Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 32 references

Variational Inference Optimized Using the Curved Geometry of Coupled Free Energy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that sampling a heavy-tailed latent model through its coupled probability (escort distribution) lets a variational autoencoder train stably against outliers and improve CelebA reconstruction quality.

desk verdict The escort-sampling training trick is a real idea, but the paper's headline 3% FID improvement is not supported by its own Table 1, and the 'curved geometry' is derived, not tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09091 v3 pith:ULHNWLMT submitted 2025-06-10 cs.LG cs.ITmath.IT

Kenric Nelson , Igor Oliveira , Amenah Al-Najafi , Fode Zhang , Hon Keung Tony Ng This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.ITmath.IT
keywords variationalinferencecoupledfreeenergyautoencoderexponentialfamilyheavy-taileddistributionsescortprobabilityrobustlearninginformationgeometry
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 proposes optimizing variational inference through the coupled free energy (CFE), a generalization of the variational lower bound that lives on the curved geometry of the coupled exponential family, the family containing heavy-tailed models such as the generalized Pareto and Student's t. The central move is to train a coupled variational autoencoder (CVAE) whose latent prior and posterior are coupled Gaussian, and to draw Monte Carlo samples not from the heavy-tailed posterior itself but from its coupled probability (escort) distribution, which has faster-decaying tails. This escort sampling is what makes robust training possible: the latent model may assume extreme outliers, even a delta-like model with $\kappa = 10^5$, while the samples used to compute gradients stay finite-variance and stable. The paper reports that on CelebA face reconstructions the CVAE improves the Fréchet Inception Distance by about 3% over a standard VAE after 5 epochs, with lower and less noisy free-energy curves.

What carries the argument

The central object is the coupled probability, or escort distribution, of a coupled exponential family: raising a density $p$ to the power $q = 1 + \alpha\kappa/(1+d\kappa)$ and renormalizing. For the coupled Gaussian (Student's t) VAE with $\alpha = 2$, sampling from the transformed distribution $Q^{(2\kappa/(1+d\kappa))}$ replaces the original posterior; the transformed coupling parameter and scale satisfy $\kappa_q(z-\mu)^\top \Sigma_q^{-1}(z-\mu) = \kappa_Q(z-\mu)^\top \Sigma_Q^{-1}(z-\mu)$, preserving the quadratic form while thinning the tails. Together with the coupled logarithm/exponential pair $\ln_\kappa$ and $\exp_\kappa$ and the coupled sum $\oplus_\kappa$, this escort transform defines the coupled free energy whose divergence component is a coupled divergence and whose reconstruction component remains a mean-square loss with modified constants. Lemma 1's generalized Fisher metric and affine connection formalize the curved geometry, although the experiments here optimize with Euclidean gradients.

