Original: A UTO -E NCODING S EQUENTIAL M ONTE C ARLO
Revised: A UTO -E NCODING S EQUENTIAL M ONTE C ARLO

Original: {tuananh,igl,jin,fwood}@robots.ox.ac.uk, rainforth@stats.ox.ac.uk
Revised: {tuananh,igl,jin,fwood}@robots.ox.ac.uk, rainforth@stats.ox.ac.uk

Original: A BSTRACT
Revised: A BSTRACT

Original: We build on auto-encoding sequential Monte Carlo ( AESMC ): 1 a method for model and proposal learning based on maximizing the lower bound to the log marginal likelihood in a broad family of structured probabilistic models.
Revised: We build on auto-encoding sequential Monte Carlo ( AESMC ): 1 a method for model and proposal learning based on maximizing the lower bound to the log marginal likelihood in a broad family of structured probabilistic models.

Original: Our approach relies on the efﬁciency of sequential Monte Carlo ( SMC ) for performing inference in structured probabilistic models and the ﬂexibility of deep neural networks to model complex conditional probability distributions.
Revised: Our approach relies on the efﬁciency of sequential Monte Carlo ( SMC ) for performing inference in structured probabilistic models and the ﬂexibility of deep neural networks to model complex conditional probability distributions.

Original: We develop additional theoretical insights and experiment with a new training procedure which can improve both model and proposal learning.
Revised: We develop additional theoretical insights and experiment with a new training procedure which can improve both model and proposal learning.

Original: We demonstrate that our approach provides a fast, easy-to-implement and scalable means for simultaneous model learning and proposal adaptation in deep generative models.
Revised: We demonstrate that our approach provides a fast, easy-to-implement and scalable means for simultaneous model learning and proposal adaptation in deep generative models.

Original:  I NTRODUCTION
Revised:  I NTRODUCTION

Original: We build upon AESMC (Le et al., 2017), a method for model learning that itself builds on variational auto-encoders ( VAE s) (Kingma & Welling, 2014; Rezende et al., 2014) and importance weighted auto-encoders ( IWAE s) (Burda et al., 2016).
Revised: We build upon AESMC (Le et al., 2017), a method for model learning that itself builds on variational auto-encoders ( VAE s) (Kingma & Welling, 2014; Rezende et al., 2014) and importance weighted auto-encoders ( IWAE s) (Burda et al., 2016).

Original: A ESMC is similarly based on maximizing a lower bound to the log marginal likelihood, but uses SMC (Doucet & Johansen, 2009) as the underlying marginal likelihood estimator instead of importance sampling ( IS ).
Revised: A ESMC is similarly based on maximizing a lower bound to the log marginal likelihood, but uses SMC (Doucet & Johansen, 2009) as the underlying marginal likelihood estimator instead of importance sampling ( IS ).

Original: For a very wide array of models, particularly those with sequential structure, SMC forms a substantially more powerful inference method than IS , typically returning lower variance estimates for the marginal likelihood.
Revised: For a very wide array of models, particularly those with sequential structure, SMC forms a substantially more powerful inference method than IS , typically returning lower variance estimates for the marginal likelihood.

Original: Consequently, by using SMC for its marginal likelihood estimation, AESMC often leads to improvements in model learning compared with VAE s and IWAE s. We provide experiments on structured time-series data that show that AESMC based learning was able to learn useful representations of the latent space for both reconstruction and prediction more effectively than the IWAE counterpart.
Revised: Consequently, by using SMC for its marginal likelihood estimation, AESMC often leads to improvements in model learning compared with VAE s and IWAE s. We provide experiments on structured time-series data that show that AESMC based learning was able to learn useful representations of the latent space for both reconstruction and prediction more effectively than the IWAE counterpart.

Original: A ESMC was introduced in an earlier preprint (Le et al., 2017) concurrently with the closely related methods of Maddison et al.
Revised: A ESMC was introduced in an earlier preprint (Le et al., 2017) concurrently with the closely related methods of Maddison et al.

Original: ; Naesseth et al.
Revised: ; Naesseth et al.

Original: In this work we take these ideas further by providing new theoretical insights for the resulting evidence lower bounds ( ELBO s), extending these to explore the relative efﬁciency of different approaches to proposal learning, and using our results to develop a new and improved training procedure.
Revised: In this work we take these ideas further by providing new theoretical insights for the resulting evidence lower bounds ( ELBO s), extending these to explore the relative efﬁciency of different approaches to proposal learning, and using our results to develop a new and improved training procedure.

Original: In particular, we introduce a method for expressing the gap between an ELBO and the log marginal likelihood as a Kullback-Leibler ( KL ) divergence between two distributions on an extended sampling space.
Revised: In particular, we introduce a method for expressing the gap between an ELBO and the log marginal likelihood as a Kullback-Leibler ( KL ) divergence between two distributions on an extended sampling space.

Original: Doing so allows us to investigate the behavior of this family of algorithms when the objective is maximized perfectly, which occurs only if the KL divergence becomes zero.
Revised: Doing so allows us to investigate the behavior of this family of algorithms when the objective is maximized perfectly, which occurs only if the KL divergence becomes zero.

Original: In the IWAE case, this implies that the proposal distributions are equal to the posterior distributions under the learned model.
Revised: In the IWAE case, this implies that the proposal distributions are equal to the posterior distributions under the learned model.

Original: In the AESMC case, it has implications for both the proposal distributions and the intermediate set of targets that are learned.
Revised: In the AESMC case, it has implications for both the proposal distributions and the intermediate set of targets that are learned.

Original: We demonstrate that, somewhat counter-intuitively, using lower variance estimates for the marginal likelihood can actually be harmful to proposal learning.
Revised: We demonstrate that, somewhat counter-intuitively, using lower variance estimates for the marginal likelihood can actually be harmful to proposal learning.

Original: Using these insights, we experiment with an adaptation to the AESMC algorithm, which we call alternating ELBO s, that uses different lower bounds for updating the model parameters and proposal parameters.
Revised: Using these insights, we experiment with an adaptation to the AESMC algorithm, which we call alternating ELBO s, that uses different lower bounds for updating the model parameters and proposal parameters.

Original: We observe that this adaptation can, in some cases, improve model learning and proposal adaptation.
Revised: We observe that this adaptation can, in some cases, improve model learning and proposal adaptation.

Original:  B ACKGROUND 2. S TATE -S PACE M ODELS
Revised:  B ACKGROUND 2. S TATE -S PACE M ODELS

Original: State-space models ( SSM s) are probabilistic models over a set of latent variables x 1: T and observed variables y 1: T .
Revised: State-space models ( SSM s) are probabilistic models over a set of latent variables x 1: T and observed variables y 1: T .

Original: Given parameters θ , a SSM is characterized by an initial density µ θ ( x 1 ) , a series of transition densities f t,θ ( x t | x 1: t − 1 ) , and a series of emission densities g t,θ ( y t | x 1: t ) with the joint density being p θ ( x 1: T , y 1: T ) = µ θ ( x 1 ) (cid:81) Tt =
Revised: Given parameters θ , a SSM is characterized by an initial density µ θ ( x 1 ) , a series of transition densities f t,θ ( x t | x 1: t − 1 ) , and a series of emission densities g t,θ ( y t | x 1: t ) with the joint density being p θ ( x 1: T , y 1: T ) = µ θ ( x 1 ) (cid:81) Tt =

Original: 2 f t,θ ( x t | x 1: t − 1 ) (cid:81)
Revised: 2 f t,θ ( x t | x 1: t − 1 ) (cid:81)

Original: Tt
Revised: Tt

Original: =1 g t,θ ( y t | x 1: t ) .
Revised: =1 g t,θ ( y t | x 1: t ) .

Original: We are usually interested in approximating the posterior p θ ( x 1: T | y 1: T ) or the expectation of some test function ϕ under this posterior
Revised: We are usually interested in approximating the posterior p θ ( x 1: T | y 1: T ) or the expectation of some test function ϕ under this posterior

Original: I ( ϕ ) := (cid:82) ϕ ( x 1: T ) p θ ( x 1: T | y 1: T ) d x 1: T .
Revised: I ( ϕ ) := (cid:82) ϕ ( x 1: T ) p θ ( x 1: T | y 1: T ) d x 1: T .

Original: We refer to these two tasks as inference.
Revised: We refer to these two tasks as inference.

Original: Inference in models which are non-linear, non-discrete, and non-Gaussian is difﬁcult and one must resort to approximate methods, for which SMC has been shown to be one of the most powerful approaches (Doucet & Johansen, 2009).
Revised: Inference in models which are non-linear, non-discrete, and non-Gaussian is difﬁcult and one must resort to approximate methods, for which SMC has been shown to be one of the most powerful approaches (Doucet & Johansen, 2009).

Original: We will consider model learning as a problem of maximizing the marginal likelihood p θ ( y 1: T ) =
Revised: We will consider model learning as a problem of maximizing the marginal likelihood p θ ( y 1: T ) =

Original: (cid:82) p θ ( x 1: T , y 1: T ) d x 1: T in the family of models parameterized by θ .
Revised: (cid:82) p θ ( x 1: T , y 1: T ) d x 1: T in the family of models parameterized by θ .

Original: 2. S EQUENTIAL M ONTE C ARLO
Revised: 2. S EQUENTIAL M ONTE C ARLO

Original: SMC performs approximate inference on a sequence of target distributions ( π t ( x 1: t ))
Revised: SMC performs approximate inference on a sequence of target distributions ( π t ( x 1: t ))

Original: Tt =1 .
Revised: Tt =1 .

Original: In the context of SSM s, the target distributions are often taken to be ( p θ ( x 1: t | y 1: t ))
Revised: In the context of SSM s, the target distributions are often taken to be ( p θ ( x 1: t | y 1: t ))

Original: Tt =1 .
Revised: Tt =1 .

Original: Given a parameter φ and proposal distributions q 1 ,φ ( x 1 | y 1 ) and ( q t,φ ( x t | y 1: t , x 1: t − 1 ))
Revised: Given a parameter φ and proposal distributions q 1 ,φ ( x 1 | y 1 ) and ( q t,φ ( x t | y 1: t , x 1: t − 1 ))

Original: Tt =2 from which we can sample and whose densities we can evaluate, SMC is described in Algorithm 1.
Revised: Tt =2 from which we can sample and whose densities we can evaluate, SMC is described in Algorithm 1.

Original: Using the set of weighted particles (˜ x k 1: T , w kT )
Revised: Using the set of weighted particles (˜ x k 1: T , w kT )

Original: Kk =1 at the last time step, we can approximate the posterior as (cid:80)
Revised: Kk =1 at the last time step, we can approximate the posterior as (cid:80)

Original: Kk
Revised: Kk

Original: =1 ¯ w kT δ ˜ x k 1: T ( x 1: T ) and the integral I ϕ as (cid:80)
Revised: =1 ¯ w kT δ ˜ x k 1: T ( x 1: T ) and the integral I ϕ as (cid:80)

Original: Kk
Revised: Kk

Original: =1 ¯ w kT ϕ
Revised: =1 ¯ w kT ϕ

Original: (˜ x k 1: T ) , where ¯ w kT := w kT / (cid:80) j w jT is the normalized weight and δ z is a Dirac measure centered on z .
Revised: (˜ x k 1: T ) , where ¯ w kT := w kT / (cid:80) j w jT is the normalized weight and δ z is a Dirac measure centered on z .

