PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Beyond Vanilla Variational Autoencoders: Detecting Posterior Collapse in Conditional and Hierarchical Variational Autoencoders

Hien Dang, Tho Tran Huu, Tan Minh Nguyen, Nhat Ho

generative modelsvariational autoencodersposterior collapse
71.20100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.27)
82.40100
Mimo
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.38)
56.50100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.38)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — We prove and study posterior collapse occurence for conditional and hierarchical variational autoencoders

Abstract

The posterior collapse phenomenon in variational autoencoder (VAE), where the variational posterior distribution closely matches the prior distribution, can hinder the quality of the learned latent variables. As a consequence of posterior collapse, the latent variables extracted by the encoder in VAE preserve less information from the input data and thus fail to produce meaningful representations as input to the reconstruction process in the decoder. While this phenomenon has been an actively addressed topic related to VAE performance, the theory for posterior collapse remains underdeveloped, especially beyond the standard VAE. In this work, we advance the theoretical understanding of posterior collapse to two important and prevalent yet less studied classes of VAE: conditional VAE and hierarchical VAE. Specifically, via a non-trivial theoretical analysis of linear conditional VAE and hierarchical VAE with two levels of latent, we prove that the cause of posterior collapses in these models includes the correlation between the input and output of the conditional VAE and the effect of learnable encoder variance in the hierarchical VAE. We empirically validate our theoretical findings for linear conditional and hierarchical VAE and demonstrate that these results are also predictive for non-linear cases with extensive experiments.

Author context

Most prolific author: 8 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 44 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 61% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 44)