What would settle it

Log the escort distribution during training and compute the Wasserstein distance between $q(z|x)$ and $Q^{(2\kappa/(1+d\kappa))}(z|x)$ for $\kappa=1$ under both candidate dimensions: $d=10$ gives an exponent of about 0.18 and a clearly thinned distribution, while $d=16384$ gives about 0.0001 and $Q \approx q$. If the implementation uses the large $d$, the claimed tail-thinning mechanism cannot explain the reported gains; if it uses $d=10$, replacing $Q$ with $q$ in the objective would separate the escort effect from the effect of the modified cost constants.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that variational inference can be optimized on the curved geometry of the coupled exponential family by replacing the usual evidence lower bound with the coupled free energy (CFE), which is the coupled ELBO of the inverted probabilities. For a variational autoencoder whose prior and posterior are coupled Gaussian, Theorem 1 gives a closed-form CFE: a coupled divergence term plus a reconstruction term that simplifies to the standard mean-square error with modified constants. The expectation in this objective is taken over the coupled probability (escort distribution) of the posterior, whose tails decay faster than the original heavy-tailed model. That escort sampling is the load-bearing mechanism: it allows the latent model to be heavy-tailed, even delta-like at $\kappa = 10^5$, while the samples actually used for training have finite variance. The authors report that this CVAE yields lower and less noisy coupled free energy than the standard $\kappa=0$ case and a 3% improvement in Fréchet Inception Distance on CelebA reconstructions after 5 epochs.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dimension $d$ in the escort exponent $2\kappa/(1+d\kappa)$ is the 10-dimensional latent dimension of the model, not the 16,384-pixel data dimension; if the implementation uses the latter, the escort distribution is almost identical to the heavy-tailed posterior and the tail-thinning that carries the whole argument silently disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Heavy-tailed latent models that would normally destabilize Monte Carlo training become trainable; the paper demonstrates stable training at $\kappa = 10^5$, where the latent distribution is delta-like.
  • The reconstruction term of the CFE reduces to the same mean-square average used in a standard VAE, with only modified constants, so a CVAE can be implemented by changing the sampling distribution and cost constants in ordinary VAE code.
  • Moderate positive coupling values ($\kappa = 10^{-1}$ and $\kappa = 1$) improve most reported reconstruction metrics over the Gaussian baseline, including LPIPS, MS-SSIM, PSNR, SSIM, and precision.
  • The Fréchet Inception Distance (Wasserstein-2) score of the CVAE is about 3% better than the standard VAE after 5 epochs of training on CelebA.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The escort-sampling recipe is not VAE-specific; the same coupled-probability sampling could stabilize training for any heavy-tailed posterior in variational inference, making it a general robustness tool.
  • Because the experiments optimize with Euclidean autograd, the information-geometric gradients derived in Lemma 1 remain untested; a direct test of curvature-aware optimization is a natural next step implied by the paper's framework.
  • The robustness claim could be quantified on synthetic heavy-tailed data with known outlier contamination, where the ground-truth posterior is available, rather than inferred from CelebA reconstruction metrics alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a variational inference framework based on the coupled free energy (CFE) of the coupled exponential family. It derives, in Theorem 1, a closed-form CFE for multivariate coupled Gaussian prior/posterior, introduces an escort (coupled probability) sampling distribution Q that thins the tails of heavy-tailed latents during training, and applies the resulting Coupled VAE (CVAE) to CelebA at 128x128. The abstract claims both improved robustness against outliers and a 3% FID improvement over the VAE after 5 epochs; the experiments report FID, KID, LPIPS, MS-SSIM, PSNR, SSIM, FRD, Precision, and Recall for several values of the coupling parameter kappa.