Original: Furthermore, one can obtain an unbiased estimator of the marginal likelihood p θ ( y 1: T ) using the intermediate particle weights:
Revised: Furthermore, one can obtain an unbiased estimator of the marginal likelihood p θ ( y 1: T ) using the intermediate particle weights:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Algorithm1: Sequential Monte
Revised: Algorithm

Original: Data: observed values y 1: T , model parameters θ , proposal parameters φ 
Revised: Data: observed values y 1: T , model parameters θ , proposal parameters φ begin

Original: Result: particles (˜ x k 1: T )

Original: Kk =1 , weights ( w kT )

Original: Kk =1 , marginal likelihood estimate ˆ Z SMC begin

Original: Sample initial particle values x k 1 ∼ q 1 ,φ ( ·| y 1 ) .
Revised: Sample initial particle values x k 1 ∼ q 1 ,φ ( ·| y 1 ) .

Original: Compute and normalize weights:
Revised: Compute and normalize weights:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Initialize particle set: ˜ x k 1 ← x kfor t = 2 , 3 , . . .
Revised: Initialize particle set: ˜ x k 1 ← x kfor t = 2 , 3 , . . .

Original: , T do
Revised: , T do

Original: Sample ancestor index a kt − 1 ∼ Discrete( ·| ¯ w 1 t − 1 , . . .
Revised: Sample ancestor index a kt − 1 ∼ Discrete( ·| ¯ w 1 t − 1 , . . .

Original: , ¯ w Kt − 1 ) .
Revised: , ¯ w Kt − 1 ) .

Original: Sample particle value x kt ∼ q t,φ ( ·| y 1: t , ˜ x a kt − 1 1: t − 1 ) .Update particle set ˜ x k 1: t
Revised: Sample particle value x kt ∼ q t,φ ( ·| y 1: t , ˜ x a kt − 1 1: t − 1 ) .

Original: [Equation] [Equation] x kt ) .
Revised: Update particle set ˜ x k 1: t ← (˜ x a kt − 1 1: t − 1 , x kt ) .

Original: Compute and normalize weights: 
Revised: Compute and normalize weights: w

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Revised: f t,θ ( x k t | ˜ x a kt − 1 1: t − 1 ) g t,θ ( y t | ˜ x k 1: t ) q t,φ ( x kt | y 1: t , ˜ x a kt − 1 1: t − 1 ) , ¯ w k t = w kt (cid:80) K(cid:96)

Revised: =1 w (cid:96)t .

Original: Compute marginal likelihood: ˆ Z SMC =
Revised: Compute marginal likelihood: ˆ Z SMC =

Original: (cid:81)
Revised: (cid:81)

Original: Tt =1 1 K (cid:80)
Revised: Tt =1 1 K (cid:80)

Original: Kk =1 w kt .
Revised: Kk =1 w kt .

Original: return particles (˜ x k 1: T )
Revised: return particles (˜ x k 1: T )

Original: Kk =1 , weights ( w kT )
Revised: Kk =1 , weights ( w kT )

Original: Kk =1 , marginal likelihood estimate ˆ Z SMC
Revised: Kk =1 , marginal likelihood estimate ˆ Z SMC

Original: The sequential nature of SMC and the resampling step are crucial in making SMC scalable to large
Revised: The sequential nature of SMC and the resampling step are crucial in making SMC scalable to large

Original: T .
Revised: T .

Original: The former makes it easier to design efﬁcient proposal distributions as each step need only target the next set of variables x t .
Revised: The former makes it easier to design efﬁcient proposal distributions as each step need only target the next set of variables x t .

Original: The resampling step allows the algorithm to focus on promising particles in light of new observations, avoiding the exponential divergence between the weights of different samples that occurs for importance sampling as T increases.
Revised: The resampling step allows the algorithm to focus on promising particles in light of new observations, avoiding the exponential divergence between the weights of different samples that occurs for importance sampling as T increases.

Original: This can be demonstrated both empirically and theoretically (Del Moral, 2004, Chapter 9).
Revised: This can be demonstrated both empirically and theoretically (Del Moral, 2004, Chapter 9).

Original: We refer the reader to (Doucet &
Revised: We refer the reader to (Doucet &

Original: Johansen, 2009) for an in-depth treatment of SMC .
Revised: Johansen, 2009) for an in-depth treatment of SMC .

Original: 2. I MPORTANCE W EIGHTED A UTO -E NCODERS
Revised: 2. I MPORTANCE W EIGHTED A UTO -E NCODERS

Original: Given a dataset of observations ( y ( n ) )
Revised: Given a dataset of observations ( y ( n ) )

Original: Nn =1 , a generative network p θ ( x, y ) and an inference network q φ ( x | y ) , IWAE s (Burda et al., 2016) maximize 1 N (cid:80) Nn =1 ELBO IS ( θ, φ, y ( n ) ) where, for a given observation y , the ELBO IS (with K particles) is a lower bound on log p θ ( y ) by Jensen’s inequality:
Revised: Nn =1 , a generative network p θ ( x, y ) and an inference network q φ ( x | y ) , IWAE s (Burda et al., 2016) maximize 1 N (cid:80) Nn =1 ELBO IS ( θ, φ, y ( n ) ) where, for a given observation y , the ELBO IS (with K particles) is a lower bound on log p θ ( y ) by Jensen’s inequality:

Original: ELBO IS (
Revised: ELBO IS (

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: log ˆ ZIS ( x
Revised: log ˆ Z

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: d x 1: K ≤ log p θ ( y ) , where (2)
Revised: d x 1: K ≤ log p θ ( y ) , where (2)

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Note that for K = 1 particle, this objective reduces to a VAE (Kingma & Welling, 2014; Rezende et al., 2014) objective we will refer to as
Revised: Note that for K = 1 particle, this objective reduces to a VAE (Kingma & Welling, 2014; Rezende et al., 2014) objective we will refer to as

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: The IWAE optimization is performed using stochastic gradient ascent ( SGA ) where a sample from (cid:16)(cid:81)
Revised: The IWAE optimization is performed using stochastic gradient ascent ( SGA ) where a sample from (cid:16)(cid:81)

Original: Kk =1 q φ ( x k | y ( n ) ) (cid:17) is obtained using the reparameterization trick (Kingma & Welling, 2014) and the gradient 1 N (cid:80)
Revised: Kk =1 q φ ( x k | y ( n ) ) (cid:17) is obtained using the reparameterization trick (Kingma & Welling, 2014) and the gradient 1 N (cid:80)

Original: Nn =1 ∇ θ,φ log (cid:16)(cid:80)
Revised: Nn =1 ∇ θ,φ log (cid:16)(cid:80)

Original: Kk =1 p θ ( x k ,y ( n ) )
Revised: Kk =1 p θ ( x k ,y ( n ) )

Original: q φ ( x k | y ( n ) ) (cid:17) is used to perform an optimization step.
Revised: q φ ( x k | y ( n ) ) (cid:17) is used to perform an optimization step.

Original:  A UTO -E NCODING S EQUENTIAL M ONTE C ARLO
Revised:  A UTO -E NCODING S EQUENTIAL M ONTE C ARLO

Original: AESMC implements model learning, proposal adaptation, and inference amortization in a similar manner to the VAE and the IWAE : it uses SGA on an empirical average of the ELBO over observations.
Revised: AESMC implements model learning, proposal adaptation, and inference amortization in a similar manner to the VAE and the IWAE : it uses SGA on an empirical average of the ELBO over observations.

Original: However, it varies in the form of this ELBO .
Revised: However, it varies in the form of this ELBO .

Original: In this section, we will introduce the AESMC ELBO , explain how gradients of it can be estimated, and discuss the implications of these changes.
Revised: In this section, we will introduce the AESMC ELBO , explain how gradients of it can be estimated, and discuss the implications of these changes.

Original: 3. O BJECTIVE F UNCTION
Revised: 3. O BJECTIVE F UNCTION

Original: Consider a family of SSM s { p θ ( x 1: T , y 1: T ) : θ ∈ Θ } and a family of proposal distributions { q φ ( x 1: T | y 1: T ) =
Revised: Consider a family of SSM s { p θ ( x 1: T , y 1: T ) : θ ∈ Θ } and a family of proposal distributions { q φ ( x 1: T | y 1: T ) =

Original: q 1 ,φ ( x 1 | y 1 ) (cid:81) Tt = 2 q t,φ ( x t | x 1: t − 1 , y 1: t ) : φ ∈ Φ } .
Revised: q 1 ,φ ( x 1 | y 1 ) (cid:81) T t =2 q t,φ ( x t | x 1: t − 1 , y 1: t ) : φ ∈ Φ } .

Original: A ESMC uses an ELBO objective based on the SMC marginal likelihood estimator (1).
Revised: A ESMC uses an ELBO ob- jective based on the SMC marginal likelihood estimator (1).

Original: In particular, for a given y 1: T , the objective is deﬁned as
Revised: In particular, for a given y 1: T , the objective is deﬁned as

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where ˆ Z SMC ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) is deﬁned in (1) and Q SMC is the sampling distribution of SMC ,
Revised: where ˆ Z SMC ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) is deﬁned in (1) and Q SMC is the sampling distribution of SMC ,

Original: Q SMC [Equation] , a [Equation]
Revised: Q SMC ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T −

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: ELBO SMC forms a lower bound to the log marginal likelihood log p θ ( y 1: T ) due to Jensen’s inequality and the unbiasedness of the marginal likelihood estimator.
Revised: ELBO SMC forms a lower bound to the log marginal likelihood log p θ ( y 1: T ) due to Jensen’s inequality and the unbiasedness of the marginal likelihood estimator.

Original: Hence, given a dataset ( y ( n ) 1: T ) N n =1 , we can perform model learning based on maximizing the lower bound of 1 N (cid:80)
Revised: Hence, given a dataset ( y ( n ) 1: T ) Nn =1 , we can perform model learning based on maximizing the lower bound of 1 N (cid:80)

Original: Nn =1 log p θ ( y ( n ) 1: T ) as a surrogate target, namely by maximizing
Revised: Nn =1 log p θ ( y ( n ) 1: T ) as a surrogate target, namely by maximizing

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: For notational convenience, we will talk about optimizing ELBO s in the rest of this section.
Revised: For notational convenience, we will talk about optimizing ELBO s in the rest of this section.

Original: However, we note that the main intended use of AESMC is to amortize over datasets, for which the ELBO is replaced by the dataset average J ( θ, φ ) in the optimization target.
Revised: However, we note that the main intended use of AESMC is to amortize over datasets, for which the ELBO is replaced by the dataset average J ( θ, φ ) in the optimization target.

Original: Nonetheless, rather than using the full dataset for each gradient update, will we instead use minibatches, noting that this forms unbiased estimator.
Revised: Nonetheless, rather than using the full dataset for each gradient update, will we instead use minibatches, noting that this forms unbiased estimator.

