Probabilistic Models with Deep Neural Networks

Andr\'es R. Masegosa; Antonio Salmer\'on; Helge Langseth; Rafael Caba\~nas; Thomas D. Nielsen

Probabilistic Models with Deep Neural Networks

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review claims that variational inference, implemented through stochastic computational graphs and two Monte Carlo gradient estimators, is the bridge that lets deep neural networks be used as components of probabilistic models.

desk verdict A solid tutorial review of deep probabilistic modeling that makes no new claims but delivers a coherent, mostly correct synthesis; worth a serious referee and acceptance with minor copyediting. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03442 v3 pith:R77QLZ6U submitted 2019-08-09 cs.LG math.STstat.MLstat.TH

Andrés R. Masegosa , Rafael Cabañas , Helge Langseth , Thomas D. Nielsen , Antonio Salmerón This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGmath.STstat.MLstat.TH

keywords DeepprobabilisticmodelingVariationalinferenceNeuralnetworksLatentvariablemodelsBayesianlearningautoencodersStochasticcomputationalgraphs

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

This paper is a tutorial review that maps out the key concepts for embedding deep neural networks inside probabilistic models. It argues that variational inference, traditionally limited to the conjugate exponential family, becomes usable for much richer models when the inference problem is cast as maximizing an evidence lower bound and gradients are estimated by sampling. The paper derives the two standard gradient estimators, the reparameterized or pathwise estimator and the score-function estimator, and shows how amortized inference removes the per-data-point parameter cost, making variational autoencoders practical. The coherent picture that emerges is that a deep latent variable model is just a stochastic computational graph, and training it reduces to automatic differentiation on Monte Carlo estimates of a single objective.

What carries the argument

The central object is the stochastic computational graph (SCG), a computational graph extended with stochastic nodes whose outputs are random samples; the paper uses it to unify model specification, ELBO construction, and gradient computation. The reparameterization trick writes a sample from $q(r|\nu)$ as a deterministic function $t(\epsilon;\nu)$ of fixed noise $\epsilon$, so the gradient can pass through the graph; the score-function estimator instead uses $\nabla_\nu \ln q(r|\nu)$, trading broad applicability for higher variance. Amortized inference, the third mechanism, replaces data-set-sized local variational parameters with a shared network $s(x_i|\theta)$, so inference on a new point is one forward pass.