Significance. The theoretical construction is interesting: deriving a tractable objective for heavy-tailed latent distributions and using Q-sampling to bound the variance of training samples are potentially useful contributions to robust variational inference. The paper is transparent that optimization uses Euclidean gradients rather than the curved geometry, the Q-transform in Eqs. (6)-(7) is concrete and testable, and the architecture and hyperparameters are described in enough detail to permit reproduction. However, the supporting evidence as presented is insufficient: the headline empirical claim is contradicted by the paper's own Table 1, the central theorem is not proved in the manuscript, and a dimension-notational ambiguity affects the core tail-thinning exponent. If these issues are fixed, the paper could make a meaningful contribution; as it stands, the central quantitative claim is unsupported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4; Table 1] The abstract and Section 5 claim a 3% FID improvement after 5 epochs, but Table 1, the only FID comparison in the paper, reports FID = 15.0(9) for the baseline VAE (kappa = 0) and FID = 14.9(6) for the best CVAE settings (kappa = 10^-1 and kappa = 1). That is a relative improvement of about 0.7%, well inside the reported standard deviations, and no epoch-by-epoch FID curve or 5-epoch checkpoint is provided. Because the paper's most prominent quantitative claim is unsupported by its own data, this must be corrected or removed.
  2. [Theorem 1; Section 4] The dimension symbol is ambiguous in a load-bearing way. Theorem 1 uses x in R^d and z in R^n, yet the CFE and the escort exponent are written with the same d in (1+d*kappa) and Q^{(2*kappa/(1+d*kappa))}; Section 4 then declares 'latent dimension of d = 10'. For 128x128 CelebA images the data dimension is 16384, and if d in the exponent is read as the data dimension, the escort exponent becomes so small that Q barely differs from q, which would silence the tail-thinning mechanism described as the paper's core novelty. The implementation must state explicitly which dimension is used, and the notation should distinguish latent and data dimensions.
  3. [Lemma 1; Theorem 1; Ref. [26]] Both Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 are stated without proofs in the manuscript and are referred to an anonymous external attachment [26]. The closed-form CFE is the theoretical foundation of the experiments, including the nontrivial claim that the reconstruction loss remains a mean-square error with modified constants. This derivation should be included as a proper appendix or supplement so that the simplification can be verified, rather than relying on an external, anonymous document.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'The coupled generalization of Fisher Information metric and the affine connection.' is a sentence fragment; it should be completed or attached to the preceding sentence.
  2. [Theorem 1] In the displayed CFE expression, the notation '(x - ¯xx|z)' appears to be a typographical artifact; it should be a properly defined conditional mean, e.g., \bar{x}_{x|z}.
  3. [References] Reference [16] contains corrupted author formatting ('Bharath , Karthik, , and Sebastian Kurtek') and should be corrected.
  4. [Table 1] The caption says the best results are highlighted in green, but the table as printed has no visible highlighting; if color is intended, it should be reproduced or described in text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction of the central claims; minor self-citation and an internal FID discrepancy are flagged but are not circularity.

full rationale

The paper presents no circular step. The CFE is an algebraic consequence of the escort expectation defined in Section 3, and the Q-transform's tail-thinning (Eqs. 4-7) is a designed property, not a fitted parameter later reported as a prediction. The robustness and reconstruction claims are empirical outcomes, testable against Table 1; notably, the abstract's 3% FID improvement is contradicted by the paper's own Table 1 (FID 15.0(9) for κ=0 versus 14.9(6) for κ=10^-1 and κ=1, overlapping within error), which is a correctness and evidence failure, not circularity. Self-citations [24], [26], and [27] are present, and the proofs of Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 are deferred to the authors' attachment [26] ('The full derivation of the coupled Free Energy expression is available at [26].'), so the paper is not fully self-contained; however, no equation reduces to its own input and no empirical claim is forced by construction, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanism rests on the coupled exponential family, an unproved Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 (external link), and the escort-transform algebra. The coupling strength kappa is grid-searched per experiment, so the headline results are selected over kappa; no other free parameters are fitted.

free parameters (1)
  • Coupling strength kappa = grid: 0, 1e-5, 1e-2, 1e-1, 1, 10, 1e5; best reported kappa=1e-5 and 1
    The central results (CFE curves, FID) are reported across these kappa values, and the 'best' claims are selected from them; no automatic criterion or held-out selection procedure is described.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The coupled exponential family definition (Eq. 2) and coupled logarithm/exp functions define valid probability distributions.
    Section 2 postulates the coupled exponential family from nonextensive statistical mechanics [22,23] without deriving or validating it in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Lemma 1: the stated Fisher metric tensors and affine connections are correct.
    Lemma 1 is stated with proof 'in the attachment [26]', an anonymous external PDF; the formulas are not derived in the manuscript.
  • ad hoc to paper Theorem 1: the closed-form CFE simplifies to the stated expression.
    Theorem 1's full derivation is deferred to [26]; the paper's training objective depends on this expression.
  • standard math The escort transformation with kappa_Q = kappa/(1+2*kappa) and |Sigma_Q|^{-1} = (1+2*kappa)|Sigma_q|^{-1} preserves the exponent and yields a finite-variance sampling distribution.
    This follows from algebra, but the paper states it without proof of normalization and uses it as the basis for stable training.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variational Inference Optimized Using the Curved Geometry of Coupled Free Energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ULHNWLMT