Original: 3. G RADIENT E STIMATION
Revised: 3. G RADIENT E STIMATION

Original: We describe a gradient estimator used for optimizing ELBO SMC ( θ, φ, y 1: T ) using SGA .
Revised: We describe a gradient estimator used for optimizing ELBO SMC ( θ, φ, y 1: T ) using SGA .

Original: The SMC sampler in Algorithm 1 proceeds by sampling x 1: K 1 , a 1: K 1 , x 1: K 2 , . . .
Revised: The SMC sampler in Algorithm 1 proceeds by sampling x 1: K 1 , a 1: K 1 , x 1: K 2 , . . .

Original: sequentially from their respective distributions (cid:81)
Revised: sequentially from their respective distributions (cid:81)

Original: Kk =
Revised: Kk =

Original: 1 q 1 ( x k 1 ) , (cid:81)
Revised: 1 q 1 ( x k 1 ) , (cid:81)

Original: Kk =1 Discrete( a k 1 | w 1: K) , (cid:81)
Revised: Kk =1 Discrete( a k 1 | w 1: K) , (cid:81)

Original: Kk =
Revised: Kk =

Original: 1 q 2 ( x k 2 | x a k 1 1 ) , . .
Revised: 1 q 2 ( x k 2 | x a k 1 1 ) , . .

Original: until the whole particle-weight trajectory ( x 1: T 1: K , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) is sampled.
Revised: until the whole particle-weight trajectory ( x 1: T 1: K , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) is sampled.

Original: From this trajectory, using equation (1), we can obtain an estimator for the marginal likelihood.
Revised: From this trajectory, using equation (1), we can obtain an estimator for the marginal likelihood.

Original: Assuming that the sampling of latent variables x 1: K 1: T is reparameterizable, we can make their sampling independent of ( θ, φ ) .
Revised: Assuming that the sampling of latent variables x 1: K 1: T is reparameterizable, we can make their sampling independent of ( θ, φ ) .

Original: In particular, assume that there exists a set of auxiliary random variables (cid:15) 1: K 1: T where (cid:15) kt ∼ s t and a set of reparameterization functions r t .
Revised: In particular, assume that there exists a set of auxiliary random variables (cid:15) 1: K 1: T where (cid:15) kt ∼ s t and a set of reparameterization functions r t .

Original: We can simulate the SMC sampler by ﬁrst sampling (cid:15) 1: K∼ (cid:81) K k
Revised: We can simulate the SMC sampler by ﬁrst sampling (cid:15) 1: K∼ (cid:81) K k

Original: =1 s 1 and setting x k 1 =
Revised: =1 s 1 and setting x k 1 =

Original: r 1 ( (cid:15) k 1 ) and ˜ x k 1 = x k 1 , then for t = 2 , . . .
Revised: r 1 ( (cid:15) k 1 ) and ˜ x k 1 = x k 1 , then for t = 2 , . . .

Original: , T cycling through sampling a 1: K t − 1 ∼ (cid:81)
Revised: , T cycling through sampling a 1: K t − 1 ∼ (cid:81)

Original: Kk =1 Discrete( a kt − 1 | w 1: K t − 1 ) and (cid:15) 1: K t ∼ (cid:81)
Revised: Kk =1 Discrete( a kt − 1 | w 1: K t − 1 ) and (cid:15) 1: K t ∼ (cid:81)

Original: Kk =1 s t , and setting x kt = r t ( (cid:15) kt , ˜ x a kt − 1 1: t − 1 ) and ˜ x k 1: t =
Revised: Kk =1 s t , and setting x kt = r t ( (cid:15) kt , ˜ x a kt − 1 1: t − 1 ) and ˜ x k 1: t =

Original: (˜ x a kt − 1 1: t − 1 , x kt ) .
Revised: (˜ x a kt − 1 1: t − 1 , x kt ) .

Original: We use the resulting reparameterized sample of ( x 1: T 1: K , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) to evaluate the gradient estimator ∇ θ,φ log ˆ Z SMC ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) .
Revised: We use the resulting reparameterized sample of ( x 1: T 1: K , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) to evaluate the gradient estimator ∇ θ,φ log ˆ Z SMC ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) .

Original: To account for the discrete choices of ancestor indices a kt one could additionally use the REINFORCE (Williams, 1992) trick, however in practice, we found that the additional term in the estimator has problematically high variance.
Revised: To account for the discrete choices of ancestor indices a kt one could additionally use the REINFORCE (Williams, 1992) trick, however in practice, we found that the additional term in the estimator has problematically high variance.

Original: We explore various other possible gradient estimators and empirical assessments of their variances in Appendix A.
Revised: We explore various other possible gradient estimators and empirical assessments of their variances in Appendix A.

Original: This exploration conﬁrms that including the additional REINFORCE terms leads to problematically high variance, justifying our decision to omit them, despite introducing a small bias into the gradient estimates.
Revised: This exploration conﬁrms that including the additional REINFORCE terms leads to problematically high variance, justifying our decision to omit them, despite introducing a small bias into the gradient estimates.

Original: 3. B IAS & I MPLICATIONS ON THE P ROPOSALS
Revised: 3. B IAS & I MPLICATIONS ON THE P ROPOSALS

Original: In this section, we express the gap between ELBO s and the log marginal likelihood as a KL divergence and study implications on the proposal distributions.
Revised: In this section, we express the gap between ELBO s and the log marginal likelihood as a KL divergence and study implications on the proposal distributions.

Original: We present a set of claims and propositions whose full proofs are in Appendix B.
Revised: We present a set of claims and propositions whose full proofs are in Appendix B.

Original: These give insight into the behavior of AESMC and show the advantages, and disadvantages, of using our different ELBO .
Revised: These give insight into the behavior of AESMC and show the advantages, and disadvantages, of using our different ELBO .

Original: This insight motivates Section 4 which proposes an algorithm for improving proposal learning.
Revised: This insight motivates Section 4 which proposes an algorithm for improving proposal learning.

Original: Deﬁnition 1.
Revised: Deﬁnition 1.

Original: Given an unnormalized target density ˜ P : X → [0 , ∞ ) with normalizing constant
Revised: Given an unnormalized target density ˜ P : X → [0 , ∞ ) with normalizing constant

Original: Z P > 0 , P :=
Revised: Z P > 0 , P :=

Original: ˜ P/Z P , and a proposal density Q : X → [0 , ∞ ) , then
Revised: ˜ P/Z P , and a proposal density Q : X → [0 , ∞ ) , then

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: is a lower bound on log Z P and satisﬁes
Revised: is a lower bound on log Z P and satisﬁes

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: || P ) .
Revised: | P ) .

Original: This is a standard identity used in variational inference and VAE s.
Revised: This is a standard identity used in variational inference and VAE s.

Original: In the case of VAE s, applying
Revised: In the case of VAE s, applying

Original: Deﬁnition 1 with P being p θ ( x | y ) , ˜ P being p θ ( x, y ) , Z P being p θ ( y ) , and Q being q φ ( x | y ) , we can directly rewrite (4) as ELBO VAE ( θ, φ, y ) =
Revised: Deﬁnition 1 with P being p θ ( x | y ) , ˜ P being p θ ( x, y ) , Z P being p θ ( y ) , and Q being q φ ( x | y ) , we can directly rewrite (4) as ELBO VAE ( θ, φ, y ) =

Original: log p θ ( y ) − KL ( q φ ( x | y )
Revised: log p θ ( y ) − KL ( q φ ( x | y )

Original: ||
Revised: ||

Original: p θ ( x | y )) .
Revised: p θ ( x | y )) .

Original: The key observation for expressing such a bound for general ELBO s such as ELBO IS and ELBO SMC is that the target density P and the proposal density Q need not directly correspond to p θ ( x | y ) and q φ ( x | y ) .
Revised: The key observation for expressing such a bound for general ELBO s such as ELBO IS and ELBO SMC is that the target density P and the proposal density Q need not directly correspond to p θ ( x | y ) and q φ ( x | y ) .

Original: This allows us to view the underlying sampling distributions of the marginal likelihood
Revised: This allows us to view the underlying sampling distributions of the marginal likelihood

Original: Monte Carlo estimators such as Q IS in (3) and Q SMC in (6) as proposal distributions on an extended space X .
Revised: Monte Carlo estimators such as Q IS in (3) and Q SMC in (6) as proposal distributions on an extended space X .

Original: The following claim uses this observation to express the bound between a general ELBO and the log marginal likelihood as KL divergence from the extended space sampling distribution to a corresponding target distribution.
Revised: The following claim uses this observation to express the bound between a general ELBO and the log marginal likelihood as KL divergence from the extended space sampling distribution to a corresponding target distribution.

Original: Claim 1.
Revised: Claim 1.

Original: Given a non-negative unbiased estimator ˆ Z P ( x ) ≥ 0 of the normalizing constant Z P where x is distributed according to the proposal distribution Q ( x ) , the following holds:
Revised: Given a non-negative unbiased estimator ˆ Z P ( x ) ≥ 0 of the normalizing constant Z P where x is distributed according to the proposal distribution Q ( x ) , the following holds:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where P ( x ) = Q ( x ) ˆ Z P ( x )
Revised: where P ( x ) = Q ( x ) ˆ Z P ( x )

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: P
Revised: P

Original: [Equation] [Equation]
Revised: [Equation] [Equation]

Original: is the implied normalized target density.
Revised: is the implied normalized target density.

Original: In the case of IWAE s
Revised: In the case of IWAE s

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: we can apply Claim 1 with Q and ˆ Z P being Q IS and ˆ Z IS respectively as deﬁned in (3) and Z P being p θ ( y ) .
Revised: we can apply Claim 1 with Q and ˆ Z P being Q IS and ˆ Z IS respectively as deﬁned in (3) and Z P being p θ ( y ) .

Original: This yields
Revised: This yields

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: , where
Revised: , where

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Similarly, in the case of AESMC
Revised: Similarly, in the case of AESMC

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: we obtain
Revised: we obtain

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: , where
Revised: , where

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Having expressions for the target distribution P and the sampling distribution Q for a given ELBO allows us to investigate what happens when we maximize that ELBO , remembering that the KL term is strictly non-negative and zero if and only if P = Q .
Revised: Having expressions for the target distribution P and the sampling distribution Q for a given ELBO allows us to investigate what happens when we maximize that ELBO , remembering that the KL term is strictly non-negative and zero if and only if P = Q .

Original: For the VAE and IWAE cases then, provided the proposal is sufﬁciently ﬂexible, one can always perfectly maximize the ELBO by setting p θ ( x | y )
Revised: For the VAE and IWAE cases then, provided the proposal is sufﬁciently ﬂexible, one can always perfectly maximize the ELBO by setting p θ ( x | y )

Original: =
Revised: =

Original: q φ ( x | y ) for all x .
Revised: q φ ( x | y ) for all x .

