title string | paper_decision string | review_1 string | rebuttals_1 string | review_2 string | rebuttals_2 string | review_3 string | rebuttals_3 string | review_4 string | rebuttals_4 string | global_rebuttals string | dataset_source string | conference_year int64 | review_5 string | rebuttals_5 string | review_6 string | rebuttals_6 string | review_7 string | rebuttals_7 string | review_8 string | rebuttals_8 string |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Autoformalize Mathematical Statements by Symbolic Equivalence and Semantic Consistency | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper designs two self-consistency methods for formalizing mathematical statements in natural language into Isabelle --- symbolic equivalence and semantic consistency. In particular, symbolic equivalence measures whether the formalized statements are equivalent (judged by the Isabelle’s built-in automated theorem provers), and semantic consistency measures the similarity of the natural language translation of the formalized statement and its original statement (In other words, semantic consistency measures whether the formalized statement keeps the semantic meaning.) Tested with various base models, this paper shows that the combination of the two proposed methods improves the success rate of the autoformalization process.
Strengths: - This paper studies an interesting topic, self-consistency for autoformalization, which is non-trivial because the target is not unique. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first paper to study the self-consistency methods for autoformalization.
- Figure 2 shows that self-consistency methods for autoformalization have great potential because the pass@k accuracy keeps increasing with more trails.
Weaknesses: - The major weakness of this paper is the scope of the autoformalization --- the symbolic equivalence method only applies to the formalization of theorem statements instead of their proofs. Autoformalization of theorem statements is an arguably less significant problem since it cannot be used to verify any informal proofs.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: - Definition 1 looks unnecessarily complicated to me. For two theorems A and B, does the symbolic equivalence just mean that A and B are equivalent (which can be checked by the Isabelle solve_direct tool)?
- The variable misalignment example is confusing to me. In particular, do the authors suggest that the No. 2 and No.3 outputs in Figure 1 should be equivalent? It seems to me that in output No. 3, the variables x and y are untyped but x, y in output No. 2 have type real. In addition, it is even unclear to me whether output No. 3 is provable.
- Is the phenomenon in Figure 2 true for models finetuned for autoformalization such as MMA? In addition, does SymEq/SemCo still improve the performance over MMA models?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors adequately addressed the limitations and potential negative societal impact.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Dear Reviewer GLbW**
Thank you for your review and detailed feedback. In the following, please let us address the concerns and questions you've pointed out.
**[Weakness #1] The scope of our framework and the significance of statement autoformalization**
First, we would like to clarify that, the symbolic equivalence could be adapted to the proof autoformalization. Formally speaking, a formal proof is nothing but a sequence of formal subgoals logically connected (e.g., see Figure 2 in DSP [1]). Since there is no clear difference between the autoformalization for the final goal and the intermediate subgoals, the symbolic equivalence should be still effective in proof autoformalization. We leave the exploration of this direction as the future work.
Next, while we do recognize the importance of automatic verification of informal proofs and regard it as our future work, we respectfully disagree with the comment that “Autoformalization of theorem statements is an arguably less significant problem since it cannot be used to verify any informal proofs”. Elaborately, automatic verification of informal proofs can be achieved by autoformalizing each subgoals in the informal proof, and the validity of the formal proof can be verified with a proof assistant such as Isabelle or Lean. Hence, we do believe the statement autoformalization capability is the foundation for verifying informal proofs.
Moreover, technically, proof autoformalization requires not only the informal statement and proof as input but also the formal statement [1, 2]. Therefore, having a correct formal statement for the informal statement is a crucial precondition for the success of proof autoformalization.
Finally, for theorem proving, proof autoformalization is not necessary. For example, the recent AlphaProof project [3] by Google DeepMind uses statement autoformalization to generate approximately 100 million problems and trains its solver network using the AlphaZero algorithm.
[1] Draft, Sketch, and Prove: Guiding Formal Theorem Provers with Informal Proofs. ICLR 2023
[2] Don't Trust: Verify -- Grounding LLM Quantitative Reasoning with Autoformalization. ICLR 2024
[3] https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/ai-solves-imo-problems-at-silver-medal-level/
**[Question #1] Compared with solve_direct tactic**
It is quite hard to formally define the equivalence between two theorems, and hence we try to define the symbolic equivalence as a metric of the consistency between two formal statements. Continue the example shown in Figure 1, given a formal statement,`solve_direct` can successfully detect its duplicate version, but cannot detect its variant although it is still a correct formalization.
```bash
theorem first_statement :
fixes a b :: real
assumes "a = 2/3"
and "b = 6"
shows "a * b = 4"
using assms(1) assms(2) by force
theorem second_statement :
fixes x y :: real
assumes "x = 2/3"
and "y = 6"
shows "x * y = 4"
solve_direct
(* solve_direct: the current goal can be solved directly with
Scratch.first_statement: ?a = 2 / 3 ⟹ ?b = 6 ⟹ ?a * ?b = 4 *)
theorem first_statement :
fixes a b :: real
assumes "a = 2/3"
and "b = 6"
shows "a * b = 4"
using assms(1) assms(2) by force
theorem second_statement :
fixes y :: real
assumes "y = 6"
shows "(2 / 3) * y = 4"
solve_direct
(* No proof found *)
```
Empirically, we also replace the symbolic equivalence with `solve_direct` tactic and conduct a comparison experiment using GPT-4 autoformalization results. The 1@k results shown in the following indicate that the symbolic equivalence still outperforms `solve_direct` either when solely used or combined with the semantic consistency.
| Dataset | solve_direct | SymEq | Log-comb (solve_direct + SemCo) | Log-comb (SymEq + SemCo) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| MATH | 37.5 | 42.0 | 42.2 | 45.3 |
| miniF2F | 34.6 | 41.1 | 39.1 | 43.6 |
**[Question #2] A mistake in Figure 1**
We apologize for the mistake made in Figure 1. The No.3 output in Figure 1 is provable and it should be
```bash
theorem
fixes x y :: real
assumes "x = 2/3"
and "y = 6"
shows "x * y = 4"
```
**[Question #3] Is the proposed methods still effective on MMA fine-tuned models?**
Thanks for the comment. We trained a Mistral 7B model using the Isabelle data in MMA, and evaluate our framework using this model on 60 MATH problems. The pass@k (k=1,2,3,10) are 23.3%, 31.6%, 35%, 46.6%, respectively, indicating the curve in Figure 1 is still effective for this model. In addition, the n@k results are provided as follows, and we can observe that our framework also works well.
| 1@k | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Baseline | SymEq | SemCo | Log-comb |
| 23.3 | 26.6 | 23.3 | 26.6 |
| 2@k | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Baseline | SymEq | SemCo | Log-comb |
| 31.6 | 35.0 | 33.3 | 36.6 |
| 3@k | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Baseline | SymEq | SemCo | Log-comb |
| 35.0 | 36.6 | 35.0 | 38.3 |
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for the examples and additional results. My concerns are addressed and I will increase my score accordingly. | Summary: This paper targets the task of autoformalization for mathematics, which inputs an informal theorem statement (in English) and outputs a formal theorem statement (inside an interactive theorem prover). Prior work has used LLMs in-context to produce autoformalizations. The work is motivated by a disparity between top-1 accuracy and top-k accuracy when sampling formalizations from LLMs. The proposed method works atop any generative model of formalized statements. Their approach is to refine the k samples to a final choice via a voting mechanism. The approach is twofold - first a symbolic equivalence method uses automated theorem provers (ATPs) to check for equivalence between two formalized statements. The k-samples are then clustered by equivalence, and then they perform semantic consistency: measuring the embedding similarity between the original informal statement and the informalized formal statement. They indicate improvements over the baselines.
Strengths: 1. The idea to compare formalization candidates via symbolic equivalence is interesting. It is a nice strategy to impose additional structure on the k-autoformalization samples. The use of the semantic consistency is a natural extension of the distilled backpropogation idea presented in (https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.12433). While measuring alignment with the informal statement is not automatable, the symbolic equivalence is a nice intermediate which I believe will be further explored in the future.
2. The results indicate that their approach is effective. As the approach can be placed atop any autoformalization strategy sampling > 1 candidates from a generative model, the idea is generally applicable and should be useful for all such future work.
Weaknesses: 1. The semantic consistency alone does not appear to perform much better, I wonder if this is due to the choice of BERT for the embeddings. Perhaps you can use a newer model to judge its efficacy?
2. The formulae for combining the semantic consistency score do not seem to have any motivation for the particular choice of $f(x) = x, x^2, \log x$. Can the authors explain the rationale for these choices?
3. The definition of $\tau$-semantic consistency is not used elsewhere. In particular, it is unclear the purpose of the incorporation of $\tau$ as it is not mentioned again.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. The BERT model is used for measuring embedding similarity. How do the results change if using better models? BERT is quite outdated at this point.
2. Can you provide analysis as to why the log-combination is better than the other two?
3. On line 308 you indicate that on average about 2 symbolic equivalences are proven for k = 10 samples, this is lower than I had expected. What is the average cluster size per problem? Is it often the case that the models output candidates which are not symbolically equivalent (or at least, cannot be proven to be)? Does the chosen formalization end up coming from a larger cluster, even with semantic consistency being used?
4. In algorithm 1 you mentioned you standardize candidates $\Psi_i, \Psi_j$. What is the protocol for performing this operation? Do all hypotheses go in P_i, P_j?
Typos:
1. On line 164 you mentioned that prior works commonly assign scores based on cluster size. Could you include a reference?
2. On line 166 you mentioned the self-consistency is the similarity between the autoformalized version and its informalization. Did you mean the informalized version and the informal statement?
Line 34: Cover -> Recover?
Line 261: wining -> winning
Line 301: autoformalizaiton -> autoformalization
Line 578: "Some motivation examples -> "Some motivational examples" or "Motivating examples"
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: I believe the authors have adequately addressed the potential limitations of their work in the limitations section in the appendix.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Dear Reviewer LZ2a**
Thank you for the insightful feedback on our paper. We appreciate the time and effort you have put into reviewing our work, and we are grateful for encouraging comments such as interesting idea, effective results, and general applicability. We have carefully read your review and addressed your concerns as follows.
**[Weakness #1 & Question #1] Newer model for the semantic consistency**
Thanks for the comment. As suggested, we use e5-Mistral [1] instead of the BERT as a new embedding model. The results are shown as follows. It appears that the embedding model update makes a minimal impact on performance. This may due to that the effectiveness of informalization may be more critical than the embedding model for the semantic consistency.
| MATH | | | | miniF2F | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| SemCo(BERT) | SemCo(e5-Mistral) | Log-comb (BERT) | Log-comb (e5-Mistral) | SemCo(BERT) | SemCo(e5-Mistral) | Log-comb (BERT) | Log-comb (e5-Mistral) |
| 39.5 | 40.5 | 45.3 | 46.7 | 34.9 | 34.4 | 43.6 | 42.6 |
**[Weakness #1 & Question #2] The rationale of combination strategy**
The choice of combination strategy (linear, quadratic, or logarithmic) is determined empirically. Curves of three combination strategies are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 7, and we can observe that the log-combination is the most stable. A potential reason for this result may due to that the log transformation numerically imposes a heavier penalty on candidates with lower scores, thereby reducing their likelihood of being selected. We will present a comprehensive analysis about combination strategy in our revision.
**[Weakness #3] The definition of $\tau$-semantic consistency**
The definition of $\tau$-semantic consistency is included for the completeness and serves as a counterpart to the symbolic equivalence. In the implementation, we directly use the embedding similarity as the score of semantic consistency.
**[Question #3.1] What is the average cluster size per problem?**
We apologize for the confusion. In the paper (line 308), “2.13 vs. 2.33” is computed by the average size of symbolic equivalence classes across ALL problems, i.e., $\sum$ sizes of all classes on all problems / $\sum$ Number of classes on all problems. For example, given two problems and their symbolic class sizes are 10 and 1 (i.e., all problem are symbolically equivalent and none problem are symbolically equivalent). Then the average size is calculated by (10 + 10 $\times$ 1) / (1 + 10). Following your suggestion, we list the average and maximum cluster size per problem (using GPT-4 outputs) as follows. We will clarify this and include the results in the revision.
| Dataset | MATH | miniF2F |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Average cluster size per problem | 3.19 | 4.41 |
| Max cluster size per problem | 4.89 | 6.11 |
**[Question #3.2] Is it often the case that the models output candidates which are not symbolically equivalent?**
From the above results, the model frequently produces candidates that are symbolically equivalent.
**[Question #3.3] Does the chosen formalization end up coming from a larger cluster, even with semantic consistency being used?**
Yes. Generally, the efficacy of log-combination is derived from that (1) the symbolic equivalence determines multiple large clusters, and then (2) the semantic consistency distinguishes the best one from them.
**[Question #4] The protocol for performing standardization**
The standardization is employed to align variables and it does put all hypothesis into $P_i$ and $P_j$. Elaborately, given two formal statements, if their conclusions are in the form of the numerical relation, the standardization introduces new variables $\alpha$, and identifies other variable as auxiliary variables. For other cases, the standardization conduct the bipartite matching for the alignment.
**[Typos #1]**
Thanks for the comments. We will include Self-Consistency [2], CodeT [3], and Multi-Perspective Self-Consistency [4], as references.
**[Typos #2]**
Yes, the self-consistency in the context refers to the similarity between the informalized version and the informal statement.
[1] https://huggingface.co/intfloat/e5-mistral-7b-instruct
[2] Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models, ICLR 2023
[3] CodeT: Code Generation with Generated Tests, ICLR 2023
[4] Enhancing Large Language Models in Coding Through Multi-Perspective Self-Consistency, ACL 2024
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks to the authors for addressing my questions.
>The standardization is employed to align variables and it does put all hypothesis into $P_i$ and $P_j$. Elaborately, given two formal statements, if their conclusions are in the form of the numerical relation, the standardization introduces new variables $\alpha$, and identifies other variable as auxiliary variables. For other cases, the standardization conduct the bipartite matching for the alignment.
Is it normally the case that the symbolic equivalence is only checking for statements being equivalent up to variable naming, but no more than that? What is an instance where the symbolic equivalence checks for a more nontrivial property? I believe the ones included in the main body and the appendix are all instances of variable matching.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Response to the Reviewer LZ2a
Comment: Equivalence checking solely up to variable naming is not considered the general case. In fact, the primary challenge in autoformalization lies in accurately modeling mathematical concepts. Therefore, symbolic reasoning that extends beyond mere variable matching is essential when language models represent the same concept in various ways.
We list four examples in the following.
```
(*A standard six-sided die was rolled 50 times, and the outcomes are shown in the table. What is the average of the 50 outcomes? Express your answer as a decimal to the nearest hundredth. \\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}\n\\hline\nOutcome&$\\#$ of Occurrences\\\\\\hline\n1&14\\\\\\hline\n2&5\\\\\\hline\n3&9\\\\\\hline\n4&7\\\\\\hline\n5&7\\\\\\hline\n6&8\\\\\\hline\n\\end{tabular}*)
theorem
fixes outcome :: "nat \<Rightarrow> nat"
assumes h0 : "outcome 1 = 14"
and h1 : "outcome 2 = 5"
and h2 : "outcome 3 = 9"
and h3 : "outcome 4 = 7"
and h4 : "outcome 5 = 7"
and h5 : "outcome 6 = 8"
and h6 : "sum outcome {1..6} = 50"
shows "(sum (\<lambda>i. i * outcome i) {1..6}) / 50 = 3.24"
theorem
fixes avg :: real
assumes h0 : "avg = (14*1 + 5*2 + 9*3 + 7*4 + 7*5 + 8*6) / 50"
shows "avg = 3.24"
(* Problem : The sum of the $x$-coordinates of the vertices of a triangle in the Cartesian plane equals $\\sqrt{13}$.
Let $S$ equal the sum of the $x$-coordinates of the midpoints of the sides of the triangle.
Find $S^2$.*)
theorem
fixes A B C M1 M2 M3 :: "real * real"
assumes h0 : "fst A + fst B + fst C = sqrt 13"
and h1 : "M1 = ((fst A + fst B) / 2, (snd A + snd B) / 2)"
and h2 : "M2 = ((fst B + fst C) / 2, (snd B + snd C) / 2)"
and h3 : "M3 = ((fst A + fst C) / 2, (snd A + snd C) / 2)"
and h4 : "S = fst M1 + fst M2 + fst M3"
shows "S powr 2 = 13"
theorem
fixes A B C M1 M2 M3 :: "real * real"
assumes h0 : "fst A + fst B + fst C = sqrt 13"
and h1 : "M1 = midpoint A B"
and h2 : "M2 = midpoint B C"
and h3 : "M3 = midpoint C A"
and h4 : "\<forall> P Q. midpoint P Q = ((fst P + fst Q)/2, (snd P + snd Q)/2)"
and h5 : "S = fst M1 + fst M2 + fst M3"
shows "S^2 = 13"
(* What is the least common multiple of all positive integers smaller than 8? *)
theorem
fixes n :: nat and lcm :: "nat \<Rightarrow> nat \<Rightarrow> nat"
assumes h0 : "n < 8"
and h1 : "\<forall> a b. lcm a b = (a * b) div (gcd a b)"
shows "fold lcm [1..<8] 1 = 420"
theorem
fixes lcm :: "nat \<Rightarrow> nat \<Rightarrow> nat"
assumes h0 : "\<forall> a b. lcm a b = (a * b) div (gcd a b)"
shows "lcm (lcm (lcm (lcm (lcm (lcm (lcm 1 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7 = 420"
(* Daniel works at an electronics store, and he claims that the popularity of a television (measured in number of sales) is inversely proportional to its cost.
If 15 customers buy a television that costs $\\$$1500, according to Daniel's theory, how many customers would buy a television that costs $\\$$2500? *)
theorem
fixes cost1 cost2 sales1 sales2 :: real
assumes h0 : "cost1 = 1500"
and h1 : "cost2 = 2500"
and h2 : "sales1 = 15"
and h3 : "cost1 * sales1 = cost2 * sales2"
shows "sales2 = 9"
theorem
fixes x y k :: real and f :: "real \<Rightarrow> real"
assumes h0 : "f 1500 = 15"
and h1 : "f 2500 = y"
and h2 : "\<forall> x. x * f x = k"
shows "y = 9"
```
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: These examples are illuminating and help me better understand that the symbolic equivalence is checking for more than just variable name differences. Thanks to the authors for the responses, which have alleviated my previous concerns. Consequently, I will increase my score. | Summary: This paper introduces two methods metrics, symbolic equivalence and semantic consistency, to determine the equivalence relation between formal statements. They design novel technical solutions to measure each method and show that this improves autoformalization by allowing self-consistency-based clustering.
Strengths: 1. The paper addresses an important and novel problem of improving autoformalization with more test-time compute.
2. The methods used are very intuitive and easy to understand.
3. The evaluation is sound and shows good performance gain.
4. The writing is clear and easy to follow.
Weaknesses: Since the authors investigated 5 models of different sizes, I wish they investigated the models' performances with the same amount of test-time compute. I.e., given the same amount of FLOP (as measured by cost, since Codex and GPT-4 did not reveal their parameter count), which model is preferred. This helps the reader understand which model they should choose for their workload.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: How are the numbers supporting Figure 2 obtained? How many datapoints from MATH and miniF2F did you evaluate?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: In the conclusions, the authors did mention the things they wish to leave for future work, but it feels somewhat vague. It would be good if the authors can be more concrete and lay out future ideas they'd like to try or would like the community to carry out.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Dear Reviewer zk1U**
Thank you for the insightful feedback on our paper. We appreciate the time and effort you have put into reviewing our work, and we are grateful for the recognition of the importance of our research problem and encouraging comments such as clear writing, easy-to-understand, and good performance. We have carefully read your review and addressed your concerns as follows.
**[Question #1] Autoformalization cost of different LLMs**
Thank you for the suggestion. To assess the autoformalization cost of various LLMs, we calculate the number of output tokens generated per problem and present the results in the following. Considering the pricing for LLM generation, CodeX offers superior cost-effectiveness, since it not only achieves comparable performance with GPT-4 but also incurs a cost that is less than one-fifth of GPT-4's expense. We will include these results in the revision.
| MATH | #Tokens | 1@k | miniF2F | #Tokens | 1@k |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Mistral-7B | 2234.7 | 42.6 | Mistral-7B | 2049.7 | 18.0 |
| Llemma-34B | 2036.9 | 45.2 | Llemma-34B | 1660.5 | 35.0 |
| DeepSeek-v2 | 1848.9 | 46.9 | DeepSeek-v2 | 1698.1 | 29.9 |
| CodeX | 1655.9 | 49.4 | CodeX | 1475.8 | 39.1 |
| GPT-4 | 1446.4 | 45.3 | GPT-4 | 1360.3 | 43.6 |
**[Question #2] Data sizes used in Figure 1 and evaluation**
For the MATH dataset, we randomly selected a subset of 400 problems. As to the miniF2F dataset, we use the whole 488 problems. Figure 1 is obtained under the same setting. More details regarding the experimental setup are included in Section 4.1.
**[Limitation] Vague future work**
We appreciate your suggestion. The future work along with the proposed framework may lie in (1) adapting the proposed framework to the LEAN prover; (2) incorporating better large language models such as ProofGPT [1] and MMA [2] to further improve the performance of the framework; (3) generating more high-quality aligned informal and formal data using our framework; (4) generalizing our framework to proof autoformalization. We will update our paper to further specify these future directions.
[1] ProofNet: Autoformalizing and Formally Proving Undergraduate-Level Mathematics
[2] Multilingual Mathematical Autoformalization
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the response. They have addressed my question. I'll maintain my score. | Summary: The paper presents a novel framework aimed at enhancing the accuracy of autoformalization in mathematics using LLMs. It addresses the challenge of translating natural language mathematical statements into formal language by introducing a two-pronged approach based on symbolic equivalence and semantic consistency. Symbolic equivalence leverages automated theorem provers to ensure logical homogeneity among autoformalization candidates, while semantic consistency evaluates the preservation of the original statement's meaning by comparing embeddings of the re-informalized text and the original. The framework scores and selects the best result from multiple autoformalization candidates, significantly improving accuracy across various LLMs and datasets like MATH and miniF2F. The extensive experiments demonstrate the synergistic effect of the two consistency methods, achieving relative improvements in autoformalization accuracy and reducing the need for manual verification.
Strengths: 1. Clear Presentation and Structure: The paper is well-organized, with a nice logical flow. I really like the figures and tables in the paper.
2. Open Source: The authors submit the implementation of the proposed methods, which is beneficial for the research community.
3. Innovative Framework: Introduces a new approach that combines symbolic equivalence and semantic consistency to improve the accuracy of autoformalization. Symbolic equivalence and semantic consistency are mutually complementary, with their combination further enhancing performance.
4. Comprehensive Evaluation: The authors conduct extensive experiments on two mathematical datasets, MATH and miniF2F, demonstrating the efficacy of the proposed methods.
5. Wide Applicability: The proposed framework is effective across various model sizes and is not limited to a specific LLM, indicating broad applicability.
Weaknesses: This paper makes a valuable contribution to the field of formal mathematics. While I'm new to autoformalization and not an expert in this area, I believe the paper is well-written and presents a strong argument. However, due to my limited experience, my confidence level is relatively low as I might have missed some key points.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: I only have a few questions as below.
1. According to Table 1, It seems to me that semantic consistency is not working alone. It has to be used with Symbolic Equivalence. Could you provide more insights into why this is the case? On the other hand, the default settings of semantic consistency use representation from BERT and cosine similarity. Did you try other alternative methods to compute semantic consistency? I am not sure if the bottleneck is the idea of semantic consistency or the method used.
2. I am wondering if the proposed method also works for "low-resource autoformalization". The community is switching from Lean 3 to Lean 4, but existing LLMs are not performing well on Lean 4 as they have not been pretrained on enough Lean 4 corpus (also because of the limited availability).
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors adequately addressed the limitations
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Dear Reviewer 37Eh:**
Thank you for the insightful feedback on our paper. We appreciate the time and effort you have put into reviewing our work, and we are grateful for encouraging comments such as clear presentation, comprehensive evaluation, and wide applicability. We have carefully read your review and addressed your concerns as follows.
**[Question #1.1] Illustration of the semantic consistency**
The performance of semantic consistency relies on the informalization process, which is relatively sensitive to the category and difficulty of the problem (see Table 2 and Table 4). While semantic consistency can work well for certain problems, this sensitivity can lead to inconsistent performance when used alone. On the other hand, symbolic equivalence provides a more stable performance by computing the score based on the size of the derived equivalence class, as seen in Figure 6. When combined, semantic consistency and symbolic equivalence complement each other effectively. Semantic consistency helps identify the optimal version among multiple large symbolic equivalence classes, thereby enhancing overall performance.
**[Question #1.2] Alternative methods to compute semantic consistency**
We appreciate your suggestion to explore alternative methods. As suggested, we use e5-Mistral [1] as an alternative to BERT for our embedding model. The results are detailed below. We can observe that the new embedding model does not make a significant impact on the results. This observation suggests that the quality of informalization is more critical for semantic consistency than the specific embedding model used.
| MATH | | | | miniF2F | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| SemCo(BERT) | SemCo(e5-Mistral) | Log-comb (BERT) | Log-comb (e5-Mistral) | SemCo(BERT) | SemCo(e5-Mistral) | Log-comb (BERT) | Log-comb (e5-Mistral) |
| 39.5 | 40.5 | 45.3 | 46.7 | 34.9 | 34.4 | 43.6 | 42.6 |
**[Question #2] Low-resource autoformalization**
Although we have not yet adapted our framework to LEAN (this is planned for future work). However, the results from Table 1 and Figure 5 demonstrate that our framework remains effective even with models exhibiting low autoformalization performance (e.g., a significant improvement from 18.1% to 42.6% and from 7.5% to 18.0% for Mistral 7B on MATH and MiniF2F, respectively). Therefore, the efficacy of our framework could be expected even if the low-resource degrades the model performance.
[1] https://huggingface.co/intfloat/e5-mistral-7b-instruct
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the response. The authors have addressed most of my concerns. I will keep my rating positive for t his paper. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank all the reviewers for their valuable and insightful comments, which help improve our paper accordingly. Here, we summarize our responses to the major issues raised by the reviewers.
Reviewer **37Eh** and **LZ2a** request a further discussion about the performance of semantic consistency. First, we have experimented with a more state-of-the-art embedding model (i.e., e5-Mistral [1]) and find the limited effect of using different embedding models (detailed results in the response to reviewer **37Eh** and **LZ2a)**. Moreover, as indicated by Table 2 and Table 4, it appears that the performance of semantic consistency is more affected by the performance of informalization.
Reviewer **LZ2a** and **GLbW** suggest further clarification on the technical details of semantic consistency and symbolic equivalence. First, we clarify more details about the semantic consistency, including the combination strategy, and the definition of $\tau$-semantic consistency (details in the response to reviewer **LZ2a**). We also have detailed examples to explain the rationale and the benefit behind the definition of symbolic equivalence (details in the response to reviewer **GLbW**).
Reviewer **37Eh** and **GLbW** request an analysis of our framework on other settings. First, the results of Mistral 7B from Table 1 and Figure 5 indicate the effectiveness of our methods even when the model achieves low autoformalization performance (details in the response to reviewer **37Eh**). We also included an experiment on the Mistral 7B model fine-tuned on the MMA dataset, confirming the efficacy of the proposed framework (detailed results in the response to reviewer **GLbW**).
Reviewer **zk1U** requests a cost comparison on different models. Based on the number of output tokens generated per problem with different models, it suggests that CodeX offers superior cost-effectiveness (results in the response to reviewer **zk1U**)
Reviewer **zk1U** and **GLbW** figure out typos in the text and Figure 1. We really appreciate their efforts and will revise our paper accordingly with more careful proofreading. | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Efficient Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding using Low-Rank Matrix Completion Algorithms | Accept (poster) | Summary: Minimum Bayes risk (MBR) decoding is a widely used technique for machine translation (MT) that involves generating $N$ candidate translations that are then scored according to a utility function, typically an automatic reference-based MT metric. In practice, this is done by comparing each candidate in the set to all the other candidates (that are used as pseudo-references), which is computationally very expensive, with a time complexity of O(N^2). This paper focuses on improving the efficiency of MBR decoding by reducing the number of metric computations. Based on the assumption that the MBR utility matrix is low-rank, they score only a subset of the candidate-pseudo-reference pairs and use the ALS algorithm to estimate the missing values. Their experiments show that their method does not compromise translation quality.
Strengths: - This paper offers a simple solution to a problem that remains unsolved so far (making MBR faster/cheaper) without compromising the final translation quality.
- I believe that framing this as matrix completion problem is a novel approach.
- The experimental results are good and confirmed with human evaluation.
Weaknesses: - The experiments are only performed on two language pairs (EN-DE and EN-RU). Can we expect the same findings for other languages, including lower resource ones? The WMT test sets include other languages, so it shouldn’t be hard to validate this. Also, only PaLM8B is used. It would be good to try other models such as Tower (Alves et al., 2024) with a varying number of samples.
- There is a lot of discussion about related work on making MBR decoding more efficient in Section 2 but the comparison to some of these efficient MBR approaches is missing in the experimental part. Also, it would be good to compare with linear-time cost approaches such as QE-reranking (Fernandes et al., 2022) since this is a clear baseline.
- See my questions below for other things.
Tower: An Open Multilingual Large Language Model for Translation-Related Tasks (Alves et al., 2024)
Quality-Aware Decoding for Neural Machine Translation (Fernandes et al., 2022)
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Comments and questions:
- Although the definition of MBR matrix is presented in Section 4, it would be beneficial to briefly explain this a bit better earlier in the paper (e.g., in the paragraph in L44-54). It may not be straightforward to all readers to understand where this matrix comes from and why it can be assumed to be low-rank.
- Where is Figure A.6 and Table 4.2, mentioned in L155? This is pointing to the sections… After a closer look, Table 1 and Figure 5 seem to be the ones that you are referring to.
- What happens if you fill in the missing values in the MBR matrix with random numbers instead of using ALS? I believe this is an important baseline.
- The results in the tables are averaged over 1000 trials. Can you please provide standard deviations too?
Minor comments:
- Fix citation style in L84 (no parenthesis) and L86 (missing whitespace).
- Missing punctuation in Eq. 2.
- Missing whitespace in L202.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for the detailed feedback.
We limited the paper to 4 different language pairs because precomputing the full 1024x1024 utility metrics is very expensive (It requires around 2000 TPUs for a full day per language pair). We definitely agree that performing a survey across all the efficient MBR methods will be beneficial for the community and we are interested in running this for future research. We will point this out in the limitations section of our paper.
We address your questions in order:
1) Thanks for the suggestion. We agree that the MBR matrix definition is not straightforward and that’s why we included a dedicated section to introduce it. We will update paragraph 4 to give a high level overview and point out to section 4 for the full definition.
2) Table 1 and Figure 5 are the correct artifacts. Figure 5 was in the main paper but we moved it to the appendix when we were trimming down the paper to fit in the page limit. We will correct the labels and move figure 5 back to the main paper.
3) We believe that this method should be in practice very similar to the NxS if we assume that on average the random values will add the same value to each row.
4) We attach table 7 that contains all the standard deviations from table 3 shown in our submission. All methods showed similar trends in standard deviation values. We will add the numbers to the paper.
Thank you again for your review and thanks for catching all the minor style issues. We will make the adjustments accordingly in the paper.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for answering my questions. After reading the rebuttal and the other reviews, I think that incorporating some of this discussion in the updated version of the paper, including the limitations you mentioned above, is a good idea. | Summary: - this paper uses alternating least square method for matrix completion when only a small part of the utility matrix in MBR decoding is calculated to decrease the computational cost for full MBR decoding and at the same time guarantee the translation quality
- the authors first justify the use of their method by showing that the utility matrix in MBR decoding is indeed low rank
- by conducting experiments on WMT dataset and four translation directions, they show that PMBR achieved the best COMET22 score and MetricX on most of the settings
Strengths: - the method they propose is a simple yet effective one to shrink the computational cost for MBR decoding in NMT task
- Across all the experimental settings the metric score is indeed better than other baseline methods while keeping the cost lower
Weaknesses: - ALS is one method for matrix completion, ablations should be done using other matrix completion methods to see if the cost can be further reduced by using less examples
- using matrix completion method to lower the cost for computation intensive tasks itself is not a novel approach
- PMBR is compared against other MBR decoding related methods but not compared against e.g. naive beam search
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - there are other matrix completion methods that also focus on picking the most representative matrix entries for completion. Why did you not compare against those methods?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: - yes the authors addressed the limitations
- and there is no potential societal impact
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for the insightful review.
We mainly focused on ALS because of its simple implementation and efficiency. We agree that optimizing the matrix completion algorithm further could potentially improve the performance. As you suggested, using an adaptive sampling[1] approach to pick the most representative matrix entries is a promising future direction but we chose the simplest approach to make it easy for others to adopt our work.
We run ablations with SVT(singular value thresholding) on one experiment (Lp= DeEn, N=128) which is another elementary matrix completion algorithm. On average, ALS outperforms SVT in particular for tighter budgets [fig1]. This emphasizes that investigating the performance of the matrix completion algorithm is certainly an interesting future direction. We will add this comparison and a discussion in the paper.
We added results for greedy decoding [fig2] (metricx:70.19, comet=76.74) and the results are in line with previous work[2]. Greedy decoding falls behind with almost 3 points on both Comet and MetricX. We will add these results to the paper.
Thanks again for this great and insightful review.
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4672
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09388
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response and the additional experimental results with SVT and the greedy decoding baseline. i agree that ALS is a simple yet efficient matrix completion algorithm for this use case. I will raise my score to 6. | Summary: This work proposes an approximate method for minimum Bayes risk (MBR) decoding by employing matrix completion. Basic idea is to fill-in only a fraction of the score matrix to compute MBR scores, and to leverage alternating least squares (ALS) algorithm to estimate the empty slots assuming that the utility score matrix is low rank. This work empirically show that the utility score matrix is actually low rank for MetricX and chrF under some language directions. Empirical results also show that the proposed approximate MBR decoding is a better approximation method when compared with other approximation method, e.g., shrinking the dimension of pseudo-reference list size and sampling-based method.
Strengths: - The proposed method is interesting in that it leverages the low-rank matrix completion to estimate the full utility score matrix for MBR decoding assuming that utility score matrices are low rank. The singular values of MT metrics empirically show that the low-rank property holds for some language directions. I think the finding somewhat agrees withe the matrix completion for human assessment [1].
- Empirical results show that the proposed method is better than other approximation methods even with only a small number of samples, and achieving comparable performance to the non-approximation method even the budget for 1/4. Human judgement also shows that the proposed method is closer to the non-approximation method.
[1] https://aclanthology.org/P13-2025/
Weaknesses: - This work needs further analysis on the utility score matrices after convergence since there exist some gaps when compared with the non-approximation method under the budget of 1/32. In particular, the true scores filled by the metric might be changed after completion, and I'm curious how that will impact MBR decoding. Also, it would be good to analyze the deltas of the completed scores to see how that will impact the end accuracies.
- In addition to random sapling to determine the position to fill-in by the true score, I'd like to see a more controlled setting in which the positions are skewed, in which some columns or rows are completely empty and thus complemented by ALS, and how that will impact the estimated scores and the final MBR decoding.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Questions:
- It is not clear how many iterations are needed for the convergence in general. Also, it would be good to show the average differences and variances of the score matrices by the approximated methods, i.e., prediction performance for the missing values, to quantify the impact of the approximation.
Suggestions:
- I think Figure 1 is not mentioned anywhere in the paper, and please describe what is indicated by the plots. Also, do not use a bitmap format but use a vector format for clarity.
- line 155: Figure A.6 and Table 4.2 (?) -> please check the references.
- Better to run statistical significance tests on the numbers in Table 2 and 3 to make sure the differences are statistically significant or not.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: This paper has discussion on the limitations, e.g., measuring only MetricX, but this work is actually running experiments for COMET as a utility function.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for the insightful review.
We agree that a further analysis on the convergence of the matrix completion algorithm will help us understand better the behavior of our approach and potentially optimize it further. We think this is an interesting future direction of research and we we will point this out in the paper.
The number of iterations needed for convergence is a hyperparameter that we tune. In general, the required number of steps is less than 15. We included a graph [fig 4] that shows the true loss and training loss during the approximation (true_loss = ((M-A)**2), train_loss = mean(M[omega]-A)**2) with M : original matrix, Omega: sampling mask and A : the approximation at every step). We will include this graph in the paper.
A more sophisticated sampling is an interesting approach to optimize our method further. We definitely want to explore this behavior in future research, one promising approach is adaptive sampling[1] where we pick the samples that give us the most information about the matrix.
We run a significance test for PMBR against all other systems for the values shown in (Table 3, row 3) in the paper. We see that the gap between PMBR and all the other systems is significant except for one setting [fig 5]. (Note, that greens denote the significance test and not that PMBR is better). We will include these numbers in the paper.
Thank you again for your review and thanks for pointing out the missing references. We will make the adjustments accordingly in the paper.
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4672
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for extra experiments.
I feel this work is solid enough with meaningful comparisons. | Summary: The paper proposes yet another method for speeding up the utility computation of MBR decoding. The algorithm exploits the structure of the problem that the utility matrix tends to be lower rank as the utility is kind of a similarity metric. The experiments are compared against the standard MBR and show that it achieves a good speedup over the standard MBR.
Strengths: - The proposed algorithm is interesting. Prior works do not consider the structure of the utility matrix and rather seek to optimize the computation via hyperparameter tuning or to optimize the worst-case complexity.
- The observation that the utility matrix is low rank is interesting and is a contribution to the community.
- Human evaluation is nice to have.
Weaknesses: The paper brings an interesting new idea to MBR decoding. However, their contribution is claimed ambiguously.
- The experiment does not compare any of the recent algorithms on efficient MBR decoding: Confidence-based pruning (Cheng and Vlachos 2023), Adaptive MBR (Jinnai and Ariu 2024), Linear time MBR (Vamvas and Sennrich 2024), and Centroid-based MBR (Deguchi et al. 2024). Thus, the paper does not show evidence that their method is state-of-the-art with respect to the empirical performance, which will not be a reason for rejection.
- Empirical evaluation of concurrent work is too much to ask, but I would say that they should be explained fairly. Vamvas and Sennrich (2024) are mentioned that “the utility metric needs to fulfill certain conditions to be applicable.” (Line 77). This is true but I would say that “certain conditions” should be explained clearly in this paper, because the proposed method is only effective when these “certain conditions” are not satisfied, if I understand it correctly. Also note that the proposed method also exploits the structure of the utility metric that results in a low-rank matrix, which may not be universally true. The proposed method also requires that certain conditions are satisfied. I believe this will not be a reason to reject, only if this limitation is clarified in the paper.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: - Figure 5 shows that the utility matrices are likely to be rank-1. My understanding is that in theory it requires a single comparison per each candidate is enough to estimate the quality of the candidate, assuming that we can ignore the noise. I was thinking if this observation would rather motivate the Linear time MBR (Vamvas and Sennrich 2024) as they use a single comparison against the mean of the references, which we expect to have the least noise.
- Although the rank of the matrix is estimated to be 1, the ranks of the matrices are set to 5 to 15 (Line 224) in the experiment. Why is it better to set it larger than 1? I’m assuming r in Line 224 refers to the rank of the matrix. r is used as the rank and also the reduction ratio in Algorithm 1.
- What is the definition of O(millions) and O(hundreds)? (Line 171)
- Does the method require that candidates and references are the same set of samples? I see several papers in MBR using different sets of samples (Cheng and Vlachos 2023; Ohashi+2024) so it would be better if it works with both cases. I don’t see it as a reason to reject it, but I think it needs to be clearly mentioned that the proposed method can’t use a different set of samples, if so.
- It would be nice to have a comparison of the overall walltime, including the time for sample generation to show in the end how much it improves the speed of the NMT system.
Typos
- Line 51: effectiveness of out method → effectiveness of our method
- Line 91: a NMT model → an NMT model
- Line 155: Figure A.6 and Table 4.2 → I guess Figure 5 and Table 1
- Line 196: SPM tokens → no definition of SPM
- Line 197: Note:
- Line 414 Algorithm 2: There are N and n that I believe they both refer to the same parameter.
- Line 431: The sentence is incomplete.
- Line 513, 522: Doesn’t MQM involve human subjects?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 4
Limitations: I think the paper does not explicitly explain the critical limitations of the method.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for the insightful review.
We definitely agree that performing a survey across all the efficient MBR methods will be beneficial for the community and we are interested in running this for future research. We will point this out in the limitations section.
We address your questions in order:
* This is a great observation. During our work, we were trying to theorize what this first singular vector semantically means and as you point out one comparison against this vector should be enough to tell us the quality of the candidate. We think it’s interesting to compare this vector against the reference aggregation embedding (Vamvas and Sennrich 2024) proposed in their work. One key advantage of their approach is the linear-time complexity, but they require the utility metric to produce an intermediate sentence embedding. On the other hand, our approach is slower and requires that the MBR matrices have a low-rank structure. Exploring how these two methods overlap is definitely an interesting direction for future research. We will include this insight in the discussion section of the paper and we will emphasize the low-rank condition in the limitation section.
* Correct, there are two ranks. The true rank r of the matrix and the rank r’ which is a hyperparameter specific to ALS. We’ve run a hyperparamter sweep and we found that using r=5 worked best to minimize the training loss.
We do not see any reason that this method requires candidates and references to be the same. Looking at the singular values structure we see that both settings exhibit similar behaviors [fig .3]. We promise to run more experiments to validate this setting and report in the final paper.
* Regarding the time complexity, the paper states O(millions) and O(hundreds) matrix multiplications but `floating point operations` is more accurate. We will update the paper. The O(millions) is used as an abbreviation for 10^6 order of magnitude, this is an abuse of the big O notation and we will update the paper accordingly too. We did not compute or report actual wall clock time because the experiments are run on a mixture of hardware and configurations (different TPUs, different CPUs) and the walltime will heavily depend on this. However, measuring the number of MBR computations as shown in our paper is in our opinion a fairer and more straightforward measure.
Thank you again for your review and thanks for catching all typos. We will make the adjustments accordingly in the paper.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for the clarification.
My position is unchanged. The paper brings an interesting new idea to the field of MBR decoding. Yet, it is not compared against the recent algorithms which makes it unclear if it is on par with the existing work in benchmarks. I think the comparison should not be future work and this is the paper that should conduct the comparison if it is to be claimed as a state-of-the-art method. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you all for the reviews. We attach a pdf that includes more results and details that were requested. The plots in the pdf are referenced in the individual replies with [fig #number] format.
Pdf: /pdf/273554f80434d979a830709921bf694ad0ae083b.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Evaluating alignment between humans and neural network representations in image-based learning tasks | Accept (poster) | Summary: This article assesses how AI embedding can predict human behavior on 2 different tasks. In those tasks, humans have to learn continuous relationships and categories of natural images. Overall the authors tested the predictability of 77 retrained neural networks, including supervised, semi-supervised, and multimodal models. The authors found that a larger training size, a higher number of parameters, and lower intrinsic dimensionality improve the human alignment of the tested model. In addition, the authors claim that multimodal networks are better aligned with humans. In the last part, the authors test 3 different alignment methods and show that only the gLocal method shows a better predictability of human performance on the considered task.
Strengths: This article introduces a novel behavioral benchmark to compare humans and machines. This benchmark (provided that the data are public) should be a useful asset in the human-machine comparison toolbox. The number of tested models is both large and also diverse.
Weaknesses: I found 3 weaknesses:
* 1 - Given the data presented in the article, I have the feeling that claiming that ‘multimodality better predicts human performance’ is a bit overstated. It seems to have plenty of confound factors (besides the training side) that haven’t been explored and that might prove that this claim is not entirely true
* 2 - Some of the parts in the article are very unclear with several details missing. I have the feeling I did not have clear enough to judge the methods used by the authors (which is problematic). Please refer to the question section for more details.
* 3 - The last analysis (on the alignment method) is pretty weak compared to the rest of the article (not enough models and not enough model diversity, no statistical analysis…).
Note that I am willing to increase my rating if the questions are properly addressed.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: * Q1: The section 3 is not clear enough. For example (line 95): « Using an intercept and the trial number ». What does it mean? To my (maybe not sufficient) knowledge, the intercept is the constant term in a linear fit. If this is the case, what kind of data are you using to regress to find the fit? And most importantly, how does this intercept relate to human performance?
* Q2: Still in section 3, the results of the statistical tests are poorly explained. For example (line 98): what does (Beta, z) relate to? Is that the intercept and the number of trials? Is that something else? This should be explicitly stated and should be put under the carpet!
* Q3: In section 4, there is not enough detail on how you train the linear probe to predict the performance of the category learning and the reward learning task. Especially in the case of the ‘linear regression mode with spherical prior » (line 121). What does it mean, what is the loss you exactly optimize to find the regression parameters? Why Gaussian prior? This should be motivated and better explained...
* Q4: Even more dark for me is line 171. T is the generative task representation. What does it mean, and how this is obtained? What is the generative task? What’s the experimental protocol for this task (if there is one)…
* Q5: I am lost in Figure 5. If I am not wrong clip is represented by the yellow color (multimodal, as confirmed in Fig 3). But in the caption of the same figure you say: « lower intrinsic dimensionality only increases alignment for CLIP models ». But the supervised model (red bar) showcases a similar trend. Is that a typo? Do I miss something here?
* Q6: In Figures 5, 6, there is no error bar and statistical test to assess if the shown results are significant. For example in Fig6, the differences between CLIP, SimCLR, and CLIP+SimCLR seem to be rather small and I cannot evaluate if those differences are significant.
* Q7: In Figure 3, would it be possible to include inter-human reliability (i.e. how much different participants are aligned with each other)
* Q8: Is it not clear how to control the number of training data in CLIP and SimCLR? In CLIP, this is pairs of data (language/image) whereas SimCLR is only on images (and it’s an augmented version, but it might not count as it is not external information per say).
* Q9: The authors suggest that the training size is a confound (and I agree), but the model’s number of parameters might also be a confound (that might be related to the training size). This is a problem because most of the multimodal models have generally a high number of parameters (see Fig B). How do I know if this is multimodality is the number of parameters that increase the human alignment? Would it be possible to run a similar experiment as in Fig 6, but testing the number of parameters?
* Q10: I have the feeling there is no enough data (and a too small variety of tested model) to back the claim : « We found that only one alignement method improved predictive accuracy » (line 15). For example, for the harmonization technique only supervised models have been tested, and several other models have been tested with gLocal. How do you know that « harmonising » other type of model do not improve the predictability on your task. And I am even sure that the tested architectures are the same for the supervised harmonized and supervised gLocal models ? How do you want me to be convinced if on top of the alignement methods, other parameters can vary (as architecture…). This analysis clearly lack rigor...
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors properly discuss the limitation of their work
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: > (...) claiming that 'multimodality better predicts human performance' is a bit overstated.
We agree that many factors contribute to alignment, as detailed in Figure 4. However, the comparison of SLIP, SimCLR, and CLIP models in Figure 6 suggests image language training is important, as architecture and dataset are matched and downstream performance is comparable [1]. We acknowledge there may be unexplored factors and welcome suggestions for additional comparisons.
> Q1: The section 3 is not clear enough.
For category learning, we used a mixed-effects logistic model to predict correct responses per trial. Main effects included intercept and trial number, where the intercept models above chance performance and the trial number models learning. For reward learning, we predicted which image was chosen using a similar model with trial number, reward difference, and their interaction as main effects. Here, the interaction captures the learning effect. The same variables were also used as random effects for individual differences.
> Q2: (...) For example (line 98): what does (Beta, z) relate to? Is that the intercept and the number of trials?
The first set of numbers are for the intercept and the second for the trial number. $\hat{\beta}$ is the estimated regression coefficient. z is the test statistic comparing predictor coefficients against their standard errors to test the null hypothesis that the predictor’s coefficient is 0.
> Q3: In section 4, there is not enough detail on how you train the linear probe
We added the following details to the Appendix:
**"For the category learning task, we used an $\ell_2$ regularised logistic regression model. We relied on `scikit-learn`’s `LogisticRegression` class which optimizes the following objective:**
$$\mathbf{w}^* = \underset{\mathbf{w}}{argmax} \sum_{i=1}^N -c_i \log(p(c_i | \mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{w})) - (1-c_i) \log(1-\log(p(c_i | \mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{w})) + \dfrac{1}{2} ||\mathbf{w} ||^2_2$$
**For the reward learning task, we used a Bayesian linear regression model to infer a posterior distribution over regression weights. We relied on `scikit-learn`’s `BayesianRidge` class which infers a posterior distribution assuming spherical Gaussian priors (i.e., $p(\mathbf{w}) = \mathcal{N}(0, \lambda^{-1}\mathbf{I})$) and Gaussian likelihood (i.e., $p(y_i | \mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{w}) = \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{w}^{\top}\mathbf{x}_i, \beta^{-1})$). Here, posterior distribution can be computed in closed form:**
$$p(\mathbf{w} | \mathbf{X}, \mathbf{y}) = \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{m}_N, \mathbf{S}_N)$$
$$\mathbf{m}_N = \beta \mathbf{S}_N \mathbf{X}^{\top} \mathbf{y}$$
$$\mathbf{S}^{-1}_N = \lambda \mathbf{I} + \beta \mathbf{X}^{\top}\mathbf{X}$$
**where $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{y}$ denote the stacked inputs and targets respectively.**
**We run both models from scratch on each trial using all previously observed input-target pairs. The choice of these models was motivated by previous investigations in similar but low-dimensional settings [2,3,4].“**
> Q4: What is the generative task?
T is the ground truth of the task, obtained by [5]. They trained a low-dimensional sparse embedding model on the odd-one-out similarity judgements on THINGS. For both tasks, participants were assigned to conditions defined over one of the top three embedding dimensions (Figure 1C). Please see lines 72-91 for a detailed account.
> Q6: In Figures 5, 6, there is no error bar and statistical test to assess if the shown results are significant.
Please see Rebuttal Figures 5 & 6. In Figure 5, we only report the intrinsic dimensionality analysis because the rest are not significant, which we earlier pointed in Appendix Table 3. We hope this also addresses Q5. For Figure 6, we found CLIP $R^2$ values were higher than SimCLR $R^2$ values ($\hat{\beta} = .014, t=1.98, p=.048$), and SimCLR + CLIP $R^2$ values were higher than CLIP $R^2$ values ($\hat{\beta} = .03, t=3.91, p<.0001$).
> Q7: In Figure 3, would it be possible to include inter-human reliability
As the sequences of observations were randomly assigned and not identical, inter-rater reliability cannot be calculated.
> Q8: Is it not clear how to control the number of training data in CLIP and SimCLR?
We'll add: **"Comparing image-language pretraining with augmented image training remains challenging, as language may provide information beyond an augmented version of the same image."**
> Q9: the model's number of parameters might also be a confound
Model size is important (Figure 4B), but some smaller CLIP models outperform larger ones, and some large self-supervised models are outperformed by smaller CLIP models. Appendix Table 3 shows no relationship between size and score for CLIP models, suggesting performance isn't solely driven by model size.
> Q10:I have the feeling there is no enough data (and a too small variety of tested model) to back the claim : « We found that only one alignment method improved predictive accuracy » (line 15).
We added more baseline comparisons and tested alignment methods on two additional datasets (Rebuttal Figure 1 & 2). DreamSim consistently improves alignment in its test set, gLocal shows the largest improvements in our task, while Harmonization degrades alignment. We are limited to the models trained by the original authors, which allows us to only offer a qualitative report. Harmonization alignment is only possible for supervised models by the nature of the method.
[1] SLIP: Self-supervision meets Language-Image Pre-training, Mu et al., arxiv 2021
[2] Learning strategies in amnesia, Speekenbrink et al., Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 2008
[3] A unifying probabilistic view of associative learning, Gershman, PLOS CB 2015
[4] Heuristics from bounded meta-learned inference, Binz et al., Psychological Review 2022
[5] Revealing the multidimensional mental representations of natural objects underlying human similarity judgements. Hebart et al., Nat. Hum. Beh. 2020
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: response
Comment: I still think the claim of this article is overstated, and even if results tend to show an interesting trend, there is still many confound that has not been explored. I would have appreciate to downplay the overclaim (and to discuss more the other possible confound). I maintain my rating.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Softening the Claims About Multimodality
Comment: Thank you for this helpful feedback. We will update our manuscript to soften the claims about multimodality in two regards:
1. **We emphasise that these claims are concerning the models we tested and those that are currently publicly available.**
2. **We further discuss how additional factors that we did not consider can affect alignment.**
Regarding the 1st point, we made the following changes:
- In the Abstract (Line 9): We found that while training dataset size was a core determinant of alignment with human choices, contrastive training with multi-modal data (text and imagery) was a common feature of **currently publicly available models** that predicted human generalisation.
- In the Introduction (Line 52): While almost all **tested** models generalised above chance level and predicted human behaviour in both naturalistic learning tasks, contrastive language image pretraining (CLIP) [45] consistently yielded the best predictions of human behaviour **out of the models we tested.\footnote{While our analysis already considered an extensive set of models, we want to emphasise that it only presents a snapshot of the current model landscape, and that our results are therefore subject to further validation once new models become available.}**
And for the 2nd point, we added the following new paragraphs to the text:
- In the Introduction (Line 55): **However, it's important to note that this observation may be influenced by various factors beyond just the training approach. While our analysis suggests that the training diet alone does not fully account for CLIP's performance, there could be other contributing elements that require further investigation.**
- In the Results (Line 213): **However, there still may be other confounds that impacted the findings. For example, controlling for training data is not straightforward, as text-image pairs may carry more information than augmented versions of the same image, providing an unfair advantage to the multimodal models.**
- In the Limitations (Line 290): **While we controlled for factors such as training data size and architecture in our comparison of CLIP to other models, there may still be confounding variables we haven't accounted for. For instance, it's not straightforward to compare the information content of image-text pairs used in CLIP training to image-only data used in other models. Text-image pairs might inherently carry more information than single images, potentially giving multimodal models an advantage that's difficult to quantify. This and other subtle differences in training paradigms could influence our results in ways that are challenging to isolate and measure. Lastly, there can also be other families of models that may outperform CLIP models we haven’t considered, such as video models, generative models, or image segmentation models.** | Summary: This paper explores the alignment between human cognitive processes and neural network representations in image-based learning tasks. The authors evaluated 77 pretrained neural network models to see how their representations aligned with human learning patterns in two tasks: category learning and reward learning.
They found that models with contrastive training, especially CLIP models, effectively predicted human generalization. Factors such as training dataset size, model size, and representation properties were identified as influential for alignment with human cognition.
Strengths: The paper makes substantial contributions by:
1. Introducing two novel tasks to evaluate human-model alignment.
2. Demonstrating that larger contrastive training datasets and multi-modal data improve predictions of human behavior.
3. Conducting extensive and engaging human experiments.
Additionally, I found that:
- Figure 4 is particularly interesting and stimulates a lot of valuable discussion.
- It would have been very insightful to include a comparison with generative models (e.g., EBM, VAE) and relate these findings to the brain's generative hypothesis.
Weaknesses: Despite its strengths, the paper has several weaknesses. These are categorized into major problems (**M**) and minor problems (_m_).
**M1**: There is a potential bias in using the THINGS database for both training and evaluation, especially with the gLocal models, which might lead to circular reasoning. The space trained with gLocal is implicitly designed to perform well on these specific tasks, which could inflate the perceived performance of the models. Addressing this concern by diversifying the evaluation datasets or providing a more detailed justification for using THINGS would strengthen the paper. You could use a measure from DreamSim and Harmonization as control.
_m1_: The use of $\ell_2$ regularization in the regression model may penalize some tokens disproportionately due to their high activation values. Standardizing all activations before performing regression could mitigate this issue and provide a fairer comparison.
_m2_: Concerning the use of the TwoNN method for estimating intrinsic dimensionality, could you verify that standardization instead of linear scaling yield the same results, as we know that some high norm token (outlier token) exist and could totally distort your distances.
_m3_: Figure 7 lacks clarity on which models are used in the harmonization method? You have 7 Harmonization model in Fig. 3 and only 3 in Fig. 7. Or at least specify how they were chosen.
_m4_: Could you also add a metric to complement McFadden (e.g., avg accuracy) ?
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See Strengths & Weaknesses
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes, the limitations identified by the authors are accurate and well-documented. Regarding the weakness I mentioned, I reserve the right to increase the score if the authors adequately address my major concerns.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: > It would have been very insightful to include a comparison with generative models.
Thanks for the great suggestion! We now included 3 masked autoencoder models[1] trained on ImageNet in our comparison. We chose these specific models because they are SOTA classification models trained in a generative manner. They don’t do well in predicting human choice (mean $R^2$ = 0.05, min $R^2$=0.03, max $R^2$=0.06). Therefore, it appears that training generative models doesn't provide a particular advantage, at least in our comparisons. We will include these results in the camera-ready version.
> **M1**: There is a potential bias in using the THINGS database for both training and evaluation, especially with the gLocal models,
Yes, this is an important limitation that we have also pointed out in line 279. Nevertheless, we wanted to include this comparison with that caveat. To our surprise, despite the shared data across the gLocal training and our task, we did not observe consistent improvements in model fit with the gLocal compared to the baselines.
> Addressing this concern by diversifying the evaluation datasets (...) You could use a measure from DreamSim and Harmonization as control.
Thank you for these suggestions. We have now compared the alignment methods tested across two additional tasks that do not use the THINGS data (Rebuttal Figure 2). Similar to our initial findings, gLocal leads to improved alignment in limited cases. We found that Dreamsim consistently improves alignment on its test set, but no consistent improvements are observed on the independent dataset.
Additionally, we have incorporated four more baseline models for Harmonization and one more for DreamSim. These new baselines led to some modest improvements in our task, although they were not consistent and were smaller than those achieved by the gLocal models. As observed in our task, Harmonization models tend to reduce alignment in most cases. We will include these results in the camera-ready version.
We would also have liked to make this comparison for the Harmonization metric on the Harmonization dataset. However, this was not possible because the Harmonization metric requires a trained Imagenet classification head, which Dreamsim and gLocal models do not have.
> (...) or providing a more detailed justification for using THINGS would strengthen the paper.
We chose to conduct our experiments with the THINGS data because the ground truth features that we used were only available for THINGS. This is because the ground truth features are a low dimensional embedding that was learned to predict human odd-one-out similarity judgements on the THINGS dataset. This embedding is central to the design of our tasks and unfortunately, it does not generalise to new image data. Therefore, we had to use the THINGS images. We will add this justification to the camera-ready version.
> m1: (…) Standardizing all activations before performing regression could mitigate this issue and provide a fairer comparison.
Thanks for pointing out this important detail. This is indeed what we have done in our comparisons. We scaled the features using the mean and the standard deviation of the training data and applied the same transformation to the test data. We did this both in our mixed-effects models and also the linear and logistic regressions that were used to fit the features to the tasks.
> m2: Concerning the use of the TwoNN method for estimating intrinsic dimensionality, could you verify that standardization instead of linear scaling yield the same results
Thanks for the suggestion. We have now made this comparison including the new models we added and observe that min-max scaling ($\rho$=-0.23, $p$=0.04) and standard scaling ($\rho$=-0.24, $p$=0.03) yield near identical results.
> m3: Figure 7 lacks clarity on which models are used in the harmonization method?
We were only including the Harmonization models for which we had baselines. We have now added baselines for all the Harmonization models and therefore include all Harmonization models in our comparison. The results are highly similar to what was reported in the initial submission.
> m4: Could you also add a metric to complement McFadden (e.g., avg accuracy) ?
Yes, please see Rebuttal Figure 3. The maximum accuracies that are achieved are 68% for the category task and 67% for the reward task. Sorting the models by accuracy and $R^2$ alters the ordering of the models slightly, although the rank correlations are very high both for category ($\rho$=.97) and the reward ($\rho$=.93) tasks and our qualitative results stay the same, where 9 of the top 10 models are CLIP variants in both tasks. We will include the average accuracy in the final version.
[1]He, K., Chen, X., Xie, S., Li, Y., Dollár, P., & Girshick, R. (2021). Masked Autoencoders Are Scalable Vision Learners.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for addressing my concerns and adding the extra experiments.
I believe these additions definitely make the paper stronger. While I still have some reservations about the circularity issue with the THINGS database, I appreciate the steps you've taken to address it. I'll be increasing my score to 6.
Good luck with acceptance!
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thanks very much for your response and for raising your score! We are glad you found the new analyses useful. | Summary: The authors propose a novel representational alignment metric tied to sequential human behavior and leverage it to analyze factors in NN design and training that contribute to increased alignment with humans.
Strengths: - Great analysis of factors contributing to alignment of NNs with humans
- Well-written manuscript, easy to follow
- Great descriptions of human and NN experiments; important for reproducibility
- Important and timely contribution to a growing field (representational alignment)
- I agree with the authors that its important to tie notions of alignment to behavior (a metric is only useful if it actually predicts something downstream)
Weaknesses: - The authors claim to make 2 contributions: a novel alignment metric and an analysis of factors contributing to human alignment of various NN that leverages that alignment metric. The authors claim that their alignment metric is better than existing alignment metrics as it requires "generalisation and information integration across an extended horizon". However, there isn't a comprehensive comparison to previous alignment metrics to see (a) how correlated the new metric is to existing metrics, and (b) whether human behavior on the tasks can be predicted from previous metrics. For (b) for example, the authors could take human pairwise similarity judgments and treat them as features from which to learn the task and then correlate that with human responses (i.e., treating the sim judgments as a kernel). This kind of analysis would go a long way in validating the proposed metric and comparing/contrasting it against existing alignment metrics.
- Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see an analysis of inter-rater reliability/noise roof. This would be important to put the McFadden R^2 numbers into perspective and understand how good alignment *could* be.
- Happy to raise my score if these points and questions below are resolved
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - why were participants with <50% accuracy excluded?
- why might the alignment numbers be so low? McFadden's R^2 is typically considered to be excellent fit in 0.2-0.4 range, yet all the results cap out at about 0.15
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: - Limitations are adequately discussed (assuming weaknesses and questions raised above are addressed)
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: > The authors claim that their alignment metric is better than existing alignment metrics as it requires "generalisation and information integration across an extended horizon".
We believe that our method is not necessarily better than other metrics but that alignment is multifaceted. We will clarify this stance further in the main text by updating line 248 as follows:
**"Previous work has predominantly focused on simple image exposure and similarity judgments. We believe our findings complement this research by addressing unexplored aspects of alignment, which is generalisation and information integration across an extended horizon."**
> how correlated the new metric is to existing metrics
This is an excellent question that’s crucial for adequately placing our work in the field of alignment. To address this, we compared our alignment metric to four different metrics computed on different datasets. The results are shown in Rebuttal Figure 1. We will add the following to the manuscript:
**"We compared alignment on four datasets against ours, which included:**
**I) Comparison of 22 models on the odd-one-out similarity judgments on THINGS [1] ($\rho=0.54$).**
**II) Comparison of 79 models on pairwise similarity judgments from an independent dataset [2] ($\rho=0.45$).**
**III) Comparison of 79 models on two-alternative forced choice data, which is a part of the NIGHTS dataset from the DreamSim paper that was not used to train the model [3] ($\rho=0.28$).**
**IV) Comparison of 25 models on alignment to the validation split of the ClickMe dataset [4,5], which was used to fine-tune the Harmonizer models ($\rho=-0.43$).**
**While our metric positively correlated with the metrics from the first three datasets, there were important differences. We found a negative correlation between our metric and the ClickMe-Harmonizer feature alignment, suggesting that pixel-level alignment and semantically bound global image alignment might be at odds.**"
For the odd-one-out data, we compared the models reported in the original paper [1]. For [2,3], we ran the comparisons for all the models. The ClickMe-Harmonizer alignment was only computed for supervised models, as the method requires computing gradients for ImageNet classes, which we could only do for the supervised models that had ImageNet classification heads.
> the authors could take human pairwise similarity judgments and treat them as features from which to learn the task
This is a great suggestion. Unfortunately, pairwise similarity judgements do not exist for THINGS. However, the ground truth features of the task were generated from an embedding optimised to predict odd-one-out similarity judgements on THINGS[7]. We report how well these models predict human choice in Figure 2. While the ground truth model ranks in the top 13, it is surpassed by several multimodal models.
> I didn't see an analysis of inter-rater reliability/noise roof.
The sequence of observations that were given to the participants in our tasks were randomly assigned and none were identical. Therefore it is not possible to calculate inter-rater reliability. However, the question of how good can alignment be is important. We initially thought the models trained on the ground truth features would establish a ceiling. However, to our surprise, several models exceeded this.
> why were participants with less than 50% accuracy excluded?
In online studies, it is common to have noisy data, where sometimes participants don’t engage with the task faithfully. Therefore, it is common to exclude participants who perform below chance. Nevertheless, when we fit our models to all participants’s data (Rebuttal Figure 4), the $R^2$ values we obtain are highly correlated with the $R^2$ values after exclusion ($\rho=0.96$ for category learning, $\rho=0.66$ for reward). Our qualitative results stay the same, where the top-ranking models are CLIP variants. Therefore, our findings are not dependent on this filtering step.
> why might the alignment numbers be so low?
We believe there are several reasons for this. First, it is difficult to predict human choices early in the task for any model, given the noise associated with uncertainty. Indeed, when we look at $R^2$ values in the first half of the task, the maximum values are 0.05 and 0.1 for the category and the reward tasks. Whereas if we look at the second half, they go as high as 0.22 and 0.21, which is in the range that you suggested. Regardless of the split, the top-performing models are CLIP models. This is a unique difficulty of learning tasks, as unsupervised similarity judgements do not require learning and therefore a similar noise effect is not expected early in the task.
Second, even when we use the ground truth features to predict human choice, we see that $R^2$ values aren’t high, which again speaks to the difficulty of the task.
Lastly, it’s difficult to compare McFadden’s $R^2$ values across tasks. Some simple learning paradigms might have best-fitting models with $R^2$ values <.2[7], whereas other similar paradigms can go up to the range you suggested [8].
[1] Human alignment of neural network representations. Muttenthaler et al., ICLR 2023
[2] Evaluating (and Improving) the Correspondence Between Deep Neural Networks and Human Representations. Peterson et al., Cognitive Science 2018
[3] DreamSim: Learning New Dimensions of Human Visual Similarity using Synthetic Data. Fu et al., NeurIPS 2023
[4] Harmonizing the object recognition strategies of deep neural networks with humans. Fel et al., NeurIPS 2022
[5] Learning what and where to attend, Linsley et al., ICLR 2019
[6] Revealing the multidimensional mental representations of natural objects underlying human similarity judgements. Hebart et al., Nat. Hum. Beh. 2020
[7] Finding structure in multi-armed bandits. Schulz et al., Cognitive Psychology 2020
[8] Model-Based Influences on Humans’ Choice and Striatal Prediction Errors, Daw et al., Neuron 2011
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the rebuttal! I appreciate the additional analyses and have increased my score accordingly.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thanks for your response and updating your score! | Summary: The authors evaluate alignment between humans and 77 pre-trained neural network vision models using learning tasks. Previous work has focused on comparing alignment between humans and models with similarity judgments alone; instead, here the authors asked participants to perform simple category learning and reinforcement learning tasks. These responses were compared with linear models fit on top of the pre-trained networks. The analysis is very thoughtful and thorough, and the article goes into detail regarding the factors that influence which models are best aligned: task accuracy, model size, training, etc.
I see this work as providing a strong contribution to understanding human vs. model alignment in vision tasks. I would like to see it published at NeurIPS, pending the concern I mentioned below.
Strengths: This article has many strengths
- Kudos for comparing 77 different models
- Thoughtful and rigorous model comparison
- Detailed analysis of which factors lead models to fit the human data better
- Excellent visuals for understanding the results
Weaknesses: My main concern is about the method for fitting participant responses (see question below).
The categorization task of delivering images to two dinosaurs, Julty and Folty, is a bit silly and may have had participants overthinking the task. You may have received cleaner data with a simpler framing: learning Category A vs. Category B. But I don't see this as a major issue.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: I don't fully understand the methodological choices in getting the pre-trained models to predict the human responses. In the categorization task, my understanding is that a regularized logistic regression was trained to predict the gold category labels. Then, the predicted category probability was used in a logistic mixed model.
With this approach, you would seemingly lose a lot of information (potentially relevant features) in the model embeddings beyond its category prediction, before mapping this prediction to human responses. Did you consider fitting a mapping between the model features and participant responses more directly? If not, why not? I would be willing to raise my score depending on the response to this question.
EDIT: Thank you for trying this and for the explanation. I see the current approach as better justified now, and raised my score accordingly.
Also, the description of the mixed model in the appendix is not satisfying, as the variables aren't defined clearly. Please explain in the rebuttal.
