Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

This paper proves that the velocity of a rectified flow at its temporal midpoint is zero exactly when the source and target distributions coincide, and that the same zero-flow condition, applied conditionally, certifies when a learned encod

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

2026-08-03 05:55 UTC pith:MDQXYP3Y

load-bearing objection The zero-flow criterion is an elegant idea, but the main theorem's converse depends on a missing non-vanishing characteristic-function assumption; the paper is promising, and the gap is fixable. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.00797 v3 pith:MDQXYP3Y submitted 2026-01-31 stat.ML cs.LG

Zero-Flow Encoders

Yakun Wang , Leyang Wang , Song Liu , Taiji Suzuki This is my paper
classification stat.ML cs.LG
keywords rectified flowzero-flow criterionconditional independencesufficient representationMarkov blanketself-supervised learningshortcut problemflow matching
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.

The paper tries to establish that the midpoint velocity of a rectified flow carries exact information about whether two distributions—or two conditional distributions—are the same. It proves a zero-flow criterion: the velocity at t=0.5 vanishes everywhere if and only if the distributions match, and in the conditional setting this vanishing is equivalent to X being conditionally independent of Y given f(Y). That equivalence gives a new way to learn sufficient representations: train an encoder so that the conditioning flow becomes still at its midpoint. The authors show this criterion yields a tractable, simulation-free loss, and they demonstrate it on two tasks—recovering Markov blankets in graphical models without parametric assumptions, and learning image representations that ignore superficial watermarks that derail contrastive methods.

Core claim

The paper establishes a precise equivalence between a geometric property of a rectified flow and a statistical property of a learned representation. For a rectified flow trained on independent pairs (X, X'), the learned velocity field at the temporal midpoint t=0.5 is zero everywhere if and only if X and X' have the same distribution (Theorem 3.1). When the flow is conditioned on a candidate encoder f, the same midpoint condition holds if and only if the conditional distributions p_{X|Y} and p_{X|f(Y)} coincide (Theorem 3.3), which is exactly the conditional independence X ⊥⊥ Y | f(Y). Thus a vanishing velocity at the midpoint serves as a certificate that f is a sufficient representation for

What carries the argument

The central object is the optimal velocity field of a rectified flow: a time-indexed vector field v_t learned by regressing the straight-line displacement X' - X against the interpolation point X_t = tX' + (1-t)X, with X and X' sampled independently. The paper proves that evaluating this field at t=0.5 gives a zero vector for every z exactly when the two endpoint distributions are equal, and that conditioning the field on Y and f(Y') extends this to a test for p_{X|Y} = p_{X|f(Y)}. This zero-flow criterion does the work of the argument: it converts the abstract conditional-independence requirement into a regression target that can be minimized without simulating the ODE, and it supplies the

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the zero-flow criterion holds pointwise for all z, but the training objective only enforces it at sampled interpolation points; the paper does not prove that minimizing the empirical loss produces a representation satisfying the required conditional independence.

What would settle it

Search for two distinct distributions whose characteristic functions vanish on a set (for example, distributions with zeros in their characteristic functions) and check whether the midpoint velocity of the rectified flow with independent coupling is identically zero; the paper's necessity proof assumes non-vanishing characteristic functions, so such a counterexample would bound the theorem's validity.

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

If this is right

  • If the zero-flow loss reaches zero, the encoder f provably satisfies X ⊥⊥ Y | f(Y), so f is a sufficient statistic for predicting X from Y.
  • The loss is simulation-free: it requires only samples from the joint distribution and a shuffled copy, not iterative ODE solving.
  • Markov blankets can be learned non-parametrically, without estimating a joint density or a partition function, and the amortized version generalizes to target feature sets unseen at training time.
  • Applying the criterion to two augmented views of an image enforces the multi-view assumption directly, so the learned representation does not collapse onto shortcut features such as watermarks or colors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The zero-flow criterion suggests a non-parametric two-sample test that could complement existing kernel-based tests, since it requires only training a flow and checking the midpoint norm.
  • The anti-symmetry theorem (Theorem C.1) implies the entire time-indexed velocity field, not just the midpoint, encodes distributional mismatch; this might support structural diagnostics, such as localizing where two distributions differ most.
  • The paper restricts to continuous variables; a natural testable extension is to embed discrete data or use stochastic interpolants to bring discrete Markov blanket learning under the same criterion.
  • The gap between pointwise zero and expected-norm minimization could be probed empirically by checking whether the learned encoder passes an independent conditional-independence test on holdout data; failures would motivate a stronger loss that samples more interpolation points.

