Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Variational Learning of Disentangled Representations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read DisCoVR learns condition-invariant and condition-specific latent factors with a max–min variational objective that has a unique equilibrium.

desk verdict A genuinely new variational objective with strong synthetic validation, but the theory analyzes a classifier on z while the implementation trains it on reconstructions, so the separation guarantee is weaker than claimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17182 v3 pith:6RPDRVYZ submitted 2025-06-20 cs.LG stat.ML

Yuli Slavutsky , Ozgur Beker , David Blei , Bianca Dumitrascu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords disentangledrepresentationlearningvariationalautoencodermulti-conditiondataadversarialconditionalindependencemutualinformationsingle-cellRNA-seqdomaingeneralization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces DisCoVR, a variational autoencoder objective for datasets in which every point carries a condition label. The claim is that a dual-latent model—an invariant code $z$ and a condition-aware code $w$—trained with two parallel reconstructions and an adversarial label classifier learns $z$ that is both informative and condition-invariant, while $w$ absorbs the remaining condition-specific variation. The objective is built directly on the assumed generative structure $p(x,y,z,w)=p(y)p(w|y)p(z)p(x|z,w)$, so the correct independence target is $z\perp w|y$ rather than the stronger, often imposed $z\perp w|x,y$. If the claim holds, DisCoVR is a drop-in variational objective for multi-condition representation learning that separates shared from condition-specific structure without handcrafted priors, and on synthetic, image, and single-cell RNA-seq benchmarks it reports stronger disentanglement than the four compared VAE-based baselines.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the max–min objective of Eq. 8, $$\max_{q_{z|x}\in\mathcal{Q}_z}\max_{q_{w|x,y}\in\mathcal{Q}_w}\min_{g_{y|z}\in\mathcal{G}}\mathbb{E}_{p_{x,y}}\left[\mathcal{L}_\$\alpha$(q_{z|x},q_{w|x,y},g_{y|z};x,y)\right],$$ whose three ingredients are the $z$-only ELBO $\mathcal{L}_z$, the joint ELBO $\mathcal{L}_w$, and the adversarial cross-entropy $-\mathbb{E}_{q_{z|x}}\log g(y|z)$. Two design choices make this objective work: the decoder $h_z$ produces a separate reconstruction $\hat{x}$ from $z$ alone, which forces $z$ to remain informative while giving the adversary a lower-variance input; and the prior $p(w|y)$ is anchored at the class-wise mean of $z$, coupling the two latents through the data and keeping $w$ informative. The paper also identifies the correct conditional-independence target as $z\perp w|y$, not $z\perp w|x,y$, and proves a unique saddle point for the game.

What would settle it

Train DisCoVR on the parametric model $x=z+w$ with a deliberately expressive decoder, then measure both $I(y;z)$ and $I(y;\hat{x})$ on held-out data. If there are trained models with $I(y;z)$ substantially above zero while $I(y;\hat{x})$ is near zero, the adversarial lower bound is not enforcing $z\perp y$, and the central disentanglement claim would need to be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that requiring two separate reconstructions—one from $z$ alone and one from the pair $(z,w)$—fixes a failure mode shared by earlier conditional VAEs, which decode only from $(z,w)$ and therefore have no incentive to keep $z$ informative once $w$ is available. With the $z$-only reconstruction in the objective, the adversarial classifier $g_{y|\hat{x}}$ operating on $\hat{x}=h_z(z)$ pushes $z$ toward label independence, while the condition-aware prior $p(w|y=k)=\mathcal{N}(\mu_k,I)$, with $\mu_k$ the class mean of the inferred $z$, prevents $w$ from collapsing or duplicating $z$. Proposition 2.2 states that under convexity and regularity conditions this max–min objective has a unique saddle point, and the experiments claim that the resulting embeddings have lower mutual information $I(z;w)$, lower deviation from the Bayes-optimal classifier, and better marginal reconstructions than CSVAE, HCSVAE, DIVA, and CCVAE.