What would settle it

Take a variational family with parameter-dependent support, such as $Z \sim \text{Uniform}(0,\nu)$, and compare $\nabla_\nu \mathbb{E}_Z[(Z-5)^2]$ with the score-function estimate $\mathbb{E}_Z[(Z-5)^2 \nabla_\nu \ln q(Z|\nu)]$; because $\mathbb{E}[\nabla_\nu \ln q]$ is not zero for such a family, the two quantities differ, directly contradicting the unconditional unbiasedness claimed for Equations (20) and (23).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the barrier to using deep neural networks within probabilistic models was computational, not conceptual, and that variational inference removes it. For conjugate exponential models, variational inference offers closed-form updates; for non-conjugate deep models, two Monte Carlo gradient estimators make the ELBO trainable: the pathwise gradient, which reparameterizes the randomness so gradients move inside the expectation, and the score-function gradient, which multiplies the objective by the gradient of the log-density of the variational distribution. The paper further claims that amortized inference, learning a function that maps each observation to its local variational parameters, gives the variational autoencoder its two neural networks, encoder and decoder, and keeps the number of variational parameters from growing with the data set. Together these elements establish that deep neural networks can be treated as ordinary differentiable components inside a probabilistic model and trained by the same automatic differentiation engines that power deep learning.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the approximate distribution $q$ and the model are regular enough that derivatives can be moved inside the expectation, and that the expected score $\mathbb{E}_q[\nabla_\nu \ln q(r|\nu)]$ is exactly zero; if either condition fails, the paper's claimed unbiased gradient estimates are not unbiased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Bayesian models need no longer be confined to conjugate exponential families; any differentiable likelihood expressible as a graph can be placed inside a latent variable model.
Models with discrete latent variables cannot use the plain reparameterization trick and must fall back on score-function estimators, implicit reparameterization, or related relaxations.
Amortized inference makes variational parameters scale with the number of model parameters rather than the number of data points, enabling training on large data sets.
Probabilistic programming tools can implement deep probabilistic models by sampling from stochastic nodes and passing the samples through ordinary computational graphs, hiding gradient calculus from the user.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next step is a hybrid inference engine that applies closed-form variational message passing to conjugate parts of a model and black-box gradient estimators to the neural-network parts; the paper explicitly identifies this mixed strategy as an open need.
The paper's framing implies a concrete benchmark: on a non-Gaussian posterior that admits implicit reparameterization, compare pathwise gradient variance against score-function estimators with control variates; the paper does not carry out that comparison.
If the tutorial's unified account is accepted, variational inference can serve as the common curriculum bridge between deep learning and Bayesian modeling, rather than treating deep generative models as a disjoint topic.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a review paper, and judged as a review it works. The central pedagogical claim--that variational inference, reparameterized and score-function gradients, and amortization let you put deep networks inside probabilistic models--is accurate and well supported. The paper walks from conjugate exponential LVMs through SVI and VMP to stochastic computational graphs and the two black-box gradient estimators, and the math matches the cited literature. The examples are genuinely helpful: the probabilistic PCA-to-VAE progression on MNIST makes the abstraction concrete, and the linked GitHub code is a real asset, even if I did not run it. I also appreciate the honest discussion of open issues like initialization, numerical stability, discrete latents, and the interpretability trade-off. For a reader new to the area, this is a usable entry point.

The soft spots are minor and mostly typographical. Example 4 has a subscript mistake in the mu update, Algorithm 5 has a sign inconsistency in the entropy term and uses h' notation a little sloppily, and there is a garbled duplicate phrase in Section 4.1. None of these undermine the tutorial's message. The only substantive concern is in Section 5.1: Equations (20) and (23) state unbiasedness without explicit regularity conditions (interchange of differentiation and expectation, and the zero-mean score condition requiring a distribution whose support does not depend on the parameters). That is standard tutorial shorthand, and the Gaussian families used in the paper's own examples satisfy those conditions, so I would not call it a flaw in context. The citation pattern is fine; the self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

This is not a paper that advances the research frontier, and it does not claim to be. The novelty is pedagogical. As a review, it deserves a serious referee and likely acceptance after light copyediting. I would send it to someone competent in VI/DL to check the equations, fix the typos, and then publish. For a reading group, it is a good starting point for students or practitioners who want the big picture before diving into the primary sources.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a review/tutorial whose central claim is to provide a coherent overview of the key concepts and methods needed to integrate deep neural networks into probabilistic models. The authors build up from latent variable models in the conjugate exponential family, through mean-field variational inference, stochastic variational inference, and variational message passing, and then introduce deep latent variable models and stochastic computational graphs. The core technical sections derive the two standard black-box variational inference gradient estimators—pathwise (reparameterization) gradients and score-function (REINFORCE) gradients—and explain how amortized inference, as in variational autoencoders, makes optimization feasible. The paper is accompanied by online code implementing the running examples, and it closes with a discussion of open issues such as mixed inference strategies, discrete latent variables, and interpretability.