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 a representation-learning framework based on a 'zero-flow' criterion for rectified flows. It claims that for independent coupling, the optimal rectified-flow velocity at t=0.5 vanishes everywhere if and only if the source and target distributions are equal (Theorem 3.1), and that the conditional analogue certifies that an encoder f is sufficient for predicting X, i.e. X⊥⊥Y|f(Y) (Theorem 3.3). Based on this criterion the authors introduce a simulation-free loss (Eq. 8) and apply it to amortized Markov blanket discovery and to self-supervised learning, with experiments on synthetic graphical models, S&P 500 time series, and image datasets. The paper explicitly acknowledges in Section 7 that the loss is a heuristic relaxation of the pointwise zero-flow condition.

Significance. If the central theorems were correct as stated, the zero-flow criterion would be an elegant and useful bridge between flow matching and conditional-independence-driven representation learning. The paper has notable strengths: the mathematical development is substantial and includes proofs in appendices; the method is simulation-free; code is provided; and the experiments demonstrate practical promise, especially the non-parametric Markov blanket recovery and robustness to shortcut features. However, the main theoretical claim is not correct as stated, and the empirical objective is an acknowledged relaxation of the criterion that the theory supports. The significance of the paper therefore depends on whether the theoretical gap can be repaired without undermining the applicability of the method.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1 / Appendix B.2] Theorem 3.1 states an if-and-only-if without any assumption on characteristic functions, but the 'only if' proof relies on Lemma B.1, which explicitly assumes non-vanishing characteristic functions. The division by ϕ0(t)ϕ1(t) in Eq. (22) is invalid when either characteristic function has zeros. This is not a technicality: a counterexample exists with X0 having density proportional to (1−cos x)/x² and X1 obtained by adding a small-ε Schwartz perturbation with Fourier support outside the support of ϕ0. Then ϕ1′ϕ0−ϕ0′ϕ1≡0, so v_{0.5}=0, while p_X0≠p_X1. Thus Theorem 3.1 is false as stated. Theorem 3.3 inherits the same defect in its 'only if' direction, which is the direction used to certify sufficiency of the learned encoder. Theorem C.1 also inherits the issue.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (8), and Section 7] The theoretical criterion is v_{t=0.5}(z)=0 for every z, but the training objective minimizes an expectation of squared velocity evaluated only at the interpolated points X_t. Even if Theorem 3.3 were corrected, it would not imply that minimizing L(u,f) yields an encoder satisfying X⊥⊥Y|f(Y). The paper admits this in Section 7 ('we used heuristics to derive zero-flow loss'), but the abstract and introduction present the method as grounded in a rigorous criterion. This gap should be addressed explicitly, either by proving a finite-sample/expected-norm analogue, or by clearly stating the conditions under which the heuristic loss is justified and reframing the theoretical contribution accordingly.
  3. [Section 3.2, Theorem 3.2 and 3.3] The statement of Theorem 3.3 is ambiguous: it says 'For any pair (ξ,η), if f(ξ)=η, the velocity field ... =0 iff pX|Y=pX|f(Y).' If the zero-flow condition is verified for only one pair (ξ,η), the conclusion does not follow; one would need the condition for all ξ with f(ξ)=η. The proof in Appendix B.4 argues using U=X|Y=ξ and V=X′|f(Y′)=η and obtains p_U=p_V, i.e. p_{X|Y=ξ}=p_{X|f(Y)=η}, not the global equality p_{X|Y}=p_{X|f(Y)}. The theorem should be reformulated with the quantifiers made precise, or the conclusion weakened. This is a load-bearing point for the claimed certification of sufficiency.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] Several references are incomplete in the running text: 'Li et al.; Beizaee et al.', 'He et al.', and 'Park et al.' appear without publication years in the introduction (pages 1-2).