Load-bearing premise

The whole separation rests on the label detector being able to spot condition information inside the reconstruction made from $z$; if the decoder hides that information while $z$ still contains it, the penalty never fires and $z$ stays entangled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Shared embeddings $z$ trained with DisCoVR can be used as condition-invariant features for transfer to new conditions, since the objective explicitly drives $z$ to be label-independent.
  • Condition-specific embeddings $w$ become a controlled knob for generation: changing $y$ at decoding time changes $w$ while leaving $z$ fixed.
  • The dual-reconstruction design gives a direct estimator of the marginal $p(x)$ from $z$ alone, so a trained model can answer “what does a typical example look like averaged over conditions?” without retraining.
  • Because the prior on $w$ is only a class-conditional Gaussian whose means are estimated from data, the method extends to high-dimensional count data such as single-cell RNA-seq by swapping in a ZINB likelihood.
  • The uniqueness of the saddle point means the objective has a well-defined optimum rather than a family of equally good equilibria, which should make training less sensitive to initialization.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the adversarial classifier sees only $\hat{x}=h_z(z)$, the learned guarantee on $z\perp y$ is only as strong as the decoder's willingness to expose label information; a natural stress test is to probe $I(y;z)$ directly and compare with $I(y;\hat{x})$ on the same trained model.
  • The same mechanism could be used for continuous covariates by replacing the class-conditional prior $p(w|y)$ with a regression-conditional prior, allowing DisCoVR to separate invariant factors from a treatment dose or time course.
  • If the shared code $z$ is truly condition-invariant, it should transfer across datasets with disjoint condition sets; testing DisCoVR on leave-one-condition-out generalization would directly validate the motivation from domain adaptation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces DisCoVR, a variational framework for multi-condition disentangled representation learning. The model uses two latent variables, z (condition-invariant) and w (condition-aware), with two parallel reconstruction paths (one from z alone, one from z and w), an adversarial classifier intended to remove condition information from z, and a class-conditional prior on w whose per-class mean is estimated from the encodings of z. The authors claim that the max-min objective in Eq. 8 maximizes data likelihood, has a unique equilibrium (Prop. 2.2), and empirically achieves stronger disentanglement than CSVAE, HCSVAE, DIVA, and CCVAE on synthetic, image, and single-cell RNA-seq benchmarks.

Significance. If the claims were fully established, the paper would make a useful contribution: a principled variational objective for separating invariant and condition-specific factors, with an architecture that keeps both latent variables informative through separate reconstructions. The strongest evidence is the synthetic parametric experiment (Table 1), where DisCoVR attains Delta-Bayes 0.1 versus 3.5 for the best baseline and the lowest KL to the analytic posteriors, providing an external validation against a known generative model. The paper also ships code, hyperparameter tables, runtime and memory footprints, and reports both MINE and kNN mutual-information estimates with ranking tables, which are concrete reproducibility assets. However, the theoretical claims are substantially overstated: the implemented adversarial classifier operates on a reconstruction of z rather than on z, the combined objective is not shown to bound any data likelihood, and the uniqueness proof for Prop. 2.2 is not rigorous. These gaps concern the paper's central assertion of explicit separation and need to be addressed before the theoretical framing can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Algorithm 1 vs. Eqs. (7)-(8), Prop. 2.2] The adversarial classifier is implemented on the reconstruction x̂ = h_z(z) (Algorithm 1, lines 5-6; Section 3), not on z as in the objective (Eqs. 7-8) and in Proposition 2.2. The paper itself notes the data-processing inequality I(y;x̂) ≤ I(y;z), so the adversarial penalty is only a lower bound on the true leakage. The additional statement that maximizing this lower bound also maximizes I(z;y) is not justified: maximizing a lower bound does not generally increase the quantity itself. Since the same loss that trains q(z|x) also trains h_z to make x̂ label-free, the adversary can be satisfied while z retains condition-specific information in directions that the decoder discards. Proposition 2.2 is therefore stated for a classifier that the architecture does not actually use, and the core claim that DisCoVR explicitly enforces z ⊥ y is not established by the theory. The empirical results, especially the near-zero I(y;z) on the Swiss roll and scRNA-seq, partially mitigate this concern, but the reported mutual-information estimates are approximate and could miss such decoder-null leakage.
  2. [Section 2.3, Eq. (8); Abstract] The claim that the objective 'maximizes data likelihood' is not supported. Equation 3 (L_z) is an ELBO on log p(x), while Eq. 4 (L_w) is an ELBO on log p(x|y). Their sum with the adversarial term in Eq. 8 is not a lower bound on log p(x,y) or on log p(x), because the two ELBO terms bound different target quantities and the adversarial term is subtracted. The text in Section 2.3 says that adding log p(y) to L_w extends the bound to log p(x,y), but the actual optimized objective also includes L_z, so this reasoning does not apply to Eq. 8. The theoretical framing should either derive a valid bound for the full objective or explicitly characterize the objective as a regularized surrogate rather than a likelihood bound.
  3. [Appendix B.2.2, Prop. 2.2] The proof of the unique saddle point is not rigorous. The argument that E_{q(z|x)} E_{q(w|x,y)} log p(w|y) is strictly concave in q(z|x) relies on the quadratic form -||w - μ_y||^2 being concave in μ_y and on μ_y being linear in q(z|x). Concavity of this composition does not yield strict concavity over the infinite-dimensional variational family, since the Hessian with respect to the function q(z|x) has rank at most d. Moreover, the game is not a standard convex-concave saddle problem because the prior p(w|y) itself depends on q(z|x) through Eq. 9. Thus the existence and uniqueness of the saddle point, as stated, are not established by the provided proof.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1, line 4] The line 'Sample condition invariant and aware latent variables z∼q_{θ_z} and w∼w_{θ_w}' contains a typo: 'w∼w_{θ_w}' should read 'w∼q_{θ_w}'.
  2. [Eq. (9) and Section 2.4] The prior mean μ_k is computed from the model's own encodings of the training data. This is a legitimate modeling choice, but the paper should discuss the risk of using the same labeled data both to define the prior and to fit the variational distribution, since this can lead to optimistic estimates of disentanglement in settings where the true generative structure is unknown.
  3. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'without handcrafted priors' is overstated, because Eq. 9 still requires a modeling choice for the prior family, and the experiments depend on several free weights (α_1, α_2, the adversarial weight, and the z-only reconstruction weight) that are tuned per dataset in Supplementary Tables 16-24.
  4. [Supplementary Table 17] Several entries report standard deviations of exactly 0.0 (e.g., CSVAE z-stimulation NMI 0.002±0.0 and DisCoVR 0.002±0.0); please report the actual values or explain why the variance is below the printed precision.
  5. [Section 5.2.3] The claimed recovery of IFN-β-response genes (ISG15, FTL, CCL8, CXCL10, etc.) is visually supported by Figure 5C but is not accompanied by a quantitative comparison of gene-level variance reconstruction; adding a numerical table would strengthen this claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core disentanglement claims are tested against external ground-truth posteriors; the only self-citation (Beker et al. 2024) is descriptive and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

