$ when optimising ELBO.

However we also have the overall expression for the loglikelihood which is defined as follows (proof provided here)

$$ p_\theta(x) = ELBO(\phi,\theta) + KL[q_\phi(z|x)||p_\theta(z|x)] $$

Rearranging the above equation as follows

$$ \max\limits_\phi ELBO(\phi,\theta) = \max\limits_\phi p_\theta(x) - KL[q_\phi(z|x)||p_\theta(z|x)] $$

We can see that maximising ELBO w.r.t $\phi$ in this form causes $q_\phi(z|x) \rightarrow p_\theta(z|x)$

These two ways of describing how VAEs learn conflicts my understanding of what happens to the approximate distribution during training.

Is it simply just trying to match both the prior $p(z)$ and the posterior $p_\theta(z|x)$ or am I missing something


Practically, when optimizing VAE, you assume that prior $p(z)\sim N(0,1)$; i.e. the unit Gaussian distribution. However, in testime you sample z from $p(z|x)$; the encoder model. Why is that?

Let's go back to the start. We have a model $p_{\theta}(x)$ and the data $\{x_1, ..., x_N\}$. Solving the maximum log-likelihood problem, we have \begin{equation} \begin{split} \theta &= argmax_{\theta}\frac{1}{N}\sum_i log p_{\theta}(x_i) \\ &= argmax_{\theta}\frac{1}{N}\sum_i \left( \int p_{\theta}(x_i|z)p(z)dz \right) \end{split} \end{equation}

which is intractable to calculate. So what to do now?

Here it comes the Variational Inference: "Use the expected log-likelihood instead." \begin{equation} \begin{split} \theta &= argmax_{\theta}\sum_i E_{z \sim p_{\theta}(z|x)}\left[ logp_{\theta}(x,z) \right] \end{split} \end{equation}

We approximate $q(z) \approx p_{\theta}(z|x)$. Thus, we unfold $logp(x)$: \begin{equation} \begin{split} logp(x) &= log \int p_{\theta}(x_i|z)p(z)dz \\ &= log \int p_{\theta}(x_i|z)p(z) \frac{q(z)}{q(z)}dz \\ &= log E_{z \sim q(z)}\left[ \frac{p_{\theta}(x|z)p(z)}{q(z)} \right] \\ &\geq E_{z \sim q(z)}\left[ log \frac{p_{\theta}(x|z)p(z)}{q(z)} \right] \\ &= E_{z \sim q(z)}\left[ logp_{\theta}(x|z) + logp(z) \right] - E_{z \sim q(z)}\left[ logq(z)\right] \\ &= E_{z \sim q(z)}\left[ logp_{\theta}(x|z) + logp(z) \right] + H(q) \\ &= ELBO(p,q) \end{split} \end{equation}

where $H(q)$ is the entropy of q. As you highlighted we can also write $$ ELBO(p,q) = logp(x) - D_{KL}\left( q(z) || p(z|x) \right) $$

This means that (a) maximizing $ELBO(p,q)$ w.r.t. to $q$ then KL-Divergence is minimized and (b) maximizing $ELBO(p,q)$ w.r.t to $p$ then the model is improved as the log-likelihood is improved. So this point of yours is true.

However, how can we actually train this model?

The answer is by using Amortized Variational Inference! Practically, we use 2 Neural Networks, $\phi$ and $\theta$, so that we have 2 models: $q_{\phi}(z|x)$ (encoder) and $p_{\theta}(x|z)$ (decoder). Thus, we replace $q(z)$ with $q_{\phi}(z|x)$ and $ELBO(p,q)$ with $ELBO(\theta,\phi)$ .

To fully answer your question, I should reach your first ELBO formula. I will unfold my first equation about ELBO:

\begin{equation} \begin{split} ELBO(\theta,\phi) &= E_{z \sim q_{\phi}(z)}\left[ logp_{\theta}(x|z)\right] + E_{z \sim q_{\phi}(z)}\left[ logp(z) \right] + H\left(q_{\phi}(z|x)\right) \\ &= E_{z \sim q_{\phi}(z)}\left[ logp_{\theta}(x|z)\right] - D_{KL}\left( q_{\phi}(z|x) || p_{\theta}(z) \right) \end{split} \end{equation}

Therefore, using the Amortized Variational Inference, we maximize the above objective (which is the same as the one above).

  • $\begingroup$ Amortized VI doesnt change the objective you use, they both hold, ultimately the aim of ELBO is to act as a lower bound for for the log likelihood, the proof for the first objective you show still holds if we use q(z|x) instead of q(z) meaning both objectives apply in amortized VI. $\endgroup$ – quest ions 13 hours ago
  • $\begingroup$ Of course. I clarified it on text above. Thanks for the feedback. I hope I answered your question above. $\endgroup$ – ddaedalus 4 hours ago

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.