Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Performing mean-field variational inference in a coordinate system rotated along the target's score cross-covariance eigenvectors substantially improves accuracy, and iterating the rotate-and-fit procedure builds flow-like transport maps at

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 10:53 UTC pith:BHT2VLQY

load-bearing objection A solid, honest paper: relative score PCA is a cheap and often effective rotation heuristic for MFVI, with clean theory but no global guarantee for non-Gaussian targets. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.07732 v2 pith:BHT2VLQY submitted 2025-10-09 stat.CO stat.ML

Rotated Mean-Field Variational Inference and Iterative Gaussianization

Yifan Chen , Sifan Liu This is my paper
classification stat.CO stat.ML MSC 62F1565C0562H25
keywords mean-field variational inferencerelative score PCAiterative Gaussianizationprojected Fisher informationrotated coordinatestransport mapsBayesian posterior approximationnormalizing flows
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to show that the main practical weakness of mean-field variational inference (MFVI)—its inability to capture correlations—can be largely fixed by a cheap change of coordinates, without switching to a richer variational family. It introduces relative score PCA: compute the cross-covariance between standard-normal samples and the target's score, rotate the target so the leading eigenvectors become coordinate axes, then solve MFVI in that rotated frame. The paper proves that this rotation maximizes a tractable lower bound on the projected Fisher information that controls how much KL divergence an MFVI step can remove, and that iterating rotate-and-fit steps drives the target toward a standard normal. If correct, the method gives practitioners a parameter-light way to build flow-like transport maps whose accuracy in the reported Bayesian tasks matches or exceeds normalizing-flow variational approximations at a fraction of the training cost.

Core claim

The central claim is that mean-field variational inference, usually regarded as too crude for correlated posteriors, becomes much more accurate when performed in a coordinate system rotated according to the principal components of H = E_{x∼N(0,I)}[x(∇log p(x)+x)^T]. The rotation is justified by showing that the sum of squared diagonal entries of RHR^T lower-bounds the projected Fisher information that governs how much KL divergence MFVI can remove; maximizing this lower bound over rotations is equivalent to diagonalizing H. The authors establish that for Gaussian targets this lower bound is exact, and that if the standard Gaussian is the optimal mean-field approximation under almost every ro

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the relative-score cross-covariance matrix H = E_{x∼N(0,I)}[x(∇log p(x)+x)^T], which, because the expectation of ∇log p(x)+x over N(0,I) is zero, is a covariance between a Gaussian variable and its score mismatch. Its eigenvectors mark directions where the target deviates most from Gaussian in the sense of a linear score discrepancy. Relative score PCA uses the top eigenvectors of H to define an orthogonal rotation R; then MFVI is solved in the rotated frame with coordinatewise maps, and the inverse map applied back. The analytical work is the projected Fisher information, whose time integral along an independent-coordinates diffusion equals the KL improvement MFVI

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that maximizing the tractable lower bound on projected Fisher information—the squared diagonals of the rotated score cross-covariance matrix—actually identifies the rotation that yields the largest real KL improvement from MFVI; this is proven exactly only for Gaussian targets, and for other targets it is supported by experiments rather than by the theory.