DisCoVR's derivation is not circular. The optimization objective (Eqs. 3-8) is a variational ELBO-style objective whose disentanglement behavior is assessed on synthetic data with analytically known ground-truth posteriors p(z|x) and p(w|x,y) (Section 5.1.1, Eq. 10) and on the noisy Swiss roll with a ground-truth label noise level; these benchmarks are external to the fitted model, so the empirical claims are not forced by construction. The data-dependent prior in Eq. 9 defines p(w|y) in terms of the model's own encodings q(z|x); this is a self-referential modeling choice that couples the two latents, but it is stated as a design choice rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and the paper's key evaluations (z-Stimulation NMI, I(y;z), marginal reconstructions) are measured independently of that prior. The adversarial classifier is implemented on the reconstruction x-hat rather than on z (Section 3; Algorithm 1 lines 5-6), and the paper itself concedes by the data processing inequality that such a classifier can only capture a subset of the information z contains about y. This is a genuine weakening of the theoretical guarantee in Proposition 2.2, which is written for g(y|z), but it is a correctness and robustness limitation rather than a circular reduction: the implemented adversary is not the same object whose equilibrium is analyzed, so no prediction is being read off from its own fit. The only author-overlapping citation (Beker et al. 2024, used to describe the HCSVAE baseline in Section 4) is descriptive and not load-bearing for DisCoVR's central claims. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the paper's own equations is present; the honest finding is a low and negligible circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The method assumes a specific generative graph (Eq 1), a factorized variational family, and a data-anchored prior for w; the equilibrium proof adds convexity assumptions that the implemented neural networks do not satisfy. The free parameters are the per-dataset loss weights and the empirically estimated prior means. No new physical entities are introduced; z and w are modeling constructs.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha_1 (KL weight on q(z|x)) = 0.9 (parametric), 0.2 (Swiss roll), 0.0001 (MNIST/CelebA/scRNA)
    Introduced in Eq 7 as alpha_1; tuned per dataset via grid search (Supp Tables 16, 18, 22-24).
  • alpha_2 (KL weight on q(w|x,y)) = 0.2 (parametric, Swiss roll), 0.0001 (MNIST/CelebA/scRNA)
    Eq 7; tuned per dataset.
  • adversarial weight = 0.8 (parametric), 8 (Swiss roll), 0.1 (MNIST), 2000 (CelebA), 100 (scRNA)
    Weight on -E log g(y|z) in Eq 6/7; tuned per dataset (Supp Tables 16, 18, 22-24).
  • z-only reconstruction weight = 0.25 (parametric), 0.1 (Swiss roll), 0.5 (MNIST), 100000 (CelebA), 0.1 (scRNA)
    Weight on E[log p(x|z)]; tuned per dataset.
  • joint reconstruction weight = 0.75 (parametric), 0.9 (Swiss roll), 0.5 (MNIST), 1e6 (CelebA), 0.9 (scRNA)
    Weight on E[E log p(x|z,w)]; tuned per dataset.
  • prior means mu_k = Estimated each epoch as class-conditional means of inferred z
    Eq 9 defines p(w|y)=N(mu_k,I) with mu_k computed from the current encoder outputs; this is a data-derived quantity rather than a fixed hyperparameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Data are generated as p(x,y,z,w)=p(y)p(w|y)p(z)p(x|z,w), implying z_perp_w|y and x_perp_y|w.
    Section 2.1, Eq 1: the entire method assumes this graph; if false (e.g., z and w interact within a condition), the separation is not identifiable.
  • domain assumption The variational posterior factorizes as q(z|x)q(w|x,y).
    Section 2.2: the approximation assumes conditional independence of z and w given x,y; the gap is quantified in Prop 2.1 but not controlled.
  • ad hoc to paper The prior p(w|y)=N(mu_k,I) with mu_k = E_{p(x|y=k)} E_{q(z|x)}[z].
    Eq 9; the condition-aware prior is anchored to the class-conditional means of the invariant encoding; no generative justification is offered beyond encouraging informativeness.
  • ad hoc to paper Qz, Qw, and G are non-empty, convex, and compact for the equilibrium theorem.
    Appendix B.2.1; neural network parameterizations are not convex, so Prop 2.2 does not apply to the implemented model.
  • domain assumption Reconstruction likelihoods are Gaussian for images and zero-inflated negative binomial for scRNA-seq.
    Appendix H.2; the scRNA-seq model uses scVI's ZINB likelihood; image experiments use Gaussian/Sigmoid outputs.
invented entities (2)
  • condition-invariant latent variable z
    purpose: Captures factors shared across conditions; used for z-only reconstruction and adversarial removal of y
    Standard latent variable; no direct measurement exists. The synthetic experiments provide external ground-truth posteriors, but on real data z is only validated indirectly.
  • condition-aware latent variable w
    purpose: Captures condition-specific variation; paired with z for full reconstruction
    Same; w's prior is anchored to z's class-conditional means (Eq 9), which is a modeling construct.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variational Learning of Disentangled Representations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6RPDRVYZ

