A Metalearned Neural Circuit for Nonparametric Bayesian Inference

Authors: jake c snell
gianluca m bencomo
thomas l griffiths
Venue: NeurIPS_cc_2024_Conference
Published: 2024-05-15 15:46:57

Abstract: Most applications of machine learning to classification assume a closed set of balanced classes. This is at odds with the real world, where class occurrence statistics often follow a long-tailed power-law distribution and it is unlikely that all classes are seen in a single sample. Nonparametric Bayesian models naturally capture this phenomenon, but have significant practical barriers to widespread adoption, namely implementation complexity and computational inefficiency. To address this, we present a method for extracting the inductive bias from a nonparametric Bayesian model and transferring it to an artificial neural network. By simulating data with a nonparametric Bayesian prior, we can metalearn a sequence model that performs inference over an unlimited set of classes. After training, this "neural circuit" has distilled the corresponding inductive bias and can successfully perform sequential inference over an open set of classes. Our experimental results show that the metalearned neural circuit achieves comparable or better performance than particle filter-based methods for inference in these models while being faster and simpler to use than methods that explicitly incorporate Bayesian nonparametric inference.

Main paper: 
 introduction: 
 Standard machine learning approaches to classification assume that the set of possible classes is known a priori. Classification in this setting thus involves selecting the most appropriate class label from a closed set. However, this is not the case for human learners. Imagine European explorers in Australia seeing a kangaroo for the first time. Rather than trying to classify this observation into an existing class -is it a deer or a rabbit? -they recognized that a new class needs to be created. Although this is easy for humans, current machine learning systems struggle to identify novel classes and use them in predictions [46] .Bayesian statistics offers an elegant solution to the problem of novel classes: define a model in a way that does not make a commitment to an upper bound on the number of classes. This idea is expressed in nonparametric Bayesian models, namely the Dirichlet process mixture model (DPMM) [3] . In this model, a new data point is assumed to be generated from an existing class with probability proportional to the number of previous observations from that class and from a new class with a probability proportional to α, a hyperparameter of the model. This makes it possible to both postulate Despite their elegance, nonparametric Bayesian models have fallen out of favor in machine learning, as they are difficult to reconcile with the current focus on large-scale models defined over complex objects such as images. The scalability of non-parametric Bayesian models is limited due to the high computational cost of Bayesian inference, typically requiring the use of sampling algorithms such as Markov chain Monte Carlo [44] or particle filters [23] . Applying these models to complex objects requires creativity in defining generative models that are sufficiently expressive without making inference intractable. Furthermore, most standard Bayesian inference algorithms are not designed to perform sequential inference, instead assuming that all data are presented in a single batch.In this paper we pursue a different approach to inference in nonparametric Bayesian models: training a recurrent neural network (RNN) to approximate the posterior distribution over classes from a DPMM. We formulate this problem as one of metalearning, repeatedly sampling a sequence of class memberships and observations from the DPMM and training the model to predict the class of each observation conditioned on the class labels of those preceding it. The resulting neural circuit (Figure 1 ) internalizes the inductive bias of the nonparametric Bayesian model used to generate the training tasks. It can then be used as a component in deep neural networks, extending nonparametric Bayesian methods to complex objects such as images.Our approach combines the elegance of Bayesian nonparametric models with the predictive power of deep learning in a principled and practical manner. The discriminative nature of the RNN allows it to classify complex inputs without making the restrictive distributional assumptions required by standard Bayesian inference algorithms. Since RNNs are sequence models, the neural circuit can efficiently make predictions for a sequence of observations as each successive predictive distribution is computed in constant time. We apply our neural circuit to a challenging open-set image classification tasks from the ImageNet [51] and iNaturalist [61] datasets and show it achieves excellent predictive performance at a fraction of the computational cost of standard DPMM inference algorithms.Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope? Answer: [Yes] Justification: Our proposed approach is discussed in Section 3 and experimental justification for its effectiveness is contained in Section 4.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper. • The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made in the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or NA answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers. • The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results can be expected to generalize to other settings. • It is fine to include aspirational goals as motivation as long as it is that these goals are not attained by the paper. 
background: 
 Consider the task of a learner classifying objects in a new environment. The learner encounters a sequence of items x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x T . After an item x t is observed, the learner attempts to predict its class label. The learner is then presented with the true class label z t , updates internal representations as necessary, and repeats the procedure for timestep t + 1. The predictive distribution over the entire sequence of labels z 1:T = z 1 , . . . , z T can be written as p(z 1:T |x 1:T ) = p(z 1 |x 1 ) T t=2 p(z t |x 1:t , z 1:t-1 ).(EQUATIONWe first review Dirichlet process mixture models, which provide a framework for expressing (1) as posterior inference over z 1:T without restricting the labels to belong to a closed set. We then review the particle filter of Fearnhead [23] , which provides a method for sequentially computing the predictive distribution through the use of weighted particles representing assignments of class labels.The nonparametric Bayesian solution to the prediction task presented above involves infinite mixture models, the most notable of which is the Dirichlet process mixture model (DPMM) [3, 22, 47] . There are two components to the DPMM: a distribution over class memberships and a class-conditional distribution over observations. In this model, observations are generated from latent classes, where the distribution over classes places no limit on the number of classes. The joint probability follows a Markov process on z 1:T and assumes class-conditional independence for x 1:T :EQUATIONThe conditional distribution on class memberships p(z t |z 1:t-1 ) is relatively simple:EQUATIONwhere n k denotes the number of occurrences of class k in z 1 , . . . , z t-1 , and by convention the value of k for a new class is taken to be one greater than the number of classes observed so far. This process is known as the Chinese restaurant process (CRP) [1] .The conditional distribution over observations is p(x t | z t = k) = g(x t |φ k ), where g(•|φ) is some probability function with parameter φ. Each φ k is in turn distributed according to a shared prior π(φ k ) for k = 1, 2, . . .. The predictive distribution over class assignments (1) can be derived by a simple application of Bayes' rule to the joint distribution (2) .Direct computation of the posterior in a DPMM is intractable, and therefore several methods have been developed to perform approximate inference using methods such as MCMC [44] and variational inference [9] . However, these methods typically assume that all observations are presented simultaneously and do not attempt to handle the sequential nature inherent to our problem formulation.One notable method that does aim to perform sequential inference of class labels in the DPMM is the particle filter proposed by Fearnhead [23] . Particle filters maintain a set of weighted particles at each timestep that approximate the posterior distribution over latent variables [14, 19] . At each timestep, a particle filter propagates a set of particles forward in time by first sampling a new set of states from a transition distribution and then assigning weights according to a potential function chosen such that the set of weighted particles approximates the target posterior distribution.In order to make inference tractable in the DPMM setting, Fearnhead [23] assumes that g(x|φ) belongs to the exponential family and π(φ) is the corresponding conjugate prior. In this case, it is possible to marginalize over φ when computing the posterior predictive distribution for a class. Suppose that x i ∼ g(x i |φ) for i = 1, . . . , n + 1. Since the posterior p(φ|x 1:n ) has the same form as the conjugate prior π(φ), there exists a closed form expression for the posterior predictive distributionEQUATIONEach particle in the method of Fearnhead [23] represents an entire trajectory of class labels up to the current timestep. Suppose that after t timesteps there are J particles z (j) 1:t each with weight w j ≥ 0 for j = 1, . . . , J such that J j=1 w j = 1. For each particle, the transition distribution is:EQUATIONwhere the likelihood term p(x t+1 |x 1:t , z1:t , z t+1 = k) can be computed in closed form according to (4). If k represents a new class, this will be the prior predictive probability instead.Two major shortcomings of the particle filter are that it makes restrictive distributional assumptions (the class conditional distribution needs to be exponential family) and requires many particles in order to sufficiently approximate the posterior. In the next section, we present our metalearned neural circuit which is aimed at addressing these issues.Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors? Answer: [Yes] Justification: Limitations are discussed in Section 6.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper. • The authors are encouraged to create a separate "Limitations" section in their paper.• The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to violations of these assumptions (e.g., independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification, asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect on how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be. • The authors should reflect on the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach was only tested on a few datasets or with a few runs. In general, empirical results often depend on implicit assumptions, which should be articulated. • The authors should reflect on the factors that influence the performance of the approach.For example, a facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution is low or images are taken in low lighting. Or a speech-to-text system might not be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails to handle technical jargon. • The authors should discuss the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size. • If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and fairness. • While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might be used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, a worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play an important role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations. 
metalearning a neural circuit: 
 We propose a novel amortized inference approach for class inference in the DPMM, based on metalearning a recurrent neural network (RNN) to predict class memberships. By applying metalearning to tasks defined by sampling data from a DPMM, the RNN can effectively internalize the corresponding inductive bias in a reusable neural network, hence the name neural circuit.Our approach is inspired in part by the observation that the updates of the particle filter in Section 2.2 can be implemented by accumulating sufficient statistics of observations. Recall that an exponential family distribution and its conjugate prior can be expressed in terms of natural parameters η:EQUATIONwhere t(x) are the sufficient statistics and A(η) is the log normalizer. The posterior after observing x 1:n is of the same form as the prior, namely p(η | τ ′ , ν ′ ) whereEQUATIONFrom this perspective, the particle filter can be implemented by first initializing the representation of each class to be τ , ν. Then the sufficient statistics t(x t ) for each observation are extracted and used to update the corresponding class's τ after the true label is revealed.An analogous computation is carried out by a recurrent network, which given some input x t and previous hidden state h t-1 , computes an updated hidden representation h t and an output u t :EQUATIONThe differences with respect to the particle filter are twofold: the representation of each cluster is no longer separate but shared in h t , and the representations are learnable end-to-end.We also recognize that the output u t can be the basis for predicting the current class label, and h t can be made to capture the updated current state of all classes simultaneously. To predict the current class label, the RNN's output u t is mapped to a provisional logit a t using a learnable weight matrix W and bias vector b. The logits are then additively masked by m t , which preserves the logit as long as predicting the corresponding class would be valid (i.e. the class label is at most one greater than any previously seen class label). The input to the RNN at each timestep is the concatenation of the current observation x t and a one-hot representation of the previous label z t-1 (all zeros when t = 1). The predictive distribution is therefore defined to be:EQUATIONa t = Wu t + b m tk = 0 k ≤ 1 + max z 1:t-1 -∞ otherwise, u t , h t ← RNN θ ([x t , ONE-HOT(z t-1 )], h t-1 ),where γ ≜ {θ, W, b} are learnable parameters.In order to learn these weights, we turn to metalearning. In metalearning, a system is presented with a set of tasks sampled from a distribution over tasks. The goal is to leverage the shared structure of these tasks not only to become better at solving each individual task but also to solve future tasks better, effectively "learning to learn" [4, 8, 30, 56] . This is done by estimating a set of hyperparameters shared across tasks. In our case, these are the weights of the