PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

EdVAE: Mitigating Codebook Collapse with Evidential Discrete Variational Autoencoders

Gulcin Baykal, Melih Kandemir, Gozde Unal

representation learningVector Quantized Variational AutoencodersDiscrete Variational AutoencodersEvidential Deep LearningCodebook Collapse
17.40100
Fused
band ≈ ±13 pct pts (from σ = 0.26)
25.00100
Mimo
band ≈ ±18 pct pts (from σ = 0.37)
17.00100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±18 pct pts (from σ = 0.35)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — We mitigate the codebook collapse problem of the dVAEs by virtue of an evidential formulation.

Abstract

Codebook collapse is a common problem in training deep generative models with discrete representation spaces like Vector Quantized Variational Autoencoders (VQ-VAEs). We observe that the same problem arises for the alternatively designed discrete variational autoencoders (dVAEs) whose encoder directly learns a distribution over the codebook embeddings to represent the data. We hypothesize that using the softmax function to obtain a probability distribution causes the codebook collapse by assigning overconfident probabilities to the best matching codebook elements. In this paper, we propose a novel way to incorporate evidential deep learning (EDL) instead of softmax to combat the codebook collapse problem of dVAE. We evidentially monitor the significance of attaining the probability distribution over the codebook embeddings, in contrast to softmax usage. Our experiments using various datasets show that our model, called EdVAE, mitigates codebook collapse while improving the reconstruction performance, and enhances the codebook usage compared to dVAE and VQ-VAE based models.

Author context

Most prolific author: 2 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 — 46 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 40% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 46)