@misc{pith2026250617182,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variational Learning of Disentangled Representations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6RPDRVYZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17182}
}
read the original abstract

Disentangled representations separate factors that are shared across conditions from those that are condition-specific. Such separation is needed for generalization to new domains, treatments, patients, or species. A dominant line of work pursues this goal through variational formulations. While these approaches achieve partial disentanglement, they often exhibit three common limitations: they either do not remove all condition-specific information from the condition-specific representation, allow the condition-specific representation to become uninformative, or impose independence assumptions that do not reflect the underlying generative process. In this work, we introduce DisCoVR, a variational framework that addresses these limitations. Its objective is aligned with the probabilistic structure of the data-generating process, and includes an adversarial term that prevents condition-specific information from being encoded in the condition-specific representation.DisCoVR reconstructs the data from both shared and condition-specific representations, ensuring that each remains informative, and uses a structured prior that further reinforces the informativeness of both representations. We show that across synthetic, image, and single-cell RNA-sequencing datasets, DisCoVR achieves stronger disentanglement compared to previous approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17182 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Graphical overview of our model. (a) Probabilistic graphical model: gray circles denote [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A: Noisy labeled Swiss Roll dataset. B (left): Reconstruction and conditional embedding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Colored MNIST reconstructions from the label-agnostic representation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CelebA-Eyeglasses results. Top: Original images with/without eyeglasses. Middle: Full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A–B (left): UMAPs of raw gene counts from the IFN- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Brain lesion detection using a robust variational autoencoder and transfer learning

    Haleh Akrami, Anand A Joshi, Jian Li, Sergul Aydore, and Richard M Leahy. Brain lesion detection using a robust variational autoencoder and transfer learning. In 2020 IEEE 17th international symposium on biomedical imaging (ISBI), pages 786--790. IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Adversarial invariant feature learning with accuracy constraint for domain generalization