What would settle it

Take a target whose log-density is a standard Gaussian plus a pure quartic interaction term, such as p(x) ∝ exp(-|x|^2/2 - ε x1^2 x2^2), so H is exactly zero while the distribution is clearly non-Gaussian and correlated. If MFVI performed in the PCA-rotated frame fails to reduce KL divergence relative to unrotated MFVI, the claimed link between the H-based lower bound and the actual MFVI improvement is broken for non-Gaussian targets.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A single PCA rotation is enough to turn ordinary MFVI into a posterior approximation that in the paper's benchmarks is often far closer to MCMC samples, with nearly no extra compute beyond one eigendecomposition of a d×d matrix.
  • Each iteration of the method decreases the KL divergence to the Gaussian reference, so the approximation quality only improves as more rotate-and-fit steps are added; because every stage is an invertible coordinatewise map, the final transport map has tractable Jacobian and density.
  • The resulting map can be used as a proposal for importance sampling or MCMC, so any residual bias of the variational approximation can be corrected exactly.
  • For Gaussian targets with random rotations, the KL divergence contracts by a factor depending on condition number and dimension, implying roughly linear scaling of the number of iterations with dimension; in the paper's experiments PCA rotations require far fewer iterations than random ones.
  • In the reported experiments, the iterative Gaussianization matches or outperforms neural-spline-flow variational inference on several posterior sampling tasks while using a fraction of the parameters and training time.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural stress test the paper does not run: a target with strong nonlinear dependence but zero linear score cross-covariance, e.g., a symmetric mixture or a density with only quartic cross-terms in its log-density. For such a target the H-matrix would be near-zero, so the proposed rotation would offer no improvement over standard MFVI; seeing this would mark the method's boundary.
  • The same rotation principle could serve as a generic preconditioning tool beyond variational inference—for example, initializing normalizing flows or choosing proposals for MCMC or sequential Monte Carlo—because it needs only the target's score at Gaussian samples, not samples from the target.
  • The contraction proof for Gaussian targets uses random rotations; an analogous rate for the PCA rotation would require control of the spectral gap of H and is not in the paper. Closing that gap would put the empirical advantage of PCA rotations on the same footing as the random-rotation analysis.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to enhance mean-field variational inference (MFVI) by first rotating the target distribution according to the eigenvectors of H = E_γ[x(∇log p(x)+x)^T] and then performing MFVI in the rotated coordinates. It further iterates this procedure, alternating PCA-style rotations with coordinatewise MFVI maps, to construct flow-like transport maps that push the target toward the standard Gaussian. The main theoretical results are: (i) a Gaussianity characterization via vanishing projected Fisher information under almost all rotations (Thm 3.2); (ii) a lower bound on projected Fisher information in terms of H, with equality for Gaussian targets (Thm 3.4); (iii) the optimality of the eigenvector rotation for this lower bound (Prop 4.1); and (iv) a contraction estimate for Gaussian targets under random rotations (Thm 5.2). Experiments on Bayesian logistic regression, posteriordb benchmarks, a Poisson GLMM, sparse logistic regression, and an IRT model show that PCA-rotated MFVI often improves over standard MFVI and over a small neural spline flow at comparable or lower cost.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a practically valuable and computationally cheap way to improve MFVI, and the iterative construction offers a tractable flow-like alternative with closed-form density and inverse. The paper is transparent about the provenance of some results: Theorem 3.3 is adapted from Lacker, and the PCA objective is explicitly a lower bound. The theoretical novelty includes Theorem 3.2 and the Gaussian contraction rate, and the paper ships reproducible code. However, the theoretical support for the PCA rotation as a proxy for actual KL reduction is incomplete, and the convergence theorems apply to random rotations rather than to the PCA-based algorithm that is the paper's main recommendation. These gaps matter for the central claims and need to be addressed or carefully qualified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3; Eq. (8)] The PCA objective maximizes a lower bound on projected Fisher information that is proven tight only for Gaussian targets (Thm 3.4). The actual MFVI improvement is the time integral of projected FI along the independent-projection dynamics (Eq. 6), or, under strong log-concavity, tilde I - J (Thm 3.3). No result shows that maximizing Σ_i(RHR^T)_ii^2 is near-optimal for Δ_MFVI, nor even that the PCA rotation improves on R=I for non-Gaussian targets. The Stein argument in §4.1 concerns infinitesimal linear perturbations, not the full nonlinear MFVI solution. Since the paper's central claim is that PCA-rotated MFVI substantially improves accuracy, the theory needs either a quantitative bound under reasonable conditions (e.g., log-concavity) or an explicit statement that the PCA selection is heuristic. The positive numerics are encouraging but do not close the gap for arbitrary non-Gaussian t