Significance. If the pedagogical claims hold, this paper is a useful synthesis for researchers and practitioners moving between probabilistic graphical models and deep learning. I found the mathematical exposition of Section 5.1 to be a correct presentation of the standard estimators from Kingma and Welling (2013) and Ranganath et al. (2014), and the progression from conjugate exponential models to deep latent variable models is logical and well motivated. The concrete running examples with PCA, non-linear PCA, and VAEs on Iris and MNIST, together with pseudo-code for stochastic computational graphs, are a genuine strength that distinguishes this review from purely abstract surveys. The discussion of open issues in Section 6 is balanced and appropriately cautious. I found no load-bearing technical error: the omitted regularity conditions in the unbiasedness claims are standard tutorial shorthand, and the typographical issues are local. The paper is not a novel research contribution, but as a review it is readable, accurate, and likely to be useful.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4.1] The sentence beginning 'For instance, different examples of this approach are given in Johnson et al. (2016), along with extensions of instance, provides different examples...' is garbled: it appears to be a partially duplicated and merged sentence. This should be rewritten to clearly attribute the extensions of Gaussian mixture models, latent linear dynamical systems, and latent switching linear dynamical systems to Johnson et al. (2016).
[Example 4] The update for the global mean parameter contains a typographical self-reference: 'µβ,t+1 = (1 − ρt)µβ,t+1 + ρt(...)' should read 'µβ,t+1 = (1 − ρt)µβ,t + ρt(...)'. As written, the update is not well defined and would confuse a reader trying to implement the stochastic variational inference scheme.
[Algorithm 5] The entropy term of the ELBO uses the symbols h'_{1,µ} and h'_{1,σ}, which are never defined; the text and the surrounding code indicate that these should be hz,1,µ and hz,1,σ, the mean and scale produced by the encoder network. In addition, the last line 'LI = LI − ∑_i lnpN(α_i|λα_i,µ,λ^2_α_i,σ) + lnpN(β_i|λβ_i,µ,λ^2_β_i,σ)' has a sign inconsistency: the β entropy term should also be subtracted, as it correctly is in Algorithm 4. The pseudo-code should be corrected so that the defined ELBO matches the expression in the text.
[Section 5.1, Equations (20) and (24)] The unbiasedness of the pathwise and score-function gradient estimators is stated without the standard regularity conditions. In particular, the step E_q[∇_ν ln q(r|ν)] = 0 requires the support of q not to depend on ν (or vanishing boundary terms), and the interchange of differentiation and expectation requires a dominated-convergence argument. These conditions hold for the Gaussian variational families used in the paper's examples, so the presentation is acceptable for a tutorial, but a one-sentence caveat would make the mathematical claims more precise.
[General presentation] There are several small typos, including 'Unversity' in the author affiliation, 'maxizimed' in Section 5.2, and 'econder' in the caption of Figure 10. These are cosmetic but should be corrected before final publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the tutorial's derivations are standard and self-contained, and its self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is pedagogical: to review how deep neural networks can be integrated into probabilistic models and how variational inference, reparameterized and score-function gradient estimators, and amortized inference make such models trainable. None of the paper's own derived equations feeds back into an input. Equation (20) is obtained from the reparameterization identity (19) plus the score identity E_q[grad_nu ln q] = 0; Equation (23) is the standard log-derivative/REINFORCE identity. Both derivations are shown in the text and mirror the cited external works (Kingma and Welling, 2013; Ranganath et al., 2014); they do not rely on the paper's conclusions. The self-citations (Masegosa et al. 2017a,b; Cabañas et al. 2019; Cózar et al. 2019) appear only as contextual instances of LVMs, distributed inference, and probabilistic programming tools; none is invoked as an authority for the correctness of the reviewed gradient estimators. No uniqueness theorem, fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or ansatz smuggled via self-citation occurs. The only caveat is in Section 5.1, where the unbiasedness of the estimators is stated without explicit regularity conditions (interchange of differentiation and expectation, and support-independence for the score identity); this is standard tutorial shorthand, not a circular reduction. Minor editorial errors do not affect the derivation chain. Therefore the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and receives no circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. The listed axioms are the standard assumptions of the reviewed methods: conjugate exponential family complete conditionals, mean-field factorization, interchange of differentiation and expectation, reparameterizability of the variational distributions, and Robbins-Monro convergence conditions for stochastic approximation.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The model is in the conjugate exponential family with complete conditionals as in Eq. (1).
Section 2.1; used to derive closed-form coordinate ascent updates in Section 2.2.
domain assumption The variational distribution factorizes fully (mean-field) as in Eq. (5).
Section 2.2; used throughout the VI derivation and in the deep LVM extension.
standard math Differentiation and expectation can be interchanged, and E_q[∇_ν ln q] = 0, for the variational families considered.
Section 5.1, Eqs. (20) and (23); regularity conditions are assumed but not stated.
domain assumption The reparameterization trick is applicable to the chosen variational distributions, as in Eq. (19).
Section 5.1.1; the paper notes the multinomial distribution is excluded.
standard math Stochastic approximation converges to a stationary point when the Robbins-Monro conditions on the learning rate hold.
Section 2.3, Eq. (13); standard result invoked for SVI.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probabilistic Models with Deep Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R77QLZ6U