    Kei Akuzawa, Yusuke Iwasawa, and Yutaka Matsuo. Adversarial invariant feature learning with accuracy constraint for domain generalization. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2019, W \"u rzburg, Germany, September 16--20, 2019, Proceedings, Part II , pages 315--331. Springer, 2020

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Invariant risk minimization

    Martin Arjovsky, L \'e on Bottou, Ishaan Gulrajani, and David Lopez-Paz. Invariant risk minimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02893, 2019

    arXiv 1907

  4. [4]

    Patches: A representation learning framework for decoding shared and condition-specific transcriptional programs in wound healing

    Ozgur Beker, Dreyton Amador, Jose Francisco Pomarino Nima, Simon Van Deursen, Yvon Woappi, and Bianca Dumitrascu. Patches: A representation learning framework for decoding shared and condition-specific transcriptional programs in wound healing. bioRxiv, pages 2024--12, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Mutual information neural estimation

    Mohamed Ishmael Belghazi, Aristide Baratin, Sai Rajeshwar, Sherjil Ozair, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Devon Hjelm. Mutual information neural estimation. In Jennifer Dy and Andreas Krause, editors, Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 531--540. PMLR, 10--1...

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Robust solutions of optimization problems affected by uncertain probabilities

    Aharon Ben-Tal, Dick Den Hertog, Anja De Waegenaere, Bertrand Melenberg, and Gijs Rennen. Robust solutions of optimization problems affected by uncertain probabilities. Management Science, 59 0 (2): 0 341--357, 2013

    2013

  7. [7]

    Deep generative modeling of sample-level heterogeneity in single-cell genomics

    Pierre Boyeau, Justin Hong, Adam Gayoso, Martin Kim, Jos \'e L McFaline-Figueroa, Michael I Jordan, Elham Azizi, Can Ergen, and Nir Yosef. Deep generative modeling of sample-level heterogeneity in single-cell genomics. BioRxiv, pages 2022--10, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Hallucinating agnostic images to generalize across domains

    Fabio Maria Carlucci, Paolo Russo, Tatiana Tommasi, and Barbara Caputo. Hallucinating agnostic images to generalize across domains. In 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshop (ICCVW), pages 3227--3234. IEEE, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Domain adversarial active learning for domain generalization classification

    Jianting Chen, Ling Ding, Yunxiao Yang, Zaiyuan Di, and Yang Xiang. Domain adversarial active learning for domain generalization classification. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Adversarial bayesian augmentation for single-source domain generalization

    Sheng Cheng, Tejas Gokhale, and Yezhou Yang. Adversarial bayesian augmentation for single-source domain generalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 11400--11410, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Madg: margin-based adversarial learning for domain generalization

    Aveen Dayal, Vimal KB, Linga Reddy Cenkeramaddi, C Mohan, Abhinav Kumar, and Vineeth N Balasubramanian. Madg: margin-based adversarial learning for domain generalization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 0 58938--58952, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    The mnist database of handwritten digit images for machine learning research

    Li Deng. The mnist database of handwritten digit images for machine learning research. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 29 0 (6): 0 141--142, 2012

    2012

  5. [13]

    Deep domain generalization with structured low-rank constraint

    Zhengming Ding and Yun Fu. Deep domain generalization with structured low-rank constraint. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 27 0 (1): 0 304--313, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Learning models with uniform performance via distributionally robust optimization

    John C Duchi and Hongseok Namkoong. Learning models with uniform performance via distributionally robust optimization. The Annals of Statistics, 49 0 (3): 0 1378--1406, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Statistics of robust optimization: A generalized empirical likelihood approach

    John C Duchi, Peter W Glynn, and Hongseok Namkoong. Statistics of robust optimization: A generalized empirical likelihood approach. Mathematics of Operations Research, 46 0 (3): 0 946--969, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Two modeling strategies for empirical bayes estimation

    Bradley Efron. Two modeling strategies for empirical bayes estimation. Statistical science: a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 29 0 (2): 0 285, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    One-shot learning of object categories

    Li Fei-Fei, Rob Fergus, and Pietro Perona. One-shot learning of object categories. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 28 0 (4): 0 594--611, 2006

    2006

  10. [18]

    Posterior regularization for structured latent variable models

    Kuzman Ganchev, Joao Gra c a, Jennifer Gillenwater, and Ben Taskar. Posterior regularization for structured latent variable models. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11: 0 2001--2049, 2010

