From the Expectation Maximisation Algorithm to Autoencoded Variational Bayes

Graham W. Pulford

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2010.13551

From the Expectation Maximisation Algorithm to Autoencoded Variational Bayes

Graham W. Pulford

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Although the expectation maximisation (EM) algorithm was introduced in 1970, it remains somewhat inaccessible to machine learning practitioners due to its obscure notation, terse proofs and lack of concrete links to modern machine learning techniques like autoencoded variational Bayes. This has resulted in gaps in the AI literature concerning the meaning of such concepts like "latent variables" and "variational lower bound," which are frequently used but often not clearly explained. The roots of these ideas lie in the EM algorithm. We first give a tutorial presentation of the EM algorithm for estimating the parameters of a $K$-component mixture density. The Gaussian mixture case is presented in detail using $K$-ary scalar hidden (or latent) variables rather than the more traditional binary valued $K$-dimenional vectors. This presentation is motivated by mixture modelling from the target tracking literature. In a similar style to Bishop's 2009 book, we present variational Bayesian inference as a generalised EM algorithm stemming from the variational (or evidential) lower bound, as well as the technique of mean field approximation (or product density transform). We continue the evolution from EM to variational autoencoders, developed by Kingma & Welling in 2014. In so doing, we establish clear links between the EM algorithm and its variational counterparts, hence clarifying the meaning of "latent variables." We provide a detailed coverage of the "reparametrisation trick" and focus on how the AEVB differs from conventional variational Bayesian inference. Throughout the tutorial, consistent notational conventions are used. This unifies the narrative and clarifies the concepts. Some numerical examples are given to further illustrate the algorithms.

Explore related subjects

stat.ML cs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Graham W. Pulford. 2021-05-04. From the Expectation Maximisation Algorithm to Autoencoded Variational Bayes. https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.13551

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Optimal Learning Rate Schedules under Functional Scaling Laws: Power Decay and Warmup-Stable-Decay

We study optimal learning rate (LR) schedules under the functional scaling law (FSL) framework (Li et al., 2025), which decomposes training dynamics into signal learning and noise forgetting. In power-law kernel regression, these two components are governed by a source exponent $s>0$ and a capacity exponent $q>1$, respectively, with smaller $s$ corresponding to harder tasks. For a fixed training horizon $N$, we characterize the schedules that minimize the final-step loss under a stability constraint and reveal a sharp phase transition. In the easy-task regime $s>1-1/q$, the optimal schedule follows power decay from the beginning of training; in the hard-task regime $s<1-1/q$, it becomes warmup-stable-decay (WSD)-like (Hu et al., 2024), staying at the largest admissible LR for most of training before a final decay. In both regimes, the decay exponent is $2q-1$: task difficulty determines when to decay, while model capacity determines how to decay. Beyond the exact optimum, we study fractional schedules, whose shape is defined over relative training progress. We show that precise tuning of the decay shape is often unnecessary: a broad class of profiles attains the optimal convergence rate, while overly slow terminal decay leads to schedule-induced capacity saturation. Finally, for one-pass SGD in kernel regression, FSL-motivated power-decay schedules achieve optimal last-iterate rates. Experiments support the theoretical predictions and the task-dependent transition between early and delayed decay.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2026

Differential Privacy of Gaussian Process Posterior Sampling

We study the privacy of releasing functional posterior sample paths from a Gaussian process (GP) when the entire training set including covariates and responses is private. Unlike standard differential-privacy (DP) mechanisms that inject external noise, posterior sampling is intrinsically random and we show that this randomness provides useful privacy guarantees. We derive Rényi-DP guarantees separating privacy leakage through the posterior mean from a distinct channel induced by the data-dependent posterior covariance. The analysis identifies effective ridge regularisation and covariance scale as the principal privacy-controlling quantities and yields sharper guarantees in several regimes of practical interest as well as extensions to repeated and adaptive releases. Membership inference attacks confirm the predicted dependence on regularisation, covariance scale and the number of released paths. Utility experiments on downstream posterior sampling tasks identify noisy observation regimes where privacy-compatible regularisation preserves useful samples. Finally we identify large-data asymptotic regime in which the privacy parameter and posterior mean-square risk vanish simultaneously, yielding privacy for free. Together, these results provide a comprehensive characterisation of privacy and utility of GP posterior sampling.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2026

Optimal Transport for Network Comparison: A Unified Review with New Spectral Bounds and Machine Learning Applications

Network comparison using optimal transport is a growing area of research in network science. Unlike standard graph metrics, optimal transport computes both network dissimilarity and a transport plan that explains how one graph morphs into another. In this paper, we review how optimal transport compares undirected, unweighted simple graphs using three primary distances: the Wasserstein, Gromov-Wasserstein, and Bures-Wasserstein distances. We examine the closed form of the Wasserstein distance in one dimension via node feature probability distributions, and show how the transport plans of the Wasserstein and Gromov-Wasserstein distances visualize how mass is shifted to transform one network into another. Beyond reviewing existing transport-based approaches, we establish new spectral lower and upper bounds for the Bures-Wasserstein distance and characterize the tightness of the lower bound under eigenbasis perturbations. Finally, we evaluate these distances using a synthetic network dataset for clustering and a real-world temporal network.

stat.ML↗