Original: The reverse implication also holds: if ELBO VAE = log Z P then it must be the case that p θ ( x | y )
Revised: The reverse implication also holds: if ELBO VAE = log Z P then it must be the case that p θ ( x | y )

Original: =
Revised: =

Original: q φ ( x | y ) .
Revised: q φ ( x | y ) .

Original: However, for AESMC , achieving ELBO = log Z P is only possible when one also has sufﬁcient ﬂexibility to learn a particular series of intermediate target distributions, namely the marginals of the ﬁnal target distribution.
Revised: However, for AESMC , achieving ELBO = log Z P is only possible when one also has sufﬁcient ﬂexibility to learn a particular series of intermediate target distributions, namely the marginals of the ﬁnal target distribution.

Original: In other words, it is necessary to learn a particular factorization of the generative model, not just the correct individual proposals, to achieve P = Q and thus ELBO SMC =
Revised: In other words, it is necessary to learn a particular factorization of the generative model, not just the correct individual proposals, to achieve P = Q and thus ELBO SMC =

Original: Z P .
Revised: Z P .

Original: These observations are formalized in Propositions 1 and 2 below.
Revised: These observations are formalized in Propositions 1 andbelow.

Original: Proposition 1.
Revised: Proposition 1.

Original: Q IS ( x 1: K ) =
Revised: Q IS ( x 1: K ) =

Original: P IS ( x 1: K ) for all x 1: K
Revised: P IS ( x 1: K ) for all x 1: K

Original: if and only if q ( x | y )
Revised: if and only if q ( x | y )

Original: =
Revised: =

Original: p ( x | y ) for all x .
Revised: p ( x | y ) for all x .

Original: Proposition 2.
Revised: Proposition 2.

Original: If K > 1 , then P SMC ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) = Q SMC ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) for all ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) if and only if 
Revised: If K > 1 , then P SMC ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) = Q SMC ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) for all ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) if and only if 1.

Original: π t ( x 1: t ) =
Revised: π t ( x 1: t ) =

Original: (cid:82) p ( x 1: T | y 1: T ) d x t +1: T = p ( x 1: t | y 1: T ) for all x 1: t and t = 1 , . . .
Revised: (cid:82) p ( x 1: T | y 1: T ) d x t +1: T = p ( x 1: t | y 1: T ) for all x 1: t and t = 1 , . . .

Original: , T , and 2.
Revised: , T , and 2.

Original: q 1 ( x 1 | y 1 )
Revised: q 1 ( x 1 | y 1 )

Original: =
Revised: =

Original: p ( x 1 | y 1: T ) for all x 1 and q t ( x t | x 1: t − 1 , y 1: t ) = p ( x 1: t | y 1: T ) /p
Revised: p ( x 1 | y 1: T ) for all x 1 and q t ( x t | x 1: t − 1 , y 1: t ) = p ( x 1: t | y 1: T ) /p

Original: ( x 1: t − 1 | y 1: T ) for t = 2 , . .
Revised: ( x 1: t − 1 | y 1: T ) for t = 2 , . .

Original: , T for all x 1: t , where π t ( x 1: t ) are the intermediate targets used by SMC .
Revised: , T for all x 1: t , where π t ( x 1: t ) are the intermediate targets used by SMC .

Original: Proposition 2 has the consequence that if the family of generative models is such that the ﬁrst condition does not hold, we will not be able to make the bound tight.
Revised: Proposition 2 has the consequence that if the family of generative models is such that the ﬁrst condition does not hold, we will not be able to make the bound tight.

Original: This means that, except for a very small class of models, then, for most convenient parameterizations, it will be impossible to learn a perfect proposal that gives a tight bound, i.e. there will be no θ and φ such that the above conditions can be satisﬁed.
Revised: This means that, except for a very small class of models, then, for most convenient parameterizations, it will be impossible to learn a perfect proposal that gives a tight bound, i.e. there will be no θ and φ such that the above conditions can be satisﬁed.

Original: However, it also means that ELBO SMC encodes important additional information about the implications the factorization of the generative model has on the inference—the model depends only on the ﬁnal target π T ( x 1: T )
Revised: However, it also means that ELBO SMC encodes important additional information about the implications the factorization of the generative model has on the inference—the model depends only on the ﬁnal target π T ( x 1: T )

Original: =
Revised: =

Original: p θ ( x 1: T | y 1: T ) , but some choices of the intermediate targets π t ( x 1: t ) will lead to much more efﬁcient inference than others.
Revised: p θ ( x 1: T | y 1: T ) , but some choices of the intermediate targets π t ( x 1: t ) will lead to much more efﬁcient inference than others.

Original: Perhaps more importantly,
Revised: Perhaps more importantly,

Original: SMC is usually a far more powerful inference algorithm than importance sampling and so the AESMC setup allows for more ambitious model learning problems to be effectively tackled than the VAE or
Revised: SMC is usually a far more powerful inference algorithm than importance sampling and so the AESMC setup allows for more ambitious model learning problems to be effectively tackled than the VAE or

Original: IWAE .
Revised: IWAE .

Original: After all, even though it is well known in the SMC literature that, unlike for IS , most problems have no perfect set of SMC proposals which will generate exact samples from the posterior (Doucet & Johansen, 2009), SMC still gives superior performance on most problems with more than a few dimensions.
Revised: After all, even though it is well known in the SMC literature that, unlike for IS , most problems have no perfect set of SMC proposals which will generate exact samples from the posterior (Doucet & Johansen, 2009), SMC still gives superior performance on most problems with more than a few dimensions.

Original: These intuitions are backed up by our experiments that show that using ELBO SMC regularly learns better models than using ELBO IS .
Revised: These intuitions are backed up by our experiments that show that using ELBO SMC regularly learns better models than using ELBO IS .

Original:  I MPROVING P ROPOSAL L EARNING
Revised:  I MPROVING P ROPOSAL L EARNING

Original: In practice, one is rarely able to perfectly drive the divergence to zero and achieve a perfect proposal.
Revised: In practice, one is rarely able to perfectly drive the divergence to zero and achieve a perfect proposal.

Original: In addition to the implications of the previous section, this occurs because q φ ( x 1: T | y 1: T ) may not be sufﬁciently expressive to represent p θ ( x 1: T | y 1: T ) exactly and because of the inevitable sub-optimality of the optimization process, remembering that we are aiming to learn an amortized inference artifact, rather than a single posterior representation.
Revised: In addition to the implications of the previous section, this occurs because q φ ( x 1: T | y 1: T ) may not be sufﬁciently expressive to represent p θ ( x 1: T | y 1: T ) exactly and because of the inevitable sub-optimality of the optimization process, remembering that we are aiming to learn an amortized inference artifact, rather than a single posterior representation.

Original: Consequently, to accurately assess the merits of different ELBO s for proposal learning, it is necessary to consider their ﬁnite-time performance.
Revised: Consequently, to accurately assess the merits of different ELBO s for proposal learning, it is necessary to consider their ﬁnite-time performance.

Original: We therefore now consider the effect the number of particles K has on the gradient estimators for ELBO IS and ELBO SMC .
Revised: We therefore now consider the effect the number of particles K has on the gradient estimators for ELBO IS and ELBO SMC .

Original: [Figure]
Revised: [Figure]

Original: Counter-intuitively, it transpires that the tighter bounds implied by using a larger K is often harmful to proposal learning for both IWAE and
Revised: Counter-intuitively, it transpires that the tighter bounds implied by using a larger K is often harmful to proposal learning for both IWAE and

Original: AESMC .
Revised: AESMC .

Original: At a high-level, this is because an accurate estimate for ˆ Z P can be achieved for a wide range of proposal parameters φ and so the magnitude of ∇ φ ELBO reduces as K increases.
Revised: At a high-level, this is because an accurate estimate for ˆ Z P can be achieved for a wide range of proposal parameters φ and so the magnitude of ∇ φ ELBO reduces as K increases.

Original: Typically, this shrinkage happens faster than increasing K reduces the standard deviation of the estimate and so the standard deviation of the gradient estimate relative to the problem scaling (i.e. as a ratio of true gradient ∇ φ ELBO ) actually increases.
Revised: Typically, this shrinkage happens faster than increasing K reduces the standard deviation of the estimate and so the standard deviation of the gradient estimate relative to the problem scaling (i.e. as a ratio of true gradient ∇ φ ELBO ) actually increases.

Original: This effect is demonstrated in Figure 1 which shows a kernel density estimator for the distribution of the gradient estimate for different K and the model given in Section 5.2.
Revised: This effect is demonstrated in Figure 1 which shows a kernel density estimator for the distribution of the gradient estimate for different K and the model given in Section 5.2.

Original: Here we see that as we increase K , both the expected gradient estimate (which is equal to the true gradient by unbiasedness) and standard deviation of the estimate decrease.
Revised: Here we see that as we increase K , both the expected gradient estimate (which is equal to the true gradient by unbiasedness) and standard deviation of the estimate decrease.

Original: However, the former decreases faster and so the relative standard deviation increases.
Revised: However, the former decreases faster and so the relative standard deviation increases.

Original: This is perhaps easiest to appreciate by noting that for K > 10 , there is a roughly equal probability of the estimate being positive or negative, such that we are equally likely to increase or decrease the parameter value at the next SGA iteration, inevitably leading to poor performance.
Revised: This is perhaps easiest to appreciate by noting that for K > 10 , there is a roughly equal probability of the estimate being positive or negative, such that we are equally likely to increase or decrease the parameter value at the next SGA iteration, inevitably leading to poor performance.

Original: On the other hand, when K = 1 , it is far more likely that the gradient estimate is positive than negative, and so there is clear drift to the gradient steps.
Revised: On the other hand, when K = 1 , it is far more likely that the gradient estimate is positive than negative, and so there is clear drift to the gradient steps.

Original: We add to the empirical evidence for this behavior in Section 5.
Revised: We add to the empirical evidence for this behavior in Section 5.

Original: Note the critical difference for model learning is that ∇ θ ELBO does not, in general, decrease in magnitude as K increases.
Revised: Note the critical difference for model learning is that ∇ θ ELBO does not, in general, decrease in magnitude as K increases.

Original: Note also that using a larger K should always give better performance at test time; it may though be better to learn φ using a smaller K .
Revised: Note also that using a larger K should always give better performance at test time; it may though be better to learn φ using a smaller K .

Original: In simultaneously developed work (Rainforth et al., 2017), we formalized this intuition in the IWAE setting by showing that the estimator of ∇ φ ELBO IS ( θ, φ, x ) with K particles, denoted by I K , has the following signal-to-noise ratio ( SNR ):
Revised: In simultaneously developed work (Rainforth et al., 2017), we formalized this intuition in the IWAE setting by showing that the estimator of ∇ φ ELBO IS ( θ, φ, x ) with K particles, denoted by I K , has the following signal-to-noise ratio ( SNR ):

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: We thus see that increasing K reduces the SNR and so the gradient updates for the proposal will degrade towards pure noise if K is set too high.
Revised: We thus see that increasing K reduces the SNR and so the gradient updates for the proposal will degrade towards pure noise if K is set too high.