    2001

  11. [19]

    Domain generalization for object recognition with multi-task autoencoders

    Muhammad Ghifary, W Bastiaan Kleijn, Mengjie Zhang, and David Balduzzi. Domain generalization for object recognition with multi-task autoencoders. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2551--2559, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    Design of potent antimalarials with generative chemistry

    William J Godinez, Eric J Ma, Alexander T Chao, Luying Pei, Peter Skewes-Cox, Stephen M Canham, Jeremy L Jenkins, Joseph M Young, Eric J Martin, and W Armand Guiguemde. Design of potent antimalarials with generative chemistry. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4 0 (2): 0 180--186, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Improving diversity with adversarially learned transformations for domain generalization

    Tejas Gokhale, Rushil Anirudh, Jayaraman J Thiagarajan, Bhavya Kailkhura, Chitta Baral, and Yezhou Yang. Improving diversity with adversarially learned transformations for domain generalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Visio...

    2023

  14. [22]

    Generative adversarial networks

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial networks. Communications of the ACM, 63 0 (11): 0 139--144, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping

    Raia Hadsell, Sumit Chopra, and Yann LeCun. Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping. In 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'06), volume 2, pages 1735--1742. IEEE, 2006

    2006

  16. [24]

    beta-vae: Learning basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework

    Irina Higgins, Loic Matthey, Arka Pal, Christopher Burgess, Xavier Glorot, Matthew Botvinick, Shakir Mohamed, and Alexander Lerchner. beta-vae: Learning basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework. In International conference on learning representations, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 0 6840--6851, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Deep metric learning using triplet network

    Elad Hoffer and Nir Ailon. Deep metric learning using triplet network. In International workshop on similarity-based pattern recognition, pages 84--92. Springer, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Simple data balancing achieves competitive worst-group-accuracy

    Badr Youbi Idrissi, Martin Arjovsky, Mohammad Pezeshki, and David Lopez-Paz. Simple data balancing achieves competitive worst-group-accuracy. In Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning, pages 336--351. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Diva: Domain invariant variational autoencoders

    Maximilian Ilse, Jakub M Tomczak, Christos Louizos, and Max Welling. Diva: Domain invariant variational autoencoders. In Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, pages 322--348. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Capturing label characteristics in vaes

    Tom Joy, Sebastian M Schmon, Philip HS Torr, N Siddharth, and Tom Rainforth. Capturing label characteristics in vaes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10102, 2020

    2006 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Selfreg: Self-supervised contrastive regularization for domain generalization

    Daehee Kim, Youngjun Yoo, Seunghyun Park, Jinkyu Kim, and Jaekoo Lee. Selfreg: Self-supervised contrastive regularization for domain generalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 9619--9628, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes

    Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2014

    2014

  24. [32]

    Learning latent subspaces in variational autoencoders

    Jack Klys, Jake Snell, and Richard Zemel. Learning latent subspaces in variational autoencoders. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Siamese neural networks for one-shot image recognition

    Gregory Koch, Richard Zemel, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, et al. Siamese neural networks for one-shot image recognition. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) deep learning workshop, volume 2, 2015

    2015

  26. [34]

    Out-of-distribution generalization via risk extrapolation (rex)

    David Krueger, Ethan Caballero, Joern-Henrik Jacobsen, Amy Zhang, Jonathan Binas, Dinghuai Zhang, Remi Le Priol, and Aaron Courville. Out-of-distribution generalization via risk extrapolation (rex). In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5815--5826. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Zero-data learning of new tasks

    Hugo Larochelle, Dumitru Erhan, and Yoshua Bengio. Zero-data learning of new tasks. In AAAI, volume 1, page 3, 2008

    2008

  28. [36]

    Autoencoding beyond pixels using a learned similarity metric

    Anders Boesen Lindbo Larsen, Søren Kaae Sønderby, Hugo Larochelle, and Ole Winther. Autoencoding beyond pixels using a learned similarity metric. In Maria Florina Balcan and Kilian Q. Weinberger, editors, Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, vo...