neural circuit, which we metalearn by minimizing negative log-likelihood of item-label sequences generated by a DPMM.Let z 1:T be generated according to a CRP (3) and x t | z t = k be generated according to some (possibly unknown) distribution g(x t |φ k ) for t = 1, . . . , T . Let D denote this joint distribution over (z 1:T , x 1:T ). We defineEQUATIONwhere the minimization is performed via a gradient-based optimization procedure. This metalearning approach can be applied equally well whether the the form of the class-conditional distributions is known or not, since all that is required are samples from the joint distribution. If the class-conditional distribution is unknown, it is taken to be the empirical distribution constructed from a dataset by placing an evenly-weighted point mass on each sample within a class.Relationship to Amortized Inference Our method can be viewed as a form of amortized inference, wherein a function (e.g. represented by a deep neural network) is learned to directly map from inputs to an approximate posterior distribution over latent variables [35, 49] . Amortized inference is similar to discriminative classification in that it directly maps from inputs to class labels, but it can also be viewed as approximate Bayesian inference within the generative modeling framework. Networks trained to perform amortized inference are sensitive to the choice of prior, since different priors will lead to different posteriors, the KL-divergence to which will be minimized during learning. In a similar fashion, our method is also affected by the choice of DPMM prior as different priors change the distribution over sequence that the neural circuit is trained on.Relationship to Metalearning A variety of methods have been used to learn shared hyperparameters to solve a set of related tasks problem for deep neural networks [2, 24, 48, 53, 63] , but our approach is most similar to those in which a recurrent neural network is trained to perform multiple tasks [20, 65] . This approach is more typically used in reinforcement learning, defining a system that learns a global meta-policy that supports efficient learning on specific tasks. The resulting RNNs have been shown to encode information equivalent to a Bayesian posterior distribution [40] , making them a good candidate for metalearning amortized Bayesian inference.Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and a complete (and correct) proof? Answer: [NA]Answer: [Yes] Justification: Code is made available at https://github.com/jakesnell/neural-circuits.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code. • Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted. 
experiments: 
 We apply the neural circuit on three data settings: a synthetic dataset where the form of the DPMM is known, sequences of labels generated from a CRP on ImageNet [51] , and sequences sampled directly from the long-tailed iNaturalist 2018 species classification dataset [61] . The goal of our experiments is to compare both the predictive performance and computational efficiency of the neural circuit to standard sequential inference techniques for the DPMM.Our main experimental point of comparison is the particle filter of Fearnhead [23] discussed in Section 2.2. For a non-Bayesian baseline, we compare to a softmax-based classifier that augments the distribution over K known classes at time t with an additional logit representing the possibility of a new class. The logit representing the new class is derived using the maximum entropy principle [33] by introducing the constraint that the marginal probability that z t is a new class be equal to α/(t -1 + α) (please refer to Appendix B for more details). We refer to this baseline as "Softmax + Energy."We consider two main evaluation scenarios. The first, referred as the sequential observation setting, measures the quality of a model's predictions when the true class label is provided after each prediction. We report the average predictive negative log-likelihood (NLL) averaged across timesteps and corresponding perplexity. The second setting quantifies how well the model predicts when there is no feedback about the true class labels (we refer to this as the fully unobserved setting). We compare the maximum a posteriori (MAP) prediction of the model against the true sequence of class labels using standard clustering metrics, including the adjusted Rand index (ARI) [31] and adjusted mutual information score (AMI) [62] . In both settings, we compare computational efficiency by evaluating the wall clock compute time per sequence to make predictions. Please refer to Appendix D for additional experimental details.We first evaluate performance of the neural circuit on a synthetically generated DPMM dataset. Our aim is to determine whether the neural circuit can match performance of the particle filter when the class-conditional distributions belong to the exponential family with a known prior. Specifically, we use a normal-inverse-gamma prior and Gaussian class conditional distributions with unknown mean and variance. For each dimension d = 1, . . . , D, the form of the class-conditional distribution is:σ 2 d ∼ Γ -1 (a, b) µ d ∼ N (m, σ 2 d /λ) x d ∼ N (µ d , σ 2 d ),where m, λ, a, and b are known hyperparameters. We set the length of the sequences to T = 100 and chose D = 2, m = 0, λ = 0.01, and α = β = 2. Several sequences drawn from this distribution are shown in Figure 2 . We directly set the hyperparameters of the particle filter to their true values. The results of our evaluation can be found in Table 1 . The Softmax + Energy baseline is significantly slower than the other methods due to solving for weights after each timestep. Although its NLL is better than the CRP, the average perplexity is worse due to the presence of some sequences where NLL is quite poor. These sequences are accentuated due to exponentiation in the formula for computing perplexity. We find that although the particle filter performs best on negative log-likelihood, the neural circuit provides better clusterings in the fully unobserved setting. We hypothesize this is due to the particle filter's insufficient exploration of the posterior over labelings stemming from its reliance on particles. We also find that neural circuit inference is roughly 5× faster than the particle filter in the sequential observation setting and roughly 10× faster in the fully unobserved setting. [29] . Our goal is to determine whether the neural circuit can effectively scale up to a high dimensional space where the form of the class-conditional distribution is unknown.We downloaded the weights of a pretrained ResNet-18 from TIMM [66] and extracted the 512dimensional penultimate layer activations from the entire ILSVRC 2012 dataset [51] . We split the 1,000 classes into 500 reserved for training (meta-train classes) and 500 for testing (meta-test classes). We generate sequences by sampling z 1:N from a CRP with α = 1.0, assigning each distinct value of z n to a class uniformly at random, and then sampling the corresponding observation x n uniformly from the images belonging to that class. We call this data-generating procedure ImageNet-CRP.We metalearn the neural circuit with the same architecture and optimization procedure as in Section 4.1. For the particle filter, additional care needs to be taken to model the sparse nonnegative ResNet features that are produced by a ReLU activation. We modeled