  2. [Appendix F.2.4] Typo: 'Zeors' should be 'Zeros'; also 'Zeor-flow encoder' appears in the same paragraph.
  3. [Appendix F.2.3] The notation for the decoder input is inconsistent: the text says 'the latent vector reshaped to match the spatial dimensions' for both Y and D(f(Y)), but the equation (39) uses Y directly. Clarify the conditioning variables.
  4. [Section 6.1.2] The S&P 500 experiment treats each stock as a sample and each trading day as a feature. This yields 500 samples and 252 features, which is a very small sample-to-dimension ratio; the interpretation of the learned Markov blanket as 'trading days most predictive of a five-day window' should be discussed in light of this transposed setup.
  5. [Appendix B.3] The proof of Theorem 3.2 assumes the continuity equation with the given drift has a unique solution. This assumption is stated but not discussed; uniqueness for such conditional velocity fields is not automatic and should be commented on.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the zero-flow criterion is derived from the population flow objective, and the heuristic loss is an acknowledged approximation rather than a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) define the population rectified-flow velocity as a conditional expectation (Eqs. 4-6); (ii) prove Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 3.3 relating vanishing midpoint velocity to distributional equality and conditional independence (Appendices B.1-B.4); (iii) propose the zero-flow loss (8) as an optimization surrogate; and (iv) test the learned encoder on synthetic/real benchmarks. The central theorems are self-contained mathematical statements about the optimal velocity field; they are not derived from the trained encoder f, and no parameter fitted to a subset of data is later presented as a prediction of that same subset. The combined loss (8) is justified by the theorem, but the theorem does not assume the loss is minimized to zero. Section 7 admits the approximation: 'we used heuristics to derive zero-flow loss, enforcing vt=0 only at Xt.' This is an acknowledged gap between the pointwise theoretical condition and the finite-sample objective; it weakens the guarantee that the learned f is sufficient, but it is not circular because the theoretical equivalence is not constructed from the heuristic loss. The paper contains some self-citations (e.g., Suzuki & Sugiyama 2010; Liu et al. 2017; Kim et al. 2021), but they are contextual or baselines and are not load-bearing for the zero-flow theorem. The skeptic's concern about Theorem 3.1 - that the converse requires non-vanishing characteristic functions, an assumption present in Lemma B.1 but omitted from the theorem statement - is a mathematical correctness issue, not circularity: the paper does not import its conclusion from its own prior work or define the criterion in terms of the target equality.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new entities are postulated; the method is defined by the velocity field and encoder already present in the setup. The free parameters are experiment-level hyperparameters, not fitted values used in the theorems. The main mathematical assumptions are the density/conditioning regularity, the non-vanishing characteristic function condition in Lemma B.1, and uniqueness of the continuity equation solution.