  2. [Sec. 5.1; Thm 5.2] The only convergence/stationarity guarantee is for rotations drawn from a full-support distribution, as explicitly assumed in the sentence 'Now suppose we draw the orthogonal matrices at random...'. The PCA-based iteration, which is the version used in Algorithm 3 and in the main experiments, has no such guarantee: it could in principle stall at a non-Gaussian distribution where the selected PCA directions yield a near-zero lower bound while a positive MFVI gap remains. Theorem 5.2 likewise assumes uniform random rotations. The conclusion that the paper has 'analyzed the algorithm' and established an entropy contraction rate therefore applies to a different rotation policy than the one recommended. Please either extend the analysis to PCA rotations or clearly delineate the theoretical results as applying to the random-rotation variant.
  3. [Abstract; Sec. 6.4] The claim that the method provides 'flow-like approximations ... at lower computational cost than conventional normalizing-flow variational approximations' is supported only by comparisons against a neural spline flow with one hidden layer of size 5 and 200 optimizer iterations (Sec. 6.4) and a 6-layer flow in Sec. 6.5. These are low-capacity baselines in a regime where flows are known to be at a disadvantage; the paper itself cites [1,8] showing that strong flow training requires much larger batches and careful tuning. I recommend either benchmarking against a stronger flow baseline with commensurate capacity/tuning or softening the abstract/conclusion to claim efficiency relative to flow approximations of similar capacity and training budget.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1] The x-axis labels in all four panels appear to read 'd', but the caption says the right two panels vary the condition number κ. Please correct the axis labels and clarify which panels correspond to which sweep.
  2. [Sec. 4.1] Typo: 'the eigenvectors of of H' should be 'the eigenvectors of H'.
  3. [Sec. 5.1] In the display after summing over k, the averaged functional should be written as \overline{Δ_MFVI}(p^{(k-1)}); the bar is missing in the text, which makes the step from the realized sum to the averaged sum look unjustified.
  4. [Sec. 6.2; Table 1] The table headers use 'MF' while the text uses 'MFVI' and 'PCA-based MFVI'; make the notation consistent for readability.
  5. [Alg. 3] The returned transformation order is correct, but a one-line remark that this transformation maps the target to the Gaussianized distribution (and its inverse maps γ to the approximating q^{(k)}) would help the reader connect to Eq. (10).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the proposed rotation is derived from an independently computed target-score statistic and evaluated against external benchmarks; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations occur.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The rotation is chosen by maximizing the lower bound sum_i (R H R^T)^2_ii, where H = E_gamma[x(nabla log p(x)+x)^T] is an external input computed from the target density and the standard Gaussian reference. The key theoretical link between projected Fisher information and MFVI improvement is quoted from Lacker [35], an independent external source, not from the authors' own prior work. Theorem 3.4's lower bound is proven in the paper by Cauchy-Schwarz and Stein's identity, and the equality case for Gaussian targets is an additional exactness check, not an input assumption. The empirical claims are measured against NUTS reference samples and posteriordb benchmarks, so the improvement is not forced by construction. The main limitations -- the lower bound may be loose for non-Gaussian targets and the PCA-based iteration lacks the stationary guarantee that random rotations enjoy -- are performance/robustness caveats, not circular reasoning. The only self-citations are minor and non-load-bearing: [10] is cited in the literature review of mixture variational families, and [41] is mentioned in the conclusion as a possible quasi-Monte Carlo variance-reduction tool. Neither supports the paper's central premise, and no derived quantity is defined in terms of the outcome it is claimed to predict. Hence no circular step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim builds on the score function and matrix H, which are defined rather than invented; no new physical or probabilistic entities are introduced. The algorithmic hyperparameters are listed as free parameters, though they are not part of the theoretical results.