Original: 4. A LTERNATING ELBO S
Revised: 4. A LTERNATING ELBO S

Original: To address these issues, we suggest and investigate the alternating ELBO s ( ALT ) algorithm which updates ( θ, φ ) in a coordinate descent fashion using different ELBO s, and thus gradient estimates, for each.
Revised: To address these issues, we suggest and investigate the alternating ELBO s ( ALT ) algorithm which updates ( θ, φ ) in a coordinate descent fashion using different ELBO s, and thus gradient estimates, for each.

Original: We pick a θ -optimizing pair and a φ -optimizing pair ( A θ , K θ ) , ( A φ , K φ ) ∈ { IS , SMC } × { 1 , 2 , . . . } , corresponding to an inference type and number of particles.
Revised: We pick a θ -optimizing pair and a φ -optimizing pair ( A θ , K θ ) , ( A φ , K φ ) ∈ { IS , SMC } × { 1 , 2 , . . . } , corresponding to an inference type and number of particles.

Original: In an optimization step, we obtain an estimator for ∇ θ ELBO A θ with K θ particles and an estimator for ∇ φ ELBO A φ with K
Revised: In an optimization step, we obtain an estimator for ∇ θ ELBO A θ with K θ particles and an estimator for ∇ φ ELBO A φ with K

Original: φ particles which we call g θ and g φ respectively.
Revised: φ particles which we call g θ and g φ respectively.

Original: We use g θ to update the current θ and g φ to update the current φ .
Revised: We use g θ to update the current θ and g φ to update the current φ .

Original: The results from the previous sections suggest that using A θ = SMC and A φ = IS with a large K θ and a small K φ may perform better model and proposal learning than just ﬁxing ( A θ , K θ ) =
Revised: The results from the previous sections suggest that using A θ = SMC and A φ = IS with a large K θ and a small K φ may perform better model and proposal learning than just ﬁxing ( A θ , K θ ) =

Original: ( A φ , K φ ) to ( SMC , large ) since using A φ = IS with small K φ helps learning φ (at least in terms of the SNR ) and using A θ
Revised: ( A φ , K φ ) to ( SMC , large ) since using A φ = IS with small K φ helps learning φ (at least in terms of the SNR ) and using A θ

Original: =
Revised: =

Original: SMC with large K θ helps learning θ .
Revised: SMC with large K θ helps learning θ .

Original: We experimentally observe that this procedure can in some cases improve both model and proposal learning.
Revised: We experimentally observe that this procedure can in some cases improve both model and proposal learning.

Original:  E XPERIMENTS
Revised:  E XPERIMENTS

Original: We now present a series of experiments designed to answer the following questions: 1) Does tightening the bound by using either more particles or a better inference procedure lead to an adverse effect on proposal learning? 2)
Revised: We now present a series of experiments designed to answer the following questions: 1) Does tightening the bound by using either more particles or a better inference procedure lead to an adverse effect on proposal learning? 2)

Original: Can AESMC , despite this effect, outperform IWAE ?
Revised: Can AESMC , despite this effect, outperform IWAE ?

Original: Can we further improve the learned model and proposal by using ALT ?
Revised: Can we further improve the learned model and proposal by using ALT ?

Original: First we investigate a linear Gaussian state space model ( LGSSM ) for model learning and a latent variable model for proposal adaptation.
Revised: First we investigate a linear Gaussian state space model ( LGSSM ) for model learning and a latent variable model for proposal adaptation.

Original: This allows us to compare the learned parameters to the optimal ones.
Revised: This allows us to compare the learned parameters to the optimal ones.

Original: Doing so, we conﬁrm our conclusions for this simple problem.
Revised: Doing so, we conﬁrm our conclusions for this simple problem.

Original: We then extend those results to more complex, high dimensional observation spaces that require models and proposals parameterized by neural networks.
Revised: We then extend those results to more complex, high dimensional observation spaces that require models and proposals parameterized by neural networks.

Original: We do so by investigating the Moving
Revised: We do so by investigating the Moving

Original: Agents dataset, a set of partially occluded video sequences.
Revised: Agents dataset, a set of partially occluded video sequences.

Original: 5. L INEAR G AUSSIAN S TATE S PACE M ODEL
Revised: 5. L INEAR G AUSSIAN S TATE S PACE M ODEL

Original: Given the following LGSSM
Revised: Given the following LGSSM

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Revised: [Equation]

Original: we ﬁnd that optimizing ELBO SMC ( θ, φ, y 1: T ) w.r.t.
Revised: we ﬁnd that optimizing ELBO SMC ( θ, φ, y 1: T ) w.r.t.

Original: θ leads to better generative models than optimizing ELBO IS ( θ, φ, y 1: T ) .
Revised: θ leads to better generative models than optimizing ELBO IS ( θ, φ, y 1: T ) .

Original: The same is true for using more particles.
Revised: The same is true for using more particles.

Original: We generate a sequence y 1: T for T = 200 by sampling from the model with θ =
Revised: We generate a sequence y 1: T for T = 200 by sampling from the model with θ =

Original: ( θ 1 , θ 2 ) =
Revised: ( θ 1 , θ 2 ) =

Original: We then optimize the different ELBO s w.r.t.
Revised: We then optimize the different ELBO s w.r.t.

Original: θ using the bootstrap proposal q 1 ( x 1 | y 1 ) = µ θ ( x 1 ) and q t ( x t | x 1: t − 1 , y 1: t ) =
Revised: θ using the bootstrap proposal q 1 ( x 1 | y 1 ) = µ θ ( x 1 ) and q t ( x t | x 1: t − 1 , y 1: t ) =

Original: f t,θ ( x t | x 1: t − 1 ) .
Revised: f t,θ ( x t | x 1: t − 1 ) .

Original: Because we use the bootstrap proposal, gradients w.r.t.
Revised: Because we use the bootstrap proposal, gradients w.r.t.

Original: to θ are not backpropagated through q .
Revised: to θ are not backpropagated through q .

Original: We use a ﬁxed learning rate of 0 . 01 and optimize for 500 steps using SGA .
Revised: We use a ﬁxed learning rate of 0 . 01 and optimize for 500 steps using SGA .

Original: Figure 2 shows that the convergence of both log p θ ( y 1: T ) to max θ log p θ ( y 1: T ) and θ to argmax θ log p θ ( y 1: T ) is faster when
Revised: Figure 2 shows that the convergence of both log p θ ( y 1: T ) to max θ log p θ ( y 1: T ) and θ to argmax θ log p θ ( y 1: T ) is faster when

Original: ELBO SMC and more particles are used.
Revised: ELBO SMC and more particles are used.

Original: [Figure]
Revised: [Figure]

Original: 5. P ROPOSAL L EARNING
Revised: 5. P ROPOSAL L EARNING

Original: We now investigate how learning φ , i.e. the proposal, is affected by the the choice of ELBO and the number of particles.
Revised: We now investigate how learning φ , i.e. the proposal, is affected by the the choice of ELBO and the number of particles.

Original: Consider a simple, ﬁxed generative model p ( µ ) p ( x | µ )
Revised: Consider a simple, ﬁxed generative model p ( µ ) p ( x | µ )

Original: =
Revised: =

Original: Normal( µ ; 0 , 1 2 )Normal( x ; µ, 1 2 ) where µ and x are the latent and observed variables respectively and a family of proposal distributions
Revised: Normal( µ ; 0 , 1 2 )Normal( x ; µ, 1 2 ) where µ and x are the latent and observed variables respectively and a family of proposal distributions

Original: q φ ( µ ) =
Revised: q φ ( µ ) =

Original: Normal( µ ; µ q , σ 2 q ) parameterized by φ = ( µ q , log σ 2 q ) .
Revised: Normal( µ ; µ q , σ 2 q ) parameterized by φ = ( µ q , log σ 2 q ) .

Original: For a ﬁxed observation x = 2 .
Revised: For a ﬁxed observation x = 2 .

Original: 3 , we initialize φ = (0 . 01 , 0 . 01) and optimize ELBO IS with respect to φ .
Revised: 3 , we initialize φ = (0 . 01 , 0 . 01) and optimize ELBO IS with respect to φ .

Original: We investigate the quality of the learned parameter φ as we increase the number of particles K during training.
Revised: We investigate the quality of the learned parameter φ as we increase the number of particles K during training.

Original: Figure 3 (left) clearly demonstrates that the quality of φ compared to the analytic posterior decreases as we increase
Revised: Figure 3 (left) clearly demonstrates that the quality of φ compared to the analytic posterior decreases as we increase

Original: K .
Revised: K .

Original: Similar behavior is observed in Figure 3 (middle, right) where we optimize ELBO SMC with respect to both θ and φ for the LGSSM described in Section 5.1.
Revised: Similar behavior is observed in Figure 3 (middle, right) where we optimize ELBO SMC with respect to both θ and φ for the LGSSM described in Section 5.1.

Original: We see that using more particles helps model learning but makes proposal learning worse.
Revised: We see that using more particles helps model learning but makes proposal learning worse.

Original: Using our ALT algorithm alleviates this problem and at the same time makes model learning faster as it proﬁts from a more accurate proposal distribution.
Revised: Using our ALT algorithm alleviates this problem and at the same time makes model learning faster as it proﬁts from a more accurate proposal distribution.

Original: We provide more extensive experiments exploring proposal learning with different ELBO s and number of particles in Appendix C.3.[Figure] [Figure]
Revised: We provide more extensive experiments exploring proposal learning with different ELBO s and number of particles in Appendix C.3.

Original: [Figure]
Revised: [Figure]

Original: µ is the marginal mean obtained from the Kalman smoothing algorithm under the model with EM -optimized parameters and µ approx t is an marginal mean obtained from the set of 10 SMC particles with learned/bootstrap proposal.

Original: 5. M OVING A GENTS
Revised: 5. M OVING A GENTS

Original: To show that our results are applicable to complex, high dimensional data we compare AESMC and IWAE on stochastic, partially observable video sequences.
Revised: To show that our results are applicable to complex, high dimensional data we compare AESMC and IWAE on stochastic, partially observable video sequences.

Original: Figure 7 in Appendix C.2 shows an example of such a sequence.
Revised: Figure 7 in Appendix C.2 shows an example of such a sequence.

Original: The dataset consists of N = 5000 sequences of images ( y ( n ) 1: T )
Revised: The dataset consists of N = 5000 sequences of images ( y ( n ) 1: T )

Original: Nn =1 of which 1000 are randomly held out as test set.
Revised: Nn =1 of which 1000 are randomly held out as test set.

Original: Each sequence contains T = 40 images represented as a 2 dimensional array of size 32 × 32 .
Revised: Each sequence contains T = 40 images represented as a 2 dimensional array of size 32 × 32 .

Original: In each sequence there is one agent, represented as circle, whose starting position is sampled randomly along the top and bottom of the image.
Revised: In each sequence there is one agent, represented as circle, whose starting position is sampled randomly along the top and bottom of the image.

Original: The dataset is inspired by (Ondrúška & Posner, 2016), however with the crucial difference that the movement of the agent is stochastic .
Revised: The dataset is inspired by (Ondrúška & Posner, 2016), however with the crucial difference that the movement of the agent is stochastic .