@misc{pith2026190803442,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probabilistic Models with Deep Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R77QLZ6U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03442}
}

read the original abstract

Recent advances in statistical inference have significantly expanded the toolbox of probabilistic modeling. Historically, probabilistic modeling has been constrained to (i) very restricted model classes where exact or approximate probabilistic inference were feasible, and (ii) small or medium-sized data sets which fit within the main memory of the computer. However, developments in variational inference, a general form of approximate probabilistic inference originated in statistical physics, are allowing probabilistic modeling to overcome these restrictions: (i) Approximate probabilistic inference is now possible over a broad class of probabilistic models containing a large number of parameters, and (ii) scalable inference methods based on stochastic gradient descent and distributed computation engines allow to apply probabilistic modeling over massive data sets. One important practical consequence of these advances is the possibility to include deep neural networks within a probabilistic model to capture complex non-linear stochastic relationships between random variables. These advances in conjunction with the release of novel probabilistic modeling toolboxes have greatly expanded the scope of application of probabilistic models, and allow these models to take advantage of the recent strides made by the deep learning community. In this paper we review the main concepts, methods and tools needed to use deep neural networks within a probabilistic modeling framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03442 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** 2-dimensional latent representations resulting of applying a probabilistic PCA of: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Example of a simple Computational Graph. Squared nodes denote operations, and the rest are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Example of a simple Computational Graph encoding a neural network with two hidden layers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: 2-dimensional latent representations of the the MNIST dataset resulting of applying: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: (Left) A stochastic computational graph encoding the function h = EZ [(Z − 5)2 ], where Z ∼ N(µ, 1). (Right) Computational graph processing k samples from Z and producing hˆ, an estimate of EZ [(Z − 5)2 ]. ln p(β) = ln h(β) + α T t(β) − ag(α), ln p(zi |β) = ln h(zi) + …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The top part depicts a probabilistic graphical model using plate notation (Koller and Friedman, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: SCG representing the ELBO function L(ν). r is distributed according to the variational distribution, r ∼ q(r|ν). 5.1.1. Pathwise Gradients The idea of this approach is to exploit reparameterizations of the variational distribution in terms of deterministic transforma…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Reparameterized SCG representing the ELBO function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: 2-dimensional latent representation of the the MNIST dataset resulting of applying: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

InferPy: Probabilistic Modeling with Deep Neural Networks Made Easy
cs.LG 2019-08 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

InferPy provides a compact, high-level Python API for hierarchical probabilistic models with deep neural networks, built on TensorFlow Probability and Keras.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[4]

p. 177–86. Caba˜nas R, Salmer´on A, Masegosa AR. InferPy: Probabilistic modeling with Tensor- Flow made easy. Knowledge-Based Systems 2019;168:25–7. Card D, Tan C, Smith NA. A neural framework for generalized topic models. arXiv preprint arXiv:170509296 2017;. 39 Chen T, Li M, Li Y, Lin M, Wang N, Wang M, Xiao T, Xu B, Zhang C, Zhang Z. Mxnet: A ﬂexible a...