@misc{pith2026250609091,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variational Inference Optimized Using the Curved Geometry of Coupled Free Energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ULHNWLMT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09091}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce an optimization framework for variational inference based on the coupled free energy, extending variational inference techniques to account for the curved geometry of the coupled exponential family. This family includes important heavy-tailed distributions such as the generalized Pareto and the Student's t. By leveraging the coupled free energy, which is equal to the coupled evidence lower bound (ELBO) of the inverted probabilities, we improve the accuracy and robustness of the learned model. The coupled generalization of Fisher Information metric and the affine connection. The method is applied to the design of a coupled variational autoencoder (CVAE). By using the coupling for both the distributions and cost functions, the reconstruction metric is derived to still be the mean-square average loss with modified constants. The novelty comes from sampling the heavy-tailed latent distribution with its associated coupled probability, which has faster decaying tails. The result is the ability to train a model robust against severe outliers, while assuring that the training process is stable. The Wasserstein-2 or Fr\'echet Inception Distance of the reconstructed CelebA images shows the CVAE has a 3\% improvement over the VAE after 5 epochs of training.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09091 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the Coupled Free Energy across different values of the coupling parameter κ for both (A) training and (B) validation phases using diagonal covariance. The models are trained and validated using the coupled probability distribution Q. The inset in panel (A) shows the shape of the coupled Gaussian distributions for each κ, displaying the algorithm’s capability to train extreme heavy-tailed distributions.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the standard linear correlation and the long-range coupling models. (a) Original images and reconstructions with (b) Diagonal standard VAE and (c) Diagonal Coupled VAE with κ = 1. to assess the quality of the generated reconstructions, including the Fréchet In￾ception Distance (FID) and the Kernel Inception Distance (KID). Lower FID values indicate a closer alignment between the real and generated imag… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Nelson, and Igor Oliveira

    Al-Najafi Amenah, Kenric P. Nelson, and Igor Oliveira. Coupled Free Energy Derivations. 2025. URL https://anonymous.4open.science/ r/Coupled-VAE-FC48/CVAE-Results/CVI-AGI-25/Derivations%20for% 20CVAE%20May2025.pdf

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Blei, Alp Kucukelbir, and Jon D

    David M. Blei, Alp Kucukelbir, and Jon D. McAuliffe. Variational Inference: A Review for Statisticians.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112(518):859–877, April 2017. ISSN 0162-1459. https://doi.org/10. 1080/01621459.2017.1285773. URL https://www.tandfonline.com/ doi/full/10.1080/01621459.2017.1285773. Publisher: Taylor & Fran- cis

    arXiv 2017

  3. [2]

    Predictive coding under the free-energy principle

    Karl Friston and Stefan Kiebel. Predictive coding under the free-energy principle. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sci- ences, 364(1521):1211–1221, May 2009.https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb. 2008.0300. URL https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10. 1098/rstb.2008.0300

    arXiv 2009

  4. [3]

    Stochastic Gradient Descent

    Nikhil Ketkar. Stochastic Gradient Descent. In Nikhil Ketkar, editor, Deep Learning with Python: A Hands-on Introduction , pages 113–132. Apress, Berkeley, CA, 2017. ISBN 978-1-4842-2766-4. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4842-2766-4_8. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-1-4842-2766-4_8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-2766-4_8 2017

  5. [4]

    Backpropagation and stochastic gradient descent method

    Shun-ichi Amari. Backpropagation and stochastic gradient descent method. Neurocomputing, 5(4):185–196, June 1993. ISSN 0925-2312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0925-2312(93)90006-O. URL https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/092523129390006O

    work page arXiv 1993

  6. [5]

    Stein Variational Gradient Descent: A General Purpose Bayesian Inference Algorithm