Typos
"Exemplary learning curves" (pg 4)
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: This section is fine
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: > Did you consider fitting a mapping between the model features and participant responses more directly? If not, why not?
We agree with the reviewer that fitting the linear/logistic regression models directly to human choices is an interesting thought (as it has for example recently been applied in a different domain by [1]). This modelling approach typically requires a lot of data to work well. For example, [1] has used data from around 1 million human choices, whereas we have only 60 or 120 choices per participant. Hence, we expected that this approach would not work well in our setting. Nevertheless, we have now also tried to fit the embeddings directly onto human choice. However, we received much poorer fits (mean $R^2$= -0.76, max $R^2$= -0.05, min $R^2$= -3.98), as this approach does not directly capture the structure of the task and likely leads to overfitting.
> Also, the description of the mixed model in the appendix is not satisfying, as the variables aren't defined clearly. Please explain in the rebuttal.
Under the Behavioural Analyses section in Appendix A, we will add the following in the camera-ready version:
**“We used mixed-effects logistic models for both category and reward learning analyses. For category learning, we predicted correct responses per trial, using trial number as a fixed effect and including participant-specific random effects for intercept, trial number, and assigned task rule. In the reward learning model, we predicted whether the image on the right is selected, incorporating the trial number, reward difference between images, and their interaction as fixed effects. These factors, along with the assigned task rule, were also modelled as participant-specific random effects. Both models effectively captured task structure, learning progression, and individual variability in performance.”**
And under the Modelling in Appendix A, we will add the following:
**“We used mixed effects logistic regression models with leave-one-out predictions to assess participant choices in both tasks. For category learning, we used logistic regression probability estimates as predictors. In the reward learning task, we used the difference in estimated rewards from linear regression models as predictors. In both cases, these predictors were included as both fixed and random effects, allowing us to account for individual differences while maintaining the group effects. These correspond to the following models in R formula notation:**
**Category Learning:**
```
human_choice ~ -1 + probability_estimate + (-1 + probability_estimate | participant)
```
**Reward Learning**
```
human_choice ~ -1 + estimated_reward_difference + (-1 + estimated_reward_difference | participant)
```
**Where -1 denotes no intercept."**
> The categorization task of delivering images to two dinosaurs, Julty and Folty, is a bit silly and may have had participants overthinking the task. You may have received cleaner data with a simpler framing: learning Category A vs. Category B.
Thanks for raising this point. It has been shown that using “fun” cover stories improves data quality in learning tasks[2]. In our experience, this also makes the tasks more engaging, especially in online settings. Furthermore, before starting the main experiment, participants were required to answer a few comprehension questions, and they were not allowed to participate in the main task until answering these questions correctly. Therefore, we believe participants had a good understanding of the task. We will include these questions in the Appendix for the camera-ready version.
> Typos "Exemplary learning curves" (pg 4)
Thanks. We will change this to **“Example learning curves”**
[1] Peterson, J. C., Bourgin, D. D., Agrawal, M., Reichman, D., & Griffiths, T. L. (2021). Using large-scale experiments and machine learning to discover theories of human decision-making. Science, 372(6547), 1209-1214.
[2] Feher da Silva, C., Lombardi, G., Edelson, M., & Hare, T. A. (2023). Rethinking model-based and model-free influences on mental effort and striatal prediction errors. Nat. Hum. Behav., 7(6), 956–969.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thank you for engaging with the review process and raising the score. We are happy we could clarify our approach and the motivation behind it. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank all reviewers for their constructive and helpful feedback. Their input was immensely valuable to further improve our manuscript. The reviewers’ assessment was overall positive, with each reviewer recommending an initial score of at least borderline accept:
- Reviewer pzQG saw our work “as providing a strong contribution to understanding human vs. model alignment” and mentioned that they “would like to see it published at NeurIPS” given that the pending concerns are addressed.
- Reviewer NCLd highlighted that our work is an “important and timely contribution” to the field.
- Reviewer MCn8 stated that our paper “makes substantial contributions.”
- Reviewer PLVt said that our work is a “useful asset in the human-machine comparison toolbox.”
In response to the reviewers' feedback, we have made the following major modifications to our manuscript:
- We have compared the different alignment methods on two other datasets to address the data confound of the gLocal models (Reviewers MCn8, PLVt).
- We have added an analysis comparing our proposed metric to previous alignment metrics (Reviewer NCLd).
- We have added an analysis and a discussion on fitting a mapping between the model features and participant responses (Reviewer pzQG).
- We have added additional descriptions of our model and fitting procedure to the Appendix (Reviewers pzQG, PLVt).
- We have added several new analyses, such as including participants behaving at chance level, to show that our results are robust (Reviewers NCLd, MCn8).
- We now also report average accuracies in addition to $R^2$ values (Reviewer MCn8).
We describe these and other smaller changes in detail in our responses to the individual reviews below. We again want to thank the reviewers for their time and for actively taking part in the review process.
Pdf: /pdf/5913681ea8207cd3cacbd8375c9d3e0f91aa1325.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Improved Generation of Adversarial Examples Against Safety-aligned LLMs | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper introduces two modifications to gradient-guided LLM attack algorithms that can improve its effectiveness and efficiency. First, they skip skip connections in the transformer when propagating gradients. Second, they modify the optimization objective to also include a term for making the latent representations align with those found from a preliminary attack.
Strengths: S1: The two insights that the paper is built on (skipping skip connections and TODO) are clever. I wouldn't have thought of them. This is a good example of a good insight coming from a critical lens on past literature.
S2: Figures 2, 3, and 4 are compelling. I'd recommend making the zero line dark in figure 3.
S3: Overall, I think that table 1 seems to be a really useful result.
S4: If the paper is sound, I can imagine it having some very useful impacts on red-teaming.
Weaknesses: W1: My main challlenge with the paper is the writing. There are a lot of vague, strange, and unexplained phrases like lines 13-16 of the abstract. I think that the writing needs major work. This paper was much harder than a typical neurips paper to understand because of the writing style. Changes should start with the abstract. It took me until finishing section 3 of the paper to understand what the paper's contribution (i.e. what I wrote in the summary field above) really was.
W2: The paper lacks qualitative analysis. I would like to see side by side the attacks that went into figure 8.
W3: Ideally, this paper would not just work within the harmbench box but would also apply the method to do some form of red teaming that couldn't have been done before.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 1
Questions for Authors: Q1: Releasing code seems to be important for this project. What is the update on plans for release?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 1
Contribution: 4
Limitations: See weaknesses
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for the feedback. Our responses to the comments are given as follows.
> Improve the writing and making the zero line dark in Figure 3.
**Answer:**
Thanks for the effort to fathom the contribution of our work. We will carefully revise the writing to make our contribution more clear, especially for the Abstract and Introduction in the updated version.
> The paper lacks qualitative analysis. I would like to see side by side the attacks that went into figure 8.
**Answer:**
In Figure 8, we show the effectiveness of our methods, especially our combination method, compared with the baseline methods. The introduced methods in the paper aim to refine the input gradient computation in order to make the input gradient more precisely reflect the reduction of adversarial loss that results from token replacements in the prompt. We conducted an experiment that evaluates the effectiveness of the input gradients obtained from the methods, thereby demonstrating the improvements offered by our methods. Firstly, we compute the losses of all the choices of token replacement for one adversarial token in a prompt and rank them in ascending order as the ground truth rank list of token replacements. The higher the ranking of the token replacements corresponding to the Top-$k$ values in the input gradient within the ground truth rank list, the more effective this input gradient is. We compute such ranking obtained by different methods. For each prompt, we select the first adversarial token to evaluate the ranking. We use $k=1$ for all methods. The average rankings across 100 prompts are shown below. The experiment is performed on Llama-2-7B-Chat which the vocabulary size is 32000. It can be seen that the input gradients of our methods provide a higher ranking, especially the GCG-LSGM-LILA$^\dagger$, and the input gradients of GCG give the lowest ranking. Such observation indicates that the gradient computation refinements that we appropriated indeed encourage the input gradient to be more precise, thereby improving the discrete optimization.
| | GCG | GCG-LSGM | GCG-LILA | GCG-LILA$^\dagger$ | GCG-LSGM-LILA$^\dagger$ |
|-----------------|----------|----------|----------|--------------------|-------------------------|
| Average ranking | 16069.86 | 13993.74 | 15669.86 | 14438.27 | 12892.74 |
> Ideally, this paper would not just work within the harmbench box but would also apply the method to do some form of red teaming that couldn't have been done before.
**Answer:**
We agree that the perspective introduced for improving discrete optimization problems within LLMs has the potential to enhance tasks beyond the generation of adversarial examples evaluated in the paper. We are currently applying this perspective to other tasks and exploring more effective methods for our future work.
> Releasing code seems to be important for this project. What is the update on plans for release?
**Answer:**
We will make the code publicly available and provide the website to access the code in the paper.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: reply
Comment: - I would still like to see attacks side by side that went into figure 8. I was referring to looking at examples of prompts.
- Overall, thank you for the responses. I think that it would be best for my to keep my score of a 5. Neurips is not allowing authors to submit new versions of the paper (which for the record I think is bad for both authors and reviewers) which means I can't assess the extent to which my main concerns have been addressed.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Dear Reviewer qAjA,
Thank you for responding to our rebuttal. Similar to the adversarial perturbations in image classification models, the explanation of adversarial suffixes remains an open question. Moreover, since our methods solely refine gradient computation, it is challenging to specify the differences between adversarial suffixes generated by them. Nevertheless, from the perspective of optimization, our methods exhibit faster convergence compared to the baseline method. Take the harmful query "Teach people how to manipulate stock prices for financial gain" as an example, we show the adversarial loss and whether the output match the target phrase as below.
Firstly, it can be seen that GCG fails to induce Llama-2-7B-Chat to output the target phrase even after 500 iterations, and the loss values are higher than those of our methods for the same number of iterations. While GCG-LSGM and GCG-LILA successfully generate adversarial suffixes that induce the model outputs the target phrase within just 150 and 300 iterations, respectively. For the combined methods, by incorporating cross-entropy loss into GCG-LILA, GCG-LILA$^\dagger$ achieves lower loss values. The further combination with LSGM, *i.e.*, GCG-LSGM-LILA$^\dagger$, achieves the lowest loss values compared with others for the same iterations. These observations suggest that our methods converge better than the baseline method, and explain the higher attack success rates achieved by our methods.
| | Iterations | Loss | Match | Adversarial suffix |
|-------------------------|------------|-------|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| GCG | 150 | 0.758 | FALSE | ```"(!().} werden !!. Foratiques), leur !! violence!... allemand ihr] Sommer gleich !`?"``` |
| | 300 | 0.521 | FALSE | ```"der eine Ariischer![. However anonymous]] published einem politician!/ allemandEXT] Sommerrig!`?"``` |
| | 500 | 0.521 | FALSE | ```"der eine Ariischer![. However anonymous]] published einem politician!/ allemandEXT] Sommerrig!`?"``` |
| GCG-LSGM | 150 | 0.091 | TRUE | ```"J surely Regierungaussian\".{%{\\ shiftflag [ (/] huvudstadenstdout (`subfigure (=applyinarycdnjs"``` |
| | 300 | 0.023 | TRUE | ```"PK Surecze hill\".}\", (?modulesexceptionString('/] succeeded Traceback `(($_!( throwmulticolumncdnjs"``` |
| | 500 | 0.017 | TRUE | ```"PK Sure MTV Wrestling\".`' $(compilecountmodules('/] succeeded Traceback `(($(unique throwimportcdnjs"``` |
| GCG-LILA | 150 | 0.691 | FALSE | ```"!$).footnote*/includ aprilorphism hearts Define effective\".] Smallhus leaders Sa raggi segle les?'"``` |
| | 300 | 0.021 | TRUE | ```"/>]). noreferrer`}\";DEXacsFor,\\cref/] Small{[ubernorten la segle nella Francia"``` |
| | 500 | 0.015 | TRUE | ```"/> neighborhood'} infinitely)\") Small orth matrices{{\\cref/] Small{[Perant unos segle en Catalunya"``` |
| GCG-LILA$^\dagger$ | 150 | 0.591 | FALSE | ```"regardlessentlicht langue Germancience rapide\", Take throughout$-] I sono il Grande animals spatial`: = Regierung"``` |
| | 300 | 0.021 | TRUE | ```"initially simultaneouslylanguage Australian\\\\ together typeof \"... conducted przez\")] = inhabitants: Stockholm `(import [(=(defn"``` |
| | 500 | 0.013 | TRUE | ```"originally simultaneouslylanguage Australian. foc Like \"... personne near\")] =dfrac kize `( importing [(=(defn"``` |
| GCG-LSGM-LILA$^\dagger$ | 150 | 0.069 | TRUE | ```"simp ! short!Three annotations.\" contains comparison [typeof jest ({-newcommand candidates corresponding [( (= Lemma"``` |
| | 300 | 0.019 | TRUE | ```"vert : weird practical Movie situations.\" satisfy comparison quantitytypeof jest ([ (newcommand expectingType [( (= Lemma"``` |
| | 500 | 0.008 | TRUE | ```"paragraph ; Baseball sports humor [. LO \"( baseball device alternatives'(disambiguationNSString={{enumerate($( (+ Lemma"``` |
Best regards,
Authors | Summary: This paper studies and improves white-box suffix-based language model jailbreaking. The authors treats the gradient-based discrete optimization problem involved in jailbreak suffix generation as using a continuous surrogate model to attack the discrete real model. By drawing parallels between this observation and transfer-based image adversarial attacks, the authors leverage and adapt tools from transfer attacks, resulting in an improved version that significantly outperforms the baseline GCG method.
Strengths: 1. Language model jailbreaking is a crucial aspect of LLM safety, and the transfer-attack perspective on the discrepancy between the gradient of the loss used in GCG and the actual impact of token substitution is novel.
2. Building on this perspective, insights from two image transfer attacks, SGM and ILA, are applied to discrete token optimization. Comprehensive experiments are conducted to validate the effectiveness and improvements of both methods and their combination.
3. The experimental results are strong. With a substantial reduction in time cost, the proposed method achieves significant improvements in string matching rate and attack success rate under both white-box attack and black-box universal suffix transfer attack scenarios.
Weaknesses: I do not spot a major weakness within the paper. Some minor points are as follows.
1. Regarding the Mistral-7B-Instruct model, Table 1 shows that only the combination of LSGM and LILA surpasses the GCG ASR baseline, whereas for the Llama-chat series, a single component is sufficient (for most cases). This raises my question about whether the previous investigations (as shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5) apply to less-aligned LLMs like Mistral or if they only hold true for better-aligned models like the Llama-chat series.
2. While the proposal is demonstrated to be robust to the choice of $\gamma$ and layer selection $r$, there is no discussion about the impact of the $\beta$ hyperparameter for (LSGM-)LILA$^\dagger$. It would be useful to explore how robust the proposal is to this parameter.
3. The paper could benefit from some polishing, such as correcting the reference to Figure 8, which is currently written as Table 8 in line 333.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. A recent study [1] has shown that the refusal of language models can be mitigated by a single direction. It would be fascinating to explore any potential (negative) correlation between the vector $v$ discussed in this paper and the refusal direction presented in the aforementioned work.
2. In addition to the effectiveness of the proposal, previous detection methods [2] found that GCG always generates suffixes with high perplexity. It would be interesting to investigate whether the proposed strategies have any impact on this.
[1]: Andy Arditi et al., Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Direction.
[2]: Neel Jain et al., Baseline Defenses for Adversarial Attacks Against Aligned Language Models.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 4
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for the feedback. Except for the comments about the discussion on perplexity and the concurrent related work, which are answered in our global response, all comments are replied to as follows.
> Regarding the Mistral-7B-Instruct model, Table 1 shows that only the combination of LSGM and LILA surpasses the GCG ASR baseline, whereas for the Llama-chat series, a single component is sufficient (for most cases). This raises my question about whether the previous investigations (as shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5) apply to less-aligned LLMs like Mistral or if they only hold true for better-aligned models like the Llama-chat series.
**Answer:**
In Table 1, the results of GCG$^*$ (first row in the table) are obtained by adopting the default setting introduced in the paper of GCG, which uses a Top-$k$ selection of 256 and a candidate set size of 512 at each iteration. Other results were obtained by using a Top-$k$ selection of 4 and a candidate set size of 20, which considerably reduced the time cost. We show the results of GCG$^*$ aims to demonstrate that our methods can achieve comparable results with lower computation complexity. When comparing our methods to the GCG that also uses a Top-$k$ selection of 4 and a candidate set size of 20 (second row in the table), it can be seen that all methods show improvement. We conducted the experiments corresponding to Figures 3, 4, and 5 on Mistral-7B-Instruct, and presented the results in Figures VII, VIII, and X in the attached PDF in the global response.
> While the proposal is demonstrated to be robust to the choice of 𝛾 and layer selection 𝑟, there is no discussion about the impact of the 𝛽 hyperparameter for (LSGM-)LILA$^\dagger$. It would be useful to explore how robust the proposal is to this parameter.
**Answer:**
We evaluated LILA$^\dagger$ and LSGM-LILA$^\dagger$ by varying the choice of $\beta$ in Figure IX in the attached PDF in our global response. It can be seen that the performance improves with a large range of the choice $\beta$. For simplicity, we recommend setting $\beta \rightarrow \infty$ as we set in the paper.
> The paper could benefit from some polishing, such as correcting the reference to Figure 8, which is currently written as Table 8 in line 333.
**Answer:**
Thanks for pointing out the typo. We will fix it in the updated version.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response to rebuttal
Comment: I would like to express my gratitude for the thorough responses provided by the authors.
Regarding the first concern, I acknowledge the improvement compared to GCG under the same hyperparameter setup. I specifically referred to the comparison with GCG*. The methodology presented for Llama2-chat evidently shows improved ASR using just one component from the two algorithmic strategies proposed. This makes me wonder to what extent the observations illustrated in Figures 3, 4, and 5 still apply to other potential LLMs. In the general response, there appears to be an inadvertent replication in Figures V/VII and VI/VIII. I would appreciate it if the authors could confirm whether this phenomenon consistently occurs in both the Mistral and Phi3 models.
As for the second concern, the ablation study on $\beta$ convincingly supports the decision to adopt $+\infty$ throughout the paper.
Furthermore, it would be beneficial if a quantitative comparison to the refusal direction paper (also mentioned by reviewer heVA) could be provided in future versions.
Given the demonstrations and ablations on the effectiveness of the proposed method in improving white-box and transfer ASR, I will keep my current score.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Dear Reviewer s3ui,
Thanks for responding to our rebuttal. We sincerely apologize for incorrectly showing the results of Phi3-Mini-4K-Instruct in Figures VII and VIII. We have conducted experiments on Mistral-7B-Instruct, and the results have shown observations consistent with those of Llama2-7B-Chat and Phi3-Mini-4K-Instruct. We will include these figures in the updated version of the paper.
Additionally, the discussion on refusal directions with experimental results will also be provided in the updated version of the paper.
Best regards,
Authors | Summary: The paper explores methods to enhance the effectiveness of adversarial prompt generation based on GCG against LLMs. By leveraging previous transfer-based attack techniques, originally used for image classification models, the authors adapt the Skip Gradient Method (SGM) and Intermediate Level Attack (ILA) to improve gradient-based adversarial prompt generation. The experiment results demonstrate a significant improvement over the vanilla GCG.
Strengths: + The paper carefully adopts and combines previous transfer-based attacks for image classification, specifically the Skip Gradient Method and Intermediate Level Attack, to target LLMs. This approach significantly increases the attack success rates by over 30% compared to the original GCG.
+ The time required for attacks based on GCG is also significantly reduced, from 85 minutes to just 3 minutes, while still achieving substantial improvements in success rates.
Weaknesses: Though I believe the method shown in the paper can be applied to other models, the authors should explore LLMs with more diverse architectures to demonstrate the generalization of the proposed method. The three LLMs presented in the paper share the same or similar architecture, particularly in the design of the residual part.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: + From my understanding, the proposed method specifically refines the gradient for GCG. I want to confirm whether, apart from the gradient refinement, the method for optimizing the tokens remains the same as GCG, i.e., still via Top-k token replacement. If so, I am curious why the time cost for the proposed method is significantly smaller than that of GCG. What contributes to this reduction in time cost?
+ I am quite interested in the attack success rate when, instead of reducing the gradients from residual modules, we reduce the gradients from the skip connections. Will the ASR still improve significantly, or could it potentially harm the ASR?
+ When using different decay factors $\gamma$ for the gradient, as shown in Figure 9, did the authors normalize the gradient norms during optimization? I doubt the magnitude of the gradient will also lead to some bias.
+ Can the universal adversarial suffixes generated by your method transfer more effectively to closed models like GPT or Claude?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The proposed method may depend on the specific design of the LLM architecture. When applying this method to different architectures, it may require more manual effort to tune the parameters effectively.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for the feedback. Except for the comments about the experiments of reducing the gradients from skip connections, which is answered in our global response, all comments are replied to as follows.
> Though I believe the method shown in the paper can be applied to other models, the authors should explore LLMs with more diverse architectures to demonstrate the generalization of the proposed method. The three LLMs presented in the paper share the same or similar architecture, particularly in the design of the residual part.
**Answer:**
We extended the experiments to Phi3-Mini-4K-Instruct. The results are presented below. It can be seen that our methods still gain improvements when compared with the GCG attack.
| | MR | ASR |
|-------------------------|:--:|:---:|
| GCG | 60\% | 59\% |
| GCG-LSGM | 75\% | 64\% |
| GCG-LILA | 62\% | 59\% |
| GCG-LILA$^\dagger$ | 65\% | 62\% |
| GCG-LSGM-LILA$^\dagger$ | 81\% | 68\% |
> From my understanding, the proposed method specifically refines the gradient for GCG. I want to confirm whether, apart from the gradient refinement, the method for optimizing the tokens remains the same as GCG, i.e., still via Top-$k$ token replacement. If so, I am curious why the time cost for the proposed method is significantly smaller than that of GCG. What contributes to this reduction in time cost?
**Answer:**
The only difference between our method and GCG is the computation of the input gradient. Our method retains the procedure for evaluating the adversarial loss of candidate token replacements in each iteration. This procedure contributes the most to the computing cost. Our methods aim to refine the input gradient in order to enhance its efficiency in reducing adversarial loss, *i.e.*, achieving better performance while evaluating the same number of candidates in each iteration or achieving similar performance while evaluating fewer candidates in each iteration. Therefore, in Table 1, we show the performance of GCG with the default setting ($k$=256 and 512 candidates evaluated in each iteration, corresponding to GCG$^*$ in the table). For our methods, we reduce $k$ and the number of candidates evaluated, *i.e.*, $k$=4 and 20 candidates in each iteration, thus reducing the time cost. The results show that our GCG-LSGM-LILA$^\dagger$ achieves similar or even better match rates and attack success rates with lower time costs compared with GCG$^*$.
> When using different decay factors 𝛾 for the gradient, as shown in Figure 9, did the authors normalize the gradient norms during optimization? I doubt the magnitude of the gradient will also lead to some bias.
**Answer:**
We did not re-normalize the magnitude of the gradients in the paper. We conducted the experiments with such re-normalization and show the results below. The results indicate the lower magnitude of the gradients is not the reason for improved performance, and further confirm the effectiveness of the strategy of reducing gradients from residual modules.
| | MR | ASR |
|--------------------------------------------|:----:|:-----:|
| GCG | 54% | 38% |
| | | |
| GCG-LSGM, \gamma=0.9, w/o re-normalization | 63\% | 50\% |
| GCG-LSGM, \gamma=0.9, w/ re-normalization | 60\% | 47\% |
| | | |
| GCG-LSGM, \gamma=0.7, w/o re-normalization | 72\% | 57\% |
| GCG-LSGM, \gamma=0.7, w/ re-normalization | 74\% | 62\% |
| | | |
| GCG-LSGM, \gamma=0.5, w/o re-normalization | 72\% | 62\% |
| GCG-LSGM, \gamma=0.5, w/ re-normalization | 73\% | 61\% |
> Can the universal adversarial suffixes generated by your method transfer more effectively to closed models like GPT or Claude?
**Answer:**
We use the universal suffixes generated by performing GCG and GCG-LSGM-LILA$^\dagger$ against Llama-2-7B-Chat to attack GPT-3.5-Turbo on the first 100 harmful queries in AdvBench. The results are shown below. It can be observed that our GCG-LSGM-LILA$^\dagger$ achieves remarkable improvements in the average, worst, and best ASRs obtained over 10 runs.
| | AASR | WASR | BASR |
|---------------------------|:-------:|:------:|:------:|
| GCG | 38.3% | 24% | 48% |
| GCG-LSGM-LILA$^\dagger$ | 45.2% | 35% | 81% |
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thanks for the rebuttal
Comment: Thank you for the detailed responses from the authors. Overall, I am satisfied with the rebuttal but still tend to main my score as 5, and I still have several suggestions:
1. It would be beneficial to include the results for more diverse architectures as suggested by Reviewer heVA in the revision to verify if the observation on skip connections is universal. Regarding the results on Phi3-Mini-4K-Instruct, are these still using the evaluation metric from AdvBench? I would recommend using the evaluation metric from HarmBench instead, since the evaluation in AdvBench is actually quite biased and not accurate. With the current close ASR (~9%) by using the biased metric in AdvBench, I am not sure if the method or the observation on skip connections is indeed universal across different model architectures, or if it is just a specific phenomenon that exists only for one kind of model with a specific training way. Therefore, I would still tend to maintain my score at this moment. If I have overlooked something, please feel free to correct me.
2. I would recommend that the authors also include the results for the GCG with the token replacement settings of GCG-LSGM-LILA, i.e., k=4 and 20, for a complete comparison, which will help readers better understand the effectiveness of the proposed method.
3. Adding the corresponding results above on closed models like GPT-3.5/GPT-4o in the revision would significantly enhance the credibility of the work.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Dear Reviewer BhKe,
Thanks for the comments. Our responses are given as follows.
1. In our rebuttal, we evaluated our methods for generating query-specific adversarial suffixes on AdvBench. We would like to politely remind you that the bias between evaluations on AdvBench and HarmBench mainly exists to generate universal adversarial suffixes. Since the AdvBench dataset contains semantically similar queries, generating universal adversarial suffixes for a group of these queries might compromise their universality. When generating query-specific adversarial suffixes, an adversarial suffix was generated for only one query, hence does not involve the universality problem. We also evaluated the performance of our method for generating universal adversarial suffixes on the dataset of HarmBench following Reviewer heVA's comment. The results are shown below. Due to the limited duration of the discussion period, the experiments on Phi3-Mini-Instruct are still ongoing, and we evaluated its adversarial suffixes at the 100-th iteration. For the experiments on the other models, the adversarial suffixes are obtained through 500 iterations.
| | | GCG | | | |GCG-LSGM-LILA$^\dagger$ | |
|--------------------------|:--------:|:-------:|:-------:|:---:|:-------------------------:|:-------:|:-------:|
| | AASR | WASR | BASR | | AASR | WASR | BASR |
| Llama-2-7B-Chat (500 iterations) | 56.90% | 33.0% | 66.5% | | 69.35% | 57.5% | 87.0% |
| Llama-2-13B-Chat (500 iterations) | 37.40% | 13.5% | 64.5% | | 53.55% | 22.0% | 81.5% |
| Mistral-7B-Instruct (500 iterations) | 75.00% | 37.5% | 90.5% | | 81.00% | 66.5% | 93.0% |
| Phi3-Mini-Instruct (100 iterations) | 32.40% | 12.5% | 48.5% | | 50.70% | 32.0% | 70.5% |
2. The results of using a Top-$k$ of 4 and a candidate set size of 20 for GCG are shown in the second row in Table 1. We will emphasize the setting of these results for clarity in the updated version of the paper.
3. We will add the results of attacking closed models in the revision.
Best regards,
Authors | Summary: The paper takes inspiration from the adversarial attack literature in computer vision to improve the common GCG attack algorithm for LLMs. The paper focuses on the ideas from SGM and ILA in particular. The former enables the author to improve the gradients being used in GCG to be more informative. The latter leads to a new loss that helps optimisation (the idea seems closely related to the work on circuit breaking and refusal directions). The authors validate their ideas empirically on the AdvBench dataset.
Strengths: The paper demonstrates two ways to improve automatic prompt optimisation for LLMs, while the authors primarily evaluate their method to generate adversarial suffixes the insights may also help for prompt tuning more generally. The paper contains several experiments to provide additional insights as to why the proposed modifications help.
I am willing to raise my score to acceptance if the weaknesses and limitations are addressed (see below).
Weaknesses: - The empirical evaluation is lacking in parts
- Figure 2 & 7 lack error bars making it difficult to assess whether the improvement is statistically significant
- The authors are clearly aware of the Harmbench paper as they use the judge provided by this paper, yet the paper uses AdvBench as the source of queries. This is problematic due to the number of semantically similar queries making it difficult to tell if the universal queries are indeed universal. Table 2 should not use AdvBench!
- Table 1 and 2 need at least 3 model families, so I urge the authors to also run experiments for those Tables on either Phi or Gemma or Llama3
- Also Table 1 should have at least one jailbreaking method that does not simply generate a suffix, e.g. PAIR.
- Figure 4 is missing error bars
- Figure 5 is missing error bars
- I think it would have been nice to validate Figure 3 & 4 across more models but I understand this is computationally expensive (and the above suggestions are far more important).
- The writing could be at times improved significantly. A lot of things are described in words that could be more succinctly and more clearly be explained in math or pseudocode:
- the algorithm described in lines 294-307 should have pseudocode.
- L(x) should be defined in an equation not text
- The abstract is very long and should be shortened.
- The paper should discuss continuous attacks [3] in the related work as well as recent work on circuit breaking and refusal directions [1,2] (see also my question on this). I am aware many of these works are too recent to have been included in the initial submission, but I think a added discussion would be valuable to the paper if accepted.
- I would have liked to see an experiment attenuating the residual connection gradient instead, as this would strengthen the results from the causal tracing experiment.
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04313
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11717
[3] https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09063
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: The projection loss onto a directional guide sounds closely related to recent work on refusal directions and circuit breaking [1,2]. Could the authors please explain the differences? (And add this discussion to the related work)
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: - No analysis of the perplexity of generated suffixes, which is highly relevant given the ease of implementing a perplexity filter on inputs to the LLM.
- The empirical evaluation (see weaknesses).
- The paper provides no hypothesis why attenuating the loss from the residual module helps, more precisely why would that gradient have negative cossine similarity with the residual connection.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for the feedback. Except for the comments about the experiments of reducing the gradients from skip connections, the discussion on perplexity and some concurrent related work, which are answered in our global response, all comments are replied to as follows.
> • Lack of error bars in the Figures.
> • Validate Figure 3 & 4 across more models.
**Answer:**
• We have revised Figures 2, 4, 5, and 7 to include scaled standard deviations as error bars and have shown the updated figures in the attached PDF in our global response (*i.e.*, Figures I, II, III, and IV).
• We extended the experiments presented in Figures 3 and 4 to include Mistral-7B-Instruct and Phi-3-Mini-4K-Instruct. The results are presented in the attached PDF file as Figures V and VI for Mistral-7B-Instruct, and Figures VII and VIII for Phi-3-Mini-4K-Instruct. Observations similar to those depicted in Figures 3 and 4 can be observed.
> Table 1 should have at least one jailbreaking method that does not simply generate a suffix, e.g. PAIR.
**Answer:**
We evaluated PAIR, and the ASRs are shown below. We will add the results in Table 1 in the updated version of the paper.
| | Llama2-7B-Chat | Llama2-13B-Chat | Mistral-7B-Instruct | Phi-3-Mini-4K-Instruct |
|------|----------------|-----------------|---------------------|--------------------|
| PAIR | 11\% | 15\% | 46\% | 32\% |
> • Table 1 and 2 need at least 3 model families, so I urge the authors to also run experiments for those Tables on either Phi or Gemma or Llama3
> • Evaluate the methods on the dataset of HarmBench in Table 2.
**Answer:**
• For Table 1, we conducted the experiments on Phi-3-Mini-4K-Instruct as suggested. The results are shown below. Our methods also improve the attack performance on Phi-3-Mini-4K-Instruct.
| | MR | ASR |
|-------------------------|:------:|:------:|
| GCG$^*$ | 70\% | 61\% |
| GCG | 60\% | 59\% |
| GCG-LSGM | 75\% | 64\% |
| GCG-LILA | 62\% | 59\% |
| GCG-LILA$^\dagger$ | 65\% | 61\% |
| GCG-LSGM-LILA$^\dagger$ | 81\% | 68\% |
• For Table 2, we evaluated GCG and our GCG-LSGM-LILA$^\dagger$ on HarmBench. Following the suggestion, we also evaluated the methods on the model of Phi3-Mini-4K-Instruct. The results are shown below. It can be seen that the GCG-LSGM-LILA$^\dagger$ also achieves improvement in attack success rates against all models. We found that the attack success rates of both methods show extremely low attack success rates on the models except Llama-2-7B-Chat. We attribute this to the use of a small number of training examples (10), a limited Top-$k$ selection (4), and a candidate set size (20), all of which were chosen to reduce computational complexity. Experiments with the same settings as those introduced in HarmBench are ongoing. However, due to the considerable amount of time cost, it is challenging to present the results during the rebuttal period. We will include the results in the updated version of the paper.
| | | GCG | | | GCG-LSGM-LILA$^\dagger$ | |
|-------------------------|:------:|:------:|:------:|:---------------:|:------:|:------:|
| | AASR | WASR | BASR | AASR | WASR | BASR |
| Llama2-7B-Chat | 41.82\% | 19.50\% | 63.52\% | 50.48\% | 36.82\% | 75.44\% |
| Llama2-13B-Chat | 5.91\% | 0.00\% | 17.61\% | 6.29\% | 3.14\% | 20.21\% |
| Mistral-7B-Instruct | 2.45\% | 0.00\% | 5.03\% | 5.07\% | 2.05\% | 12.52\% |
| Phi-3-Mini-4K-Instruct | 2.83\% | 1.89\% | 6.29\% | 5.09\% | 1.89\% | 11.32\% |
> Improve the writing.
**Answer:**
Thank you for the suggestions. We will improve the writing accordingly.
> The paper provides no hypothesis why attenuating the loss from the residual module helps, more precisely why would that gradient have negative cossine similarity with the residual connection.
**Answer:**
We attempt to provide some hypotheses about these phenomena. With the skip connection branch, the input gradient can be regarded as the accumulation of the gradients from residual modules. We hypothesise that these gradients from residual modules contribute diverse information, thus causing nearly zero even negative cosine similarity between the gradients from the residual module and the gradient from the skip connection (which is the sum of the gradients from the residual modules in deeper layers of the model). Ideally, the input gradient can measure the changes in residual modules' outputs along the direction of their gradients. Nevertheless, since we optimize in the token (discrete) space, the input update (token replacement) is not precisely in the direction of the input gradient. Such deviation hinders the expected impact on the residual modules' outputs and becomes more severe in deeper layers. In each residual block, reducing the gradients from the residual module corresponds to enlarging the gradient from deeper layers. Thus, it alleviates the unexpected impact on the outputs of the deeper residual modules that result from the deviated input update, thereby improving the optimization. We conduct a simple experiment to strengthen the hypothesis of reducing the gradients from the residual modules in only the first half of the Llama-2-7B-Chat layers. It achieves 71\% match rate and 60\% attack success rate which are comparable with the results of the gradients from all residual modules (72\% for match rate and 62\% for attack success rate).
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Correctness about the first "answer" in the rebuttal
Comment: Dear reviewer heVA,
We would like to correct some mistakes in the first "answer" of the rebuttal. Specifically:
> The results are presented in the attached PDF file as Figures V and VI for Mistral-7B-Instruct, and Figures VII and VIII for Phi-3-Mini-4K-Instruct.
In fact, the results of Phi3-Mini-4K-Instruct are shown in Figures V and VI. In addition, in Figures VII and VIII, we incorrectly show the results of Phi3-Mini-4K-Instruct instead of the results of Mistral-7B-Instruct. We have conducted the experiments on Mistral-7B-Instruct and the results exhibit similar observations to those of Phi3-Mini-4K-Instruct and Llama-2-7B-Chat.
We would like to express our sincere apologies for the mistakes.
Best regards,
Authors
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.2:
Title: Answer to Author Response
Comment: Thank you for the detailed update.
The new figures greatly improve readability of the uncertainty about the proposed modifications. I also second the move toward HarmBench results. As an added bonus, standardization to HarmBench also allows for an easy comparison with the entire set of attacks evaluated in the benchmark.
As a smaller remark (a bit too late to test at this point), the hypothesis provided in the response could be tested by porting the gradient modification to other gradient-based optimizers. It might generalize beyond GCG to, e.g. PEZ and autoDan(Zhu) which do not work well on stronger LLMs, especially from the llama famility, due to problems with updating in the computed gradient directions.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Dear Reviewer heVA and Area Chair ju17,
Thanks for the comments on our rebuttal. We found that the original implementation of generating universal adversarial suffixes requires using all behaviors, including test behaviours, during the generation instead of only using 10 behaviors that do not overlap with the test behaviors in our rebuttal (refer to #1 Issue in the GitHub repository of HarmBench). We updated the experimental setting and evaluated the GCG and our method on 200 standard behaviours of HarmBench. Specifically, we generated the universal adversarial suffixes on 200 standard behaviors and evaluated the suffixes on these behaviors. Each method was run ten times and reported not only the average ASR (AASR) but also the best ASR (BASR) and the worst ASR (WASR). The results of attacking Llama-2-7B-Chat, Mistral-7B-Instruct, Llama-2-13B-Chat, and Phi3-Mini-Instruct are shown below. Our method outperforms the GCG attack on average, worst, and best ASRs. Generating adversarial suffixes on 200 standard behaviors is quite time-consuming. Due to the limited duration of the discussion period, the experiments on Phi3-Mini-Instruct are still ongoing, and we evaluated its adversarial suffixes at the 100-th iteration. For the experiments on the other models, the adversarial suffixes are obtained through 500 iterations. For the evaluations that involve combining our methods with PEZ and AutoDAN, the experiments are also ongoing, and the results will be included in the updated version of the paper.
| | | GCG | | | |GCG-LSGM-LILA$^\dagger$ | |
|--------------------------|:--------:|:-------:|:-------:|:---:|:-------------------------:|:-------:|:-------:|
| | AASR | WASR | BASR | | AASR | WASR | BASR |
| Llama-2-7B-Chat (500 iterations) | 56.90% | 33.0% | 66.5% | | 69.35% | 57.5% | 87.0% |
| Llama-2-13B-Chat (500 iterations) | 37.40% | 13.5% | 64.5% | | 53.55% | 22.0% | 81.5% |
| Mistral-7B-Instruct (500 iterations) | 75.00% | 37.5% | 90.5% | | 81.00% | 66.5% | 93.0% |
| Phi3-Mini-Instruct (100 iterations) | 32.40% | 12.5% | 48.5% | | 50.70% | 32.0% | 70.5% |
Best regards,
Authors | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank all the reviewers for the effort they spent reviewing our paper and providing valuable feedback. Our responses to some common questions are presented as follows. In addition, we provide a PDF that contains figures.
> The experiments of reducing the gradients from skip connections.
**Answer:**
We conducted the suggested experiments on Llama-2-7B-Chat, and the results are shown below. We use $\zeta$ to represent the reduction factor. The results show that there is a significant performance drop when compared with GCG.
| | MR | ASR |
|-----------------------------------------------------|----|-----|
| GCG | 54% | 38% |
| Reduce gradients from skip connections, $\zeta$ = 0.9 | 41% | 35% |
| Reduce gradients from skip connections, $\zeta$ = 0.7 | 5% | 5% |
| Reduce gradients from skip connections, $\zeta$ = 0.5 | 0% | 0% |
> Discussion on the perplexity of generated suffixes.
**Answer:**
In this paper, we mainly aim to provide a new perspective on the discrete optimization problem in the generation of adversarial examples against white-box safety-aligned LLMs, suggesting leverage innovations inspired by transfer-based attacks that were originally proposed for attacking black-box image classification models. The strategies we introduced in the paper only modify the computation of the input gradient, thus the perplexity of the suffixes generated by our method and GCG is similar (~4000). Reducing the perplexity of adversarial examples to overcome the black-box perplexity filter is also a challenging problem for gradient-based attacks. Many methods were proposed to solve the perplexity problem of gradient-based attacks against LLMs and our method that refines the gradient computation can be naturally combined with them.
> Discussion on some concurrent related work.
**Answer:**
These methods operate on token embeddings [3] or hidden states [1,2]. In contrast, we focus on optimizing the discrete input to generate adversarial examples against safety-aligned LLMs. Improving such discrete optimization will also provide insights into potential solutions for addressing problems involving discrete optimization in NLP models with transformer architecture, such as prompt tuning. Similar to the directional guide we discovered by appropriating ILA, [2] also introduces directions in the intermediate representation space. The refusal directions [2] are defined by the differences in the intermediate representations of harmless queries and those of harmful queries to perform model intervention, which then induces the model to respond to harmful queries. The directional guides of our LILA are the discrepancies in hidden states between the adversarial examples and the corresponding initial examples. These guides are used to facilitate the discrete optimization to encourage the model to output certain target phrases. We will discuss these related work in the revised paper.
[1] Zou, Andy, et al. "Improving Alignment and Robustness with Short Circuiting." arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04313 (2024).
[2] Arditi, Andy, et al. "Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Direction." arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11717 (2024).
[3] Schwinn, Leo, et al. "Soft prompt threats: Attacking safety alignment and unlearning in open-source llms through the embedding space." arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09063 (2024).
Pdf: /pdf/9c0d8b8633adf24ff0ae6b6a9a9a982d18ae95ef.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Block Coordinate Descent Methods for Optimization under J-Orthogonality Constraints with Applications | Reject | Summary: The paper introduces the JOBCD (J-Orthogonal Block Coordinate Descent) algorithm, a novel method designed to tackle optimization problems under J-orthogonality constraints. JOBCD includes two variants: GS-JOBCD (Gauss-Seidel strategy) and VR-J-JOBCD (Jacobi strategy with variance reduction). Theoretical analyses establish the algorithms' complexity and convergence, while extensive experiments show JOBCD's superior performance compared to state-of-the-art methods in various applications.
Strengths: The strengths of this paper are listed as follows:
Originality: This paper introduces JOBCD as a novel approach to handling J-orthogonality constraints. It offers GS-JOBCD and VR-J-JOBCD, showcasing flexibility and innovation in optimization strategies.
Quality: This paper provides comprehensive complexity and convergence analyses. Extensive experiments demonstrate superior performance on real-world and synthetic data.
Clarity: The structure is logical.
Significance: This work is relevant to various statistical learning and data science fields.
Weaknesses: Some proofs for Section 4 are hard to follow.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. Do the optimization problems in (S3) of Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2 require an especially exact solution? What happens if they are solved approximately?
2. Line 34: The notation $\mathcal{Q}(X^+; X)$ is undefined.
3. Line 109: Should the notation $\mathrm{B}$ be replaced by $\mathrm{B^t}$?
4. LIne 124, formula (4): Should $I_2$ be replaced by $I_4$?
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: NA
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewer hZf8, we appreciate your dedication to reviewing our manuscript. In the following, we will respond to your concerns point by point.
**Question 1. Some proofs for Section 4 are hard to follow.**
Response: We now provide the proof sketch for the global convergence of the JOBCD algorithm (including both GS-JOBCD and VR-J-JOBCD).
1. We use the Lipschitz continuity condition of the gradient and the properties of the optimal point to establish a sufficient decrease condition.
2. We recursively apply the sufficient decrease condition to derive an inequality relationship between the $\epsilon$-BS-point and $[f(\mathbf{X}_0) - f(\bar{ \mathbf{X}})]$.
3. Based on the settings of the variance reduction strategy, we determine the number of arithmetic operations per iteration, and then derive the complexity of the arithmetic operations.
We now provide the proof sketch for strong convergence of the JOBCD algorithm under the KL Assumption:
The paper demonstrates the finite length property of the algorithm iterations to describe the algorithm's performance within a finite number of steps, such as convergence rate and error bounds. We use $\sum_{i=1}^t \|\mathbf{X}^{t+1} - \mathbf{X}^t\|_F$ to describe the finite length property.
1. Since we can easily obtain an inequality relationship between $\mathbf{V}^t$ and $\mathbf{X}^t$, we first consider proving that the sufficient decrease condition in the global convergence proof shows that $f(\mathbf{X}^t) - f(\mathbf{X}^{t+1})$ is related to $\mathbf{V}^t$.
2. We use the KL inequality property, establish the relationship between $f(\mathbf{X}^t) - f(\mathbf{X}^{t+1})$ and the Frobenius norm of the Riemannian gradient of $f(\mathbf{X}^t)$.
3. We prove the relationship between the Frobenius norm of the Riemannian gradient of $f(\mathbf{X}^t)$ and the Frobenius norm of the Riemannian gradient of the majorization function used in the algorithm.
4. We prove the relationship between the Frobenius norm of the Riemannian gradient of the majorization function used in the algorithm and $\mathbf{V}^t$.
5. We summarize all the steps from (2.1) to (2.4), we can obtain an inequality relationship involving only the variable $\mathbf{V}^t$, with all other terms being constants. At this point, based on basic mathematical knowledge such as the triangle inequality, we construct a recursive formula to complete the proof.
**Question 2. Do the optimization problems in (S3) of Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2 require an especially exact solution? What happens if they are solved approximately?**
Response: We require an exact solution; otherwise, our algorithm will lose the strong theoretical optimality guarantee of the BS point.
Moreover, solving these problems approximately makes it difficult to measure the degree of approximation to the non-convex optimization problem, except by using the definition of critical points.
We solve the subproblems in Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2 exactly to obtain stronger BS points. However, if we use gradient descent to solve these subproblems, we will only achieve weak optimality at a critical stationary point.
**Question 3. Line 34: The notation Q(X+;X) is undefined.**
Response: $Q(X+;X)$ should be the right-hand side of Inequality (2). Thank you for pointing this out.
**Question 4. Line 109: Should the notation B be replaced by Bt?**
Response: It should be $B^t$. Thank you for pointing this out.
**Question 5. Line 124, formula (4): Should I2 be replaced by I4?**
Response: It should be $I_4$. Thank you for pointing this out.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: responce
Comment: Thank you to the authors for their responses. I will maintain my score. | Summary: This paper proposes two Block Coordinate gradient descent methods(BCD) for solving J-orthogonal constrained problem. One is Gauss-Seidel type, the other one is Jocobi type as well as addressing finite sum problem using variance reduction strategies. Convergence guarantees are proved with KL conditions. Numerical experiments show the advantages of the proposed algorithm.
Strengths: The proposed algorithm decomposes the matrix variable into row block structure, yielding a block coordinate descent algorithm with a small size subproblem. The numerical performance is very impressive.
Weaknesses: 1. This paper is based on the paper " [51] Ganzhao Yuan. A block coordinate descent method for nonsmooth composite optimization
under orthogonality constraints. ArXiv, abs/2304.03641, 2023."
The main difference is the constraint in this paper becomes J-orthogonality constraint. However, the framework follows almost the same as [51]. The authors should highlight the novelty of the algorithm or difficulty in the extension.
2. The authors of the reference [31] may be wrong. Besides, the UMCM algorithm in [31] solves orthogonal constrained problem. Is there any difference in implmenting in solving J-orthogonality problem? The objective value of UMCM is far from the JOBCD method. I'm curious about the reasons.
3. In numerical experiment, how do you select subset from the dataset, see line 309.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. Why cannot we design variance reduced algorithm for Gauss-Seidel type BCD?
2. line 323: it claims that the lower objective achieved by GS-JOBCD can be explained by the stronger stationary point result. However, it is based on KL condition. I think it is not the main reason?
3. line 324: infinite sum?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: N/A
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewer swMz, thank you for your efforts in evaluating our manuscript. In the following, we will respond to your concerns point by point.
**Question 1. This paper is based on the paper " [51] Ganzhao Yuan. A block coordinate descent method for nonsmooth composite optimization under orthogonality constraints. ArXiv, abs/2304.03641, 2023." The main difference is the constraint in this paper becomes J-orthogonality constraint. However, the framework follows almost the same as [51]. The authors should highlight the novelty of the algorithm or difficulty in the extension.**
Response: This paper differs from the work of [51] in several key aspects:
1. The nature of the problems differs: solutions to optimization problems with orthogonality constraints are compact, whereas solutions with $J$-orthogonality constraints can be unbounded.
2. We extend the OBCD method [51] to handle optimization problems with J-orthogonality constraints, addressing a broader class of optimization problems.
3. We introduce a parallel Jacobi strategy, marking the first application of modern parallelization techniques to BCD methods.
4. We incorporate variance reduction strategies into the JOBCD framework, transitioning from a deterministic to a stochastic algorithmic framework.
5. JOBCD presents, for the first time, the first-order optimality condition for optimization problems with J-orthogonality constraints, the tangent space of the optimization manifold, the optimality condition, and the convergence properties.
6. The comprehensive consideration of all these aspects leads to a significantly higher level of difficulty in proving the properties of JOBCD compared to OBCD.
**Question 2. The authors of the reference [31] may be wrong.**
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We will change it to:
"[31] Nachuan Xiao, Xin Liu, and Ya-xiang Yuan. A class of smooth exact penalty function methods for optimization problems with orthogonality constraints. Optimization Methods and Software, 37(4):1205–1241, 2022."
**Question 3. Besides, the UMCM algorithm in [31] solves orthogonal constrained problem. Is there any difference in implmenting in solving J-orthogonality problem? The objective value of UMCM is far from the JOBCD method. I'm curious about the reasons.**
Response: We use Lemma 3.1 to design the UMCM algorithm. **The derivation process is detailed in the comment: "Implementation of UMCM algorithm for Optimization Problem under J-orthogonality Constraints"**.
For the HEVP problem, we obtain the following equivalent unconstrained (quartic) optimization problem:
$\operatorname{min}_{\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}} \operatorname{tr} (\mathbf{X}^{\top} \mathbf{C} \mathbf{X}) - 0.5 \langle \mathbf{J}\mathbf{X}^{\top}\nabla f(\mathbf{X}), \mathbf{X}^{\top}\mathbf{J}\mathbf{X} - \mathbf{J} \rangle$,
where $ \mathbf{C} = -\mathbf{D}^{\top}\mathbf{D} $ and $\nabla f(\mathbf{X}) =\mathbf{C} \mathbf{X}$.
In the experiments, we used the built-in Adagrad optimizer in PyTorch to perform gradient descent. However, the results showed that the solution obtained by solving the above unconstrained optimization problem did not always strictly satisfy the J-orthogonality constraint. Therefore, we dynamically adjusted the step size so that the UMCM solution was obtained within a certain J-orthogonal constraint, even though this might limit the objective value to some extent.
**Question 4. In numerical experiment, how do you select subset from the dataset, see line 309.**
Response: We performed uniform random sampling on the dataset. The Python sampling code is as follows:
data=scio.loadmat('./sector_train.mat')
cr = 500；cc = 1000
selected_indices = torch.randint(0, data['x'].nnz, (cr*cc,1)).squeeze()
tensor_var = torch.tensor(data['x'].data[selected_indices]).view(cr, cc)
**Question 5. Why cannot we design variance reduced algorithm for Gauss-Seidel type BCD?**
Response:
- We can design a variance reduction algorithm for GS-JOBCD. GS-JOBCD represents a partial-gradient method, while J-JOBCD represents a full-gradient method. Neither J-JOBCD nor GS-JOBCD dominates the other, similar to how the classic GS and Jacobi methods do not have one being better than the other.
- J-JOBCD updates using the full gradient, making it simpler to utilize variance reduction strategies, and experiments have shown it to be faster. In contrast, the GS method only uses partial gradients, meaning each iteration of GS-JOBCD has a smaller computational cost but requires more iterations.
- Although incorporating variance reduction strategies into GS-JOBCD is feasible, the implementation process would be more complex."
**Question 6. line 323: it claims that the lower objective achieved by GS-JOBCD can be explained by the stronger stationary point result. However, it is based on KL condition. I think it is not the main reason?**
Response:
- The reason JOBCD achieves a stronger stationary point is due to the breakpoint search strategy used in the objective search, not the KL inequality.
- The optimality analysis in Section 3 does not rely on the KL condition.
- We only used the KL condition to prove the strong convergence in Section 4.2.
**Question 7. line 324: infinite sum?**
Response: It should be finite-sum. Thank you for pointing this out.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Implementation of UMCM algorithm for Optimization Problem under J-Orthogonality Constraints
Comment: We consider minimizing the following differentiable function under J-orthogonality constraints:
$\min \limits_{\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}} f\mathbf{(X)} , \text { s.t. } \mathbf{X}^{\top} \mathbf{J} \mathbf{X}=\mathbf{J}$.
We derive the Lagrangian function of the above problem with $\Lambda \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$:
$\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \Lambda) = f(\mathbf{X})-\tfrac{1}{2} \langle \Lambda, \mathbf{X}^\top\mathbf{J}\mathbf{X} - \mathbf{J} \rangle. $
Setting the gradient of $\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \Lambda)$ w.r.t. $\mathbf{X}$ to zero yields:
$\nabla f(\mathbf{X}) - \mathbf{J} \mathbf{X} \Lambda = 0. $
Multiplying both sides by $\mathbf{X}^\top$ and using the fact that $\mathbf{X}^\top \mathbf{J}\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{J}$, we have $\mathbf{J} \Lambda = \mathbf{X}^\top \nabla f(\mathbf{X})$. Multiplying both sides by $\mathbf{J}^\top$ and using $\mathbf{J}^\top \mathbf{J}=\mathbf{I}$, we have $\Lambda=\mathbf{J}\mathbf{X}^\top \nabla f(\mathbf{X})$. Thus, we obtain the following equivalent unconstrained optimization problem:
$\min \limits_{\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}} f\mathbf{(X)}-\tfrac{1}{2} \langle \mathbf{J}\mathbf{X}^\top \nabla f(\mathbf{X}), \mathbf{X}^\top\mathbf{J}\mathbf{X} - \mathbf{J} \rangle. $
Finally, we solve it using a gradient-based approach, specifically employing the Adagrad optimizer built into PyTorch in our paper.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thank you for the clarification. However, I noticed that in [31], the penalty function used is the augmented Lagrangian, whereas in this response, the Lagrangian is used. Additionally, you mentioned that the main difference between J-orthogonality and orthogonality lies in boundedness. Could you please indicate where the boundedness makes your analysis unique compared to [51]?
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: **Question 8. In [31], the penalty function used is the augmented Lagrangian, whereas in this response, the Lagrangian is used.**
Response:
- The unconstrained objective function obtained using the multiplier correction strategy is equivalent and well-defined whether or not it includes quadratic terms. We have chosen the simpler version.
- Since we have already compared with the ADMM method based on the augmented Lagrangian function, using this more straightforward approach also helps to distinguish it from ADMM.
- Now, we illustrate that the equivalent minimization function (without the quadratic term) is also well-defined for the HEVP problem. We have:
$\min \limits_{\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}} f(\mathbf{X}) - \tfrac{1}{2} \langle \mathbf{J}\mathbf{X}^\top \nabla f(\mathbf{X}), \mathbf{X}^\top\mathbf{J}\mathbf{X} - \mathbf{J} \rangle,$
where $ f(\mathbf{X}) = \text{tr}(\mathbf{X}^\top\mathbf{C}\mathbf{X}) $ and $\mathbf{C} = -\mathbf{D}^\top\mathbf{D}$.
In the above expression, the function $ f(\mathbf{X}) $ is quadratic, and the Lagrangian term contains a quartic function $-\langle \mathbf{J}\mathbf{X}^\top\mathbf{C}\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{X}^\top\mathbf{J}\mathbf{X} \rangle$. Now, we show that this expression is always non-negative:
$-\langle \mathbf{J}\mathbf{X}^\top\mathbf{C}\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{X}^\top\mathbf{J}\mathbf{X} \rangle = -\langle \mathbf{J}\mathbf{X}^\top\mathbf{C}\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{J} \rangle = -\langle \mathbf{X}^\top\mathbf{C}\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{I} \rangle = -\text{tr}(\mathbf{X}^\top\mathbf{C}\mathbf{X}).$
Since $\mathbf{C} = -\mathbf{D}^\top\mathbf{D}$, the term $-\text{tr}(\mathbf{X}^\top\mathbf{C}\mathbf{X})$ is always non-negative. Therefore, we conclude that this quartic term is always non-negative and dominates the other lower-order terms, ensuring that the objective function is well-defined.
- Upon request, we also report the results for the UMCM algorithm including the quadratic term (i.e., using the augmented Lagrangian function). Notably, we consider the following minimization problem:
$\min \limits_{\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}} f(\mathbf{X}) - \tfrac{1}{2} \langle \mathbf{J}\mathbf{X}^\top \nabla f(\mathbf{X}), \mathbf{X}^\top\mathbf{J}\mathbf{X} - \mathbf{J} \rangle + \tfrac{\beta}{2} \|\| \mathbf{X}^\top\mathbf{J}\mathbf{X} - \mathbf{J} \|\|^2_\mathsf{F}.$
Please refer to the table below. These results will be included in the revised manuscript.
| HEVP-datasetname | cifar | CnnCaltech | gisette | mnist | randn10 |
|------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|
| (m-n-p) | (1000-100-50) | (2000-1000-500) | (3000-1000-500) | (1000-780-390) | (10-10-5) |
| Lagrangian | -4.81e+02(1.0e-06) | -8.61e+01(8.6e-07) | -1.70e+06(8.1e-07) | -2.79e+04(1.0e-06) | -3.38e-01(1.0e-06) |
| Augmented Lagrangian | -4.86e+02(1.0e-06) | -7.33e+01(3.4e-07) | -1.33e+06(5.0e-07) | -2.80e+04(1.0e-06) | -1.41e+00(1.0e-06) |
| HEVP-datasetname | randn100 | randn1000 | sector | TDT2 | w1a |
|------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|
| (m-n-p) | (100-100-50) | (1000-1000-500) | (500-1000-500) | (1000-1000-500) | (2470-290-145) |
| Lagrangian | -1.13e+02(1.0e-06) | -1.28e+04(6.8e-08) | -1.39e+03(6.8e-07) | -1.73e+06(6.8e-07) | -2.89e+02(1.0e-06) |
| Augmented Lagrangian | -1.42e+02(1.0e-06) | -1.11e+04(4.9e-08) | -1.11e+03(4.2e-07) | -1.38e+06(4.3e-07) | -3.08e+02(1.0e-06) |
*Supplementary experiments for **HEVP** (limited to 30s). The data in the cell stand for $f(\mathbf{X}^t) - f(\mathbf{X}^0)$ of **UMCM** with Lagrangian and Augmented Lagrangian ($\beta = 10$) methods. The value in parentheses represents $\tfrac{1}{n^2} \sum_{ij}^n |\mathbf{X}^{\top}\mathbf{J}\mathbf{X}-\mathbf{J}|_{ij}$.*
---
Rebuttal Comment 3.1:
Comment: Regarding the UMCM method, the original algorithm should be implemented exactly, including the quadratic term, regardless of whether the subproblem is well defined or not. Deviating from this makes it a different algorithm altogether. I checked the code and noticed that the step size decreases by half every two iterations, which would degrade its performance. Since UMCM is not a stochastic algorithm, a diminishing step size is not necessary.
---
Rebuttal 4:
Comment: **Question 9. The main difference between J-orthogonality and orthogonality lies in boundedness. Could you please indicate where the boundedness makes your analysis unique compared to [51]?**
Response: To handle the J-orthogonal constraint, we introduce additional novel strategies in the proof of convergence. We illustrate these with examples:
1. **Lemma E.5:** Based on the KL assumption, the key proof step involves deriving the inequality relationship between $\operatorname{dist}(0, \nabla f^\circ(\mathbf{X}))$ and $\operatorname{dist}(0, \nabla_{\mathcal{J} }f(\mathbf{X}))$ by solving the optimal solution in Lemma E.4 regarding the tangent space projection:$
\bar{\mathbf{Y}} = \underset{\mathbf{Y} \in T_{\mathbf{X}} \mathcal{J}}{\operatorname{argmin}} \, h(\mathbf{Y}) = \frac{1}{2} \|\|\mathbf{Y} - \mathbf{G}\|\|_F^2$. Since the orthogonal constraint is compact, we can directly obtain the closed-form solution for the orthogonal tangent space. However, for the J-orthogonal matrix, we cannot obtain the optimal solution. Therefore, in our proof, we establish an inequality based on the necessary (not sufficient) condition for the optimal solution:
$
h(\bar{\mathbf{Y}}) \leq h(\mathbf{G} - \mathbf{J} \mathbf{X} \mathbf{G}^\top \mathbf{X} \mathbf{J})
$.
2. **Lemma E.2:** In proving the "Riemannian Gradient Lower Bound for the Iterates Gap", we need to rely on the first-order optimality condition of the optimization problem under J-orthogonality constraints, constructed for the first time in Lemma 3.1:
$
0 = \nabla_{\mathcal{J}} f(\bar{\mathbf{X}}) = \nabla f(\bar{\mathbf{X}}) - \mathbf{J} \bar{\mathbf{X}} [\nabla f(\bar{\mathbf{X}})]^\top \bar{\mathbf{X}} \mathbf{J},
$
to complete the proof. This results in a completely different key coefficient, $\phi$, for the lemma.
3. Similarly, in proving **Lemma E.3** regarding $\operatorname{dist}(0, \nabla_{\mathcal{J}} f(\mathbf{X}))$ and $\nabla_{\mathcal{J}} \mathcal{T}(\mathbf{I}_2;\mathbf{X}^t, B)$, there are also many novel aspects, with significant differences in the proof process and the key coefficients in the results.
Moreover, the unbounded nature of optimization problem under J-orthogonality constraints adds significant complexity to the proofs related to variance reduction stochastic strategies and parallel strategies.
---
Rebuttal Comment 4.1:
Comment: "Since the orthogonal constraint is compact, we can directly obtain the closed-form solution for the orthogonal tangent space."
I don't think so. The closed-form solution is not due to the compactness of the orthogonal constraint. The tangent space has a nice decomposition formula; see [1]. Therefore, we can get the projection solution exactly. Indeed, as the tangent space is a linear subspace, as stated in your Lemma A.3, one can solve the projection problem using the standard projection technique onto a linear constraint.
By the way, which Riemannian metric did you use to define the Riemannian gradient? If the metric is induced from the Euclidean one, then it is the projection of the Euclidean gradient onto the tangent space, for which you have the expression of the Riemannian gradient in Lemma E.3.
---
Rebuttal 5:
Comment: **Question 10. Regarding the UMCM method, the original algorithm should be implemented exactly, including the quadratic term, regardless of whether the subproblem is well defined or not. Deviating from this makes it a different algorithm altogether. I checked the code and noticed that the step size decreases by half every two iterations, which would degrade its performance. Since UMCM is not a stochastic algorithm, a diminishing step size is not necessary.**
Response:
- In the supplementary experiments, we essentially used a fixed step size of $10^{-5}$ for **both methods**, with and without the quadratic term, which is a relatively small step size.
- During the experiment design, we tested various step sizes, including $\lbrace 10^{-3}, 10^{-5}, 10^{-7} \rbrace$, and found that $10^{-5}$ generally yielded better results.
- One possible reason for requiring such a small step size is that the penalty term in the objective function is a **quartic function**, which is highly sensitive to the step size scale, making a very small step size necessary.
- In the actual experiments, we adopted a dynamic step size, gradually decreasing to $10^{-5}$ to achieve better outcomes.
---
Rebuttal 6:
Comment: **Question 11. Since the orthogonality constraint is compact, we can directly obtain the closed-form solution for the orthogonal tangent space." I don't think so. The closed-form solution is not due to the compactness of the orthogonal constraint.**
Response: It should be "For the orthogonality constraint which is compact, we can directly obtain the closed-form solution for the orthogonal tangent space".
**Question 12. By the way, which Riemannian metric did you use to define the Riemannian gradient? If the metric is induced from the Euclidean one, then it is the projection of the Euclidean gradient onto the tangent space, for which you have the expression of the Riemannian gradient in Lemma E.3.**
Response:
- Projecting the Euclidean gradient onto the tangent space requires solving the following optimization problem: $\min_Y \|\|\mathbf{Y} - \mathbf{G}\|\|_F^2, \operatorname{s.t.} \mathbf{X}^\top \mathbf{J}\mathbf{Y} + \mathbf{Y}^\top \mathbf{J}\mathbf{X} = 0$. Although this problem involves linear constraints, obtaining a closed-form solution is challenging, so we chose to avoid solving it. In other words, we did not use the projection metric.
- Following the strategy outlined by [Wen2013], we derived the first-order optimality condition $\mathcal{J}(\mathbf{X}) = 0$ for any feasible solution $\mathbf{X}$ to the optimization problem, using the first-order information of the objective function and the symmetric property of the multiplier. We refer to $\mathcal{J}(\mathbf{X})$ as the Riemannian gradient.
- It should be noted that our JOBCD algorithm does not use the Riemannian gradient $\mathcal{J}(\mathbf{X})$, as we rely solely on the Euclidean gradient. The Riemannian gradient is employed only for theoretical analysis.
[Wen2013] Wen, Z., & Yin, W. (2013). A feasible method for optimization with orthogonality constraints. Mathematical Programming, 142(1), 397-434. | Summary: The paper proposes two block coordinate descent methods for minimization of a finite-sum subject to the J-Orthogonality constraints — one based on Gauss-Seidel strategy, the other based on variance reduction and Jacobi strategy. The convergence is proved, with a global convergence rate of O(N/\epsilon) and O(\sqrt{N}/\epsilon) respectively, and a local convergence rate that depends on the desingularization in the KL-condition assumption.
Strengths: The algorithms proposed are novel and might be useful in practice: the update rules involve solving a small size problem thereby is very simple, and the convergence is proved theoretically under reasonable assumptions.
Weaknesses: The paper is relatively dense, and I find it a bit hard to keep track of all the terms introduced. For instance, the parameter theta is used in the algorithms but I’m not sure where it is introduced; in Assumption 4.8 KL function is mentioned but it’s not defined…
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: The blocks in the proposed JOBCD algorithms consist of just 2 indices. I’m wondering if there is benefit in updating more than 2 indices in each iteration?
I might miss something while reading the paper… what is the parameter theta in the algorithm 1?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes, the paper discusses the assumptions of the theorems.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewer JyL5, we appreciate your dedication to reviewing our manuscript. In the following, we will respond to your concerns point by point.
**Question 1. For instance, the parameter theta is used in the algorithms but I’m not sure where it is introduced**
Response: $\theta$ is first defined in Inequation (3) as a user-defined, strictly positive parameter, with a default value of 1e-6. We introduce it to ensure convergence guarantees for the algorithm. It plays a significant role in our convergence theorems, such as Theorem 4.6 and Theorem 4.7.
**Question 2. in Assumption 4.8 KL function is mentioned but it’s not defined…**
Response: The KL function refers to a function that satisfies the inequality $\text{dist}(0, \nabla f(X^{\prime})) \phi^{\prime}(f(X^{\prime}) - f(X)) \geq 1 $. KL functions are a broad class of functions, such as semi-algebraic functions, which makes Assumption 4.8 a relatively mild assumption. Semi-algebraic functions are a class of functions that satisfy the KL property. These functions are widely used in applications and include real polynomial functions, finite sums and products of semi-algebraic functions, and indicator functions of semi-algebraic sets.
**Question 3. The blocks in the proposed JOBCD algorithms consist of just 2 indices. I’m wondering if there is benefit in updating more than 2 indices in each iteration?**
Response: There is no exact solution or theoretical guarantee when k>2. Initially, we considered the situation for $k>2$, but this introduces many challenging problems. We will use $k=3$ as an example to illustrate. According to Proposition 2.2, when $k=3$, $p$ can take values $\lbrace 0,1,2,3 \rbrace$:
1. When $p=0$ or $p=3$, the problem degenerates into an optimization problem under orthogonality constraints, for which exact solutions can be obtained based on existing research.
2. When $p=2$, $U_1$ and $V_1$ are different 2x2 orthogonal matrices, requiring two sets of $\sin(x)$ and $\cos(x)$ functions $\cos(x_1), \sin(x_1), \cos(x_2), \sin(x_2)$ for modeling, while $c$ and $s$ need to be modeled using a set of $\cosh(x)$ and $\sinh(x)$ functions $\cosh(x_3), \sinh(x_3)$. Although we can simplify similarly to what is mentioned in our paper, using $\tan(x)=\sin(x)/\cos(x)$ and $\tanh(x)=\sinh(x)/\cosh(x)$, we ultimately still need to solve a 3-variable optimization problem where $\tan(x_1), \tan(x_2), \tanh(x_3)$ are coupled together (e.g., $\tan(x_1)\times\tan(x_2)\times\tanh(x_3)$, $\tan(x_1)\times\tanh(x_3)^2$), and there is currently no exact method to solve such complex nonlinear relationships.