Original: The agent performs a directed random walk through the image.
Revised: The agent performs a directed random walk through the image.

Original: At each timestep, it moves according to
Revised: At each timestep, it moves according to

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: where ( x t , y t ) are the coordinates in frame t in a unit square that is then projected onto 32 ×pixels.
Revised: where ( x t , y t ) are the coordinates in frame t in a unit square that is then projected onto 32 × 32 pixels.

Original: In addition to the stochasticity of the movement, half of the image is occluded, preventing the agent from being observed.
Revised: In addition to the stochasticity of the movement, half of the image is occluded, preventing the agent from being observed.

Original: For the generative model and proposal distribution we use a Variational Recurrent Neural Network ( VRNN ) (Chung et al., 2015).
Revised: For the generative model and proposal distribution we use a Variational Recurrent Neural Network ( VRNN ) (Chung et al., 2015).

Original: It extends recurrent neural networks ( RNN s) by introducing a stochastic latent state x t at each timestep t .
Revised: It extends recurrent neural networks ( RNN s) by introducing a stochastic latent state x t at each timestep t .

Original: Together with the observation y t , this state conditions the deterministic transition of the RNN .
Revised: Together with the observation y t , this state conditions the deterministic transition of the RNN .

Original: By introducing this unobserved stochastic state, the VRNN is able to better model complex long range variability in stochastic sequences.
Revised: By introducing this unobserved stochastic state, the VRNN is able to better model complex long range variability in stochastic sequences.

Original: Architecture and hyperparameter details are given in Appendix C.1.
Revised: Architecture and hyperparameter details are given in Appendix C.1.

Original: Figure 4 shows max( ELBO IS , ELBO SMC ) for models trained with IWAE and AESMC for different particle numbers.
Revised: Figure 4 shows max( ELBO IS , ELBO SMC ) for models trained with IWAE and AESMC for different particle numbers.

Original: The lines correspond to the mean over three different random seeds and the shaded areas indicate the standard deviation.
Revised: The lines correspond to the mean over three different random seeds and the shaded areas indicate the standard deviation.

Original: The same number of particles was used for training and testing, additional hyperparameter settings are given in the appendix.
Revised: The same number of particles was used for training and testing, additional hyperparameter settings are given in the appendix.

Original: One can see that models trained using
Revised: One can see that models trained using

Original: AESMC outperform IWAE and using more particles improves the ELBO for both.
Revised: AESMC outperform IWAE and using more particles improves the ELBO for both.

Original: In Appendix C.2, we inspect different learned generative models by using them for prediction, conﬁrming the results presented here.
Revised: In Appendix C.2, we inspect different learned generative models by using them for prediction, conﬁrming the results presented here.

Original: We also tested ALT on this task, but found that while it did occasionally improve performance, it was much less stable than IWAE and AESMC .
Revised: We also tested ALT on this task, but found that while it did occasionally improve performance, it was much less stable than IWAE and AESMC .

Original: [Figure]
Revised: [Figure]

Original:  C ONCLUSIONS
Revised:  C ONCLUSIONS

Original: We have developed AESMC —a method for performing model learning using a new ELBO objective which is based on the SMC marginal likelihood estimator.
Revised: We have developed AESMC —a method for performing model learning using a new ELBO objective which is based on the SMC marginal likelihood estimator.

Original: This ELBO objective is optimized using
Revised: This ELBO objective is optimized using

Original: SGA and the reparameterization trick.
Revised: SGA and the reparameterization trick.

Original: Our approach utilizes the efﬁciency of SMC in models with intermediate observations and hence is suitable for highly structured models.
Revised: Our approach utilizes the efﬁciency of SMC in models with intermediate observations and hence is suitable for highly structured models.

Original: We experimentally demonstrated that this objective leads to better generative model training than the IWAE objective for structured problems, due to the superior inference and tighter bound provided by using SMC instead of importance sampling.
Revised: We experimentally demonstrated that this objective leads to better generative model training than the IWAE objective for structured problems, due to the superior inference and tighter bound provided by using SMC instead of importance sampling.

Original: Additionally, in Claim 1, we provide a simple way to express the bias of objectives induced by log of marginal likelihood estimators as a KL divergence on an extended space.
Revised: Additionally, in Claim 1, we provide a simple way to express the bias of objectives induced by log of marginal likelihood estimators as a KL divergence on an extended space.

Original: In Propositions 1 and 2, we investigate the implications of these KL s being zero in the case of IWAE and AESMC .
Revised: In Propositions 1 and 2, we investigate the implications of these KL s being zero in the case of IWAE and AESMC .

Original: In the latter case, we ﬁnd that we can achieve zero KL only if we are able to learn SMC intermediate target distributions corresponding to marginals of the target distribution.
Revised: In the latter case, we ﬁnd that we can achieve zero KL only if we are able to learn SMC intermediate target distributions corresponding to marginals of the target distribution.

Original: Using our assertion that tighter variational bounds are not necessarily better, we then introduce and test a new method, alternating ELBO s, that addresses some of these issues and observe that, in some cases, this improves both model and proposal learning.
Revised: Using our assertion that tighter variational bounds are not necessarily better, we then introduce and test a new method, alternating ELBO s, that addresses some of these issues and observe that, in some cases, this improves both model and proposal learning.

Original: A CKNOWLEDGMENTS
Revised: A CKNOWLEDGMENTS

Original: TAL is supported by EPSRC DTA and Google (project code DF6700) studentships.
Revised: TAL is supported by EPSRC DTA and Google (project code DF6700) studentships.

Original: MI is supported by the UK EPSRC CDT in Autonomous Intelligent Machines and Systems.
Revised: MI is supported by the UK EPSRC CDT in Autonomous Intelligent Machines and Systems.

Original: TR is supported by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) ERC grant agreement no. 617071; majority of TR’s work was undertaken while he was in theDepartment of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, and was supported by a
Revised: TR is supported by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/20072013) ERC grant agreement no. 617071; majority of TR’s work was undertaken while he was in the

Original:  BP industrial grant.
Revised: Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, and was supported by a BP industrial grant.

Original: TJ is supported by the UK EPSRC and MRC CDT in Statistical Science.
Revised: TJ is supported by the UK EPSRC and MRC CDT in Statistical Science.

Original: FW is supported by The Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1; DARPA PPAML through the U.S. AFRL under Cooperative Agreement FA8750-14-2-0006; Intel and DARPA D3M, under Cooperative Agreement FA8750-17-2-0093.
Revised: FW is supported by The Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1; DARPA PPAML through the U.S. AFRL under Cooperative Agreement FA8750-14-2-0006; Intel and DARPA D3M, under Cooperative Agreement FA8750-17-2-0093.

Original: A G RADIENTS
Revised: A G RADIENTS

Original: The goal is to obtain an unbiased estimator for the gradient
Revised: The goal is to obtain an unbiased estimator for the gradient

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: A. F ULL R EINFORCE
Revised: A. F ULL R EINFORCE

Original: We express the required quantity as
Revised: We express the required quantity as

Original: [Equation]

Original: [Equation]

Original: which we can estimate by sampling ( x 1: K 1: T ,

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: K

Original: [Equation] T [Equation] 1 ) directly from Q SMC and evaluating
Revised: which we can estimate by sampling ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) directly from Q SMC and evaluating

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: A. R EINFORCE & R EPARAMETERIZATION
Revised: A. R EINFORCE & R EPARAMETERIZATION

Original: We express the required quantity as
Revised: We express the required quantity as

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: 1: K 1: T d a 1: K 1: T −(29) =
Revised: 1: K 1: T d a 1: K 1: T −(29) =

Original: (cid:90) (cid:32) T (cid:89) t =
Revised: (cid:90) (cid:32) T (cid:89) t =

Original: K (cid:89) k
Revised: K (cid:89) k

Original: = s t ( (cid:15) kt ) (cid:33) (cid:34) ∇ θ,φ
Revised: = s t ( (cid:15) kt ) (cid:33) (cid:34) ∇ θ,φ

Original: T (cid:89) t =
Revised: T (cid:89) t =

Original: K (cid:89) k
Revised: K (cid:89) k

Original: =
Revised: =

Original: Discrete( a kt − 1 | w 1: K t − 1 ) log ˆ Z SMC ( r ( (cid:15) 1: K 1: T ) , a 1: K 1: T − 1 )+ (cid:32) T (cid:89) t =
Revised: Discrete( a kt − 1 | w 1: K t − 1 ) log ˆ Z SMC ( r ( (cid:15) 1: K 1: T ) , a 1: K 1: T − 1 )+ (cid:32) T (cid:89) t =

Original: K (cid:89) k
Revised: K (cid:89) k

Original: =
Revised: =

Original: Discrete( a kt − 1 | w 1: K t − 1 ) (cid:33) ∇ θ,φ log ˆ Z SMC ( r ( (cid:15) 1: K 1: T ) , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) (cid:35) d (cid:15) 1: K 1: T d a 1: K 1: T −(30) =
Revised: Discrete( a kt − 1 | w 1: K t − 1 ) (cid:33) ∇ θ,φ log ˆ Z SMC ( r ( (cid:15) 1: K 1: T ) , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) (cid:35) d (cid:15) 1: K 1: T d a 1: K 1: T −(30) =

Original: (cid:90) (cid:32) T (cid:89) t =
Revised: (cid:90) (cid:32) T (cid:89) t =

Original: K (cid:89) k
Revised: K (cid:89) k

Original: = s t ( (cid:15) kt ) (cid:33) (
Revised: = s t ( (cid:15) kt ) (cid:33) (

Original: cid:32) T (cid:89) t =
Revised: cid:32) T (cid:89) t =

Original: K (cid:89) k
Revised: K (cid:89) k

Original: =
Revised: =

Original: Discrete( a kt − 1 | w 1: K t − 1 ) (cid:33) · (cid:34) ∇ θ,φ log (cid:32) T (cid:89) t =
Revised: Discrete( a kt − 1 | w 1: K t − 1 ) (cid:33) · (cid:34) ∇ θ,φ log (cid:32) T (cid:89) t =

Original: K (cid:89) k
Revised: K (cid:89) k

Original: =
Revised: =

Original: Discrete( a kt − 1 | w 1: K t − 1 ) (cid:33) log ˆ Z SMC ( r ( (cid:15) 1: K 1: T ) , a 1: K 1: T − 1 )+ ∇ θ,φ log ˆ Z SMC ( r ( (cid:15) 1: K 1: T ) , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) (cid:105)
Revised: Discrete( a kt − 1 | w 1: K t − 1 ) (cid:33) log ˆ Z SMC ( r ( (cid:15) 1: K 1: T ) , a 1: K 1: T − 1 )+ ∇ θ,φ log ˆ Z SMC ( r ( (cid:15) 1: K 1: T ) , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) (cid:105)

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: (31) where r ( (cid:15) 1: K 1: T ) denotes a sample with identical distribution as x 1: K 1: T obtained by passing the auxiliary samples (cid:15) 1: K 1: T through the reparameterization function.
Revised: (31) where r ( (cid:15) 1: K 1: T ) denotes a sample with identical distribution as x 1: K 1: T obtained by passing the auxiliary samples (cid:15) 1: K 1: T through the reparameterization function.

