Mode Collapse Is Cheap to Detect: A Ground-Truth-Free Pre-Flight Check for Neural Samplers
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
Title:Mode Collapse Is Cheap to Detect: A Ground-Truth-Free Pre-Flight Check for Neural Samplers
Abstract:Neural samplers are trained against an unnormalised target $\tilde\pi=e^{-E}$ with no samples from $\pi$, which leaves the practitioner with no way to tell whether an expensive training run has silently dropped part of the target. The diagnostics in common use are computed from the model's own draws and are therefore confined to the model's support: we exhibit a sampler whose self-normalised effective sample size is $0.99$ while it misses $87\%$ of the target mass. We argue that \emph{detecting} missing mass is a strictly easier problem than sampling it: detection needs one point per missed basin plus a local curvature estimate, whereas correction needs the sampler retrained. We turn this into a pre-flight check that consumes a few percent of the sampler's own training budget and uses only $E$, $\nabla E$ and $\nabla^2 E$. On Gaussian-mixture, Many-Well and rotated anisotropic Many-Well targets with exactly computable ground truth, the check estimates the missing mass to within $10^{-3}$ at $2.7\%$ of training cost, where a tuned annealed SMC reference needs $70$--$280\%$ of training cost to do worse. It also applies unchanged to a controlled-SDE sampler that has no tractable density, where ESS and the ELBO cannot be formed at all. The estimator carries a \emph{self-diagnostic} that, without ground truth, is conservative in the safe direction: across $60$ configurations it clears $16$, of which $15$ are accurate to $10^{-2}$ or better. We are explicit about what this does and does not license: the check cheaply produces evidence of missing mass, and sometimes evidence that the search has stabilised, but it cannot certify a run, and its thresholds are heuristic. We then map the boundary of the method on a real physical landscape, LJ-13, and report where it fails and why.
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2609.26272 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2609.26272v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.26272
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
Stable and Faithful Explanations for Knowledge Tracing
Sep 25
-
SMILESGNN: Interpretable Clinical Toxicity Prediction via SMILES-Graph Cross-Attention Fusion
Sep 25
-
CFD Correction of Open Tip Clearance Flow in a Compressor Cascade Using VAE Latent Space Adaptation
Sep 25
-
CARE: Condition-Aware Representation Regularization for Diffusion Models
Sep 25
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.