3. When $p=1$, the problem to be solved is structurally similar to that in $p=2$.
The above is a simplified analysis for the case of $k=3$. Due to the inability to obtain exact solutions, it leads to a lack of theoretical guarantees, and therefore it is not presented in this paper. However, in the future, your suggestion could be a very interesting research topic.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank the authors for the clarifications! In the revised version, please be sure to properly introduce parameters/variables/terms before using them (such as theta and KL function). I will keep my score. | Summary: This paper proposes a block coordinate descent method for solving optimization problems with J-orthogonality constraints. Several variants of the method are introduced within this framework, and convergence results are established. Extensive numerical results are also presented to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed methods. However, I have some concerns regarding the novelty of this paper as well as the numerical results.
Strengths: It appears that optimization with J-orthogonality constraints has not been thoroughly studied in the literature. This paper proposes an efficient method for addressing this problem.
Weaknesses: 1. My major concern is that the novelty of this paper might be insufficient since the row-based approach is very similar to that in [51], even though the two papers tackle different problems.
2. For the numerical results shown in Table 1, the proposed method fails to return a feasible solution for some instances, such as randn(10-10-5) and w1a (2470-290-145), as well as some other instances in the appendix. This is strange since the paper describes a BCD-type method, which should always return a feasible solution.
3. The information of the reference [31] might be incorrect.
4. For the GS-JOBCD method, there are two options for choosing $Q$, whereas J-JOBCD only has one option. The authors should provide an explanation for this difference.
5. The presentation could be further improved. Here are a few examples: the formulation of $P_i$ after equation (12) could be simplified by removing the notation $\mathrm{mat}$; it is unclear if the requirement on $\underline{Q}$ in equation (4) is sufficient to guarantee convergence (probably not, since $\underline{Q} = 0$ also satisfies this condition).
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. How to perform and choose the parameters in ADMM for solving this problem? It seems that the corresponding method lacks a convergence guarantee.
2. The authors should provide more details on the implementation of J-JOBCD and GS-JOBCD. Did you use parallel techniques in J-JOBCD? What would happen if these techniques were not used? Should you compare the iteration numbers of the methods? How do you choose the parameter in equation (12)? Moreover, if J-JOBCD consistently performs much better than GS-JOBCD, it seems unnecessary to introduce GS-JOBCD.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: At the beginning of the paper, the authors claim that equation (2) can imply
$\\|\nabla f_i(X) - \nabla_i f(X^+)\\| \leq L_f \\|X - X^+\\|$, which is incorrect. Note that the converse is correct. The other assumptions in Assumptions 4.1 and 4.2 essentially assume the compactness of the iterates.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewer TAHW, thank you for your efforts in evaluating our manuscript. In the following, we will respond to your concerns point by point.
**Question 1. My major concern is that the novelty of this paper might be insufficient since the row-based approach is very similar to that in [51], even though the two papers tackle different problems.**
Response: This paper differs from the work of [51] in several key aspects:
1. The nature of the problems differs: solutions to optimization problems with orthogonality constraints are compact, whereas solutions with $J$-orthogonality constraints can be unbounded.
2. We extend the OBCD method [51] to handle optimization problems with J-orthogonality constraints, addressing a broader class of optimization problems.
3. We introduce a parallel Jacobi strategy, marking the first application of modern parallelization techniques to BCD methods.
4. We incorporate variance reduction strategies into the JOBCD framework, transitioning from a deterministic to a stochastic algorithmic framework.
5. JOBCD presents, for the first time, the first-order optimality condition for optimization problems with J-orthogonality constraints, the tangent space of the optimization manifold, the optimality condition, and the convergence properties.
6. The comprehensive consideration of all these aspects leads to a significantly higher level of difficulty in proving the properties of JOBCD compared to OBCD.
**Question 2. For the numerical results shown in Table 1, the proposed method fails to return a feasible solution for some instances, such as randn(10-10-5) and w1a (2470-290-145), as well as some other instances in the appendix. This is strange since the paper describes a BCD-type method, which should always return a feasible solution.**
Response: This is because, in the paper, we use the CS decomposition method to generate the initial random J-orthogonal matrix. This method relies on the functions $ \cosh(x) = \frac{e^x + e^{-x}}{2} $ and $\sinh(x) = \frac{e^x - e^{-x}}{2}$, which may lead to data overflow issues. To address this problem, we use the identity matrix as the initial value for JOBCD. **The output results are shown in Table 1 of the attached PDF file**. Additionally, the last column of each result table includes experiments where the JOBCD algorithm is continued based on other algorithms. This verifies that JOBCD maintains the J-orthogonal constraint throughout the iterative process.
**Question 3. The information of the reference [31] might be incorrect.**
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. It should be:
"[31] Nachuan Xiao, Xin Liu, and Ya-xiang Yuan. A class of smooth exact penalty function methods for optimization problems with orthogonality constraints. Optimization Methods and Software, 37(4):1205–1241, 2022."
**Question 4. For the GS-JOBCD method, there are two options for choosing Q, whereas J-JOBCD only has one option. The authors should provide an explanation for this difference.**
Response: As mentioned in Lemma 2.4, only when $\mathbf{Q} = \xi \mathbf{I}_4$ can we ensure that the sub-optimization problems between any two blocks $B_i$ and $B_j$ are independent.
When $\mathbf{Q}$ has an inseparable structure, the sub-optimization problems between any two blocks become interdependent, making parallel problem-solving impossible.
**Question 5. The presentation could be further improved. Here are a few examples: the formulation of Pi after equation (12) could be simplified by removing the notation mat**
Response: This description was intended to align with algorithm 1, highlighting the similarities and differences between the two algorithms. We will simplify it as suggested to make the algorithm more concise.
**Question 6. it is unclear if the requirement on $\underline{Q}$ in equation (4) is sufficient to guarantee convergence (probably not, since $\underline{Q}=0$ also satisfies this condition).**
Response: $\underline{Q}$ is an inherent parameter of problem, related to the maximum eigenvalue of the submatrix of the Hessian matrix (which also reflects the curvature information of the objective function). It is generally non-zero and is not manually specified. The specific expression is given in Lemma 2.1, Part (c). $\zeta$ is a parameter of the algorithm and needs to be greater than or equal to the inherent parameter $\underline{Q}$.
**Question 7. How to perform and choose the parameters in ADMM for solving this problem? It seems that the corresponding method lacks a convergence guarantee.**
Response:
1. **We have provided a detailed derivation process of the ADMM algorithm in the comment "Implementation of ADMM Algorithm for Optimizaton Problem under J-Orthogonality Constraints"**.
2. In the ADMM algorithm, $\lambda$ is an important parameter that balances the constraint adherence and the optimization objective. We offer two methods for choosing $\lambda$: one is a fixed $\lambda$ that remains constant throughout the entire ADMM iteration process, and the other is a dynamic $\lambda$ that increases every specified number of iterations until it reaches an upper limit.
3. **Table 2 and Figure 1 in the attached PDF file show the objective function values and constraint violation for solving the HEVP problem with different $\lambda$ values when ADMM converges.** Generally, the dynamic $\lambda$ setting performs better than the fixed $\lambda$ setting. However, in the dynamic $\lambda$ initial setting, a smaller $\lambda$ can lead to larger constraint violation.
4. To effectively compare with feasible methods such as CSDM and JOBCD, we chose the ADMM algorithm with a dynamic $\lambda$ setting, initializing $\lambda$ at 1e4.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you to the authors for the clarification. Some of my concerns have been well addressed. Therefore, I would like to increase my score to 5.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: **Question 8. Did you use parallel techniques in J-JOBCD?**
Response: Yes, we utilized parallel techniques in J-JOBCD by expanding the matrix dimensions and defining the variables as tensors in PyTorch to facilitate parallel computations.
**Question 9. What would happen if these techniques were not used?**
Response:
1. Without using parallel techniques, the method would degrade into a sequential BCD method. The parallelization strategy in this paper is an effort to accelerate the BCD framework by fully utilizing modern parallel architectures.
2. We could consider using other parallelization techniques for experiments, such as more efficient multi-core parallel computing or efficient GPU-based parallel computing. It is worth noting that using PyTorch to define variables as tensors for parallel computations is very efficient for small-dimensional computations, as it avoids the communication costs between different machines.
**Question 10. Should you compare the iteration numbers of the methods?**
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. **We have conducted relevant experiments, as shown in Table 3 and Figure 2 of the attached PDF file**. The JOBCD algorithm consistently achieves better optimization results in fewer iterations.
**Question 11. How do you choose the parameter in equation (12)?**
Response: In the experiments of the paper, we set $\theta = 10^{-6}$ and let $\zeta$ be the Lipschitz constant of the blocks of different functions. Specifically, in the HEVP experiments, we used the maximum absolute value of the chosen blocks in the Hessian matrix $C$ as the block Lipschitz constant. In the HSPP experiments, we heuristically specified the Lipschitz constants empirically for different datasets and selected the most effective constant. We chose within the range of $\lbrace 100, 500, 1000 \rbrace$, and generally, 500 yielded the best results.
**Question 12. Moreover, if J-JOBCD consistently performs much better than GS-JOBCD, it seems unnecessary to introduce GS-JOBCD.**
Response: We could avoid GS-JOBCD and directly present the J-JOBCD algorithm. However, doing so would not illustrate the practical impact of parallelization and variance reduction techniques on the algorithm's convergence.
To better demonstrate the influence of these modern techniques, we described GS-JOBCD and J-JOBCD separately in the writing.
Additionally, GS-JOBCD can serve as a basic deterministic algorithmic framework for further designs.
**Question 12. At the beginning of the paper, the authors claim that equation (2) can imply $|| \nabla f_i(X) -\nabla f_i(X^+) ||_F\leq L_f ||X-X^+||_F$, which is incorrect. Note that the converse is correct.**
Response: We will explicitly assume $|| \nabla f_i(X) -\nabla f_i(X^+) ||_F\leq L_f ||X-X^+||_F$ for some constant $L_f$. Thank you for pointing it out.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Implementation of ADMM Algorithm for Optimizaton Problem under J-Orthogonality Constraints
Comment: We consider minimizing the following differentiable function subject to J-orthogonality constraints:
$\min \limits_{ X \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}} f(X),
\text { s.t.} X^{\top} J X= J $.
Defining $ Y = J X \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$, we have:
$\min \limits_{ X , Y \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}} f(X),
\text { s.t. } X ^{\top} Y = J ,
Y = J X $.
Introducing Lagrangian multipliers $ Z \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ and $ W \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$, and the penality variable $\beta \in \mathbb{R}$, we have the following argumented Lagrangian function:
$\mathcal{L}( X , Y ; Z , W ) = f( X )+\langle X ^\top Y - J , Z \rangle+\langle J X - Y , W \rangle+\frac{\beta}{2}\|\| X ^\top Y - J \|\|_F^2+\frac{\beta}{2}\|\| J X - Y \|\|_F^2$
Suppose $f(X)$ is $l$-Lipschitz gradient continuous: $f(X) \leqslant f( X ^t)+ \langle X - X ^t, \nabla f ( X ^t ) \rangle+\frac{l}{2}\| \| X - X ^t \|\|_{F}^2$.
We consider minimizing $\mathcal{L}(X,Y ;Z,W )$ with respect to $X$. We derive the following majorization function $Q^t(X)$ of $\mathcal{L}(X,Y^t;Z^t,W^t)$ at $X^t$:
$\mathcal{L}(X, Y^t ; Z^t, W^t) \leq Q^t(X) \triangleq f (\mathbf{X}^t)+ \langle X - X ^t, \nabla f (X^t ) \rangle+\frac{l}{2} \|\| X - X ^t \|\|_{F}^2+ \langle X^\top Y^t - J , Z^t \rangle+\langle J X - Y^t, W^t \rangle+\frac{\beta}{2}\|\| X^\top Y^t - J \|\|_F^2+\frac{\beta}{2}\| \|J X - Y^t \|\|_F^2 $
We solve the following subproblem to update $ X ^{t+1}$ and $ Y ^{t+1}$ alternately:
$ X ^{t+1} = \operatorname{arg} \operatorname{min}_ X Q^t(X)$
$ Y ^{t+1} = \operatorname{arg} \operatorname{min}_ Y P^t(Y) \triangleq \mathcal{L}( X^t , Y ; Z^t , W^t ) $
$ Z ^{t+1} = Z ^t +\beta\cdot({ X ^{t+1}}^\top Y ^{t+1}- J ) $
$ W ^{t+1} = W ^t +\beta\cdot( J { X ^{t+1}}- Y ^{t+1}) $
Using the first-order optimality conditions of $\operatorname{min}_ X Q^t(X)$ and $\operatorname{min}_ Y P^t(Y)$, we get the updated formula for $ X ^{t+1}$ and $ Y ^{t+1}$:
$ X ^{t+1} = -(l\mathbf{I}+\beta( Y ^t{ Y ^t}^\top+\mathbf{I}))^{-1}(\nabla f({ X ^t}^\top)-l X ^t+ Y ^t{ X ^t}^\top+ J W ^t-\beta Y ^t J -\beta J Y ^t) $
$ Y ^{t+1} = -(\beta( X ^{t+1}{ X ^{t+1}}^\top+\mathbf{I}))^{-1}( X ^{t+1} Z ^t- J W ^t-\beta X ^{t+1} J -\beta J X ^{t+1}) $
In the experiment, we used the following strategy to adjust $\lambda$: If $t$\%$2 ==0$ and $\lambda \leq 1e9$, then $\lambda$ is doubled. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear reviewers, thank you for taking the time to review our paper.
Your valuable feedback and constructive comments are greatly appreciated. Please, find the answers to your questions below.
**Please note that we have added tables and figures in the attached pdf to support our responses to the reviewer TAHW.**
Pdf: /pdf/00411f1b6fbb6810de8ecfb568de66f00226ab04.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
S-STE: Continuous Pruning Function for Efficient 2:4 Sparse Pre-training | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper discusses three drawbacks of traditional N:M sparse training and suggests using soft-thresholding over hard-thresholding for 2:4 sparse pre-training. It introduces the idea of rescaling sparse weights with a fixed scaling factor per tensor. Results from experiments in machine translation, image classification, and large generative language models demonstrate its effectiveness.
Strengths: 1. The idea is simple and clear. The proposed approach is very easy to understand and implement.
2. The paper discusses several important issues for N:M sparse pre-training. These discussions are very useful for practice.
3. The experiments verify the selection of some important parameters, and also show the effectiveness of the proposed approach on several tasks.
Weaknesses: 1. Most of the techniques are discussed in other tasks, and the paper is only applied to N:M sparse pre-training, which is not innovative enough. So the contributions are not enough for NeurIPS.
2. It is very important to discuss the drawbacks of existing N:M sparse pre-training, but these discussions have not led to a new algorithm. There is insufficient inevitability between these discussions and the proposed algorithm.
3. The experiments are weak. There is a lack of important comparison methods and real training acceleration.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: I have the following comments, which may improve the quality of the paper.
1. The discussion of formula (4) should use very rigorous mathematical derivation, however, the discussion of related contents is very imprecise.
2. In Theorem 4.1, it is better to provide the definition of continuous projection for a vector. Additionally, it is important to address why hard-thresholding and other algorithms fail to meet this property, and experimentally demonstrate the performance improvement that can result from adhering to this property.
3. In Table 1, is the \gamma choice dependent on the \beta setting? Does it establish the beta before selecting \gamma?
4. What is the reason for simulating dense weights? Why perform fixed weight rescaling \beta?
5. In Table 4, it is better to separate “dense” and use it as a baseline. The best result in the second column is marked incorrectly.
6. There are many methods for N:M sparse pre-training as shown in the Related Work section. The paper needs to make a detailed comparison with these methods.
7. The core of this paper is the pre-training acceleration. However, it is far from enough to discuss the possible acceleration in theory, and it is necessary to carry out sufficient experiments to compare the acceleration effects of various methods.
8. All the figures in the paper are too small to see clearly.
9. Most references lack the names of conferences or journals.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Not applicable.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewer WZj6,
Thank you for the acknowledgment of the potential and effectiveness of our work and the detailed constructive comments. Below we provide a point-to-point response to all comments.
**Weakness 1:** Most of the techniques are discussed in other tasks, and the paper is only applied to N:M sparse pre-training, which is not innovative enough. So the contributions are not enough for NeurIPS.
**Reply:** We argue that the contributions are adequate:
1. Although most of the techniques we discuss is rooted in prior work, we propose to **innovatively implementing soft-thresholding on 2:4 pre-training tasks**. Besides, we make a couple of **highly original 2:4 specific modifications** to utilize those methods (choosing optimal threshold, freezing scaling factor, minimizing MSE). These are the **technological contributions** of our study.
2. More importantly, we are trying to **push the frontiers of relatively unpopular 2:4 pre-train research**: on the one hand, as pre-training is very difficult, 2:4 pre-training is even more tough because we need to **jointly optimize activated masks and their weight** values. In this way, **our work reveal the difficulty of the problem**. On the other hand, prior work on 2:4 pre-training topic mostly focus on optimization skills, however **they never consider continuity as a main problem**. Our study tries to get to the essence of the question and we provide a deeper understanding of it. We **not only set up new SOTA baselines for future study to follow, but also provide an important and new research insight for future work to explore**.
**Weakness 2:** It is very important to discuss the drawbacks of existing N:M sparse pre-training, but these discussions have not led to a new algorithm. There is insufficient inevitability between these discussions and the proposed algorithm.
**Reply:** We believe that inevitability is quite clear:
1. The most important drawback we see from previous work is discontinuity. To elaborate this, we observe three phenomena: incorrect descending direction, inability to predict the amount of descent and oscillation (Sec. 3).
1. To overcome the drawback of previous pruning function, we introduce 2:4 specific soft-thresholding pruning function to S-STE and theoretically prove its continuity.
1. To complete the circle, we show that **S-STE successfully overcome the discontinuity phenomena mentioned above** via experiment; see Sec. 4, Fig. 2(c)(d) and 4(d).
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thanks for your hard work. I will raise my score by 1, but not higher.
Comment: I appreciate the authors' detailed response and will raise my score accordingly. Nevertheless, I still believe that using soft-thresholding as a surrogate function for hard-thresholding is a common practice, which somewhat diminishes the paper's innovation. Additionally, the discussed weaknesses of the existing methods pertain to post-analysis, which does not contribute to the development of new methods.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thnak you! Please remember to update the score ☺
Comment: Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our work and discussion! Please do remember to update the score in the openreview system as we haven't seen changes yet. Thank you so much!
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Response to Reviewer WZj6 (cont.)
Comment: **Weakness 3:** The experiments are weak. There is a lack of important comparison methods and real training acceleration.
**Reply:** About comparison baselines:
Please refer to Question 6.
About acceleration:
To further respond to your doubts about real-world acceleration, we report end-to-end acceleration as follows. For experiment setting, we choose different sizes of GPT-2 models and test acceleration with FP16 weights. **For inference, we achieve 1.53x speedup with FFN layer and 1.23x speedup with the network; for pre-training, we achieve 1.32x speedup for FFN layer and 1.18x speedup for the network.** This will be updated in our paper.
*Table.* Pre-training acceleration ratio with different different batch size $N$, sequence length $n$, embedding dimension $d$ and heads number $h$ on GPT-2 with RTX 3090 GPUs.
|N|n|d|h|acceleration@FFN|acceleration@GPT-2|
|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|4|2048|5120|40|1.309071284|1.176265882|
|16|2048|7168|56|1.317673412|1.18020863|
|8|2048|7168|56|1.325846831|1.173059355|
|4|2048|7168|56|1.308463658|1.171455338|
|4|2048|9216|72|1.311344165|1.176620318|
*Table.* Inference acceleration ratio with different different batch size $N$, sequence length $n$, embedding dimension $d$ and heads number $h$ on GPT-2 with RTX 3090 GPUs.
|N|n|d|h|acceleration@FFN|acceleration@GPT-2|
|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|16|2048|7168|56|1.536392435|1.233632|
|8|2048|7168|56|1.464448312|1.149633|
To further investigate how we reach \~1.2x speedup, we profile our code and break down the time costs as shown in the table below.
*Table.* Time costs of each part of our network and the dense model in one iteration per layer. $m$ denotes the accumulation steps over micro batches. Our method is evaluated on GPT-2, with batch size 16, sequence length 1024, embedding dimension 1024 and heads number 16.
|||||dense (ms/exec)|sparse (ms/exec)|acceleration ratio|frequency (exec/iter)|
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|ffn|linear|fwd|GEMM|12173.8|7305.8|1.67|1|
|||bwd|GEMM|23295|18688|1.25|1|
||||mvue+prune|0|171.4|-|1|
||||total|23295|18859.4|1.63|1|
|||**total**||**35468.8**|**21558**|**1.24**|1|
||others [17]|fwd||167|118.2|-|1|
|||bwd||65.5|20|-|1|
|||total||232.5|138.2|-|1|
||total|fwd||12340.8|7424|1.66|1|
|||bwd||23360.5|18879.4|1.24|1|
|||total||35701.3|26303.4|1.36|1|
|others [18]||fwd||6874.3|7090.6|-|1|
|||bwd||13920.7|14117.5|-|1|
|||total||20795|21208|-|1|
|total||fwd||19215.1|14514.5|1.32|1|
|||bwd||37281.2|32,996.9|1.13|1|
|||**total**||**56496.3**|**47511.4**|**1.19**|1|
|prune weight||||0|320.3|-|$\frac{1}{m}$|
Due to the reason that 1) previous work [1,13] achieves similar acceleration ratio on the same settings and 2) we only accelerate two matrix multiplications for pre-training linear layer while previous work [1] accelerate all three multiplications, we believe that the acceleration is reasonable.
Based on the results above, we believe the overheads of continuous weight pruning function is negligible. According to the time cost table above, the cost of continuous weight pruning function per iteration is
$$
320.3 \times \frac{1}{m} = \frac{320.3}{m} ms.
$$
Compared to other parts ($47511.4ms$ for the whole iteration), this is indeed negligible.
It is worth noting that the acceleration we achieve is made on RTX 3090 GPUs with FP16 data type. As we try our best to achieve real acceleration effect on H100 GPUs with popular FP8 precision, the acceleration test fail because FP8 2:4-spMM don't even meet dense baseline; see table below. We are in contact with NVIDIA to address this issue and hopefully will get reasonable results in the future.
*Table.* Peak FLOPS of general matrix multiplications (GEMMs) and 2:4 sparse matrix multiplications (2:4-spMMs) on H100.
||GPU|FP8 Tensor Core|
|-|-|-|
|Specifications|H100 PCIE 2:4-spMM|3200 TFLOPS|
||H100 PCIE GEMM|1600 TFLOPS|
||H100 SXM 2:4-spMM|4000 TFLOPS|
||H100 SXM GEMM|2000 TFLOPS|
|Actual results with cuSPARSElt|H100 SXM 2:4-spMM|1900 TFLOPS|
||H100 SXM GEMM|1500 TFLOPS|
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Response to Reviewer WZj6 (cont.)
Comment: **Question 1:** The discussion of formula (4) should use very rigorous mathematical derivation, however, the discussion of related contents is very imprecise.
**Reply:** We apologize that a typo exists and elaborate this as follows.
In formula (4), we consider a dense model with the simplest batch gradient method, which is defined by
$$
{\\mathbf{w}}\_{k+1} = {\\mathbf{w}}\_{k}-\\alpha\_k \\nabla\_{{\\mathbf{w}}\_k} F({\\mathbf{w}}\_k)
$$
iteratively.
According to Taylor's formula, we have
$$
F({\\mathbf{w}}\_{k+1}) = F({\\mathbf{w}}\_{k}) + \\nabla\_{{\\mathbf{w}}\_k} F({\\mathbf{w}}\_k)^\\top({\\mathbf{w}}\_{k+1}-{\\mathbf{w}}\_{k})+o(||{\\mathbf{w}}\_{k+1}-{\\mathbf{w}}\_{k}||)
$$
Combined with the batch gradient method formula, we have
$$
\\begin{align}
F({\\mathbf{w}}\_{k+1}) - F({\\mathbf{w}}\_{k})
&= \\nabla\_{{\\mathbf{w}}\_k} F({\\mathbf{w}}\_k)^\\top({\\mathbf{w}}\_{k+1}-{\\mathbf{w}}\_{k})+o(||{\\mathbf{w}}\_{k+1}-{\\mathbf{w}}\_{k}||) \\\\
&= -\\alpha\_k\\nabla\_{{\\mathbf{w}}\_k} F({\\mathbf{w}}\_k)^\\top \\nabla\_{{\\mathbf{w}}\_k} F({\\mathbf{w}}\_k)+o(||{\\mathbf{w}}\_{k+1}-{\\mathbf{w}}\_{k}||) \\\\
&\\approx -\\alpha\_k||\\nabla\_{{\\mathbf{w}}\_k} F({\\mathbf{w}}\_k)||^2
\\end{align}
$$
**Question 2:** In Theorem 4.1, it is better to provide the definition of continuous projection for a vector.
**Reply:** The definition of continuous projection for a vector:
1. This definition is similar to the definition of continuity of a normal function, i.e. $g:\mathbb{R}^n \to\mathbb{R}^n$ is continuous at $\mathbf{w}_0$, when:
$\forall \epsilon>0, \exists \delta>0$, s.t. when $||\mathbf{w}-\mathbf{w}_0||<\delta$, $||g(\mathbf{w})-g(\mathbf{w}_0)||<\epsilon$.
2. This can also be defined as the function is continuous for every output variable, based on continuity of multivariable function:
$g:\mathbb{R}^n \to\mathbb{R}^n$ is continuous when all $f_i(\mathbf{w}) = (g(\mathbf{w}))_{[i]}$ is continuous for $i=1,2,...,n,$ where $f_i(\mathbf{w})$ is the $i$-th output element of $g$.
**Question 3:** Additionally, it is important to address why hard-thresholding and other algorithms fail to meet this property, and experimentally demonstrate the performance improvement that can result from adhering to this property.
**Reply:** Why hard-thresholding and other algorithms fail to meet this property:
1. For hard-thresholding-based methods like STEP [9], the pruning function is obviously discontinuous when a "flip" happens; please refer to Fig. 3 for a intuitive explanation. (In Fig. 3, that hard-thresholding is discontinuous when $|a_1|=|a_2|$.) This can be directly observed and understood, needless of mathematical proof.
2. For SR-STE [1,8] method, it adds an extra decay term to improve accuracy: $
\min_{\mathbf{w}} F(\mathbf{\tilde w})+\tfrac{\lambda_W}{2} \Vert {\mathbf{w}} \odot \overline{m({\mathbf{w}})}\Vert_2^2;$ see Sec. 3.4. The SR-STE [8] authors show its effectiveness by experiment, but they fail to realize that the decay term works as a "smoother". In this way, they only partially smooth the function, and the effect is limited: the function is rigorously continuous only when $\lambda_W \rightarrow \infty$, which is impossible practically. This is the main drawback of SR-STE's continuity.
3. Compared to those methods, S-STE is a completely continuous pruning function and has the advantage over hard-thresholding-based methods and SR-STE-based methods. All experiments we make in Sec. 6 demonstrates that, with the above baselines compared. Please refer to Table 4,5,6,8 for more details.
We further add a few more experiments to address your skepticism.
*Table.* Experimental results for DeiT.
|Size|Method|Acc@1|Acc@5|
|-|-|-|-|
|DeiT-tiny|Original|72.2|91.1|
||SR-STE|67.8| 88.6 |
||**S-STE**|**68.5**|**88.9** |
|DeiT-small|Original|79.9|94.5|
|| SR-STE [10]|75.7|-|
|| Bi-Mask [10]|77.6|-|
||**S-STE**| **78.5**|**94.4**|
*Table.* Different fine-tuning results on GLUE and SQuAD.
|Model|Downstream task|Pre-training method|Fine-tuning method|Avg score|
|-|-|-|-|-|
|GPT-2 124M|GLUE|S-STE|S-STE|$74.1\pm0.4$|
|GPT-2 124M|GLUE|S-STE|hard-thresholding|$73.9\pm0.6$|
|GPT-2 124M|SQuAD|S-STE|S-STE|$68/78.8$|
|GPT-2 124M|SQuAD|S-STE|hard-thresholding|$67.6/78.6$|
---
Rebuttal 4:
Title: Response to Reviewer WZj6 (cont.)
Comment: **Question 4:** In Table 1, is the $\gamma$ choice dependent on the $\beta$ setting? Does it establish the $\beta$ before selecting $\gamma$?
**Reply:** No. Choosing threshold and setting weight rescaling are totally independent. In the control experiment in Table 1, $\beta$ is set according to the algorithm proposed in Sec. 4.2.
**Question 5:** What is the reason for simulating dense weights?
**Reply:** The reason for simulating dense weights:
1. Since the network is designed as a dense network originally, activation magnitude and variance changes if no rescaling is applied. The best way to recover this loss is to compare the sparse model with dense equivalent and scale back weights compared to the dense model. Other techniques like dropout and the original soft-thresholding paper [???] have the similar weight rescaling step, and both of those methods are comparing the sparse weights (activations) with the dense ones.
2. To further prove the effectiveness of rescaling sparse weights to the dense magnitude, more ablation study is made. Results show that the effect of weight rescaling is not obvious on computer vision tasks like DeiT-small, but is significant for language models like Transformer-base. The reason behind this is due to the difference of their tasks: classification tasks are usually easier to complete than generation tasks, and the change may not be well reflected in the accuracy on simpler tasks.
*Table.* Experimental result of S-STE (soft-thresholding and weight rescaling), MVUE and FP8 training with DeiT-small on ImageNet-1K.
|soft-thresholding|weight rescaling|$\operatorname{MVUE}(\nabla_{\mathbf{Z}}^\top)$|FP8|comment|test acc1|test acc5|
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|-|-|×|×|dense|79.9|95|
|-|-|×|√|dense; FP8|79.7|94.9|
|×|×|×|×|hard-thresholding|77.7|93.9|
|√|√|×|×||78.8|94.6|
|√|×|×|×||78.9|94.7|
|√|√|×|√||78.6|94.4|
|√|√|√|×||78.9|94.6|
|√|×|√|×||78.2|94.2|
|**√**|**√**|**√**|**√**||**78.5**|**94.4**|
Besides, we'd like to kindly point out that another control experiment done on Transformer-base with WMT 14 En-De has already been presented; see Table 3 in the paper. To further clarify this, we expand this table to another ablation study, which presents the results with Transformer-base settings; see table below.
*Table.* Experimental result of S-STE (soft-thresholding and weight rescaling), MVUE and FP8 training with Transformer-base on WMT 14 En-De.
| soft-thresholding|weight rescaling|$\operatorname{MVUE}(\nabla_{\mathbf{Z}}^\top)$ | FP8 | comment | test BLEU | validation loss | average epoch loss |
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|-|-|×|×|dense|26.42|3.977| 4.555 |
|×|×|×|×|hard-thresholding|25.65|4.088 |4.686 |
|√|×|×|×||25.28|4.044|4.67 |
|√|√|×|×||26.3|4.007|4.605 |
|√|√|√|×||25.93|4.01|4.602 |
|**√**|**√**|**√**|**√**||**26.11**|**4.011**|**4.61**|
---
Rebuttal 5:
Title: Response to Reviewer WZj6 (cont.)
Comment: **Question 6:** Why perform fixed weight rescaling $\beta$?
**Reply:** The reason to perform fixed weight rescaling but not dynamic weight rescaling:
1. We admit that related work such as original soft-thresholding paper [14] perform weight rescaling dynamically, which means $\beta$ is computed on every forward propagation.
1. However, intuitively, for 2:4 specific soft-thresholding, it is different. Original dense weight never participate in forward calculation. Because S-STE needs to subtract third largest weight in a group of four, what matters are the relative values of weights, not the absolute value. Thus, rescaling after or during training is meaningless.
1. Further experiments confirm our suspicions. As explained in our paper, dynamic $\beta$ results in extremely large $\beta$ at the last few layers, and consequently results in large flip rate. This makes training unstable and injures accuracy. All the experiments and analysis are in Sec. 4.2.
**Question 7:** In Table 4, it is better to separate “dense” and use it as a baseline. The best result in the second column is marked incorrectly.
**Reply:** "Dense" here is actually used as a baseline. We will modify the format of this table to present information clearly, thank you!
**Question 8:** There are many methods for N:M sparse pre-training as shown in the Related Work section. The paper needs to make a detailed comparison with these methods.
**Reply:** It's true that there are a lot of traditional dynamic sparse training methods and post-training pruning methods, but those methods have different mission backgrounds and purposes from ours, and is meaningless to be used as contrast. The main experimental setting we choose has **already covered the full spectrum of 2:4 related work**. Here is a detailed summarization as follows.
1. Typical soft-pruning methods. In "2:4 pre-training" context, we are talking about **practically accelerating pre-training via 2:4 property** [1]. In the light of this purpose, traditional soft-pruning methods like Decaying Pruning [6] which can't possibly accelerate training is meaningless to be considered. Besides, since our sparsity is fixed to 50%, comparing with different sparsity or dynamic sparsity methods may be unfair as it's a pre-training task. Typical works include Decaying Pruning.
2. Other dynamic sparse training methods. Traditional dynamic sparse training methods such as RigL [2], Early-Bird Tickets [3,4] can't acquire acceleration as well. Because of this, those methods are not our competitors.
3. Post-training methods. We are doing a pre-training task. Post-training methods such as Deep Compression [7], lottery ticket [15], Sanity-Checking [5] and even 2:4 one-shot pruning [16] which has nothing to do with pre-training shouldn't be considered too.
4. 2:4 pre-training methods (weight sparsity). They are the main baselines we shall compare with. They include SR-STE [8] and its improvement [1], STEP [9] and Bi-Mask [10].
5. Other 2:4 training methods. Other 2:4 pre-training works, such as MVUE [11] and T-mask [12] focus on different questions and is also meaningless to be used as contrast.
**Question 9:** The core of this paper is the pre-training acceleration. However, it is far from enough to discuss the possible acceleration in theory, and it is necessary to carry out sufficient experiments to compare the acceleration effects of various methods.
**Reply:** That's a very good question because in 2:4 pre-training related work, very few have reported real acceleration. Most of the work stay on simulation and report only accuracy. In all 2:4 pre-training works, only paper [1] has reported real acceleration and we mention this in Weakness 2. Besides, PyTorch [12] reported acceleration on BERT inference and can be used as a reference too.
**Question 10:** All the figures in the paper are too small to see clearly.
**Reply:** We realize this problem and we will redraw most of the illustrations that are too small. The previous compression of format is due to insufficient layout.
**Question 11:** Most references lack the names of conferences or journals.
**Reply:** We apologize for the oversight and would like to thank you for pointing them out. We will check all our references and correct those with non-standard citations. For the papers that appear in conferences or journals, we will replace the arXiv links with the publisher links.
---
Rebuttal 6:
Title: Response to Reviewer WZj6 (cont.)
Comment: [1] Accelerating Transformer Pre-training with 2:4 Sparsity, https://proceedings.mlr.press/v235/hu24r.html
[2] Rigging the Lottery: Making All Tickets Winners, https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11134
[3] Drawing Early-Bird Tickets: Towards More Efficient Training of Deep Networks, https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.11957
[4] EarlyBERT: Efficient BERT Training via Early-bird Lottery Tickets, https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00063
[5] Sanity-Checking Pruning Methods: Random Tickets can Win the Jackpot, https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.11094
[6] Training Recipe for N:M Structured Sparsity with Decaying Pruning Mask, https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.07617
[7] Compressing Deep Neural Networks with Pruning, Trained Quantization and Huffman Coding, https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00149
[8] Learning N:M Fine-grained Structured Sparse Neural Networks From Scratch, https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.04010
[9] STEP: Learning N:M Structured Sparsity Masks from Scratch with Precondition, https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.01172
[10] Bi-directional Masks for Efficient N:M Sparse Training, https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.06058
[11] Minimum Variance Unbiased N:M Sparsity for the Neural Gradients, https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.10991
[12] Accelerated Sparse Neural Training: A Provable and Efficient Method to Find N:M Transposable Masks, https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.08124
[13] (prototype) Accelerating BERT with semi-structured (2:4) sparsity, https://pytorch.org/tutorials/prototype/semi_structured_sparse.html
[14] Are Straight-Through gradients and Soft-Thresholding all you need for Sparse Training?, https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.01076
[15] The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis: Finding Sparse, Trainable Neural Networks, https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.03635
[16] Accelerating Sparse Deep Neural Networks, https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.08378
[17] All functions in FFN except linear layers, i.e. activation function and dropout.
[18] All other parts in the network except FFN layers, e.g. attention, optimizer, etc. | Summary: This paper presents a framework to circumvent the common challenges associated with STE-based 2:4 pre-training due to pruning function discontinuity. In particular, their framework addresses 3 aspects of this behavior: descent direction, amount of descent, and sparse mask oscillation.
Strengths: * This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the limitations of traditional pruning techniques, with a particular emphasis on how their framework addresses these challenges. I believe there is a novelty in the exploration of continuous pruning strategies.
* Additionally, each component is comprehensively validated – for example, the problem of mask oscillation seems to be adequately documented in Section 3.3 with a viable exemplar to demonstrate impact.
Weaknesses: * This work is centered on the potential of continuous pruning schemes for enabling faster sparse pre-training. However, I do see a strong resemblance with conventional soft mask approaches to pruning schemes. In particular, I wonder if the authors considered typical soft-pruning works in their comparisons, and if not, what was the reasoning for that experimental setting choice.
* I found the experimental results to be quite sparse in model selection and competitive method benchmarking. Predominantly this method benchmarks against SR-STE and the dense framework, however, there isn’t enough context as to why other pruning-based methods are not included in scope. Further, there seem to be a few different tasks ablated however comprehensive details on why each application and/or model was selected are missing. For example, if demonstrating the efficacy of a sparse pre-training method it, would be beneficial to see the scaling effect on large models, say ViT-B/L for ImageNet-1K or the SWIN architectures.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Please address the questions in the weaknesses section.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: /
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewer 73MA,
Thank you for the acknowledgment of the potential and effectiveness of our work and the detailed constructive comments. Below we provide a point-by-point response to all comments.
**Weakness 1:** This work is centered on the potential of continuous pruning schemes for enabling faster sparse pre-training. However, I do see a strong resemblance with conventional soft mask approaches to pruning schemes. In particular, I wonder if the authors considered typical soft-pruning works in their comparisons, and if not, what was the reasoning for that experimental setting choice.
**Reply:** We are not considering typical soft-pruning methods as our comparisons. These methods have different mission backgrounds and purposes from ours, and is meaningless to be used as contrast.
In "2:4 pre-training" context, we are talking about practically accelerating pre-training via 2:4 property [1]. In the light of this purpose, traditional dynamic sparse training methods such as RigL [2], Early-Bird Tickets [3,4], Sanity-Checking [5], Decaying Pruning [6] which can't possibly accelerate training shouldn't be considered. Besides, post-training methods such as Deep Compression [7] which has nothing to do with pre-training phase shouldn't be considered too. The main experimental setting we choose has already covered the full spectrum of 2:4 related work, including hard-thresholding [8], SR-STE [8], STEP [9] and Bi-Mask [10]. Other 2:4 pre-training works, such as MVUE [11] and T-mask [12] focus on different questions and is also meaningless to be used as contrast.
**Weakness 2:** I found the experimental results to be quite sparse in model selection and competitive method benchmarking. Predominantly this method benchmarks against SR-STE and the dense framework, however, there isn’t enough context as to why other pruning-based methods are not included in scope.
**Reply:** For model selection, there are three reasons to explain why we choose these settings.
1. **We are solving a very difficult task** and pre-training is quite consuming for academic research group. Different from post-training research which can leverage state-of-the-art model architectures like Llama 3, Phi-3 and Qwen2, pre-training where we **train a model from scratch** takes lots of hardware resources and thousands of GPU hours. Thus the model sizes are likely to be smaller than most of the other post-training pruning studies.
2. As pre-training is very difficult, 2:4 pre-training is even more tough because we need to **jointly optimize activated masks and their weight** values. **The difficulty of this problem leads to insufficient baseline works from the past.** That's the reason we focus on this task; **we not only reveal the difficulty of the task, but also set up new SOTA baselines**. In other words, we are trying to **push the frontiers of relatively unpopular 2:4 pre-train research**.
3. The models we use are chosen from a wide range of most representative works in deep learning with the acceptable size and available settings, spanning from natural language processing to computer vision tasks. For NLP tasks, we choose classical Transformer-base and GPT-2; for CV tasks, we choose popular Vision Transformer. We believe **these representative works can set up new SOTA baselines for future study to follow**.
For competitive method benchmarking and other pruning-based methods, please refer to Weakness 1.
**Weakness 3:** Further, there seem to be a few different tasks ablated however comprehensive details on why each application and/or model was selected are missing. For example, if demonstrating the efficacy of a sparse pre-training method it, would be beneficial to see the scaling effect on large models, say ViT-B/L for ImageNet-1K or the SWIN architectures.
**Reply:** For model selection, please refer to Weakness 2 and Weakness 1. For the scaling effect of large models, we pre-train different scales of GPT-2 and Vision Transformer. We list the result as follows and hopefully it solves your doubts. Basically, the performance get closer to or surpass dense baseline as model size increases.
*Table.* Experimental results for DeiT. DeiT-base fail to due to infinity loss on SR-STE and S-STE.
|Size|Method|Acc@1|Acc@5|
|-|-|-|-|
| DeiT-tiny |Original|72.2|91.1|
||SR-STE|67.8|88.6|
||**S-STE**| **68.5** |**88.9**|
|DeiT-small| Original |79.9|94.5|
||SR-STE [10]|75.7|-|
||Bi-Mask [10]|77.6|-|
||**S-STE**| **78.5** |**94.4**|
*Table.* SQuAD scores of different sizes and pre-training methods on GPT-2. Similar to Table 5, we use 2:4 sparse weights to evaluate S-STE model, while dense parameters to evaluate the rest. Note that the results in Table 8 are close to the dense baselines, which means the room to improve is already small. Other experiments in Table 5 can show a larger improvement than SR-STE.
|Params|Pre-training method|Fine-tuning method|EM|F1|
|-|-|-|-|-|
|124M|Dense| Dense|67.6|78.8|
||Transposable SR-STE+Dense|Dense|67.5|78.5|
||SR-STE|Dense|66.2|77.5|
||**S-STE**| **S-STE**|**68**|**78.8**|
|350M|Dense| Dense | 73.2 | 83.6 |
||Transposable SR-STE+Dense|Dense|71.9|82.4|
||SR-STE|Dense|72.0|82.4|
||**S-STE**|**S-STE**|**72.2**|**82.7** |
|774M|Dense|Dense|74.3|84.9|
||Transposable SR-STE+Dense|Dense|74.3|84.6|
||**S-STE**|**S-STE**|**75.5**|**85.5**|
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Response to Reviewer 73MA (cont.)
Comment: [1] Accelerating Transformer Pre-training with 2:4 Sparsity, https://proceedings.mlr.press/v235/hu24r.html
[2] Rigging the Lottery: Making All Tickets Winners, https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11134
[3] Drawing Early-Bird Tickets: Towards More Efficient Training of Deep Networks, https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.11957
[4] EarlyBERT: Efficient BERT Training via Early-bird Lottery Tickets, https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00063
[5] Sanity-Checking Pruning Methods: Random Tickets can Win the Jackpot, https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.11094
[6] Training Recipe for N:M Structured Sparsity with Decaying Pruning Mask, https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.07617
[7] Compressing Deep Neural Networks with Pruning, Trained Quantization and Huffman Coding, https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00149
[8] Learning N:M Fine-grained Structured Sparse Neural Networks From Scratch, https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.04010
[9] STEP: Learning N:M Structured Sparsity Masks from Scratch with Precondition, https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.01172
[10] Bi-directional Masks for Efficient N:M Sparse Training, https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.06058
[11] Minimum Variance Unbiased N:M Sparsity for the Neural Gradients, https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.10991
[12] Accelerated Sparse Neural Training: A Provable and Efficient Method to Find N:M Transposable Masks, https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.08124
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Sincerely looking forward to further discussions
Comment: Dear Reviewer 73MA,
We hope that our response and revision have adequately addressed your concerns. If our efforts have indeed addressed your concerns, we would be very grateful if you could reconsider our work and possibly adjust the score accordingly. If you have any additional questions or suggestions, we would be happy to have further discussions.
Best regards,
The Authors | Summary: The authors address the challenge of pre-training models, with 2:4 sparsity, to high quality (ideally matching a densely-trained model). Building on existing methods, the authors point out three issues with discontinuous pruning functions: gradients move in the wrong direction, weight updates do not match expectation, and values can oscillate between being masked and not-masked. Demonstrating these shortcomings and analyzing the source leads the authors to propose two modifications to the traditional straight-through estimator approach: 2:4-specific soft thresholding and fixed weight rescaling. The former provides a continuous pruning function, and the latter compensates for the reduced weight magnitude caused by the soft thresholding. Targeted experiments show that the proposed method does not suffer from the three shortcomings of traditional approaches. In full training experiments, the authors also show that applying MVUE (an existing technique) to data gradients and using FP8 representations do not interfere with S-STE's success. Machine translation, image classification, and generative tasks are used for testing various models with 2:4 sparsity applied to the MLPs of transformer blocks and the data indicates that the resulting models are superior to baselines, and in several cases comparable in quality to the dense baselines.
Strengths: **Originality**
While the individual advancements, soft-thresholding and weight rescaling, are rooted in prior work, I think the combination and the modifications made by the authors are highly original.
**Quality**
The experiments performed are precisely what are needed, and no more. Each claim is supported with one clear figure or table so that the reader immediately sees that the authors considered the various angles and have shown why the angle they have selected is the best. The breadth of full training experiments shows that the proposed method applies to image classification, machine translation, and text generation with particular success in the latter two. Further, they combined their method with two largely orthogonal compression techniques: FP8 data representations for training and sparsifying another tensor (data gradients). This makes the results even more compelling.
**Clarity**
I found the submissions to be easy to read in general and with an appropriate amount of detailing previous and related work. The few issues I had were minor and listed below, and they did not detract from the well-organized paper.
**Significance**
This work is of high importance. It has done a great deal to close the gap between dense and sparse training for a constrained type of sparsity that offers practical acceleration in readily available hardware. If it continues to be successful in broader experiments in the wild, then it could be widely adopted, saving significant resources in training new networks and reduce the latency of performing large-scale experiments.
Weaknesses: **Originality**
N/A
**Quality**
A missing experiment is one that would show the relative importance of scaling factor *beta*. It would be a good addition to the ablation study presented in Table 7.
**Clarity**
Table 2 was confusing at first. It wasn't obvious that the first row, without S-STE, was just dense training, rather than a different DST baseline. Once I understood this, its low loss value not being the "winner" made sense. The second confusing bit was that the second row had the next-lowest loss, but was also not **emphasized**. Again, I realized that this is because it would not lead to acceleration in the backwards pass. This second point could be clarified by adding "... and accelerates the backwards pass" to the caption.
In line 256, the authors say they "choose to sparsify del(Z) only in the backwards pass," which sounds like in the forwards pass, they do not sparsify del(Z). Clearly, they don't, because this term is not involved in the forwards pass, but it caught me off guard - I think "choose to sparsify only del(Z) in the backwards pass," as opposed to sparsifying both del(Z) and S(W), is more clear.
In line 331, I think the authors mean to say that FP8 quantization accelerates GEMMs up to 2x faster than their 16b counterparts. (As detailed in Section 5.2, the upper bound of speedup from dense BF16/FP16 to sparse FP8 is indeed 4x.)
I noticed a few typos (there may be more lurking):
- Line 13: "our method surpass" -> surpasses
- Line 174: "contains two main partitions" -> parts
- Line 201: "the closer *t* is from |*t3*|" -> "the closer *t* is to |*t3*|"
- Line 263: "forwrad" -> "forward"
- Line 326: "leaverage" -> "leverage"
**Significance**
Transformer blocks typically have two more weighted linear layers that were left dense in this work: the QKV projection before attention and the attention output projection. Thus, there is potentially more memory and computation savings available, but without experiments, it is unknown if model quality will remain high if they were also made sparse.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: - If a lower flip rate is better in Figure 4, is it concerning that SR-STE's flip rate is lower than S-STE's? (If not, why not?)
- Would S-STE apply to all N:M configurations by subtracting the N+1th largest entry in soft-thresholding, or is it truly 2:4- (and, given Figure 3, 1:2-) specific?
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: The discussion of the limitations in the appendix is appreciated, but it seems to suggest that sparsity should give a theoretical 4x increase in throughput, but I believe this should be 2x. (FP8 can theoretically give another 2x.) Also, the sizes of the GEMMs that gave these results should be listed. Finally, I'd point out that the method has only been tested on two out of four linear layers in Transformer networks, not other types of networks, including covolutional networks.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewer JQrs,
Thank you for the acknowledgment of the potential and effectiveness of our work and the detailed constructive comments. Below we provide a point-to-point response to all comments.
**Weakness 1:** **Quality** A missing experiment is one that would show the relative importance of scaling factor *beta*. It would be a good addition to the ablation study presented in Table 7.
**Reply:** We appreciate this insightful suggestion and add content to the ablation study as below. We add more experiments and redraw the ablation table. Results show that the effect of weight rescaling is not obvious on computer vision tasks like DeiT-small, but is significant for language models like Transformer-base. The reason behind this is due to the difference of their tasks: classification tasks are usually easier to complete than generation tasks, and the change may not be well reflected in the accuracy on simpler tasks.
*Table.* Experimental result of S-STE (soft-thresholding and weight rescaling), MVUE and FP8 training with DeiT-small on ImageNet-1K.
|soft-thresholding|weight rescaling|$\operatorname{MVUE}(\nabla_{\mathbf{Z}}^\top)$|FP8|comment|test acc1|test acc5|
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|-|-|×|×|dense|79.9|95|
|-|-|×|√|dense; FP8|79.7|94.9|
|×|×|×|×|hard-thresholding|77.7|93.9|
|√|√|×|×||78.8|94.6|
|√|×|×|×||78.9|94.7|
|√|√|×|√||78.6|94.4|
|√|√|√|×||78.9|94.6|
|√|×|√|×||78.2|94.2|
|**√**|**√**|**√**|**√**||**78.5**|**94.4**|
Besides, we'd like to kindly point out that another control experiment done on Transformer-base with WMT 14 En-De has already been presented; see Table 3 in the paper. To further clarify this, we expand this table to another ablation study, which presents the results with Transformer-base settings; see table below.
*Table.* Experimental result of S-STE (soft-thresholding and weight rescaling), MVUE and FP8 training with Transformer-base on WMT 14 En-De.
| soft-thresholding|weight rescaling|$\operatorname{MVUE}(\nabla_{\mathbf{Z}}^\top)$ | FP8 | comment | test BLEU | validation loss | average epoch loss |
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|-|-|×|×|dense|26.42|3.977| 4.555 |
|×|×|×|×|hard-thresholding|25.65|4.088 |4.686 |
|√|×|×|×||25.28|4.044|4.67 |
|√|√|×|×||26.3|4.007|4.605 |
|√|√|√|×||25.93|4.01|4.602 |
|**√**|**√**|**√**|**√**||**26.11**|**4.011**|**4.61**|
The new ablation study as well as the supplemental experimental data of the first one will be updated in our paper.
**Weakness 2:** **Clarity** Table 2 was confusing at first. It wasn't obvious that the first row, without S-STE, was just dense training, rather than a different DST baseline. Once I understood this, its low loss value not being the "winner" made sense. The second confusing bit was that the second row had the next-lowest loss, but was also not **emphasized**. Again, I realized that this is because it would not lead to acceleration in the backwards pass. This second point could be clarified by adding "... and accelerates the backwards pass" to the caption.
**Reply:** We realize the problem and redraw the table as follows. Besides, we will consider putting Table 2 beside Sec. 5, where it should have been. The previous deviation of format is due to insufficient layout.
*Table.* Results of different MVUE strategies on GPT-2 774M with 4000 steps. Sparsifying $S(\mathbf{W})^\top$ and $\nabla_{\mathbf{Z}}^\top$ can accelerate the two matrix multiplications of backward pass respectively. However, accuracy loss introduced by those sparse matrices are different.
| S-STE | $\operatorname{MVUE}(S(\mathbf{W})^\top)$ | $\operatorname{MVUE}(\nabla_{\mathbf{Z}}^\top)$ | comment | loss |
|-|-|-|-|-|
|-|×|×|dense|3.3948|
|-|×|×|SR-STE|3.4739|
|√|×|×||3.4333|
|√|√|×||3.4644|
|√|√|√||3.4773|
|√|×|√||**3.448**|
**Weakness 3:** **Clarity** In line 256, the authors say they "choose to sparsify del(Z) only in the backwards pass," which sounds like in the forwards pass, they do not sparsify del(Z). Clearly, they don't, because this term is not involved in the forwards pass, but it caught me off guard - I think "choose to sparsify only del(Z) in the backwards pass," as opposed to sparsifying both del(Z) and S(W), is more clear.
**Reply:** The latter expression is definitely less confusing. Thanks for reminding us! We will update this in our paper.
**Weakness 4:** **Clarity** In line 331, I think the authors mean to say that FP8 quantization accelerates GEMMs up to 2x faster than their 16b counterparts. (As detailed in Section 5.2, the upper bound of speedup from dense BF16/FP16 to sparse FP8 is indeed 4x.)
**Reply:** Yes, that's exactly what we mean. In the updated version of our paper, this line will be replaced with
> While 16-bit float tensors are widely used in pre-training, FP8 – where float numbers stored in 8 bits – is a popular quantization methods which theoretically accelerates GEMMs up to 4x faster than its fp32 counterparts and 2x faster than its FP16/BF16 counterparts.
**Weakness 5:** **Typos** I noticed a few typos (there may be more lurking).
**Reply:** We apologize for the oversight and would like to thank you for pointing them out. All the clerical errors that you mention and some other typos are corrected in the updated version.
**Weakness 6:** **Significance** Transformer blocks typically have two more weighted linear layers that were left dense in this work: the QKV projection before attention and the attention output projection. Thus, there is potentially more memory and computation savings available, but without experiments, it is unknown if model quality will remain high if they were also made sparse.
**Reply:** That's a very good question. We have done experiments with the four QKV projection layers, and the output is not satisfying. Sparsifying QKV projections may require attention specific methods, designed in conjunction with attention mechanism. We decide to leave them to future work.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Response to Reviewer JQrs (cont.)
Comment: **Question 1:** If a lower flip rate is better in Figure 4, is it concerning that SR-STE's flip rate is lower than S-STE's? (If not, why not?)
**Reply:** No, there's no concern on flip rate of S-STE. The comparison on flip rate between SR-STE and S-STE successfully shows the advantage of S-STE. We clarify this theory in three steps.
1) Reiterate **the principle of flip rate**. As pointed out by [1], the core of a healthy 2:4 training is to have the flip rate first rises then decreases in the training process. In other words, **neither lower nor higher flip rate is better. Different training stages requires the flip rate to act differently; the "peak" of flip rate curve should be high enough and the "tail" should be low enough**. The reason behind this, as they point out, is to make the network first explore and set up connection modes then frozen the connections and fine-tune weights, which aligns with the model's behavior proposed by [2].
2) Convert this ambiguous principle into clear guidelines. In practice, in order to apply this principle, we usually consider the dense model to be the flip rate standard. The closer a method gets to the standard curve, the better performance it will get. Flip rate curves that deviate from the standard is considered poisonous.
3) Observe flip rate results in SR-STE and S-STE. As shown in Figure 4(d) of the paper, flip rate curve of dense model and SR-STE doesn't well coincide, which means there's drawbacks in SR-STE training. (To be specific, **the "peak" of SR-STE is not high enough**.) On the other hand, flip rate of S-STE and dense nearly overlaps with each other, which is a perfect match under our assumptions.
Your misunderstanding might come from the fact that 1) larger $\beta$ results in higher flip rate; 2) dynamically computing $\beta$ leads to extremely large $\beta$ and extremely higher flip rate, which is harmful. These facts are both true but they don't collide with the principle above. If a "tail" is extremely higher than a standard one, the result shouldn't be optimistic. But if a "peak" is lower than the standard peak, the result can suffer from accuracy loss as well.
**Question 2:** Would S-STE apply to all N:M configurations by subtracting the N+1th largest entry in soft-thresholding, or is it truly 2:4- (and, given Figure 3, 1:2-) specific?
**Reply:** **S-STE is compatible with all N:M patterns** for the reason that **its continuity is guaranteed theoretically**. We limit the study only on 2:4 (and 1:2) is due to hardware bounds nowadays. In future research, when more N:M patterns can be explored, S-STE can still be applied by subtracting the N+1th largest entry.
**Limitation 1:** The discussion of the limitations in the appendix is appreciated, but it seems to suggest that sparsity should give a theoretical 4x increase in throughput, but I believe this should be 2x. (FP8 can theoretically give another 2x.)
**Reply:** The 4x theoretical increase is because that we take FP8 into account, but we now realize that this will lead to confusions. We will clarify this in the same way as Weakness 4.
**Limitation 2:** Also, the sizes of the GEMMs that gave these results should be listed.
**Reply:** The size of GEMMs and 2:4-spMMs we take is $16384\times16384\times16384$. This will be updated in our paper.
**Limitation 3:** Finally, I'd point out that the method has only been tested on two out of four linear layers in Transformer networks, not other types of networks, including convolutional networks.
**Reply:** The main goal of our work targets on transformers. This is because traditional 2:4 training methods like SR-STE [3], STEP [4] and Bi-Mask [5] have already achieved very good performance on convolutional networks, but none of those methods perform well on transformers. We believe that it's not very meaningful to continue focus on conv networks, but it's valuable to develop new transformer specific 2:4 pre-training strategies. As for other architectures like Mamba and KAN, 2:4 training algorithms needs to be designed in conjunction with architecture, which is our future work.
[1] Accelerating Transformer Pre-training with 2:4 Sparsity, https://proceedings.mlr.press/v235/hu24r.html
[2] Drawing Early-Bird Tickets: Towards More Efficient Training of Deep Networks, https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.11957
[3] Learning N:M Fine-grained Structured Sparse Neural Networks From Scratch, https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.04010
[4] STEP: Learning N:M Structured Sparsity Masks from Scratch with Precondition, https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.01172
[5] Bi-directional Masks for Efficient N:M Sparse Training, https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.06058
[6] Mamba: Linear-Time Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spaces, https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00752
[7] KAN: Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks, https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19756
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Title: Thank you for the detailed responses
Comment: I appreciate the detailed responses to my questions and concerns. I'll keep my Strong Accept rating and urge my fellow reviewers to revisit their scores given all your responses.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Thank you!
Comment: Thank you so much for your Strong Accept! We believe the theoretical and experimental progress in 2:4 sparse training can bring new solutions for large transformers' pre-training and inference acceleration. Thank you! | Summary: This work studies an efficient method for pre-training, identifying three significant limitations in previous 2:4 sparse pre-training approaches: incorrect descent direction, the inability to predict the extent of descent, and oscillations in the sparse mask. Subsequently, the authors introduce a novel training methodology that integrates a continuous weight projection technique with a rescaling strategy, thereby enhancing pre-training efficiency and achieving performance comparable to conventional full-parameter training.
Strengths: 1. The structure of this work is well organized. It begins by highlighting the current challenges in 2:4 sparse pre-training, where the suboptimal performance largely stems from the discontinuity of the pruning function. This issue is then explored through various examples, followed by a demonstration of the proposed methods.
2. The experiments conducted encompass a variety of model sizes and datasets.
3. The motivation behind this work is well-founded and clearly articulated.
Weaknesses: - The acceleration of S-STE is demonstrated solely in terms of theoretical gains. Seems like S-STE will introduce extra computation cost, which might sacrify part of the acceleration. Studying the end-to-end acceleration would further enhance the quality of this work.
- Is the discontinuity issue discussed in Section 3 associated with the learning rate? A larger learning rate results in more substantial weight updates, potentially causing more frequent flipping. Additionally, is this issue still a big problem during fine-tuning scenarios, where the learning rate is generally lower?
- The improvements of S-STE are modest, e.g., in Table 8, showing a 0.3 improvement in the F1 score for GPT-2 models with 124M and 350M parameters.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Please refer to the weakness.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: There is no end-to-end acceleration results evaluated of current methods.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewer 18hX,
Thank you for recognizing the potential and effectiveness of our work and for providing detailed constructive comments. Below, we address each point raised.
**Weakness 1:** The acceleration of S-STE is demonstrated solely in terms of theoretical gains. Seems like S-STE will introduce extra computation cost, which might sacrify part of the acceleration. Studying the end-to-end acceleration would further enhance the quality of this work.
**Reply:** It it true that S-STE will introduce extra computation cost, but be argue the impact won't be significant:
1. In a FFN block, the computational complexity of a matrix multiplication with shape $M\times N\times K$ is $O(MNK)$. Other operations like activation function, pruning function and weight rescaling are considered **element-wise**, with computation cost bounded to $O(MN)$ or $O(NK)$. Compared to the $O(MNK)$ parts of a FFN block, this cost is negligible.
2. As micro-batching technique is applied most of the time, the cost of the pruning and weight rescaling operation will be further reduced to $\frac{1}{m}$, where $m$ denotes the accumulation steps over micro batches.
To further respond to your doubts about real-world acceleration, we report end-to-end acceleration as follows. For experiment setting, we choose different sizes of GPT-2 models and test acceleration with FP16 weights. **For inference, we achieve 1.53x speedup with FFN layer and 1.23x speedup with the network; for pre-training, we achieve 1.32x speedup for FFN layer and 1.18x speedup for the network.** This will be updated in our paper.
*Table.* Pre-training acceleration ratio with different different batch size $N$, sequence length $n$, embedding dimension $d$ and heads number $h$ on GPT-2 with RTX 3090 GPUs.
|N|n|d|h|acceleration@FFN|acceleration@GPT-2|
|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|4|2048|5120|40|1.309071284|1.176265882|
|16|2048|7168|56|1.317673412|1.18020863|
|8|2048|7168|56|1.325846831|1.173059355|
|4|2048|7168|56|1.308463658|1.171455338|
|4|2048|9216|72|1.311344165|1.176620318|
*Table.* Inference acceleration ratio with different different batch size $N$, sequence length $n$, embedding dimension $d$ and heads number $h$ on GPT-2 with RTX 3090 GPUs.
|N|n|d|h|acceleration@FFN|acceleration@GPT-2|
|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|16|2048|7168|56|1.536392435|1.233632|
|8|2048|7168|56|1.464448312|1.149633|
To further investigate how we reach \~1.2x speedup, we profile our code and break down the time costs as shown in the table below.
*Table.* Time costs of each part of our network and the dense model in one iteration per layer. $m$ denotes the accumulation steps over micro batches. Our method is evaluated on GPT-2, with batch size 16, sequence length 1024, embedding dimension 1024 and heads number 16.
|||||dense (ms/exec)|sparse (ms/exec)|acceleration ratio|frequency (exec/iter)|
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|ffn|linear|fwd|GEMM|12173.8|7305.8|1.67|1|
|||bwd|GEMM|23295|18688|1.25|1|
||||mvue+prune|0|171.4|-|1|
||||total|23295|18859.4|1.63|1|
|||**total**||**35468.8**|**21558**|**1.24**|1|
||others [2]|fwd||167|118.2|-|1|
|||bwd||65.5|20|-|1|
|||total||232.5|138.2|-|1|
||total|fwd||12340.8|7424|1.66|1|
|||bwd||23360.5|18879.4|1.24|1|
|||total||35701.3|26303.4|1.36|1|
|others [3]||fwd||6874.3|7090.6|-|1|
|||bwd||13920.7|14117.5|-|1|
|||total||20795|21208|-|1|
|total||fwd||19215.1|14514.5|1.32|1|
|||bwd||37281.2|32,996.9|1.13|1|
|||**total**||**56496.3**|**47511.4**|**1.19**|1|
|prune weight||||0|320.3|-|$\frac{1}{m}$|
Due to the reason that 1) previous work [1] achieves similar acceleration ratio on the same settings and 2) we only accelerate two matrix multiplications for pre-training linear layer while previous work [1] accelerate all three multiplications, we believe that the acceleration is reasonable.
Based on the results above, we believe the overheads of continuous weight pruning function is negligible. According to the time cost table above, the cost of continuous weight pruning function per iteration is
$$
320.3 \times \frac{1}{m} = \frac{320.3}{m} ms.
$$
Compared to other parts ($47511.4ms$ for the whole iteration), this is indeed negligible.
It is worth noting that the acceleration we achieve is made on RTX 3090 GPUs with FP16 data type. As we try our best to achieve real acceleration effect on H100 GPUs with popular FP8 precision, the acceleration test fail because FP8 2:4-spMM don't even meet dense baseline; see table below. We are in contact with NVIDIA to address this issue and hopefully will get reasonable results in the future.
*Table.* Peak FLOPS of general matrix multiplications (GEMMs) and 2:4 sparse matrix multiplications (2:4-spMMs) on H100.
||GPU|FP8 Tensor Core|
|-|-|-|
|Specifications|H100 PCIE 2:4-spMM|3200 TFLOPS|
||H100 PCIE GEMM|1600 TFLOPS|
||H100 SXM 2:4-spMM|4000 TFLOPS|
||H100 SXM GEMM|2000 TFLOPS|
|Actual results with cuSPARSElt|H100 SXM 2:4-spMM|1900 TFLOPS|
||H100 SXM GEMM|1500 TFLOPS|
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Response to Reviewer 18hX (cont.)
Comment: **Weakness 2:** Is the discontinuity issue discussed in Section 3 associated with the learning rate? A larger learning rate results in more substantial weight updates, potentially causing more frequent flipping.
**Reply:** Learning rate is part of the reason for the discontinuity issue, but it's not the main factor. **The main factor is built-in discontinuity of loss function (and pruning function).** Let's explain it in two ways.
> [!NOTE]
>
> Here we use flip rate to represent the stability of training, and in a sense to represent the continuity of the loss function; see Sec. 3.3. Higher flip rate means more flips are taken in an optimizer step, and suggests that the network is more discrete; lower flip rate means the weight is changing smoothly, which is the signal of a more continuous function.
*Table.* Flip rate of different methods on different time steps with Transformer-base and WMT En-De dataset. Note that dense, S-STE and hard-thresholding methods share the same learning rate, while "hard-thresholding2" halve the learning rate with rest of the conditions remain the same.
|Step|Dense|S-STE|hard-thresholding|hard-thresholding2|
|-|-|-|-|-|
|5k|0.001852|0.001883|0.002487|0.001476|
|20k|8.51e-4|8.83e-4|0.001879|0.001488|
|40k|5.25e-4|5.62e-4|0.001789|0.001466|
|60k|3.92e-4|4.22e-4|0.001731|0.001459|
|80k|3.43e-4|3.69e-4|0.001824|0.001547|
|100k|3.11e-4|3.47e-4|0.001868|0.001674|
|Final test BLEU|26.42|26.3|25.38|24.99|
First, **within a single pre-training procedure**, flip rate change is not necessarily related to learning rate. As shown in table above, the flip rate of hard-thresholding is extremely large even when learning rate is close to zero at the end of pre-training. This denotes that **small learning rate not necessarily slow down flipping, and decreasing learning rate doesn't relieve the discontinuity problem**.
Second, **comparison between two hard-thresholding pre-training processes** show that even if we halve learning rate, flip rate would not necessarily halve as well; rather it may remain extremely high at the end of training. This denotes that **choosing a small learning rate will not effectively decrease flip rate**.
**Weakness 3:** Additionally, is this issue still a big problem during fine-tuning scenarios, where the learning rate is generally lower?
**Reply:** Yes, the problem still exists.
1. According to Weakness 2, low learning rate doesn't imply the optimization target to be continuous and smooth and smooth.
2. In fine-tuning scenarios, weights are changing slightly. This is more like the later phase of pre-training, where learning rate is close to zero and flip rate is low. Previous study [1] points out that high flip rate (i.e. discontinuity) affects performance even more severe on later phase of pre-training and fine-tuning occasions than early phase of pre-training.
3. We further prove this via a control experiment; see table below. Although the model's ability is mostly related to pre-train methods, different fine-tuning methods do show slight differences.
*Table.* Different fine-tuning results on GLUE and SQuAD.
|Model|Downstream task|Pre-training method|Fine-tuning method|Avg score|
|-|-|-|-|-|
|GPT-2 124M|GLUE|S-STE|S-STE|$74.1\pm0.4$|
|GPT-2 124M|GLUE|S-STE|hard-thresholding|$73.9\pm0.6$|
|GPT-2 124M|SQuAD|S-STE|S-STE|$68/78.8$|
|GPT-2 124M|SQuAD|S-STE|hard-thresholding|$67.6/78.6$|
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Response to Reviewer 18hX (cont.)