free parameters (3)
  • time-weighting bandwidth b for omega(t) = 5e-4
    Controls how sharply the zero-flow loss concentrates near t=0.5 in the experiments (Appendix D); hand-chosen.
  • Beta concentration alpha for time sampling = 4
    Time t is sampled from Beta(alpha,alpha); this emphasizes mid-time interpolation points and is a hand-set hyperparameter.
  • sparsity penalty lambda = 3e-9
    Weight on the L1 gate penalty for Markov blanket selection; directly determines which gates become nonzero and thus the reported blankets.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Source and target distributions admit densities and conditional expectations on measure-zero events are well defined
    The proofs condition on X'+X=z and X_t=x, which are measure-zero events for continuous data; Section 7 notes discrete variables are not directly supported.
  • domain assumption Characteristic functions of the two distributions are non-vanishing, or the division in the proof is otherwise justified
    Lemma B.1 explicitly assumes non-vanishing characteristic functions; Theorem 3.1 states an unconditional iff without carrying this assumption, so the only-if direction is not fully proven for distributions whose characteristic functions vanish (e.g., uniform).
  • domain assumption The continuity equation for the conditional flow has a unique solution
    Appendix B.3 uses this to conclude X(1) has the desired law; without uniqueness the conclusion X(1) ~ p_{X|f(Y)} is not guaranteed.
  • domain assumption The encoder family F is expressive enough to contain a sufficient statistic
    If no f in F achieves p_{X|Y}=p_{X|f(Y)}, the zero-flow loss cannot reach zero and no conditional independence is certified.
  • domain assumption In the SSL application, the global latent T is recoverable from each view Z1 or Z2
    Section 5.2 relies on this to equate Z1⊥⊥Z2|f(Z2) with the multi-view assumption; if a view omits T, the conditional independence target changes.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21140 in / 24066 out tokens · 245972 ms · 2026-08-03T05:55:01.343911+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Flow-based methods have achieved significant success in various generative modeling tasks, capturing nuanced details within complex data distributions. However, few existing works have exploited this unique capability to resolve fine-grained structural details beyond generation tasks. This paper presents a flow-inspired framework for representation learning. First, we demonstrate that a rectified flow trained using independent coupling is zero everywhere at $t=0.5$ if and only if the source and target distributions are identical. We term this property the \emph{zero-flow criterion}. Second, we show that this criterion can certify conditional independence, thereby extracting \emph{sufficient information} from the data. Third, we translate this criterion into a tractable, simulation-free loss function that enables learning amortized Markov blankets in graphical models and latent representations in self-supervised learning tasks. Experiments on both simulated and real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. The code reproducing our experiments can be found at: https://github.com/probabilityFLOW/zfe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.00797 by Leyang Wang, Song Liu, Taiji Suzuki, Yakun Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: “Zero-flow” phenomenon. Rectified flow trained on iden￾tical distributions (a Gaussian mixture) with independent coupling. At t = 0.5, the flow becomes stationary almost everywhere. An explanation of this phenomenon can be found in Section 3, and additional visualizations can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: X = 0.5Y + N (0, 1). Right: f(Y ) = σ(−2Y ) is a sufficient statistic for predicting X, thus vt=0.5 = 0 almost ev￾erywhere as predicted by Theorem 3.3. Center: f(Y ) = sin(2Y ) is not a sufficient statistic for predicting X, thus vt=0.5 ̸= 0, as predicted by Theorem 3.3. The vector fields are trained using a two-layer ReLU network with an empirical version of (5). The proof can be found in Section B.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Saturated SimCLR loss. On the watermarked CIFAR10 dataset, the loss quickly collapses to small values due to shortcuts. Right: The loss of the proposed method. The loss remains steady before and after the watermark is introduced. using Maximum Likelihood Estimation or Score Matching. For each partition Z = [Zm, Z−m], we need to specify and train a different model pZ,m. The number of models to train c… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The comparison of ROC curves in terms of graphical model structure recovery on truncated-Gaussian (left) and non￾paranormal (right) graphical models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fashion MNIST with and without random colors. The learned encodings (row 2 and 4) vs. the original images (row 1 and 3). It can be seen that zero-flow encoding continues to learn semantic information (e.g., the shapes of clothes) despite shortcut information (color) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Demonstration of the zero-flow property. (a) Independent coupling between X and X ′ . (b) Trajectories under the learned rectified flow. (c) Temporal snapshots of particles. (d) Learned velocity fields vθ(Xt, t) at various t, highlighting the vanishing point at t = 0.5. As shown by the orange trajectories in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The neural network architecture for learning Markov blanket Section 6.1 during inference time. where σβ is a two-layer ReLU network with 128 hidden units. The second type of encoder f(Y ; m) we consider is an LSTM encoder, where σβ is a bidirectional LSTM layer with 32 hidden units, and a linear projection layer mapping the output to d-dimensional. It is denoted as LSTMEncoder(d, 32), The third type of enc… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between true precision matrices and learned neural gates on two different graphical model structures. The non-zero gates align well with the non-zero entries of the true precision matrices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The identified Markov blankets (yellow) of target variables (red). The true graphical model (lattice) is visualized for convenience. The true Markov blanket is the set of neighbouring nodes of the red in the lattice. Top: Target variables observed during training. Below: Targets were unseen during training. E. Additional Results for Learning Markov Blanket in Section 6.1 E.1. Learning Structure of Graphic… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The neural network architecture for the representation learning Section 6.2. with a 3 × 3 kernel, stride 1, and padding 1, followed by a ReLU activation. The channel dimensions increase from 3 (RGB) to 16. 2. Channel Compression: A third convolutional layer maps the 16 feature channels down to a single channel (C = 1), maintaining the spatial resolution H × W. 3. Latent Projection: The resulting 1 × H × W… 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. Zero-Flow Two-Sample Tests