free parameters (5)
  • Principal-component retention threshold = 95% of variance explained
    Algorithm 2 retains the top eigenvectors explaining 95% of variance; this threshold is hand-chosen in all experiments (Sections 4 and 6). It affects the rotation choice and hence approximation accuracy.
  • Number of iterations K = varies (e.g., 11, 4, 2/4/6)
    The iterative Gaussianization stops after K iterations; K is chosen by hand per experiment (Algorithm 3, Section 6).
  • Monte Carlo sample size N for H estimation = 1000
    Algorithm 2 and Section 6 use N = 1000 Gaussian samples to estimate H; this introduces Monte Carlo error in the rotation.
  • Spline knots and range boundaries = 10 knots, range (-8,8)
    Coordinatewise maps are parametrized by rational quadratic splines with 10 knots and range (-8,8) (Section 6). This restricts the expressiveness of the MFVI solution.
  • Learning rate and optimizer = Adam, lr = 0.01
    Variational objectives are optimized with Adam lr = 0.01 for 100–200 iterations (Section 6); this affects the quality of MFVI solutions and thus the final approximation.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The target density p is continuously differentiable and log p, ∇log p satisfy growth conditions (finite m-th moments, polynomial growth) so the mean-field optimality equation holds.
    Section 2.1 states these assumptions following [2] and says 'We assume these conditions throughout.'
  • domain assumption The score function ∇log p(x) can be evaluated pointwise for any x, enabling Monte Carlo estimation of H and MFVI subproblems.
    Algorithm 2 requires sampling x∼γ and evaluating ∇log p(x); Section 4.3. Without score access the method cannot run.
  • domain assumption After each MFVI step, the score of the transformed target p^{(k)} can be computed to form the next H; the paper does not provide the explicit chain-rule formula but implies it is available.
    Section 5 defines p^{(k)} = F_k^{*-1}#p^{(k-1)}_{R_k} and then requires selecting R_{k+1} via relative score PCA, which needs the score of p^{(k)}. This is plausible but not explicitly demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The log-density ratio r = log(p/γ) belongs to L^2(γ) so that the Hermite polynomial expansion used in the proof of Theorem 3.2 is valid.
    Appendix A.1 writes the Hermite expansion of r without stating the L^2 condition; this is an unstated regularity assumption.
  • domain assumption For Theorem 3.3, the potential U is strongly convex with λI ≤ ∇²U ≤ LI.
    Stated in Theorem 3.3; this is a standard strong log-concavity assumption that may not hold for many real posteriors.
  • domain assumption For Theorem 5.2, the current target is Gaussian N(0,Σ) and its mean-field approximation is already the standard Gaussian, so (Σ^{-1})_ii = 1.
    Stated at the start of Section 5.2 and used in the proof of Theorem 5.2; this is an idealized condition after a perfect MFVI step, not guaranteed in practice.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24493 in / 17367 out tokens · 138743 ms · 2026-08-04T10:53:29.502164+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose an iterative Gaussianization method for sampling from unnormalized densities by repeatedly applying mean-field variational inference (MFVI) in rotated coordinate systems. At each iteration, the method selects a rotation, solves an MFVI subproblem in the rotated coordinates, and applies the inverse coordinatewise map to transform the current target closer to the standard Gaussian. The resulting algorithm provides a computationally efficient way to construct flow-like transport maps: it requires only MFVI subproblems, avoids large-scale optimization, and produces transformations that are easy to invert and evaluate. The effectiveness of the procedure depends on selecting informative rotations. We develop an efficient PCA-type method that chooses rotations from the leading eigenvectors of a cross-covariance matrix involving the target's score function. Experiments on Bayesian posterior sampling tasks show that performing MFVI in the proposed PCA-rotated coordinate systems substantially improves over standard MFVI, and that the resulting iterative Gaussianization procedure provides accurate flow-like approximations at lower computational cost than conventional normalizing-flow variational approximations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.07732 by Sifan Liu, Yifan Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Number of iterations required for the KL divergence to fall below 0.01. The left two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: MFVI with different rotation choices in the Bayesian logistic regression example. Left: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of MMD (left panel) and negative ELBO (right panel) on the Bayesian logistic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior distributions of the global parameters in the Poisson GLMM example. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average performance metrics for the sparse logistic regression experiment, with error bars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Generalized reparametrized variational Bayes with skew-symmetric normalization