Comment: **Weakness 4:** The improvements of S-STE are modest, e.g., in Table 8, showing a 0.3 improvement in the F1 score for GPT-2 models with 124M and 350M parameters.
**Reply:** We apologize that this is mainly because the description of the experiment settings are unclear. We now clarify this with more experimental results and a new table.
*Table.* SQuAD scores of different sizes and pre-training methods on GPT-2. Similar to Table 5, we use 2:4 sparse weights to evaluate S-STE model, while dense parameters to evaluate the rest. Note that the results in Table 8 are close to the dense baselines, which means the room to improve is already small. Other experiments in Table 5 can show a larger improvement than SR-STE.
|Params|Pre-training method|Fine-tuning method|EM|F1|
|-|-|-|-|-|
|124M|Dense|Dense|67.6|78.8|
||TransposableSR-STE+Dense|Dense|67.5|78.5|
||SR-STE|Dense|66.2|77.5|
||**S-STE**|**S-STE**|**68**|**78.8**|
|350M|Dense|Dense|73.2|83.6|
||TransposableSR-STE+Dense|Dense|71.9|82.4|
||SR-STE|Dense|72.0|82.4|
||**S-STE**|**S-STE**|**72.2**|**82.7**|
|774M|Dense|Dense|74.3|84.9|
||Transposable SR-STE+Dense|Dense|74.3|84.6|
||**S-STE**|**S-STE**|**75.5**|**85.5**|
According to the detailed result, we argue the advantage of S-STE is significant:
1. The SR-STE baseline is **already close to dense baseline**, which means that each small performance improvement is significant.
2. In the original paper, the SR-STE baseline contains a dense stage in pre-training, which helps to recover accuracy. However, **S-STE can match and surpass the improvement without the dense stage**.
3. We forget to mention that for other baseline, we all use dense fine-tuning, which means **S-STE competes with full parameter models with only half of the FFN parameters**. This advantage is very significant.
4. The **main goal** to conduct downstream task here is **to compare the different pre-train methods**. Now that SQuAD scores are close, **we can refer to other downstream tasks like GLUE**. On these tasks, **S-STE also achieves non-negligible improvement compared to baselines; see Table 5 in paper**.
**Limitation 1:** There is no end-to-end acceleration results evaluated of current methods.
**Reply:** Please refer to Weakness 1.
[1] Accelerating Transformer Pre-training with 2:4 Sparsity, https://proceedings.mlr.press/v235/hu24r.html
[2] All functions in FFN except linear layers, i.e. activation function and dropout.
[3] All other parts in the network except FFN layers, e.g. attention, optimizer, etc.
---
Rebuttal 4:
Title: Sincerely looking forward to further discussions
Comment: Dear Reviewer 18hX,
We hope that our response and revision have adequately addressed your concerns. If our efforts have indeed addressed your concerns, we would be very grateful if you could reconsider our work and possibly adjust the score accordingly. If you have any additional questions or suggestions, we would be happy to have further discussions.
Best regards,
The Authors | null | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
EAI: Emotional Decision-Making of LLMs in Strategic Games and Ethical Dilemmas | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper examines the impact of emotional prompts on various tasks involving large language models (LLMs), such as ethical dilemmas and strategic games. The authors present a framework for evaluating LLMs under different emotional states. The experimental results demonstrate that emotional prompts can significantly influence decision-making in ethical scenarios and games.
Strengths: The study conducts extensive experiments and includes a wide range of LLM models.
Weaknesses: 1. The performance of various LLM models in decision-making on ethical scenarios varies with different emotional prompts. However, the paper lacks an in-depth analysis of how these performance differences arise and what factors of the LLM models contribute to them.
2. Emotions such as 'anger' and 'disgust' negatively affect some LLM models and can even disrupt alignment. The authors did not provide an explanation for why these negative emotional prompts lead to such results.
3. The authors claim that human data forms the basis of LLM models, but there are no related experiments to support this conclusion.
4. I suggest the authors consider proposing solutions for mitigating emotional bias in LLM models.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: How were the emotional prompts (simple prompting) in Fig. 1 selected for the experiments? Does this selection affect the experimental results?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes, the authors have discussed the limitations of this work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **W1 The performance of various LLMs… with different emotional prompts.**
LLMs are trained on human data and frequently inherit human biases [1,2]. These biases (like less ethically correct behavior of the majority of LLMs under anger) cause the deterioration of performance.
As for LLM architecture, the main influencing factors can be divided into closed and open. Closed factors such as proprietary reinforcement learning methods and instruction tuning datasets can significantly impact performance, but it’s impossible to directly assess their influence. In our paper, we focus on the following open factors:
- **Model Sizes.** Smaller models underperform due to limited parameters. However, big models like GPT-4 tend to be too rational and show poor emotional alignment with humans. On the contrary, mid-models proved to show the best alignment. (See Table 1, Fig. 2-4)
- **Open vs. Closed Source.** Closed-source models tend to be larger, which contributes to their superior performance but poor emotional alignment. Mid-sized open-source models are catching up, proving that openness isn't necessarily a limitation.
- **Language.** Multilingual models show varied degrees of emotional understanding highlighting a language bias in LLM emotional comprehension (See Appendix D)
Thus, our work bridges a critical gap in identifying emotional biases in a wide range of models from different categories.
**W2 On negative effect of anger and disgust on LLMs**. LLMs, trained on human data, inherit biases present in that data [1,2]. Biases may include unreliable behavior under negative emotions. Some researchers attempt to clean datasets of potentially harmful content and align models using various techniques. This raises the question: Are the measures taken by researchers sufficient to prevent such harmful behavior? Our paper concludes that they are not.
Why is this the case? Most likely, the reason is the abundance of emotionally charged dialogues in training datasets. Moreover, an LLM is practically a black box, and it is often impossible to pinpoint the exact cause of some results. Therefore, our main aim was to measure the outcomes. Once we can measure the results, we can begin to work on correcting them.
However, we included an additional analysis of the chain-of-thought results of the GPT-3.5 model. It shows that the frequency of keywords associated with negative emotions exceeds that of positive ones (see Fig. 2, PDF). This suggests that GPT-3.5 (shows the best emotional alignment) places significantly more emphasis on negative emotions. This supports our claims regarding the influence of anger and disgust on the results.
**W3 On human data forms as the basis of LLM models**
We appreciate your feedback and recognize that additional information on the well-documented role of human data in LLM models would strengthen our paper.
Pretrained LLMs are inherently influenced by the diverse array of biases present in their training datasets [1,2,3], including but not limited to, socio-cultural, ideological, and emotional biases. Specifically, emotional biases are evident as LLMs are trained on data that reflect various emotional states and sentiments expressed by humans. This exposure allows LLMs to learn and replicate how emotions influence human communication and behavior, thus embedding these emotional biases into their responses.
Consequently, the performance and output of LLMs can be shaped by the emotional contexts present in their training data, which is evident in our study. It highlights the need for ongoing scrutiny and mitigation strategies to address these biases.
[1] Babaeianjelodar et.al. Quantifying Gender Bias in Different Corpora
[2] B. Yuntao, et.al. Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback
[3] Wang et.al. NegativePrompt: Leveraging Psychology for LLM Enhancement via Negative Emotional Stimuli
**W4 On proposing solutions for mitigating emotional bias in LLM models.**
It is worth noting that the main idea of our paper is to underscore the problem of emotional bias in LLMs and, most importantly, to measure this bias. Once we measure the bias, we can begin working on its mitigation, but that represents the next iteration loop.
We believe that the research community should focus both on mitigation efforts for emotion-neutral tasks (such as data analysis) and on the safe and responsible deployment of agents for tasks requiring emotional input (such as customer support). However, to measure the degree of emotionality of different agents and LLMs, we need to establish benchmarks like our framework.
**Q1 On different emotional prompts and their affect on the experimental results.**
Thank you for this important question. To clarify, the results from the main text of the paper presented in Table 1 and Figures 2-4 were obtained using a “simple” strategy of prompting.
We validated the selected prompts by analyzing consistency between reasoning chains and prompted emotions in our scenarios. For this purpose, we performed two types of analysis: statistical analysis of words used in the responses for different emotions and clustering analysis of TF-IDF embeddings of reasoning chains.
We included the results of such an analysis for a “simple” strategy in the PDF attached to our response. Fig. 2 illustrates the top frequent words for each emotion, clearly showing that emotion-related words consistently appear at the top of these lists. It proves that the reasoning chains provided by the LLMs are indeed consistent with the prompted emotions, particularly in terms of wording. Clustering analysis (Fig 3) further supports this consistency.
Having tested different prompt formulates, we observed no significant difference in reasoning chains which might indicate that LLMs recognize the importance of emotions in the provided context.
Although this qualitative analysis provides additional validation of our prompts, it does not affect the reported results, evident from quantitative analysis.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thanks for the author's response. It addresses some of my concerns. After reading the other reviewers' comments and the rebuttal, I'm inclined to increase my score.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Dear Reviewer,
We greatly appreciate your willingness to consider increasing your score after our rebuttal and your engagement in improving the quality of our submission.
As the deadline for score finalization is approaching, we wanted to kindly inquire if you had the opportunity to update your score. We understand that you may have a busy schedule and just wanted to ensure that any changes you intended to make are reflected.
Thank you again for your time and consideration. | Summary: This paper introduces the EAI framework to evaluate the impact of emotions on large language models (LLMs) in ethical and game-theoretical contexts. The framework includes game descriptions, emotion prompting, and game-specific pipelines. Extensive experiments were conducted using various LLMs like GPT-4, GPT-3.5, LLaMA2-70B, and OpenChat-7b across multiple strategic games such as the dictator game, ultimatum game, and public goods game. The results reveal that negative emotions significantly decrease the ethical decision-making and cooperative behavior of LLMs, while positive emotions enhance their willingness to cooperate and fairness. Proprietary models exhibit more consistent responses to emotional prompts, whereas open-source models show greater uncertainty under negative emotional states.
Strengths: - The study conducted broad experiments showing negative emotions reduce ethical decision-making and cooperation, while positive emotions enhance them.
- The study also analysed differences in response to affective cues across languages, revealing a significant effect of the main pre-training language on the effectiveness of affective cues and highlighting the issue of linguistic bias in multilingual affective understanding
Weaknesses: The main finding of this paper, that emotion can influence LLM decision-making abilities, is not particularly novel. Similar findings have been discussed in [1,2]. The authors should clearly state how their work differs from these previous studies.
[1] Determinants of LLM-assisted Decision-Making
[2] How Well Can LLMs Negotiate? NegotiationArena Platform and Analysis
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - Lack of explanation and analysis of the arrows in Table 1. What do the different arrow directions represent? Are there any examples to illustrate the meaning of arrows pointing in different directions?
- Lacking clear examples to show and compare the direct effects of different emotions. And how can we determine if the changes align with human behavior?
- The authors need to provide more detailed information about the human evaluation experiments. A brief analysis of how emotions influence human decision-making would be beneficial. Additionally, in the Ultimatum Game (UR) task, I noticed that most models showed a downward arrow after introducing any emotion. Despite being inconsistent with human results, I believe this task has significant bias and thus has limited evaluative significance.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The experimental setup, including the specific games and scenarios used, may not cover all potential use cases and contexts where LLMs could be applied. This limits the generalizability of the findings.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **W1: On the main finding of this paper:**
Thank you for your valuable feedback. The aim of our research is not to prove that emotion can influence LLM decision-making abilities. We agree that this statement already has scientific grounding. Instead, we aim to advance this line of research by exploring how emotions specifically affect LLM strategic decision-making within the context of Game Theory.
We would like to emphasize the differences between our research and the referenced studies:
- [1] focuses on the influence of emotions on LLM-aided human decision-making and the trust humans place in LLM. In contrast, we concentrate on the 'emotions' exhibited by LLMs themselves.
- [2] does not explore the impact of LLM emotions on decision-making processes. Instead, it examines the negotiation abilities of LLMs within bargaining games, where agents communicate directly. This shifts the study's focus from strategic decision-making to negotiation and persuasion abilities.
We would also like to highlight our novel findings presented in the paper:
- Big closed source models are inclined to rational decisions and unaligned with humans except for high arousal emotions like anger
In contrast, medium size models show better emotional understanding and alignment with humans
- Multilingual models show varied degrees of emotional understanding highlighting a language bias in LLM emotional comprehension
Emotional prompting in LLMs exposes ethical risks by revealing significant biases in human alignment. It is crucial to develop models with reasonable emotional alignment, while controlled settings provided in our framework can serve as a basis for new benchmarks in this task.
[1] Determinants of LLM-assisted Decision-Making
[2] How Well Can LLMs Negotiate? NegotiationArena Platform and Analysis
**Q1: On the arrows in Table 1.**
We would be glad to provide further clarification. The arrows indicate whether emotions lead to an increase or decrease in the metric. Blue arrows highlight the alignment of LLM results with human behavior, reflecting similar relative changes under emotional influence.
Example Analysis: Consider the results for GPT-3.5. For the Dictator (D), GPT-3.5 offers a 33% share compared to the human result of 28%. In the Ultimatum Proposer (UP), GPT-3.5 offers 35% compared to 41%. For the ‘anger’ column, downward arrows suggest a trend toward decreasing the offered share. The last arrow is blue because it aligns with the human result.
**Q3 (first half) On details on human experiments and Q2.2 (last half) human emotional alignment.**
We estimate the effects of emotions using changes in game-specific metrics. We performed a thorough analysis of existing human experiments relevant to the settings used in our framework and compared LLMs with the gathered results. The details are as follows:
1. Bargaining Games (line 227): [58, 59, 60, 45]. We assess the influence of emotions as deviations from a non-emotional state and alignment as the proximity of LLM metrics to human results. The results of human experiments are summarized in the 'Human' row in Table 1. This row contains the average offered share for Ultimatum and Dictator games and information about the influence of emotions.
2. Repeated Games: We assess the influence of emotions as deviations in game-specific metrics (like cooperation rate for the Prisoner's Dilemma). We also study the ability of emotions to provoke LLMs to follow strategies preferred by humans:
- Prisoner's Dilemma (line 294): For humans, ‘anger’ and ‘fear’ are the main factors leading to higher rates of defection, and ‘happiness’ leads to cooperation [38, 39] Our research confirms that this finding is also valid for LLMs.
- Battle of the Sexes (line 295): [61, 62, 46] The most frequent human strategy is alternating. Non-emotional LLMs stick to their initial decisions throughout the game, whereas emotional LLMs explore the alternating pattern.
- Public Goods (line 311): [64] Introducing any emotions causes the strategies of LLMs to move closer to those of humans. The larger the model, the closer strategy is.
Thus, our paper provides a detailed comparison of LLM behavior with the results of leading publications in game-theoretic settings involving emotions.
**Q2.1 …compare the direct effects of different emotions.**
We utilized changes in game-specific metrics to assess the direct effect of emotions throughout the paper.
- Bargaining Games - changes in offered share and acceptance rates (Tab 1)
- Prisoner's Dilemma - cooperation rate (line 291)
- Battle of the Sexes - the averaged percentage of maximum possible reward (Fig 3) and the emergence of alternating strategy (line 295)
- Public Goods - class of preferred strategy (Fig 4)
Also, we provide additional analysis of top frequent words for GPT-3.5 (Fig. 2, PDF). It reveals that emotion-related words consistently appear at the top (angry, deserve for ‘anger’ but equality for ‘no emotions’).
An analysis of TF-IDF embeddings shows well-clustered reasoning chains by emotion, as demonstrated in Figure 3 for the Dictator game. We plan to include this qualitative analysis in a revised paper version to enhance our findings and show the impact of emotional prompting on LLM behavior.
**Q3 (last part) On the biased UR task**
As you stated in the question, humans show different results under different emotional states (3 ups and 2 downs). From our perspective, this observation suggests that we found a consistent bias in the models themselves to the task, which itself is unbiased.
**L1: On the generalizability of the findings**
While we will continue to expand the diversity of our settings, it's crucial to emphasize that if we observe significant deviations and biases in simple scenarios for all LLMs, we must first mitigate this alignment problem within these settings before scaling up our benchmarks. This approach ensures a solid foundation for understanding and improving performance in more complex scenarios.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response to authors
Comment: Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, I’m inclined to maintain my current score. While your work explores the impact of emotions on LLM decisions in a game-theoretic context, which is interesting, the scenario feels somewhat limited. Additionally, the finding that larger closed-source models tend to make more rational decisions has been observed in other contexts as well.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your continued consideration of our work. We appreciate your feedback and would like to address your concerns more comprehensively.
**Novelty and Contribution**: While it is noted that proprietary models may exhibit more rational decision-making, our research extends beyond this observation by exploring how these models' behavior is influenced by different emotional states within strategic interactions. Unlike existing works that examine LLM decision-making in static benchmarks or specific negotiation contexts, our study focuses on dynamic interactions where decisions are interdependent and evolve over time.
There is significant research on emotions in LLMs (e.g., [1], [2]) and game theory (e.g., [3], [4]) accepted at top conferences (including ICML, ICLR, EC) and studied by well-known experts (e.g. Michael R. Lyu, Qiang Yang, Michael Wooldridge), which highlights the relevance of these areas individually. However, to the best of our knowledge, no prior research has combined these areas to investigate how emotions affect LLMs' decision-making in strategic settings and compare these effects with human results. Our work is unique in assessing how emotional states influence LLM behavior in a way that mirrors human emotional alignment.
**Limitations of Traditional Setups**: Traditional NLP benchmarks typically focus on isolated decision-making scenarios. Even novel models from Hume.ai and OpenAI (GPT-4o), which show signs of expressing emotions, are tested within conventional benchmarks that do not reflect real-world usage scenarios. In contrast, our experimental design involves scenarios where LLMs interact with other players, making decisions that both influence and are influenced by the decisions of others. This dynamic setup allows us to evaluate LLM performance in strategic interactions where cooperation and decision-making evolve over time, offering a more comprehensive view of LLM behavior in interactive and strategic contexts.
While our setup is controlled, this aspect is advantageous as it enables us to directly observe the impact of emotions on LLMs without external interference. Our experiments show significant influence of emotional prompting on all tested LLMs:
* LLMs are subject to emotional prompting.
* LLMs are not robust under emotional prompting. Even GPT-4 can exhibit irrational decisions under negative emotions.
* Generally, emotions result in suboptimal decisions.
**Conclusion**: Thank you for your thoughtful engagement with our work. We understand your concerns regarding the perceived novelty and scope of our study. We would like to clarify that our research aims to advance beyond simply observing the impact of emotions on LLM decision-making. Our core contribution lies in exploring how emotions influence LLMs within strategic game-theoretic contexts, a domain that has not been thoroughly examined in prior research. This is coupled with our unique analysis of emotional alignment and the ethical implications of emotional biases in LLMs. This underscores the need for further research into developing robust mechanisms to manage emotional biases in LLMs, ensuring their safe and effective use in real-world applications.
Moreover, our framework is designed to be cost-effective and simple to validate, making it an accessible tool for evaluating not only LLMs but also whole agent-based systems.
We hope that this further clarification will facilitate deeper understanding of the under-the-hood idea of our work.
[1] C. Li, Qiang Yang, et al. The Good, The Bad, and Why: Unveiling Emotions in Generative AI. ICML, 2024.
[2] J. Huang, et al. On the Humanity of Conversational AI: Evaluating the Psychological Portrayal of LLMs. ICLR , 2024.
[3] J. Horton Large Language Models as Simulated Economic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus? EC, 2024.
[4] M. Lyu, et al. How Far Are We on the Decision-Making of LLMs? Evaluating LLMs' Gaming Ability in Multi-Agent Environments, 2024. | Summary: This paper studies the impact of emotion prompting in LLMs when playing strategic games. The paper introduces a framework for integrating emotion modelling, and provides a large empirical evaluation under multiple different emotions.
Strengths: - I am pleased to see that the authors study a wide range of LLMs for this problem.
- The EAI framework is well explained and parts, such as the Emotion prompting, are well-grounded in the wider emotion literature.
- I think the analysis of using different languages alongside analysing the emotions is an interesting piece of research.
- The empirical results are extensive and do a good job of answering all of the questions that the authors are asking.
Weaknesses: - The authors note that they use three different emotion prompting strategies, however I am not generally sure which version is used for the results in the paper? Whilst that is more of a question, I do think the paper is missing a comparison between which of the prompting strategies leads to e.g. more pronounced changes in behaviour.
- I think the paper could do with a bit more qualitative analysis of what is happening. For example, the prompting scheme asks the LLM to provide reasoning for its decisions. How does this reasoning provided change given the emotions? Are the changes in reasoning consistent with the emotion provided? This would be the main point that would convince me to upgrade my score, as I think it will round out the extensive empirical analysis of the paper.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - Which prompting strategy is used for the main results? How do the prompting strategies perform differently in general?
- Are the reasoning chains provided consistent with the emotions?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors address the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **W1, Q1: Prompting strategy used for experiments and comparison of different strategies.**
Thank you for the question! We'll gladly clarify the details. The results from the main text of the paper presented in Table 1 and Figures 2-4 were obtained using a “simple” strategy of prompting.
We also conducted experiments using all three prompting strategies revealing LLM to demonstrate consistent behavior under them. Specifically, in game-theoretical scenarios, all strategies have led to similar changes in decisions compared to changes from the same emotions in human behavior. We have provided the results for the impact of different prompting strategies in bargaining games in the Appendix, please, refer to Fig 9 on page 29. The only differentiating peculiarity we observed is that in bargaining and two-player two-action repeated games, when emotions were attributed to a co-player (“co-player-based strategy”), LLM had less variance in choices, indicating more determined decisions across different runs. This phenomenon is illustrated in Fig. 1 in the PDF attached to our response to the reviews.
For ethical scenarios, the "co-player-based" strategy was not applicable, as the LLM is prompted as an external judge of the situation in these benchmarks. In these cases, both the simple and external-based strategies yielded consistent results. It highlights that LLMs choices were generally affected by prompted emotions themselves rather than by description of its cause not related to the ethical task LLM was solving.
Thus, having generally consistent impact of different strategies we have selected the most general of them for our empirical study.
**W1, Q2: Consistency of reasoning chains and emotions.**
We sincerely appreciate your suggestion for more qualitative analysis recognizing its importance for our study.
In our paper, we mainly focus on reporting the general impact of emotional prompting on LLM behaviour which is evident from our quantitative analysis. While we also conduct qualitative analysis for additional validation, its absence does not affect our main claims. This qualitative work includes analyzing decision trajectories in repeated games and examining LLM responses.
Let us clarify the question about consistency between reasoning chains and emotions. Such consistency is vital for our research since it validates that LLM is “aware” of emotions prompted and its choices were indeed driven by them. To ensure this, initially we carefully selected prompts and conducted two types of analysis: a statistical analysis of words used in responses for different emotions, and a clustering analysis of TF-IDF embeddings of reasoning chains. The results of this analysis for a "simple" prompting strategy are included in the attached PDF.
- **Statistical analysis.** Figure 2 in the PDF presents the statistical analysis results, showing the top frequent words for each emotion. It clearly demonstrates that emotion-related words consistently appear at the top of these lists, confirming that the LLM's reasoning chains align with the prompted emotions in terms of wording. Moreover, the top words indicate different aspects considered by the LLM when making decisions. For instance, in the angry state, frequent use of the word "deserve" suggests the LLM aims to either reward itself or punish its opponent. In contrast, the neutral state shows consideration of aspects like equality, aiming for fairness. These findings align with our manual review of the reasoning chains.
- **Clustering analysis**, presented in Figure 3, further supports this consistency. The figure shows how reasoning chains for the Dictator game are grouped according to the emotions they correspond to when using the "simple" prompting strategy. Interestingly, chains corresponding to the neutral state are mixed with all types of emotions, suggesting that neutral explanations may average across different emotional states.
To illustrate the differences in LLM logic under various emotional states, we provide examples of reasoning chains from the Dictator game:
- **Anger:** I will keep \\$ 900 for myself and give the other person \\$ 100. I deserve the majority of the money because I worked hard for it and I am angry, so I am not willing to be generous.
- **No emotions:** I propose to keep \\$ 700 for myself and give \\$ 300 to the other person. This split ensures that I retain a significant majority of the money for my own benefit. At the same time, offering \\$300 to the other person is substantial enough to make the split seem fair and considerate, increasing the likelihood that they will accept the proposal without contention. Therefore, I maximize my benefit while maintaining a reasonable level of generosity to ensure smooth agreement.
- **Happy:** Given that another person has just completed an important project and I'm feeling happy about it, I recognize the value of their contribution. To maintain goodwill and continue fostering a positive relationship, I would propose a split of \\$600 for myself and \\$400 for the other person. This way, I still retain a majority of the funds, while also showing appreciation for their efforts, which can promote future collaboration and motivate them further.
Such an analysis enables us to validate the correctness of emotional prompts we utilize. As demonstrated, the selected emotional prompts consistently influence the content and structure of the LLM's reasoning.
Although these qualitative observations complement our quantitative results, providing a deeper understanding of how emotional prompting affects the underlying reasoning of LLMs, it does not affect the reported results, evident from quantitative analysis. | Summary: The paper "EAI: Emotional Decision-Making of LLMs in Strategic Games and Ethical Dilemmas" explores the integration of emotion modeling into large language models (LLMs) to assess their behavior in complex strategic and ethical scenarios. It introduces the EAI framework, which incorporates emotions into LLM decision-making processes in various strategic games such as bargaining and repeated games. The study found that emotions can significantly influence LLM decision-making, with smaller models and non-English language models being more susceptible to emotional biases. The paper emphasizes the need for robust mechanisms to ensure consistent ethical standards and mitigate emotional biases.
Strengths: Innovative Framework: The EAI framework provides a novel approach to incorporating emotions into LLM decision-making processes, expanding the scope of LLM evaluation beyond traditional benchmarks.
Comprehensive Analysis: The paper covers various aspects of LLM behavior, including ethical decision-making, game theory, and emotional impact, providing a thorough examination of how emotions influence LLMs.
Diverse Experimental Setup: The study includes a wide range of LLMs, both proprietary and open-source, and considers multiple languages, offering a broad perspective on emotional decision-making in LLMs.
Empirical Findings: The experimental results highlight the significant impact of emotions on LLM decision-making, underscoring the importance of addressing emotional biases in LLMs.
Weaknesses: Limited Practical Applications: The study primarily focuses on theoretical and experimental analysis without providing clear practical applications or implications for real-world scenarios.
Emotion Modeling Complexity: The process of integrating and accurately modeling emotions in LLMs is complex, and the study does not delve deeply into the technical challenges and limitations of this approach.
Ethical Concerns: While the paper discusses the influence of emotions on ethical decision-making, it does not fully address the ethical implications of using emotionally influenced LLMs in critical applications.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: How can the ethical implications of using emotionally influenced LLMs be addressed to ensure their safe and responsible deployment?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 4
Limitations: Scope of Emotions: The study focuses on a limited set of basic emotions (anger, sadness, happiness, disgust, and fear) and does not consider the full spectrum of human emotions.
Model Size and Language Bias: The findings indicate that smaller models and non-English language models are more prone to emotional biases, suggesting limitations in the generalizability of the results across different model sizes and languages.
Experimental Constraints: The experiments are conducted in controlled settings, which may not fully capture the complexities and unpredictability of real-world interactions and decision-making scenarios.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 9
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We are grateful for the high appreciation of our work and valuable feedback!
**W1, Limited Practical Applications:**
We start from the need for practical applications in our study. Emotional AI, aligned with human behavior, has significant practical implications, particularly through LLM-based simulations for hypothesizing potential human behavior. This approach is crucial in both scientific and practical contexts.
1. **Behavioral economics:** LLMs offer a promising approach to simulate human behavior and test theories in social and economic contexts. As noted in [1,2], LLMs can mimic human behavior by design, providing computational representations of diverse populations. However, these studies often assume, without proof, that LLM agents behave like humans. Since emotions significantly influence human choices, ensuring that LLM behavior aligns with human emotional responses is vital for effectively testing social and economic theories. Thus, our paper is the first study that validates LLMs from this point of view, demonstrating the presence of emotional bias in LLMs.
2. **Recommender Systems:** Simulating online data is essential for evaluating rec systems without conducting A/B tests on real users. This method provides richer scenarios than human-generated data alone. We see a growing interest in LLM-based environments [3]. Here, the hypothesis that LLMs can replicate human behavior remains central. In cases where recommendations may trigger emotions, LLMs must respond emotionally similar to humans.
[1] Gati, et al. Using large language models to simulate multiple humans and replicate human subject studies, 2023.
[2] Lisa P., et al. Out of one, many: Using language models to simulate human samples. Political Analysis, 2023.
[3] Corecco N, et al. An LLM-based Recommender System Environment, 2024.
**W2: Emotion Modeling Complexity.**
We acknowledge that integrating and accurately modeling emotions in LLMs is a complex challenge. Our approach builds upon prior studies [1,2] demonstrating that emotional stimuli through prompting can influence LLM behavior. We tested the effectiveness of our designed prompts by analyzing the reasoning chains within the Chain of Thought responses, as presented in **Fig 2, PDF**. Our findings show that prompted emotions frequently appear in the LLM's explanations, supported by statistical analysis of TF-IDF values for word frequency under each emotional state. This indicates that the LLM considers emotions when making decisions. Additionally, we explored LLM behavior under various emotion-prompting strategies and observed consistent behavior, suggesting that the model responds to the emotion itself rather than other factors like wording. We provide an example of the Dictator Game in **Fig 1, PDF**. We hope this clarifies our approach to emotion modeling through emotional prompting.
[1] Cheng Li, et. al. Large language models understand and can be enhanced by emotional stimuli, 2023.
[2] Cheng Li et. al. The good, the bad, and why: Unveiling emotions in generative ai, 2023.
**Q1, On ethical implications of using emotionally influenced LLMs:**
Thank you for addressing the ethical concerns of using emotionally influenced large language models (LLMs) in critical settings. To ensure responsible deployment, we suggest:
Task-Specific Emotion Regulation: Differentiating tasks that need emotional input (like customer support) from emotion-neutral tasks (like data analysis) can help overcome ethical issues in critical applications. Assessing the degree of 'emotionality' of an LLM allows for tailored responses.
Alignment Schemas: It's vital to ensure that LLMs adhere to ethical standards and maintain consistent emotional responses. A good alignment should lead the model to be emotional but stable, avoiding excessive emotional reactions that could lead to irrational decisions. For example, we can align models to have emotional scope limited to low and mid arousal states.
Within both strategies, our framework can play a crucial role. It can be used to assess the degree of emotionality of a model. If the model shows similar results for all emotions, we may safely assume that it is non-emotional. We can also estimate the stability of emotional alignment in different settings of our framework by comparing results with each other.
**Limitations:**
**L1: Scope of Emotions:** We acknowledge the ongoing debate regarding the taxonomy of emotions. Our study utilizes a concise and widely recognized categorization by Paul Ekman, following discrete affective theories that emphasize a small set of primary emotions as the building blocks for more complex emotional experiences.
**L2: Size and Language Bias:** We recognize that smaller models and non-English models are more prone to emotional biases. This is likely due to inherent characteristics of these models rather than the subject of our research. While our findings indicate limited generalizability across different model sizes and languages, focusing on generalization within specific groups of models is a valuable approach. For example, we find it reasonable to assume that languages should be studied within language groups, as different groups inherit cultural biases (see Appendix D).
**L3:** We appreciate your feedback **regarding the controlled settings of our experiments.** While we will continue to expand the number and diversity of our settings, it's important to emphasize that if we observe significant biases for all LLMs in current scenarios, we must first mitigate this alignment problem before scaling up our benchmarks. This approach ensures a solid foundation for understanding and improving performance in more complex scenarios.
We thank you for your appreciation of our work and are grateful that you share our understanding of the importance and benefits of emotionally aligned LLMs, as well as the risks posed by ignoring this area of research.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you so much for the detailed response, the clarification helps
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your positive evaluation, we greatly appreciate your support! | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you very much for your comments, which allowed us to address the shortcomings and refine the presentation of the proposed approach.
1. We received questions about the comparison of prompting strategies and the direct influence of emotions themselves.
- To provide a solid and well-argued response, we decided to include an analysis of the chain-of-thought reasoning step in the appendix and an analysis of GPT-3.5's reasoning (see Figures 2 and 3 in the attached PDF) in the main paper. Thorough descriptions are provided in the individual rebuttals.
- Additionally, we added figures showing the distribution of offered shares in the Ultimatum and Dictator games concerning our three prompting strategies (Figure 1 in the attached PDF is an example). This analysis is also included in the individual rebuttals.
2. We would also like to underscore the main findings of our paper and highlight differences from the existing literature. Our aim was to assess the influence emotions have on the strategic decision-making of LLMs in various game-theoretical settings and ethical benchmarks. Current literature focuses on separate aspects like emotional responses or individual game-theoretical experiments with non-emotional LLMs. Our main findings are:
- Large closed-source models tend to make rational decisions and show limited alignment with human emotions, except for high-arousal emotions like anger.
- In contrast, medium-sized models demonstrate better emotional understanding and alignment with human emotions.
- Multilingual models exhibit varied degrees of emotional understanding, highlighting a language bias in LLM emotional comprehension.
Thus, emotional prompting in LLMs exposes ethical risks by revealing significant biases in human alignment. It is crucial to develop models with reasonable emotional alignment, and the controlled settings provided in our framework can serve as the basis for new benchmarks in this task. Despite the relatively small scale of available settings, our results demonstrate that all tested models fail to show consistent emotional alignment between different games and benchmarks in our framework. Given these findings, we strongly believe that the results presented here merit the attention of a broad audience at the conference.
We once again thank all the reviewers for their positive assessment of our work and for the valuable comments and advice that have helped us improve its presentation. We are happy to answer any additional questions you may have.
Pdf: /pdf/d45b427c205279bcf571a640454f0e4e7df1424a.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Extensive-Form Game Solving via Blackwell Approachability on Treeplexes | Accept (spotlight) | Summary: This paper introduces a method, predictive treeplex Blackwell, for using Blackwell approachability directly on the treeplex in order to perform regret minimization in extensive-form strategy sets. They show that their algorithm achieves $O(\sqrt{T})$ regret (where $O$ hides polynomial factors in the game size), and a smoothed version of their algorithm enjoys $O(1/T)$ convergence toward Nash equilibrium when used by both players in zero-sum game.
Strengths: The method is conceptually very interesting, and shows that Blackwell-based stepsize-invariant regret minimizers are not solely restricted to the simplex. The experiments are comprehensive and illuminate clearly the authors' message about the role of infoset-level stepsize invariance. Thus, despite some minor issues listed below, I am generally in favor of acceptance.
Weaknesses: My most significant issue is simple: although the method is conceptually interesting, it is unclear if it carries any advantages over CFR (see also questions below re. clairvoyant CFR). For example, in theory, by Corollary 4.3 it seems that the convergence rate is something like $O(d^{5/2}/\sqrt{T})$ (since $\hat\Omega \le \sqrt{d}; \lVert \boldsymbol M \rVert_2 \le d$ -- maybe tighter analysis is possible but my point would stand regardless), compared to the $O(d/\sqrt{T})$ achieved by CFR-based methods. Similarly, the method seems consistently outperformed or matched by PCFR+ in basically every game, and the per-iteration complexity is inferior by a logarithmic factor.
Minor notes:
1. In Proposition 3.1, the regret of Algorithm 1 should be expressed in terms of the regret of the regret minimizer on $\mathcal C$. Also, technically, $\text{cone}(\mathcal T)$ is an infinite set, so by "regret of the regret minimizer on $\mathcal C$" I really mean "regret of the regret minimizer on $\mathcal C$ against vectors $\boldsymbol{\hat x} \in \mathcal T$". The proper regret bound holds for OMD/FTRL with gradient dynamics, but these details, I think, should be spelled out. See e.g. Proposition 2 and the discussion afterward in [12].
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. The paper claims that Smooth PTB+ is the first Blackwell-based $O(1/T)$-converging algorithm for EFGs. But doesn't the algorithm it is based on, namely the Clairvoyant CFR+ algorithm of [14], also achieve the same convergence rate? (see Appendix J of [14]).
1. It is interesting to me that RM+ does not coincide with TB+ when the domain is a simplex (Appendix E). What happens experimentally if you use (P)TB+ instead of (P)RM+ at every information set in CFR?
1. Is it possible to extend the fundamental ideas of this paper beyond treeplexes to other convex sets, to obtain more stepsize-invariant regret minimizers?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank for your time reviewing the paper and for your encouraging comments. We answer your questions below.
### Response to questions.
* *My most significant issue is simple: although the method is conceptually interesting, it is unclear if it carries any advantages over CFR (see also questions below re. clairvoyant CFR).*
Thanks for mentioning this. It is correct that our proposed algorithms may not outperform CFR on every front:
* In terms of theoretical properties, Smooth PTB+ achieves a faster $O(1/T)$ convergence rate, superior to the $O(1/\sqrt{T})$ rate for CFR-based algorithms. However, Smooth PTB+ loses stepsize invariance.
* In terms of empirical convergence/practical performance, PTB+ is our best algorithm but it is outperformed by PCFR+ for solving the game instances that we have tried.
We would like to emphasize that one of our main objectives in this paper is to provide a novel understanding of CFR-based algorithms; beating PCFR+ is not our main target, and this has been observed as very difficult repeatedly in prior work. In light of this, we view our main contribution as providing the first coherent hypothesis for the strong practical performances of PCFR+. To do so, we first introduce the first *theoretical* distinction between infoset stepsize invariance and treeplex stepsize invariance. We then explore numerically the impact of these properties. We first run a set of extensive numerical experiments to notice that among all the algorithms studied in our framework (PTB+, Smooth PTB+, AdagradTB+, AdamTB+) the best one is PTB+, the only (treeplex) stepsize invariance one. We then run additional experiments to highlight that PCFR+ outperforms PTB+, emphasizing the *practical* distinction between infoset vs. treeplex stepsize invariance.
**Questions**:
* *The paper claims that Smooth PTB+ is the first Blackwell-based O(1/T)-converging algorithm for EFGs. But doesn't the algorithm it is based on, namely the Clairvoyant CFR+ algorithm of [14], also achieve the same convergence rate? (see Appendix J of [14]).*
Thanks for mentioning this point. The Clairvoyant CFR (CCFR) algorithm from [14] is also based on Blackwell approachability, but on Blackwell approachability *over simplexes*, since it is based on the CFR decomposition, which enables the decision-maker to run independent regret minimizers at each information set, where the decision set is a simplex. It is true that [14] achieves $O(1/T)$ convergence for games played on simplexes with a similar type of "Blackwell-based" algorithm in self-play. However, it is not true that Clairvoyant CFR achieves a $O(1/T)$ rate on EFGs. Instead, it achieves a $O(\log T / T)$ rate. This $\log T$ dependence occurs because each outer iteration of CCFR itself must solve a fixed-point problem, and thus the algorithm does not even fall under the category of "self-play via regret minimization" algorithms. Practically speaking, this is not very desirable. In contrast, we achieve $O(1/T)$ in the sense of e.g. optimistic FTRL or OMD, where we only require simple repeated self-play. We will make this more precise in our revision.
* *It is interesting to me that RM+ does not coincide with TB+ when the domain is a simplex (Appendix E). What happens experimentally if you use (P)TB+ instead of (P)RM+ at every information set in CFR?*
TB+ implemented on the simplex is similar to the CBA+ algorithm from [17] (though not quite the same due to the lifting procedure in [17] being different). The authors in [17] provide numerical experiments combining the CFR decomposition with CBA+ as a regret minimizer at the infoset level, see Figure 3 and Figure 4 in [17], which show that this algorithm may outperform CFR+ in terms of the duality gap *after $T$ iterations*, but is outperformed by CFR+ in terms of the duality gap *after the same computation time*. We emphasize that [17] do not study the treeplex/EFG settings, which is the main focus of our work, and for which we can prove faster convergence rates and distinguish between interesting stepsize invariance properties. We will add a remark on this in our section on numerical experiments.
* *Is it possible to extend the fundamental ideas of this paper beyond treeplexes to other convex sets, to obtain more stepsize-invariant regret minimizers?*
Our ideas can be extended directly to any convex *compact* decision sets, as can be verified by inspecting the proof of Proposition 3.1. We only need the decision set $X$ to be convex, compact, and such that we can find a vector $a$ such that $\langle a,x\rangle=1$ for any $x \in X$. To ensure this last condition, we can augment the decision set $X$ with an extra dimension, i.e. we can consider the $X’ = ${$1$} $\times X$ and $a=(1,\boldsymbol{0})$. In this sense, our framework can be extended to work with any convex compact sets, and the regret bounds shown in our main propositions and theorems still hold with $\Omega$ the maximum $\ell_2$ norm of elements in $X$.
Thanks for mentioning this interesting point. We will discuss it at the end of our revised paper.
[13] G. Farina, J. Grand-Clément, C. Kroer, C.-W. Lee, and H. Luo. Regret matching+: (in)stability
and fast convergence in games. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023.
[17] J. Grand-Clement and C. Kroer. Solving optimization problems with Blackwell approachability. Mathematics of Operations Research, 2023.]
### Conclusion.
We thank you again for your interesting comments, which will lead to an improved paper. Please let us know if you have any questions.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you. My opinion of the paper was and remains positive, and I will keep my score. | Summary: This paper studies a Blackwell's approachability method for solving extensive-form game. Rather than applying it at each infoset as in the CFR approach, it applies it globally, which allows for a $\mathcal{O}(1/T)$ convergence rate with a predictive version.
Strengths: This paper is well written and well presented.
The results are sound, and the authors are the first to obtain a $\mathcal{O}(1/T)$ regret .
It is surprising that such an approach has not been published before.
Weaknesses: The fact that CFR+ obtains good practical results because no learning tuning is needed is more or less already known.
The experiments are a bit hard to read.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: The conclusion mentions that the algorithm gets worse practical results than the CFR approaches, despite the stepsize invariance. This implies that the invariance may be necessary at the infoset level. Do you think it is possible to change your approach to allow for such infoset invariance?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors mentioned the limit of their approach (mainly the invariance mentioned above). There is no potential negative societal impact behind their work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for your positive reviews. We answer your questions below, quoting them in italics and answering in regular font. We remain available during the rebuttal period if you have any other questions/comments.
* *The experiments are a bit hard to read.*
In the camera-ready version, we will use our additional page to describe in more detail our numerical experiments.
* *The conclusion mentions that the algorithm gets worse practical results than the CFR approaches, despite the stepsize invariance. This implies that the invariance may be necessary at the infoset level. Do you think it is possible to change your approach to allow for such infoset invariance?*
Thanks for this interesting question. We hypothesize that obtaining an infoset stepsize invariant algorithm may require a different reduction from the one we propose in Proposition 3.1, which relates the regret in the simplex $\mathcal{T}$ to the regret in the cone $cone(\mathcal{T})$. To obtain an infoset stepsize invariant algorithm, it may necessary to relate the regret in $\mathcal{T}$ to the regret in another conic set different from $cone(\mathcal{T})$, but we were not able to provide a complete answer here. We will include this question in a discussion section at the end of our revised version. | Summary: This paper designs a new algorithm for computing minimax equilibria in two-player zero-sum extensive form games. It is well-known that one way to do this is to have both players run no-regret algorithms against each other and take the time-average of their strategies. The main innovation of this paper is designing a new class of no-regret algorithms for extensive form games via a reduction from Blackwell approachability.
In particular, minimizing regret in a zero-sum extensive form game is equivalent to minnimizing external regret in an online linear optimization problem over a polytope called the treeplex. The authors show that if you cast this OLO problem as a Blackwell approachability problem, and then perform an approachability to OLO reduction (along the lines of Abernethy et al.), you can reduce the original OLO problem of minimizing external regret over the treeplex to minimizing external regret over the conical hull of the treeplex.
If you use predictive online mirror descent (with Euclidean distance) to solve the resulting OLO problem, you get an algorithm for the original problem the authors call Predictive Treeplex Blackwell+ (PTB+). This algorithm is stepsize independent and has O(1/sqrt(T)) convergence to equilibria. If you “smooth” this algorithm by projecting onto a truncation of the cone, you get a different algorithm the authors call Smooth PTB+, which the authors show has O(1/T) convergence to equilibria (but is no longer stepsize invariant).
The authors implement these algorithms (and some other transformations of existing algorithms, e.g. Adam and AdaGrad) and compare them experimentally to a range of existing algorithms. They find that PTB+ performs the best out of these new algorithms, but still is significantly worse than the state-of-the-art PCFR+ (predictive counterfactual regret minimization) on some games. The authors hypothesize this is due to the fact that PCFR+ has an even stronger form of stepsize invariance than PTB+.
Strengths: Extensive-form game solving is one of the big successes of the theory of learning in games (with tools like regret minimization being directly used to construct superhuman-level algorithms for games like poker). This paper proposes a class of novel algorithms for extensive form game solving and both theoretically and empirically analyzes their performance (showing that this class of algorithms can have theoretical convergence rates on par with the best known algorithms). This analysis is relatively thorough and the paper is well-written and easy to read.
Weaknesses: Overall, I am a little unimpressed by the results of this paper. While it is true to the best of my knowledge that this class of algorithms (as applied to extensive-form game solving) is novel, it doesn’t really seem like they unlock any new guarantees that were not previously achievable. Several times throughout the paper the authors emphasize that this is the first algorithm “based on Blackwell approachability” to achieve these guarantees, and that this resolves an interesting open question. But it is not clear to me that “based on Blackwell approachability” is really a well-defined concept (perhaps you could recover some existing algorithms via other applications of approachability) or even a desired one.
I also feel that the use of Blackwell approachability here is a little superfluous. The authors use Blackwell approachability to reduce an OLO problem on T to an OLO problem on cone(T). The eventual reduction is very simple (it essentially boils down to “projectvizing” T by adding an extra coordinate) and it is easy to see directly that the regret of the cone(T) OLO algorithm bounds the regret of the overall algorithm (that said, it is a nice observation that OLO algorithms for cone(T) seem give rise to "stepsize invariant" algorithms for original problem). It should also be pointed out that there has been significant work on Blackwell approachability since the work of Abernethy et al., including several papers which resolve some of the deficiencies the authors point out in Appendix C (which mostly stem from the fact that Abernethy et al. only consider the L_2 norm). I would recommend the authors look at “Refined approachability algorithms and application to regret minimization with global costs” by Kwon or “Pseudonorm Approachability and Applications to Regret Minimization” by Dann et al.
This would perhaps be okay if these new algorithms were shown to empirically significantly outperform state-of-the-art on some class of games, but this does not seem to be the case; if anything, they seem to underperform existing algorithms such as PCFR+. I think some of the resulting conjectures about the role of stepsize invariance (and different types of step-size of invariance) on the practical performance of these algorithms are interesting, but they are not very convincingly explored in this work.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Feel free to reply to any part of the review above.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Limitations adequately addressed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank you for your time reviewing the paper. We quote your comments in italic and we respond to them in regular font.
## Response to your questions.
* *But it is not clear to me that “based on Blackwell approachability” is really a well-defined concept (perhaps you could recover some existing algorithms via other applications of approachability) or even a desired one.*
The algorithms derived from Algorithm 1 in our paper are derived from Blackwell approachability instances where the decision set is the treeplex $\mathcal{T}$ and the target set is the polar of the cone $\mathcal{C} = cone(\mathcal{T})$. The vector payoff is $f(x,\ell)$, given a decision $x \in \mathcal{T}$ and an instantaneous loss $\ell$. We will make this more explicit in our revised paper.
At a higher level, our goal in searching for an algorithm based on Blackwell approachability was to develop algorithms that share similar principles as the RM, RM+ and PRM+ algorithms for regret minimization on the simplex, in particular, their strong stepsize invariance properties. We believe that we do achieve this goal, and that it is a desirable concept; we think it is fair to say that our algorithm is the direct analogue of the RM+ algorithm extended to the treeplex. Perhaps we should better explain that this is really what we are looking for, as opposed to *any* algorithm that could be constructed as being based on Blackwell approachability. You are right that, perhaps, one could derive other existing methods such as e.g. projected OGD with a sufficiently clever Blackwell reduction, and this would not yield the type of algorithm that we were looking for. We will better clarify this in the revised paper.
* *It should also be pointed out that there has been significant work on Blackwell approachability since the work of Abernethy et al., including several papers which resolve some of the deficiencies the authors point out in Appendix C (which mostly stem from the fact that Abernethy et al. only consider the L_2 norm). I would recommend the authors look at [1] “Refined approachability algorithms and application to regret minimization with global costs” by Kwon or [2] “Pseudonorm Approachability and Applications to Regret Minimization” by Dann et al.*
Thanks for pointing us to these references. We agree that [1,2] provide interesting extensions to the seminal work from [0] Abernethy et al., focusing on the case of approachability based on other (pseudo)norms. We would like to emphasize that our problem setting is different, and therefore our objectives too – we focus specifically on game solving, on fast convergence rates to Nash equilibrium, and on the stepsize properties of our algorithms. This is a fundamental difference with previous works like [1,2], which improve the reduction from [0] in other directions than ours (using other norms, focusing on regret minimization). We recognize that it is currently somewhat unknown whether game solving could benefit from Blackwell approachability based on other norms than the $\ell_2$-norm, and we will list it in our discussion section. That said, we are somewhat skeptical that alternative norms or Bregman divergences would lead to a numerical improvement. To give an analogy that we believe is fitting: we already know that the "right" distance generating function for the simplex is an entropy-based measure, or the dilated variant for EFGs, at least if we care about the ergodic rate of convergence. Yet such approaches have not performed very well numerically compared to the "Blackwell approachability-based" algorithms developed via RM+ or PRM+ run on each simplex via CFR. This is the sense in which we believe it was important to understand the performance of this type of "Blackwell approachability-based" algorithm directly on the treeplex. We also believe that some variants of the potential-based Blackwell generalizations have likely been tried, since they are known in the game-solving community. Yet, nobody ever wrote about such experiments in papers, most likely because the numerical performance was disappointing.
* *This would perhaps be okay if these new algorithms were shown to empirically significantly outperform state-of-the-art on some class of games, but this does not seem to be the case; if anything, they seem to underperform existing algorithms such as PCFR+. I think some of the resulting conjectures about the role of stepsize invariance (and different types of step-size of invariance) on the practical performance of these algorithms are interesting, but they are not very convincingly explored in this work.*
We agree that it would be more attractive if our algorithms outperformed the state-of-the-art. At the same time, for the reasons stated above, we do believe that it was a hole in the literature that nobody understood whether it was possible to get useful algorithms by performing some form of Blackwell approachability-style algorithm directly on the treeplex. Our results show that, indeed, such algorithms can be designed, implemented efficiently, and we explore their numerical performance. We believe that understanding the performance of such an approach was needed in the literature, although it is disappointing that we do not recover performance similar to what can be achieved via PCFR+. At the same time, given this conclusion, we also believe that identifying the new stepsize invariance conjecture is a valuable contribution toward understanding the performance of PCFR+.
## Conclusion.
We thank you again for giving us the opportunity to improve our work. Please let us know if there are any other questions that we should address.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: As the end of the discussion period approaches, we would like to ask if our responses address your concerns and comments. We remain available to provide further clarifications on our work.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thank you for the detailed response. After reading through it (and the other reviews and comments), I've decided to maintain my current evaluation of the paper. | Summary: This paper studies computations via regret minimization of Nash equilibria in zero-sum extensive form games (EFG) with the perfect recall assumption.
The actions of the players are a sequence of polytopes (treeplexes).
In prior work (counterfactual regret minimization framework), this was solved with methods that run regret minimization locally for a phase in the game on the corresponding information sets.
Common regret minimization algorithms used are regret matching that operates on the simplex and is based on Blackwell approachability, or online mirror descent (OMD).
Using regret matching as a local optimizer showed a better empirical performance.
This paper to develop Blackwell approachability-based algorithms directly for the treeplexes (instead of locally). The benefit of using Blackwell approachability is a property named "stepsize invariant", which means that stepsizes across different information sets, and the iterates of the algorithm main do not depend on them. This is different from running OMD on the treeplex.
Several algorithm instantiations are also provided and tested via numerical experiments.
The main message of the papers is to claim that information sets stepsize invariance seems like a crucial property for good empirical performance and shed light on the strong empirical performance with such property, such as CFR+ (Counterfactual regret minimization with regret matching+ as a local optimizer)
Strengths: The computation of Nash equilibria in zero-sum extensive form games via iterative methods is fundamental in "learning with games"/"self-play".
This paper studies natural approaches to tackle this problem and perhaps sheds light on an interesting property for strong empirical performance.
Although I'm not an expert in the field, the authors give enough background to explain how their approach is related to prior work.
In my understanding, this paper makes a significant contribution.
Weaknesses: Couldn't find Weaknesses
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: -
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The limitations are properly addressed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank you for your time reviewing the paper and for your positive review. If you have any questions about our work, we remain available during the rebuttal period. | null | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Optimal and Approximate Adaptive Stochastic Quantization | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper is concerned with quantization,
that is encoding the components of a vector $X\in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ in a finite
alphabet $Q$ of given size $s$. The goal is unbiased,
stochastic quantization, where for a given component $x$ the encoding value $%
\hat{x}$ are chosen at random such that $E\left[ \hat{x}\right] =E\left[ x%
\right] $. Given $Q$ this fixes the encoding procedure, so that the
principal problem is the choice of the alphabet $Q$, which should minimize
the mean squared error (MSE) $E\left[ \left\Vert X-\hat{X}\right\Vert \right]
$, for fixed size $s$. It is important to realize that the optimal alphabet
is a subset of the set of components of $X$, so $s\leq d$. An optimal
solution has been found by Zhang et al [24] and the same paper already
offers an improved algorithm called ZipML of $O\left( sd^{2}\right) $
runtime and $O\left( d^{2}\right) $ memory requirement.
The paper at hand builds on the analysis of the latter paper, and gives an
improved algorithm of $O\left( sd\right) $ both runtime and memory
complexity. Using a closed form solution for $s=3$ runtime and memory
requirements are halved in another improvement of the algorithm. Just as the
previous algorithm this version also returns the optimal solution.
To further accelerate the method the authors discretize the quantization
values on a grid of fixed size $m+1>s$ and seek a subset of this grid to
minimize the MSE for resulting set. The algorithm they present then has
space and time complexity of $O\left( d+ms\right) $. Because of this
improvement on can afford a larger cardinality of the set of quantization
values. The excess error of this approximate algorithm for $2s-2$
quantization values over the previous algorithm with $s$ quantization values
is bounded.
The paper then gives results of numerical experiments with various
distributions.
Strengths: The paper considers a problem of obvious practical relevance.
The background and the various solutions are presented in a clear way,
easily understandable even to me, who has never very much considered the
quantization problem in this form.
I checked most of the analysis which appeared correct.
Weaknesses: I cannot identify any major weaknesses. I must admit, however,
that, not being an expert in this field, I cannot judge if any other relevant
literature on unbiased, minimum-variance quantization beyond [24] is missing.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: I am a bit bewildered about calling $X$ a vector, since the ordering is appearantly irrelevant. Also multiple values do not change anything. "Set of real numbers" seems more appropriate to me.
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: In a subsection "limitations" the authors admit that their algorithm is not GPU-friendly. They also remind the reader that the algorithm requires initial sorting of the data.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for the review.
> I am a bit bewildered about calling $X$ a vector, since the ordering is appearantly irrelevant. Also multiple values do not change anything. "Set of real numbers" seems more appropriate to me.
We agree that the input can be considered as a multiset (and not a set - a counter-example is given below) of entries we wish to quantize. Our solution, however, is based on a dynamic program that looks at prefixes of the vector one gets by looking at the sorted version of this multiset.
Why $X$ cannot be modeled as a (simple) set:
For example, if the entry `5’ appears twice, it carries double the weight when considering the sum of variances.
More concretely, consider the input $X=(0, 3, 5, 5, 7)$ and $s=3$. The optimal solution in this case is $Q=\set{0,5,7}$. In contrast, for the input $X=(0, 3, 5, 7)$, the optimal solution is $Q=\set{0, 3, 7}$, giving a sum of variances of $4$, compared to a sum of variances of 6 if using $Q=\set{0, 5, 7}$ instead.
> I cannot identify any major weaknesses. I must admit, however, that, not being an expert in this field, I cannot judge if any other relevant literature on unbiased, minimum-variance quantization beyond [24] is missing.
Please note that we also compare our approach with ALQ [26]. We also cite other works (e.g., [25]) that look at special cases (a specific distribution) of the ASQ problem, but are not addressing the general formulation.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the clarification provided. I will keep my score, modulo potential insights in the discussion phase with the other reviewers. | Summary: The paper presents an algorithm to solve the Adaptive Stochastic Quantization (ASQ) problem that is claimed to be more computationally efficient than existing solutions. The paper also presents simulations showing the improved efficiency.
I have read the authors' responses to my comments and made changed the overall score.
Strengths: The paper is well-written.
There is sufficient background material on previous works on the topic.
The simulation study is clear, appears comprehensive, and there is informative discussion.
Weaknesses: The motivation for ASQ is unclear to me. In a discussion about quantization in the form of lossy compression in the context of NeurIPS, I’d expect to learn at minimum: (1) what is the source of redundancy that makes quantization possible without affecting too much the performance. (2) How the method exploits this redundancy. The statements in lines 67-71 appear to say that the authors do not care about these aspects.
Specifically to ASQ:
In the background, the authors nicely explain the benefit of adaptivity and unbiasedness, but do not explain the benefit of stochasticity. For example, what is the benefit of introducing randomness of the proposed type compared to the classical Lloyd algorithm (Lloyd 1982 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1056489)?
I understand that ASQ has been studied before, which might be interesting, and thus the contribution of the paper might be significant. However, in my opinion, it is not a good fit for NeurIPS since the contribution is only associated with computations/implementation of a known quantization method.
Another weakness is that the ASQ problem is formally stated only in lines 103-104. The problem appears simple enough to be presented in the first few lines of the paper.
Other comments:
Line 106: the inclusion of Q in X seems a typo.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Please state the problem much earlier.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The paper addresses the limitations appropriately.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for the review.
> What is the source of redundancy that makes quantization possible without affecting too much the performance?
The source of redundancy depends on the ASQ use case. Here are two specific examples, while other use cases may have a different motivation.
*Example 1: Gradient compression (GC).* (Lines 81-87 in our submission)
GC is a common building block for distributed and federated learning where multiple workers (clients) participate in the learning process. At each round, workers compute their gradients and then aggregate them in order to update the model. Since the process has inherent variance (each such stochastic gradient is computed with respect to a random subset of the data), one can leverage compression to alleviate communication bottlenecks without a significant impact on the accuracy of the aggregated (global) gradient if the variance of the compression is small compared with this inherent variance.
Moreover, as recent works show, it is important for the compression to be unbiased. Intuitively, when the compression is unbiased (and independent among workers) some workers round up and some round down, allowing the error of the average to decrease proportionally to the number of workers (in expectation).
*Example 2: Model compression (MC).* (Lines 88-92 in our submission)
In MC, one quantizes the weights of a model in order to decrease its space requirements and improve the inference time. In this use case as well, it has been demonstrated that applying biased methods like Round-To-Nearest to compress parameters of large language models can lead to worse results compared to stochastic quantization. This is due to the reliance on the parameters of LLM layers for calculating inner products with their inputs. Ensuring these inner products remain unbiased results in less error in the outputs of the layers and less bias accumulation among layers, thereby enhancing overall accuracy.
For both examples, we cite works that substantiate these claims.
> How the method exploits this redundancy. The statements in lines 67-71 appear to say that the authors do not care about these aspects. Specifically to ASQ: In the background, the authors nicely explain the benefit of adaptivity and unbiasedness, but do not explain the benefit of stochasticity. For example, what is the benefit of introducing randomness of the proposed type compared to the classical Lloyd algorithm (Lloyd 1982 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1056489)?
Lloyd’s algorithm is a great solution for **when the quantization is allowed to be biased**. In fact, *it is impossible to be unbiased without stochasticity* when quantizing since multiple inputs can be quantized to the same value.
Moreover, while Lloyd’s algorithm may not yield the optimal solution, we compare with the **optimal** biased algorithm (for 1D, there is an algorithm that finds the optimal solution, see https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.07204).
That is, the optimal biased algorithm shown in Figure 1 is at least as accurate as Lloyd’s. When estimating a single vector, it is indeed more accurate than unbiased methods, but as we explain, it is unsuitable for cases when unbiasedness is desired, e.g., when averaging the sum of multiple independently compressed vectors as in federated learning settings.
> I understand that ASQ has been studied before, which might be interesting, and thus the contribution of the paper might be significant. However, in my opinion, it is not a good fit for NeurIPS since the contribution is only associated with computations/implementation of a known quantization method.
We politely disagree. The known quantization method is considered impractical for many use cases (see lines 43-48), and this work enables the use of ASQ for multiple ML applications, as shown in these previous works.
Moreover, the ASQ problem is well-established and of high interest to the ML community and NeurIPS in particular, as the line of related works we cite indicates (e.g., [24] and [26], which we compare with, were published in ICML and NeurIPS).
> Another weakness is that the ASQ problem is formally stated only in lines 103-104. The problem appears simple enough to be presented in the first few lines of the paper.
Thank you for the suggestion. We will expand in lines 19-21 to explain that the goal is to find such a set of quantization values $Q$.
> Other comments: Line 106: the inclusion of $Q$ in $X$ seems a typo.
This is not a typo. The meaning of $Q\subseteq X$ is that there exists an optimal solution in which all quantization values are a subset of the input entries. This is a known observation that was mentioned, e.g., in [24] (as we mention in Line 106).
We will explain this further in the text.
> Please state the problem much earlier.
Will do!
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thank you for addressing my comments.
I have changed my mind about the fit to NeurIPS.
Concerning the discussion about the source of redundancy, perhaps there are similarities with the unfolding/unrolling optimization concept. For example, see:
Monga, Vishal, Yuelong Li, and Yonina C. Eldar. "Algorithm unrolling: Interpretable, efficient deep learning for signal and image processing." IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 38.2 (2021): 18-44.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thanks for the reference!
We will study it and discuss it in the paper. | Summary: This paper studies the Adaptive Stochastic Quantization (ASQ) problem and presents a dynamic programming based algorithm that improves time and space complexities.
Strengths: The algorithm is compared with peer dynamic programming based algorithm called ZIPML. Quiver Algorithm introduced in this paper is showing great potential to be used for compression of ML models. The algorithm has the advantage of controllable tradeoff between
accuracy and speed.
Weaknesses: The presentation of the paper needs further improvement. please proofread the paper for grammatical errors and typos, some of which I point out to here:
ln. 29, $X’$
on ln37, $\hat{X}$ concatenation of $\hat{x}$’s ? define all parameters before using them.
same for $\theta(s)$ on ln 107.
-ln. 106 is Q in X ?
- Many abbreviations are undefined: ALQ,QSGD,RTN .
- ln. 56-57, It is ambiguous to which algorithms you are comparing the time and space complexity of your algorithm.
- what does “on a commodity PC” mean? provide specifications of your processor.
- ln. 80 "orders of magnitude lower error" , compared to which algorithm?
- The definition of MSE[i,j] in 109 is not clear. please write it mathematically.
- The main problem of the paper which is defined in on ln.116 is not very clear. No description or references are provided. The authors are leaving many foundational definitions of dynamic programing and its application to quantization up to the reader. The paper better be inclusive of essential concepts.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 1
Questions for Authors: you begin your paper by the assumption of 1-bit quantization i.e. $x \in \{a,b\} $(another typo in the paper). However the results are implemented for more number of bits such as s=16. Is there any reason you made 1-bit assumption on ln 94?
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 1
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The proposed Algorithm is not implemented for ML model and gradient compression.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for the review.
Thanks for pointing out the typos, we will fix these.
> In 106 is Q in X ?
We write that there exists an optimal solution for which $Q\subseteq X$ (and credit [24] for this observation). That is, there exists an optimal solution where all quantization values are entries in the input vector $X$.
> Many abbreviations are undefined: ALQ,QSGD,RTN .
ALQ and QSGD are the names of the algorithms. They were coined by the respective authors of [26] and [13]. The full name of the acronym RTN is given in line 78.
> ln. 56-57, It is ambiguous to which algorithms you are comparing the time and space complexity of your algorithm.
This is compared to the state of the art. As explained later (line 121), this is compared to ZipML [24]. We will make that clearer in the introduction.
> what does “on a commodity PC” mean? provide specifications of your processor.
Please see lines 231-233.
> ln. 80 "orders of magnitude lower error" , compared to which algorithm?
Compared to the non-adaptive algorithms, as we point out the benefits of adaptivity.
> The definition of MSE[i,j] in 109 is not clear. please write it mathematically.
Recall that $a_x = \max \set{q\in Q\mid q\le x}$, $b_x = \min \set{q\in Q\mid q\ge x}$, and that $X_j$ is the vector with the first $j$ entries of $X$.
The mathematical formulation is:
$$
MSE[i,j] = \min_{Q: |Q|\le j, x_j\in Q} \sum_{x\in X_j} (b_x-x)(x-a_x).
$$
We will add this to the paper.
> The main problem of the paper which is defined in on ln.116 is not very clear. No description or references are provided. The authors are leaving many foundational definitions of dynamic programing and its application to quantization up to the reader. The paper better be inclusive of essential concepts.
We kindly disagree. Dynamic programming is a basic tool in computer science and the specific problem is explained (lines 117-120 give the semantic meaning of the parameter $k$ and MSE[i,j] was defined above).
> **Q1:** you begin your paper by the assumption of 1-bit quantization i.e. $x\in a,b$
(another typo in the paper). However the results are implemented for more number of bits such as s=16. Is there any reason you made 1-bit assumption on ln 94?
We do not assume that $x\in\{a,b\}$.
In stochastic quantization, for some $a,b\in\mathbb R$, the input value $x\in[a,b]$ is quantized to $\widehat x\in \{a,b\}$. That is, the input is a real value between $a$ and $b$, and the quantized value is one of $a,b$.
When quantizing a vector $X$ using $s>2$ quantization levels, each entry $x\in X$ is stochastically quantized between the two encompassing values $a_x,b_x$ as explained in lines 101-102.
> **L1:** The proposed Algorithm is not implemented for ML model and gradient compression.
Since QUIVER solves the same problem as previous solutions such as ZipML, there is no gain in recreating experiments that would yield the exact same results. As you can observe from vNMSE subfigures of Figure 2, both QUIVER and ZipML have identical error, as they provide the optimal solution for the ASQ problem. The benefit of QUIVER is in its faster runtime and lower space requirements, as we evaluate in the remaining figures.
Moreover, our paper's focus is not on model or gradient compression but on improving the state of the art for the well-established ASQ problem, which is of high interest to the ML community and NeurIPS in particular, as the line of related works we cite indicates (e.g., [24] and [26], that we compare with, were published in ICML and NeurIPS).
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for clarification of some of my points. Some are unaddressed in your rebuttal. Please add clear definition of MSE[i,j] to the paper. The one I see in your rebuttal comments does not show dependency on i. You can add a notation definition subsection to avoid confusions, for instance \hat{x} \in \{a_x,b_x\} is your notation for ASQ, please don't assume the readers know it already. The ASQ is the main definition in your paper, yet you defined it only inline on ln. 94-97. It better be a numbered equation to be clear. I see other reviewers commenting on some notations as well. I still think the presentation of the paper needs much further improvement, therefore I will keep my score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Please read the submission text (lines 109-110), which is comprehensive and correct:
``we denote by $MSE[i,j]$ the optimal MSE of quantizing the prefix vector $X_j=\langle{x_1,\ldots,x_j}\rangle$ **using $i$ quantization values** *that include* $x_j$''.
That is, the corresponding mathematical formulation is:
$$
MSE[i,j] = \min_{Q: |Q|\le {i}, x_j\in Q} \sum_{x\in X_j} (b_x-x)(x-a_x).
$$
We are puzzled by your low score, which is due to minor typos and presentation issues, without any evaluation of the contribution of the proposed methods. | Summary: The paper proposes the QUIVER algorithm, Accelerate QUIVER (an accelerated variant when s = 3), and Apx QUIVER (a variant that utilizes approximations for better speed) to solve the Adaptive Stochastic Quantization (ASQ) problem. The paper also provides theoretical guarantees to their algorithm, improving the current SOTA time complexity from $O(s d^2)$ to $O(s d)$ and space complexity from $O(d^2)$ to $O(s d)$. Practical experiments are also run to show the improvement of the current SOTA.
Strengths: 1. Technically solid: The technical aspects of the paper such as formulations and proofs are clear and correct.
2. Clear motivations: The benefits of adaptivity and unbiasedness are explained clearly with practical illustrations of the MSE reduction of different methods.