work page 2019
[5]

p. 2980–8. C´ozar J, Caba˜nas R, Salmer´on A, Masegosa AR. InferPy: Probabilistic modeling with deep neural networks made easy. arXiv preprint arXiv:190811161 2019;. Dayan P, Hinton GE, Neal RM, Zemel RS. The Helmholtz machine. Neural Compu- tation 1995;7(5):889–904. Dillon JV, Langmore I, Tran D, Brevdo E, Vasudevan S, Moore D, Patton B, Alemi A, Hoffman...

work page 2019
[8]

p. 167–81. Grathwohl W, Choi D, Wu Y, Roeder G, Duvenaud D. Backpropagation through the void: Optimizing control variates for black-box gradient estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:171100123 2017;. Gregor K, Danihelka I, Graves A, Rezende DJ, Wierstra D. Draw: A recurrent neural network for image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:150204623 2015;. Griewank A. ...

work page 2017
[14]

p. 2539–47. Lauritzen SL. Propagation of probabilities, means, and variances in mixed graphical association models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1992;87(420):1098–108. LeCun Y, Bottou L, Bengio Y, Haffner P. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE 1998;86(11):2278–324. Li M, Zhang T, Chen Y, Smol...

work page 1992
[15]

p. 661–70. Linderman SW, Miller AC, Adams RP, Blei DM, Paninski L, Johnson MJ. Recurrent switching linear dynamical systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:161008466 2016;. Louizos C, Shalit U, Mooij JM, Sontag D, Zemel R, Welling M. Causal effect inference with deep latent-variable models. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

work page 2016
[17]

p. 362–9. Mnih A, Gregor K. Neural variational inference and learning in belief networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:14020030 2014;. Mnih A, Rezende DJ. Variational inference for Monte Carlo objectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:160206725 2016;. Murphy KP. Machine Learning: A Probabilistic Perspective. MIT Press,

work page 2014
[20]

p. 814–22. Rezende DJ, Mohamed S, Wierstra D. Stochastic backpropagation and approximate inference in deep generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:14014082 2014;. Robbins H, Monro S. A stochastic approximation method. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1951;22(3):400–7. Ruiz F, Titsias M, Blei D. The generalized reparameterization gradient. In: Advance...

work page 2014
[21]

Learning deep generative models

Salakhutdinov R. Learning deep generative models. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 2015;2:361–85. Salmer´on A, Cano A, Moral S. Importance sampling in Bayesian networks using prob- ability trees. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 2000;34(4):387–413. Salvatier J, Wiecki TV, Fonnesbeck C. Probabilistic programming in Python using PyMC3...

work page 2015

Show all 27 references

[22]

p. 3528–36. Semeniuta S, Severyn A, Barth E. A hybrid convolutional variational autoencoder for text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:170202390 2017;. 45 Sohn K, Lee H, Yan X. Learning structured output representation using deep condi- tional generative models. In: Advances in...

2017
[23]

p. 3483–91. Tipping ME, Bishop CM. Probabilistic principal component analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 1999;61(3):611–22. Titsias M, L´azaro-Gredilla M. Doubly stochastic variational Bayes for non-conjugate inference. In: In...

1999
[24]

p. 1971–9. Tran D, Hoffman MW, Moore D, Suter C, Vasudevan S, Radul A. Simple, distributed, and accelerated probabilistic programming. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

1971
[26]

p. 2627–36. Wainwright MJ, Jordan MI. Graphical models, exponential families, and variational inference. Foundations and Trends R© in Machine Learning 2008;1(1–2):1–305. Williams RJ. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist rein- forcement learning. M...

2008
[27]

p. 478–87. 46 Zhang C, B¨utepage J, Kjellstr¨om H, Mandt S. Advances in variational inference. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 2018;41:2008–26. Zhou M, Cong Y, Chen B. The Poisson Gamma belief network. In: Advances in Neural Information Processin...