    Qiang Liu and Dilin Wang. Stein Variational Gradient Descent: A General Purpose Bayesian Inference Algorithm. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 29. Curran Associates, Inc., 2016. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2016/hash/ b3ba8f1bee1238a2f37603d90b58898d-Abstract.html

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    Variational Inference with Nor- malizing Flows

    Danilo Rezende and Shakir Mohamed. Variational Inference with Nor- malizing Flows. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1530–1538. PMLR, June 2015. URL https: //proceedings.mlr.press/v37/rezende15.html. ISSN: 1938-7228

    work page 2015

  8. [7]

    Normalizing Flows for Probabilistic Modeling and Inference.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(57):1– 64, 2021

    George Papamakarios, Eric Nalisnick, Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Shakir Mo- hamed, and Balaji Lakshminarayanan. Normalizing Flows for Probabilistic Modeling and Inference.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(57):1– 64, 2021. ISSN 1533-7928. URLhttp://jmlr.org/papers/v22/19-1028. html

    work page 2021

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    Kingma and Max Welling

    Diederik P. Kingma and Max Welling. An introduction to variational au- toencoders. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 12(4):307–392,

  2. [9]

    Robust Vari- ational Inference, November 2016

    Michael Figurnov, Kirill Struminsky, and Dmitry Vetrov. Robust Vari- ational Inference, November 2016. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1611. 09226. arXiv:1611.09226 [cs]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Joshi, Jian Li, Sergül Aydöre, and Richard M

    Haleh Akrami, Anand A. Joshi, Jian Li, Sergül Aydöre, and Richard M. Leahy. A robust variational autoencoder using beta divergence.Knowledge- VI using Coupled Free Energy 13 Based Systems, 238:107886, 2022. ISSN 0950-7051. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021...

    2022

  4. [11]

    Federated learning meets Bayesian neural network: Robust and uncertainty-aware distributed vari- ational inference

    Pengfei Li, Qinghua Hu, and Xiaofei Wang. Federated learning meets Bayesian neural network: Robust and uncertainty-aware distributed vari- ational inference. Neural Networks, 185:107135, May 2025. ISSN 0893-

    2025

  5. [12]

    Wasserstein Auto-Encoders

    Ilya Tolstikhin, Olivier Bousquet, Sylvain Gelly, and Bernhard Schoelkopf. Wasserstein Auto-Encoders. InProceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations, February 2018. URLhttps://openreview.net/ forum?id=HkL7n1-0b

    2018

  6. [13]

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

    I Higgins, L Matthey, A Pal, C Burgess, and X Glorot. beta-vae: Learn- ing basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework. In5th International Conference on Learning Representations ICLR 2017, 2017. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=Sy2fzU9gl

    2017

  7. [14]

    Burgess, Irina Higgins, Arka Pal, Loic Matthey, Nick Wat- ters, Guillaume Desjardins, and Alexander Lerchner

    Christopher P. Burgess, Irina Higgins, Arka Pal, Loic Matthey, Nick Wat- ters, Guillaume Desjardins, and Alexander Lerchner. Understanding disen- tangling in $\beta$-VAE, April 2018. URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1804. 03599. arXiv:1804.03599 [cs, stat]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [15]

    q-VAE for Disentangled Representation Learning and Latent Dynamical Systems

    Taisuke Kobayashis. q-VAE for Disentangled Representation Learning and Latent Dynamical Systems. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(4):5669–5676, 2020. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/ document/9143393. Publisher: IEEE

    2020

  9. [16]

    A Geomet- ric Variational Approach to Bayesian Inference

    Abhijoy Saha, Bharath , Karthik, , and Sebastian Kurtek. A Geomet- ric Variational Approach to Bayesian Inference. Journal of the Amer- ican Statistical Association, 115(530):822–835, April 2020. ISSN 0162-

    2020

  10. [17]

    Philipp Frank, Reimar Leike, and Torsten A. Enßlin. Geometric Variational Inference. Entropy, 23(7):853, July 2021. ISSN 1099-4300.https://doi. org/10.3390/e23070853. URL https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/ 7/853