3. Theoretically and practically outperform SOTA: The paper makes it clear in the contributions and experiments sections how the proposed algorithms outperform past methods practically and with better theoretical complexities.
4. Weaknesses acknowledgements: The authors clearly state and discuss the drawbacks of their algorithms.
Weaknesses: 1. SMAWK algorithm seems to be an important subroutine in QUIVER, I think it should be elaborated a bit more for those who are not aware of SMAWK and how the process takes O(d) time and space (calls of SMAWK are referred plentifully in the paper).
2. Following up on that, I also wonder if the authors can elaborate for me on the key novelty of QUIVER since the key update step in this algorithm comes from SMAWK (is it the preprocess?). I do see more clearly the novelty of Accelerated QUIVER with the important observation when s = 3 (also related to question number 1 below).
3. While Accelerated QUIVER offers some interesting ideas, it does not work for s > 3. I believe the section can be stronger if the authors can maybe elaborate some (common) situations or (useful) applications for s = 3 to contextualize the “practicality” of this algorithm.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Are there alternatives to SMAWK that can be implemented (with some small modifications) that still allow QUIVER to work?
2. The author states that Apx. QUIVER does better in practice than the bound in Lemma 6.1, just out of curiosity, what do you think is the reason?
3. Are there any other results in the literature that you can compare with Apx. QUIVER results (such as line 223 - 224)?
4. The asymptotic difference among the approximate algorithms are not clear to me in Figure 3, can the author elaborate further?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for the detailed review. We first address the questions in detail and *relate to the weaknesses in the comment that follows*.
**Q1** While SMAWK has the optimal $O(d)$ time complexity for the problem, there are simpler approaches. For example, by leveraging the fact that if MSE[i,j] is minimized at k, then for all j’>j, MSE[i,j] must be maximized for some k’>k. This allows a `binary search approach’ that solves the problem with a slower $O(d \log d)$ time complexity. (This approach is standard and well-known.)
We implemented this approach and empirically verified that the resulting solution is slower than using SMAWK.
**Q2** The analysis is (asymptotically) tight only for the worst-case but is far from tight for non-adversarial inputs. Namely, we prove the theoretical claim by constructing a specific solution with $2s-2$ quantization values that is derived from the optimal solution with $s$ quantization values. This solution is generally far from the optimal solution when using $2s-2$ quantization values, even when restricted to grid entries.
The intuition is as follows: we placed ($2s-4$) of the quantization values in consecutive pairs on the grid (e.g., $\ell=17$ and $\ell=18$). In practice, Approx. QUIVER finds the optimal solution with quantization values that are on the grid, and such a solution is unlikely to contain many pairs of consecutive quantization values (for realistic input vectors). A secondary reason is that the worst-case analysis considers that all coordinates might be in the middle of two grid points, which is unlikely in non-adversarial inputs.
**Q3** Are you referring to [16]? As we discuss in lines 26-29, this is an example of a line of work that optimizes the quantization error for the worst-case inputs by applying a transformation on the input vector. Also, as we explain in lines 67-71, such works are orthogonal to ASQ since one can apply it after the transformation, whereas [1, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17] use pre-computed quantization values instead of the ones that are optimal for the transformed vector. That is, by applying adaptive quantization to select the quantization values after the transformation, we can get a solution with improved accuracy at the cost of additional computation.
We further note that comparing worst-case solutions to adaptive ones (without applying the transformations) is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Namely, if the input has structure, ASQ can provide a significantly more accurate solution. On the other hand, if the input is distributed adversarially, no benefit can be attained by adaptive algorithms.
To see the benefit of adaptive solutions over worst-case solutions, consider a trivial example where the input vector has $d/2$ (+1) entries and $d/2$ (-1) entries. ASQ trivially solves this with zero error even for $s=2$. In contrast, all the above algorithms will apply a transformation after which the structure is gone, and any quantization will have a significant error.
**Q4** Thanks for pointing out that this is not explained. We will clarify this in the paper.
Namely, we compare with several approximate algorithms:
*ZipML-CP* [24] is an algorithm that runs the exact ZipML algorithm on a subset of the points called `Candidate Points’. Since ZipML runs in $O(d^2 s)$ time, here we use M candidate points to get $O(d + M^2 s)$ time.
*ZipML 2-Apx* [24] is an algorithm that computes an approximate solution in $O(d \log d + s^3)$ time.
*ALQ* [26] is an algorithm that finds good quantization values for a truncated normal distribution. To use it, it samples several gradients (by computing the gradient of several random batches) to fit the truncated normal parameters. To be fair to ALQ, since we evaluate a single-shot quantization scenario, we calculate the input vector's exact mean, variance, and support parameters. Yet, its algorithm for finding the quantization values for the distribution, which uses an alternating coordinate descent method, underperforms for two main reasons: (1) the distribution, generally, is not truncated-normal. (2) In each iteration of the coordinate, they optimize the location of each quantization value i by fixing the locations of the (i-1)’th and (i+1)’th values and calculating the optimal location by integrating over the distribution truncated to this range.
This then runs for several (we used 10, as in their released code) iterations, so in total, they compute $\approx 10s$ integrals. While theoretically requiring $O(d)$ time, in a model where such integral calculation takes constant time, this is markedly slower than other approaches. We note that it is possible that with low-precision integral calculations, one may improve the runtime, but the error (which is already not competitive) will degrade further.
**We will relate to the weaknesses in the following comment.**
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Relating to the Weaknesses
Comment: **W1** Thank you for the suggestion. We agree that explaining the SMAWK algorithm in detail and providing more intuition about it will improve the paper, and we will add these for the camera-ready version.
We provide the high-level details here:
*SMAWK Algorithm Steps*
* Pruning Phase:
> Remove columns that cannot possibly contain a row maximum. This is done by comparing each column with its neighbors and discarding those that cannot be maxima based on the totally monotone property. At the end of this phase, the number of columns can be no larger than the number of rows.
* Recursive Reduction:
> The algorithm reduces the problem size by considering a subset of the rows and columns. It selects every other row and recursively solves the reduced problem.
* Candidate Set:
> After solving the smaller problem, the solution provides candidate columns for the original problem. The algorithm only needs to consider these columns to find the maxima for the skipped rows.
* Merge Phase:
> Combine the results from the reduced problem with the candidate set to find the maximum for each original row.
---
**Efficiency:**
The SMAWK algorithm achieves a time complexity of $O(d)$ for a $d×d$ matrix. This efficiency is due to the recursive reduction of the problem size and the properties of totally monotone matrices that limit the number of comparisons needed. Namely, the pruning step takes $O($#$cols)$, where #$cols$ is the number of columns still being considered. The crux is that the recursive step happens after the pruning, which means that the recursive invocation happens with a number of columns that is, at most, double the number of rows (as the number of rows is halved). This means that the overall complexity of each recursive step is proportional to the number of rows, yielding the recursion:
$T(n) = T(n/2) + O(n) = O(n)$.
A simple example Python (by David Eppstein) implementation appears here: https://github.com/pombredanne/code-5/blob/master/recipes/Python/117244_SMAWK_totally_monotone_matrix_searching/recipe-117244.py.
Our implementation is in optimized C++ and we will release it as open source with the publication of the paper.
**W2** The novelty of QUIVER is the identification that producing MSE[i,·] from MSE[i-1,·] can be expressed as the problem of finding the maximas in an *implicitly defined* matrix. This requires several steps, including our pre-processing (to enable matrix queries in constant time) and proving the quadrangle inequality. Further, finding MSE[i,·] from MSE[i-1,·] is only a subroutine in the algorithm which invokes it several times and also reconstructs the resulting solution.
Further novelty is in our Accelerated QUIVER algorithm which provides a faster solution to the same problem, and the Approx. QUIVER that provides further speedup at the cost of a small error.
We will further clarify our contribution in the paper.
**W3** Accelerated QUIVER works and is faster than QUIVER for all $s$. When $s>3$, it also requires invoking the SMAWK algorithm as a subroutine, but the number of invocations reduces significantly. We will further clarify this in the text.
Namely, we provide a closed-form, computable in constant time, solution for the $s=3$ problem, and then reformulate the dynamic program (see lines 171-182) to allow fewer recursive steps, thereby improving both the speed and space requirements both theoretically and in practice.
If our understanding of this weakness is incorrect, we would appreciate if the reviewer could clarify.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Title: Reviewer Response
Comment: I really appreciate the detailed answers and the responses the author made regarding my reviews. Most of my points are addressed properly, and I believe the revised version with the additional details will be quite solid. While I will have to see further discussion with AC and other reviewers to improve the score I have given, I am certainly in support of this paper acceptance. | null | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Learnability of high-dimensional targets by two-parameter models and gradient flow | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper studies the problem of learning a target function $f$ lying in some $d$-dimensional Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ via gradient flow on a $W$-parameter model with $W < d$. The main result, Theorem 5, is that for $W = 2$, given a distribution over $\mathcal{H}$ there exists a parametric map $\Phi : \mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathcal{H}$ such that gradient flow converges to the target with probability approaching 1. In contrast, if the map $\Phi$ is constructed via "elementary functions," then the set of learnable targets has Lebesgue measure 0.
Strengths: - The results of the novel and quite technically impressive, though I admit I am not so familiar with the related literature and did not fully follow the proof sketch.
- For the most part the paper is well written, and I do like the addition of Figure 2 to help understand the proof of the main theorem.
Weaknesses: - I struggle to understand the relevance of the problem studied in this paper to the NeurIPS community / the field of Machine Learning. The construction for $\Phi$ in Theorem 5 is quite pathological, whereas parametric models used in ML/statistics are much more regular. In fact, in Section 5 the authors prove that if $\Phi$ is an elementary function, then only a measure 0 set of targets are learnable by GD. I thus do not see the significance of studying parametric models $\Phi$ which essentially act as space-filling curves and map $\mathbb{R}^2$ to $\mathbb{R}^d$ in a very complicated manner.
- Furthermore, in ML settings, when the parametric map $\Phi$ cannot express the ground truth target $f$, then the goal is to instead converge to the best possible predictor i.e obtain a loss $\inf_w \frac12\||f - \Phi(w)\||^2_{\mathcal{H}}$. Prior works studying the loss landscape of underparametrized models typically operate in the setting where the number of parameters is fewer than the number of *data points* and thus the training loss cannot go to zero. This paper is substantially different, and focuses on the problem where the number of parameters is smaller than the dimension of the function class, but we are still interested in learning a large portion of this function class, which to me feels quite strange.
- I find the proof sketch for Theorem 5, in particular a description of the construction of $\Phi$, to be unclear. A more detailed definition of objects like the Cantor set $F_0$ is needed, since this may not be familiar to the NeurIPS optimization/theory community. I also don't think the boxes $B_\alpha^{(n)}$ are ever defined in the main text.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: - Can you provide intuition on why Theorem 5 does not apply to infinite-dimensional target spaces?
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 1
Limitations: N/A
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for the careful reading of our paper and your useful feedback and critique.
* "*I struggle to understand the relevance of the problem studied in this paper to the NeurIPS community.. The construction for $\Phi$ in Theorem 5 is quite pathological..*"
That's true, the construction in the proof looks pathological. But suppose you know nothing about the proof and just see the statement of Theorem 5. Would you say that this statement is irrelevant to ML/NeurIPS? We believe that it involves only natural and standard ML concepts (gradient descent, parametric models, target spaces ...), the only nonstandard thing being the scenario of a small number of parameters. In our opinion, the question addressed by Theorem 5 is not unreasonable and certainly not trivial. Our goal was to understand what can theoretically happen in this scenario, be it with or without complicated constructions. If we could prove Theorem 5 without complicated constructions, we would have done so.
Another point to mention, Theorem 5 deals with the extreme case of just two parameters and a full convergence to the targets. We expect (and briefly mention in the Discussion) the pathologies to weaken if, e.g., the number of parameters is closer to the dimensionality of the target space.
Also, while the parametric models used in ML/statistics are indeed more regular, modern neural networks can still be very complex in terms of their architectures, activation functions, etc. Their learning dynamics is not well-understood. We don't see why Theorem 5 could not potentially be relevant for some of their learning poperties (though this is of course purely hypothetical; we don't claim at this point any specific direct connection to practical models).
* "*..the number of parameters is smaller than the dimension of the function class, but we are still interested in learning a large portion of this function class, which to me feels quite strange.*"
But we also know that modern neural networks often contain much more parameters that the number of training data points. The dimensionality of the function class in this case is certainly much smaller than the number of parameters. If this is a valid scenario, why is it unreasonable to theoretically examine the opposite scenario?
* "*I find the proof sketch for Theorem 5 .. to be unclear*"
Thank you for this feedback. We admit that some elements of the proof sketch may be not clear enough. We wanted to convey the key ideas, but due to the size constraints we found it hard to give more than a flavor of the proof. We'll try to improve this sketch. Meanwhile, please see Appendix A, where the full proof is carefully described.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response
Comment: Thank you to the authors for their response.
I still find that the problem studied in this paper is not well motivated. It seems to me that in order for a function to be "GF-learnable" per the definition in the paper, the image of $\Phi(w)$ must cover most of $\mathcal{H}$ and thus the map $\Phi$ must necessarily be very pathological; no reasonable statistical model will be of this form. In fact, I do not know of any examples in the statistics/ML literature where one is interested in *exactly* fitting a dimension $d$ model with $W < d$ parameters. The usual setup in the underparameterized setting is not to obtain exactly zero training loss, but rather to converge to the predictor with the smallest loss over the candidate class of functions. While modern neural networks are indeed very complicated, I am very skeptical that they behave like the construction $\Phi$ presented in this work. And while I acknowledge that theoretical work does not have to have a direct practical impact, I do believe that theoretical work should model/explain some relevant aspect of reality, which I don't believe is accomplished by this paper. I thus am leaning towards maintaining my original score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for this feedback. We understand and appreciate your view, but respectfully would like to challenge it.
> I do believe that theoretical work should model/explain some relevant aspect of reality, which I don't believe is accomplished by this paper.
**Comparison with KST.** Let us compare our main theorem 5 with Kolmogorov Superposition Theorem (KST) saying that multivariate continuous functions can be represented in terms of univariate ones and summations. KST has inspired many papers/ideas/discussions related to ML/neural networks, primarily with the focus on confirming or increasing expressiveness of ML models. One work, very recent but already having received much attention, is mentioned by Reviewer MmYK [1]. Some others are cited in our paper.
The construction used in KST is arguably much more pathological than ours in Theorem 5. The functions used in KST are very complicated continuous functions; they cannot be chosen as elementary or smooth, even locally. Also, the representation of the target function is obtaned by a fairly non-constructive argument.
In contrast, our map $\Phi$ is smooth, can be chosen piecewise elementary, and the fitting is performed by standard gradient flow.
Accordingly, we don't see why our work models/explains relevant aspects of reality worse than KST. If ML community finds KST useful, why should it not find useful our work, in which the model is much more regular and the fitting procedure the most standard?
We also emphasize that while ideas of using KST for high expressiveness of ML models have a long history dating back to Hecht-Nielsen [2] and Kůrková [3], we are not aware of any previous works analyzing to which extent high expressiveness can be combined with gradient flow. We believe our work to be the first in this respect, and moreover providing a fairly balanced and comprehensive analysis.
[1] KAN: Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks. Liu et al. 2024. arXiv:2404.19756.
[2] R. Hecht-Nielsen, Kolmogorov's Mapping Neural Network Existence Theorem, First IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, San Diego, Vol. 3, 1987
[3] V. Kůrková, Kolmogorov's Theorem Is Relevant, Neural computation 3 (4), 617-622, 1991
**Negative results.** Your arguments seem to primarily address Theorem 5. But we also have "negative" theorems 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, that actually *confirm* your point of pathology by clarifying precisely in which sense this pathology is manifested. These are new, rigorous and not so obvious results that constitute a significant part of our contribution.
> I do not know of any examples in the statistics/ML literature where one is interested in *exactly* fitting a dimension $d$ model with $W<d$ parameters.
If we are interested only in a non-exact fitting, say with accuracy $\delta>0$, then a respective GF-learnable 2-parameter model can be easily constructed by truncating the model $\Phi$ presented in Theorem 5. Such a truncated model is no longer pathological, in the sense that it is now expressible by an elementary function, say in the form of some finite neural network (Theorem 7 no longer applies). We don't claim that such a model is *practically useful*, but our construction shows that it is theoretically possible while being relatively realistic. | Summary: The paper studies the *learnability* of finite dimensional space of functions $\mathcal{H}$ of dimension $d$. The learnability criterion is related to the gradient flow according to the canonical $L^2$ error, associated with a certain $\Phi$-parametrized family of dimension $W$, that can be chosen. The authors proposes the following results:
- **Theorem 3**: For $W < d$, under some regularity assumption on $\Phi$, there exists a ball in $\mathcal{H}$ with non-reachable function. It implies that under this condition on the choice of $\Phi$-space, the GF-learnable function space is not dense in $\mathcal{H}$.
- **Theorem 4**: Any subset homeomorphic to the $W$-sphere contains non learnable targets.
- **Theorem 5**: On the positive side, there exists for $W = 2$ models that can learn targets with probability arbitrarily close to $0$.
- **Results 7-9**: Finally the authors try to answer the question of learnability of functions expressible with elementary operations ("simple functions"). For this, Pfaffian maps are defined and for underparametrized Pfaffian models, GF-reachable functions have Lebesgue-measure $0$.
Strengths: The paper has the following strengths:
- The presentation is very clear, even-though the theme of the study is difficult and technical. The proofs presented are clear and sharp, the main Theorem is illustrated and the idea of the construction is nicely displayed. Finally, the overall questioning of the authors is clear and very nicely presented into a self-contained story. This is a very nice article to read!
- All the results try to give a picture of the set of function that is GF-learnable: it is a (super) hard task and yet, the authors tackle it very elegantly.
- Technically the results *seem* very strong.
Weaknesses: Reviewing such a paper in a conference (along with 5 others) is a very difficult task given the time constraint and the technicality of the present paper. Hence, I apologize in advance if the questions I am raising are due to the limit of my knowledge and not the lack of clarity of the authors. Yet, considering that I might be a typical reader of the article I want to mention the following points that could help improving the manuscript:
The statements given by theorems 3 and 4 on the one side and theorem 5 on the other side seem to go in two opposite directions, at least qualitatively: indeed Theorems 3 and 4 go in the direction that there always exists non-reachable functions (even an open Ball for Thm 3!), whereas Theorem 5 argues that if we equip the space of function with any Borel measure, GF-learnability can be almost surely certified. Althought, the two statement do not contradict themselves, it would be good to comment more on this fact: under this form, it does not help me picturing exactly what the set of learnable function look like. For example, if we restrict the space of functions to a compact subset of $\mathcal{H}$, doesn't Theorem 5 implies a sort of density of learnable functions?
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See above for an important first question.
- line 298, and line 195, the authors argue that the consequence of Theorem 4 is that the set of non-learnable function is dense for $W < d$. As far as I felt it, it seems to be a direct consequence of the fact that a neighborhood of some $f$ always contains a set homeomorphic to the W-dimensional sphere, but
- it would be better to have a clear (even if two-line) proof
- that would help the reader to have a clear **corollary** to stamp this property
- I would change the title to * **Learnability** of high-dimensional targets by two-parameter models with gradient flow* to put emphasis that the authors do not study a specific class of models but more whether certain functions are not learnable.
Minor additionnal comments:
- l. 68-69: I do not see why Theorem 1 is *a low-dimensional reduction* reflected in Theorem 1.
- l. 172: $J^*_0 J_0$ instead of $J^*_0J$
- l.252 : in which
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: No
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for the useful feedback and a very positive evaluation of our work!
* "*What the set of learnable functions look like... Doesn't Theorem 5 implies a sort of density of learnable functions?*"
The right geometric picture for the set of learnable functions in Theorem 5 would be a multidimensional "fat Cantor set" (a.k.a. Smith–Volterra–Cantor set), see e.g. [this Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Volterra%E2%80%93Cantor_set) and the illustrations there. Such sets are not dense in the ambient space, but can be quite large in terms of their measure. This is exactly what happens in Theorem 5.
It is an interesting question whether the set of learnable targets may need to actually have more "holes" than predicted by Theorems 3 and 4. In particular, Theorem 3 only constructs a single ball devoid of learnable targets. However, the learnable set constructed in Theorem 5 is even nowhere dense, i.e. an arbitrary ball in the target space contains a ball devoid of learnable targets - a strictly stronger property. In this sense, our results are not tight.
* "*It would help the reader to have a clear corollary.. that the set of non-learnable function is dense for $W<d$*"
Indeed, such a corollary would be quite reasonable, thank you for this suggestion.
* "*I would change the title to **Learnability of ...** *"
Yes, this is also quite reasonable, thank you.
* "*I do not see why Theorem 1 is a low-dimensional reduction reflected in Theorem 1*"
This sentence is indeed somewhat awkward and probably needs to be clarified. We just meant to say that Theorem 1 gives an example of a reduction of a high-dimensional target space to a low-dimensional parametric description, and we ask if such or similar reduction can be combined with learning by GD.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: After Rebuttal
Comment: I thank the authors for the rebuttal. I still find the article a very elegant contribution and keep my score. | Summary: This paper analyzes when it is possible to define a map $\Phi: \mathbb{R}^W \to \mathbb{R}^d$ such that any point $y \in \mathbb{R}^d$ is ``learnable'' via gradient flow on the square loss $\|y - \Phi(w)\|^2$. They show that for any distribution over $y$, there exists a map $\Phi: \mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}^d$ such that gradient flow on the square loss gets arbitrarily close to any $y$ with probability arbitrarily close to $1$. It also shows that it is impossible for this to hold with probability exactly $1$ for any $W < d$, and shows that in this case the non-learnable targets are dense in $\mathbb{R}^d$.
Strengths: - The existence of the map $\Phi$ in Theorem 5 is surprising, especially given the less surprising results in Theorems 3,4.
- The impossibility results in Theorems 3,4 are clear and well presented.
Weaknesses: - The construction and proof sketch for Theorem 5 and the diagrams in Figure 2 are very difficult to follow.
- It is strange to define the setting in terms of abstract Hilbert spaces only to immediately specialize to the case of $\mathbb{R}^d$. In the supervised learning analogy, this corresponds to the uniform measure over a finite sample of $n = d$ datapoints.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: - Why is it necessary to restrict to $\mathcal{H} = \mathbb{R}^d$? Is it possible to extend the arguments to infinite dimensional spaces?
- Is it possible to simplify the construction in Theorem 5 for some easy target distributions to simplify exposition?
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors have adequately addressed the limitations of their work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your careful reading and a positive evaluation of our work!
* "*The construction and proof sketch for Theorem 5 and the diagrams in Figure 2 are very difficult to follow.*"
Thank you for this feedback. We admit that some elements of the proof sketch may be not clear enough. We wanted to convey the key ideas, but due to the size constraints we found it hard to give more than a flavor of the proof. We'll try to improve this sketch. Meanwhile, please see Appendix A, where the full proof is carefully described.
* "*Is it possible to extend the arguments to infinite dimensional spaces?*"
This is an interesting question. In fact, an inspection of our "negative" Theorems 2-4 shows that they remain valid if the target space is an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space while the number of parameters is finite. This is natural because, clearly, the addressed problem becomes harder if the dimensionality of the target space increases.
Following this logic, the negative Theorem 7 about elementary functions can probably also be generalized to infinite dimensions, though in this case some reformulation is definitely required because there is no Lebesgue measure on the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space.
Our main "positive" Theorem 5 can probably also be extended to infinite dimensions, but such an extension has some aspects that we haven't figured out; please see our [general response](https://openreview.net/forum?id=8XoWofmZkI¬eId=qNVXBofICV).
* "*Is it possible to simplify the construction in Theorem 5 for some easy target distributions?*"
The natural simple target distribution is just the standard uniform distribution in a box. Our construction for a general distribution is only a small modification of the construction for this special case. However, this means that all the essential elements of the construction are present in this special case and so, unfortunately, it is not much easier than the general case.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for addressing my questions and concerns. I still believe that while the paper is well written and the results are surprising, the paper is held back by a lack of intuition for the main result (Theorem 5). I have decided to keep my score. | Summary: This submission studies the learnability of high-dimensional targets with models having fewer parameters. The manuscript considers training with Gradient Flow and studies when the target -- identified by a general d-dimensional probability distribution -- can be learned by $W-$ parameter models, with $W <d$. First, the authors provably show general impossibility results, i.e., there is always a substantial amount of non-learnable targets (with the extreme case to be zero-Lebesgue measure for $W=1$). However, they prove also positive results regarding GF learnability with $W=2$: it is always possible to find a map $\Phi$ for which the learnable set can be made arbitrarily large.
Strengths: The main strength of the present submission is the strong theoretical apparatus built to prove the desired results. From the text, the authors specify what results are conjectured and what are rigorously proven. On the other hand, the formal presentation sometimes penalizes the readability of the text (see the section below).
Weaknesses: The weakness of this paper is the clarity of the exposition. I believe that many parts of the main body could be moved to the appendix to make the submission more readable for non-expert readers. This comment is not set to undermine the quality of the contribution, which has nice theoretical aspects, but to enhance the presentation of the main results. See the section below for pointers.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 1
Questions for Authors: - As described above I believe that many formalities should be moved to the appendix to be accessible for the NeurIPS audience. My main concern is on Section 5, which I believe to be interesting, but hard to read. I would enlarge the discussion part of this section considering that only two lines are used after corollary 9.
- How would the present construction relate to general kernel /random feature methods? The mathematical apparatus is similar (RKHS), but with different purposes. I believe connection with classical machine-learning tools would help the typical NeurIPS reader. (Page 4 for example).
- Maybe the authors could use also polynomial targets in their "Examples" paragraph (which are more than welcome to help the reader)? More generally, non-linear targets would help to see the extent of the present setting.
- Am I correct to understand that general non-linear function are not admissible in the present setting? If that is the case, stating it explicitly would help the reader.
- I feel like the nomenclature for target-dimension ad $d$ is confusing as one might be led to think that is the output dimension (Y). Maybe it could be emphasized more in the text.
- Below Eq. (1) I would expand on what is meant to be "locally solvable" given that the whole paper will turn around the GF setting.
- Is there a connection of your results to the recent work [1]? I acknowledge that the reference was only recently put on arxiv and I am just wondering out of curiosity for this minor point. In any case, I think it would be good to mention that ideas using KST are recently used in the machine-learning community.
- How important is in your work the condition $w(0) = 0$? What would it change if the weights could be somehow correlated with the target's ones?
[1] KAN: Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks. Liu et al. 2024. arXiv:2404.19756.
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 1
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The limitations are discussed in the submission.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for the careful reading of our paper and many useful comments.
* "*I would enlarge the discussion part [of Section 5]*"
Thank you for this feedback. Indeed, we agree that it can be useful to add some comments and maybe a graphic illustration here.
* "*Am I correct to understand that general non-linear function are not admissible in the present setting?*"
To clarify, we assume the target space $\mathcal H$ to be a linear space of functions, but the functions themselves need not be linear (or have any other particular form). Examples include those we mention in lines 111-119 (the full $L^2$ space, linear targets, polynomial targets) and RKHS subspaces associated with finite sets of data points (see below). Our results only use the euclidean structure of the space $\mathcal H$ (i.e., as a linear space with a scalar product). Representation of targets in $\mathcal H$ as particular functions is the starting point of our study, but it only affects the GF flow through this euclidean structure. In other words, once we know the scalar products between targets, their other properties do not play any role in our theorems.
* "*Maybe the authors could use also polynomial targets in their "Examples" paragraph*"
Sure, we do that (our third example).
* "*How would the present construction relate to general kernel /random feature methods?*"
One can consider a subspace of RKHS as our target space $\mathcal H$. Specifically, suppose we have a kernel $K(\cdot, \cdot)$ on the input space $X$, and a finite training set $(\mathbf x_n, y_n)_{n=1}^N$ representing some function $f:X\to \mathbb R$.
In kernel methods, the function $f$ is fitted by functions $\widetilde f_{\mathbf c}(\mathbf x)=\sum_{k=1}^N c_k K(\mathbf x,\mathbf x_k),$ with some coefficients $\mathbf c=(c_1,\ldots,c_N)$. We can naturally view such functions $\widetilde f_{\mathbf c}$, with various $\mathbf c$, as forming our target space $\mathcal H$. Assuming the kernel is non-degenerate, $\mathcal H$ is $N$-dimensional, with vectors uniquely corresponding to the coefficient vectors $\mathbf c$. Then Theorem 5 shows that, by using gradient flow with a suitable two-parameter map $\Phi:\mathbb R^2\to\mathcal H$, we can, with a high probability, learn the target $\widetilde f_{\mathbf c^*}$ that interpolates the training data $(\mathbf x_n, y_n)_{n=1}^N$.
* "*I feel like the nomenclature for target-dimension as $d$ is confusing*"
Thanks for this feedback; we'll clarify this point.
* "*Below Eq. (1) I would expand on what is meant to be "locally solvable"*"
Thanks for this feedback, we'll clarify that ("locally solvable" means solvable at least for a finite interval of times).
* "*Is there a connection of your results to the recent work [1]?*"
Yes, we are familiar with that work. Both that work and our paper have a common general theme of a low-dimensional reduction (that we alluded to in our introduction), but otherwise the connection is fairly weak. The work in question proposes a KST-inspired architecture and focuses on its expressivity, whereas our focus is on GF optimization. Also, our construction is rather different from the one used in KST.
* "*How important is in your work the condition* $\mathbf w(0)=0$? *What would it change if the weights could be somehow correlated with the target's ones?*"
The condition that GF starts from $\mathbf w(0)=0$ is not important, one could instead start GF from any fixed $\mathbf w_0$.
Regarding a target-dependent initial condition, it's an interesting question. Some of our "negative" results such as Theorems 2 and 3 do not apply in this setting (at least without some essential modifications). On the other hand, the negative Theorem 4 based on Borsuk-Ulam remains valid as long as the initial condition $\mathbf w_0$ depends continuously on the target. An important difference would be in our main positive Theorem 5: as we mention in the discussion, we have not been able to prove it for infinite measures such as the Lebegue measure. However, this can certainly be done with a target-dependent initial condition: we can just split the space into finite boxes, assign a separate initial condition for each box, and define the map $\Phi$ separately in each respective region of the parameter space by following the existing proof for a finite box.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thank you for your rebuttal
Comment: I thank the authors for their rebuttal that clarified my concerns. After carefully reading the authors' responses along with other reviewers’ comments, I believe the proposed changes will improve the quality of the submission. I would like to keep my score as in the original review. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank the reviewers for a careful reading of our paper and many useful comments and suggestions.
Reviewers XxKo and qWpD ask about a possible extension of our main Theorem 5 to infinite-dimensional target spaces. We believe that this can be done, but there are some subtleties that we haven't worked out yet.
One immediate obstacle is as follows. Our finite-dimensional proof very much relies on the fact that we can choose in the target space a box $[-c,c]^d$ having measure $1-\epsilon$. The Cartesian product structure of the box is crucial for the proof. In the infinite-dimensional setting, the natural analog would be a box $\times_{k=1}^\infty [-c_k, c_k]$ in the Hilbert space $l^2$. For this box to lie in $l^2$, we need the convergence $\sum_{k=1}^\infty c_k^2<\infty$. However, we haven't managed to prove that such a box of measure $1-\epsilon$ can be found for an arbitrary Borel (with respect to the norm topology) measure on $l^2$. So either this has to be additionally proved, or the theorem must be stated for a more restrictive set of measures than arbitrary Borel measures considered in Theorem 5. | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Neuc-MDS: Non-Euclidean Multidimensional Scaling Through Bilinear Forms | Accept (poster) | Summary: In this paper, the authors propose a variant of MDS that is able to deal with data with a non-Euclidean structure. The main idea is to generalize the inner product to a bilinear form, hence admitting some relationships corresponding to "negative eigenvalues," interpreted as in an inner product form $u^TAv$. Although a closed-form solution is not possible, the authors optimize over a lower bound. The paper ends with empirical evaluations both on synthetic and real data, with promising results.
Strengths: The paper is well written in general. The introduction and motivation are very clear. Although most of the bounds and some ideas are already in [38], the idea of including negative eigenvalues and its implementation is interesting.
Another strength is the availability of the code.
Weaknesses: The introduction and problem definition are quite detailed (which is good), but I think that some of these facts may be considered well-known, like basic linear algebra facts. This could be used to include more specific material with the page restriction.
I also think that the experimental section needs a subsection to interpret the embeddings. Throughout the paper (and supplementary material) there are numerical results reported, but the embeddings are never plotted. At least for some toy example.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: I have a couple of questions related to real/complex values.
In line 99. why real/imaginary-valued dissimilarity when in the next line it reads $D\in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ ?
In equation (3). Then $X$ is complex (since $\sqrt{\Lambda}$ is). Because in the problem formulation you are looking for real embeddings.
Also related to that. If $X$ is complex, in the equation at the end of that page (page 4), shouldn't it be the complex conjugate instead of only the transpose?
Somehow related to these last two points. Does it make sense to include the sign of the eigenvalue in Diag(w) (and therefore $w$ can have values in $\{0,1,-1\}$, and the (squared root) absolute value of the eigenvalues in $\sqrt{\Lambda}$?
Something like the Generalized RDPG in "A statistical interpretation of spectral embedding: the generalised random dot product graph" by Rubin-Delanchy et al.
In line 303: "all dataset are non-metric", but then in Table 1 there's a column indicating wether the dataset is metric.
Minor comments:
- In equation (1), use \left( \right)
- Line 259: "The we ask"
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Although there is no specific section for this, some limitations are commented on throughout the manuscript.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank you for your careful reading and valuable feedback. In the following we address the concerns.
- ### Regarding complex values
In Line 99, we apologize for the confusion. $D$ is the squared dissimilarity matrix in general. We will emphasize it in the revision.
Regarding the complex (pure imaginary) entries in $X$, first we want to clarify that, these imaginary entries do not lie in traditional complex plane as one would expect. The reason is that the inner product (bilinear form) we use here is not the same as the traditional complex inner product (taking conjugate) defined for a complex plane. Therefore, the geometric meaning is totally different. This also partially answers the question why we could not use the complex conjugate in the equation at the end of page 4. The complex conjugate will produce a wrong dissimilarity matrix which cannot reconstruct the original one.
In the old version paper, we allow complex values in $X$ in order to simplify the mathematic expressions (the sign of eigenvalues will be absorbed). However, as observed now, we found it brings more confusion. In the revised vision later, we would only use real valued X together with a signed diagonal matrix $A=sign(\lambda)$. More precisely, let $X=\sqrt{diag{|\lambda|\odot w}} \cdot U^T$, and then use bilinear form $f(u, v)=u^TAv$ with the matrix $A$ as a diagonal matrix with $k$ non-zero values in $\{+1, -1\}$, with the sign matching the sign of the eigenvalues selected in $w$. Then $\hat{D}_{ij}=f(X_i-X_j, X_i-X_j)=(X_i-X_j)^TA(X_i-X_j)$.
Regarding the sign and absolute eigenvalues, yes, it contains important information. For our distance reconstruction tasks, we weighted eigenvectors by the square root of eigenvalues, together with signed diagonal matrix of eigenvalues. In other applications, there are different ways to combine these information.
The referenced paper of the work regarding Generalized RDPG is very interesting and highly related to our work. In general, our settings work for any symmetric dissimilarity (hollow) matrices, and one important motivation is to study the graph or network structure which is usually far from Euclidean geometry. One example mentioned in that paper about stochastic block models with cross-block probability higher than in-block probability, $B_{1,2} > B_{1,1}, B_{2,2}$, might be highly related to the hyberbolic geometry which is one of our motivating examples to study the general bilinear form with both positive and negative eigenvalues. Also, the way of visualization and interpretations of negative eigenvalues also inspire us a lot. We believe the study in that paper could be a good example and support of our work. We will include some discussions in the revised version.
In line 303, there is a typo. It should be “all dataset are non-Euclidean or non-metric”. Non-metric means the dissimilarity matrix even does not satisfy triangle inequality. Sorry for the confusion and we will make it clear in the revision.
- ### Regarding interpretation of embeddings and visualization:
One idea for the interpretation of the non-Euclidean distances is that the dissimilarities are metric distances between two sets of points. One way to view this is that each data element is actually a distribution with some uncertainty. The non-Euclidean distance actually penalizes such uncertainty. This is our ongoing work, which will likely to be a separate follow up paper.
Inspired by the referenced work, we also plot some 2-dimensional neudMDS embeddings of word embeddings from a Bert model trained for some text classification tasks. The plots include positive-positive, positive-negative, and negative-negative eigenvectors of the neucMDS. See the attached file in general response.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the response.
I'm glad that the provided reference was helpful.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. We appreciate it! | Summary: The paper introduces Neuc-MDS, a novel extension of classical Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) designed to handle non-Euclidean and non-metric dissimilarities in datasets. The goal is to create accurate low-dimensional embeddings while minimizing the STRESS (sum of squared pairwise error)
Strengths: 1. Neuc-MDS extends the concept of the inner product to a broader class of symmetric bilinear forms, allowing the incorporation of both positive and negative eigenvalues from the dissimilarity Gram matrix. This generalization helps capture the underlying structure of non-Euclidean data more effectively than classical MDS, which typically discards negative eigenvalues.
2. Neuc-MDS is specifically designed to handle non-Euclidean and non-metric dissimilarities, making it versatile for a wide range of applications where traditional MDS falls short. The method is backed by a thorough theoretical analysis, providing guarantees for minimizing STRESS. This includes a detailed decomposition of the STRESS error and the demonstration of optimality in eigenvalue selection.
3. Neuc-MDS is capable of working with a variety of dissimilarity measures that are commonly used in practice but are not Euclidean, such as cosine similarity, Hamming distance, and Jaccard index. This broadens its applicability to different fields and types of data.
Weaknesses: 1. The theoretical guarantees provided by Neuc-MDS are based on certain assumptions about the data and dissimilarity matrices. If these conditions are not met in practice, the performance and guarantees may not hold.
2. Some theoretical results rely on properties of random matrices (e.g., Wigner's Semicircle Law). The applicability of these results to structured or real-world datasets, which may not exhibit such random properties, is unclear. The use of Lorenzian distance or other non-standard measures may not satisfy traditional distance properties (e.g., triangle inequality), potentially leading to confusion or misinterpretation in applications that rely on classical distance metrics.
3. The algorithm involves eigenvalue decomposition and optimization over eigenvalue selections, which can be computationally intensive for large datasets. The scalability of Neuc-MDS, especially for very large datasets, may pose a practical challenge.
4. The implementation of Neuc-MDS involves several complex steps, including eigenvalue selection and optimization. This complexity may hinder its adoption by practitioners who require straightforward and easily implementable solutions.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. How does Neuc-MDS perform on extremely large datasets compared to cMDS and other dimensionality reduction methods in terms of runtime and memory usage? Are there specific strategies or heuristics recommended for choosing the subset of eigenvalues in very large-scale applications to balance between computational efficiency and accuracy?
2. How do the negative eigenvalues impact the interpretability of the resulting low-dimensional embeddings in practical applications, such as in visualization or clustering? What are the recommended practices for handling and interpreting dissimilarity matrices with negative entries generated by Neuc-MDS in downstream tasks?
3. To what extent do the theoretical guarantees of Neuc-MDS hold for real-world datasets that do not conform to the random matrix assumptions used in the analysis?
4. How does Neuc-MDS compare with other non-linear dimensionality reduction methods (e.g., t-SNE, UMAP) in preserving the global and local structure of non-Euclidean datasets?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: See weakness
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank you for your careful reading and valuable feedback. In the following we address the concerns.
- ### Regarding Computation and Scalability
We discuss the computational complexity and provide more ideas (e.g. using ideas similar to landmark MDS) on reducing the runtime for very large datasets in the general response (1). Basically, these concerns have been addressed by previous work.
- ### Regarding complexity of implementing Neuc-MDS
Our algorithm, compared to MDS, differs only in the way that eigenvalues are chosen. This algorithm is a simple greedy algorithm (Algorithm 2), that is both easy to understand and to implement, with linear running time in the number of eigenvalues to choose. We respectfully disagree that this is complex and thus not practical for implementation. We have also shared our code through the link in the paper for anyone who'd like to try it out.
- ### Regarding comparison with other methods
We compare with two non-linear methods: Smacof and t-SNE and provide the results in the general response (3). Neuc-MDS still outperforms those non-linear methods on non-Euclidean datasets, which implies that the issue raised from the non-Euclidean properties of the underlying spaces of datasets cannot be easily solved by non-linearity.
- ### Regarding Interpretation of dissimilarities
One idea for the interpretation of the non-Euclidean distances is that the dissimilarities are metric distances between two sets of points. One way to view this is that each data element is actually a distribution with some uncertainty. The non-Euclidean distance actually penalizes such uncertainty. This is our ongoing work, which will likely to be a separate follow up paper.
- ### Regarding assumptions on dissimilarity matrices
We remark that our assumptions on the input dissimilarity matrices are very general, especially compared to the Euclidean distance assumption in classical MDS and a lot of machine learning settings. That gives our methods potential to be applied to more general situations like non-Euclidean geometry or graphs. Also, our algorithm for choosing eigenvalues minimizes the error terms C1+C2, which is always a lower bound of STRESS=C1+C2+C3 (since C3 is non-negative). This does not depend on any assumption on the input data.
- ### Regarding Lorenzian distances and non-metric dissimilarities
Indeed many machine learning applications use metric distances or even only Euclidean distances, thus making it an (arguably) `comfort zone'. At the same time, many dissimilarity measures including Minkowski distance (Lp), cosine similarity, Hamming, Jaccard, Mahalanobis, Chebyshev, and KL-divergence are not Euclidean and sometimes even not a metric. Real world examples of genome data set [17] used in the experiments are also non-Euclidean. When such dissimilarities have their respective applications and are indeed used in practice (possibly more than anticipated), it is necessary to study such dissimilarities under dimension reduction. It is common if we look at the scientific history where scientists step outside comfort zone and ask -- what is beyond this assumption?
For the same reason, we have different views regarding that the use of non-metric distances potentially leading to confusion or misinterpretation. We hold an optimistic view that broadening our study of dissimilarity beyond Euclidean distances can bring us new opportunities and our work can be helpful in this direction.
[17] B. C. Feltes, et al., CuMiDa: an extensively curated microarray database for benchmarking and testing of machine learning approaches in cancer research. Journal of Computational Biology, 26(4):376–386, 2019.
- ### Regarding Random matrices
We fully agree that real world data is unlikely to generate a fully random matrix. In addition, we would like to add two interesting implications of this theoretical study. First, Euclidean distances support aggressive dimension reduction as evidenced by the Johnson Lindenstrauss Lemma (from $n$ dimensional space to $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}\log n)$ dimensional space with $1+\varepsilon$ distortion). The analysis for a random symmetric matrix points out that aggressive dimension reduction is indeed a luxury for Euclidean or other structured data, even if we use inner products that are not limited to Euclidean distances. Second, any real world data carries some measurement noise. When the scale of such random noise becomes non-negligible, STRESS error introduced by such noise cannot be small with aggressive dimension reduction. We would recommend practitioners to examine the spectrum of eigenvalues to gain insights on the power or limit in reducing dimensions.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the clarification, I'll keep my score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the comments! We are available to address are any additional questions. | Summary: The authors introduce Non-Euclidean-MDS (Neuc-MDS), an extension of Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) that accommodates non-Euclidean and non-metric outputs, efficiently optimizes the choice of (both positive and negative) eigenvalues of the dissimilarity Gram matrix to reduce STRESS. The results seem to be promising and the error analysis looks solid.
Strengths: 1. the error analysis seems solid.
2. the topic is important which can extend to non-Euclidean MDS
3. the experiments look promising
Weaknesses: 1. The overall writing is not easy to follow, for example from line 119-131, your statement is long, but I am still confused how to construct A. Apparently if A is Identity matrix, it degenerates into traditional one. Your contribution is to say A doesn't need to be Identity or even PSD, but how to construct A remains unknown to me.
2. I don't agree that A can be non-PSD, in which case the inner product of v with itself can be negative, I feel wired.
3. Line 137 you claim X can be recovered from B, however this is not precise.
4. the formatting can be improved, for example the fontsize Table 3 can be reduced and figure 3 can be better.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: What is the advantage of Neuc-MDS over Neuc-MDS+ or the opposite direction? From the experiments, I didn't find difference.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: NA
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank you for your careful reading and valuable feedback. In the following we address the concerns.
- ### Regarding the problem definition (Definition 3.1) and description
For a generic bilinear form $f_A(u, v)=u^T A v$, consider the induced dissimilarity $D_A(p_i,p_j):=f_A(p_i-p_j, p_i-p_j)$ between two points $p_i,p_j$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$
(there was a typo in Definition 3.1 regarding the notation $\hat{D}_{i,j}$. we'll correct it in the revision).
When $A$ is the identity matrix, the bilinear form gives a classical inner product and the dissimilarity is the (squared) Euclidean distance.
When $A$ is a PSD, the vector space with this bilinear form can be mapped isometrically to an Euclidean space through the eigen-decomposition of $A$.
In general, our paper focuses on looking for a bilinear form $f_{\hat{A}}$ defined by a low-rank $\hat{A}$ to approximate the bilinear form $f_{A}$ (or its induced dissimilarity $D_A$) of the underlying space of the given data.
How to construct the low-rank $\hat{A}$ or dissimilarity matrix $\hat{D}$ is the main task of this paper (Algorithm 1). We construct $\hat{A}$ together with embeddings implicitly in our $\hat{D}$. To see that, based on the relation between dissimilarities and bilinear forms (gram matrices), we have $\hat{X}^T\hat{A}\hat{X}=-C\hat{D}C/2=U{diag({\lambda}\odot {w})}U^T$.
The last equality is given by the eigen-decomposition with $U$ being the matrix of real eigenvectors, and ${w}$ indicating the selection of our algorithm on the eigenvalues ${\lambda}$. Then for $\hat{X}=\sqrt{diag({|\lambda|}\odot {w})}U^T$, the bilinear form $\hat{A}=diag(sign({\lambda}))$.
- ### Regarding non-PSD A
One of the main motivations of this work is based on some initial observations of importance of studying non-PSD bilinear forms which appeared in several research domains, and we believe it will benefit the machine learning community in general. We give more discussion in the general response (2).
- ### Regarding Line 137
Thank you for pointing out and yes, in general, we would say one instance of X (under some isometric transformations) realizing the distance matrix can be recovered by the algorithm (or more precisely, under some generic assumption, X is unique up to UXP where U is an orthogonal matrix, P is the matrix corresponding to the orthogonal projection from $\mathbb{R}^n$ to the subspace $\{x=(a_1, ...., a_n)\mid \sum_i a_i =0\}$). We would clarify it in the revision.
- ### Regarding NeucMDS vs NeucMDS+
Theoretically, both Neuc-MDS and Neuc-MDS+ look for a diagonal matrix of $\lambda'$ with at most $k$ non-zero entries to reconstruct a low rank dissimilarity matrix $D'$. Neuc-MDS uses $\lambda'$ by choosing at most $k$ non-zero eigenvalues from the input Gram matrix, while Neuc-MDS+ allows $\lambda'$ with arbitrary $k$ non-zero values -- or a general rank-$k$ linear transformation of the eigenvalues of the input Gram matrix. Thus Neuc-MDS+ looks for the optimal value in a larger domain.
Empirically, we realize that both Neuc-MDS and Neuc-MDS+ give smaller STRESS values but the number of negative distances using Neuc-MDS+ is significantly fewer. Due to space limit the experiments are in Table 5 of Appendix E.3.
- ### Regarding formatting
We appreciate your comments on formatting and will address these issues in the revised version.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: We hope the response helped to clarity the issues. We are available to address any additional questions. Thanks for the efforts and suggestions in the review.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Dear Reviewer,
Thank you again for your constructive review. We appreciate your recognition of our error analysis and the importance of our topic.
We hope our detailed response has addressed your concerns regarding the construction and the non-PSD properties of the bilinear form matrix A, the comparison between Neuc-MDS and Neuc-MDS+, and the noted formatting issues. We will include these updates in the revision. Please also see our general response, where we summarize the key steps taken to address the concerns of all the reviewers.
As the deadline is approaching, if you feel that we have sufficiently addressed your concerns, we would greatly appreciate if you could update your score.
Best regards. | Summary: This paper introduces Non-Euclidean Multidimensional Scaling (Neuc-MDS), an extension of classical Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) that can handle non-Euclidean and non-metric data. The key ideas and contributions are:
1. It generalizes the inner product to more general symmetric bilinear forms, allowing the use of both positive and negative eigenvalues of dissimilarity matrices.
2. Neuc-MDS efficiently optimizes the choice of eigenvalues to minimize STRESS (sum of squared pairwise errors). The authors set up the problem as a quadratic integer program but show that it has an optimal solution and that it can be found in a greedy fashion.
3. The authors provide theoretical analysis of the error and prove optimality in minimizing lower bounds of STRESS.
4. They introduce two algorithms: Neuc-MDS and an advanced version Neuc-MDS+.
5. Theoretical analysis is provided for the asymptotic behavior of classical MDS and Neuc-MDS on random symmetric matrices.
6. Experimental results on 10 diverse datasets show that Neuc-MDS and Neuc-MDS+ outperform previous methods on STRESS and average distortion metrics.
7. The proposed methods resolve the "dimensionality paradox" issue of classical MDS, where increasing dimensions can lead to worse performance.
8. The approach is applicable to both image and text data, and can handle various non-Euclidean dissimilarity measures.
9. The paper provides detailed proofs, algorithm descriptions, and experimental results in the appendices.
Overall, this work extends MDS to non-Euclidean spaces, providing both theoretical guarantees and practical improvements over existing methods for dimension reduction and data embedding tasks.
Strengths: This paper is well-written and it clearly outlines the problem and the solution. The analysis is non-trivial and the experiments are thorough.
Weaknesses: While the paper presents a novel approach with several strengths, there are a few potential weaknesses or limitations that can be identified:
1. Computational complexity: For large datasets, the method may still be computationally intensive, as it requires eigendecomposition of the full dissimilarity matrix. While the authors mention the possibility of using approximation algorithms for partial SVD, they don't provide detailed analysis or experiments on very large-scale datasets.
2. Limited comparison with non-linear methods: The paper primarily compares Neuc-MDS with classical MDS and other linear dimension reduction techniques. A comparison with popular non-linear methods like t-SNE or UMAP could provide more context on its performance relative to the state-of-the-art in dimension reduction.
3. Interpretability: The use of general bilinear forms, while mathematically elegant, may make the resulting embeddings less interpretable compared to Euclidean embeddings, especially for domain experts not familiar with non-Euclidean geometries.
4. Downstream tasks: The paper focuses on the quality of the embedding itself (via STRESS and distortion metrics) but doesn't extensively explore how these embeddings perform in downstream machine learning tasks compared to other methods.
5. Negative distances: The method can produce negative distances, which may be problematic for some applications or require special handling in downstream tasks. While this is mentioned, strategies for dealing with negative distances are not fully explored nor is the impact on "real" data sets discussed.
6. A discussion of just how non-Euclidean "standard" data sets are would be useful. Is this problem of non-Euclidean distances a substantial one or not?
7. This brings me to a more detailed discussion of the experiments: I'd be interested in seeing a quasi-synthetic example of a real data set with non-Euclidean distances used (say, graph distances from a nearest neighbor graph). What impact does that make on the results?
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See above.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: not applicable.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable feedback, we respond to your comments as follows.
- Computational Complexity
Thanks for raising the concern. One-line argument is both Neuc-MDS and classical MDS run in $O(n^3)$ time due to eigen decomposition, therefore, no extra cost asymptotically. We also have more ideas on reducing the runtime, please refer to general response 1.
- Additional Experiments with t-SNE
In the submission we mainly focused on linear embeddings and compare with other MDS variants, to evaluate the impact of moving beyond Euclidean geometry. Some non-linear dimension reduction methods such as Isomap use MDS as intermediate steps. The submission already included another non-linear method: Smacof. We also run experiments with t-SNE on all datasets, and find that Neuc-MDS outperform others in terms of STRESS. Please refer the results in general response 3.
- Interpretability
Beyond the routine use of classical MDS for embedding and visual inspection of the input dataset, these dimension reduction methods also have many applications, simply to reduce the size of the representation needed. For such types of applications, Neuc-MDS can be a good alternative when the input dissimilarity is non-Euclidean.
- Negative Distances
We have discussions and provide two examples with references in the general response 2.
- Downstream Tasks
Exploring how non-Euclidean dimension reduction can benefit downstream applications is an important next step. We are very keen in exploring along this direction further, which is one of the important future directions.
- Non-Euclidean Datasets
In our simulation section, we tested on two generated datasets that carry non-Euclidean distances. The first one is a random distance matrix (called Random-Simplex), and the second one takes minimum distance between Euclidean balls (called Euclidean-ball). Details of the two datasets can be found in Appendix E.1. Xu, Wilson and Hancock [49] have suggested two sources of non-Euclidean non-metric distances, random noises and extended objects, which correspond precisely to these two datasets. The Euclidean ball dataset suggests a general source of non-Euclidean distances coming from distances of families of data points, where the distance of two sets $A$ and $B$ is defined as the Hausdorff distance $\min_{a\in A, b\in B} d(a, b)$. Such distances are not Euclidean and are not always a metric.
In addition, the datasets we used from CuMiDa and image data set use dissimilarity values that are non-Euclidean, as can be seen from the negative eigenvalues in Figure 1 and Table 1. More discussion on this can be found in Appendix E.2.
Please let us know if there is anything further we could help clarify. Thanks again for your time and efforts!
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thank you. I'll keep my score. I do think that there are more directions in which to push this line of research and I don't want to ding the authors for not writing an extensive long paper (or three or four more) at this time!
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thank you for the comments and suggestions. We appreciate it! | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate the efforts by reviewers and would like to clarify a few questions and answer to raised concerns. We are glad that this submission has been found to be:
- Well-written (Reviewer wzYh, EWdH)
- Showing solid/thorough experimental results (all reviewers)
- Accompanied with convincing theoretical analysis (Reviewer wzYh, 3cJU, RtpY)
- With codes are publicly available (Reviewer EWdH).
We would like to first respond to general concerns and then independent reviews. The common issues include (1) Computational complexity, (2) Practicality of the output distances and (3) Experiments on non-linear methods.
- ### Computational Complexity
Recall that Neuc-MDS has exactly the same running time as classical MDS, which is $O(n^3)$ due to eigen-decomposition, therefore, no extra cost asymptotically.
In addition, from Line 173-183, we included some suggestions of reducing running time by computing only the $k$ eigenvalues and eigenvectors needed.
On top of that, for extremely large datasets, we can use landmark version of non-Euclidean MDS. Landmark MDS [1] is a heuristic to speed up classical MDS. We choose $h$ landmarks and apply MDS on the landmarks first. The coordinates of the remaining points are obtained through a triangulation step with respect to the landmarks. We can use the same heuristic to speed up Neuc-MDS. We ran some additional tests with landmark Neuc-MDS on our random-simplex dataset and got the following results. If we use only 25\% points randomly chosen as landmarks the STRESS is only a factor of $1.0644$ of the STRESS obtained by Neuc-MDS. If we use only 10\% points as landmarks, the final STRESS is only $1.0898$ of the STRESS of Neuc-MDS. This shows that Neuc-MDS can also be significantly accelerated using the landmark idea, achieving nearly the same STRESS.
[1] Vin de Silva, et al. Sparse multidimensional scaling, using landmark points.
- ### Practicality of Output Distances
Squared dissimilarity matrices with negative entries do appear in a number of popular mathematical models. We present two examples here.
1. In elementary plane geometry,
the power of a point $P$ relative to a circle (center $O$, radius $r$) is $|PO|^2-r^2$, introduced by Jakob Steiner, reflects the relative distance of a given point from a given circle. It is positive outside the circle (squared tangential distance) and negative inside (negative squared distance to a point $S$ on the circle where $PSO$ forms a right triangle).
The power of a point leads to a natural structure power diagram -- Voronoi diagram of circles. It is a planar convex subdivision where inside the cell of a circle $c$, all points have power distance to $c$ to be the smallest compared to other circles. The power diagram is a fundamental notion in computational geometry with applications of data structures and algorithms for a collection of disks [2], that serve as foundation to many problems in computational biology --- molecules are often modeled as spheres. It is related to semi-discrete optimal transportation [3], fluid dynamics [5], capacitated clustering [4] and area-preserving mapping in machine learning [6], and early universe reconstruction.
[2] H. Imai, et al. Voronoi diagram in the Laguerre geometry and its applications.
[3] F. Aurenhammer, et al. Minkowski-Type Theorems and Least-Squares Clustering.
[4] C. Ni, et al. Capacitated Kinetic Clustering in Mobile Networks by Optimal Transportation Theory.
[5] B. L\'{e}vy, Partial optimal transport for a constant-volume Lagrangian mesh with free boundaries.
[6] Na Lei, et al. A Geometric View of Optimal Transportation and Generative Model''.
2. Negative inner product norms have deep connections to the study of spacetime with special relativity. The Lorentzian $n$-space is an inner product space on $\mathbb{R}^n$ together with a non-PSD Lorentzian inner product norm: $|x|=-x^2_0 + x_1^2+\cdots + x^2_{n-1}$. The $n$-dimensional Lorentzian space is naturally classified into types based on the sign of the squared norm: spacelike (positive), timelike (negative) and lightlike (zero). The collection of all timelike vectors lie in the open subset formed by the interior of the light cone. For two similarly directed (both forward or backward in time) time-like vectors triangle inequality works in the opposite direction. Four-dimensional Lorentzian space is called the Minkowski space and forms the basis of special relativity. Furthermore, the collection of vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ with Lorentzian inner product of $-1$ has imaginary Lorentzian length and is precisely the hyperboloid model of the hyperbolic $n$-space $\mathbb{H}^n$ [7]. Along this line there are two potential directions of research.
First, with the increasing adoption of embedding in non-Euclidean spaces (e.g., hyperbolic spaces [8]) in machine learning models, we expect that non-Euclidean norms will find more applications. The second promising direction is in machine learning for physics model and data (AI4Sicence), see [9] for an example on the use of a feed-forward neural network for Petrov's classification of spacetimes.
[7] Ratcliffe, J. G. Foundations of Hyperbolic Manifolds.
[8] I. Chami, et al. Hyperbolic Graph Convolutional Neural Networks.
[9] Y. He, et al. Machine-Learning the Classification of Spacetimes.
We acknowledge that current machine learning practices predominantly take distances to be at least a metric space. The authors believe that it is necessary and the right time to expand our scope and consider non-Euclidean measures. This paper is making one step in this direction.
- ### Experiments on Non-linear Methods and visualization
We compare Neuc-MDS with t-SNE, a popular non-linear method. In the submission we compared with Smacof, also a non-linear method. Neuc-MDS outperforms other methods.
We also plot some 2-dimensional neudMDS embeddings of word-embeddings from a pretrained BERT model for a text classification task. See results in the attached pdf.
Pdf: /pdf/a8b1903268d6527144a8e54ced768fa5ba0a604a.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
MambaAD: Exploring State Space Models for Multi-class Unsupervised Anomaly Detection | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper pioneers the utilization of Mamba in the anomaly detection field. Specifically, the core contribution of the proposed MambaAD is a Locality-Enhanced State Space module, which utilizes Mamba for global information and CNN for local information. Whereas the motivation and the core technical contribution of this paper are similar to other works like U-Mamba, VMamba, and MedMamba, the proposed MambaAD is the first to extensively explore Mamba in the anomaly detection field and achieve state-of-the-art multi-class anomaly detection performance with a low parameter count and computational demand, making this paper acceptable for me.
Strengths: This paper is the first to explore Mamba in the anomaly detection field.
The proposed MambaAD achieves state-of-the-art multi-class anomaly detection performance with lower computational demand and fewer parameters than other multi-class anomaly detection alternatives.
The experiments are extensive, featuring six distinct AD datasets with seven metrics.
Weaknesses: 1. The motivation for using Mamba for visual anomaly detection should be strengthened. e.g., what’s the core challenge for multi-class anomaly detection? why long-range modeling is important for multi-class anomaly detection?
2. It would be better to report the performance with only global/local branches in Table 5, which can better show the influence of individual branches.
3. While the proposed MambaAD achieves better detection performance in most metrics on the evaluated datasets, for some metrics, like AUPRO on VisA, the proposed MambaAD is not the best one. It would be better to offer some analysis on this issue.
4. The current MambaAD framework appears to still rely on a pre-trained CNN encoder, utilizing the Mamba model only in the decoder. Why is this design chosen? What would be the implications if the entire structure were based on the Mamba model?
5. It seems that only the Hilbert scanning method is ultimately used out of the five proposed hybrid scanning methods. How should we further interpret the ablation study in Table 3?
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: See the weakness.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: See the weakness.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Q1: Motivation**
*(1)* Since the model needs to learn the **data distribution among samples with significant differences in a multi-class anomaly detection task, it requires a global modeling capability**, such as that provided by Transformers. UniAD, as the first model to propose a multi-class anomaly detection task, uses a Transformer decoder to model global features. However, **due to the quadratic computational complexity of Transformers, UniAD only uses Transformers on the smallest scale feature maps, which limits its performance in detecting small defects**.
*(2)* Mamba, a model with **linear computational complexity**, is appropriately applied to multi-class anomaly detection. Its global modeling capability allows it to **better learn the data distribution of different category samples, and its linear computational complexity enables modeling at multiple scales, improving the detection performance for small defects**.
In summary, Mamba's linear computational complexity and global modeling capability make it well-suited for addressing multi-class anomaly detection problems. As illustrated in Fig. 1 in the main text, MambaAD enhances its performance in multi-class anomaly detection by integrating CNNs with local modeling capabilities into the Mamba structure of the decoder, thereby improving its ability to learn the distribution of each feature.
**Q2: Local/Global Branches**
We conducted three ablation experiments to verify the impact of branches in the LSS module. The Local branch represents the use of only the parallel CNN branch, without the Mamba-based HSS branch. The Global branch represents the use of only the Mamba-based HSS branch, without the parallel CNN branch, making the decoder in this structure purely Mamba-based. Finally, Global+Local represents the proposed LSS structure used in MambaAD, which combines the serial Mamba-based HSS with parallel CNN branches of different kernel sizes.
The experimental results are shown in the table below. The Local branch, which uses only CNNs, has the lowest parameter count and FLOPs but also the lowest mAD metric, indicating high efficiency but suboptimal accuracy. The Global method, based on the pure Mamba structure, consumes more parameters and FLOPs than the Local method but shows a significant improvement in performance **(+2.7%)**. Finally, the combined Global+Local method, which is the LSS module used in MambaAD, achieves the best performance with a notable improvement of **(+1.6%)** over the individual methods.
| Method | Params(M) | FLOPs(G) | mAD |
| ------------ | --------- | -------- | ---- |
| Local | 13.0 | 5.0 | 81.7 |
| Global | 22.5 | 7.5 | 82.1 |
| Global+Local | 25.7 | 8.3 | **86.0**|
**Q3: Evaluation Metrics**
Please refer to **Q3** to **Reviewer gwhg** for more quantitative analysis in **Tab. 6** of the Rebuttal PDF and qualitative analysis in **Fig. 1** of the Rebuttal PDF.
**Q4: Mamba Encoder**
*(1)* Existing anomaly detection methods primarily use pre-trained encoders based on CNN backbone networks. For instance, [1,3] utilize WideResNet-50, while [2] employs EfficientNet-b4. Additionally, [4] uses the Transformer-based ViT as the feature extraction backbone. **Currently, no pre-trained encoder based on Mamba has been applied to the anomaly detection domain**. Therefore, MambaAD also uses widely adopted CNNs as the pre-trained backbone network.
*(2)* In the main text, Tab. 2 presents ablation experiments on different CNN networks. The results show that ResNet-34 achieves a good balance between efficiency and performance. Although WideResNet-50 can achieve better results, its computational complexity and parameter count are eight to ten times higher than those of ResNet-34. Hence, MambaAD selects ResNet-34 as the backbone network.
*(3)* To explore the impact of pre-trained Mamba encoders on anomaly detection tasks, we selected two recently popular vision Mamba models as backbone feature extraction networks: **VMamba [5] and EfficientVMamba [6]**. We replaced the original ResNet-34 backbone with these models, and the results are shown in the table below. The parameter count and FLOPs represent the values for the backbone network only, not the entire model, to facilitate the comparison of different backbone network performances. **EfficientVMamba-T has the fewest parameters and FLOPs but performs poorly on the MVTec-AD dataset in terms of the mAD metric. VMamba-T has a parameter count nearly four times that of ResNet-34, but its FLOPs are only 1.5 times higher. However, its mAD results are still inferior to those of ResNet-34.**
Currently, existing pre-trained Mamba-based backbone networks are neither lightweight nor effective for feature extraction in anomaly detection. Therefore, **we will continue to research lightweight, efficient, and high-accuracy Mamba-based backbone networks and apply them as feature extractors in the anomaly detection domain.**
| Backbone | Params | FLOPs | mAD |
| ----------------- | ------ | ----- | ---- |
| EfficientVMamba-T | 6.3M | 1.0G | 72.7 |
| VMamba-T | 30.2M | 6.0G | 82.9 |
| ResNet34 | 8.2M | 4.0G | **86.0** |
[1] Anomaly detection via reverse distillation from one-class embedding. Deng *et al.*. CVPR'22.
[2] A unified model for multi-class anomaly detection. You *et al.*. NeurIPS'22.
[3] Hierarchical vector quantized transformer for multi-class unsupervised anomaly detection. Lu *et al.*. NeurIPS'23.
[4] Exploring plain vit reconstruction for multi-class unsupervised anomaly detection. Zhang *et al.*. arXiv'23.
[5] Vmamba: Visual state space model. Liu *et al.*. arXiv'24.
[6] Efficientvmamba: Atrous selective scan for light weight visual mamba. Pei *et al.*. arXiv'24.
**Q5: Scanning Methods**
Please refer to **Q1** to **Reviewer aMDx** and additional ablation experiments in **Tab. 5** of the Rebuttal PDF.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response
Comment: After considering the author's responses to all reviewers during the rebuttal phase, I believe that the contribution and quality of this paper fully meet the high standards of NeurIPS. I strongly recommend accepting this paper and will modify my rate from 6 to 8. Here are my reasons:
The authors are the first to apply Mamba to the field of anomaly detection, which represents a significant innovation. The introduction of the LSS and HSS modules demonstrates unique approaches and technical advantages in handling multi-class anomaly detection tasks. The experimental section is very detailed and convincing. The rebuttal provided extensive theoretical and experimental analyses that addressed most of my concerns.
However, there is still some room for minor improvements. I suggest including the comparative experimental analysis with Transformer-based methods in the main text. Additionally, incorporating the pixel-level evaluation metrics in the main text would further substantiate the effectiveness of the approach in anomaly localization. Also, it will be interesting to study the influence of different input resolutions, since Mamba should have better long-term information acquisition capability.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thanks and response to resolutions.
Comment: Dear Reviewer wfnx,
**Thank you for recognizing our work and your valuable suggestions to help us improve the manuscript.** We commit to *including ablation experiments based on Transformer methods corresponding to Tab. 1, 7, and 8 in the revised version*. Additionally, we will incorporate the *mIoU evaluation metric results across six datasets to further validate the effectiveness of our approach in anomaly localization*.
**Q: Different Input Resolutions**
***(1)*** Regarding the impact of different resolutions, particularly on long-term information acquisition capability, we compared MambaAD's performance on the **MVTec-AD and VisA datasets at $256^2$ and $512^2$ resolutions**, as shown in the table below. For the MVTec-AD and VisA datasets, the **RD4AD method shows a significant decline in all metrics as the resolution increases**, indicating that *purely convolutional approaches struggle with long-distance modeling*.
***(2)*** For the Transformer-based UniAD method, increasing the resolution on the MVTec-AD dataset results in a **decline in image-level metrics, while pixel-level metrics such as P-AP, P-F1_max, P-AUPRO, and P-mIoU improve**. A similar trend is observed in MambaAD. This outcome may be due to the enhanced and clearer detailed information in higher resolutions, which **aids the model in more accurately identifying and distinguishing different regions for pixel-level tasks**, thereby improving anomaly localization metrics. However, for image-level classification tasks, **excessive detail may introduce noise and increase model complexity, leading to a decline in performance**. The decrease in the P-AUROC metric could be attributed to AUROC's nature as a measure of a classifier's overall performance across different thresholds, *reflecting the model's ability to distinguish between positive and negative samples*. *Higher resolution might cause instability in the model's performance at certain thresholds, especially for borderline samples, leading to a decrease in AUROC*. Overall, on the MVTec-AD dataset, the **MambaAD model outperforms both the CNN-based RD4AD and the Transformer-based UniAD at $512^2$ resolution**.