    stat.ME 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    KNorm-RVB combines affine normalization with mirror-reflection skewness reduction to make mean-field variational inference substantially more accurate for hierarchical models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    and Domke, J

    Agrawal, A. and Domke, J. (2025). Disentangling impact of capacity, objective, batchsize, estimators, and step-size on flow VI. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 325–333. PMLR

    2025

  2. [2]

    and Lacker, D

    Arnese, M. and Lacker, D. (2024). Convergence of coordinate ascent variational inference for log-concave measures via optimal transport.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08792

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    A., Salim, A., and Zhang, S

    Balasubramanian, K., Chewi, S., Erdogdu, M. A., Salim, A., and Zhang, S. (2022). Towards a theory of non-log-concave sampling: first-order stationarity guarantees for Langevin Monte Carlo. InConference on Learning Theory, pages 2896–2923. PMLR

    2022

  4. [4]

    Bhattacharya, A., Pati, D., and Yang, Y. (2025). On the convergence of coordinate ascent variational inference.The Annals of Statistics, 53(3):929–962

    2025

  5. [5]

    Bickel, P., Choi, D., Chang, X., and Zhang, H. (2013). Asymptotic normality of maximum likelihood and its variational approximation for stochastic blockmodels.The Annals of Statistics, 41(4)

    2013

  6. [6]

    Bishop, C. M. and Nasrabadi, N. M. (2006).Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning, volume 4. Springer

    2006

  7. [7]

    M., Kucukelbir, A., and McAuliffe, J

    Blei, D. M., Kucukelbir, A., and McAuliffe, J. D. (2017). Variational inference: A review for statisticians.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112(518):859–877

    2017

  8. [8]

    Blessing, D., Jia, X., Esslinger, J., Vargas, F., and Neumann, G. (2024). Beyond ELBOs: a large-scale evaluation of variational methods for sampling. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4205–4229

    2024

  9. [9]

    D., Lee, D., Goodrich, B., Betancourt, M., Brubaker, M., Guo, J., Li, P., and Riddell, A

    Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., Hoffman, M. D., Lee, D., Goodrich, B., Betancourt, M., Brubaker, M., Guo, J., Li, P., and Riddell, A. (2017). Stan: A probabilistic programming language.Journal of Statistical Software, 76:1–32

    2017

  10. [10]

    Z., and Wang, W

    Che, B., Chen, Y., Huan, Z., Huang, D. Z., and Wang, W. (2025). Stable derivative free Gaussian mixture variational inference for Bayesian inverse problems.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 47(5):A2583–A2608

    2025

  11. [11]

    and Gopinath, R

    Chen, S. and Gopinath, R. (2000). Gaussianization.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 13

    2000

  12. [12]

    G., Dow, E., and Wang, Q

    Constantine, P. G., Dow, E., and Wang, Q. (2014). Active subspace methods in theory and practice: applications to kriging surfaces.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 36(4):A1500– A1524. 32

    2014

  13. [13]

    M., Solonen, A., and Spantini, A

    Cui, T., Martin, J., Marzouk, Y. M., Solonen, A., and Spantini, A. (2014). Likelihood-informed dimension reduction for nonlinear inverse problems.Inverse Problems, 30(11):114015

    2014

  14. [14]

    Dinh, L., Sohl-Dickstein, J., and Bengio, S. (2017). Density estimation using Real NVP. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2017

  15. [15]

    Draxler, F., K¨ uhmichel, L., Rousselot, A., M¨ uller, J., Schn¨ orr, C., and K¨ othe, U. (2023). On the convergence rate of Gaussianization with random rotations. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8449–8468. PMLR

    2023

  16. [16]

    Du, Q., Wang, K., Zhang, E., and Zhong, C. (2024). A particle algorithm for mean-field variational inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20385

    arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Durkan, C., Bekasov, A., Murray, I., and Papamakarios, G. (2019). Neural spline flows.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32

    2019

  18. [18]

    El Moselhy, T. A. and Marzouk, Y. M. (2012). Bayesian inference with optimal maps.Journal of Computational Physics, 231(23):7815–7850

    2012

  19. [19]

    Fong, Y., Rue, H., and Wakefield, J. (2010). Bayesian inference for generalized linear mixed models.Biostatistics, 11(3):397–412