this using a hurdle [16] model with log-normal distribution over nonegative values. This model posits a log-normal distribution over the nonnegative values and a point mass at zero: It can be shown (see Appendix A for details) that x d can be expressed as being drawn from exponential family with a Beta prior on the hurdle probability p d and a normal-inverse-gamma prior on the lognormal parameters µ d and σ 2 d . We apply this exponential family model independently to each of the 512 dimensions. Since the optimal hyperparameters for the particle filter are a priori unknown, we metalearn the hyperparameters of the conjugate prior using the same minibatch setup as the neural circuit and Adam with learning rate of 0.1. Note that gradient estimation with respect to the hyperparameters is possible in the particle filter since the NLL of a sequence with sequential observations can be computed without the use of particles.EQUATIONThe results of this experiment are show in Table 2 . Despite the effort to adapt the particle filter to this setting by carefully selecting the exponential family model, the neural circuit outperforms the particle filter by a large margin, both in terms of predictive performance and computational efficiency. Here, fully unobserved inference in the neural circuit is over 100× faster than the particle filter, since exponential family inference in the particle filter must be performed separately over each of the 512 dimensions. As expected, predictive performance of the neural circuit drops when evaluating on novel classes drawn from the meta-test set, as these novel classes represent patterns of activations the circuit has not encountered during metalearning. However, the neural circuit still significantly outperforms the particle filter even in this difficult setting. Importantly, the architecture and training procedure of the neural circuit is identical to our setup in the experiment with synthetic data (Section 4.1), which speaks to the versatility of our method. In order to test the robustness of our neural circuits to a strong form of distribution shift, we apply circuits trained using ImageNet-CRP to open-set classification on the long-tailed iNaturalist 2018 dataset [61] . iNaturalist consists of 437,513 images, each having labels at 7 taxonomic levels: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. We therefore consider 7 versions of the task, each treating a different taxonomic level as the class label. This setting represents a distribution shift not only in the images but also in the label statistics (though long-tailed, they are no longer drawn from a CRP).Due to the fine-grained nature of iNaturalist 2018, for this section we modify the training of the neural circuits on ImageNet-CRP in several ways. First, we extlnd the sequence length to 500 during metalearning. The lower levels of the taxonomy have a large number of classes, meaning that the expected number of images per class is low for sequences of length 100. Second, we train a range of neural circuits, each with a different value of α ∈ {1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200}. This is because the coarser levels of the taxonomy may be better represented by low values of α and the finer levels better represented by large values of α. Third, we use an ImageNet class split of 350 meta-train, 350 meta-validation, and 300 meta-test in order to mitigate the potential risk of overfitting.Our baseline is a CRP with α tuned to provide the best performance on that task. For each taxonomic level, we evaluate the neural circuit trained with the α most similar to the CRP-tuned oracle α. This is meant to emulate the setting in which a learner has only a rough estimate of the level of diversity expected when encountering a new environment. In order to help bridge the input distribution shift, we also apply an affine transformation and ReLU activation on top of the ResNet-18 features extracted from iNaturalist. The weights of this layer are trained using a small number (n = 10) of training sequences and early stopping is performed on the basis of validation sequences (n = 10). The weights of the neural circuit remain frozen. A neural circuit that performs better than the CRP means that transfer from ImageNet-CRP to iNaturalist has successfully occurred. We construct test sequences from iNaturalist by sampling 1,000 randomly permuted sequences of length 100. Our results (Table 3 ) show that positive transfer indeed occurs for three of the seven levels, indicating that the neural circuit is able to successfully transfer to novel open-set classification tasks in spite of distribution shift in both label and image statistics. Interestingly, the levels at which the neural circuit performs best are the higher levels, which there are likely to be multiple images per category.We additionally perform an analysis to examine the effect of mismatch in α between meta-train and meta-test. Our results (see Appendix C.2) indicate that for low-moderate levels of α, it may be beneficial to train on α slightly higher than anticipated, whereas for larger values of α, it is best to match these statistics at meta-train time. 
related work: 
 Approximate solutions for nonparametric Bayesian models have historically used Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) [44] or variational inference [64] , with examples including Gaussian processes [60] , Indian-Buffet processes [18, 59] , and the Dirichlet process models we consider here [9, 47] . These approaches, however, assume a batch setting that is not efficient for sequential inference.Inference can be made more efficient in sequential settings by considering online variational inference with fixed update costs [10] or various forms of variational particle filtering [37, 42, 52] . However, overly restrictive distributional assumptions (e.g. exponential family) can hinder performance when working with complex feature spaces such as neural network representations.Amortized inference [35, 49] is better suited to complex problem domains since it learns a function that maps directly from inputs to an approximate posterior distribution, effectively amortizing the cost of variational inference. Several works have considered amortized inference over Dirichlet priors [21, 34, 43] , Gaussian process priors [11] , and nested Chinese Restaurant Process priors [26] . Similar to the classic approaches mentioned above, these methods belong to the family of batch inference solutions. Sequential variational autoencoders [15, 25, 28, 38] offer an online solution but none of these approaches are suitable for sequential inference in a DPMM.Our neural circuit approach offers a scalable solution to sequential nonparametric Bayesian inference in a DPMM. We do so by using metalearning to incorporate the inductive bias of a nonparametric Bayesian model into the learned network rather explicitly instantiating such a model. This is reminiscent of previous metalearning approaches that train with "episodes" [63] to learn a general prior distribution over weight initializations [24, 27] , languages [39] , or supervised regression and classification problems [41] . Similarly, our method can be viewed as learning an implicit application of Bayes' rule in a sequential setting [5] where meta-learning defines Bayesian updates over complicated distributional assumptions [45] . We use sequences of observations and labels that can also be