Original: We can thus estimate the gradient by sampling (cid:15) 1: K 1: T from the auxiliary distribution, reparameterizing and evaluating (cid:104)
Revised: We can thus estimate the gradient by sampling (cid:15) [Equation] K 1: T from the auxiliary distribution, reparameterizing and evaluating (cid:104)

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: In Figure 5, we demonstrate that the estimator in (31) has much higher variance if we include the ﬁrst term.
Revised: In Figure 5, we demonstrate that the estimator in (31) has much higher variance if we include the ﬁrst term.

Original: [Figure]
Revised: [Figure]

Original: r e i n f o r ce

Original: B P ROOFS FOR B IAS & I MPLICATIONS ON THE P ROPOSALS Derivation of (9) .
Revised: B P ROOFS FOR B IAS & I MPLICATIONS ON THE P ROPOSALS Derivation of (9) .

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: [Equation]

Original: Proof of Claim 1.
Revised: Proof of Claim 1.

Original: Since ˆ Z P ( x ) ≥ 0 , Q ( x ) ≥ 0 and (cid:82) Q ( x ) ˆ Z P ( x ) d x = Z P , we can let the unnormalized target density in Deﬁnition 1 be ˜ P
Revised: Since ˆ Z P ( x ) ≥ 0 , Q ( x ) ≥ 0 and (cid:82) Q ( x ) ˆ Z P ( x ) d x = Z P , we can let the unnormalized target density in Deﬁnition 1 be ˜ P

Original: ( x ) =
Revised: ( x ) =

Original: Q ( x ) ˆ Z P ( x ) .
Revised: Q ( x ) ˆ Z P ( x ) .

Original: Hence, the normalized target density is P ( x ) =
Revised: Hence, the normalized target density is P ( x ) =

Original: Q ( x ) ˆ Z P
Revised: Q ( x ) ˆ Z P

Original: ( x ) /Z
Revised: ( x ) /Z

Original: P .
Revised: P .

Original: Substituting these quantities into (8) and (9) yields the two equalities in (10).
Revised: Substituting these quantities into (8) and (9) yields the two equalities in (10).

Original: Proof of Proposition 1.
Revised: Proof of Proposition 1.

Original: ( = ⇒ )
Revised: ( = ⇒ )

Original: Substituting for Q IS ( x 1: K )
Revised: Substituting for Q IS ( x 1: K )

Original: =
Revised: =

Original: P IS ( x 1: K ) , we obtain
Revised: P IS ( x 1: K ) , we obtain

Original: [Equation]

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Integrating both sides with respect to ( x 2 , . .
Revised: Integrating both sides with respect to ( x 2 , . .

Original: , x K ) over the whole support (i.e. marginalizing out everything except x 1 ), we obtain:
Revised: , x K ) over the whole support (i.e. marginalizing out everything except x 1 ), we obtain:

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Rearranging gives us q ( x 1 | y )
Revised: Rearranging gives us q ( x 1 | y )

Original: =
Revised: =

Original: p ( x 1 | y ) for all x 1 .
Revised: p ( x 1 | y ) for all x 1 .

Original: ( ⇐ = )
Revised: ( ⇐ = )

Original: Substituting p ( x k | y )
Revised: Substituting p ( x k | y )

Original: =
Revised: =

Original: q ( x k | y ) , we obtain
Revised: q ( x k | y ) , we obtain

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: [Equation]

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Proof of Proposition 2.
Revised: Proof of Proposition 2.

Original: We consider the general sequence of target distributions π t ( x 1: t ) ( p θ ( x 1: t | y 1: t ) in the case of SSM s), their unnormalized versions γ t ( x 1: t ) ( p θ ( x 1: t , y 1: t ) in the case of
Revised: We consider the general sequence of target distributions π t ( x 1: t ) ( p θ ( x 1: t | y 1: t ) in the case of SSM s), their unnormalized versions γ t ( x 1: t ) ( p θ ( x 1: t , y 1: t ) in the case of

Original: SSM s), their normalizing constants Z t = (cid:82) γ t ( x 1: t ) d x 1: t ( p θ ( y 1: t ) in the case of SSM s), where
Revised: SSM s), their normalizing constants Z t = (cid:82) γ t ( x 1: t ) d x 1: t ( p θ ( y 1: t ) in the case of SSM s), where

Original: Z = Z T = p ( y 1: T ) .
Revised: Z = Z T = p ( y 1: T ) .

Original: ( = ⇒ )
Revised: ( = ⇒ )

Original: It sufﬁces to show that ˆ Z SMC ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) =
Revised: It sufﬁces to show that ˆ Z SMC ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) =

Original: Z for all ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) implies 1 and 2 in
Revised: Z for all ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) implies 1 and 2 in

Original: Proposal 2 due to equation (11).
Revised: Proposal 2 due to equation (11).

Original: We ﬁrst prove that ˆ Z SMC ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 )
Revised: We ﬁrst prove that ˆ Z SMC ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 )

Original: =
Revised: =

Original: Z for all ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) implies that the weights
Revised: Z for all ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) implies that the weights

Original: [Equation] [Equation]
Revised: [Equation] [Equation]

Original:  t [Equation]
Revised: for t = 2 ,

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: 42) are constant with respect to x 1: t .
Revised: 42) are constant with respect to x 1: t .

Original: Pick t ∈ { 1 , . .
Revised: Pick t ∈ { 1 , . .

Original: , T } and distinct k, (cid:96) ∈ { 1 , . . .
Revised: , T } and distinct k, (cid:96) ∈ { 1 , . . .

Original: , K } .
Revised: , K } .

Original: Also, pick x 1: t and x (cid:48) 1: t .
Revised: Also, pick x 1: t and x (cid:48) 1: t .

Original: Now, consider two sets of particle sets (¯ x 1: K 1: T , ¯ a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) and (˜ x 1: K 1: T , ˜ a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) , illustrated in Figure 6, such that
Revised: Now, consider two sets of particle sets (¯ x 1: K 1: T , ¯ a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) and (˜ x 1: K 1: T , ˜ a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) , illustrated in Figure 6, such that

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: if κ = (cid:96) and τ < t x (cid:48)
Revised: if κ = (cid:96) and τ < t x (cid:48)

Original: τ if ( κ, τ ) =
Revised: τ if ( κ, τ ) =

Original: ( k, t )
Revised: ( k, t )

Original: x τ if κ = k
Revised: x τ if κ = k

Original: and τ < t x κτ otherwise for τ = 1 , . . .
Revised: and τ < t x κτ otherwise for τ = 1 , . . .

Original: , T, κ = 1 , . . .
Revised: , T, κ = 1 , . . .

Original: , K, (43) ¯ a κτ = (cid:26) (cid:96) if ( κ, τ ) =
Revised: , K, (43) ¯ a κτ = (cid:26) (cid:96) if ( κ, τ ) =

Original: ( k, t − 1) or ( k, t ) κ otherwise for τ = 1 , . .
Revised: ( k, t − 1) or ( k, t ) κ otherwise for τ = 1 , . .

Original: , T − 1 , κ = 1 , . .
Revised: , T − 1 , κ = 1 , . .

Original: , K, (44) ˜
Revised: , K, (44) ˜

Original: x κτ =   x (cid:48) τ if κ = (cid:96) and τ < t x τ if ( κ, τ ) =
Revised: x κτ =   x (cid:48) τ if κ = (cid:96) and τ < t x τ if ( κ, τ ) =

Original: ( k, t )
Revised: ( k, t )

Original: x τ if κ = k
Revised: x τ if κ = k

Original: and τ < t x κτ otherwise for τ = 1 , . . .
Revised: and τ < t x κτ otherwise for τ = 1 , . . .

Original: , T, κ = 1 , . . .
Revised: , T, κ = 1 , . . .

Original: , K, (45) ˜ a κτ = (cid:26) (cid:96) if ( κ, τ ) =
Revised: , K, (45) ˜ a κτ = (cid:26) (cid:96) if ( κ, τ ) =

Original: ( k, t ) κ otherwise for τ = 1 , . .
Revised: ( k, t ) κ otherwise for τ = 1 , . .

Original: , T − 1 , κ = 1 , . . .
Revised: , T − 1 , κ = 1 , . . .

Original: , K.
Revised: , K.

Original: (46) x (cid:48)··· ··· ··· ··· (cid:96) k x (cid:48)x (cid:48)
Revised: (46) x (cid:48)··· ··· ··· ··· (cid:96) k x (cid:48)x (cid:48)

Original: t −xxx t −...
Revised: t −xxx t −...

Original: x (cid:48) t .. . x (cid:48)··· ··· ··· ··· (cid:96) k x (cid:48)x (cid:48)
Revised: x (cid:48) t ... x (cid:48)··· ··· ··· ··· (cid:96) k x (cid:48)x (cid:48)

Original: t −xxx t −... x t .. .
Revised: t −xxx t −... x t ...

Original: The weights ¯ w κτ and ˜ w κτ for the respective particle sets are identical except when ( τ, κ 
Revised: The weights ¯ w κτ and ˜ w κτ for the respective particle sets are identical except when ( τ, κ )

Original: [Equation]

Original: = ( t, k ) where
Revised: = ( t, k ) where

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Since ˆ Z (¯ x 1: K 1: T , ¯ a 1: K 1: T − 1 )
Revised: Since ˆ Z (¯ x 1: K 1: T , ¯ a 1: K 1: T − 1 )

Original: =
Revised: =

Original: ˆ Z (˜ x 1: K 1: T , ˜ a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) , we have w t ( x (cid:48) 1: t ) =
Revised: ˆ Z (˜ x 1: K 1: T , ˜ a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) , we have w t ( x (cid:48) 1: t ) =

Original: w t ( x 1: t ) .
Revised: w t ( x 1: t ) .

Original: As this holds for any arbitrary t and x 1: t , it follows that w t ( x 1: t ) must be constant with respect to x 1: t for all t
Revised: As this holds for any arbitrary t and x 1: t , it follows that w t ( x 1: t ) must be constant with respect to x 1: t for all t

Original: = 1 , . .
Revised: = 1 , . .

Original: , T .
Revised: , T .

Original: Now, for x 1: t , consider the implied proposal by rearranging (41) and (42)
Revised: Now, for x 1: t , consider the implied proposal by rearranging (41) and (42)

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: for t = 2 , . . .
Revised: for t = 2 , . . .

Original: , T,
Revised: , T

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: 50) where w t := w t ( x 1: t ) is constant from our previous results.
Revised: 50) where w t := w t ( x 1: t ) is constant from our previous results.

Original: For this to be a normalized density with respect to x t , we must have
Revised: For this to be a normalized density with respect to x t , we must have

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: 51) and for t = 2 , . .
Revised: 51) and for t = 2 , . .