    2010

  20. [20]

    and Tukey, J

    Friedman, J. and Tukey, J. (1974). A projection pursuit algorithm for exploratory data analysis. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 100(SLAC-PUB-1312)

    1974

  21. [21]

    Friedman, J. H. (1987). Exploratory projection pursuit.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82(397):249–266

    1987

  22. [22]

    M., and Vanden-Eijnden, E

    Gabri´ e, M., Rotskoff, G. M., and Vanden-Eijnden, E. (2022). Adaptive Monte Carlo augmented with normalizing flows.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(10):e2109420119

    2022

  23. [23]

    and Mackey, L

    Gorham, J. and Mackey, L. (2015). Measuring sample quality with Stein’s method.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 28

    2015

  24. [24]

    Han, S., Liao, X., Dunson, D., and Carin, L. (2016). Variational Gaussian copula inference. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 829–838. PMLR

    2016

  25. [25]

    Hastings, W. K. (1970). Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications.Biometrika, 57(1):97

    1970

  26. [26]

    V., Langmore, I., Tran, D., and Vasudevan, S

    Hoffman, M., Sountsov, P., Dillon, J. V., Langmore, I., Tran, D., and Vasudevan, S. (2019). Neutra-lizing bad geometry in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo using neural transport.arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.03704

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Hoffman, M. D. and Gelman, A. (2014). The No-U-Turn sampler: adaptively setting path lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo.J. Mach. Learn. Res., 15(1):1593–1623

    2014

  28. [28]

    Hofmann, H. (1994). Statlog (German Credit Data). UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5NC77

    doi:10.24432/c5nc77 1994

  29. [29]

    Huber, P. J. (1985). Projection pursuit.The Annals of Statistics, pages 435–475

    1985

  30. [30]

    Jiang, Y., Chewi, S., and Pooladian, A.-A. (2025). Algorithms for mean-field variational inference via polyhedral optimization in the Wasserstein space.Foundations of Computational Mathematics, pages 1–52. 33

    2025

  31. [31]

    I., Ghahramani, Z., Jaakkola, T

    Jordan, M. I., Ghahramani, Z., Jaakkola, T. S., and Saul, L. K. (1999). An introduction to variational methods for graphical models.Machine learning, 37(2):183–233

    1999

  32. [32]

    Kingma, D. P. (2014). Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [33]

    P., Salimans, T., Jozefowicz, R., Chen, X., Sutskever, I., and Welling, M

    Kingma, D. P., Salimans, T., Jozefowicz, R., Chen, X., Sutskever, I., and Welling, M. (2016). Improved variational inference with inverse autoregressive flow.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 29

    2016

  34. [34]

    Kotz, S., Balakrishnan, N., and Johnson, N. L. (2019).Continuous Multivariate Distributions, Volume 1: Models and Applications, volume 1. John Wiley & Sons

    2019

  35. [35]

    Lacker, D. (2023). Independent projections of diffusions: Gradient flows for variational inference and optimal mean field approximations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13332

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Lacker, D., Mukherjee, S., and Yeung, L. C. (2024). Mean field approximations via log-concavity. International Mathematics Research Notices, 2024(7):6008–6042

    2024

  37. [37]

    Laparra, V., Camps-Valls, G., and Malo, J. (2011). Iterative Gaussianization: from ICA to random rotations.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 22(4):537–549

    2011

  38. [38]

    and Zanella, G

    Lavenant, H. and Zanella, G. (2024). Convergence rate of random scan coordinate ascent variational inference under log-concavity.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 34(4):3750–3761

    2024

  39. [39]

    E., and Schmidt, M

    Lin, W., Khan, M. E., and Schmidt, M. (2019). Fast and simple natural-gradient variational inference with mixture of exponential-family approximations. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3992–4002. PMLR

    2019

  40. [40]

    and Wang, D

    Liu, Q. and Wang, D. (2016). Stein variational gradient descent: A general purpose Bayesian inference algorithm.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 29

    2016

  41. [41]

    Liu, S. (2024). Transport quasi-Monte Carlo.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16416