viewed as a kind of episode, but our goal is different: we aim to perform sequential inference over an unbounded number of classes. Compared to the previously mentioned approaches using variational inference or amortized inference, we leverage metalearning to directly learn a distribution over class labels rather than jointly learning encoder and decoder networks to maximize a variational lower bound on the log likelihood of the observations. Related to our aims, the goal of open set recognition (OSR) is, broadly speaking, to detect previously unseen classes while accurately predicting known classes [54] . Several early approaches to OSR focus solely on detecting previously unseen classes, either using traditional machine learning methods [12, 13, 32, 55, 68] and, more recently, creating neural networks with open-set capabilities [7, 17, 57] . Bendale and Boult [6] first treated OSR as an incremental learning problem by using extracted image features to perform metric learning over known classes initially, and performing incremental class learning thereafter. This method employs thresholded distances from the nearest class mean as its decision function. Rudd et al. [50] advanced this approach by introducing distributional information into the thresholding process. Both methods rely on large datasets of known classes. [36] introduced a metalearning formulation of OSR based on thresholding prototypical embeddings [58] to address this limitation. Similarly, Willes et al. [67] proposed a method called FLOWR that combines prototypical embeddings with Bayesian nonparametric class priors. These methods operate in the sequential observation setting, observing the true class label after every prediction, and explicitly learn a metric space end-to-end instead of performing inference over arbitrary input features (including possibly representations extracted from a pretrained network) as we do. The particle filter baselines [23] we compare against closely resemble a variant of FLOWR modified for our setting. 
conclusion: 
 We have proposed neural circuits for sequential nonparametric Bayesian inference: metalearning a recurrent neural network to capture the inductive bias of a DPMM that generates the training sequences. Our approach outperforms particle filter baselines in predictive performance while being more computationally efficient. Neural circuits are simple to implement and flexible enough to handle complex inputs with minimal modifications to their training procedure and architecture. In future work, we plan to use the neural circuit approach to capture inductive biases of more complex nonparametric Bayesian models with richer latent spaces.Two limitations of our neural circuit approach are i) the difficulty of metalearning as α → ∞, and ii) misspecification of the base distribution when there is a mismatch between the data generating distribution of meta-train and meta-test sets. Classical DPMMs specify these quantities explicitly, making modeling assumptions easier to identify and reason about. The process of meta-learninglearning the model itself from data -brings about different challenges. Care should be taken when deploying the model in scenarios where the diversity in labels differs greatly from metalearning. Additionally, large α values may be difficult to learn due to the infrequency of repeated class instances in meta-training sequences. In future work we plan to explore how these challenges can be addressed through curriculum learning.Neural circuits are broadly applicable to the growing use of foundation models and pre-trained networks. They bridge the gap between Bayesian nonparametric methods, which often make more appropriate assumptions for real-world scenarios, and the powerful representations of neural networks. This integration allows existing neural networks to be adapted for tasks such as open-set recognition within a principled and efficient Bayesian framework, without the need to retrain the base model. We anticipate that this approach can be used in a wide range of settings to be able to deploy interpretable models with more explicit inductive biases build on top of expressive representations for complex datasets.Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?Answer: [Yes] Justification: Experimental details may be found in Appendix D.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper to a level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them. • The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, or as supplemental material. 
experiment statistical significance: 
 Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?Answer: [Yes]Justification: The number of sequences used for evaluation is stated alongside each experimental result. Results across multiple training runs are reported in Appendix C.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests, at least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper. • The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions). • The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.) • The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors).• It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean. Justification: We have reviewed the code of ethics and agree to abide by them.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.• If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require a deviation from the Code of Ethics. • The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there is a special consideration due to laws or regulations in their jurisdiction). 
broader impacts: 
 Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?Answer: [Yes]Justification: Broader impacts are discussed in Section 6.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.• If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact. • Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations.• The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is a direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster. • The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology. • If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how a system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML). 
safeguards: 
 Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?Answer: [NA] Justification: We do not anticipate a high risk of misuse for our proposed model. Limitations and societal impacts are discussed in Section 6.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.• Released models that have a high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters. • Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images. • We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make a best faith effort.12. Licenses for existing assets Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?Answer: [Yes] Justification: Both the ImageNet [51] and iNaturalist 2018 [61] datasets are cited.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.• The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.• The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include a URL. • The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.• For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided. • If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswithcode.com/datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of a dataset. • For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if it has changed) should be provided. 
 