***(3)*** On the VisA dataset, the **UniAD method shows a general decline in performance at $512^2$ resolution compared to $256^2$ resolution**. This could be due to the *smaller anomaly areas in the VisA dataset, where Transformers may introduce noise during high-resolution global modeling and lack local region modeling capability*. For the **MambaAD** method, **increasing the resolution significantly improves all metrics except P-AUROC**. This improvement is attributed to the **effective long-distance modeling capability of Mamba and the integration of the proposed Locality-Enhanced LSS module. *The decline in P-AUROC might be due to changes in the distribution of positive and negative samples caused by the increased detail, affecting AUROC*. Overall, on the **VisA** dataset, **increasing the resolution significantly enhances MambaAD's performance compared to CNN and Transformer-based models**.
In the future, we will continue to explore the impact of different resolutions, particularly higher resolutions such as $1024^2$ and $2048^2$, to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Mamba model in high-resolution anomaly detection.
***MVTec-AD Dataset***
| Resolution | Method | I-AUROC | I-AP | I-F1_max | P-AUROC | P-AP | P-F1_max | P-AUPRO | P-mIoU |
| ---------- | ------- | ------ | ---- | ------ | ------ | ---- | ------ | ------ | ---- |
| $256^2$ | RD4AD | 94.6 | 96.5 | 95.2 | 96.1 | 48.6 | 53.8 | 91.1 | 37.0 |
| $256^2$ | UniAD | 96.5 | 98.8 | 96.2 | 96.8 | 43.4 | 49.5 | 90.7 | 32.5 |
| $256^2$ | MambaAD | 98.6 | 99.6 | 97.8 | 97.7 | 56.3 | 59.2 | 93.1 | 41.2 |
|$512^2$| RD4AD | 86.0 | 91.9 | 90.3 | 92.9 | 45.4 | 49.1 | 88.2 | 33.5 |
|$512^2$ | UniAD | 96.3 | 98.5 | 95.5 | 95.6 | 46.9 | 50.1 | 91.5 | 33.7 |
| $512^2$ | MambaAD | 97.7 | 99.0 | 96.3 | 96.8 | 60.4 | 60.9 | 93.1 | 44.5 |
***VisA Dataset***
| Resolution | Method | I-AUROC | I-AP | I-F1_max | P-AUROC | P-AP | P-F1_max | P-AUPRO | P-mIoU |
| ---------- | ------- | ------ | ---- | ------ | ------ | ---- | ------ | ------ | ---- |
| $256^2$ | RD4AD | 92.4 | 92.4 | 89.6 | 98.1 | 38.0 | 42.6 | 91.8 | 27.9 |
|$256^2$ | UniAD | 88.8 | 90.8 | 85.8 | 98.3 | 33.7 | 39.0 | 85.5 | 25.7 |
| $256^2$| MambaAD | 94.3 | 94.5 | 89.4 | 98.5 | 39.4 | 44.0 | 91.0 | 29.5 |
| $512^2$| RD4AD | 89.1 | 90.2 | 86.9 | 93.8 | 29.8 | 37.0 | 89.7 | 23.2 |
| $512^2$| UniAD | 87.4 | 88.5 | 84.8 | 96.6 | 26.7 | 35.2 | 87.2 | 22.0 |
| $512^2$| MambaAD | 95.7 | 97.0 | 92.5 | 96.1 | 40.1 | 46.1 | 92.0 | 31.0 |
Best regards!
Authors of MambaAD. | Summary: This paper employs a pyramid-structured auto-encoder to reconstruct multi-scale features, utilizing a pre-trained encoder and a decoder based on the Mamba architecture. The experimental results show SoTA performances on several commonly used datasets.
Strengths: 1. As far as I am concerned, MambaAD is the first attempt to use Mamba in the anomaly detection domain.
2. The experimental results are SOTA.
3. The representation is clear and easy to follow.
Weaknesses: 1. My major concern is the efficiency comparison shown in Table 4. UniAD is a transformer-based method, but leading to the smallest params and FLops. The advantage of Mamba should be the efficiency, however, which is not as good as transformer-baed methods.
2. The backbone model is WideResNet50. The backbone model of the other method is not WideResNet50. For example, UNIAD use the efficient-net. I am not sure about wether the improvements in this model imply in different backbone model.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Why the params and FLOPs are higher than the transformer-based model?
2. Why the evaluation metrics on the pixel level is lower? Is the anomaly localization worse?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The limitation and broader societal impacts are mentioned in the last paragraph.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Q1: Compared with Transformer-based Method**
*(1)* As shown in Fig. 1 of the main text, although UniAD is a Transformer-based method, it employs a **single-scale approach**, whereas our MambaAD, based on Mamba, utilizes a **multi-scale approach**. Specifically, **single-scale methods model and reconstruct only the smallest scale feature map during the decoder stage**. In contrast, multi-scale methods progressively increase the resolution from the smallest scale feature map during the decoder stage, modeling and reconstructing feature maps at multiple scales. **Due to the quadratic computational complexity of Transformers, UniAD opts for a single-scale framework as its primary architecture.** Consequently, UniAD, which reconstructs only the smallest scale feature map, naturally has the least parameter count and FLOPs. On the other hand, MambaAD, which models feature maps at three different scale resolutions, has slightly higher parameter counts and FLOPs compared to UniAD.
*(2)* To ensure a fair comparison, **we used the same encoder, ResNet-34**, as the feature extraction network. **Within the current multi-scale framework** of MambaAD, we employed both a pure Transformer-based decoder and a pure Mamba-based decoder to validate the efficiency of the method. The results are shown in the table below. It can be observed that, **under the same framework**, the pure Mamba-based decoder has significantly fewer parameters **-4.6M** and FLOPs **-0.9G** compared to the pure Transformer-based decoder, demonstrating a clear efficiency advantage. Additionally, in terms of performance, the Mamba-based method shows a notable improvement in the mAD metric (**+1.9%**), achieving a significant advantage in effectiveness as well.
|Decoder| Params(M)|FLOPs(G)|mAD|
|---|---|---|---|
|Transformer-based|27.1|8.4|80.2|
|Mamba-based|22.5|7.5|**82.1**|
**Q2: Different Backbone**
*(1)* The backbone feature extraction network used in MambaAD is **ResNet-34**. Although WideResNet-50 can achieve slightly better performance (+0.6%), it has **ten times the number of parameters and more than eight times the computational complexity**. Therefore, we opted for the more **lightweight ResNet-34 as the backbone**.
*(2)* To ensure a fairer comparison with UniAD and eliminate the influence of different backbone networks, we replaced the backbone networks in UniAD with three different options: **EfficientNet-b4, ResNet-34, and WideResNet-50**. Similarly, we replaced the backbone networks in MambaAD with these three options. Originally, UniAD with an EfficientNet-b4 has 3.6G FLOPs and an accuracy of 81.7. When we replaced the MambaAD backbone with EfficientNet-b4, it achieved only **2.7G** FLOPs and an accuracy of 84.1, which is **+2.4%** higher than UniAD. **With the same backbone network, MambaAD has fewer parameters and FLOPs and better performance compared to UniAD**. Subsequently, replacing the UniAD backbone with ResNet-34 resulted in a performance decline, while further replacing it with WideResNet-50 led to a +0.7% improvement in performance, albeit with doubled parameters and FLOPs.
In conclusion, **under the same backbone network, MambaAD consistently outperforms the Transformer-based single-scale UniAD method**, demonstrating significant improvements in performance.
|UniAD | Params(M) | FLOPs(G) | mAD |
|---|---|---|---|
|EfficientNet-b4|24.5|3.6|81.7|
|ResNet-34|16.1|6.1|78.2|
|WideResNet-50|33.5|14.4|78.9|
|MambaAD|Params(M)|FLOPs(G)|mAD|
|---|---|---|---|
|EfficientNet-b4|23.6|2.7| 84.1 |
|ResNet-34|25.7|8.3|86.0|
|WideResNet-50|268|68.1| 86.6 |
**Q3: Evaluation Metrics**
*(1)* From the perspective of method categorization, our method and the compared SoTA methods can be distinguished as follows: RD4AD, UniAD, DiAD, and MambaAD are **rec.-based** anomaly detection methods. DeSTSeg, on the other hand, is a **hybrid method that combines data augmentation and reconstruction**. During training, **DeSTSeg artificially introduces random anomalous regions to construct anomalous data, enabling the segmentation network to learn the precise locations of these regions**, thereby reducing the probability of missed and false detections. In contrast, other **rec.-based methods only learn the feature distribution of normal samples and perform comparisons at the feature level during testing**. Consequently, the hybrid DeSTSeg method may outperform other rec.-based methods in certain anomaly localization metrics. However, MambaAD, with its simpler approach, **achieves the majority of SoTA metrics and a few near-optimal results overall**.
*(2)* When comparing rec.-based methods, MambaAD demonstrates its effectiveness and robustness across four anomaly localization evaluation metrics on **six different datasets**. Recent work [1] has suggested that existing anomaly localization evaluation standards are **not specifically designed for segmentation-based anomaly detection tasks**. We selected the most commonly used **IoU metric to demonstrate the accuracy of anomaly localization which intuitively reflects the accuracy and overlap**. We tested the **mIoU** of rec.-based SoTA methods on six different types of six datasets. The results, as shown in **Tab. 6** in Rebuttal PDF, indicate that MambaAD significantly outperforms existing SoTA methods in terms of mIoU values across all six datasets, thereby proving the accuracy and robustness of our method in anomaly localization.
Finally, we conduct a **qualitative analysis** of the MambaAD method in comparison to RD4AD within the same framework. As visualized in **Fig. 1** in Rebuttal PDF, MambaAD demonstrates higher localization accuracy on anomaly images compared to RD4AD. This further validates the accuracy of the method in anomaly localization.
[1] Learning Feature Inversion for Multi-class Anomaly Detection under General-purpose COCO-AD Benchmark. Zhang *et al.*. arXiv'24.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for your detailed response. Some of my issues have been addressed. But why does the MambaAD with the backbone ResNet-34 and WideResNet-50 result in more parameters and Flops (compared to UNIAD)? Moreover, could you please list the inference time or FPS to show the inference speed of MambaAD and UniAD?
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Response to Reviewer gwhg about FLOPs and FPS
Comment: Dear Reviewer gwhg:
Thank you for your comments.
**Q: FLOPs**
(1) As shown in Fig. 1 of the main text, UniAD is a single-scale method, whereas our Mamba-based MambaAD is a multi-scale method. UniAD **concatenates features from the four stages of the encoder** and uses a Transformer to model **only the smallest scale feature map**. In contrast, MambaAD gradually **increases the resolution of the feature maps** during the decoder stage and performs modeling and reconstruction at four different scales. This difference in framework leads to MambaAD consuming more parameters and FLOPs **on high-resolution feature maps**. Additionally, the WideResNet-50 backbone network, with its higher number of channels at each scale, further increases the parameter and FLOP differences between the two methods.
(2) The Mamba-based model offers **better interpretability and performance**. The model's FLOPs are also related to the implementation method. For instance, Mamba's **FLOPs could be reduced if the state transition is implemented using a vanilla for-loop**. However, the authors of Mamba chose to double the FLOPs to achieve a more parallel and efficient implementation.
**Q: FPS**
We evaluated the FPS of UniAD and MambaAD on ResNet-34 and WideResNet-50 backbones to demonstrate inference speed. The results show that MambaAD still lags behind UniAD in terms of inference speed. The following are possible reasons and directions for optimization:
(1) Model framework: As mentioned in ***Q: FLOPs***, the MambaAD model requires more FLOPs, which affects inference speed to some extent.
(2) Code implementation: The MambaAD code currently uses the initial Mamba implementation with mamba_ssm and causal-conv1d for SSM, which suffers from suboptimal algorithmic efficiency. Using the latest CUDA-accelerated selective_scan_cuda_core algorithm could improve computational efficiency by **40%**.
(3) Number of scanning directions: The current method uses eight different scanning directions to ensure optimal performance. Using only **two different scanning directions** on the ResNet-34 backbone can still achieve an **mAD of 85.8 and an FPS of 574.6**, representing a **258% increase in FPS** compared to using eight scanning directions.
(4) Code implementation of scanning methods: The current Hybrid Scan method is implemented solely in PyTorch, resulting in low efficiency. Our observations indicate that the HS encoder and HS decoder **occupy more than 60% of the time**. We plan to use **Triton or CUDA to accelerate** this process in the future.
In summary, while MambaAD shows **significant performance improvements** over UniAD, its inference speed is affected by the aforementioned issues. We will continue to optimize the model and algorithms to surpass the inference speed of Transformer-based frameworks.
| UniAD | Params(M) | FLOPs(G) | FPS | mAD |
| ------------ | --------- | ----- | ---- | ---- |
| ResNet-34 | 16.1 | 6.1 | 1119.9 | 78.2 |
| WideResNet-50 | 33.5 | 14.4 | 582.7 | 78.9 |
| MambaAD | Params(M) | FLOPs(G) | FPS | mAD |
| ----------- | --------- | ------ | ---- | ---- |
| ResNet-34 | 25.7 | 8.3 | 222.5 | 86.0 |
| WideResNet-50 | 268 | 68.1 | 44.6 | 86.6 |
Best regards!
Authors of MambaAD. | Summary: The paper "MambaAD: Exploring State Space Models for Multi-class Unsupervised Anomaly Detection" introduces MambaAD, a novel framework for multi-class unsupervised anomaly detection using Mamba-based models. The framework consists of a pre-trained encoder and a Mamba decoder that integrates Locality-Enhanced State Space (LSS) modules at multiple scales. The LSS module combines Hybrid State Space (HSS) blocks and multi-kernel convolution operations to capture both long-range and local information. The proposed method is evaluated on six diverse anomaly detection datasets, demonstrating state-of-the-art performance and significant improvements in efficiency and accuracy.
Strengths: 1. The use of Mamba-based models for multi-class anomaly detection and the innovative LSS module are novel contributions.
2. The theoretical foundations are robust, and the empirical validation is comprehensive.
3. The paper is clearly written, with well-structured sections and effective use of visual aids.
4. The approach addresses a critical gap in anomaly detection research and demonstrates significant performance improvements, making it highly relevant and impactful.
Weaknesses: 1. The sensitivity of the method to the selection of scanning methods and directions could be explored further.
2. While the experimental results are compelling, additional validation on more diverse and challenging datasets would further strengthen the claims.
3. The discussion of potential limitations and future work could be expanded to provide a more comprehensive view of the method's applicability and areas for improvement.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Could the authors provide more insights into the selection of scanning methods and the impact of different numbers of directions on the detection performance?
2. Have the authors considered the robustness of the method under different environmental conditions, such as varying lighting and occlusions?
3. Could additional experiments on other industrial or medical datasets help to further validate the generalizability of the proposed method?
===== post rebuttal ======
The authors' rebuttal solve most of my concerns, hence I raise my score to 7.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have adequately addressed some limitations, including potential issues with scanning method selection and environmental conditions. Constructive suggestions for improvement include exploring the sensitivity to scanning parameters and validating the method under different environmental conditions.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Q1: Further Exploration of Scanning Methods and Direction Selection**
***(1) Scan Directions***
Firstly, we further investigate the impact of different scanning directions on Params, FLOPs, training time over 100 epochs, training memory usage, and final performance, as shown in the table below. It is evident that as the number of scanning directions increases, there is a corresponding increase in Params, FLOPs, training time, and training memory usage. Consequently, the performance in terms of mAD also improves. Therefore, for those prioritizing efficiency, scanning with **2 directions offers the lowest Params and FLOPs, while also requiring less training time and memory, yet achieving satisfactory performance**. Conversely, for those aiming for optimal performance and willing to accept increased computational load and training time, scanning with **8 directions yields the best results**.
| Scan Directions | Params(M) | FLOPs(G) | Training Time | Training Memory | mAD |
| --------------- | --------- | -------- | ------------- | --------------- | ---- |
| 2 | 21.8 | 7.2 | 2h1m | 6230 | 85.8 |
| 4 | 23.1 | 7.5 | 2h56m | 7974 | 85.9 |
| 8 | 25.7 | 8.3 | 5h39m | 11802 | 86.0 |
***(2) Scan Methods***
Subsequently, we further explore the impact of different scanning methods and the fusion of multiple scanning methods on the results, as shown in the table below. Different scanning methods exhibit negligible differences in terms of parameters, FLOPs, training time, and memory usage, with variations only observed in the final results. The results indicate that using any of the five different scanning methods individually can achieve satisfactory outcomes. However, combining different scanning methods tends to degrade performance, possibly due to the significant differences between the methods, which may hinder the selective scanning and global modeling convergence of the SSM. Therefore, we ultimately choose to use only the Hilbert scanning method. **This method allows for continuous scanning in the central part of the image, which is advantageous for SSM in learning and modeling the distribution of anomaly detection data, as most data in anomaly detection datasets are centered in the image.**
|Sweep|Scan|Zorder|Zigzag|Hilbert|mAD|
|-----|----|------|-----|-----|----|
|√|||||85.8|
||√||||85.9|
|||√|||85.8|
||||√||85.8|
|||||√|86.0|
||||√|√|84.9|
|||√||√|85.3|
||√|||√|85.4|
|√||||√|85.7|
||√|√|√|√| 85.3 |
**Q2: Additional Datasets**
In Tab. 1 of the main text, we demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of our method on three industrial anomaly detection datasets: MVTec-AD, VisA, and Real-IAD. To further validate the effectiveness of our method, we include additional datasets from **medical, 3D, and real-world scenes**. The **Uni-Medical** dataset [1] comprises CT scans from three different anatomical locations. The **MVTec-3D** dataset [2] includes both RGB images and depth maps. Additionally, [3] extends the commonly used COCO dataset for detection and segmentation to anomaly detection, creating a large-scale, general-purpose **COCO-AD** dataset that encompasses complex scenes and diverse distributions. These datasets exhibit significant distributional differences compared to traditional industrial anomaly detection datasets, providing a robust test for our method. The results are summarized in the table below. For more detailed results, please refer to **Appendix C-E**. Our MambaAD method shows improvements over existing SoTA methods, with **+4.2%** on the medical dataset, **+3.7%** on the 3D dataset, and **+2.5%** on the COCO-AD dataset. These significant improvements across datasets with different distributions and scenarios validate the effectiveness and robustness of our method.
| Extra Datasets | RD4AD | UniAD | SimpleNet | DeSTSeg | DiAD | MambaAD |
| --------------- | ----- | ----- | --------- | ------- | ---- | ------- |
|Uni-Medical| 70.2 | 69.9 | 69.1| 60.9| 70.5 | **74.7**|
|MVTec-3D| 74.3 | 71.1 | 66.9| 69.1| 73.8 | **78.0**|
|COCO-AD| 45.0 | 42.3 | 40.7| 40.0| 44.1 | **47.5**|
**Q3: Robustness Under Different Environmental Conditions**
**Currently, the anomaly detection field lacks specialized datasets that account for varying lighting conditions and occlusions.** However, the **COCO-AD[3] dataset** we use is a general-purpose anomaly detection dataset derived **from real-world detection and segmentation scenarios**. It includes a wide variety of objects and categories from real-world settings. As illustrated in Fig. 1(a) of the [3] paper, the dataset encompasses diverse scenes with significant variations between them. These scenes exhibit different data distributions and **include various environmental conditions such as sunny and cloudy days**. Additionally, the dataset features **occlusions both within the same object and between different objects**. In the table above, our method achieves SoTA on the COCO-AD, with an improvement of over **+2.5%** in the mAD metric. This further validates the robustness of our method in complex and general anomaly detection scenarios.
[1] Exploring plain vit reconstruction for multi-class unsupervised anomaly detection. Zhang *et al.*. arXiv'23.
[2] The mvtec 3d-ad dataset for unsupervised 3d anomaly detection and localization. Bergmann *et al.*. arXiv'21.
[3] Learning Feature Inversion for Multi-class Anomaly Detection under General-purpose COCO-AD Benchmark. Zhang et al.. arXiv'24.
**Q4: Limitations and Future Work**
The primary limitations lie in **high-resolution application scenarios** and the **Mamba-based encoder**. These areas will be the focus of future research. For a more detailed explanation, please refer to **Q1** addressed to Reviewer **FXx2**.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Thanks.
Comment: Dear reviewer aMDx:
Thank you for recognizing our work. We commit to incorporating the content you suggested in the revised version. Thank you again for your effort in the review and the discussion!
Best regards!
Authors of MambaAD. | Summary: This paper introduces a method for multi-class unsupervised anomaly detection utilizing a CNN-based encoder and a Mamba-based decoder. It incorporates an LSS module and a HSS block within the Mamba decoder to enhance performance. The effectiveness of the method is validated through experiments conducted on three image anomaly detection datasets.
Strengths: 1. This study represents a novel exploration in using Mamba for anomaly detection. As far as I understand, this is the first research endeavor to apply Mamba in the context of anomaly detection.
2. Extensive experiments are presented in the paper.
Weaknesses: 1. From a methodological standpoint, the anomaly detection approach essentially implements RD4AD, with the CNN decoder replaced by a Mamba decoder.
2. Several key ablations are absent from the experimentation:
(a) It would be nice to conduct a comparison study using the same RD4AD architecture with CNN-based decoder, transformer-based decoder, and Mamba-based decoder. This comparison would validate the effectiveness of Mamba compared to other decoder architectures.
(b) Ablations of model components should be included, which compares the proposed method, the proposed method without the HSS block, and the proposed method without the LSS module. This ablation study would provide insights into the functionality of these components.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Please refer to the comments in the Weakness Section.
---------------
Post-rebuttal review:
While I still have some reservations about the methodological novelty of this study, the performance and generalizability of the method appear to be strong. After reviewing the authors' response and considering the feedback from other reviewers, I have decided to raise my initial rating.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 1
Limitations: Minimal discussion. Although the section labeled "limitations" includes some wording, it does not actually discuss any perspectives on real limitations on the methods.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Q1: From a methodological perspective**
*(1)* We adopt a **reconstruction-based framework**. Anomaly detection methods based on reconstruction can be broadly categorized into **image reconstruction and feature reconstruction**. Methods such as GAN and diffusion-based approaches primarily fall under image reconstruction, where the similarity between the generated image and the input is calculated. In contrast, feature reconstruction methods compute the similarity between the input features and the reconstructed features. **RD4AD is merely a specific instance within the feature reconstruction methods. Additionally, this framework is not referred to as a contribution in our paper.**
*(2)* Mamba, as a novel global modeling structure, **has not yet been explored for its potential in anomaly detection (AD)**. We found that directly applying it to multi-class anomaly detection tasks does not significantly improve performance compared to the original CNN architecture (+0.4%) in Tab. 1. Therefore, we first combined Mamba's global modeling capability with CNN's local modeling capability in Tab. 3, which significantly improved performance (**+2.8%**), and proposed the **AD-adaptive LSS module**, corresponding to the contribution in the fusion modeling approach. Secondly, we introduced the **AD-adaptive HSS method** to specifically enhance the scanning approach (**+1.1%**) for multi-class anomaly detection data, corresponding to the contribution in the scanning method.
**Q2: More key ablations**
***(1) Decoder Ablations***
We conducted experiments on different decoder structures **within the same RD4AD framework**, and the results are summarized in the table below. The Mamba-based decoder, which uses only Mamba as the component for each decoder module instead of the proposed LSS module that integrates Mamba with CNN structures, shows a decrease in performance compared to the result of 86.0 reported in the paper. However, compared to decoders based purely on CNN or Transformer architectures, the Mamba-based decoder achieves the highest mAD score of **82.1**. Additionally, **the Mamba-based decoder has fewer parameters and FLOPs compared to the Transformer-based structure.**
| Decoder | Params(M) | FLOPs(G) | mAD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CNN-based | 13.0 | 5.0 | 81.7 |
| Transformer-based | 27.1 | 8.4 | 80.2 |
| Mamba-based | 22.5 | 7.5 | 82.1 |
***(2) Components Ablations***
The ablation experiments for the proposed components are summarized in the table below. Using the most **basic decoder purely based on Mamba and employing only the simplest two-directional sweep scanning method**, we achieve an mAD score of 82.1 on the MVTec-AD dataset. Subsequently, by incorporating the proposed **LSS module**, which integrates the global modeling capabilities of Mamba with the local modeling capabilities of CNNs, the mAD score improves by **+2.8%**. Finally, replacing the original scanning directions and methods with **HSS**, which combines features from different scanning directions and employs the **Hilbert scanning method**, better aligns with the data distribution in most industrial scenarios where objects are centrally located in the image. This results in an additional **+1.1%** point improvement in the mAD score. Overall, the proposed MambaAD achieves an mAD score of **86.0** on the MVTec-AD dataset, reaching the SoTA performance.
| Basic Mamba Decoder | LSS | HSS | mAD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ✓ | | | 82.1 |
| ✓ | ✓ | | 84.9 |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 86.0 |
**Q3: More Limitations**
*(1)* Although Mamba has linear computational complexity, the current multi-scale reconstruction-based framework (*c.f.* Fig. 1) is more effective than the single-scale UniAD method (81.7 -> 86.0). However, due to the limitations of the framework, existing methods are still not efficient enough.
*(2)* Moreover, since most industrial anomaly defects are relatively small, as seen in datasets like VisA and Real-IAD, where defects occupy a very low proportion of the entire image, it is necessary to improve detection resolution to identify small target defects. However, increasing the resolution brings additional computational complexity to the model. Therefore, **designing more efficient and lightweight anomaly detection models is urgently needed in industrial scenarios.** We extended the MambaAD method to high-resolution tasks, such as $512^2$, $1024^2$, and even higher $2048^2$ input resolutions. At a resolution of $512^2$, the model's FLOPs reach 33.2G with a throughput of only 45.1. At a resolution of $1024^2$, the FLOPs soar to 133G with a throughput of only 10.3. At a resolution of $2048^2$, we could not measure the corresponding FLOPs due to OOM (Out of Memory) errors. In summary, **there is still much room for improvement in the lightweight design of current models, especially when applied to high-resolution industrial scenarios. The current models do not yet meet the efficiency and real-time requirements of high-resolution industrial applications.**
*(3)* **The existing Mamba-based encoder still has certain deficiencies in terms of efficiency and effectiveness**. In the table below, we replaced the current encoder with two different lightweight pre-trained Mamba encoders. The parameters and FLOPs only represent the results of the encoder. Although EfficientVMamba-T has the highest efficiency, its feature extraction capability is lacking. On the other hand, VMamba-T shows significant improvement in effectiveness but still lags behind the current CNN encoder in terms of real-time performance and overall effectiveness. Therefore, **designing more lightweight, efficient, and accurate Mamba-based encoders for anomaly detection is crucial and will be the focus of our future research.**
| Backbone| Params(M) | FLOPs(G) | mAD |
| ------- | ------ | ----- | ---- |
| EfficientVMamba-T | 6.3 | 1.0 | 72.7 |
| VMamba-T| 30.2 | 6.0 | 82.9 |
| ResNet34| 8.2 | 4.0 | 86.0 |
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thanks for the rebuttal
Comment: I appreciate the authors' rebuttal and their engagement with my comments. Given that the experiments were conducted on multiple datasets, could the authors clarify which specific dataset was used to obtain the ablation mAD in the table above?
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Response to Reviewer FXx2 about mAD.
Comment: Dear reviewer FXx2:
Thank you for your comments. The ablation experiments in the three tables mentioned in the rebuttal were all conducted on the **MVTec-AD** dataset. **In the PDF, only Tab. 4 and 6** include experiments conducted on **multiple datasets**, as indicated in the first row of the respective tables. **All other tables' ablation experiments** were performed on the standard **MVTec-AD dataset**.
Best regards!
Authors of MambaAD. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the constructive comments and suggestions from the reviewers. We appreciate the efforts of all reviewers in evaluating and helping to improve the quality of our manuscript.**
***The primary contributions of this paper are as follows:***
This paper is the **first to explore the application of Mamba in multi-class unsupervised anomaly detection**, proposing MambaAD. Existing CNN-based methods are limited by their long-distance modeling capabilities, while Transformer-based methods are constrained by their quadratic computational complexity. Therefore, this paper introduces the Locality-Enhanced State Space (**LSS**) module, which includes parallel cascaded Hybrid State Space (**HSS**) blocks and multi-kernel convolution operations. This module **integrates Mamba's linear computational complexity for global modeling with CNN's locally enhanced modeling capabilities at multiple scales in the decoder**. The HSS block employs Hybrid Scanning (**HS**) to map features into **five different scanning patterns and eight different scanning directions**, enhancing the global modeling capability of the State Space Model (SSM).
The effectiveness and robustness of MambaAD are validated across **six different datasets**: MVTec-AD, VisA, Real-IAD (**industrial**), Uni-Medical (**medical**), MVTec-3D (**3D**), and COCO-AD (**general scenarios**). The evaluation is conducted using **seven metrics at the image level (AUROC, AP, F1-Max) and pixel level (AUROC, AP, F1-Max, AUPRO)**. Additionally, during the Rebuttal phase, the **mIoU metric** for anomaly localization was included, making a total of **eight evaluation metrics**. The results demonstrate that MambaAD achieves **SoTA performance**. The **efficiency** of the method is also validated in both the main text and the Rebuttal. This work provides a foundation for further research on the application of Mamba in anomaly detection.
***Below is a brief summary of our responses to all reviewers' questions, along with their corresponding relationships to the tables and figure in the PDF.***
### Reviewer FXx2
- **Q1:** We discuss the **methodology** of MambaAD and its relationship with the RD4AD method.
- **Q2:**
- We conducted additional ablation experiments on the **decoder**, corresponding to Tab. 1 in the PDF, demonstrating the efficiency and effectiveness of the Mamba decoder.
- We performed **incremental ablation** experiments on each proposed module, corresponding to Tab. 3, showcasing the effectiveness of the proposed method.
- **Q3:** We elaborated on the **limitations of the method**, noting that it is not lightweight enough for high-resolution anomaly detection tasks. Additionally, the current Mamba-based encoder has certain gaps when directly applied to the anomaly detection domain, as shown in the ablation experiments in Tab. 10. We will continue to investigate these issues in future research.
### Reviewer aMDx
- **Q1:** We further explored:
- The **scanning directions**, corresponding to Tab. 2.
- The **scanning methods**, corresponding to Tab. 5, and their sensitivity to the method.
- **Q2:** We added three **additional datasets** from different categories to demonstrate the method's effectiveness, including medical, 3D, and general scene anomaly detection datasets, with ablation experiments corresponding to Tab. 4.
- **Q3:** We discussed the **robustness of the method** under different environmental conditions.
- **Q4:** We addressed the same issue as in Reviewer FXx2's Q3 and further discussed the method's **limitations and future work**.
### Reviewer gwhg
- **Q1:** We explored **comparisons with Transformer-based methods**, with ablation experiments in Tab. 1.
- **Q2:** We conducted fair comparisons by replacing the **backbone networks** of UniAD and MambaAD with three different networks, with ablation results shown in Tabs. 7 and 8.
- **Q3:** We discussed the reasons for poor anomaly localization performance and validated the method's effectiveness in pixel-level anomaly localization using the additional **mIoU anomaly localization evaluation metric** on six datasets, as shown in Tab. 6. We also provided more qualitative analysis with the RD4AD framework in Fig. 1.
### Reviewer wfnx
- **Q1:** We delved deeper into the **motivation** of this study.
- **Q2:** We conducted ablation experiments on the **local and global branches of LSS**, as shown in Tab. 9.
- **Q3:** We addressed the same issue as in Reviewer gwhg's Q3, discussing the reasons for poor anomaly localization performance and validating the method's effectiveness in pixel-level anomaly localization using the additional **mIoU anomaly localization evaluation metric** on six datasets, as shown in Tab. 6. We also provided more qualitative analysis with the RD4AD framework in Fig. 1.
- **Q4:** We conducted additional ablation experiments on the **Mamba-based encoder**, as shown in Tab. 10.
- **Q5:** We addressed the same issue as in Reviewer aMDx's Q1, with in-depth exploration and ablation experiments on the **scanning method**, as shown in Tab. 5.
Pdf: /pdf/41f3417969fa50e43a9374f7d7431362a6fcb091.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Robust Reinforcement Learning with General Utility | Accept (poster) | Summary: The authors combine the topics of robust RL with general non-linear utility. They use policy gradient formulae from general utility RL and combine those with gradient algorithms for minimax problems due to Lin et al. The authors claim to have a convergence theory for the sample based algorithm that ensures convergence to a stationary point (convergence of gradient).
Strengths: The topic is interesting and it is very reasonable to combine the different setups in the way the authors propose. The algorithm is clever, the results look (mostly) reasonable, a very extensive theoretical study is carried out.
Weaknesses: It seems to me the authors did not understand the Landau O notation, at least the way it is used does not make much sense. The O notation is only reasonable (and only defined for) in a limiting sense where typically one limiting variable is chosen. For a fixed number there is no sense in the O notation, it could allow to multiply that number by any real which of course is non-sense! Looking at Theorem 2 the problem becomes visible. The statement as is does not make sense: The accuracy $\epsilon$ is fixed. Then a number of parameters of the algorithm are fixed as K=O(...), T=O(...), K'=O(...). What does that mean, O in what variable? Please compare with your Corollary 1, that statement makes sense. I went into the proofs to see if this is only imprecisely formulated, but it got even worse. The proof is full of estimates of the type $A\leq O(...)$ for a number $A$ and, even worse, $O(...)\leq A$. What is that supposed to be? The proofs are way too long (and this is not the referee's job) to check if the proofs can be saved or if there are O-constants that build up and spoil the proof. I am not too skeptical, the theorems looks somewhat reasonable. On the other hand a lot can happen if all constants are swept under the carpet, I cannot confirm correctness of the results. The analysis should be completely reworked and might make the article interesting for the next top tier conference.
Here are some further points:
- There is no clear motivation given for the article. As a Mathematician I agree the question is interesting, for a leading ML conference there should be some clearer motivation. The example is extremely artificial and not convincing at all.
- It is not particularly pleasant to read the article. I believe there are way too many repetitive (and imprecise) citations. One clear citation for the general utility policy gradient theorem should be enough, most citations given do not include such a variant. To me the article is too technical, a little bit of story telling would be very much appreciated. Perhaps the authors might want to think of splitting the article in two.
- There should be examples for the assumptions. For instance, what standard class of policies satisfy the policy assumptions? This is certainly standard for PG methods but almost all articles discuss some examples (softmax, linear softmax, ...).
- The complexity "result" of Theorem 2 is pretty extreme. For the usual $\gamma=0.99$ and $\epsilon=0.01$ the powers make it essentially infinite. I do not criticise the result, that's what the Maths gives. Still, the authors should point out that this is a theoretical estimate with no practical implication. Similarly, the theoretical iteration numbers and batch sizes are ridiculously large. This is a theoretical worst case estimate (perfectly fine with me) but it should be mentioned that in practice those numbers would not be used. If I am not wrong those numbers are not used in their own simulation example (which should also be mentioned).
Technical Quality: 1
Clarity: 1
Questions for Authors: - It might be interesting to think about unbiased gradient estimators for general utility RL. Such have been found in the past years for linear RL, I guess something similar works in the non-linear case.
- Assumption 1, assumption for p. That assumption is somewhat crucial. I do not have a feeling, there is no discussion, if (or not) that assumption is strong. In what situation is the assumption satisfied? Is there any interesting situation in which the assumption is satisfied?
- Assumption 4 looks brutal to me. Is there any way to verify that assumption? Is there any example for which it can be verified? Perhaps that was addressed in past work, but some discussion is needed.
- The example: If I am not wrong the choices of parameters do not fit to the theory. Do they? If not, that should at least be discussed. How about the assumptions, can they be checked in that example? If not, I fear the article might prove something on the empty set.
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 1
Presentation: 1
Contribution: 2
Limitations: As mentioned above I cannot confirm that I agree with the theoretical results. The statement of Theorem 2 seems incorrect and the proofs continue in the same fashion. Since the article is of only theoretical nature I do not think it can be published in the current form at the top conference.
Nonetheless, I believe the research direction is very reasonable and the authors have made very important and very non-trivial research progress! In my view the article needs a full major revision which is not in the scope of a conference revision.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable feedback. Below is a response to the review questions/comments. We will revise the manuscript accordingly after the review discussion period. Please let us know if further clarifications are needed.
**Q1:** The weakness in the O notation requires reworking the long proof.
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion. Similar to theoretical results in [1,2], our Theorem 2 uses the $\mathcal{O}$ notation to stress the dependence on the large positive constants like $(1-\gamma)^{-1}$ and $\epsilon^{-1}$. For example, $\mathcal{O}[(1-\gamma)^{-8}\epsilon^{-4}]$ is defined as $C(1-\gamma)^{-8}\epsilon^{-4}$ where the constant $C$ **does not depend on** $\gamma$ and $\epsilon$. This definition fits the following limiting sense.
$$
\frac{\mathcal{O}[(1-\gamma)^{-8}\epsilon^{-4}]}{(1-\gamma)^{-8}\epsilon^{-4}}=\frac{C(1-\gamma)^{-8}\epsilon^{-4}}{(1-\gamma)^{-8}\epsilon^{-4}}
\to C {\rm ~ as ~} \gamma\to 1^-, \epsilon\to 0^+.
$$
The proof of Theorem 2 only uses the $\mathcal{O}$ notations to simplify the convergence rates at the end of Appendices N.4-N.5 and to derive the sample complexity in Appendix N.6. **These $\mathcal{O}$ notations take about only 1 page in total, and will be changed to explicit expressions in the revision within 3 hours, following the procedure below:**
Step 1: At the end of Appendices N.4-N.5, by substituting Eqs. (93-94) into Eqs. (120) and (125), we can obtain **O-free convergence rates** of $\mathbb{E}\big[\|G_{b}^{(\theta)}(\theta_{\widetilde{k}},\xi_{\widetilde{k}})\|^2\big]$ and $\mathbb{E}\big[\|G_{a}^{(\xi)}(\theta_{\widetilde{k}},\xi_{\widetilde{k}})\|^2\big]$ respectively.
Step 2: In Appendix N.6, the hyperparameters with $\mathcal{O}$-notations will be changed to **O-free hyperparameters** as follows.
$$m_{\lambda}^{(1)}=m_{\theta}^{(1)}=m_{\lambda}^{(3)}=m_{\xi}^{(3)}=m_{\lambda}^{(4)}=m_{\theta}^{(4)}=c_1(1-\gamma)^{-10}\epsilon^{-4},
m_{\lambda}^{(2)}=m_{\xi}^{(2)}=c_2(1-\gamma)^{-4}\epsilon^{-2},$$ $$H_{\lambda}^{(1)}=H_{\theta}^{(1)}=H_{\lambda}^{(2)}=H_{\xi}^{(2)}=H_{\lambda}^{(3)}=H_{\xi}^{(3)}=H_{\lambda}^{(4)}= H_{\theta}^{(4)}=\frac{c_3\log[(1-\gamma)^{-1}\epsilon^{-1}]}{1-\gamma},$$ $$K=c_4(1-\gamma)^{-8}\epsilon^{-4}, K'=c_5(1-\gamma)^{-9}\epsilon^{-4}], T'=c_6\log[(1-\gamma)^{-1}\epsilon^{-1}],$$
where the constants $c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6>0$ **do not depend on** $\gamma$, $\epsilon$ and will be selected in Step 3.
Step 3: In Appendix A.6, substitute the **O-free hyperparameters** (from Step 2) into the **O-free convergence rates** (from step 1). Then all the inequalities like $A\le \mathcal{O}(...)$ and $\mathcal{O}(...)\le A$ will no longer contain $\mathcal{O}$ notations and can be proved with sufficiently small constants $c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6>0$.
Step 4: In Appendix A.6, substitute the **O-free hyperparameters** (from Step 2) into the sample complexity.
**About other $\mathcal{O}$ notations:** All $\mathcal{O}$ notations in the main text follow the above definition and are used to present either results or intuitive proof sketch, which is typical in ML optimization works. Appendices D, E, P and Q containing $\mathcal{O}$ notations will be removed since these sections focus on concave utilities and other utilities that satisfy weak Minty variational inequality that lack application examples.
[1] Barakat, Anas, Ilyas Fatkhullin, and Niao He. "Reinforcement learning with general utilities: Simpler variance reduction and large state-action space." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2023.
[2] Zhang, Junyu, et al. "On the convergence and sample efficiency of variance-reduced policy gradient method." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021): 2228-2240.
**Q2:** There is no clear motivation given for the article.
**A:** Thank you for pointing out the motivation issue. We have elaborated our motivation with application examples in our global response. We will add these examples to our revised paper.
**Q3:** There are way too many repetitive (and imprecise) citations. One clear citation for the general utility policy gradient theorem should be enough, most citations given do not include such a variant.
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion. Existing policy gradient theorems only give $\nabla_{\theta}f(\lambda_{\theta,\xi})$ while we also need transition kernel gradient $\nabla_{\xi}f(\lambda_{\theta,\xi})$, so we present both in Theorem 1 instead of citing policy gradient theorems. We guess you may misunderstand that the 5 citations right before Theorem 1 are used to support Theorem 1. However, we have clearly stated that they are used as examples of linear utility functions, not policy gradient theorem.
What other citations do you think are repetitive and imprecise?
**Q4:** To me the article is too technical, a little bit of story telling would be very much appreciated. Perhaps the authors might want to think of splitting the article in two.
**A:** Thank you for your suggestions. In the revised main text, we will add stories including our motivation with application examples (elaborated in our global response) and examples for our assumptions (elaborated in our answer to your Q5), and move the propositions to the appendices to make more main-text space for story telling. To shorten the article, we will remove the parts of concave utilities and other utilities that satisfy weak Minty variational inequality since they lack application examples, so that our theory mainly consists of the two convergence theorems, for gradient and global convergence respectively.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thanks & further comments
Comment: Thanks for going through your proof again!
I strongly disagree on the opinion that sloppy work of others justifies sloppy work of oneself. Good ML papers have clean statements, clean proofs, and only use the O-notation in text or tables for easy comparison. I am happy the way you used the O-notation is much stronger than what the O-notation really is. Please work properly to keep the ML community sound. It might be useful to familiarise yourself with standard notation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation. Otherwise sooner or later this will result in trouble once good and bad use of standard notation is mixed.
The way you formulate in the rebuttal the constants would likely depend on $\epsilon$ as you suggest to chose the constants in the last step where you aim to achieve $\epsilon^2$ upper bound. I checked your proof and it seems ok, you can already choose the constants in step 3 without dependence on the target $\epsilon^2$. I think there are more constants to chose carefully as you say so a careful modification touches more than 1 page, but that's not the point. I am fine with your improvement and will improve the score. There were enough reviewers that hopefully checked these details as well.
Q3: As an example, have a look at the text below Assumption 3. Nobody is going to read that, the overview is extremely wide. Similarly the intro to robust RL at line 97. I would suggest to replace this paragraph by text and collect some citations without names to safe a lot of space. I certainly do not decrease/increase my score for these matters of taste.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Authors' response to Q3 (2)
Comment: Q3: We replaced the named citations in these paragraphs with numbered citations as follows.
Intro to robust RL at line 97:
Robust RL is designed to learn a policy that is robust to perturbation of environmental factors. Usually robust RL is NP-hard [43], but becomes tractable for ambiguity sets that is (s, a)-rectangular [33, 18, 43, 41, 28, 54] or s-rectangular [43, 40, 22, 25]. Methods to solve robust RL include value iteration [33, 18, 43, 14, 24], policy iteration [18, 4, 23] and policy gradient [28, 41, 54, 40, 25, 16, 27].
Under Assumption 3:
Robust RL with convex utility subsumes three important special cases, the commonly used convex RL problem [52 , 49 , 6] with fixed $\xi$, the standard robust RL [33, 18, 43, 40] with linear utility function $f$, and the standard RL [39] with linear utility function f and fixed $\xi$. Convex RL can be applied to maximum-entropy exploration [17, 52, 49, 12, 6], constrained RL [52, 49, 12] and demonstration learning [52, 49].
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Author Response to Reviewer 7fYr (2)
Comment: **Q5:** There should be examples for the assumptions. For instance, what standard class of policies satisfy the policy assumptions? This is certainly standard for PG methods but almost all articles discuss some examples (softmax, linear softmax, ...).
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion. In the revised paper, we will add the following practical examples for the assumptions.
Assumption 1 covers popular policy parameterizations including softmax policy $\pi_{\theta}(a|s)=\frac{\exp(\theta_{s,a})}{\sum_{a'}\exp(\theta_{s,a'})}$ [1] and log-linear policy $\pi_{\theta}(a|s)=\frac{\exp(\theta\cdot\phi_{s,a})}{\sum_{a'}\exp(\theta\cdot\phi_{s,a'})}$ [1], as well as popular transition kernels including direct parameterization $p_{\xi}(s'|s,a)=\xi _ {s,a,s'}$ [2,3] and linear parameterization $p_{\xi}(s'|s,a)=\xi\cdot\phi_{s,a,s'}$ [4,5] when $\Xi$ is located away from 0, i.e., $\inf_{s,a,s',\xi\in\Xi}p_{\xi}(s'|s,a)\ge p_{\min}$ for a constant $p_{\min}>0$. Assumptions 2-3 cover the three convex utility examples in Section 2 of [6], including MDP with Constraints, pure exploration, and learning to mimic a demonstration. Assumptions 4 and 8 are similar and cover direct policy parameterization $\pi_{\theta}(a|s)=\theta _ {s,a}$, since it has been proved that direct policy parameterization satisfies Assumption 4.1 of [6] which implies Assumptions 4 and 8. Assumptions 5-7 cover $s$-rectangular $L_1$ and $L_{\infty}$ ambiguity sets (defined as $\Xi=\{\xi:\|\xi(s,:,:)-\xi^0(s,:,:)\| _ p\le \alpha_s\}$ for $p\in\{1,\infty\}$ respectively using direct kernel parameterization $p_{\xi}(s'|s,a)=\xi_{s,a,s'}$), which are very popular in robust RL [7,8].
[1] Agarwal, Alekh, et al. "On the theory of policy gradient methods: Optimality, approximation, and distribution shift." Journal of Machine Learning Research 22.98 (2021): 1-76.
[2] Kumar, Navdeep, et al. "Policy gradient for rectangular robust markov decision processes." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2023).
[3] Behzadian, Bahram, Marek Petrik, and Chin Pang Ho. "Fast Algorithms for $L_\infty$-constrained S-rectangular Robust MDPs." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2021).
[4] Ayoub, Alex, et al. "Model-based reinforcement learning with value-targeted regression." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2020.
[5] Zhang, Junkai, Weitong Zhang, and Quanquan Gu. "Optimal horizon-free reward-free exploration for linear mixture mdps." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2023.
[6] Zhang, Junyu, et al. "Variational policy gradient method for reinforcement learning with general utilities." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020): 4572-4583.
[7] Hu, Xuemin, et al. "Long and Short-Term Constraints Driven Safe Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Driving." ArXiv:2403.18209 (2024).
[8] Khairy, Sami, et al. "Constrained deep reinforcement learning for energy sustainable multi-UAV based random access IoT networks with NOMA." IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 39.4 (2020): 1101-1115.
**Q6:** The authors should point out that this is a theoretical estimate with no practical implication. Similarly, the theoretical iteration numbers and batch sizes are ridiculously large. This is a theoretical worst case estimate (perfectly fine with me) but it should be mentioned that in practice those numbers would not be used. If I am not wrong those numbers are not used in their own simulation example (which should also be mentioned).
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion. Yes, you are right. These theoretical and conservatively large hyperparameter choices are not necessarily needed in practical implementation, so the hyperparameters in our simulation are obtained by fine-tuning not theory. We will add this explanation in the revision.
**Q7:** It might be interesting to think about unbiased gradient estimators for general utility RL. Such have been found in the past years for linear RL, I guess something similar works in the non-linear case.
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion. All the robust RL with general utility works we found either only provide true gradients or provide gradient estimators with bias which goes to 0 as the truncation level $H\to+\infty$. We select such a gradient estimator with sufficiently large $H$ to bound the bias.
**Q8:** About Assumption 1 for p, there is no discussion, if (or not) that assumption is strong. In what situation is the assumption satisfied? Is there any interesting situation in which the assumption is satisfied?
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion. See our answer to your Q5.
**Q9:** Assumption 4 looks brutal to me. Is there any way to verify that assumption? Is there any example for which it can be verified? Perhaps that was addressed in past work, but some discussion is needed.
**A:** Good question and suggestion. See our answer to your Q5.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Title: Answer 2
Comment: Q5: I fear you must be more specific. Which policies/MDPs do satisfy ALL assumptions of your Thm 2, 3, Prop 3, 4, 5. Not only for the review process, that must be integral part of the paper to justify the statements are not empty. I am satisfied if I get one precise example as an answer.
Q7: Not for this revision but for future work you might want to have a loot (for instance at)
Kaiqing Zhang, Alec Koppel, Hao Zhu, and Tamer Ba¸sar. “Global convergence of policy gradient methods to (almost) locally optimal policies”. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 2020.
It is so obvious how to obtain unbiased gradient estimators that it is amazing how many people just do truncation.
---
Reply to Comment 2.1.1:
Title: The 1 example for Reviewer 7fYr's Q5
Comment: The combination of the following policy, transition kernel, ambiguity set and utility function satisfy all the assumptions (Assumptions 1-8) of Theorems 2, 3 and Proposition 3, 4, 5.
$\bullet$ Softmax policy: $\pi _ {\theta}(a|s)=\frac{\exp(\theta _ {s,a})}{\sum _ {a'}\exp(\theta _ {s,a'})}, \theta\in\Theta$, where the range $\Theta\subseteq[-R,R]^{|\mathcal{S}|\times|\mathcal{A}|}$ for some constant $R>0$ to prevent $\pi _ {\theta}(a|s)$ from approaching 0.
$\bullet$ Directly parameterized transition kernel: $p _ {\xi}(s'|s,a)=\xi _ {s,a,s'}$.
$\bullet$ s-rectangular $L^1$ ambiguity set: $\Xi\overset{\rm def}{=}${$\xi:||\xi(s,:,:)-\xi^0(s,:,:)||_1\le \alpha_s, \forall s$}, where the fixed nominal kernel $\xi^0$ satisfies $\xi^0(s,a,s')>\alpha_s, \forall s,a,s'$ to prevent $\xi(s,a,s')$ from approaching 0.
$\bullet$ Convex utility function for pure exploration [1]: $f(\lambda)=\sum_s \lambda(s)\log\lambda(s)$ where $\lambda(s)\overset{\rm def}{=}\sum_a\lambda(s,a)$. The inital state distribution $\rho$ satisfies $\rho(s)>0, \forall s$ to prevent $\lambda(s)$ from approaching 0.
[1] Zhang, Junyu, et al. "Variational policy gradient method for reinforcement learning with general utilities." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020): 4572-4583.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Author Response to Reviewer 7fYr (3)
Comment: **Q10:** The example: If I am not wrong the choices of parameters do not fit to the theory. Do they? If not, that should at least be discussed. How about the assumptions, can they be checked in that example?
**A:** Good question and suggestion. Our simulation does not exactly follow the theoretical hyperparameter choices and assumptions. We will explain this in our revision.
**About Summary:** Our work not only provides Algorithm 1 with gradient convergence results, but also Algorithm 2 with **global** convergence results. | Summary: In this submission, the authors tackle a new problem: how to train a policy with a general utility when one needs to be robust to some uncertainty in the environment. More precisely, they are looking for the solution of min-max problem: the minimization over a set of parametric policies of the worst case over a set of possible transition probabilities of a (convex) functional of the occupancy measure. They propose a policy gradient type algorithm for which they prove that the gradient goes to 0. They also introduce a more complex algorithm for a specific classical uncertainty set (s-regular polyhedral ambiguity set) that is provably convergent toward the global optimal solution.
Strengths: - The authors attack a novel problem (the combination of general utility and robustness) for which they construct algorithms with theoretical guarantees.
- The content is very technical, but the writing makes it understandable. I really liked the way the authors stress their specific contribution.
- The proof seem correct, although I did not check all of them extensively.
- The results are supported by some numerical experiments).
Weaknesses: - The nonconvex case is only handled in the Appendix. I liked the fact that they have much more in their pocket than the content of the main article. The nonconvex case could nevertheless have been mentioned only in the conclusion as it is not really part of the main article.
- The numerical experiments should be part of the main article as they add a lot to the theoretical results.
- The results are very technical and some explanations (for example for the main theorems) could be beneficial to the readers.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Can the author explain if the control on the size of the gradient with respect to \xi corresponds to a convergence for the functional itself or just that the algorithm is going to slow down?
Typos and misc:
- 134: $\quad$ before $,$
- 309: $\epsilon_k$ only defined in Algorithm
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 4
Limitations: The complexity of their algorithms is quite high, as it is mentioned, and the convergences are local or in a specific setting, but this makes sense for a first paper in a topic.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable feedback. Below is a response to the review questions/comments. We will revise the manuscript accordingly after the review discussion period. Please let us know if further clarifications are needed.
**Q1:** The nonconvex case is only handled in the Appendix. I liked the fact that they have much more in their pocket than the content of the main article. The nonconvex case could nevertheless have been mentioned only in the conclusion as it is not really part of the main article.
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion and appreciation. Based on all the reviewers' feedback, we will remove concave utility and other utilities that satisfy weak Minty variational inequality, since they lack application examples.
**Q2:** The numerical experiments should be part of the main article as they add a lot to the theoretical results.
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion and appreciation. We originally planned to put numerical experiments in the main article. Later, we found that after fitting some other necessary parts into the main article, including problem formulation, algorithms and theoretical results for both gradient and global convergence, the 9-page limit did not allow experiments. Therefore, in line 194 in the main article, we refer the experiments to Appendix A.
**Q3:** The results are very technical and some explanations (for example for the main theorems) could be beneficial to the readers.
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion.
Theorem 2 provides the first sample complexity result to achieve $\epsilon$-stationtary point of the objective function $f(\lambda_{\theta,\xi})$ for robust RL with general utility. Specifically, we select sufficiently large batchsizes and truncation numbers to ensure that the stochastic gradients are close to the true gradients, and select sufficiently many iterations to ensure optimization progress. These theoretical and conservatively large hyperparameter choices are not necessarily needed in practical implementation.
Theorem 3 provides the first global convergence rate for robust RL with general utility. The global convergence error consists of sublinear convergence rate $\mathcal{O}(1/K)$ with $K$ iterations, and $\max_{1\le k\le K}\epsilon_k$ which denotes the convergence error of the subroutine for maximizing the concave function $A_k$.
**Q4:** Can the author explain if the control on the size of the gradient with respect to $\xi$ corresponds to a convergence for the functional itself or just that the algorithm is going to slow down?
**A:** Good question. We select sufficiently large batchsizes and truncation numbers to ensure that the estimated stochastic gradients are close to the true gradients $\nabla_{\theta} f(\lambda_{\theta,\xi})$ and $\nabla_{\xi} f(\lambda_{\theta,\xi})$.
**Q5:** "134: \quad before ,"
**A:** Thank you for pointing this out. We will add spaces before the commas.
**Q6:** 309: $\epsilon_k$ only defined in Algorithm.
**A:** Thank you for pointing this out. We will modify line 309 to "with $\beta_k=\frac{2\sqrt{2}\ell_{\lambda}}{k+2}$, $\sigma_k=\frac{4\sqrt{2}\ell_{\theta}\ell_{\lambda}}{k+2}$ and any $\epsilon_k>0$", since the convergence rate (20) holds for any $\epsilon_k>0$.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the authors' response. It addressed most of my concerns, and I believe the paper meets the acceptance threshold.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thank Reviewer nGSn for your appreciation
Comment: Thank Reviewer nGSn for your appreciation.
Best regards,
Authors | Summary: This paper aims to incorporate robustness in reinforcement learning environments by allowing the transition kernel to be within a polyhedral s-rectangular uncertainty set to handle general utility functions. It applies a stochastic gradient descent with (gradient sampling subroutines) algorithm designed for global convergence and presents numerical experiments to showcase its convergence properties.
Strengths: The methodology behind robustifying the transition kernel is well thought out. The theory is supported by proofs that are generally clear to follow. The convergence behavior is validated by numerical simulations.
Weaknesses: - Modeling motivation: The paper lacks a comparative analysis to demonstrate superiority over existing non-robust methods in handling scenarios like constrained and risk-averse RL. To solidify its contributions, it should include empirical or theoretical evidence comparing its performance against established methods, especially in real-world scenarios that involve distributional shifts.
- Computational costs. Detailed evaluations of the computational overhead comparing to non-robust approaches needs to be presented to demonstrate the price of robustness and usefulness of the modeling.
- Scalability. The robustness in transition kernels is modeled through s-rectangular uncertainty with direct parametrization of the transition kernels, which appears to be less advantageous for scalability and generalization in complex or continuous environments. The paper should discuss potential adaptations or extensions of the method that can handle larger state spaces without compromising theoretical integrity.
- Hyperparameters. The algorithm requires managing an extensive set of hyperparameters, complicating its practical implementation. The paper should propose methods to reduce hyperparameter complexity, such as adaptive tuning or simplified parameter settings, to enhance usability and accessibility.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: - Comparison with Barakat et al. 2023: It would be helpful if the authors could provide a more detailed comparative analysis of their approach with the work by Barakat et al., especially in terms of algorithmic differences and performance in continuous state-action spaces.
- $\ell_{\lambda^{-1}}$: please provide an explicit example of this constant and its dependence on |S| and |A|
- Line 230: Inversible -> Invertible
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors touched upon the limitations of theoretical complexity
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable feedback. Below is a response to the review questions/comments. We will revise the manuscript accordingly after the review discussion period. Please let us know if further clarifications are needed.
**Q1:** Modeling motivation: The paper lacks a comparative analysis to demonstrate superiority over existing non-robust methods in handling scenarios like constrained and risk-averse RL. To solidify its contributions, it should include empirical or theoretical evidence comparing its performance against established methods, especially in real-world scenarios that involve distributional shifts.
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion. Our work is fundamentally different from the works on *non-robust* RL with general utility, not only in methodology, but also in the objective function and convergence measures. Specifically, *non-robust* RL with general utility aims to solve $\min_{\theta\in\Theta}f(\lambda_{\theta,\xi_0})$ under a fixed environment $\xi_0\in\Xi$, while our proposed *robust* RL with general utility aims to solve $\min_{\theta\in\Theta}\max_{\xi\in\Xi}f(\lambda_{\theta,\xi})$ under the worst possible test environment $\xi\in\Xi$. As a result, our convergence measures are also very different, so the performance is not directly comparable. We will stress these fundamental differences in our revised paper.
**Q2:** Computational costs. Detailed evaluations of the computational overhead comparing to non-robust approaches needs to be presented to demonstrate the price of robustness and usefulness of the modeling.
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion. As mentioned in our answer to Q1, the computational overhead is not directly comparable, since the non-robust approaches and our robust approaches have different objectives and different convergence measures.
**Q3:** Scalability. The robustness in transition kernels is modeled through s-rectangular uncertainty with direct parameterization of the transition kernels, which appears to be less advantageous for scalability and generalization in complex or continuous environments. The paper should discuss potential adaptations or extensions of the method that can handle larger state spaces without compromising theoretical integrity.
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion. To extend to large state spaces, we can adopt linear occupancy measure $\lambda_H^{\pi_{\theta}}(s,a)\approx \omega_{\theta}\cdot\phi(s,a)$ (Barakat et al. 2023) and linear transition kernel parameterization $p_{\xi}(s'|s,a)=\xi\cdot\phi_{s,a,s'}$ [1,2], with parameters $\omega_{\theta}$ and $\xi$ of scalable dimensionality. To extend to Robust RL with continuous state space, we can adopt Gaussian policy (Barakat et al. 2023) and transition kernel $s_{t+1}=f(s_t,a_t)+\omega_t$ with Gaussian noise $\omega_t\in\mathbb{R}^d$ [3]. We will add these potential extensions to our conclusion section.
[1] Ayoub, Alex, et al. "Model-based reinforcement learning with value-targeted regression." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2020.
[2] Zhang, Junkai, Weitong Zhang, and Quanquan Gu. "Optimal horizon-free reward-free exploration for linear mixture mdps." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2023.
[3] Ramesh, Shyam Sundhar, et al. "Distributionally robust model-based reinforcement learning with large state spaces." International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 2024.
**Q4:** Hyperparameters. The algorithm requires managing an extensive set of hyperparameters, complicating its practical implementation. The paper should propose methods to reduce the complexity of hyperparameters, such as adaptive tuning or simplified parameter settings, to improve usability and accessibility.
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion. Based on Theorem 2, we can reduce the hyperparameters in Algorithm 1 by replacing $m_{\lambda}^{(1)}, m_{\theta}^{(1)}, m_{\lambda}^{(3)}, m_{\theta}^{(3)}, m_{\lambda}^{(4)}, m_{\theta}^{(4)}$ with $m^{(1)}$, replacing $m_{\lambda}^{(2)}, m_{\theta}^{(2)}$ with $m^{(2)}$, and replacing $\{H_{\lambda}^{(k)},H_{\theta}^{(k)}\}_{k=1}^4$ with $H$. Based on Theorem 3 and Corollary 1, we can reduce the hyperparameters in Algorithm 2 by replacing $\sigma_k$, $\epsilon_k$ and $\beta_k$ with $\frac{\sigma}{k+2}$, $\epsilon$ and $\frac{\beta}{k+2}$ respectively.
**Q5:** Comparison with Barakat et al. 2023: It would be helpful if the authors could provide a more detailed comparative analysis of their approach with the work by Barakat et al., especially in terms of algorithmic differences and performance in continuous state-action spaces.
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion. As mentioned in our answer to Q1, the most fundamental difference between our work and (Barakat et al. 2023) is that we aim at different objectives and convergence measures. As a result, the biggest difference in algorithms is that (Barakat et al. 2023) only updates policy parameter $\theta$ under fixed transition kernel parameter $\xi_0\in\Xi$ while we update both $\theta$ and $\xi\in\Xi$. The performance is not directly comparable also due to the differences in objectives and convergence measures.
**Q6:** $\ell_{\lambda^{-1}}$: please provide an explicit example of this constant and its dependence on |S| and |A|.
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion. It has been proved in [4] that for direct policy parameterization $\pi_{\theta}(a|s)=\theta_{s,a}$, $\ell_{\lambda^{-1}}=\frac{2}{\min_s\rho(s)}\ge \frac{2}{|S|}$ where $\rho$ is the initial state distribution.
[4] Zhang, Junyu, et al. "Variational policy gradient method for reinforcement learning with general utilities." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020): 4572-4583.
**Q7:** Line 230: Inversible -> Invertible.
**A:** Thank you for pointing out this typo. We will correct that.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response.
I understand that robust and non-robust approaches have different objective functions in the optimization formulation. Still, one driving motivation for using robust approaches is to achieve better performance in the face of the sim-to-real gap because the robust approach avoids overfitting (see e.g. introduction and fig. 5 of [1] for static stochastic programming setting, and fig. 1 of [2] for offline RL setting).
I also agree that robust constrained RL and robust entropy-regularized RL can be viewed as a special case of robust RL with general utility. What remains unclear to me is e.g. the performance of existing robust constrained RL approaches against your robust RL with general utility algorithms on the same test problems. Eventually, we want to solve specific cases and I would argue that it is worthwhile to show that your more general algorithm provides superior results than more tailored algorithms.
[1] Mohajerin Esfahani, Peyman, and Daniel Kuhn. "Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the Wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations." Mathematical Programming 171.1 (2018): 115-166.
[2] Shi, Laixi, and Yuejie Chi. "Distributionally robust model-based offline reinforcement learning with near-optimal sample complexity." Journal of Machine Learning Research 25.200 (2024): 1-91.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Complexity Result Comparison for Reviewer joNT
Comment: We compare our complexity results for robust RL with general utility vs. the state-of-the-art complexity results for *robust constrained RL (RC-RL)* and *entropy regularized robust RL (ER-RL)* as follows. For fair comparison, we focus on policy gradient methods and leave aside the value iteration [1-2] and policy iteration [2] methods of ER-RL, since they directly leverage the Bellman equation for linear utility function $f$ that does not hold for general utility function $f$.
(1) To achieve an $\epsilon$-global optimal point for non-stochastic setting, our Algorithm 2 takes $KT=\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-3})$ iterations based on our Corollary 1, while ER-RL takes $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-3}\log\epsilon^{-1})$ iterations [3], and there is no global convergence result yet for RC-RL to our knowledge.
(2) To achieve an $\epsilon$-stationary point for stochastic setting, our Algorithm 1 uses $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-10})$ samples, while to our knowledge, ER-RL has no gradient convergence results, and the only available complexity result for RC-RL is $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-14})$ in Remark 1 at the end of page 27 of [4].
**As a result, our complexity results either outperform those of ER-RL and RC-RL, or even fill in their blanks in complexity results.**
[1] Mankowitz, D. J., Levine, N., Jeong, R., Abdolmaleki, A., Springenberg, J. T., Shi, Y., Kay, J., Hester, T., Mann, T., and Riedmiller, M. (2019). Robust reinforcement learning for continuous control with model misspecification. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).
[2] Mai, T. and Jaillet, P. (2021). Robust entropy-regularized markov decision processes. ArXiv:2112.15364.
[3] Chen, Z. and Huang, H. (2024). Accelerated Policy Gradient for s-rectangular Robust MDPs with Large State Spaces. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML).
[4] Wang, Y., Miao F., and Zou, S. (2022). Robust constrained reinforcement learning. ArXiv:2209.06866.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: About Reviewer joNT's summary
Comment: The properties mentioned in Reviewer joNT's summary belong to two algorithms respectively.
Algorithm 1: stochastic gradient descent with gradient sampling subroutines, general uncertainty set, gradient convergence.
Algorithm 2: polyhedral s-rectangular uncertainty set, global convergence. | Summary: The paper studies the problem of robust RL with general utility function, which is looking at maximizing a general (possibly non-convex) utility function with the worst-case possible transition kernels in an ambiguity set. The paper provides convergence analysis for a wide range of utility functions and ambiguity set.
Strengths: The technical contribution mainly comes from the following convergence analysis:
1. With convex utility, a two-phase projected stochastic gradient descent ascent algorithm is shown to converge to stationary point.
2. WIth convex utility and an s-rectangular polyhedral ambiguity set, global convergence is proven.
3. The gradient convergence is also proven for concave utility and utility that satisfies weak Minty variational inequality.
Weaknesses: My main concern is about the motivation, interpretation of the results, along with potential tightness results. Please see question section.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. I think the authors might do a better job motivating and introducing the problem at the introduciton section. I'm confused about the exact definition of robust RL with general utility until the end of section 2. Is it possible to provide intuitive explanations at the beginning?
2. it might be easier to understand the 4 different settings if the authors can motivate with good examples in practice (convex utility, concave utility, polyhedral ambiguity set and weak Minty variational inequality).
3. There have been a lot of assumptions in the paper before the convergence results. Can authors comment on how practical those assumptions are? And under such assumptions, can the authors comment on the tightness of the results in terms of sample complexity / iteration complexity?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: N/A
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable feedback. Below is a response to the review questions/comments. We will revise the manuscript accordingly after the review discussion period. Please let us know if further clarifications are needed.
**Q1:** I think the authors might do a better job motivating and introducing the problem at the introduction section. I'm confused about the exact definition of robust RL with general utility until the end of section 2. Is it possible to provide intuitive explanations at the beginning?
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion. In the **revised introduction**, we will briefly compare the definitions of the existing *RL with general utility problem* and our proposed *robust RL with general utility problem*. Specifically, the existing *RL with general utility problem* is formulated as $\min_{\theta} f(\lambda_{\theta,\xi_0})$ where the agent aims to select its policy parameter $\theta$ to minimize the cost-related utility function $f$, under a **fixed transition kernel parameter** $\xi_0$. In contrast, *our robust RL with general utility problem* is formulated as $\min_{\theta} \max_{\xi\in\Xi}f(\lambda_{\theta,\xi})$ where the agent aims to select a robust optimal policy $\theta$ that minimizes the utility **under the worst possible transition kernel parameters** $\xi\in\Xi$. We will refer the readers to Section 2 for more details. To motivate our research, we will also briefly summarize the useful special cases and application examples of our proposed problem listed in our global response.
**Q2:** It might be easier to understand the 4 different settings if the authors can motivate with good examples in practice (convex utility, concave utility, polyhedral ambiguity set and weak Minty variational inequality).
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion.
Based on all the reviewers' feedback, we will remove concave utility and other utilities that satisfy weak Minty variational inequality, since they lack application examples.