    2016

  29. [37]

    Domain generalization via conditional invariant representations

    Ya Li, Mingming Gong, Xinmei Tian, Tongliang Liu, and Dacheng Tao. Domain generalization via conditional invariant representations. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Efficient multi-domain learning by covariance normalization

    Yunsheng Li and Nuno Vasconcelos. Efficient multi-domain learning by covariance normalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5424--5433, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Just train twice: Improving group robustness without training group information

    Evan Z Liu, Behzad Haghgoo, Annie S Chen, Aditi Raghunathan, Pang Wei Koh, Shiori Sagawa, Percy Liang, and Chelsea Finn. Just train twice: Improving group robustness without training group information. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6781--6792. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Deep learning face attributes in the wild

    Ziwei Liu, Ping Luo, Xiaogang Wang, and Xiaoou Tang. Deep learning face attributes in the wild. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), December 2015

    2015

  33. [41]

    Deep generative modeling for single-cell transcriptomics

    Romain Lopez, Jeffrey Regier, Michael B Cole, Michael I Jordan, and Nir Yosef. Deep generative modeling for single-cell transcriptomics. Nature methods, 15 0 (12): 0 1053--1058, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=Bkg6RiCqY7

    2019

  35. [43]

    scgen predicts single-cell perturbation responses

    Mohammad Lotfollahi, F Alexander Wolf, and Fabian J Theis. scgen predicts single-cell perturbation responses. Nature methods, 16 0 (8): 0 715--721, 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Should we embed in chemistry? a comparison of unsupervised transfer learning with pca, umap, and vae on molecular fingerprints

    Mario Lovri \'c , Tomislav uri c i \'c , Han TN Tran, Hussain Hussain, Emanuel Laci \'c , Morten A Rasmussen, and Roman Kern. Should we embed in chemistry? a comparison of unsupervised transfer learning with pca, umap, and vae on molecular fingerprints. Pharmaceuticals, 14 0 (...

    2021

  37. [45]

    Best sources forward: domain generalization through source-specific nets

    Massimiliano Mancini, Samuel Rota Bulo, Barbara Caputo, and Elisa Ricci. Best sources forward: domain generalization through source-specific nets. In 2018 25th IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP), pages 1353--1357. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    Machine Learning: An Algorithmic Perspective, Second Edition

    Stephen Marsland. Machine Learning: An Algorithmic Perspective, Second Edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2nd edition, 2014. ISBN 1466583282

    2014

  39. [47]

    Unified deep supervised domain adaptation and generalization

    Saeid Motiian, Marco Piccirilli, Donald A Adjeroh, and Gianfranco Doretto. Unified deep supervised domain adaptation and generalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 5715--5725, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Domain generalization via invariant feature representation

    Krikamol Muandet, David Balduzzi, and Bernhard Sch \"o lkopf. Domain generalization via invariant feature representation. In International conference on machine learning, pages 10--18. PMLR, 2013

    2013

  41. [49]

    Domain generalization via ensemble stacking for face presentation attack detection

    Usman Muhammad, Jorma Laaksonen, Djamila Romaissa Beddiar, and Mourad Oussalah. Domain generalization via ensemble stacking for face presentation attack detection. International Journal of Computer Vision, 132 0 (12): 0 5759--5782, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Deep metric learning via lifted structured feature embedding

    Hyun Oh Song, Yu Xiang, Stefanie Jegelka, and Silvio Savarese. Deep metric learning via lifted structured feature embedding. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4004--4012, 2016

    2016

  43. [51]

    Model-agnostic multi-domain learning with domain-specific adapters for action recognition

    Kazuki Omi, Jun Kimata, and Toru Tamaki. Model-agnostic multi-domain learning with domain-specific adapters for action recognition. IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems, 105 0 (12): 0 2119--2126, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    A survey on transfer learning

    Sinno Jialin Pan, Qiang Yang, et al. A survey on transfer learning. IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 22 0 (10): 0 1345--1359, 2010

    2010

  45. [53]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in P ython. Journal of Machine Learnin...

    2011

  46. [54]

    Causal inference by using invariant prediction: identification and confidence intervals

    Jonas Peters, Peter B \"u hlmann, and Nicolai Meinshausen. Causal inference by using invariant prediction: identification and confidence intervals. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 78 0 (5): 0 947--1012, 2016

    2016

  47. [55]

    Elements of causal inference: foundations and learning algorithms

    Jonas Peters, Dominik Janzing, and Bernhard Sch \"o lkopf. Elements of causal inference: foundations and learning algorithms. The MIT Press, 2017

    2017

  48. [56]

    Focus on the common good: Group distributional robustness follows

    Vihari Piratla, Praneeth Netrapalli, and Sunita Sarawagi. Focus on the common good: Group distributional robustness follows. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  49. [57]

    Learning multiple visual domains with residual adapters

    Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Hakan Bilen, and Andrea Vedaldi. Learning multiple visual domains with residual adapters. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  50. [58]