 Appendix: First we recall the form of an exponential family likelihood:EQUATION)The corresponding conjugate prior takes the following form:EQUATIONA.1 Beta-BernoulliWe first show how a Bernoulli likelihood and Beta conjugate prior can be expressed in terms of ( 13) and ( 14). This is a useful stepping stone towards the hurdle model, which contains the Bernoulli distribution as a component. Recall that for a Bernoulli likelihood Bern(x|θ),EQUATION) from which we recognizeη = log θ 1 -θ (17) t(x) = x A(η) = -log(1 -θ). Similarly, recall that for a Beta conjugate prior Beta(θ|a, b), p(θ|a, b) = Γ(a + b) Γ(a)Γ(b) θ a-1 (1 -θ) b-1 (18) τ = a -1 ν = a + b -2 B(τ, ν) = log Γ(a) + log Γ(b) -log Γ(a + b).Now suppose we have an arbitrary exponential family likelihood p(x|η) of the form (13) and a conjugate prior p(η|τ , ν) of the form (14) . Now define a hurdle model based on this likelihood to be:EQUATION)Intuitively, this is an application of a Bernoulli variable that gates whether the underlying exponential family likelihood is active or not. Observe that q(x| η) may be written as:q(x| η) = (1 -θ) (1-1{x̸ =0}) (θh(x) exp {⟨η, t(x)⟩ -A(η)}) 1{x̸ =0} (20) log q(x| η) = log(1 -θ) + 1 {x ̸ = 0} h(x) + ⟨η, t(x)1 {x ̸ = 0}⟩ + log θ 1 -θ -A(η) 1 {x ̸ = 0} (21)We can therefore recognize q(x| η) itself as exponential family:q(x| η) = h(x) exp{⟨ η, t(x)⟩ -Ã( η)} (22) η =      log θ 1-θ -A(η) η 1 η 2 . . .      t(x) =     1{x ̸ = 0} t 1 (x)1{x ̸ = 0} t 2 (x)1{x ̸ = 0} . . .     log h(x) = 1{x ̸ = 0} log h(x) Ã( η) = -log(1 -θ)We also posit a conjugate prior for q(x| η):q( η| τ , ν) = exp{⟨ τ , ν⟩ -ν Ã( η) -B( τ , ν)} (23) log q( η|τ , ν) = τ1 η1 + ⟨τ , η⟩ -ν Ã( η) -B( τ , ν)Now let Bern(x|θ) = h(x) exp{⟨η, t(x)⟩ -Ā(η)}, with definitions following from (17) . In this case, η = log θ 1-θ and thus Ã( η) = Ā(η). Moreover, η1 = η -A(η), and we can then writeEQUATION= ⟨τ , η⟩ -τ1 A(η) + τ1 η -ν Ā(η) -B(τ , ν), from which we recognize thatEQUATION)Therefore, the hurdle applied on top of an arbitrary exponential family likelihood can be expressed in terms of the underlying base model and the Beta-Bernoulli presented in Section A.1.The softmax + energy baseline is derived by viewing a standard logistic regression model through the lens of the maximum entropy principle [2] . Suppose that w 1 , . . . , w K are the vector of weights corresponding to each of K known classes (it is assumed that the input x has been augmented with an dummy 1 feature to capture a bias term). The predictive distribution is then:EQUATIONThis can be viewed as a maximum entropy distribution where each weight w kd is a Lagrange multiplier representing a constraint on E[I[y = k]x d ] under the model. Now in order to allow for y to take on the value K + 1, representing a new class, we introduce an additional constraint that the marginal probability that y = K + 1 follows the Chinese restaurant process β = α t-1+α , where t is the current timestep. The corresponding Lagrangian then becomes (discretizing x and setting D = 1 for simplicity of illustration):EQUATIONSetting ∂Q ∂p ki = 0 for k = 1, . . . , K and similarly for ∂Q ∂p K+1,i yields:EQUATIONEQUATION)Thus, we can compute the probability of a new class occurring as:EQUATION)which we recognize as a softmax with w k = -λ k for k = 1, . . . , K and -λ K+1 playing the role of an additional logit, which we will presently solve for. By setting ∂Q ∂λ K+1 = 0, it can be shown that e -λ K+1 = βZ. Substituting into (30) and solving for Z yields:EQUATION)Therefore, we have thatEQUATION)The derivation extends in the straightforward manner with D > 1. By considering infinitesimally small discretization and specifying a uniform measure m(x) over [-M, M ], it can be shown that:EQUATIONSimilarly, choosing a Gaussian measure m(x) = exp -x 2 2σ 2 producesEQUATION)We use (35) as the augmented new class logit in the ImageNet experiments as this better represents the state of knowledge for the ResNet-18 activations and similarly we use (36) for the 2-D synthetic DPMM augmented logits. We learn the weights of the logistic regression classifier after every timestep by using gradient descent with the Adam [3] optimizer.In this section, we include additional experimental results.In Figure 4 , we visualize the evolution of the neural circuit predictive distribution across timesteps. In this section, we evaluate the effect of a mismatch in α between meta-train and meta-test. We take the neural circuits trained on ImageNet-CRP from Section 4.3 and evaluate all possible combinations of meta-train and meta-test α. The results (Table 4 ) show that for low-moderate levels of α, it may be beneficial to train on α slightly higher than anticipated. This is likely due to their increased level of diversity. However, when evaluating on large values of α, it tends to be best to match these statistics at meta-train time. Similarly, we show in Table 6 the min, mean, and max results of neural circuits trained with 5 different random initializations.For all of our experiments neural circuit RNN cell was chosen to be a 2-layer gated recurrent unit (GRU) [1] with hidden size 1024. The maximum number of output logits was set to be equal to the sequence length used for metalearning, as this is the maximum number of classes that could possibly be encountered. Training was performed over 10,000 minibatches each of size 128 sequences of length 100 (256 sequences of length 500 for the iNaturalist experiments). The CRP coefficient was set to α = 1.0 for the synthetic and ImageNet-CRP experiments, and was set to a range of different values {1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200} in the iNaturalist experiments. The neural circuit was trained Table 6 : Results on ImageNet-CRP for 5 neural circuits each trained with a different random initialization. Results are summarized as the min, mean, and max of the 5 models. Inference times are reported in units of ms/sequence.Min. Mean Max.Meta-train NLL (↓) 0.239 0.255 0.272 Meta-train ARI (↑) 0.728 0.749 0.770 Meta-test NLL (↓) 0.668 0.680 0.696 Meta-test ARI (↑) 0.260 0.271 0.286 Inf. Time (Seq. Obs.) (↓) 0.066 0.067 0.068 Inf. Time (Fully Unobs.) (↓) 0.407 0.412 0.420 using Adam with learning rate 0.001 and the particle filter using learning rate 0.1. For the synthetic and ImageNet-CRP results, the tuning hyperparameters (e.g. model architecture, learning rates) were selected by monitoring training loss over the first several hundred minibatches and modifying as necessary. For the iNaturalist 2018 results, overfitting was monitored on a separate meta-validation class split. MAP prediction is implemented in the neural circuit by simply selecting the class label with highest predicted probability for each timestep.One random seed was used for training each method. The clustering metrics were computed using the adjusted_rand_score and adjusted_mutual_info_score functions from Scikit Learn [5] . Experiments were performed using NVIDIA A100 GPUs with 40 GB of GPU memory and 64 GB of CPU memory across 4 threads. Training of the neural circuits took approximately 6-8 hours per run.For the particle filter, we use 100 particles for inference and utilize an adaptive resampler that resamples according to a multinomial distribution over the particles whenever the effective sample size drops below 50. In the fully unobserved setting, we take the MAP prediction to be the particle with the largest weight after running the filter on a sequence.For the experiments in Section 4.2, the meta-training classes were taken to be the first 500 and the meta-test classes were taken to be the last 500 classes, as sorted by class ID. For Section 4.3, the meta-training classes were the first 350 classes, the meta-validation classes the next 350 classes, and the meta-test classes the final 300 classes, as sorted by class ID.All methods are implemented in PyTorch [4] and are GPU-enabled. Our code is available online1 .https://github.com/jakesnell/neural-circuits 