Original: , T :
Revised: , T :

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Since (cid:82) π t +1 ( x 1: t +1 )
Revised: Since (cid:82) π t +1 ( x 1: t +1 )

Original: d x t +1 and π t ( x 1: t ) are both normalized densities, we must have π t ( x 1: t ) =
Revised: d x t +1 and π t ( x 1: t ) are both normalized densities, we must have π t ( x 1: t ) =

Original: (cid:82) π t +1 ( x 1: t +1 )
Revised: (cid:82) π t +1 ( x 1: t +1 )

Original: d x t +1 for all t = 1 , . . .
Revised: d x t +1 for all t = 1 , . . .

Original: , T − 1 for all x 1: t .
Revised: , T − 1 for all x 1: t .

Original: For a given t ∈ { 1 , . . .
Revised: For a given t ∈ { 1 , . . .

Original: , T − 1 } and x 1: t , applying this repeatedly yields
Revised: , T − 1 } and x 1: t , applying this repeatedly yields

Original: [Equation] [Equation]
Revised: [Equation] [Equation]

Original: such that each π t ( x 1: t ) must be the corresponding marginal of the ﬁnal target.
Revised: such that each π t ( x 1: t ) must be the corresponding marginal of the ﬁnal target.

Original: We also have
Revised: We also have

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: ( ⇐ = )
Revised: ( ⇐ = )

Original: To complete the proof, we now simply substitute identities in 1 and 2 of Proposal 2 back to the expression of ˆ Z ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) to obtain ˆ Z ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 )
Revised: To complete the proof, we now simply substitute identities in 1 and 2 of Proposal 2 back to the expression of ˆ Z ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 ) to obtain ˆ Z ( x 1: K 1: T , a 1: K 1: T − 1 )

Original: =
Revised: =

Original: Z .
Revised: Z .

Original: C E XPERIMENTS C. VRNN
Revised: C E XPERIMENTS C. VRNN

Original: In the following we give the details of our VRNN architecture.
Revised: In the following we give the details of our VRNN architecture.

Original: The generative model is given by:
Revised: The generative model is given by:

Original: [Equation] [Equation]
Revised: [Equation] [Equation]

Original: where
Revised: where

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: and the proposal distribution is given by
Revised: and the proposal distribution is given by

Original: [Equation]
Revised: [Equation]

Original: The functions µ xθ and σ xθ are computed by networks with two fully connected layers of sizewhose ﬁrst layer is shared.
Revised: The functions µ xθ and σ xθ are computed by networks with two fully connected layers of sizewhose ﬁrst layer is shared.

Original: ϕ
Revised: ϕ

Original: xθ is one fully connected layer of size 128.
Revised: xθ is one fully connected layer of size 128.

Original: For visual input, the encoding ϕ yθ is a convolutional network with conv-4x4-2-1-32, conv-4x4-2-164, conv-4x4-2-1-128 where conv-wxh-s-p-n denotes a convolutional network with n ﬁlters of size w × h , stride s , padding p .
Revised: For visual input, the encoding ϕ yθ is a convolutional network with conv-4x4-2-1-32, conv-4x4-2-1-64, conv-4x4-2-1-128 where conv-wxh-s-p-n denotes a convolutional network with n ﬁlters of size w × h , stride s , padding p .

Original: Between convolutions we use leaky ReLUs with slope 0.2 as nonlinearity and batch norms.
Revised: Between convolutions we use leaky ReLUs with slope 0.2 as nonlinearity and batch norms.

Original: The decoding µ yθ uses transposed convolutions of the same dimensions but in reversed order, however with stride s = 1 and padding p = 0 for the ﬁrst layer.
Revised: The decoding µ yθ uses transposed convolutions of the same dimensions but in reversed order, however with stride s = 1 and padding p = 0 for the ﬁrst layer.

Original: A Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) is used as RNN and if not stated otherwise ReLUs are used in between fully connected layers.
Revised: A Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) is used as RNN and if not stated otherwise ReLUs are used in between fully connected layers.

Original: For the proposal distribution, the functions µ pφ and σ pφ are neural networks with three fully connected layers of size 128 that are sharing the ﬁrst two layers.
Revised: For the proposal distribution, the functions µ pφ and σ pφ are neural networks with three fully connected layers of size 128 that are sharing the ﬁrst two layers.

Original: Sigmoid and softplus functions are used where values in (0 , 1) or R + are required.
Revised: Sigmoid and softplus functions are used where values in (0 , 1) or R + are required.

Original: We use a minibatch size of 25.
Revised: We use a minibatch size of 25.

Original: For the moving agents dataset we use ADAM with a learning rate of 10 − 3 .
Revised: For the moving agents dataset we use ADAM with a learning rate of 10 − 3 .

Original: A speciﬁc feature of the VRNN architecture is that the proposal and the generative model share the component ϕ
Revised: A speciﬁc feature of the VRNN architecture is that the proposal and the generative model share the component ϕ

Original: yφ,θ .
Revised: yφ,θ .

Original: Consequently, we set φ = θ for the parameters belonging to this module and train it using gradients for both θ and φ .
Revised: Consequently, we set φ = θ for the parameters belonging to this module and train it using gradients for both θ and φ .

Original: C. M OVING A GENTS
Revised: C. M OVING A GENTS

Original: In Figure 7 we investigate the quality of the generative model by comparing visual predictions.
Revised: In Figure 7 we investigate the quality of the generative model by comparing visual predictions.

Original: We do so for models learned by IWAE (top) and AESMC (bottom) .
Revised: We do so for models learned by IWAE (top) and AESMC (bottom) .

Original: The models were learned using ten particles but for easier visualization we only predict using ﬁve particles.
Revised: The models were learned using ten particles but for easier visualization we only predict using ﬁve particles.

Original: The ﬁrst row in each graphic shows the ground truth.
Revised: The ﬁrst row in each graphic shows the ground truth.

Original: The second row shows the averaged predictions of all ﬁve particles.
Revised: The second row shows the averaged predictions of all ﬁve particles.

Original: The next ﬁve rows show the predictions made by each particle individually.
Revised: The next ﬁve rows show the predictions made by each particle individually.

Original: The observations (i.e. the top row) up to t = 19 are shown to the model.
Revised: The observations (i.e. the top row) up to t = 19 are shown to the model.

Original: Up to this timestep the latent values x 0:19 are drawn from the proposal distribution q ( x t | y t , h t − 1 ) .
Revised: Up to this timestep the latent values x 0:19 are drawn from the proposal distribution q ( x t | y t , h t − 1 ) .

Original: From t = 20 onwards the latent values x 20:37 are drawn from the generative model p ( x t | x t − 1 ) .
Revised: From t = 20 onwards the latent values x 20:37 are drawn from the generative model p ( x t | x t − 1 ) .

Original: Consequently, the model predicts the partially occluded, stochastic movement over 17 timesteps into the future.
Revised: Consequently, the model predicts the partially occluded, stochastic movement over 17 timesteps into the future.

Original: We note that most particles predict a viable future trajectory.
Revised: We note that most particles predict a viable future trajectory.

Original: However, the model learned by IWAE is not as consistent in the quality of its predictions, often ’forgetting’ the particle.
Revised: However, the model learned by IWAE is not as consistent in the quality of its predictions, often ’forgetting’ the particle.

Original: This does not happen in every predicted sequence but the behavior shown here is very typical.
Revised: This does not happen in every predicted sequence but the behavior shown here is very typical.

Original: Models learned by AESMC are much more consistent in the quality of their predictions.
Revised: Models learned by AESMC are much more consistent in the quality of their predictions.

Original: C. O PTIMIZING O NLY P ROPOSAL P ARAMETERS
Revised: C. O PTIMIZING O NLY P ROPOSAL P ARAMETERS

Original: We have run experiments where we optimize various ELBO objectives with respect to φ with θ ﬁxed in order to see how various objectives have an effect on proposal learning.
Revised: We have run experiments where we optimize various ELBO objectives with respect to φ with θ ﬁxed in order to see how various objectives have an effect on proposal learning.

Original: In particular, we train
Revised: In particular, we train

Original: ELBO IS and ELBO SMC with number of particles K ∈ { 10 , 100 , 1000 } .
Revised: ELBO IS and ELBO SMC with number of particles K ∈ { 10 , 100 , 1000 } .

Original: Once the training is done, we use the trained proposal network to perform inference using both IS and SMC with number of particles K test ∈ { 10 , 100 , 1000 } .
Revised: Once the training is done, we use the trained proposal network to perform inference using both IS and SMC with number of particles K test ∈ { 10 , 100 , 1000 } .

Original: In Figure 8, we see experimental results for the LGSSM described in Section 5.1.
Revised: In Figure 8, we see experimental results for the LGSSM described in Section 5.1.

Original: We measure the quality of the inference network using a proxy (cid:113)(cid:80)
Revised: We measure the quality of the inference network using a proxy (cid:113)(cid:80)

Original: Tt =1 ( µ kalman t − µ approx t ) 2 where µ kalman t is the true marginal mean E p ( x 1: T | y 1: T ) [ x t ] obtained from the Kalman smoothing algorithm and µ approx t[-= (cid:16) (cid:80) Kk =
-]
Revised: Tt =1 ( µ kalman t − µ approx t ) 2 where µ kalman t is the true marginal mean E p ( x 1: T | y 1: T ) [ x t ] obtained from the Kalman smoothing algorithm and µ approx t[-= (cid:16) (cid:80) Kk =
-]

Original: w kT x t (cid:17) / (cid:16) (cid:80)
Revised: [Equation]

Original: Kk =1 w kT (cid:17) is an approximate marginal mean obtained from the proposal parameterized by φ .
Revised: Kk =1 w kT (cid:17) is an approximate marginal mean obtained from the proposal parameterized by φ .

Original: We see that if we train using ELBO SMC with K train = 1000 , the performance for inference using SMC (with whichever K test ∈ { 10 , 100 , 1000 } ) is worse than if we train with ELBO IS with any number of particles K train ∈ { 10 , 100 , 1000 } .
Revised: We see that if we train using ELBO SMC with K train = 1000 , the performance for inference using SMC (with whichever K test ∈ { 10 , 100 , 1000 } ) is worse than if we train with ELBO IS with any number of particles K train ∈ { 10 , 100 , 1000 } .

Original: Examining the other axes of variation:
Revised: Examining the other axes of variation:

Original: • Increasing K test (moving up in Figure 8 (Right)) improves inference.
Revised: • Increasing K test (moving up in Figure 8 (Right)) improves inference.

Original: • Increasing K train (moving to the right in Figure 8 (Right))
Revised: • Increasing K train (moving to the right in Figure 8 (Right))

Original: worsens inference.
Revised: worsens inference.

Original: • Among different possible combinations of (training algorithm, testing algorithm), ( IS , SMC ) (cid:31) ( SMC , SMC ) (cid:31) ( IS , IS ) (cid:31) ( SMC , IS ), where we use “ a (cid:31) b ” to denote that the combination a results in better inference than combination b .
Revised: • Among different possible combinations of (training algorithm, testing algorithm), ( IS , SMC ) (cid:31) ( SMC , SMC ) (cid:31) ( IS , IS ) (cid:31) ( SMC , IS ), where we use “ a (cid:31) b ” to denote that the combination a results in better inference than combination b .

Original: [Figure]
Revised: [Figure]

Original: [Figure]