    Efficient parametrization of multi-domain deep neural networks

    Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Hakan Bilen, and Andrea Vedaldi. Efficient parametrization of multi-domain deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8119--8127, 2018

    2018

  51. [59]

    An empirical bayes approach to statistics

    H Robbins. An empirical bayes approach to statistics. Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1954--1955, vol. I, 1956

    1954

  52. [60]

    Distributionally robust neural networks

    Shiori Sagawa, Pang Wei Koh, Tatsunori B Hashimoto, and Percy Liang. Distributionally robust neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    Class distribution shifts in zero-shot learning: Learning robust representations

    Yuli Slavutsky and Yuval Benjamini. Class distribution shifts in zero-shot learning: Learning robust representations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 0 89213--89248, 2024

    2024

  54. [62]

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2256--2265. pmlr, 2015

    2015

  55. [63]

    Improved deep metric learning with multi-class n-pair loss objective

    Kihyuk Sohn. Improved deep metric learning with multi-class n-pair loss objective. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016

    2016

  56. [64]

    Learning structured output representation using deep conditional generative models

    Kihyuk Sohn, Honglak Lee, and Xinchen Yan. Learning structured output representation using deep conditional generative models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28, 2015

    2015

  57. [65]

    Deep coral: Correlation alignment for deep domain adaptation

    Baochen Sun and Kate Saenko. Deep coral: Correlation alignment for deep domain adaptation. In Computer vision--ECCV 2016 workshops: Amsterdam, the Netherlands, October 8-10 and 15-16, 2016, proceedings, part III 14, pages 443--450. Springer, 2016

    2016

  58. [66]

    On calibration and out-of-domain generalization

    Yoav Wald, Amir Feder, Daniel Greenfeld, and Uri Shalit. On calibration and out-of-domain generalization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34: 0 2215--2227, 2021

    2021

  59. [67]

    Select-additive learning: Improving generalization in multimodal sentiment analysis

    Haohan Wang, Aaksha Meghawat, Louis-Philippe Morency, and Eric P Xing. Select-additive learning: Improving generalization in multimodal sentiment analysis. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), pages 949--954. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  60. [68]

    Learning robust representations by projecting superficial statistics out

    Haohan Wang, Eric P Xing, Zexue He, and Zachary C Lipton. Learning robust representations by projecting superficial statistics out. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, 2019

    2019

  61. [69]

    Distributionally robust post-hoc classifiers under prior shifts

    Jiaheng Wei, Harikrishna Narasimhan, Ehsan Amid, Wen-Sheng Chu, Yang Liu, and Abhishek Kumar. Distributionally robust post-hoc classifiers under prior shifts. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

    2023

  62. [70]

    Sampling matters in deep embedding learning

    Chao-Yuan Wu, R Manmatha, Alexander J Smola, and Philipp Krahenbuhl. Sampling matters in deep embedding learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2840--2848, 2017

    2017

  63. [71]

    Probabilistic harmonization and annotation of single-cell transcriptomics data with deep generative models

    Chenling Xu, Romain Lopez, Edouard Mehlman, Jeffrey Regier, Michael I Jordan, and Nir Yosef. Probabilistic harmonization and annotation of single-cell transcriptomics data with deep generative models. Molecular systems biology, 17 0 (1): 0 e9620, 2021

    2021

  64. [72]

    Signal-to-noise ratio: A robust distance metric for deep metric learning

    Tongtong Yuan, Weihong Deng, Jian Tang, Yinan Tang, and Binghui Chen. Signal-to-noise ratio: A robust distance metric for deep metric learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4815--4824, 2019

    2019

  65. [73]

    A variational local weighted deep sub-domain adaptation network for remaining useful life prediction facing cross-domain condition

    Jiusi Zhang, Xiang Li, Jilun Tian, Yuchen Jiang, Hao Luo, and Shen Yin. A variational local weighted deep sub-domain adaptation network for remaining useful life prediction facing cross-domain condition. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 231: 0 108986, 2023

    2023

  66. [74]

    Domain adaptive ensemble learning

    Kaiyang Zhou, Yongxin Yang, Yu Qiao, and Tao Xiang. Domain adaptive ensemble learning. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30: 0 8008--8018, 2021

    2021

  67. [75]

    Localized adversarial domain generalization

    Wei Zhu, Le Lu, Jing Xiao, Mei Han, Jiebo Luo, and Adam P Harrison. Localized adversarial domain generalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7108--7118, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.