2018
[1988]

A survey of manifold learning for images

Pless R, Souvenir R. A survey of manifold learning for images. IPSJ Transactions on Computer Vision and Applications 2009;1:83–94. Plummer M. JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on di...

2009
[2001]

Deep belief networks

Hinton GE. Deep belief networks. Scholarpedia 2009;4(5):5947. Hinton GE. A practical guide to training restricted Boltzmann machines. In: Neural networks: Tricks of the trade. Springer

2009
[2003]

Inference of population structure using multi- locus genotype data

Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P. Inference of population structure using multi- locus genotype data. Genetics 2000;155(2):945–59. 44 Pu Y, Gan Z, Henao R, Yuan X, Li C, Stevens A, Carin L. Variational autoencoder for deep learning of images, labels and captions. In: Advan...

2000
[2006]

Build, compute, critique, repeat: Data analysis with latent variable models

Blei DM. Build, compute, critique, repeat: Data analysis with latent variable models. Annual Review of Statistics and its Application 2014;1:203–32. Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI. Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 2003;3(Jan):993–1022. Bottou L. Lar...

2014
[2007]

Variational deep embedding: An unsuper- vised and generative approach to clustering

Jiang Z, Zheng Y, Tan H, Tang B, Zhou H. Variational deep embedding: An unsuper- vised and generative approach to clustering. arXiv preprint arXiv:161105148 2016;. Johnson M, Duvenaud DK, Wiltschko A, Adams RP, Datta SR. Composing graphical models with neural networks for stru...

2016
[2009]

Automatic differentiation variational inference

Kucukelbir A, Tran D, Ranganath R, Gelman A, Blei DM. Automatic differentiation variational inference. Journal of Machine Learning Research 2017;18(1):430–74. Kulkarni TD, Whitney WF, Kohli P, Tenenbaum J. Deep convolutional inverse graph- ics network. In: Advances in Neural I...

2017
[2010]

p. 3–10. Bingham E, Chen JP, Jankowiak M, Obermeyer F, Pradhan N, Karaletsos T, Singh R, Szerlip P, Horsfall P, Goodman ND. Pyro: Deep universal probabilistic program- ming. CoRR 2018; arXiv:1810.09538. Bishop CM. Latent variable models. In: Learning in graphical models. Springer

2018 arXiv
[2012]

p. 599–619. Hinton GE, Salakhutdinov RR. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural net- works. Science 2006;313(5786):504–7. Hoffman MD, Blei DM, Wang C, Paisley J. Stochastic variational inference. Journal of Machine Learning Research 2013;14:1303–47. Hopﬁeld JJ. Artiﬁc...

2006
[2013]

Likelihood ratio gradient estimation for stochastic systems

Glynn PW. Likelihood ratio gradient estimation for stochastic systems. Communica- tions of the ACM 1990;33(10):75–84. G´omez-Bombarelli R, Wei JN, Duvenaud D, Hern ´andez-Lobato JM, S ´anchez- Lengeling B, Sheberla D, Aguilera-Iparraguirre J, Hirzel TD, Adams RP, Aspuru- Guzik...

1990
[2014]

p. 517–22. 40 Ghahramani Z. Probabilistic machine learning and artiﬁcial intelligence. Nature 2015;521(7553):452. Gilks WR, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter D. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in practice. Chapman and Hall/CRC,

2015
[2015]

Amari SI

URL: http://tensorflow.org/; software available from tensorﬂow.org. Amari SI. Natural gradient works efﬁciently in learning. Neural Computation 1998;10(2):251–76. Barndorff-Nielsen O. Information and exponential families in statistical theory. John Wiley & Sons,

1998
[2016]

p. 2946–54. Jordan MI, Ghahramani Z, Jaakkola TS, Saul LK. An introduction to variational meth- ods for graphical models. Machine Learning 1999;37(2):183–233. Kingma DP, Welling M. Auto-encoding variational Bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:13126114 2013;. Kipf TN, Welling M. Variat...