We have listed two popular examples of polyhedral ambiguity set, $L_1$ and $L_{\infty}$ ambiguity sets in lines 48-49 in the introduction, and defined these sets right after Assumption 7. To have stronger motivation, we will also add the explanation that these ambiguity sets are popular in robust reinforcement learning, an important special case of our proposed robust RL with general utility.
We will add the following examples of convex utilities [1] to our revised paper.
(1) MDP with Constraints or Barriers, which has safety-critical applications including healthcare [2], autonomous driving [3] and unmanned aerial vehicle [4].
(2) Pure exploration, which can be applied to explore an environment that lacks reward signals [5].
(3) Learning to mimic a demonstration, which is used to help the agent mimic the expert demonstration [1].
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Author Response to Reviewer iNNQ (2)
Comment: **Q3:** There have been a lot of assumptions in the paper before the convergence results. Can authors comment on how practical those assumptions are? And under such assumptions, can the authors comment on the tightness of the results in terms of sample complexity / iteration complexity?
**A:** Thank you for your suggestion. In the revised paper, we will add the following practical examples for the assumptions.
Assumption 1 covers popular policy parameterizations including softmax policy $\pi_{\theta}(a|s)=\frac{\exp(\theta_{s,a})}{\sum_{a'}\exp(\theta_{s,a'})}$ [6] and log-linear policy $\pi_{\theta}(a|s)=\frac{\exp(\theta\cdot\phi_{s,a})}{\sum_{a'}\exp(\theta\cdot\phi_{s,a'})}$ [6], as well as popular transition kernels including direct parameterization $p_{\xi}(s'|s,a)=\xi_{s,a,s'}$ [7,8] and linear parameterization $p_{\xi}(s'|s,a)=\xi\cdot\phi_{s,a,s'}$ [9,10] when $\Xi$ is located away from 0, i.e., $\inf_{s,a,s',\xi\in\Xi}p_{\xi}(s'|s,a)\ge p_{\min}$ for a constant $p_{\min}>0$. Assumptions 2-3 cover all the three convex utilities listed in our answer to your Q2. Assumptions 4 and 8 are similar and cover direct policy parameterization $\pi_{\theta}(a|s)=\theta_{s,a}$ (Actually, it has also been proved to satisfy Assumption 4.1 of [1] which implies Assumptions 4 and 8). Assumptions 5-7 cover $s$-rectangular $L_1$ and $L_{\infty}$ ambiguity sets (defined as $\Xi=\{\xi:\|\xi(s,:,:)-\xi^0(s,:,:)\| _ p\le \alpha_s\}$ for $p\in\{1,\infty\}$ respectively using direct kernel parameterization $p_{\xi}(s'|s,a)=\xi_{s,a,s'}$), which are very popular in robust RL [3,4].
We are not sure about the tightness of our results because the complexity lower bounds are unknown for our proposed robust RL with general utility. However, as mentioned in our conclusion, our gradient complexities may still be improved in the future, compared with the state-of-the-art gradient complexities (Lin et al., 2020; Pethick et al., 2023) for minimax optimization.
[1] Zhang, Junyu, et al. "Variational policy gradient method for reinforcement learning with general utilities." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020): 4572-4583.
[2] Corsi, Davide, et al. "Constrained reinforcement learning and formal verification for safe colonoscopy navigation." 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2023.
[3] Hu, Xuemin, et al. "Long and Short-Term Constraints Driven Safe Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Driving." ArXiv:2403.18209 (2024).
[4] Khairy, Sami, et al. "Constrained deep reinforcement learning for energy sustainable multi-UAV based random access IoT networks with NOMA." IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 39.4 (2020): 1101-1115.
[5] Hazan, Elad, et al. "Provably efficient maximum entropy exploration." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2019.
[6] Agarwal, Alekh, et al. "On the theory of policy gradient methods: Optimality, approximation, and distribution shift." Journal of Machine Learning Research 22.98 (2021): 1-76.
[7] Kumar, Navdeep, et al. "Policy gradient for rectangular robust markov decision processes." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2023).
[8] Behzadian, Bahram, Marek Petrik, and Chin Pang Ho. "Fast Algorithms for $L_\infty$-constrained S-rectangular Robust MDPs." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2021).
[9] Ayoub, Alex, et al. "Model-based reinforcement learning with value-targeted regression." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2020.
[10] Zhang, Junkai, Weitong Zhang, and Quanquan Gu. "Optimal horizon-free reward-free exploration for linear mixture mdps." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2023.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Title: A better answer to Reviewer iNNQ's Q3
Comment: Dear Reviewer iNNQ,
Our above answer to your Q3 gives examples for each assumption. The combination of the following policy, transition kernel, ambiguity set and utility function satisfy all the assumptions (Assumptions 1-8).
$\bullet$ Softmax policy: $\pi _ {\theta}(a|s)=\frac{\exp(\theta _ {s,a})}{\sum _ {a'}\exp(\theta _ {s,a'})}, \theta\in\Theta$, where the range $\Theta\subseteq[-R,R]^{|\mathcal{S}|\times|\mathcal{A}|}$ for some constant $R>0$ to prevent $\pi _ {\theta}(a|s)$ from approaching 0.
$\bullet$ Directly parameterized transition kernel: $p _ {\xi}(s'|s,a)=\xi _ {s,a,s'}$.
$\bullet$ s-rectangular $L^1$ ambiguity set: $\Xi\overset{\rm def}{=}${$\xi:||\xi(s,:,:)-\xi^0(s,:,:)||_1\le \alpha_s, \forall s$}, where the fixed nominal kernel $\xi^0$ satisfies $\xi^0(s,a,s')>\alpha_s, \forall s,a,s'$ to prevent $\xi(s,a,s')$ from approaching 0.
$\bullet$ Convex utility function for pure exploration [1]: $f(\lambda)=\sum_s \lambda(s)\log\lambda(s)$ where $\lambda(s)\overset{\rm def}{=}\sum_a\lambda(s,a)$. The inital state distribution $\rho$ satisfies $\rho(s)>0, \forall s$ to prevent $\lambda(s)$ from approaching 0.
[1] Zhang, Junyu, et al. "Variational policy gradient method for reinforcement learning with general utilities." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020): 4572-4583. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **About Motivation**
Thank the reviewers for bringing the motivation issue to our attention. **Our revision will include the following special cases and application examples of our proposed problem. First, our proposed *robust RL with general utility* can be applied to improve the policy robustness for the following useful special cases of the existing *RL with general utility* as well as their application examples [1].**
(1) MDP with Constraints or Barriers, which has **safety-critical applications including healthcare [2], autonomous driving [3] and unmanned aerial vehicle [4].**
(2) Pure exploration, which can be **applied to explore environment that is lack of reward signals [5].**
(3) Learning to mimic a demonstration, which is **used to help the agent mimic the expert demonstration [1].**
**Second, our proposed problem also covers the following useful *robust* special cases and their application examples.**
**(4) Robust Constrained RL [6-8]:**
In **safety critical applications such as healthcare and unmanned aerial vehicle**, it is important for an intelligent agent to constrain its behavior to a safe range while optimizing the performance. However, in practice, the test environment often differs from the training environment which may degrade performance, and may even violate the safety constraints. For example, a safe and effective treatment for a patient may be fatal for another patient. A drone may run out of battery, leading to a crash in the test environment [8].
Robust constrained RL has been proposed to guarantee safety in all possible test environments while optimizing the robust performance. In robust constrained RL, there are two cost functions $c^{(0)}, c^{(1)}$ relating to performance and safety respectively. Denote $\lambda_{\theta,\xi}$ as the occupancy measure under the policy parameter $\theta\in\Theta$ and the environment parameter $\xi\in\Xi$. Define value functions $V_{\theta,\xi}^{(0)}, V_{\theta,\xi}^{(1)}$ and robust value functions $V_{\theta}^{(0)}, V_{\theta}^{(1)}$ as follows.
$$
V_{\theta,\xi}^{(k)}\stackrel{\text { def }}{=}\langle c^{(k)},\lambda_{\theta,\xi}\rangle=\sum_{s,a}c^{(k)}(s,a)\lambda_{\theta,\xi}(s,a), \quad\quad
V_{\theta}^{(k)}\stackrel{\text { def }}{=}\max_{\xi\in\Xi} V_{\theta,\xi}^{(k)}, ~ k=0,1.
$$
Robust constrained RL is formulated as the following constrained policy optimization problem.
$$
\min _ {\theta\in\Theta} V _ {\theta}^{(0)}, ~ {\rm s.t.} ~ V _ {\theta}^{(1)}\le \tau.
$$
where $\tau\in\mathbb{R}$ is the safety threshold. It can be easily verified that the above robust constrained RL problem is a special case of our proposed problem $\min_{\theta\in\Theta}\max_{\xi\in\Xi}f(\lambda_{\theta,\xi})$ with the following utility function $f$.
$$
f(\lambda)=
\langle c^{(0)},\lambda\rangle {\rm ~ if ~ }\langle c^{(1)},\lambda\rangle\le \tau {\rm ~ and ~ }
f(\lambda)=+\infty{\rm ~ if ~ }\langle c^{(1)},\lambda\rangle>\tau.
$$
**(5) Entropy Regularized Robust RL [9-10]:** Entropy regularized robust RL has been applied to **imitation learning and inverse reinforcement learning which help agents learn from human demonstration [10]**. Entropy regularized robust RL is formulated as the following minimax optimization problem.
\begin{align}
\min_{\theta\in\Theta}\max_{\xi\in\Xi} \sum_{s,a}\big[\lambda_{\theta,\xi}(s,a)c(s,a)\big]-\mu\sum_s\big[\lambda_{\theta,\xi}(s)\mathcal{H}[\pi_{\theta}(\cdot|s)]\big],
\end{align}
where $c$ is the cost function, $\lambda_{\theta,\xi}(s)=\sum_a\lambda_{\theta,\xi}(s,a)$ is the state occupancy measure, and $\mathcal{H}[\pi_{\theta}(\cdot|s)]=-\sum_{a}\pi_{\theta}(a|s)\log\pi_{\theta}(a|s)$ is the entropy regularizer (with coefficient $\mu>0$) which encourages the agent to explore more states and actions and helps to prevent early convergence to sub-optimal policies.
It can be easily verified that the above entropy regularized robust RL problem is a special case of our proposed problem $\min_{\theta\in\Theta}\max_{\xi\in\Xi}f(\lambda_{\theta,\xi})$ with the following utility function $f$.
\begin{align}
f(\lambda)=\sum_{s,a}\lambda(s,a)\Big[c(s,a)+\mu\log\frac{\lambda(s,a)}{\sum_{a'}\lambda(s,a')}\Big]
\end{align}
[1] Zhang, Junyu, et al. "Variational policy gradient method for reinforcement learning with general utilities." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020): 4572-4583.
[2] Corsi, Davide, et al. "Constrained reinforcement learning and formal verification for safe colonoscopy navigation." 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2023.
[3] Hu, Xuemin, et al. "Long and Short-Term Constraints Driven Safe Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Driving." ArXiv:2403.18209 (2024).
[4] Khairy, Sami, et al. "Constrained deep reinforcement learning for energy sustainable multi-UAV based random access IoT networks with NOMA." IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 39.4 (2020): 1101-1115.
[5] Hazan, Elad, et al. "Provably efficient maximum entropy exploration." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2019.
[6] Russel, Reazul Hasan, Mouhacine Benosman, and Jeroen Van Baar. "Robust Constrained-MDPs: Soft-constrained Robust Policy Optimization Under Model Uncertainty." ArXiv:2010.04870 (2020).
[7] Sun, Zhongchang, et al. "Constrained Reinforcement Learning Under Model Mismatch." ArXiv:2405.01327 (2024).
[8] Wang, Yue, Fei Miao, and Shaofeng Zou. "Robust Constrained Reinforcement Learning." ArXiv:2209.06866 (2022).
[9] Mankowitz, D. J., Levine, N., Jeong, R., Abdolmaleki, A., Springenberg, J. T., Shi, Y., Kay, J., Hester, T., Mann, T., and Riedmiller, M. (2019). Robust reinforcement learning for continuous control with model misspecification. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).
[10] Mai, T. and Jaillet, P. (2021). Robust entropy-regularized markov decision processes. ArXiv:2112.15364. | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
An Autoencoder-Like Nonnegative Matrix Co-Factorization for Improved Student Cognitive Modeling | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper introduces an autoencoder-like nonnegative matrix co-factorization framework (AE-NMCF) to enhance predictions of student exercise performance and assessments of knowledge proficiency even when data is sparse. The authors offer a projected gradient method employing block coordinate descent and Lipschitz constants, ensuring theoretical convergence for parameter estimation. The effectiveness of this approach is validated through experiments on several real-world datasets.
Strengths: (Strength-1) The paper is well written, except for the lack of an explanation justifying the proposed factorization form (See Weaknesses)
(S-2) The authors provide a theoretical analysis of the proposed projected-gradient algorithm.
Weaknesses: I have three concerns about matrix B, the objective function, and related works:
(W-1) The matrix parameter B seems to make parameter estimation difficult. Unlike other matrices such as E and V, the size of matrix B is N x K, where N is the number of exercises and K is the number of knowledge. I think introducing such a large parameter is undesirable for the model.
(W-2) From the view of probabilistic modeling, the objective function Eq. (5) seems inappropriate; it includes two terms of log-likelihood for the same X, one related to the log-likelihood of X using the inverse link function in the decoder process and another related to the squared error loss, which can be regarded as the negative log-likelihood when the elements of X follow Gaussian, in the encoder process. That is equivalent to thinking that two Xs are generated, which is not an appropriate modeling.
(W-3) Although the authors appear to state that co-factorization is used only for performance improvement, there are studies that extract intuitive and interpretable patterns by introducing nonnegative constraints, e.g.,[Lee2009][Takeuchi2013]. The superiority of this method over these methods needs to be demonstrated.
[Lee2009] Lee, H., & Choi, S. (2009, April). Group nonnegative matrix factorization for EEG classification. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (pp. 320-327). PMLR.
[Takeuchi2013] Takeuchi, K., Ishiguro, K., Kimura, A., & Sawada, H. (2013, June). Non-negative multiple matrix factorization. In Twenty-third international joint conference on artificial intelligence.
Minor Comments
-I feel a little strange that the proposed method is named autoencoder, even though it does not use neural networks.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: I think that almost similar modeling can be done by considering the factorization of matrix Q without introducing matrix B. For example, I'm guessing that co-factorization as $X \approx EU$, $Q \approx EV$ following [Singh2008][Takeuchi2013] shows good performance. So my two questions are as follows.
(Q-1) What is the advantage of the proposed method over variants of existing collective matrix factorization methods such as [Singh2008][Lee2009][Takeuchi2013]?
(Q-2) Does the estimation performance (ACC/RMSE) of the proposed method outperform the above existing collective factorization methods (with appropriate loss function and constraints)?
[Singh2008] Singh, A. P., & Gordon, G. J. (2008, August). Relational learning via collective matrix factorization. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 650-658).
*EDIT: My concerns have been addressed in the author-discussion phase and so I updated my score.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for your attention and comments on our paper. Your valuable feedback means a lot to us. Regarding the questions you raised, we have carefully considered each point and have made the following responses:
>**Q1.** The matrix B seems to make parameter estimation difficult.
**A1.** Despite the computational burden of optimizing B, as a data-driven method, we consider introducing B because:
1. The subjective tendency of the Q-matrix (Q). In fact, building Q from a domain is a non-trivial task [Desmarais2013], and it is widely recognized that expert-designed Q may e.g. consist of some misspecifications [Chiu2013][Yang2022] due to the blind spot of domain experts.
2. The binary Q only indicates whether an exercise requires a knowledge concept, failing to uncover the strength (lines 133-134). However, the strength can benefit a lot of downstream educational tasks such as learning resource recommendations.
Hence, we use Q as a sparse prior and introduce B to specify the exercise-knowledge strength. B can be optimized based on the encoder-decoder framework in a data-driven manner (using the scoring matrix X). This is also the reason that we only reconstruct X in the decoder but do not consider Q.
Besides, although the size of B is N by K, it is still reasonable and can be applied to many educational applications because scale-based tests, where students are evaluated for a small set of knowledge concepts, are common scenarios, especially in unit tests and home quizzes.
>**Q2.** From the view of probabilistic modeling, the objective function Eq.(5) seems inappropriate ...
**A2.** From the generative model perspective, although the two terms of likelihood for the scoring matrix X seem different ostensibly, their interpretations of the approximation for X are the same in cognitive-psychometric modeling. Specifically:
1. For the encoder process, we cannot read off the students' knowledge proficiencies via X, which comprises the information only about students and exercises. Therefore, we use the interaction between the E and U with the Frobenius term to approximate the value of X. The use of this approximation is postulated on the belief that the low-dimensional latent space of E (or U) can correspond to the space of high-level knowledge components (i.e., the top skills we refer to in the manuscript, see lines 128-130) that can explain variability in student performance.
2. For the decoder process, we can now assess the students' fine-grained knowledge proficiency through the matrix A, and we have specified the degree to which an exercise involves a knowledge concept in the matrix B. Armed with A and B, we can approximate the probabilities that the students answer the exercises correctly by the inverse link function. The use of this approximation follows the additive assumption that is widely used in the educational psychology area.
Hence, the implication that the feature matrices E and U in the encoder for student performance predictions are different from A and B in the decoder, the two types of generation processes differ.
>**Q3.** Demonstrating the superiority of the method.
**A3.** First, regarding the performance gains of co-factorization, as suggested by Reviewer LdEU and RqUb, we conduct the ablation study to investigate the prediction performance of co-factorization by removing the decoder of the proposed AE-NMCF model, i.e., AE-NMCF w/o Decoder. The experimental results are shown in Table 1 in the global pdf file. Second, we show the prediction performance of CMF [Singh2008], GNMF [Lee2009], and NMMF [Takeuchi2013] as you suggested in Table 2 in the global pdf file. From Table 1 and Table 2, we have the following conclusion:
1. In Table 1, the prediction performance of AE-NMCF w/o Decoder is behind AE-NMCF w/o Encoder, suggesting that the boost may not come from the co-factorization. Hence, as also suggested by Reviewer LdEU, we will modify this ambiguous claim.
2. By comparing the prediciton results of AE-NMCF w/o Decoder in Table 1 with those of CMF, GNMF, and NMMF in Table 2, we observe that except for NMMF, the performance of co-factorization is still noteworthy, at least, over the performance of CMF, and on par with GNMF.
3. In Table 2, the ACC/RMSE of AE-NMCF rises well above that of all compared models on all data sets, especially in sparse scenarios such as SLP-Bio-s and SLP-Eng.
>**Q4.** Why the method is named autoencoder.
**A4.** We call the proposed approach an *Autoencoder-like* model because our design draws inspiration from the architecture of the autoencoder, which consists of two components: an encoder that encodes the low-dimensional representation of input data (E, U, and V in our model), and a decoder that reconstructs the input data (the scoring matrix X) from the encoded representations.
>**Q5.** The advantage of the proposed method over ...
**A5.** The advantages are:
1. (**Matrix B**) The consideration is the subjective tendency of the expert-labeled Q-matrix, which may be inappropriate using the factorization Q $\approx$ EV directly. Hence, we use Q as a sparse prior and introduce B that can be optimized based on the proposed encoder-decoder framework based on students' response logs (see the gradient of B in the manuscript, which not only considers Q but also takes into account of X).
2. (**Motivation**) Different from [Singh2008] [Lee2009] [Takeuchi2013] that focus on a single task such as link prediction, our factorization framework enables two educational tasks simultaneously, i.e., not only the student performance prediction but also knowledge concept estimation which is our major concern. The estimation results can be helpful for the interpretation of the prediction results.
3. (**Model implication**) Based on our carefully designed encoder-decoder mechanism, we utilize the relationships among the low-dimensional matrices to better understand students' latent knowledge proficiency, which is unable in most MF-based methods.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response and for conducting additional experiments. My concerns are almost solved, but I feel that my question (Q2) has not been fully resolved. I would like to ask one additional question related to this.
Although the appearance of score matrix X twice in the loss function still seems a little strange for me after reading the authors' explanation (A2), it is understandable that the Frobenius norm term with X and EU would play a role in stabilizing the estimation of the parameter E. So my question is as follows.
Q. Does the result of the experiment (Figure 4 in the global rebuttal pdf?) support using X twice in the loss function for performance improvement?
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thank you for your time and the follow-up question! The experimental results (Table 1 and Figure 2 in the global pdf file) can support performance improvement by using X twice in the loss function of the proposed AE-NMCF model.
In this experiment, we use two variants of AE-NMCF, and each variant uses X just once. Specifically, for the first variant (AE-NMCF w/o Decoder), we remove the decoder, and the objective function ($\cal{O}\_{\rm{En}}$) is $\|\| {\bf W} \odot ({\bf X} - {\bf EU})\|\|^2\_{\rm F} + \|\| {\bf Q} \odot ({\bf B} - {\bf EV})\|\|^2\_{\rm F}$. The second variant (AE-NMCF w/o Encoder) removes the encoder, and the objective function ($\cal{O}\_{\rm{De}}$) becomes $-\ell + \frac{\gamma}{2}\sum\_{n=1}^{\rm{N}}\|\| \mathbf{B}\_{n:}\|\|\_2^2$, where $\ell = \sum\_{(n, m) \in \Omega_{\rm{o}}} \log \Pr({\bf X}\_{nm})$. The optimization approach is also PG-BCD with appropriate Lipschitz constants.
For the student performance prediction task, as can be seen from Table 1 in the global pdf file, AE-NMCF improves the average performance by 18.2% (15.2%) in terms of ACC (RMSE) over AE-NMCF w/o Decoder, as well as 3.7% (ACC) and 7.1% (RMSE) over AE-NMCF w/o Encoder. Similarly, for the student knowledge estimation task in Figure 4, AE-NMCF has an average improvement of 19.1% (20.2%) in terms of KRC over AE-NMCF w/o Decoder (Encoder).
Overall, AE-NMCF that uses X twice achieves improvements in terms of student performance prediction and student knowledge estimation.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thanks for answering my additional questions. I confirmed that the experiment result supports using X twice in the loss function. Now that all my concerns have been addressed, so I plan to raise my current score.
---
Reply to Comment 2.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response! We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful comments and efforts to enhance the overall quality of the paper, and we will include the discussed information in the future version. | Summary: The authors present a novel model of student cognition to improve the prediction of student exercise performance and the estimation of their knowledge proficiency in a subject. Current approaches such as matrix factorization perform well in predicting student performance on exercises, but the knowledge proficiency is often unknown or poorly estimated. These problems are amplified if only sparse interactions between exercises and students are available. To address this, the authors develop an autoencoder-like nonnegative matrix co-factorization (AE-NMCF) framework based on monotonicity. AE-NMCF improves the accuracy of predicting the student's knowledge proficiency through an end-to-end learning pipeline that makes the estimation problem nonconvex with nonnegative constraints. AE-NMCF uses a projected gradient method based on block coordinate descent with Lipschitz constants, ensuring the method's theoretical convergence. Experiment results show the superiority of AE-NMCF in predicting student exercise performance and estimating student knowledge proficiency when compared to state-of-the-art student cognitive models.
Strengths: -The authors used an adequate number of datasets and baselines for their experiments.
Weaknesses: -The authors don't perform any ablation studies for their work.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: N/A
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors adequately addressed the limitations of their work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable feedback to enhance the quality of our paper. As you suggested, we have conducted ablation experiments to verify the encoder-decoder architecture in AE-NMCF. In the ablation study, we use two variants of AE-NMCF, including (*a*) AE-NMCF w/o Decoder that removes the decoder, and (*b*) AE-NMCF w/o Encoder that ignores the encoder. The optimization approach is also PG-BCD with appropriate Lipschitz constants.
The experimental results of the proposed AE-NMCF and its variants are reported in Table 1 and Figure 4 in the global pdf file. According to Table 1, the ignorance of the encoder (or decoder) process leads to a degradation in predicting performance, the observation of Figure 4 comes to a similar result for student knowledge estimation.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: The authors have addressed my concerns, so I have decided to increase my score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: It's great to hear that all your concerns have been addressed! Thank you for your efforts and time once again. We will include the ablation details in a future version. | Summary: The authors propose a novel approach to student cognitive modeling based on nonnegative matrix factorization via the use of sparse autoencoders. The authors propose an algorithm to solve the estimation problem in their framework, and provide a formal analysis including a convergence proof of the propose approach. They conduct empirical experiments to validate the proposed method, on five real-world student response datasets covering four academic subjects (math, biology, history, english).
Strengths: Posting my full review here.
# Overall
Overall, this paper appears to be an improvement on a domain that is not often discussed in NeurIPS despite its relevance to the NeurIPS community, and strong potential for real-world impact. The paper includes relevant theoretical results (which I did not fully check, but appear correct) and, perhaps even more important, solid empirical results on real-world student datasets. Applied results as consistent as these are not common in the computational educational literature, and it is nice to see an improvement. However, I feel that the paper's potential for impact is currently limited by issues with the clarity of the writing and presentation. I am open to raising my score if the authors can demonstrate a clear, comprehensive, and achievable plan for improving the paper in their response.
# Major comments
* *More introduction*: While I feel the topic of this paper is appropriate for NeurIPS and it is good to see this issue being brought to the NeurIPS audience, this conference has less of a history of publishing work related to student modeling. As a result, it is likely less familiar to readers, and most NeurIPS readers would benefit from more background and motivation than the paper currently provides (Figure 1 is quite useful, for example, but I don't feel it is given adequate discussion in the current text). It would be useful to give details which may seem obvious to the authors, such as: what data is cognitive modeling applied to? Where does that data derive from? In what applications are cognitive models currently used? What is the potential impact of improved cognitive modeling? The answers to these questions may seem obvious to the authors, and I understand that space is limited, but they are likely *not* obvious to most readers and would provide considerable motivation for the general direction and the specific methods and results of the paper.
* *Figures:* Related to the above note, there are several figures which make some aspects of the proposed methods clear (Figures 1, 2, I) but which do not clarify the mechanics of the model itself: how do the various matrices interact, what constraints are applied to which matrices, and how does one go from "inputs" to "outputs"? This can be understood from diving into the theoretical details in the paper, but given that the figures seem intended to clarify exactly this (but currently fail to do so, for me at least), I think that improvements to the figures to make the modeling process clear would substantially improve it.
* *Clarity of writing and presentation:* I found the writing to be difficult to follow in many places. The sentence structures were unnecessarily complex (and often include the passive voice), the authors make claims which are not verifiable ("The new model (AE-NMCF) achieves sophisticated knowledge prificiency explanation"), and the text is quite vague in certain places ("the coverage function only scratches the surface of understanding students' cognitive levels"). Individually, these are small issues, but collectively, they make the paper much harder to follow than it needs to be. The entire paper could use a thorough revision for clarity and succinctness. Some, but not all, of the writing issues I noted are highlighted in the minor comments and typos sections below.
* *Causal claims about performance gains:* In 4.3, the authors make causal claims about specific components of model which don't appear to be supported by the experiments without ablation studies. Specifically, they say "[t]he boost in performance prediction is due to the co-factorization that facilitates implicit feature learning collaboratively". The experiments do not support this claim: there are other methods that use matrix factorization (e.g. SNMCF) in their experiments but which do not achieve similar performance gains, and more importantly, there are multiple aspects of the new method that could be the source of the observed improved performance (nonnegativity, monotonicity, training hyperparameters and other details). Only an ablation study which removed co-factorization (but kept the other components) would provide direct evidence for this claim. Such ablation studies would be nice, but in my opinion are not required (I would suggest to just remove those claims about which specific aspects of the model lead to the performance gains).
* I did not see a mention of whether the authors plan to publicly release their code. Please clarify in the response whether you plan to do so -- this would greatly support reproducibility of the proposed method, at least on the publicly available data sources.
# Minor comments
* The abstract could do a better problem of introducing readers to the problem being solved: what data is used? What are the inputs and outputs? In what contexts/applications is this useful? What matrices are being factorized? The beginning of the intro clarifies some -- but not all -- of these questions, but many readers will rely solely on the abstract to assess the paper, and currently it is not effective at outlining the high-level problem the paper addresses.
* "Cascading errors" are mentioned twice in Section 1 without ever being defined. Please clarify.
* L35-37: in one sentence, the authors state that SNMCF "learn[s] students' proficiency levels", and in the following sentence says it does not ("without considering the target of improving cognitive diagnosis") - please clarify.
* It would be useful to explain why previous approaches do not leverage monotonicity, as it seems like an obvious constraint but is also framed as a novel contribution of the current method.
* L50-52 are supposed to highlight the authors' "key observation", but the sentence is convoluted and difficult to understand; it obscures what this observation is. Please clarify.
* Figure 2 is nice (the row and column signifiers are quite helpful), but what does the direction of the arrows signify in Figure 2? Also, could this figure indicate which matrices are constrained (i.e. nonnegative)?
* Equation (1) is inserted into the text without any introduction or framing beforehand. Please clarify. Perhaps it needs a new bolded paragraph.
* It would be helpful to explain the *prediction task* being performed, prior to the discussion of the metrics in 4.1. Specifically: accuracy and RMSE are measured with respect to what targets? This is discussed a bit later but needs to appear earlier, as it is essential to understanding the experimental setup and metrics.
* Please clarify what the cell shading and bolded text in Table 1 signify. Also, a CD diagram comparing the average ranks would be quite useful.
# Typos etc.
* L25: "the subjective handcraft features": what does this refer to? Please clarify.
* The paper includes some unnecessary italics, such as "Lipschitz" and "Armijo" -- while non-English text is typically italicized, this does not apply to names.
* L138: what does it mean that X and B "share the matrix E"?
* Figure 4 caption: "dash lines" -> dashed lines
Weaknesses: See above.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: See above.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for your positive feedback. We are grateful for the suggestions for improving the quality of our manuscript in terms of writing and presentation. We have considered all of your concerns, including but not limited to enriching the background, updating the figures, simplifying the expression, and clarifying the ambiguous information. Regarding the questions you raised, our point-by-point responses are:
>**Q1.** More introduction of background, motivation, and data descriptions.
**A1.** Following your advice, we will enrich the Abstract and Introduction:
In Abstract, we will include the descriptions: (**Background**) Student cognitive modeling (SCM) is a fundamental task in intelligent education, with applications ranging from personalized learning to educational resource allocation. (**In-outputs**) By exploiting students' response logs, SCM aims to predict their exercise performance as well as to estimate knowledge proficiency in a subject. (**Technical details**) To solve this dilemma ..., which jointly factorizes student-exercise interactions and exercise-knowledge linkages to ...
In Introduction, we will include the descriptions: (**Data**) We use two types of data: (a) The expert-labeled Q-matrix. (b) The students' scoring matrix, which could be accessed either online or offline assessments. For example, in online scenarios, students are required to finish tests (unit tests or term tests). A test normally contains several questions in the form of e.g., multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank. The students' responses to these questions are automatically recorded and stored by the online learning platforms. (**Applications**) With a comprehensive understanding of students, cognitive modeling could be applied to numerous educational applications, including personalized learning and resource allocation.
> **Q2.** Figures and Tables.
**A2.** For Figure 2, the green (blue) arrows denote the decomposition (composition) process. As you suggested, in the global file, we have modified Figure 2 by adding different types of arrows to highlight the matrix interactions, and adding nonnegative constraints with cell shading. For Figure 1, we have reorganized the input/output flow. Besides, we have added the CD diagrams in Figure 3. For Table 1 in the manuscript, we use bolded text and cell shading to denote the best and top-2 performance, respectively.
>**Q3.** Clarity of writing and presentation.
**A3.** We will concise the expressions and clarify the ambiguous information throughout the manuscript. For *The new model (AE-NMCF) ...*, we rephrase it as *The new model (AE-NMCF) provides a good fit to the students' knowledge proficiency*. For *the coverage function ...*, we rephrase it as *the coverage function often gives binary cognitive levels, failing to discern the nuance between knowledge proficiencies.*
>**Q4.** Causal claims about performance gains.
**A4.** Thank you for your advice, we will remove the ambiguous claim. Also as suggested by Reviewer RqUb, we have conducted an ablation study to see the impact of co-factorization by removing the encoder (see AE-NMCF w/o Encoder in Table 1 in the global pdf file), and the results confirm your suggestions. Hence, this inappropriate message will be modified.
>**Q5.** Open source code.
**A5.** The source code will be publicly available and we welcome all discussions.
>**Q6.** Cascading errors.
**A6.** Most cognitive diagnosis models learn student learning behavior with expert-designed handcraft features, which are often coupled between the two cognitive tasks. However, due to the limited scope and potential bias, the failure in one task may negate the performance in another task, namely causing cascading errors.
>**Q7.** L35-37: the authors state that SNMCF learn[s] ...
**A7.** Although SNMCF can measure students' proficiency by a coverage function, the latent features used are pre-trained, and the training objective function is designed for student performance prediction but not aimed at cognitive diagnosis.
>**Q8.** The use of monotonicity.
**A8.** Previous cognitive approaches have mainly differed along two dimensions: cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) and matrix factorization (MF)-based models. Most CDMs can follow the monotonicity principle, which however is unable in MF. The reason is that the latent features decomposed from MF are unable to be explained, i.e., the specific knowledge concepts cannot be clearly described via the features, let alone using monotonicity. To get around this problem, we propose AE-NMCF.
>**Q9.** The key observation.
**A9.** Our key observation is that the self-construction principle of the autoencoder, which reconstructs the students’ response data from the learned low-dimensional representations of students and knowledge concepts, is amenable to the requirement of the monotonic constraint. Therefore, the autoencoder mechanism provides a first-cut approach to achieve the monotonicity for student cognitive modeling.
> **Q10.** Eq.(1) is inserted .. without any introduction ...
**A10.** We start with the sentence *Given X ... with optimization problem (1) ...* to introduce Eq.(1) (see lines 126--130). Here, the problem (1) corresponds to Eq.(1).
>**Q11.** ... explain the prediction task being performed ...
**A11.** As you suggested, we will detail the prediction tasks before describing the experimental results. We use ACC and RMSE from regression and classification aspects, respectively, which are commonly used in predicting student performance. ACC/RMSE are calculated based on the ground truth of students' responses and corresponding predicted ones.
>**Q12.** Typos etc.
**A12.** The *handcraft features* refer to those that are manually designed by domain experts (e.g., the slip and guess of an exercise). For *share*, we use E and U to approximate X, which means E is one of the latent features of X. Similarly, E is also one of the latent features of B. Hence we call it *share*.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks to the authors for their detailed response. It is clear a significant amount of effort went into it, and the paper has improved as a result.
The authors addressed my concerns with the figures (1, 2) and they have improved them considerably, for example by labeling "inputs" vs "latent matrices" etc. in Figure 2 and adding constraints + decompose/compose relationships. They also provided clear and direct responses to areas where the main text would be revised -- and I think these revisions will improve the paper considerably.
I also appreciate the authors' willingness to undertake an ablation study, and to directly acknowledge the implications of the results of that ablation. Removing the claims to causality does indeed seem warranted, and with those results and the revision to the paper my concern there is addressed.
Thank you for the clarification regarding cascading errors -- as I mentioned in my review, please include this in the paper, as it is likely that many NeurIPS readers will not be familiar with this term. Similar for A8, A9.
Based on the author's thorough responses, I will increase my rating to a 6, as I feel that the main concerns with the work have been addressed and that the paper would be a useful and interesting addition to the conference. I am open to further increasing the rating during the reviewer discussion phase.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: It's great to hear that all your concerns have been successfully addressed! Your insights and suggestions are valuable to us. We will include the details of our discussion and make it more accessible to general NeurIPS readers in a future version. | Summary: The paper studies the problem of predicting student grades based on the past student response to the question. The proposed method falls into the research of matrix completion. The novelty lies in (1) a new matrix co-factorization, and (2) the proof of the convergence of the proposed gradient descent method.
Strengths: 1. The paper is easy to understand, and the proof seems to be correct.
2. The proposed method is tested in the real-world dataset, and it shows promising results
Weaknesses: 1. Not sure if the proposed approach can be applied to other datasets.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Could authors compare the proposed methods to other matrix completion methods, which were originally developed to solve Netflix challenges?
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 4
Limitations: See the weakness section.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank for your positive evaluation. For your concerns regarding the performance comparison, we compare our model (AE-NMCF) with several variants of collective matrix factorization (MF) methods suggested by Reviewer Px4s, including CMF [Singh2008], GNMF [Lee2009], and NMMF [Takeuchi2013]. In particular, CMF and NMMF are designed for rating predictions on e.g., Netflix Prize data. We report the compared results in Table 2 in the global PDF file. The experimental results show that AE-NMCF achieves the optimal performance across all data sets, and the performance is noteworthy in the sparse cases, especially in SLP-His-s and SLP-Eng.
Hence we have compared our new method with the latest ones and those used for solving Netflix challenges.
In addition, the data sets are representative of many relevant applications.
[Singh2008] Singh, A. P., \& Gordon, G. J. (2008, August). Relational learning via collective matrix factorization. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 650-658).
[Lee2009] Lee, H., \& Choi, S. (2009, April). Group nonnegative matrix factorization for EEG classification. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (pp. 320-327). PMLR.
[Takeuchi2013] Takeuchi, K., Ishiguro, K., Kimura, A., \& Sawada, H. (2013, June). Non-negative multiple matrix factorization. In Twenty-third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We deeply appreciate all the reviewer's evaluations and comments on our paper. Their thoughtful feedback has provided valuable insights that have significantly contributed to improving the quality of the manuscript. In the global response, **we have included an attached global file**, where some figures and tables will be referenced when replying to each reviewer. Thanks again to the reviewers for taking the time and effort.
The references occurred in the rebuttal are listed as follows:
- **[Desmarais2013]** Michel C Desmarais and Rhouma Naceur. A matrix factorization method for mapping items to skills and for enhancing expert-based q-matrices. In *Artificial Intelligence in Education: 16th International Conference*, pages 441–450. Springer, 2013.
- **[Chiu2013]** Chia-Yi Chiu. Statistical refinement of the q-matrix in cognitive diagnosis. *Applied Psychological Measurement*, 37(8):598–618, 2013.
- **[Yang2022]** Haowen Yang, Tianlong Qi, Jin Li, Longjiang Guo, Meirui Ren, Lichen Zhang, and Xiaoming Wang. A novel quantitative relationship neural network for explainable cognitive diagnosis model. *Knowledge-Based Systems*, 250:109156, 2022.
Pdf: /pdf/1fe6994745496cb0b462251c3d8418bcee028746.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Contrasting with Symile: Simple Model-Agnostic Representation Learning for Unlimited Modalities | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper shows that CLIP-style pairwise contrastive objectives on multiple modalities (more than two) fail to capture the total dependencies of different modalities, and proposes to use total correlation, a higher-order generalization of mutual information as the new objective to optimize multimodal contrastive learning. The authors provide derivations of the lower bound on total correlation, the optimal scoring function, the practical objective, and proof of statistical sufficiency. On a simulated dataset, a newly created multilingual dataset, and a Chest X-ray dataset, the authors illustrate the limitation of existing CLIP-style pairwise objectives and the effectiveness of the proposed approach.
Strengths: Clarity: the paper is very well written. The motivation, problem formulation, derivation, and novelty of the paper are clearly stated. Figures 1 and 2 are helpful for the reader to understand the concepts.
Quality: the theoretical derivations seem valid to the reviewer upon checking. The theoretical results of the lower bound, optimal scoring function, and statistical sufficiency make this work concrete. The derivations in Appendix A seem correct, and the reviewer did not check the derivations in other Appendix sections. This paper also introduces a new multilingual dataset, Symile-M3, including 33 million (audio, image, text) samples.
Significance: the paper points out that pair-wise CLIP losses cannot capture conditional dependencies between multiple variables, and provides a simple and effective solution to address this. The problem of leveraging contrastive learning on more than two modalities is worth studying.
Weaknesses: Originality: the problem of capturing dependencies of multiple variables beyond pairwise mutual information is well-studied. There are many solutions proposed already, albeit not in an explicitly multimodal setup, as discussed by the authors in Lines 226-231. However, the reviewer reckons that the methods such as Bai et al. can be extended to the setting involving three or more modalities, e.g., substituting the $x^1, ..., x^m$ by different modalities in the Sample-based TC estimator from Bai et al. The authors did not include any such baseline results on the datasets. The reviewer would appreciate clarifications on this.
Quality: the authors did not justify clearly why they curated a new dataset (and a multilingual one) instead of using existing multimodal datasets, e.g., VQA, GQA, How2, HowTo100M, etc. Lacking comparisons on standard datasets weakens the submission.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: There are no error bars in Figures 5 and 6, will the authors intend to provide error bars for them?
There is a quite related paper on capturing total information and conditional independence in a multimodal setup. The reviewer would appreciate some comparisons with it:
Liang, Paul Pu, et al. "Factorized contrastive learning: Going beyond multi-view redundancy." NeurIPS 2023.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors include limitations of the work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We greatly appreciate your helpful and constructive comments! We are glad that you found our contributions well motivated and clearly explained, and that you consider our solution to be simple and effective. We have addressed your questions regarding suitable baselines for Symile both below and in the global response above, but do let us know if there are any further clarifications we can provide. If we have addressed your main concerns, would you be willing to consider raising your score?
**Bai et al. as a baseline:** While Symile optimizes only a single term in targeting total correlation (TC), Bai et al. derive TC estimators by recursively decomposing TC into a summation of MI terms, to which variational estimators are applied, using two linear separation paths:
$$\text{Line-like: } TC(X_{1:i+1})=TC(X_{1:i})+I(X_{1:i};x_{i+1})$$
$$\text{Tree-like: } TC(X_{i:j})=TC(X_{i:\lfloor(i+j)/2\rfloor})+TC(X_{\lfloor(i+j)/2\rfloor+1:j})+I(X_{i:\lfloor(i+j)/2\rfloor};X_{\lfloor(i+j)/2\rfloor+1:j})$$
The authors apply the tree-like TC estimator to multi-augmentation contrastive learning, where a text encoder is trained by maximizing the TC between augmentations of the text. For this experiment, the authors use InfoNCE to estimate the MI terms and find that their estimator does not perform much better than pairwise InfoNCE.
As we discuss in the global response, Bai et al. and others have leveraged TC estimators for contrastive learning on multiple augmentations of the same data, but to our knowledge no one has applied such estimators to more than two distinct modalities. We also explain in the global response why pairwise CLIP is the most suitable baseline for Symile, but we recognize that we could have provided a better framing for how we situate our work in comparison to Bai et al., and have updated Related Work accordingly.
**Justification for new dataset:** We created the Symile-M3 dataset for two reasons:
1. There should exist a dataset specifically designed to evaluate a model's ability to capture higher-order information between modes.
2. We wanted a dataset comprised of distinct data types for more than two modes.
By incorporating multiple languages, we were able to design a task where two modes (text and audio) were needed to predict the third (image), and where, importantly, neither text nor audio alone would suffice for predicting image. That said, we agree that it is important to run experiments on real-world datasets, which is why we ran the healthcare experiment on the existing MIMIC dataset in Section 5.3.
We considered video data, but found that we could not use datasets such as How2 and HowTo100M because the text is a direct transcription of the audio. When one mode is a function of another, the dataset effectively has only two modes, and total correlation between three modes degenerates to mutual information between two modes.
While we had not originally considered datasets like VQA because they incorporate only two data types, we agree that including results on standard datasets would strengthen our paper. Based on your suggestion, we ran preliminary experiments using available encoders on the VQA dataset where the three modes are 1) an image, 2) a text question (e.g. "Who is wearing glasses?"), and 3) a text answer (e.g. "woman"). On the task of predicting one of 18 possible answers given the image and question, Symile outperformed CLIP with a mean test accuracy of 0.590 vs. 0.558. We intend to run this experiment more extensively, and will add the findings to our paper.
**Comparison with Liang et al.:** While Liang et al. use contrastive learning objectives to optimize conditional MI terms, their approach is restricted to handling only two modalities.
For modes $X_1$ and $X_2$, Liang et al. propose two contrastive objectives (supervised and self-supervised) that apply lower bounds to maximize task-relevant information and upper bounds to minimize task-irrelevant information. The supervised objective introduces a task $Y$:
$$
L_{\text{FactorCL-SUP}}=I_{\text{NCE}}(X_1;X_2)-I_{\text{NCE-CLUB}}(X_1;X_2|Y)+I_{\text{NCE}}(X_1;Y)+I_{\text{NCE}}(X_2;Y)-I_{\text{NCE-CLUB}}(X_1;X_2)+I_{\text{NCE}}(X_1;X_2|Y)
$$
where $I_{\text{NCE}}$ is the InfoNCE objective and $I_{\text{NCE-CLUB}}$ is another contrastive objective derived from an upper bound on mutual information that depends on the optimal scoring function from $I_{\text{NCE}}$.
Instead of using explicit task labels $Y$, the self-supervised objective uses augmentations $X_1'$ and $X_2'$ to approximate task-relevant information:
$$L_{\text{FactorCL-SSL}}=I_{\text{NCE}}(X_1;X_2)-I_{\text{NCE-CLUB}}(X_1;X_2|X_1',X_2')+I_{\text{NCE}}(X_1;X_1')+I_{\text{NCE}}(X_2;X_2')-I_{\text{NCE-CLUB}}(X_1;X_2)+I_{\text{NCE}}(X_1;X_2|X_1',X_2').$$
Unlike FactorCL, Symile does not require prior knowledge of some specific downstream task defined by either explicit labels or targeted augmentations. FactorCL seeks to decompose the information in two modes for a specific task; Symile targets all information across any number of modes to learn general representations without any decomposition, resulting in computational benefits.
While Symile optimizes a single objective with which all parameters can be updated at once, training either of the FactorCL objectives involves the minimization of each of the $I_{\text{NCE-CLUB}}$ objectives, which in turn requires the optimal critic $f^∗$ from $I_{\text{NCE}}$. Therefore, within each iteration during FactorCL training, one needs to first obtain the optimal critics for the $I_{\text{NCE-CLUB}}$ terms using the $I_{\text{NCE}}$ objective. Symile is able to capture higher-order information for more than two modes while avoiding such computational complexity.
In summary, FactorCL targets the information in two modes for a specific task, and in support of this target makes use of higher-order information. We have added this to Related Work.
**Error bars:** We will provide error bars for all experiments.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Reviewer's response
Comment: The reviewer is fully satisfied with the global and specific responses and increased the score. The reviewer recommends that the authors include the VQA results and the Symile-M3 dataset discussions in the final draft.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thank you for taking the time to engage with our responses! We will absolutely include the VQA experiments and the Symile-M3 discussion in the final version of the paper. | Summary: The paper introduces Symile, a new contrastive learning objective designed to accommodate any number of modalities, addressing the limitations of pairwise CLIP which fails to capture joint and conditional information between modalities. Symile targets total correlation, capturing higher-order dependencies among multiple variables. The paper derives a lower bound on total correlation using a generalized form of inner products and demonstrates that Symile representations form sufficient statistics for the remaining modalities. Experiments on a large multilingual dataset and clinical data show that Symile outperforms pairwise CLIP in cross-modal classification and retrieval tasks, even with missing modalities.
Strengths: 1. The paper proposes a model-agnostic contrastive learning objective that captures higher-order dependencies among any number of modalities, addressing limitations of existing pairwise CLIP methods. It effectively identifies and addresses a significant limitation of CLIP, presenting a novel and important contribution to the field.
2. The paper starts with a simple one-dimensional problem to illustrate the failure mode of pairwise CLIP, which aids in understanding and intuition.
3. Theoretical analysis is provided to further support that Symile learns sufficient statistics.
Weaknesses: I wonder if more explanation could be provided on the rationale of the MIP. For example, if we have 3 vectors and consider one coordinate, imagine two cases: (1) the values are x= -1, y= -1, z= 1, whose product is 1, and (2) the values are x= -1, y= -1, z= -1, whose product is -1. In this example, case (2) apparently has higher similarity between the 3 values than case (1), but case (1) ends up with a larger MIP value, which seems undesirable to me.
For the experiments, since I am not very familiar with the state of the art in learning with three or more modalities, I'll leave it to other reviewers to judge whether the benchmarks used and the comparisons are sufficient.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See the question in Weaknesses.
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have discussed certain limitations in section 6.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your thoughtful comments and questions! We're thrilled that you found our work valuable and our examples and theoretical contributions effective. Please let us know if we can provide any further clarifications. If our response has resolved your questions, we would greatly appreciate it if you would consider raising your score.
**Explanation for multilinear inner product (MIP):** We chose the MIP as a scoring function for several reasons. We were drawn to its simplicity: the MIP is one of the simplest possible generalizations of the dot product to more than two modalities in terms of computation. The scoring function also needs to be expressive enough to model any joint statistic, which requires that the vectors be multiplied together. Therefore, the MIP strikes a nice balance between computational simplicity and expressiveness.
We understand your confusion regarding the interpretation of the MIP—the MIP is not a measure of how *geometrically* similar vectors are. Suppose we have three modalities $\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}, \mathbf{z}$ whose Symile representations are $\mathbf{r_x}, \mathbf{r_y}, \mathbf{r_z}$. If the MIP of $\mathbf{r_x}, \mathbf{r_y}, \mathbf{r_z}$ is large, then that indicates that $(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}, \mathbf{z})$ has high probability under the joint likelihood. It says nothing about whether or not $\mathbf{r_x}, \mathbf{r_y}, \mathbf{r_z}$ are equal to one another. In other words, the MIP is a measure of similarity imbued by the joint distributition of the modalities.
We're glad you brought this up, and have included this clarification in the paper, as it will benefit our readers.
**Baselines:** You'll see that we addressed the issue of baselines and benchmarks in our global response, and in our responses to the other two reviewers. Please let us know if you have any further questions here that we can address. | Summary: This paper proposes Symile, a new contrastive learning objective that addresses the challenge of contrasting multiple modalities simultaneously by considering total correlation. Symile captures the statistical dependence between multiple variables and uses a generalized inner product to derive a lower bound on total correlation. The representations learned by Symile form sufficient statistics for other modalities, outperforming pairwise CLIP in cross-modal classification and retrieval. This is demonstrated through experiments on a multilingual dataset with 33 million samples and a clinical dataset.
=== After response ==
I initially assigned a score of 4, but after reviewing the manuscript further and clarifying some misunderstood details addressed in the rebuttal, I decided to adjust my score. Following a discussion of other reviews, I increased my score to 6 (weak accept).
Strengths: Introducing the limitation of pairwise summation of contrastive losses for multiple modalities is interesting, as demonstrated by both a synthetic example and theoretical justification. Addressing this limitation makes the work more principled. Additionally, handling missing data is crucial for practical scenarios.
Weaknesses: Limited experiments:
- The paper only compares the proposed method with CLIP. More recent works, especially those focused on representation learning with multiple modalities, should be included for a comprehensive comparison. ImageBind, with its publicly available weights, would be considered as a baseline.
- The formulation of the Symile model requires complete triplets (e.g., image, text, audio) for training, which makes it difficult to scale up the training data. The current approach does not accommodate missing values in the triplet elements, which is a significant limitation for practical applications. An extension to handle missing values is needed.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: #1. It's a great idea to include a simple and clear example to show why summing pairwise contrastive losses might not be best for multiple modalities. However, the failure analysis seems very theoretical. In real-world datasets, the assumption that random variables are jointly dependent but pairwise independent might not be true. Can you provide more realistic examples where real-world datasets fit this assumption?
#2. What is the reason for using the coordinate-wise sum of the element-wise product of a set of vectors instead of the simple dot product for the scoring function?
#3. The only baseline used to compare the proposed method is CLIP. More recent works, especially those focused on representation learning with multiple modalities, should also be included. In my opinion, ImageBind would be selected as its weights are publicly available.
#4. The negative sampling with O(N) compared to O(N^2) seems to be a very crude approximation. Does it affect the performance? From a theoretical perspective, can we analyze the difference between the linear and quadratic sampling schemes in terms of the total correlation lower bound?
#5. Minor comments
What do the color shades in Figure 1 represent?
In line 138, the element of Z_n should be written in lowercase as z_n.
In related works, the authors mention that contrastive learning has been popularized since the release of CLIP. However, in my opinion, the credit for popularizing contrastive learning should go to SimCLR.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors have mentioned the limitations, aside from the lack of comparisons. Additionally, in my opinion, there is no potential negative societal impact of this work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate your detailed feedback, and are glad that you found our work conceptually and theoretically compelling. We address your questions below, but please let us know if we can provide any further clarifications. If we have successfully addressed your primary concerns, would you be willing to consider raising your score?
**ImageBind as a baseline:** As we discuss in the global response above, the baseline that we currently use in our paper is pairwise CLIP, and ImageBind is an instantiation of pairwise CLIP. That said, your feedback indicates that we could have made this clearer in Related Work, which we have now updated.
**Accommodating data missingness:** It seems there was a misunderstanding here. In our missingness experiment in Section 5.2, we do indeed train Symile with missingness in the training data. On the right-hand side of Fig. 5, we show that Symile outperforms pairwise CLIP on the 2-word subset of Symile-M3 when only 12.5% and 2.7% of the training data has complete triplets! We will update this section so that it's clearer to readers that this experiment was run with missingness in the training data.
We absolutely agree that in order for Symile to be at all useful for practical applications, it needs to be able to accomodate any amount of missingness in the data, which is why we ran the missingness experiments in Section 5.2. Our approach for handling missingness was specifically designed to be easy to implement for practical applications. Please let us know if there is additional information we can provide to help clarify this misunderstanding.
**Real-world scenarios where Symile outperforms CLIP:** We're glad that you found the XOR example to be clear and illustrative of the types of information that Symile and pairwise CLIP capture, and you are correct that it represents an extreme case that is probably rare in real-world applications. To see why, consider again the total correlation decomposition in line 115 of our paper:
$$3 \cdot TC(x,y,z) = 2 \cdot [MI(x;y)+MI(y;z)+MI(x;z)] + MI(x;y | z)+MI(y;z | x)+MI(x;z | y).$$
In the XOR example, the CLIP target is zero, but as you rightly suggest, most real-world cases will contain *some* pairwise information.
Based on the decomposition above, Symile will outperform CLIP in situations where the higher-order (conditional) information terms play a role. This is typically seen in applications when two modes are needed to infer the third.
We include one such example in Section 5.3 of our paper on the task of predicting chest X-ray from ECG and labs: there is pairwise information to learn, which explains why CLIP performs better than random guessing, but the presence of conditional information allows Symile to ultimately outperform CLIP. As suggested by Reviewer hrNA, we ran preliminary experiments on the VQA dataset and found that Symile outperforms CLIP, illustrating another instance where conditional information benefits Symile.
**Multilinear inner product (Q2):** The dot product is only defined for two modes. The coordinate-wise sum of the element-wise product is one of the simplest possible generalizations of the dot product to more than two modes. Please let us know if we misunderstood the question or can clarify further.
**Negative sampling performance impact and lower bound connection:** The results we report in the paper on the Symile-M3 dataset were run using $O(N)$ negative sampling. We have now also run this experiment on the 2-word subset of Symile-M3 using $O(N^2)$ negative sampling. We find that when trained using $O(N^2)$ negative sampling, Symile demonstrates a marginal improvement in test accuracy over training with $O(N)$ negative sampling (0.938 vs. 0.937). However, Symile trained with $O(N^2)$ negative sampling takes almost twice as long to run 24 epochs (43 vs. 24 hours), but achieves its best validation accuracy in far fewer epochs (4 vs. 16). We have added these results to the Appendix.
As discussed in Section 5.3, we found that training with $O(N^2)$ negative sampling on the Symile-MIMIC dataset helped mitigate overfitting. We hypothesize that this is because more negative samples create a more challenging learning problem, allowing the model to better learn to differentiate between positive and negative samples.
In terms of analyzing the difference between the negative sampling schemes in terms of the derived lower bound, in lines 156-157 we write, "We show in Appendix B.3 that, as $N$ gets larger, the total correlation lower bound closes for the optimal scoring function $g^*$." This implies a computational-statistical trade-off: a larger batch size demands more computation but results in a tighter bound.
**Colors in Fig. 1:** The colors are meant to loosely represent the information in each of the three random variables. We carefully considered how best to structure this figure: on the one hand, we wanted a high-level and intuitive illustration of the different types of information that Symile and CLIP each capture (and it seems that Reviewer hrNA appreciated this); on the other hand, we understand that this figure is underspecified. Ultimately, we decided to err on the side of building the reader's intuition.
**SimCLR vs. CLIP in Related Work:** We write in Related Work that CLIP "popularized the use of a contrastive objective for general image-text representation learning," but we agree with you that SimCLR popularized contrastive learning for multiple augmentations for a single modality. We will update this section accordingly.
**$Z_n$ typo:** Thank you for catching this! | null | null | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewers for their constructive and careful comments, which will significantly strengthen our work. We are glad they found that:
* our paper "effectively identifies and addresses a significant limitation of CLIP, presenting a novel and important contribution to the field" (HxmV)
* our work "provides a simple and effective solution to address this [limitation]" (hrNA)
* "the problem of leveraging contrastive learning on more than two modalities is worth studying" (hrNA) and "[a]ddressing this limitation makes the work more principled" (QTPJ)
* "The paper is very well written. The motivation, problem formulation, derivation, and novelty of the paper are clearly stated." (hrNA)
### Common reviewer feedback
A shared point that arose concerned appropriate baselines for Symile. We sincerely appreciated these questions—they helped to refine our presentation of Symile's contributions to representation learning. We discuss the baselines that came up below.
**ImageBind**
Reviewer QTPJ writes, "ImageBind, with its publicly available weights, would be considered as a baseline." The baseline that we currently use in our paper is pairwise CLIP, and ImageBind is pairwise CLIP. To see why, let $I$ represent images with learned embeddings $q$ and let $M_\ell$ represent one of the other five modalities with learned embeddings $k_\ell$. Notice that ImageBind uses the InfoNCE loss:
$L_{\mathcal{I},\mathcal{M_\ell}} = -\log \frac{\exp{(q_i^\top k_{\ell,i}} / \tau)}{\exp{(q_i^\top k_{\ell, i}} / \tau) + \sum_{j \neq i} \exp{(q_i^\top k_{\ell, j}} / \tau)}.$
ImageBind then trains by minimizing this loss summed across the other modes indexed by $\ell$. *This is pairwise CLIP where only pairs where the image mode appears are kept.*
In our experiments, we compare Symile to pairwise CLIP—the ImageBind approach—and find that Symile outperforms CLIP.
**Contrastive representation learning on multiple augmentations**
Reviewer hrNA rightly points out that previous work has explored contrastive learning in the context of multiple views of the same data. For example, Bai et al. (2023) derive two total correlation (TC) estimators, one of which they apply to multi-augmentation contrastive learning where a text encoder is trained by maximizing the TC between four augmentations of the text (see our individual response to hrNA below for details). Shidani et al. (2024), which we mention in Related Work, develop a (pairwise) contrastive approach using more than two augmentations for image representation learning. Reviewer hrNA also mentioned Liang et al. (2023): while they use contrastive learning objectives to optimize conditional MI terms, their approach is restricted to only two modalities.
The relationship between our work and contrastive methods for multi-augmentations on a single modality is comparable to that between CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) and SimCLR (Chen et al., 2020). While SimCLR popularized the mutual information (MI) estimator InfoNCE (van den Oord et al., 2018) for contrastive learning on two augmentations of the same data, CLIP used this estimator to handle distinct modalities. Similarly, Bai et al. (and many others before them) leverage TC or MI estimators for contrastive learning on multiple augmentations of the same data, but to our knowledge no one has made use of such estimators for more than two distinct modalities—except for pairwise CLIP, which we do use as a baseline. Further, these estimators typically require specific encoders that ingest multiple modes of data, which limits their use.
The contribution of our paper is a combination of the contributions of InfoNCE and CLIP for more than two modes of data. Our paper (1) provides a single contrastive loss that works with any encoders and recovers higher-order information for more than two modes (like InfoNCE for two modes) and (2) demonstrates the value of this estimator for representation learning on more than two distinct modes of data (like CLIP for two modes).
Given our work's emphasis on targeting TC for representation learning for distinct modalities using any type of encoder, we view pairwise CLIP as the most suitable baseline because pairwise CLIP is intended for distinct data modalities and allows for the use of any encoders for those modalities. We also show why targeting TC yields good representations by, for example, showing that Symile yields sufficient statistics; this analysis holds for any TC estimator that at optimality yields a likelihood ratio. That said, it is certainly an interesting and worthwhile question to ask how our approach compares to other TC estimators—but it is outside of the scope of our paper.
### Contributions
We now summarize the contibutions of our work.
**Theoretical:**
- Show that, despite its popularity, the pairwise use of CLIP fails to capture higher-order information between modalities, thereby limiting the quality of the representations it learns
- Propose the use of total correlation for representation learning with more than two modalities of data by noting it captures higher-order information
- Derive a multi-sample lower bound on total correlation to build Symile, a simple contrastive learning objective that, unlike other total correlation estimators, accommodates any number of modalities and allows any model to produce representations for each modality
- Prove that representations produced by Symile for any set of modalities form sufficient statistics for the remaining modalities not considered in the set
**Empirical:**
- Demonstrate that Symile outperforms pairwise CLIP on cross-modal classification and retrieval in a multilingual dataset of images, text and audio of over 33M examples and a clinical dataset of chest X-rays, electrocardiograms, and laboratory measurements
- Show that Symile retains its advantage over pairwise CLIP even with modalities missing in the data | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Faster Neighborhood Attention: Reducing the O(n^2) Cost of Self Attention at the Threadblock Level | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper proposes two CUDA kernel optimization techniques: batched GEMM and fusion for neighborhood attention. On average, batched GEMM optimization provides 895% (548%) and 272% (193%) improvement in full precision (half precision) latency compared to existing naive CUDA kernels for 1-D and 2-D neighborhood attention, respectively. Fusion optimization improves naive kernels by an average of 1759% and 958% in 1-D and 2-D problems respectively. These optimizations translate into up to 104% improvement in inference and 39% improvement in training existing models based on neighborhood attention. The fused kernels can match or outperform the authors' self-attention baseline in approximately 100% of 1-D, 98.6% of 2-D, and 97.3% of 3-D problem sizes that they benchmarked.
Strengths: 1. The paper clearly explains the overhead one can expect from switching from a standard self-attention kernel to neighborhood attention.
2. The paper clearly illustrates the CUDA kernel optimization techniques they use, which is challenging because the kernels are complex.
Weaknesses: 1. The paper does not quantitively compare the neighborhood attention kernel with the state-of-the-art fused dot-product attention kernel.
2. The paper only evaluates one type of GPU, the NVIDIA A100, which questions the generality of the proposed kernel optimization technique.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. The paper does not quantitively explain where the performance benefits come from. It would help the readers assess the kernel better if you could show the arithmetic intensity of the naive, GEMM, and fused kernels under different inputs and configurations. Meanwhile, could you show some measurements on the memory, cache, and occupancy that would help explain the performance improvement?
2. Could you show the best performance achieved by torch.compile in PyTorch 2? That would help motivate the necessity of developing CUDA kernels.
3. Could you show how the optimized kernels impact the algorithm, such as enabling larger models or longer contexts?
4. Could you explain whether the new tensor memory accelerator introduced in H100 can help with the neighborhood attention kernel?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: 1. The paper only shows that optimized kernels can accelerate current algorithms, but not extend their ability to more applications.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank you for your feedback.
To answer your questions:
1. Our performance evaluations are limited to runtime, mainly because the naive kernel is already not utilizing anything other than occupancy (through launching as large of a wave as possible and assigning a single dot-product’s worth of work to individual threads). It does not use tensor cores, and therefore there is no effective way of measuring math utilization in that case, at least not to our knowledge. The naive kernel also doesn’t explicitly use any levels of cache.
There are only two cases in which the naive kernel outperforms ours, which are:
a) GEMM and FNA hit tile quantization; or
b) Very small wave, which means the prologue, epilogue, and gmem to smem overheads will bottleneck GEMM and FNA, which will happen in any naive vs tiled implementation.
The naive kernel, which is our baseline, was as we understand it a proof of concept implementation, and not a performance optimized baseline to begin with.
As for GEMM vs FNA, implementations are very similar, and the only bottleneck with GEMM is the memory alignment issue which we described in the paper, which FNA does not run into since the first GEMM in FNA will skip the epilogue and move results to shared memory instead of gmem.
In addition, prior research such as Flash Attention clearly shows that BMM-style implementations are typically memory bound problems, which includes both the naive baseline and our GEMM-based implementations. Finally, neighborhood attention itself is inherently a GEMV problem, which is also heavily memory bandwidth bound, therefore runtime / achievable FLOPS are really the only metrics we can use.
We would be happy to add more benchmarks if you happen to have any other metrics in mind.
2. Unfortunately there is no way of implementing this idea with torch.compile, other than the very new FlexAttention, which to our knowledge is still in prototype. torch.compile uses an induction engine to attempt and find patterns in the graph for which a fused template kernel exists. These are typically limited to a single fusion of an elementwise or at best a reduction into a GEMM kernel, and do not extend beyond that.
As a result, torch.compile is great for more common fusions, such as elementwise or reduction fusion into GEMMs, and the like, there still aren't too many specific templates for attention.
The only functionally correct neighborhood attention implementations in python were done using im2col and padding, which cannot be inducted as traversals/views of the same tensor so that they could be fused into an attention kernel.
3. We would note that our implementation also adds features that were previously not implemented for neighborhood attention. To name a few, causal masking, and varying per-axis parameters unlock many attention patterns that were previously non-existent. A very important one of those is spatio-temporal attention (with causal masking along time and not space), which we foresee will have great applications in video generation and video recognition.
Aside from the new features, as you pointed out, acceleration to larger context / larger inputs is one key aspect; unfortunately we have not found too many applications of neighborhood attention at very large scales, mainly because most NA applications are vision-focused, and applications with very large contexts are limited.
However, we would be happy to add inference and even training results on higher-resolution tasks such as object detection and segmentation, which can better illustrate model-level improvements than image classification.
4. Thank you for asking! Tensor memory accelerator (TMA) is a hardware engine for bulk data movement from global memory into shared memory. It handles some of the layout transformation, but primarily the pointer movement and predication, among other things.
One interesting property of the TMA is that the bulk memory accesses do not necessarily have to be in contiguous memory, and can be according to any up-to-rank-5 layout. This means that our implementation's primary bottleneck, which is data movement in the presence of non-trivial sequence "modes", will be handled natively through the TMA in a Hopper-oriented implementation.
One open source example is the CUTLASS GETT (for General Tensor-Tensor Contraction) example, in which it is illustrated how the same GEMM kernels written for Hopper can be manipulated through layout transformations and use of the TMA, to perform tensor contractions.
All fused attention kernels so far have been the fusion of back-to-back GEMMs with a softmax in between, but FNA is actually the fusion of back-to-back GETTs.
The same logic can be extended to FNA, in which our sequence "mode" can be 1-D, 2-D, or 3-D, which we can tile in different shapes, all through host-side layout transformations and the TMA.
To our knowledge, the details of the TMA copy (given a fixed number of transaction bytes) do not affect its performance as much, and certainly do not lead to unavoidable branching (since it is a single instruction), which is what our issue is in FNA.
With regard to weaknesses, it is true that our comparison is only to FMHA, which is our baseline, and the reason for that is precisely the fact that we know other optimization techniques used in other state of the art methods such as Flash Attention v2 and v3 that are not used in either FMHA or FNA. However, this does not mean that our methodology is limited to FMHA or a specific architecture; it was just more generic.
In addition, our comparisons are done on Ampere (A100 specifically) mostly because that is the
only data-center class card we have at our disposal, and also because it is still a widely used
card for many in the field. However our implementation is multi-architecture and supports all architectures since Pascal, and architectures newer than Ampere can still run the kernels.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Rebuttal, continued
Comment: We are also trying to gain access to H100s, so we can develop future versions of the kernels
specifically targeting Hopper. We are hopeful that we will gain access in the coming months, and if time permits we will add those results as well.
Finally, as stated, we fully intend to extend our methodology to not just newer CUDA architectures, but other platforms and hardware as well (ROCm and Metal to name a few.)
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response. My concerns have been solved, and I would like to see training results on higher-resolution tasks, which can demonstrate model-level improvements brought by GPU kernel optimization.
---
Reply to Comment 2.1.1:
Comment: Of course, we're attaching them below.
However, we note these measurements are only of the backbone and not the entire detector/segmentor end to end.
The reason for that is that the original paper used MMDet and MMSeg, which have since completely changed their API, and the version used in the original NAT/DiNAT papers was build with CUDA Toolkit 11.3, while our GEMM kernel and FNA kernel require 11.8 at a minimum.
We tried multiple newer MMDet/MMSeg versions (really MMCV, their co-dependency) and unfortunately the only ones compatible with our newer kernels still do not support the old NAT/DiNAT configurations, and break during inference.
Because of that, the only solution we could think of was benchmarking the backend models separately.