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Zero-flow two-sample test (ZF2ST) derives a test statistic from the midpoint conditional displacement of paired samples, learned on one split and evaluated on another, with valid type-I error control and strong power ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The scale of the cropped area is sampled uniformly from the range[0.8,1.0]of the original image area

    Random Resized Crop:A region of the image is randomly cropped and resized to a fixed resolution of 32×32 . The scale of the cropped area is sampled uniformly from the range[0.8,1.0]of the original image area

  2. [2]

    Random Horizontal Flip:The cropped image is horizontally mirrored with a probability of p= 0.5 , introducing reflection invariance. F.1.2. WATERMARKING VIARANDOMCOLORINJECTION In this strategy, we assign a random RGB vector to each image in the dataset, effectively ”watermarking” the originally grayscale inputs with a unique color profile, thereby providi...

  3. [3]

    Each block consists of a convolution 20 Zero-Flow Encoders Figure 11.The neural network architecture for the representation learning Section 6.2

    Feature Extraction:The input Y is passed through two convolutional blocks. Each block consists of a convolution 20 Zero-Flow Encoders Figure 11.The neural network architecture for the representation learning Section 6.2. with a 3×3 kernel, stride 1, and padding 1, followed by a ReLU activation. The channel dimensions increase from 3 (RGB) to 16

  4. [4]

    Channel Compression:A third convolutional layer maps the 16 feature channels down to a single channel ( C= 1 ), maintaining the spatial resolutionH×W

  5. [5]

    A fully connected (linear) layer projects this vector to the final latent dimensionL

    Latent Projection:The resulting 1×H×W feature map is flattened into a vector of size HW . A fully connected (linear) layer projects this vector to the final latent dimensionL. Formally, the encoder operation can be summarized as: z=Linear HW→L (Flatten(Conv16→1(. . .)))(37) F.2.2. DECODER The decoder,D(·), utilizes an upsampling strategy to reconstruct th...

  6. [6]

    Decoded ( ˆY) The latent vector reshaped to match the spatial dimensions, resulting a tensor: ˆY=D(f(Y))∈ R3×H×W

  7. [7]

    Time Embedding (t):The scalar time input is spatially expanded across the height and width, forming a constant feature mapT∈R 1×H×W . These four tensors are concatenated along the channel dimension to form the input tensorI in: Iin =Concat(x,Y, ˆY,T)∈R (3+3+3+1)×H×W =R 10×H×W (39) Convolutional ProcessingThe concatenated input Iin is processed by a shallo...

    2022

  8. [8]

    Patch Tokenization:The input image x∈R C×H×W is partitioned into non-overlapping 4×4 patches and linearly projected into a sequence of patch tokensX∈R N×D e, whereD e = 192andN=HW/16

  9. [9]

    3.Encoder Input:The visible patch tokens are concatenated with a learnable class token and passed to the encoder

    Random Masking:A random subset of patch tokens is removed according to a predefined mask ratio r= 0.75 , yielding a set of visible tokensX vis ∈R Nvis×De, whereN vis = (1−r)N. 3.Encoder Input:The visible patch tokens are concatenated with a learnable class token and passed to the encoder. Formally, the masking operation can be written as Xvis = SelectNvis...

    2021

  10. [10]

    These embeddings are implemented as learnable absolute positional embeddings and are jointly optimized with the encoder parameters

    Positional Encoding:Positional embeddings are added to each visible patch token to encode spatial information. These embeddings are implemented as learnable absolute positional embeddings and are jointly optimized with the encoder parameters

  11. [11]

    Class Token Injection:A learnable class token is augmented with its corresponding positional embedding and prepended to the sequence of visible patch tokens, serving as a global image-level representation

  12. [12]

    Layer normalization is applied to the encoder output

    Transformer Encoding:The resulting token sequence is processed by a Transformer encoder consisting of 12 Transformer blocks, each equipped with 3 self-attention heads. Layer normalization is applied to the encoder output. Formally, the encoder operation can be summarized as Henc = LN(Transformer12,3(Concat(c+p cls,X vis +P vis)))∈R (1+Nvis)×De ,(41) where...

  13. [13]

    These representations are then linearly projected from the encoder embedding dimension De to a lower-dimensional decoder embedding space with dimension Dd = 128

    Class Token Removal and Latent Projection:The class token is removed from the encoder output, yielding Hvis ∈R Nvis×De, which contains only the patch-level latent representations. These representations are then linearly projected from the encoder embedding dimension De to a lower-dimensional decoder embedding space with dimension Dd = 128

  14. [14]

    Mask Token Injection:Learnable mask tokens are appended to the projected latent representations to form a complete token sequence for decoding, corresponding to both visible and masked patches

  15. [15]

    These embeddings are optimized jointly with the decoder parameters

    Transformer Decoding and Patch Prediction:Learnable absolute positional embeddings are added to the restored token sequence to encode spatial information. These embeddings are optimized jointly with the decoder parameters. The position-augmented tokens are then processed by a Transformer decoder consisting of 2 Transformer blocks with 4 self-attention hea...

  16. [16]

    All encoder parameters are frozen

    Frozen Encoder with Global Average Pooling:A deep copy of the pretrained encoder is used to prevent any modification of the original model. All encoder parameters are frozen. To obtain a single image-level representation, global average pooling is applied to the encoder outputs: the class token is discarded, and the remaining patch token representations a...

  17. [17]

    Linear Classifier Training:A linear classifier LCθ is trained on top of the frozen encoder representations using labeled training data by minimizing the cross-entropy loss

  18. [18]

    Classification accuracy on this test set is reported as the linear probing performance

    Evaluation on Clean Test Data:The trained linear classifier is evaluated on a clean and normalized test set that is independent of the training data. Classification accuracy on this test set is reported as the linear probing performance. Formally, given an input image x and its label y∈ {1, . . . , K}, let z= LN 1 N PN i=1 Encoder(x)i denote the pooled en...