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Magnusson, M., Torgander, J., B¨ urkner, P.-C., Zhang, L., Carpenter, B., and Vehtari, A. (2024). posteriordb: Testing, benchmarking and developing Bayesian inference algorithms. InThe 28th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics

    2024

  43. [43]

    Meng, C., Song, Y., Song, J., and Ermon, S. (2020). Gaussianization flows. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 4336–4345. PMLR

    2020

  44. [44]

    W., Rosenbluth, M

    Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., and Teller, E. (1953). Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 21(6):1087–1092

    1953

  45. [45]

    E., Ormerod, J

    Neville, S. E., Ormerod, J. T., and Wand, M. (2014). Mean field variational Bayes for continuous sparse signal shrinkage: Pitfalls and remedies.Electronic Journal of Statistics, 8:1113–1151

    2014

  46. [46]

    and Archambeau, C

    Opper, M. and Archambeau, C. (2009). The variational Gaussian approximation revisited. Neural computation, 21(3):786–792

    2009

  47. [47]

    Papamakarios, G. et al. (2021). Normalizing flows for probabilistic modeling and inference. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(57):1–64

    2021

  48. [48]

    O., and Sk¨ old, M

    Papaspiliopoulos, O., Roberts, G. O., and Sk¨ old, M. (2007). A general framework for the parametrization of hierarchical models.Statistical Science, pages 59–73. 34

    2007

  49. [49]

    Parno, M. D. and Marzouk, Y. M. (2018). Transport map accelerated Markov chain Monte Carlo.SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 6(2):645–682

    2018

  50. [50]

    and Mohamed, S

    Rezende, D. and Mohamed, S. (2015). Variational inference with normalizing flows. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1530–1538. PMLR

    2015

  51. [51]

    Sklar, M. (1959). Fonctions de r´ epartition ` a n dimensions et leurs marges. InAnnales de l’ISUP, volume 8, pages 229–231

    1959

  52. [52]

    https://mc-stan.org/docs/ stan-users-guide/regression.html#multilevel-2pl-model

    Stan Development Team (2011).Stan User’s Guide. https://mc-stan.org/docs/ stan-users-guide/regression.html#multilevel-2pl-model

    2011

  53. [53]

    Tabak, E. G. and Turner, C. V. (2013). A family of nonparametric density estimation algorithms. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 66(2):145–164

    2013

  54. [54]

    Tabak, E. G. and Vanden-Eijnden, E. (2010). Density estimation by dual ascent of the log-likelihood.Communications in Mathematical Sciences, 8(1):217–233

    2010

  55. [55]

    Tan, L. S. (2021). Use of model reparametrization to improve variational Bayes.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 83(1):30–57

    2021

  56. [56]

    Tran, M.-N., Tseng, P., and Kohn, R. (2023). Particle mean field variational Bayes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13930

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Wainwright, M. J. and Jordan, M. I. (2008). Graphical models, exponential families, and variational inference.Foundations and Trends®in Machine Learning, 1(1–2):1–305

    2008

  58. [58]

    and Titterington, D

    Wang, B. and Titterington, D. M. (2005). Inadequacy of interval estimates corresponding to variational Bayesian approximations. InInternational Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 373–380. PMLR

    2005

  59. [59]

    Zahm, O., Cui, T., Law, K., Spantini, A., and Marzouk, Y. (2022). Certified dimension reduction in nonlinear Bayesian inverse problems.Mathematics of Computation, 91(336):1789–1835

    2022

  60. [60]

    ´A., Jaitly, N., and Susskind, J

    Zhai, S., Zhang, R., Nakkiran, P., Berthelot, D., Gu, J., Zheng, H., Chen, T., Bautista, M. ´A., Jaitly, N., and Susskind, J. M. (2025). Normalizing flows are capable generative models. In Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning

    2025

  61. [61]

    and Gao, C

    Zhang, F. and Gao, C. (2020). Convergence rates of variational posterior distributions.The Annals of Statistics, 48(4):2180–2207

    2020

  62. [62]

    and Yang, Y

    Zhang, Y. and Yang, Y. (2024). Bayesian model selection via mean-field variational approximation.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 86(3):742– 770. 35

    2024