1999
[2017]

p. 6446–56. Maddison CJ, Mnih A, Teh YW. The Concrete distribution: A continuous relaxation of discrete random variables. CoRR 2016;abs/1611.00712. URL: http://arxiv. org/abs/1611.00712. arXiv:1611.00712. Masegosa A, Nielsen TD, Langseth H, Ramos-Lopez D, Salmer ´on A, Madsen ...

2016 arXiv
[2018]

p. 7608–19. Tran D, Kucukelbir A, Dieng AB, Rudolph M, Liang D, Blei DM. Edward: A library for probabilistic modeling, inference, and criticism. arXiv preprint arXiv:161009787 2016;. Tucker G, Mnih A, Maddison CJ, Lawson J, Sohl-Dickstein J. Rebar: Low-variance, unbiased gradi...

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [4]

p. 177–86. Caba˜nas R, Salmer´on A, Masegosa AR. InferPy: Probabilistic modeling with Tensor- Flow made easy. Knowledge-Based Systems 2019;168:25–7. Card D, Tan C, Smith NA. A neural framework for generalized topic models. arXiv preprint arXiv:170509296 2017;. 39 Chen T, Li M, Li Y, Lin M, Wang N, Wang M, Xiao T, Xu B, Zhang C, Zhang Z. Mxnet: A ﬂexible a...

work page 2019

[2] [5]

p. 2980–8. C´ozar J, Caba˜nas R, Salmer´on A, Masegosa AR. InferPy: Probabilistic modeling with deep neural networks made easy. arXiv preprint arXiv:190811161 2019;. Dayan P, Hinton GE, Neal RM, Zemel RS. The Helmholtz machine. Neural Compu- tation 1995;7(5):889–904. Dillon JV, Langmore I, Tran D, Brevdo E, Vasudevan S, Moore D, Patton B, Alemi A, Hoffman...

work page 2019

[3] [8]

p. 167–81. Grathwohl W, Choi D, Wu Y, Roeder G, Duvenaud D. Backpropagation through the void: Optimizing control variates for black-box gradient estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:171100123 2017;. Gregor K, Danihelka I, Graves A, Rezende DJ, Wierstra D. Draw: A recurrent neural network for image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:150204623 2015;. Griewank A. ...

work page 2017

[4] [14]

p. 2539–47. Lauritzen SL. Propagation of probabilities, means, and variances in mixed graphical association models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1992;87(420):1098–108. LeCun Y, Bottou L, Bengio Y, Haffner P. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE 1998;86(11):2278–324. Li M, Zhang T, Chen Y, Smol...

work page 1992

[5] [15]

p. 661–70. Linderman SW, Miller AC, Adams RP, Blei DM, Paninski L, Johnson MJ. Recurrent switching linear dynamical systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:161008466 2016;. Louizos C, Shalit U, Mooij JM, Sontag D, Zemel R, Welling M. Causal effect inference with deep latent-variable models. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

work page 2016

[6] [17]

p. 362–9. Mnih A, Gregor K. Neural variational inference and learning in belief networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:14020030 2014;. Mnih A, Rezende DJ. Variational inference for Monte Carlo objectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:160206725 2016;. Murphy KP. Machine Learning: A Probabilistic Perspective. MIT Press,

work page 2014

[7] [20]

p. 814–22. Rezende DJ, Mohamed S, Wierstra D. Stochastic backpropagation and approximate inference in deep generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:14014082 2014;. Robbins H, Monro S. A stochastic approximation method. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1951;22(3):400–7. Ruiz F, Titsias M, Blei D. The generalized reparameterization gradient. In: Advance...

work page 2014

[8] [21]

Learning deep generative models

Salakhutdinov R. Learning deep generative models. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 2015;2:361–85. Salmer´on A, Cano A, Moral S. Importance sampling in Bayesian networks using prob- ability trees. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 2000;34(4):387–413. Salvatier J, Wiecki TV, Fonnesbeck C. Probabilistic programming in Python using PyMC3...

work page 2015