    2021 doi

  11. [18]

    Geometric Variational Inference and Its Application to Bayesian Imaging

    Philipp Frank. Geometric Variational Inference and Its Application to Bayesian Imaging. Physical Sciences Forum, 5(1):6, 2022. ISSN 2673-

    2022

  12. [19]

    Information Geometry and Its Applications , vol- ume 194 of Applied Mathematical Sciences

    Shun-ichi Amari. Information Geometry and Its Applications , vol- ume 194 of Applied Mathematical Sciences. Springer Japan, Tokyo,

  13. [20]

    Geometry of q-Exponential Family of Probability Distributions

    Shun-ichi Amari and Atsumi Ohara. Geometry of q-Exponential Family of Probability Distributions. Entropy, 13(6):1170–1185, June 2011. ISSN 14 K. Nelson et al. 1099-4300. https://doi.org/10.3390/e13061170. URL https://www. mdpi.com/1099-4300/13/6/1170

    2011 doi

  14. [21]

    Information geometry on the curved q -exponential family with application to survival data anal- ysis

    Fode Zhang, Hon Keung Tony Ng, and Yimin Shi. Information geometry on the curved q -exponential family with application to survival data anal- ysis. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 512:788–802, December 2018. ISSN 03784371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phys...

    2018 doi

  15. [22]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

    Constantino Tsallis.Introduction to nonextensive statistical mechanics: Ap- proaching a complex world. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009. URL https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-0-387-85359-8. Pub- lication Title: Introduction to Nonextensive Statistical Mechanics...

    2009 doi

  16. [23]

    Sumiyoshi Abe, Yuko Okamoto, R. Beig, J. Ehlers, U. Frisch, K. Hepp, W. Hillebrandt, D. Imboden, R. L. Jaffe, R. Kippenhahn, R. Lipowsky, H. V. Löhneysen, I. Ojima, H. A. Weidenmüller, J. Wess, and J. Zit- tartz, editors. Nonextensive Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications...

    2001 doi

  17. [24]

    Nelson, Sabir R

    Kenric P. Nelson, Sabir R. Umarov, and Mark A. Kon. On the average uncertainty for systems with nonlinear coupling.Physica A: Statistical Me- chanics and its Applications, 468:30–43, 2017. ISSN 03784371. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2016.09.046. URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1...

    2017 doi

  18. [25]

    Information geometry in optimization, machine learning and statistical inference.Frontiers of Electrical and Electronic Engineering in China, 5(3):241–260, 2010

    Shun ichi Amari. Information geometry in optimization, machine learning and statistical inference.Frontiers of Electrical and Electronic Engineering in China, 5(3):241–260, 2010. ISSN 16733460.https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11460-010-0101-3

    2010

  19. [27]

    Nelson, and Mark A

    Shichen Cao, Jingjing Li, Kenric P. Nelson, and Mark A. Kon. Coupled VAE: Improved Accuracy and Robustness of a Variational Autoencoder. Entropy, 24(3):423, March 2022. ISSN 1099-4300. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/e24030423. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/3/423. Number: 3 Pu...

    2022 doi

  20. [1459]

    URL https: //doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2019.1585253

    https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2019.1585253. URL https: //doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2019.1585253

    2019

  21. [2016]

    https://doi.org/10

    ISBN 978-4-431-55977-1 978-4-431-55978-8. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-4-431-55978-8. URL https://link.springer.com/10.1007/ 978-4-431-55978-8

  22. [2019]

    https://doi.org/10.1561/2200000056

    ISSN 19358245. https://doi.org/10.1561/2200000056

    doi

  23. [6080]

    URL https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893608025000140

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107135. URL https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893608025000140

    2025

  24. [9984]

    URL https://www

    https://doi.org/10.3390/psf2022005006. URL https://www. mdpi.com/2673-9984/5/1/6

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.