PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Generative Marginalization Models

Sulin Liu, Peter Ramadge, Ryan P Adams

generative modelsdiscrete generative modelsmarginalizationprobabilistic models
97.80100
Fused
band ≈ ±16 pct pts (from σ = 0.32)
98.60100
Mimo
band ≈ ±23 pct pts (from σ = 0.47)
97.70100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — A new type of discrete generative models that explicitly learn the marginals via marginalization self-consistency.

Abstract

We introduce *marginalization models* (MAMs), a new family of generative models for high-dimensional discrete data. They offer scalable and flexible generative modeling with tractable likelihoods by explicitly modeling all induced marginal distributions. Marginalization models enable fast evaluation of arbitrary marginal probabilities with a single forward pass of the neural network, which overcomes a major limitation of methods with exact marginal inference, such as autoregressive models (ARMs). We propose scalable methods for learning the marginals, grounded in the concept of “*marginalization self-consistency*”. Unlike previous methods, MAMs support scalable training of any-order generative models for high-dimensional problems under the setting of *energy-based training*, where the goal is to match the learned distribution to a given desired probability (specified by an unnormalized (log) probability function such as energy function or reward function). We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed model on a variety of discrete data distributions, including binary images, language, physical systems, and molecules, for *maximum likelihood* and *energy-based training* settings. MAMs achieve orders of magnitude speedup in evaluating the marginal probabilities on both settings. For energy-based training tasks, MAMs enable any-order generative modeling of high-dimensional problems beyond the capability of previous methods.

Author context

Most prolific author: 3 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.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)