Decision: This paper proposes a novel method for performing inference with Bayesian nonparametric models, specifically Dirichlet Process Mixture Models (DPMMs), by leveraging recurrent neural networks (RNNs). The authors achieve this by first simulating data from a DPMM and then training an RNN to classify this data. The trained RNN, called a neural circuit, can then be used to perform inference over an unseen sequence of data, potentially containing new classes not observed during training. The paper presents the strengths of this method to be its ability to handle open-set classification tasks (classifying data with potentially new classes) and its efficiency compared to traditional particle filter methods for BNP inference.

Strengths:

The paper is well-written and clearly explains the proposed method, its motivation, and its background.
The idea of combining Bayesian nonparametric models with neural networks is original and with potential for impact.
The paper presents experiments on synthetic data and real-world image classification tasks demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed method.
The method offers advantages in terms of efficiency compared to traditional particle filter methods for BNP inference.

Weaknesses:

The reviewers raised concerns about the limited scope of the experiments, particularly the use of a pre-trained featurizer on the image classification tasks.
The lack of exploration of different network architectures and hyperparameters was also noted by some reviewers.
The paper could benefit from a more thorough comparison with existing open-set classification methods.
The limitations of the method, such as its potential sensitivity to model misspecification, should be discussed in more detail.

Recommendation:

All the reviewers voted for acceptance. I therefore recommend acceptance and encourage the authors to use the feedback provided to improve the paper for its final version.

Reviews: review: paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper proposes to use recurrent neural network (RNN) for classification with an open (non-fixed) number of class labels. This is motivated by non-parametric Bayesian models such as Dirichlet process mixture model and the iterative update on exponential family sufficient statistics in its particle filter methods. The latent state of RNN would resemble the iteratively updated sufficient statistic, and can be used for classifying data into previously seen or a first time occurring class label. Experiments on synthetic data and image data are provided, along with an extended study on robustness to distribution shift.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1. It seems that the proposed method only does the classification task, but looses the inference side of Bayesian nonparametric methods.
2. The ability to assign label to a class occurring for the first time is through the mask m_t in Eq.(10), whereas the dimensions of weight matrix W, mask m_t have to be pre-fixed. That is, we are not really assuming there can be infinitely many classes as in Bayesian nonparametric methods, but instead picking a large enough number and assuming that the number of classes is smaller (this is not necessarily a weakness, just some differences I noticed).
questions: questions: 1. Have you tried visualizing the learned weight matrix W? It would be interesting to see if the probability of introducing a new cluster decays with the number of data and the number of observed clusters like Chinese restaurant process.
2. How does the expected number of clusters scale with the number of data? Does the curve resemble some Pitman-Yor process?
3. How could I use this approach as an efficient approximation of Bayesian nonparametric methods and make inference (e.g. getting posterior distributions or some summary statistics of it)? I could imagine that we repeatedly draw random samples from the softmax probabilities in Eq.(10) instead of taking argmax, but this would just become another version of particle filter methods. Is there some better ways of doing this? If so, then weakness 1 wouldn't really be a weakness.
limitations: limitations: See weaknesses and questions.
paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper presents an approach for nonparametric Bayesian inference using metalearning to train a recurrent neural network (RNN) to perform sequential inference over an unbounded number of classes. The key contributions are: (a) method to extract the inductive bias from a Dirichlet process mixture model (DPMM) and transfer it to an RNN through metalearning, (b) "neural circuit" architecture that can perform fast sequential inference over an open set of classes after training and (c) experimental results showing the neural circuit achieves comparable or better performance than particle filter methods while being faster and simpler to use. The proposed approach consists of first generating training sequences from a DPMM prior. These sequences are then used to train an RNN to predict class labels sequentially. When trained to completion the RNN captures the underlying structure from the sequences (DPMM) and consequently can be used for fast inference. The authors include empirical results on synthetic data from a known DPMM, as well as more realistic experiments on ImageNet features with classes sampled from a Chinese Restaurant Process and a long-tailed iNaturalist species classification dataset. The neural circuit outperforms particle filter baselines in predictive performance and computational efficiency across these tasks.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: * While the results are certainly significant, I find the experimental analysis lacking in several aspects. Firstly, the experiments in the more realistic open set image classification task are limited by fixing a pretrained featurizer to embed the image into a lower dimensional vector. This removes significant complexity from the inference task and also means the method already has access to some information about the underlying inference task. This also makes the experiments of transfer to the iNaturalist task a bit less impressive since the ResNet featurizer already embeds the images in a "similar" space.
* The authors also perform all the experiments using a relatively small RNN (2-layer GRU). There isn't much of a discussion on how this particular architecture was chosen and more importantly there are no experiments to understand the effect of this choice. As this is a largely empirical paper, it is important to study these design choices. For instance, how does the performance vary if we use a larger RNN or if we use a transformer instead? Other such design choices are also not accounted for.
* The comparison is somewhat limited to particle filter baseline, and despite the focus on open-set image classification, there is no consideration for other standard baselines for the task [2]. 
* Another limitation of the approach is robustness to model misspecifcation. Distilling the structure of a (fixed) DPMM into a RNN can make it harder to generalize to data coming from different (unknown) data generating process.

[2] Large-Scale Open-Set Classification Protocols for ImageNet. Andres Palechor, Annesha Bhoumik, Manuel Günther. WACV 2023.
questions: questions: Please see weaknesses section above.
limitations: limitations: The authors discuss the limitations of the method in the conclusion, but I would also encourage them to discuss some of the aspects I highlight in the Weaknesses section.
paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper proposes a novel method for inference for Bayesian nonparametric models through an amortized approach. After simulating data from a Dirichlet Process Mixture Model, a Recurrent Neural Net is trained to characterise the relationship between the simulated data and the parameters, and consequently characterise the posterior distribution. Comparisons are made with a particle filter method for sequential inference for a DPMM, and experiments are run on simulated data, and image classification tasks using pre-trained neural net activations as inputs.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: The experiments are not thorough: they each use one random seed per method, which gives no indication as to the uncertainty or robustness of the results. This is especially confusing, since the authors make a point of describing the new method as being faster than existing methods.

The computational resources needed for training the neural net are quite expensive, so maybe tone down the enthusiasm about this method being so computationally efficient. At least make clear that this method makes effective use of a generous budget of compute resources.

The examples used are interesting but quite limited in scope: the first example is (reasonably enough) a simple mixture of Gaussians, and the subsequent examples are practical but involve somewhat esoteric knowledge of using pre-trained neural nets as training data and similar. The article would benefit from a clustering example based on real observational data, as hinted at in the introduction. This would make the methods and article much more approachable for a more general audience

Line 17/57: I wouldn’t call a mixture model a “classification model” exactly: that word is normally associated with supervised learning and known discrete labels. This is more generally considered “clustering”

Line 76: “Chinese restaurant process” might need a little explaining for people who haven’t heard the analogy before. Otherwise good!
questions: questions: Can this method be adapted for non-streaming data? Would a more general class of neural network architecture work for a different data paradigm? 

Have you considered a comparison with finite parametric mixture models, or overfitted finite mixtures? These are being given greater consideration now after some inconsistency results for DP clustering models, and the inference is substantially easier.


Would this inference method work with a finite parametric mixture model, or a truncated nonparametric model?

High dimensional (in the observed covariate space) model-based clustering is in general hard. Would this method have an advantage here, as neural nets normally adapt pretty well to high-dimensional spaces?

Line 32: “nonparametric Bayesian models have fallen out of favour in machine learning” Really? Give more justification to this statement, or provide some examples of how they have been replaced. If they have fallen out of favour, why are you working with them? Is it just the inference that is holding them back from flourishing, or is it something else?

Line 203: For a more general audience: What exactly is a ResNet? What has it been trained on? What kind of properties do you expect its activations to have relevant to the task? Can you explain this more thoroughly before going further?

Line 227/228: where are the computational efficiency results exactly? They are not visible where you mentioned them.

Line 248: is there no way of tuning the alpha within the neural net framework? If not, please explain why. The additional analysis looking at the transferability of alpha (line 262) is good, however!

Line 272: Can you explain more clearly why none of references [10,37,42,52] are appropriate comparisons? Is there nothing more usable than the fiddly particle filter model?

Can you do better than MAP prediction? What kind of posterior uncertainty does this method provide, if any?

Line 551: “One random seed was used for training each method”? Really? Is this why there is no errors on the results? If so, this is a major weakness of the results here hidden in the Appendix. From the code of conduct, it seems that this is the case, and will be “updated to multiple runs in the next version of the paper” - does that include the revised version for Neurips?

Line 553: “Experiments were performed using NVIDIA A100 GPUs” why the plural here? How many GPUs per experiment? This is unclear and an important detail.
limitations: limitations: Table 1/2/3/4: there is no uncertainty/errors on the losses. This is because everything was done with a single random seed, so maybe you’re not in a place to add uncertainty easily.

Line 227-228: claims are made about the computational efficiency of the method that aren’t really backed up, and are possibly undermined by the inability to use more than one random seed.
paper_summary: paper_summary: The authors present a recurrent neural net (RNN) that learns to mimic a Bayesian non-parametric (BNP) approach to classification with (potentially) heavy-tailed data and an a priori unknown number of classes. The method is evaluated on three experimental setups.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: The weaknesses lie primarily in the experimental evaluation. 
- As discussed, the only baselines are a publication by Fearnhead from 2004, a vanilla Chinese restaurant process, and a self-designed non-Bayesian model. This hardly provides a proper evaluation of the approach. 
- All results are reported from a single seed without any significance analysis. (And no, promising multiple runs in a future revision of the paper is not sufficient to answer _yes_ to this question in the checklist. _No_ would have been the correct answer.)

## Minor
- The abstract claims better performance than _"particle filter-based method**s**"_ while only a single method is being compared against
- Given that there is a single seed, reporting four decimals of significance seems unjustified.
questions: questions: - Only a single run is reported for each result. Was the seed to generate the same for all methods? E.g., has every model in Sec 4.1 access to the same training data?
- In sec 4.2 the choice is to pick the representation space post-relu activations, placing an extra hurdle on the particle filter baselines (the hurdle model). Why was this choice made instead of sticking to common practice for taking the pre-activation representation features from pre-trained neural nets?  Which outcome would the authors expect without this artificial introduction of sparsity?
limitations: limitations: The limitations of the approach are adequately discussed by the authors.

Comments: title: Response to rebuttal
comment: Thank you to the authors for the detailed reply. Most of my concerns and questions have been addressed, and I will increase my rating accordingly.
I appreciate the edits made by the authors and the level of engagement shown.

I am particularly appreciative of the more thorough experimental results with comparisons to other methods and the use of multiple random seeds.

I am therefore happy to increase my score.
The authors-reviewers discussion period has now started.

@Reviewers: Please read the authors' response, ask any further questions you may have or at least acknowledge that you have read the response. Consider updating your review and your score when appropriate. Please try to limit borderline cases (scores 4 or 5) to a minimum. Ponder whether the community would benefit from the paper being published, in which case you should lean towards accepting it. If you believe the paper is not ready in its current form or won't be ready after the minor revisions proposed by the authors, then lean towards rejection.

@Authors: Please keep your answers as clear and concise as possible.

The AC
Thanks for the response and additional experiments which are helpful. I will maintain my score.
Thank you for your answer and these additional results