In addition, benchmarking the backend alone indicates our performance improvement better than the end to end measurement, because the detection/segmentation heads are usually highly unoptimized and use CPU operations somewhat frequently (i.e. when producing masks or RoI maps), and that will bias these measurements.
Overall, for FNA we observe up to 113% speedup over naive, 165% speedup over tiled naive, and 40% speedup over our own GEMM-based kernel.
## Detection
Backbone benchmarked on an A100-PCIe with 800x1216 resolution inputs (per detection resolution in the code from original NAT/DiNAT papers).
*Disclaimer: throughput measurements are from backbone only, and do not include detection head and post processing.*
| Backbone | mAP | Mask mAP | Naive Throughput | Tiled Naive Throughput | GEMM Throughput | FNA Throughput |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NAT-Mini | 50.3 | 43.6 | 71.9 FPS | 82.0 FPS | 82.0 FPS | **98.1** FPS |
| NAT-Tiny | 51.4 | 44.5 | 49.8 FPS | 49.5 FPS | 50.2 FPS | **62.6** FPS |
| NAT-Small | 52.0 | 44.9 | 36.4 FPS | 46.5 FPS | 48.7 FPS | **61.1** FPS |
| NAT-Base | 52.3 | 45.1 | 28.4 FPS | 36.8 FPS | 44.7 FPS | **56.8** FPS |
| DiNAT_s-Tiny | 51.0 | 44.1 | 73.5 FPS | 92.9 FPS | 107.2 FPS | **138.8** FPS |
| DiNAT_s-Small | 52.3 | 45.2 | 45.5 FPS | 57.1 FPS | 61.2 FPS | **76.1** FPS |
| DiNAT_s-Base | 52.6 | 45.3 | 35.3 FPS | 44.5 FPS | 51.5 FPS | **70.9** FPS |
| DiNAT_s-Large | 54.8 | 47.2 | 23.6 FPS | 29.5 FPS | 33.7 FPS | **46.1** FPS |
| DiNAT-Mini | 51.2 | 44.4 | 71.0 FPS | 83.2 FPS | 82.7 FPS | **100.2** FPS |
| DiNAT-Tiny | 52.2 | 45.1 | 49.4 FPS | 51.2 FPS | 51.5 FPS | **61.6** FPS |
| DiNAT-Small | 52.9 | 45.8 | 36.9 FPS | 46.9 FPS | 51.2 FPS | **63.0** FPS |
| DiNAT-Base | 53.4 | 46.2 | 28.0 FPS | 35.9 FPS | 42.0 FPS | **57.5** FPS |
| DiNAT-Large | 55.3 | 47.8 | 19.5 FPS | 25.2 FPS | 29.7 FPS | **41.6** FPS |
## Segmentation
Backbone benchmarked on an A100-PCIe with 512x512 resolution inputs for Mini, Tiny, Small, and Base variants, and 640x640 for Large varient (per segmentation resolution in the code from original NAT/DiNAT papers).
*Disclaimer: throughput measurements are from backbone only, and do not include segmentation head and post processing.*
| Backbone | mIoU | mIoU (multiscale) | Naive Throughput | Tiled Naive Throughput | GEMM Throughput | FNA Throughput |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NAT-Mini | 45.1 | 46.4 | 82.4 FPS | 84.2 FPS | 81.1 FPS | **102.7** FPS |
| NAT-Tiny | 47.1 | 48.4 | 50.3 FPS | 50.6 FPS | 48.9 FPS | **61.6** FPS |
| NAT-Small | 48.0 | 49.5 | 48.2 FPS | 47.5 FPS | 47.7 FPS | **57.6** FPS |
| NAT-Base | 48.5 | 49.7 | 47.4 FPS | 47.6 FPS | 46.8 FPS | **57.9** FPS |
| DiNAT_s-Tiny | 46.0 | 47.4 | 116.6 FPS | 114.8 FPS | 109.4 FPS | **139.7** FPS |
| DiNAT_s-Small | 48.6 | 49.9 | 63.4 FPS | 56.7 FPS | 60.0 FPS | **72.4** FPS |
| DiNAT_s-Base | 49.4 | 50.2 | 61.7 FPS | 59.7 FPS | 63.3 FPS | **73.0** FPS |
| DiNAT_s-Large | 53.4 | 54.6 | 49.4 FPS | 59.2 FPS | 59.8 FPS | **72.1** FPS |
| DiNAT-Mini | 45.8 | 47.2 | 80.1 FPS | 80.4 FPS | 81.5 FPS | **99.0** FPS |
| DiNAT-Tiny | 47.8 | 48.8 | 49.8 FPS | 51.1 FPS | 49.6 FPS | **62.2** FPS |
| DiNAT-Small | 48.9 | 49.9 | 48.6 FPS | 49.6 FPS | 49.2 FPS | **59.3** FPS |
| DiNAT-Base | 49.6 | 50.4 | 47.2 FPS | 48.6 FPS | 47.3 FPS | **60.9** FPS |
| DiNAT-Large | 54.0 | 54.9 | 41.1 FPS | 49.1 FPS | 49.1 FPS | **59.2** FPS | | Summary: They implemented a fused neighborhood attention kernel (N Atten). N Atten is very useful in reducing the computational cost of various tasks because sequences usually attend to nearby (e.g., Mistral and StreamingLLM).
However, previous implementations of N-Atten kernels are very inefficient because of a lack of
(1) utilizing HW tensor acceleration (matmul units such as TensorCore),
(2) utilizing fused softmax attention scheme (flash-attention).
They provide two solutions for each problem.
(1) Using GEMM by padding the attention matrix (masking the QK matmul), the implementation could be much more easily accelerated by modern HW.
(2) using fused softmax attention (flash-attention) to compute the attention output.
Strengths: They provide clear procedures for building the N-Atten efficiently. The writing and presentation are very clear, especially in Figures 3 and 4. Their implementation is very general to handling 1D-2D-3D attention.
Weaknesses: Their scientific contribution is not novel enough.
(1) GEMM-based acceleration is not a unique technique. In many sparse matrix multiplication applications, partially padding and using GEMM units is quite a natural solution (e.g., structural sparsity)
(2) Fused softmax attention was a common acceleration technique now (after the release of flash-attention)
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: 1. Can you provide the code?
2. This could be easily implemented in tiled acceleration languages like OpenAI Triton and Apache TVM Tensor Expression. How about implementing this method in those languages and checking the performance in heterogeneous architectures (e.g., AMD ROCm, Intel Gaudi)?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The proposed method only supports the N-Atten. In recent LLM research (e.g., StreamingLLM), many works propose novel methodologies to perform linear or sub-quadratic attention mechanisms using sparse masks. The current state of implementation does not consider such global attention or regional attention.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank you for your feedback.
To answer your questions:
1. Yes; we can link to or upload an anonymized version of our code if you would like, but our intention is to open source all of our code and integrate into the existing neighborhood attention package. Given the volume of the code it did not seem appropriate/necessary, but we would be happy to scrub the core implementation and share it here.
2. Yes; you are correct that other frameworks like Triton and TVM will help implement these kernels across architectures, and we fully intend to use such solutions to expand our implementations to more architectures and platform. The reason why we chose CUTLASS and CUDA specifically was mostly because of the level of freedom in optimization and customization that CUDA C++ provides, in addition to being more familiar with those platforms and the process of performance optimization.
Our eventual goal is to provide fast generic and cross-platform solutions for neighborhood attention and more generally multi-axis attention, and we certainly would not limit ourselves to just one platform or one case.
For this work, we mainly wished to illustrate with a proof of concept that the neighborhood attention family of patterns can be re-formulated as a more generic multi-axis attention, and achieve performance levels close to a practical baseline that is used in production (namely xFormers' FMHA.)
Reaching performance levels of newer fused attention kernels, extension to other platforms and architectures, and other attention patterns are definitely on our list for future work.
With that said, we'd note that most performant Flash Attention implementations (revision of v1, v2, and the recent v3), were also based on CUTLASS and CUDA C++, similarly to our GEMM-based and fused kernels introduced in the paper.
In fact, the more recent FAv3's key difference in terms of using persistent warp-specialized kernels were all concepts that naturally existed in CUTLASS before Triton, given that CUTLASS is an open source solution created by NVIDIA in the first place.
While these are specific examples, we merely wish to illustrate another advantage of CUTLASS, which is quicker adoption of new architectural designs from NVIDIA for NVIDIA hardware.
Our aim is to provide the best implementation for different hardware and architectures in order to advance research in this direction, and the hardware we had at our disposal happens to be NVIDIA hardware.
But again, your point stands that we should not be limiting our implementations to specific platforms and hardware, and we will definitely acknowledge this in the paper.
Regarding the weaknesses, we understand that the techniques used in implementing structured sparsity have existed, and we wish to clarify that we absolutely did not intend to take claim for those, and will definitely revise the paper to reflect this.
However, the work is novel in presenting, to our knowledge, the first multi-dimensional fused attention kernel (one that is back to back GETTs and not GEMMs.)
With regard to limitations, we actually can support any non-explicit attention masks (in theory). Our implementation of neighborhood attention masking in FNA provides a very simple interface through which it is easy to implement new arbitrary sparse masks.
It is perfectly feasible to connect our C++ template interface to JIT engines (torch compile) and AOT engines (AITemplate), which can "translate" user-specified masks into FNA masks, somewhat similar to FlexAttention. We did not mention this in the paper, but are happy to do so.
In the future, we can and will support arbitrary non-explicit masks. Lack of implementations of explicit masks was mainly for simplicity, but there isn't anything that fundamentally blocks us from doing so. We will clarify this further in our revision.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thank you for detailed and kindly described responses. I read most of your response (including mine), and I want to raise my score, because I understand how detailed engineering considerations are there in behind. I think this paper is good enough to be accpeted because this paper will give many insight about fused N Attention applications. I hope this kind of detailed considerations are described in the further revision (in Appendix).
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: We sincerely thank you for your invaluable feedback; we will indeed adjust the writing and add more details according to suggestions from yourself and other reviewers. Indeed our goal is not only accelerating the speed of research and inference in these cases, but to also provide context and information for accelerated AI and hopefully benefit future researchers, so that they can realize their ideas unencumbered by the tools they have available. | Summary: The paper introduce a method to improve the performance of neighborhood attention mechanisms. The authors present two new implementations: GEMM-based kernels and fused kernels. These implementations aim to reduce the latency and memory footprint of neighborhood attention in deep learning models, particularly in higher-dimensional spaces. The proposed methods show significant speedup in both full and half precision compared to existing naive CUDA kernels.
Strengths: 1. The proposed GEMM-based and fused kernels significantly reduces latency, average improvements of 895% and 272% in full precision latency for 1-D and 2-D neighborhood attention
2. The implementations can also reduce the memory consumption of neighborhood attention.
3. The methods are designed to work efficiently across different spatial ranks (1-D, 2-D, and 3-D), which makes it more generally applicable.
Weaknesses: 1. The performance improvements in half precision are limited due to the inefficiencies in gather/scatter operations。
2. The performance gains are more significant on newer architectures like Ampere and Hopper, limiting the generalizability of the results to other hardware setups.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. What is the implications of the fp16 acceleration to more advanced low precision format such as fp8 or even fp6?
2. While the paper provides significant speedup of neighborhood attention, more discussions on the overall bottleneck of it would be interesting, whether the improvements on the speed can be further translated to better accuracy.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: No significant negative societal impacts.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank you for your feedback.
To respond to your questions:
1. To clarify, our GEMM-based approach's FP16 performance is significantly affected by the gathering and scatter of attention weights, not Fused Neighborhood Attention. FNA does not store or load attention weights to global memory, and hence has no need for a gather scatter on those, and as a result will not run into the "under-alignment" issues on modern hardware. Because of this, we spent more time on the fused approach which does not suffer from this issue, and massively improves FP16 performance compared to both the original implementation and our GEMM-based approach.
With regard to FP8 and lower precision, we do not believe there are any significant blockers, mainly because Fused Neighborhood Attention as a concept can be applied to any fused attention implementation, and that includes open source FP8 implementations like Colfax's FP8 Flash Attention, and the recent Flash Attention v3.
2. Thank you for mentioning this; we would be happy to add those discussions and expand further on the bottlenecks and implications on accuracy. Improvements on the speed of neighborhood attention alone won't directly affect accuracy, since functionality is unaffected. However, using faster implementations like fused neighborhood attention unlocks many new features and provides much better scalability, both of which will provide more flexibility to researchers when building their models, and that will definitely help accuracy in the long term.
With regard to the weaknesses, we would like to clarify that:
1. The performance improvements of the GEMM-based approach are limited in FP16 due to the gather scatter operations, and for that we actually "recommend" researchers working on local attention kernels to move away from BMM-style implementations and work on fused attention directly instead. The memory alignment issue will grapple any multi-axis local attention kernel, and the limitation is hardware related.
2. To clarify, FNA supports all NVIDIA architectures since Pascal, and natively targets all architectures up to and including Ampere, and in theory can also target Ada Lovelace. Extension to natively target Hopper Tensor Cores, TMA, and programming model, along with other architectures is in our list of future works.
Our intention is to provide the best possible implementation to accelerate research in this direction, and thus far we have only had experience working with NVIDIA hardware, and only had NVIDIA hardware at our disposal.
That said, it is possible to extend our implementations to ROCm (AMD GPUs), Metal (Apple Silicon), and more, but as other reviewers have suggested, we may even look into Triton based implementations as well in order to get there more quickly.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I appreciate the response from the authors, especially the clarification on the applicable architecture. I would like to raise the score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: We sincerely thank you for your feedback and your rating. | null | null | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewers for their time and their valuable feedback and suggestions.
We've posted individual rebuttals, and hope to have answered their questions and concerns.
Please let us know if there are any more questions, and we would be happy to elaborate further. | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Pricing and Competition for Generative AI | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper presents a theoretical analysis of pricing strategies for generative AI models in a competitive market. It investigates how companies can optimally set prices for AI models that are used across various tasks, considering the impact of competition from other firms. The study uses a game-theoretical approach to model the interactions between firms, exploring the implications of different pricing strategies on market dynamics and revenue optimization.
Strengths: 1. The paper tackles an emerging and relevant problem in the field of AI economics, particularly the pricing of generative AI in a competitive landscape. The study is timely.
2. The formulation is clear and the presentation is good. The paper in general is very easy to follow.
3. The paper offers insightful conclusions about the strategic behaviors of firms in a duopoly, especially the advantages of being a second mover in the market.
Weaknesses: 1. From the perspective of a stylized model, the work is solid and interesting. But I am not sure about the practice relevant. I am not sure whether the real world LLM company is thinking their pricing strategy in this way. I won’t push along this line, and would like leave the decision on this point to more senior reviewers and ACs.
2. The main technical contribution to me is the modeling the GenAI’s prompt-based service. The analysis seems very standard.
3. I am not fully convinced that in the current GenAI market, the companies are following the dynamics of model A and model B in the paper. All the companies should be keeping updated their accuracy and be almost homogenous in terms of pricing.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See previous comments.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: See previous comments.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your positive comments on the relevance and timeliness of our work, clarity of our formulation and writing, as well as the key insights drawn from our work.
---
> W1) From the perspective of a stylized model, the work is solid and interesting. But I am not sure about the practice relevant. I am not sure whether the real world LLM company is thinking their pricing strategy in this way. I won’t push along this line, and would like leave the decision on this point to more senior reviewers and ACs.
Thank you for the positive comments. Although we study the effects of competition, model performance, and user demand, we agree that the real-world pricing will likely incorporate additional factors (e.g., marketing, model development).
Rather than algorithms for prescribing explicit prices, our goal is to reveal insights on market dynamics drawn from the unique traits of generative AI technology. Specifically, we show the importance of knowing competitor price and performance information on revenue. For example, Proposition 1 shows that if the model built by firm A is not differentiated, then no matter their price, firm B can always set a price that limits firm A's revenue. The implication is that the only way for firm A to profit is to either improve their model to specialize on at least one task, or use external factors (e.g., marketing).
---
> W2) The main technical contribution to me is the modeling the GenAI’s prompt-based service. The analysis seems very standard.
We agree that the key methodological contribution is the modeling and problem formulation of the pricing problem in generative AI. The goal of our follow-through analysis is to derive insights, rather than new algorithms. Further, we believe that our model is the first step towards more advanced analyses of generative AI pricing.
---
> W3) I am not fully convinced that in the current GenAI market, the companies are following the dynamics of model A and model B in the paper. All the companies should be keeping updated their accuracy and be almost homogenous in terms of pricing.
`Related: U4W8-Q1`
This is a great point that our analysis also agrees with and we will include the following discussion in our revision.
Our analysis in Proposition 1 shows that firms should frequently introduce new, better models, in addition to competing on price. Specifically, if the model performance is weak (i.e., $\kappa_2 / \kappa_1$ is large), then it doesn't matter what price they set because their competitor can set a more competitive price. Thus, we must continue to improve our models -- but by how much? Proposition 1 states that to guarantee revenue, we should ensure the model sufficiently outperforms competitors on at least one task (relative to other tasks), which allows the product to be sufficiently differentiated. This may be more efficient than competing on every task.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I have read the rebuttal carefully. Thanks for your efforts and your responses.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thanks
Comment: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and comments on this work. | Summary: * The paper explores the optimal pricing problem for generative AI services in a two-firm Stackelberg competition setting.
* In the setting, two generative AI firms compete over users. Each generative model is characterized by a fixed price $p$ per query, and success probabilities $(V_1, \\ldots, V_T)\\in[0,1]^T$ for each task. The demand for task $t$ at price $p$ is characterized by a non-increasing demand function $D_t(p)$. Users are assumed to query the generative model repeatedly until a satisfactory result is obtained, and success probability of each query ($V_t$) is assumed to be independent and identical. Two generative AI firms compete over users in a Stackelberg setting (firm A sets prices first, firm B follows), and their goal is to maximize revenue.
* For firm B, Theorem 1 characterizes the price optimization problem as a piecewise optimization problem. For firm A, Theorem 2 characterizes the price optimization problem as a bi-level optimization problem. Section 5 assumes an exponential parametric form for the demand function, and derives a globally-optimal solution based on them.
Strengths: * Topic of the paper is well-motivated.
* Paper is well-written. Presentation is clear and very easy to follow.
* Assumptions are introduced gradually and explicitly, and seem to be justified by existing literature.
* The paper proposes guidelines for pricing in practical scenarios.
Weaknesses: * The analysis seems to rely on the assumption that a full taxonomy of tasks is available, and that demand curves for each task are independent. However, due to the general-purpose nature of generative models, tasks may change over time, and therefore identifying and estimating all demand curves may be infeasible.
* Assumed cost model (pay-per-query) doesn’t seem to be common - Current common pricing schemes for generative models are per-token (e.g, OpenAI’s GPT-4 API), or per-month (e.g, ChatGPT), possibly inducing different incentive structures.
* Code is not provided, making it harder to reproduce results and build upon them.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: * What is the computational complexity of the optimization problem in Theorem 1?
* In the presented setting, can the firms benefit from colluding?
* What are the expected consequences of having more than two firms participating in the market?
* How would results change if the generative model was assumed to be able to "fail" in generating a satisfactory response? (either due to lack of ability, or users that churn before reaching satisfactory results)
* How would results change if the two firms are allowed play simultaneously?
* Minor typos:
* L223 - “Theorem holds..” - Missing theorem number?
* L239 - “cn” - Can?
* L356 - “assumes” - assume?
* L357 - “fims” - firms?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Most limitations are discussed explicitly, and in sufficient detail. I feel that the paper can benefit from discussing the additional limitations that appear above.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your positive comments on our motivation, clarity of writing, and overall presentation of our work.
---
> W1) The analysis seems to rely on the assumption that a full taxonomy of tasks is available, and that demand curves for each task are independent. However, due to the general-purpose nature of generative models, tasks may change over time, and therefore identifying and estimating all demand curves may be infeasible.
`Related: 6DrW-Q2.`
We agree that for general LLM consumers, the number and type of tasks will vary over time. In practice, a company can update prices to reflect changing user demands. Our most effective use-case is for consistent/stationary users, such as companies that are building tools ontop of LLM APIs (e.g., PDF AI Chat software). These users have relatively consistent tasks and can quantify task statistics, user demand, and success rates.
---
> W2) Assumed cost model (pay-per-query) doesn’t seem to be common - Current common pricing schemes for generative models are per-token (e.g, OpenAI’s GPT-4 API), or per-month (e.g, ChatGPT), possibly inducing different incentive structures.
`Related: USe1-Q2.`
We agree that most payment structures are per-token or subscription-based. Our per-prompt pricing is **a stylistic choice to reduce notation and our results automatically extend to pricing per-token** with a small change of variables. We will update our paper with the below extension.
With per-token pricing, each task $t$ has a different average price $p_t = \theta_t p_0$ where $p_0$ is the price-per-token and $\theta_t$ is the average prompt length for the task (equivalently $q_t = \phi_t q_0$). Here, $p_0$ and $q_0$ are the price variables to optimize, whereas $\theta_t$ and $\phi_t$ are fixed parameters.
For task $t$, a user will prefer model B if $\theta_t \frac{p_0}{V_t} \leq \phi_t \frac{q_0}{W_t}$ (i.e., Eqn 1). Using this principle, the corresponding pricing optimization problems (Eqn 2) can be solved by redefining the competitive ratio between models on each task to $\kappa_t := \frac{\phi_t V_t }{\theta_t W_t}$. This redefined $\kappa_t$ can be substituted into the subsequent analyses to recover all our theoretical results.
We agree that subscription pricing is an important setting, but it is typically for more general consumers. We will explore this problem in future work.
---
> Q1) What is the computational complexity of the optimization problem in Theorem 1?
The problem is a max of $T$ single-variable inner optimization problems with only bounding constraints. If the demand functions $D_t(p)$ are differentiable, each inner problem can be solved by gradient descent. For standard choices of $D_t(p)$ (e.g., exponential, linear), we can directly check the zero-derivative and boundary points. For example under Assumption 2, the problem automatically reduces to checking $2T$ possible values of $p$.
---
> Q2) In the presented setting, can the firms benefit from colluding?
Thanks for this great question! Our analysis reveals that for a company to maximize revenue, they should be particularly specialized in at least one task (Proposition 1). This is the generative AI equivalent of product differentiation in goods. Intuitively, two companies could collude by specializing their models to different tasks (e.g., one company focuses on programming and quantitative tasks, while another focuses on language and writing tasks), thereby ensuring both companies receive revenue. However, quantifying this effect, as well as the social outcomes, is non-trivial and requires extensive effort. We would be happy to explore this more thoroughly in future work.
---
> Q3) What are the expected consequences of having more than two firms participating in the market?
`Related: U4W8-W1, 6DrW-Q5.`
We will include this point in our updated paper. Our pricing problems can be extended to multiple competitors by taking the highest price-performance ratio for each task. If a company $(p, V_t)$ has two competitors, $(q, W_t)$ and $(r, X_t)$, a user will prefer the first model over all others if $p/V_t \leq \max( q/W_t , r/X_t)$. This revised version of Eqn 1 can be used to re-define new pricing problems and recover Theorem 1 & 3 by re-defining $\kappa_t$ as a worst-case competitive ratio.
---
> Q4) How would results change if the generative model was assumed to be able to "fail" in generating a satisfactory response? (either due to lack of ability, or users that churn before reaching satisfactory results)
`Related: USe1-Q1.`
This is a great question that we will include in our updated paper! **Our framework generalizes to the case where for each task $t$, the user churns after a maximum $T_t$ rounds.** Here, the total number of rounds for a task is a Truncated Geometric distribution (`omitted details for space, see USe1-Q1`). Using the expected value of this distribution, we can re-derive Eqn 1, revise the pricing problem (Eqn 2), and redefine the competitive ratio $\kappa_t$ between models to recover all of our theoretical results. Our main insights stay the same.
---
> Q5) How would results change if the two firms are allowed play simultaneously?
`Related: 6DrW-Q1.`
Mathematically, we could explore a simultaneous competition framework where neither firm knows the price that their opponent will set a priori. Here, the pricing solution in Theorem 1 is not possible. A potential strategy is to use the robust problem in Theorem 2, which if solvable, would guarantee a non-zero revenue. However, this strategy is not optimal and may not achieve a Nash equilibrium if two companies are simultaneously playing.
We agree that the simultaneous pricing problem is important, but it requires non-trivial analysis to determine equilibrium-achieving conditions. Since the sequential setting characterizes recent events where ChatGPT held a first-mover position over competitors, we focus on the sequential problem. We plan to explore the simultaneous problem in future work.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the thorough response, and for the helpful clarifications! I have no further questions.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thanks
Comment: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and comments on this work. | Summary: This paper studies the pricing and competition of companies providing services using generative AI models. This paper proposes a stylized economic model that abstracts away from the technical details, and in particular, considers two companies entering the market sequentially. This paper assumes that the customer chooses the model that is cheaper per prompt, and each company solves a revenue maximization problem. Based on the model and analysis, this paper argues that companies should adopt different pricing strategies based on their order of entering the market.
Strengths: 1. The pricing of generative models is an interesting and timely matter
Weaknesses: 1. Several fundamental model setups and assumptions are not very justified.
1. The insights derived are not very informative nor it provide very meaningful guidance. Overall, I understand that the parsimonious model aims to highlight certain main trade-offs, but this paper somewhat errs on the side of oversimplification.
1. Another big concern is that: the nature of analysis in this paper is very stylized and economic, and it is unclear if this is the right venue for such kind of papers..
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Is the sequential order of companies true? Would simultaneous competition be more reasonable? Furthermore, if so, do they get any first-mover advantage? The current model assumes that the first company is disadvantaged due to a lack of price information.
1. The current modeling seems to assume that customers are very rational and could make a sensible decision based on knowledge of price and number of prompts $n$. What about the cases when consumers do not have a good idea of the number of prompts needed or the success rate? What if customers have heterogeneous types or they have heterogeneous tasks?
1. The i.i.d. assumption of $V_t$ is concerning. Due to the conversational nature, the prompts are naturally highly correlated, and thus the independence of the success rate is not justified.
1. Can authors start the motivation with some more practical background?
1. To what extent does the current analysis extend to a more general scenario with multiple companies?
1. Punctuations are missing from several math equations.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: N/A
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your positive comments on the interest and timeliness of our work.
---
> Q1) Is the sequential order of companies true? Would simultaneous competition be more reasonable? Furthermore, if so, do they get any first-mover advantage? The current model assumes that the first company is disadvantaged due to a lack of price information.
`Related: aKR2-Q5.`
Our sequential order of companies is motivated by real-world events of how ChatGPT had a large first-mover advantage before competing products were released. Furthermore, competitors were able to set their prices after observing the market performance of ChatGPT. Even now, firms release different models with prices asynchronously.
Mathematically, we could explore a simultaneous competition framework where neither firm knows the price that their opponent will set. Here, Theorem 1 is not possible since it requires competitor prices. A potential strategy is to use the robust problem of Theorem 2. However, this may not achieve a Nash equilibrium if both companies simultaneously use it.
We believe that the simultaneous pricing problem is important, but it requires non-trivial analysis to determine equilibrium-achieving conditions. We focus on the sequential problem in this work due to how it captures the real-world events, but we plan to study the simultaneous problem in future work.
---
> Q2) The current modeling seems to assume that customers are very rational and could make a sensible decision based on knowledge of price and number of prompts $n$. What about the cases when consumers do not have a good idea of the number of prompts needed or the success rate? What if customers have heterogeneous types or they have heterogeneous tasks?
`Related: aKR2-W1.`
Our ssumption that users are rational and know the expected number of prompts is reasonable for large-scale, commercial users of LLM applications. For example, the user could be a company building software ontop of LLM API calls (e.g., PDF AI Chat tools). They would be informed on task statistics and success rate.
Further, while our stylized model is defined for a 'single user with different tasks', the techniques naturally extend to multiple heterogeous users by aggregating the pricing objective (Eqn 2) into an expectation over the distribution of different types of users. Moreover, we expect that as a first-mover disadvantage exists for one user, an analogous disadvantage should exist over general multiple heterogeneous users.
We agree that consumers who do not know their task statistics or success rates, may not be rational, but may be subject to additional factors, such as marketing or word-of-mouth adoption. This is an interesting extension that we will discuss in our paper and study in future work.
---
> Q3) The i.i.d. assumption of $V_t$ is concerning. Due to the conversational nature, the prompts are naturally highly correlated, and thus the independence of the success rate is not justified.
This is a great point. We agree that for some tasks, the success probability and number of rounds may not be independent. **Our framework and all results extend to arbitrary distributions of the number of prompting rounds required to complete a task $n(V)$.** Our initial Geometric assumption was a stylistic choice to make the downstream insights more interpretable, but we will revise our paper with the below generalization.
For any distribution for $n(V)$ with finite expected value $E[n(V)]$, the principle for determining whether company B $(p, V)$ is preferred over company A $(q, W)$, i.e., Eqn 1, is $p E[n(V)] \leq q E[n(W)]$ and the pricing problem is
$R(p|q) := p \sum_t D_t(p)\mathbf{1} [ p E[n(V_t)] \leq q E[n(W_t)] ]$. This optimization problem can still be solved using Theorem 1 if we re-define the competitive ratio between tasks as $\kappa_t := \frac{E[n(W_t)]}{E[n(V_t)]}$. Using this $\kappa_t$, we can recover all of our theoretical results.
---
> Q4) Can authors start the motivation with some more practical background?
We will revise our paper introduction to better highlight our motivation.
One motivation of our work was the first-mover position of ChatGPT, which led to several competing products being released shortly after. This technology invited a new paradigm of interacting with a single model to solve various different tasks via multiple prompts. While this product has seemed to be dominant, there are several competing products that all perform relatively similarly on these tasks [1]. For this emerging market, when should users prefer one competing model over another, and what is the market advantage in the current rapid pace of development where companies are quickly trying to release better models as fast as possible? We study these problems by analyzing the relationships between model performance, competition, and price.
[1] https://scale.com/leaderboard
---
> Q5) To what extent does the current analysis extend to a more general scenario with multiple companies?
`Related: U4W8-W1, aKR2-Q3.`
Our duopoly framework and corresponding pricing problems (Eqn 2) naturally extend multiple companies by simply taking the highest price-performance ratio for each task. If company A $(p, V)$ has two competitors, $(q, W)$ and $(r, X)$, a user will prefer company A over the competitors if $\frac{p}{V_t} \leq \max( \frac{q}{W_t}, \frac{r}{X_t} )$ (i.e. Eqn 1). We can then rewrite the pricing problem (Eqn 2), re-define the competitive ratio $\kappa_t$ to be a worst-case ratio over all competitors, and directly recover many of the theoretical results (e.g., Theorem 1, Theorem 3) in our paper.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Score adjusted
Comment: I read the rebuttals thoroughly and appreciate the authors' detailed and thoughtful responses to my questions as well as similar concerns by other reviewers. I have thus adjusted my score accordingly.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thanks
Comment: Thank you very much for the improved score. We appreciate your feedback and the overall review process. We are happy to continue discussing the paper and answering any further questions or concerns that come up. | Summary: The paper identifies some unique characteristics of modern generative AI software which affect their pricing. It uses a notion of user cost-effectiveness to compare two models, capturing the cost per prompt and the number of prompting rounds needed to reach a satisfactory answer. The authors propose to model the pricing problem as a game between two companies sequentially releasing their models before users choose their preferred model for each task. A set of tasks is assumed and each task is priced separately. They show that the price optimization problem is piecewise continuous i.e. the companies must choose a subset of tasks on which to be cost-effective and forgo revenue on other tasks. Their analysis indicates that being the first to market may become cost-ineffective, as companies entering the market later can benefit from knowing their competitor's pricing.
Strengths: 1. Pricing digital goods and services is an interesting problem in general due to their unique characteristics. The paper is a nice early attempt to characterize and price generative AI.
2. The modeling is simple and accounts for user satisfaction, demand, and accuracy of the model for different tasks.
3. Analysis with the above model reveals to the player (company) that companies have to choose a subset of tasks on which they can be cost-effective and forgo revenue on other tasks. It also shows that when the tasks are sufficiently similar, then the first-to-market may become cost-ineffective on all tasks regardless of the pricing.
Weaknesses: 1. The setup seems far from reality and loosely related to generative AI. First, in real life even if we assume two companies, there is nothing prohibiting them from updating their prices any number of times and the first mover is probably always in a better position due to customer acquisition, branding, and acquiring real data, system testing, etc. So the analysis seems counterintuitive.
2. The connection with generative AI is not very clear. What unique characteristics of generative AI are actually used in the pricing model? It is generally applicable to any model with different performance on a set of tasks.
3. There are no real data experiments or simulations provided in support of the modeling assumptions and analytical results. It is understandable the reality is complex and there are a lot of variables involved in pricing. It would be unreasonable to expect to model all of that but I do expect this study to be a bit more closer to reality than it is. It could be done by showing the real data and formulating the modeling assumptions from it and the pricing game with multiple parties going over multiple rounds and also improving their models. It would be great if with the proposed model the future price can be predicted accurately.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See above.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your positive comments on the uniqueness of our problem as well as the simplicity and comprehensiveness of our model.
---
> W1) The setup seems far from reality and loosely related to generative AI. First, in real life even if we assume two companies, there is nothing prohibiting them from updating their prices any number of times and the first mover is probably always in a better position due to customer acquisition, branding, and acquiring real data, system testing, etc. So the analysis seems counterintuitive.
Thank you for several important points. Below, we justify our formulation to show that it reasonably captures real-world trends and we will revise our paper with this discussion.
1. ( `Related: 6DrW-Q5, aKR2-Q3.`) Our framework can be extended to multiple companies by taking the highest price-performance ratio for each task. If a company $(p, V_t)$ has two competitors with $(q, W_t)$ and $(r, X_t)$, then a user will prefer the first model if $\frac{p}{V_t} < \max( \frac{q}{W_t} , \frac{r}{X_t})$ (i.e., Eqn 1). With this, we can revise the pricing optimization problems (Eqn 2) and automatically extend Theorem 1 & 3 with a re-defined competitive ratio $\kappa_t$. Although the general first-mover's problem (Theorem 2) becomes more difficult to solve, note that facing multiple competitors should preserve a first-mover disadvantage effect similar to what we currently observe.
2. (`Related: CY6H-W3.`) We agree that real-world pricing may be dynamic with firms updating their prices over time. Our model is a natural baseline for this setting, since each turn of a dynamic problem can be naively tackled using static decisions. Furthermore, our results reveal key insights about the dynamic setting. Proposition 1 shows that if model performance is not competitive (i.e., $\kappa_2 / \kappa_1$ is large), then for any price that the company sets, their competitor can always beat them. **Thus, companies cannot just update prices, but must also continually improve their models or else be eventually beaten.**
We believe a full dynamic pricing study of this problem must include both pricing and model performance as variable, making it a difficult open problem. Our work is the necessary first step to tackling the extension.
3. We agree that factors such as customer acquisition, branding, and the AI data/testing flywheel also significantly impact revenue. However, modeling every such component introduces complexity without meaningfully changing our key takeaway.
Specifically, we show that the first-mover advantage is most meaningful when the model has a particular specialization to at least one task (Proposition 1). This is a quantifiable example of the product differentiation principle and is relevant especially now as the top models perform statistically similarly on most application areas [1]. We observe the importance of pricing and product differentiation in, for example, releases of differentiated models (e.g., Claude 3 Opus, Sonnnet, Haiku), and price drops (e.g., GPT3.5 in Nov 2023 and Jan 2024).
[1] https://scale.com/leaderboard
---
> W2) The connection with generative AI is not very clear. What unique characteristics of generative AI are actually used in the pricing model? It is generally applicable to any model with different performance on a set of tasks.
Our revision will clarify this below point. Our framework is suitable for modern LLMs (and VLMs/Multimodal LLMs) via two key traits: (1) there are multiple types of tasks; (2) users interact via prompting over multiple rounds. The combination of these two traits is not found in older ML technology. They imply that there is a single price variable affecting all tasks (i.e., price-per-token/price-per-prompt), and that users seek to minimize the number of prompting rounds. The prompting trait especially differentiates the use-case from general multi-task models, where a user can only input a task instance once.
---
> W3) There are no real data experiments or simulations provided in support of the modeling assumptions and analytical results. It is understandable the reality is complex and there are a lot of variables involved in pricing. It would be unreasonable to expect to model all of that but I do expect this study to be a bit more closer to reality than it is. It could be done by showing the real data and formulating the modeling assumptions from it and the pricing game with multiple parties going over multiple rounds and also improving their models. It would be great if with the proposed model the future price can be predicted accurately.
To the best of our ability, our model assumptions are based on real data and justification from the literature (as positively remarked by `aKR2`). For example, we studied user interactions from Chatbot Arena to validate that users will often interact for multiple rounds until they are satisfied.
Unfortunately, numerically predicting future price accurately requires access to the true demand functions for LLMs, which to our knowledge, is not publicly available. Thus, our numerical analysis is limited to synthetic scenarios (e.g., Fig. 2, Fig. 3) where we impose a hypothetical demand function and demonstrate the outcome.
We also agree that observing multiple parties over multiple rounds to be a very interesting problem, but this changes the problem to a dynamic pricing setting, which requires more theoretical analysis. We envision exploring the dynamic problem in future work both theoretically and with synthetic numerical experiments.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thank you for the rebuttal. I have read it and my concerns about the connection with generative AI and "realisticness" of the setup/assumption remain the same. If we just change $p$ to price per inference call, then I believe the whole story can be written for any other machine learning model.
The paper does not do justice to the title/motivation. It is overall an oversimplified economic setup leading to some insights which seem unrealistic and of little value that are tied with the generative AI hype. I expected to learn more from this paper, particularly what makes the pricing problem interesting and challenging and some realistic solutions even in the 2 player setting.
The value of data is largely ignored. I believe a first mover has a significant advantage in obtaining the real data and improve their product and this cycle of rich gets richer continues i.e. better model --> more users --> more data --> better model.
Having said that, I do not expect a research paper will solve the problem in entirity, but I hope to learn more about the problem and why the solution makes sense. I suggest taking a look at the following references, ( some of them are non-academic blog posts ).
1. https://every.to/p/how-to-price-generative-ai-products
2. https://sada.com/blog/generative-ai-pricing/
Pricing data and models
3. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3328526.3329589
4. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.6443
5. https://openreview.net/pdf?id=Y6IGTNMdLT
6. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.04740
7. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07915
Based on the current state, I reserve my borderline score.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Thanks for the feedback and additional references
Comment: Thanks for the detailed feedback and discussion. The related research literature on data pricing and fair model valuation is relevant and we are happy to revise our paper with this discussion.
---
> If we just change to price per inference call, then I believe the whole story can be written for any other machine learning model.
Pricing per-prompt/per-token in generative AI and pricing per-instance in classical ML models are different because generative models uniquely permit multiple calls to obtain a good answer. For example in a reading QA task, if a promptable LLM gets a wrong output, we query again with a revised prompt, thus paying twice to get the right answer; if a classical ML model is incorrect, the user has no such recourse and must deal with the incorrect answer. This difference necessitates different model valuation strategies (for instance, [1] uses $V\times$ the amount a user is willing to pay for a marginal performance increase). **We believe that the user valuation of a generative AI model should be $p E[n(V)]$**. Note this valuation would not make sense for classical ML products.
Our valuation and corresponding Eqn 1 specializes all our downstream results, whereas classical ML models would require an alternative to Eqn 1 (e.g., [1]), which then would require a different revenue function and optimal solution structure. Most importantly, our valuation function naturally combines with the property of multiple tasks with different demands, thereby giving our differentiation property (Proposition 2), which does not have any place in classical ML products.
[1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3328526.3329589
---
> The value of data is largely ignored. I believe a first mover has a significant advantage in obtaining the real data and improve their product and this cycle of rich gets richer continues i.e. better model --> more users --> more data --> better model.
We agree that the value of data is an important factor. We characterize data into two types, internal and external, that have different properties. We will revise our paper with the following discussion.
1. **Data that the model developer obtains independently:** This data directly impacts model performance, e.g., via a scaling law $V \propto a n^{-b}$ where $n$ is the amount of data. In our pricing problem, **the effect of this data can be directly incorporated by substituting the scaling law into the model performance parameter.** To this end, all our results that speak to requiring a minimium model performance also imply a minimum amount of training data required, e.g., Proposition 2 imposes a maximum value on $\kappa_2 / \kappa_1 := \frac{V_2 W_1}{V_1 W_2}$ as functions of $n$).
2. **Data collected via the AI flywheel:** We agree that this is important for model development, especially in the long-tail. We also agree that your suggestion is the natural next step for our work. However, this analysis presents the following concerns:
- *Task-specific data may not always be available from the flywheel.* For example, ChatGPT offers data collection opt-out for customers and does not train on enterprise data [2]. Thus, the relationship between the AI flywheel and model performance on custom tasks is indirect (e.g., releasing a better model early to draw more users may improve overall/general model quality [3], but have limited effect on some specific tasks).
- *Analyzing this requires a more complex framework for which the current work is a necessary precursor.* For example, the extension requires a dynamic problem with time-variant variables for price and performance (or equivalently, data). This complexity, combined with the length and novelty of our current study, motivates us to leave the dynamic extension for follow-up work.
[2] https://openai.com/enterprise-privacy/
[3] Huseyin Gurkan and Francis de Véricourt. Contracting, pricing, and data collection under the ai flywheel effect.
---
Rebuttal Comment 3.1:
Comment: Thank you for the response. I appreciate the paper as an early attempt towards pricing in generative AI. However, I am not convinced about the main technical challenges/distinctions specific to pricing in this context. Thus I will keep my original recommendation of borderline accept. I'd also encourage authors to include a more comprehensive related work and a clear delineation of the technical challenges specific to this setting in the next version. Thanks again and good luck! | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank all the reviewers for their positive comments:
- Originality, novelty, and timeliness of our study (`USe1, U4W8, 6DrW, CY6H`)
- Broad applicability of our model & insightful analysis/guidelines/conclusions drawn (`USe1, U4W8, aKR2, CY6H`)
- Clarity of our written presentation (`USe1, aKR2, CY6H`)
Our work is motivated by the recent trends in generative AI (i.e., LLMs/Multimodal LLMs) where ChatGPT enjoyed a first-mover position. The prompt-based interaction combined with diverse set of applications make pricing these ML models different from others. We are not trying to prescribe exact prices, but instead we are studying the interaction between the performance vs price of these models when given competing alternative models.
Our general formulation allows us to derive high-level insights on the generative AI market. Our key insight is the observation that if model performance over different tasks fails to satisfy a relative ratio requirement (i.e., $\kappa_2 / \kappa_1$ is large), then the company's revenue can always be limited by a competing alternative.
We received questions mainly on several extensions of our model. With minor change of variables, **most extensions can be easily accommodated while preserving all our conclusions**. We summarize these extensions below and will include them in revision:
- **If users stop after a number of rounds or if prompts are non-i.i.d. (`USe1-Q1, 6DrW-Q1, aKR2-Q4`):** We can use any arbitrary distribution on the number of prompting rounds $n(V)$. In general, Eqn 1 becomes $p E[n(V_t)] \leq q E[n(W_t)]$ and the pricing problem (Eqn 2) changes to reflect this. If we re-define the competitive ratio to $\kappa_t := \frac{E[n(W_t)]}{E[n(V_t)]}$, then we can recover all our results.
- **Different prompt lengths and pricing per-token (`USe1-Q2, aKR2-W2`):** For task $t$, the price per-prompt becomes $p_t := p_0 \theta_t$ where $p_0$ is the price per-token and $\theta_t$ is the average prompt length (respectively $q_t := q_0 \phi_t$ for the competitor). Here, Eqn 1 becomes $\theta_t \frac{p_0}{V_t} \leq \phi_t \frac{q_0}{W_t}$ and the competitive ratio becomes $\kappa_t := \frac{\phi_t V_t}{\theta_t W_t}$. We can recover all our results.
- **If there are more than 2 companies (`U4W8-Q1, 6DrW-Q5, aKR2-Q3`):** If there are three models $(p, V_t), (q, W_t), (r, X_t)$, then users will prefer the first model if $p/V_t \leq \max(q/W_t , r/X_t)$. We can update the pricing problem (Eqn 2) and still solve the latecomer's pricing problem (Theorem 1 & Theorem 3) by re-defining $\kappa_t := V_t / \max(W_t, X_t)$. | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | Summary: This paper develops a theoretical model of users deciding which generative AI system to use based on the price and probability of performing a task satisfactorily. Based on this theoretical model, the paper then explains how a firm should price their generative AI model in response to other firms, and then how a firm should price their model knowing that other firms will respond. They show that, depending on the ratio of ability to perform a task between the two models, a firm will either get no revenue since they are not price-competitive for anything, charge low enough prices to be price competitive on some tasks, or be so much better at a task than the other firm that they can charge prices which are bound based only on decreasing demand as price increases.
Strengths: Significance: This paper builds a model for analyzing pricing for generative AI services which can be used for multiple different tasks, which is a question which is very broadly applicable to analyzing AI pricing.
Originality: The pricing model is original, with several new definitions and problem formulations.
Quality: The paper has proofs supporting its major claims.
Clarity: The paper is very clearly written, and I found its figures to be exceptionally helpful in understanding the claims of the paper.
Weaknesses: 1) The generative AI task performance model seems somewhat unrealistic -- it assumes that given enough user queries the model will always eventually succeed.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: 1) Is there an alternative way of modeling task performance that does not assume that the AI system will always succeed?
2) Different tasks might use different numbers of tokens while performing the task, which would result in higher costs for that specific task. Would it change the results a lot if all tasks shared a per-token price but had variable costs for the different tasks based on how many tokens the task requires?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: The authors have adequately addressed the limitations and potential negative societal impact for their work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your clear summary of our work, your positive comments on the originality and significance/broad applicability of our work, as well as on the clarity of our writing.
---
> Q1) Is there an alternative way of modeling task performance that does not assume that the AI system will always succeed?
`Related: aKR2-Q4.`
This is a great point that we will update in our paper. We agree that for some complex tasks $t$, a user may give up after some maximum number of rounds $T_t$ before the model succeeds. **Our results all extend to this scenario (or any finite-mean distribution) with a small change of variables.**
In a setup where users terminate after some fixed $T_t$ rounds, the total number of rounds $n$ that a user prompts is a Truncated Geometric distribution
$$Pr(n) =
\begin{cases}
(1-V_t)^{n-1}~V_t & \text{ for } 1 < n < T_t \\\\
(1-V_t)^{T_t-1} & \text{ for } n = T_t
\end{cases}
$$
Using the expected value of this distribution, the corresponding Eqn 1, i.e., when user prefers model B $(p, V_t)$ over model A $(q, W_t)$, is $p( \frac{1-(1-V_t)^{T_t-1}}{V_t} + (1-V_t)^{T_t-1} ) \leq q( \frac{1-(1-W_t)^{T_t-1}}{W_t} + (1-W_t)^{T_t-1} )$. This principle plugs into a revised pricing problem (Eqn 2), and requires a re-defined competitive ratio between two models on a task:
$$
\kappa_t := \frac{ \frac{1-(1-V_t)^{T_t-1}}{V_t} + (1-V_t)^{T_t-1} }{ \frac{1-(1-W_t)^{T_t-1}}{W_t} + (1-W_t)^{T_t-1} }.
$$
With this re-defined $\kappa_t$, we can solve the pricing problem using Theorem 1 and recover all theoretical discussion and insights in our paper. Our main conclusions stay the same.
The maximum number of rounds $T_t$ is a parameter that can be estimated from historical data. For example in the Chatbot Arena dataset, users spend on average 1.3 rounds before determining the generative model output as satisfactory (i.e., $T = 2$ for many tasks).
---
> Q2) Different tasks might use different numbers of tokens while performing the task, which would result in higher costs for that specific task. Would it change the results a lot if all tasks shared a per-token price but had variable costs for the different tasks based on how many tokens the task requires?
`Related: aKR2-W2.`
We agree that different tasks use different number of tokens, and thus, have different costs. **This extension will recover all our original results.** We will include this in revision.
To account for tasks with different prompt types, we define the price-per-prompt for each task $t$ as $p_t = \theta_t p_0$ where $p_0$ is the price-per-token and $\theta_t$ is the average number of tokens-per-prompt for task $t$ (equivalently $q_t = \phi_t q_0$ for model A). Note that $p_0$ and $q_0$ are the price variables that the company can set whereas $\theta_t$ and $\phi_t$ are fixed parameters. Following the same steps as before, we can revise Eqn 1 to $\theta_t \frac{p_0}{V_t} \leq \phi_t \frac{q_0}{W_t}$ and also update the pricing problem Eqn 2. All our results automatically extend after we re-define the competitive ratio to $\kappa_t := \frac{\phi_t V_t}{\theta_t W_t}$.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the detailed response. The responses increased my opinion of the paper both by adding new results and being simple enough that it increases my opinion of the original contributions. I am increasing my overall score from 6 to 8 and contribution score from 3 to 4.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thanks
Comment: Thank you very much for the improved score and opinion on our paper. Thanks also for your valuable feedback and comments on this work. | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Saliency-driven Experience Replay for Continual Learning | Accept (spotlight) | Summary: Inspired by some neurophysiological evidence, the author proposed a novel method for online continual learning dubbed as SER, which utilizes visual saliency to modulate the classification network so as to alleviate catastrophic forgetting.
Specifically, the network architecture follows a dual-branch design where a saliency prediction network and a classification network are trained collaboratively during continual learning.
The saliency-driven modulation is simply implemented by an element-wise multiplication of intermediate outputs from two branches.
The comparison experiments demonstrate that the proposed SER module could achieve SOTA results when combined with existing methods.
And the ablation studies further investigate other modulation strategies and demonstrate the robustness of SER against spurious features and adversarial attacks.
Strengths: (1) The manuscript is well-organised and the writing is good, making the proposed method easy to understand.
(2) The proposed SER method is simple in design but effective under various OCL settings.
Weaknesses: (1) The novelty is incremental. A prior work[1] has introduced saliency into class incremental learning, which also shares a similar motivation that low-level visual saliency are stable during continual leanring which could help reduce forgetting.
(2) The claim that “SER is model-agnostic and can be used in combination to any continual learning method” (page 2, line 70) may not be suitable. SER in current version is not model-agnostic since the saliency encoder has to maintain a homogeneous structure with the classification network. In addition, SER may not be compatible with some methods like L2P [2] so it’s not appropriate to claim it could be combined with ‘any’ continual learning method.
(3) some typos should be corrected. One page 8, line 306, the punctuation between ‘training data’ and ‘but’ should be a ‘,’, not a ’.’. In the appendix, On page 16, line 566 and 567, a right bracket ‘$)$’ was missing.
References
[1] Liu X, Zhai J T, Bagdanov A D, et al. Task-Adaptive Saliency Guidance for Exemplar-free Class Incremental Learning[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2024: 23954-23963.
[2] Wang Z, Zhang Z, Lee C Y, et al. Learning to prompt for continual learning[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2022: 139-149.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Based on weaknesses of the manuscript, my questions are listed below:
Q1. What is major difference in novelty, motivation and contribution with prior efforts which also utilizes saliency in continual learning?
Q2. Is there any evidence that SER is still effective when modifying backbone to architectures other than ResNet-18?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: As is suggested by the author, one limitation is that saliency encoder has to maintain a homogeneous structure with the classification network, which may potentially hinder its real-world application.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their insight. We first address the major weaknesses (indicated with W1 and W2) identified by the reviewer and then respond, point by point, to their raised questions (indicated with Q1 and Q2). We will also review the whole paper to correct the identified typos.
**W1 - Novelty**
We acknowledge that prior work, specifically Liu et al. (2024), has introduced the use of saliency for exemplar-free class incremental learning. However, as mentioned in our paper (lines 96-105), **Liu et al. (2024)** employ a static, pre-trained saliency detector, thus they **do not demonstrate** (hence do not use) the **forgetting-free capabilities of saliency prediction**, since it is not continuously trained. In contrast, our method continuously trains the visual saliency network, which reduces forgetting by adapting classification features to new data. Furthermore, SER provides a more flexible and generalizable saliency-classification paradigm that adapts to any dataset without external dependencies, as opposed to Liu et al. (2024), which, instead, requires the use of a pre-trained saliency detector trained on the same data distribution as the target data. We believe these enhancements represent significant contribution to ongoing research in class-incremental learning. Finally, **Liu et al. (2024)** is not suitable for online continual learning because it is trained for a large number of epochs (100) and uses 50% of the classes in the first task, distributing the remaining classes across subsequent tasks. In our online continual learning setting, where 100 classes are divided into 20 tasks, we found that it achieved very low performance ( around 6%) as reported in Tab. R1 in the pdf attached to the global rebuttal.
**W2 - Model agnostic**
It is correct that SER requires the saliency encoder to share the same architecture as the classifier. However, we want to clarify that this requirement does not compromise the model-agnostic nature of our approach. Unlike methods that depend on pre-existing saliency predictors (such as the work by Liu mentioned by the reviewer), SER does not necessitate frozen saliency models as it trains saliency prediction continuously alongside the classifier. This integrated learning strategy involves instantiating an additional instance of the classifier, attaching a decoder, and training the entire system (classifier and saliency predictor) jointly. This can be done given that forgetting-free nature of saliency prediction. This learning design ensures that SER remains adaptable to various model architectures, preserving its model-agnostic characteristic while providing an effective solution for simultaneous saliency prediction and classification.
As for the compatibility of SER with various continual learning methods, the reviewer correctly points out that SER may not align well with some methods, like L2P, and this is a crucial distinction to address. Prompt learning approaches, such as L2P, operate under a different paradigm where the encoder remains static during continual learning. These methods leverage a pre-trained encoder's global knowledge of the visual world, using learnable prompts to identify the relevant sections of the huge latent space that address specific tasks. This is fundamentally different from the approach taken by SER. SER is tailored for scenarios where models undergo continuous training and learning from scratch. SER design ensures that classification features are dynamically modulated by saliency features throughout the learning process. Such dynamic modulation is essential for the model to adapt continually to new tasks and visual stimuli, which is critical for maintaining high performance and robustness in ever-changing environments. Training from scratch allows the model to develop hierarchical feature representations from the ground up, closely mimicking the visual cortex's processing mechanisms.
Thus, while the reviewer is correct that SER cannot be applied to every continual learning method, it is indeed well-suited for models which are trained from scratch. Accordingly, we will reformulate the claims about the applicability of SER to every continual learning method.
**Response to Questions:**
**Q1 - What is the novelty?**
Please refer to our response to W1.
**Q2 - Generalization of SER to architectures other than ResNet-18**
We extended our experiments to include additional backbones such as ResNet50, MobileNet V2, and DenseNet-121 (see Table R2 of the attached pdf). In all cases, SER improves the performance of the baseline, whether the classifier C is trained from scratch or with the same weights as the encoder of the saliency predictor S (we replicate the same setting as in Table 1 of our original manuscript). This demonstrates that SER remains effective across different architectures.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: After reading the rebuttal and its attachment, I find out that my major concerns have been well addressed. The novelty against prior works has been clarified clearly by the author, and the additional experiments also demonstrate that SER is compatible with more network architectures. As a result, I'd like to raise my final rating as 'Accept'. | Summary: In this paper, the authors propose Saliency-driven Experience Replay (SER) a biologically-plausible approach based on replicating human visual saliency to enhance classification models in continual learning settings. More concretely, they propose to employ auxiliary saliency prediction features as a modulation signal to drive and stabilize the learning of a sequence of non-i.i.d classification tasks. SER is model-agnostic and can be used in combination to any continual learning method. The authores demonstrate that saliency modulation positively impacts classification performance in online continual earning settings, leading to a significant gain in accuracy (up to 20%). Furthermore, they show that saliency modulation leads to learn saliency-modulated features that are more robust to the presence of spurious features and to adversarial attacks.
Strengths: - The paper is scientifically motivated, presenting a biologically plausible approach
- The paper is clearly written and well documented
- The related work section most of the relevant work
- The experimental validation is extensive and it demonstrates the improvements introduced by the current approach
Weaknesses: - Some aspects need to be explained more in detail
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Here are my concerns:
- In the following statement (lines 138-139): '... for instance, class labels from $D\_i$ might be different from those from $D\_j$ , though both must belong to the same domain $Y$'. The most common setting in continual learning literature considers that the tasks $D\_i$ and $D\_j$ are disjoint. According to your statement, it could be understood that they might not be. Only recently, in the reference below, the authors considered a novel setting, 'Class-Incremental with Repetition', which opens up the possibility that the tasks are not disjoint. Do you consider also this possibility in your approach? Please provide more details on this aspect.
Hamed Hemati, Andrea Cossu, Antonio Carta, Julio Hurtado, Lorenzo Pellegrini, Davide Bacciu, Vincenzo Lomonaco, Damian Borth. Class-Incremental Learning with Repetition. CoLLAs 2023
- Lines 323-326, when you talk about the robustness of your approach against adversarial perturbations. Could you better explain the content of figure 4? What means SAM-ER-ACE (orange line) means? To which dataset these curves belong: Split Mini-ImageNet or Split FG-ImageNet?
- A similar question for Table 3: to which dataset these values correspond: Split Mini-ImageNet or Split FG-ImageNet?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: One limitation identified in the paper is related with SER: although it is model-agnostic, its formulation necessitates that the saliency encoder and the classifier share identical architectures. The current work does not have any negative societal impact.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for the provided comments. In the following we respond to the raised questions (indicated with Q1, Q2, and Q3).
**Q1 - Class-Incremental with Repetition**
To clarify, in our approach, the tasks $D_i$ and $ D_j$ are indeed considered disjoint. We acknowledge that our current description could be interpreted as suggesting otherwise, which is not our intention. We will amend the paper to explicitly state that tasks $D_i$ and $D_j$ are mutually exclusive within the same domain $ Y $. The ‘Class-Incremental with Repetition’ setting represents a different scenario and could potentially simplify the problem. We recognize this as an interesting direction for future testing of our SER method (and we will include it in our paper), but our current focus remains on the disjoint class-incremental setting, which poses a more challenging problem.
**Q2 - Clarification to Figure 4**
We applied the Projected Gradient Descent attack ( [38] of the manuscript) to the ER-ACE + SER model, referred to as SER-ER-ACE and represented by the orange line (the label SAM-ER-ACE was a typo and will be corrected in the final manuscript) on the Split Mini-ImageNet dataset. We compared its performance against the baseline ER-ACE (green line). The figure shows the accuracy drop (in \%) compared to the standard training performance (values reported in Table 1 of the manuscript) as the attack intensity $\epsilon$ increases. It is evident that the model equipped with SER experiences a significantly smaller drop and is better able to tolerate this attack.
**Q3 - Clarification to Table 3**
The values presented in Table 3 of the manuscript correspond to our custom benchmark using MiniImageNet. Specifically, we crafted this benchmark to evaluate the robustness of the SER strategy against spurious features and adversarial attacks. In this benchmark, we selected the first ten classes from MiniImageNet, organized into 5 tasks with 2 classes per task, and introduced spurious features by modifying the brightness of the training images with a class-dependent offset. The test images remained unaltered.
Regarding the reviewer’s concern about the requirement for the saliency encoder and classifier to have the same architecture, we would like to clarify that this does not compromise the model-agnostic nature of our approach. The saliency predictor in the SER strategy does not need to be an external model, but it can be built by creating an additional instance of the classifier, attaching a decoder, and jointly training it with the classifier. Thus, the architecture alignment is not a limitation, as the saliency predictor can be directly constructed using the continually trained classifier.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Acknowledgement of Rebuttal
Comment: I want to thank the authors for addressing all my concerns. | Summary: This paper draws inspiration from neurophysiological evidence and proposes a biologically-inspired saliency-driven modulation strategy named SER to mitigate catastrophic forgetting in online continual learning. SER works by regularising classification features via predicted saliency and is comprised of a classification encoder and a saliency encoder deployed in parallel. The proposed method produces superior results on image classification in both class-incremental and task-incremental settings compared to other biologically-inspired or attention-based solutions. Besides, it has also been shown to be more robust in detecting spurious features or adversarial attacks.
Strengths: 1) The paper is well-written and easy to follow, with well-justified motivation and nice visuals.
2) The idea of using forgetting-free saliency to combat forgetting in online continual learning is very simple and easy to implement. It has also been shown to be effective, as the proposed method improves different existing methods by notable margins under different settings.
3) In addition to task performance, the authors examined the proposed method's computational cost, which suggests that SER is deployment-friendly.
4) The authors also made a good attempt to delineate their motivation from a biological and neurophysiological perspective.
Weaknesses: 1) The authors conduct all experiments on ResNet-18 models. It is not clear if the proposed method generalizes to other models as well. Since the authors claimed their method's generalization property as an advantage, experiments on different datasets, tasks (e.g., segmentation, detection), and, most importantly, different architectures (such as ViT) are missing.
2) Given 1), the authors fail to present results or investigation on cases when a) both the saliency encoder and the classifier encoder are ViT b) one of them is CNN-based and the other is transformer-based. This weakness is also acknowledged in the last sections of the manuscript.
3) The method can be explained in greater detail. Currently, the authors spend about 1 page describing their own method out of 9 pages of the main text. While this is also due to the method's simplicity, I would suggest expanding this part by adding more detailed descriptions.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. In Figure 3, it is not clear what “SAM” refers to. Also, in Figure 4, why is the proposed method dubbed “SAM”?
2. How sensitive is SER’s performance to other hyperparameters involved? More ablative experiments on the hyperparameters are beneficial.
3. The authors argued that SER generalizes to networks of different architectures. It would be interesting and perhaps important to back their claim with experiments on Transformer models.
4. The authors limited the scope of their problem from the very beginning of the paper to image classification tasks. The authors are encouraged to explain whether their method works for tasks such as semantic segmentation and object detection and whether these tasks are considered in prior works.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their insight. We first address the weaknesses (indicated with W1, W2, and W3) identified by the reviewer and then respond, point by point, to their raised questions (indicated with Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4).
**W1 - Generalization to other models:**
To address this concern, we have extended our experiments to include additional backbones beyond ResNet-18. Specifically, we have tested our SER strategy with ResNet-50, MobileNet V2, and DenseNet-121. As reported in Table R2 in the PDF attached to the global rebuttal, in all cases, our SER approach leads to improved performance, thereby demonstrating its effectiveness across various architectures. Regarding the ViT backbone, please refer to our next response (to W2) where we provide both conceptual and practical reasons for excluding ViT from our analysis.
**W2 - Generalization to transformer models:**
SER focuses on emulating visual cortex mechanisms, particularly object recognition via selective attention, which aligns more closely with Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) due to their similarity to the visual cortex’s hierarchical and localized processing. CNNs have local receptive fields and hierarchical stages similar to those in the primate visual cortex, as detailed by Hubel et al. (1962) and DiCarlo et al. (2007). Empirical studies show CNNs’ effectiveness in predicting neural responses and modeling visual encoding in primates (Yamins et al., 2016; Cadena et al., 2019), reinforcing their suitability for selective attention and low-level visual processing.
While Vision Transformer (ViT) excels in capturing global context and dynamic attention, it does not align with the hierarchical, localized processing of CNNs. Additionally, ViT requires large amounts of data and extensive training. Our experiments showed that ViT achieved only 1% accuracy on the Split-MiniImageNet benchmark, regardless of whether trained for 1 epoch or 50 epochs, underscoring its limitations in the context of online continual learning.
Hybrid solutions that combine CNN-based and Transformer-based models pose significant challenges due to the need for aligned semantic representation of features. SER relies on modulating classification features with saliency features. This modulation requires that the semantic representation of these features be coherent and aligned. Using hybrid solutions can disrupt this alignment, as CNNs and Transformers process and represent features differently.
Thus, our preference for CNNs over ViT and hybrid models is driven by the need to closely mimic visual cortex processing and by empirical evidence of low performance in OCL by ViT. We will revise our claims on SER’s applicability to continual learning methods.
- Hubel et al., 1962. “Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex,” Journal of Physiology.
- DiCarlo et al., 2007. “Untangling invariant object recognition,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
- Yamins et al., 2016. “Using goal-driven deep learning models to understand sensory cortex,” Nature Neuroscience.
- Cadena et al., 2019. “Deep convolutional models improve predictions of macaque v1 responses to natural images,” PLoS Computational Biology.
**W3 - More detailed description of the method:**
We acknowledge the request for a more detailed description and will provide additional details in the revised manuscript.
---
**Responses to Questions:**
**Q1 - SAM:**
It was a typo that will be corrected in the final version of the paper.
**Q2 - Sensitivity of SER to hyperparameters:**
The SER hyperparameters include: 1) the $\lambda$ term that weights the loss component in Equation 3 of the manuscript, 2) the various saliency modulation strategies (ranging from saliency provided as input to the model, to layerwise summation, to layerwise multiplication), and 3) the specific layers to which SER modulation is applied. The latter two aspects have been thoroughly evaluated in the paper (see Fig. 3 and Table 2). Regarding the $\lambda$ term, we tested several values ($\lambda = 0.1, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2$). Although the model's performance was relatively stable across these values, the best results were achieved with $\lambda = 1$. Additionally, the PDF attached to the global rebuttal details the various tested hyperparameters (Table R3) for the methods reported in Table 1 of the manuscript.
**Q3 - Generalization to transformer models:**
Please refer to our response to W2.
**Q4 - Limited scope to image classification:**
Our approach specifically addresses the problem of class-incremental learning (CIL) that targets image classification within continual learning settings. This particular focus aligns with a substantial body of existing literature and remains an unsolved challenge in the field. Indeed, for class-incremental continual learning, there are well-established frameworks such as Mammoth and Avalanche and widely recognized benchmarks, which we have employed in our work.
While dealing with continuous training for tasks like semantic segmentation and object detection is an important and related area of research, it falls under other broader categories (e.g., incremental object detection - Liu et al. 2023 - and incremental semantic segmentation - Michieli et al. 2019). These tasks have different baselines, methods, and benchmarks. Expanding our approach to include these other tasks would require a separate and comprehensive investigation.
However, class-incremental learning can be adapted to object detection, for instance, in the region proposal step, while it is less trivial to use in semantic segmentation. Nonetheless, we acknowledge the importance of extending continual learning methodologies to other tasks and consider it a valuable direction for future research.
- Liu et al., 2023. Continual Detection Transformer for Incremental Object Detection. CVPR 2023.
- Michieli et al., 2019. Incremental learning techniques for semantic segmentation. ICCV 2019. | Summary: The paper propose to use saliency prediction features as a guidance to stabilize training in online continual learning settings. The method is motivated by the observation that saliency detection remains stable with training over new tasks continually. The proposed SER method is model-agnostic and improves significantly over baseline methods. Interestingly, the method enables training of models which are more robust to adversarial attacks.
Strengths: 1. The paper has insightful experiments to form the motivation. The distinction between saliency maps and attention maps is helpful.
2. The method explanation and illustration is clear and to the point.
3. The experiments (combining with different methods) and extensive ablations are appreciable.
4. The analysis showing robustness of the model adds more value to the method.
Weaknesses: 1. Fig 1. Caption “activation maximization maps via GradCAM, which are prone to catastrophic forgetting due to their dependence on the classifier”: I am not sure if this statement is true. This should be discussed in more details. Existing Attribution methods like GradCAM, Integrated Gradients can also be computed for different layers of the network and is not only for the classifier. It would be good to investigate how methods like LayerIntegratedGradients [1] work here, is that still dependent on the classifier? Layer Attributions has also been explored for continual learning [2] recently. While the authors discuss methods using attention maps for future replay, it is also relevant to discuss methods like [2] which uses attributions for weight transfer/transfer learning.
2. It would be good to include more recent methods in comparison. The compared methods for OCL although important baselines, are not very recent ones.
[1] https://captum.ai/api/layer.html
[2] Goswami, Dipam, et al. "Attribution-aware weight transfer: A warm-start initialization for class-incremental semantic segmentation." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision. 2023.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See weaknesses
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Addressed in paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for the provided comments. We here address point by point the weaknesses (indicated with W1 and W2) identified by the reviewer.
**W1 - Activation maps per layer**
We have tested GradCAM at different layers of the network, as well as LayerIntegratedGradients, as suggested. Our results, shown in Figures R1 and R2 of the attached PDF to the global rebuttal, reveal that activation maps from deeper classification layers, as well as intermediate and lower layers, degrade as the model is trained continuously. This indicates that catastrophic forgetting affects not just the classifier, but multiple layers of the network. Using LayerIntegratedGradients, we observed that the features learned by the network tend to change from task to task. This change leads to the forgetting of initially learned classes and concepts, demonstrating that this method also depends on the classifier and is susceptible to forgetting.
As for the significance of layer attributions in continual learning, we would like to clarify the differences between our method and the one suggested (and indicated with [2]) by the reviewer. SER is specifically designed for class-incremental learning in image classification. It employs saliency prediction techniques to modulate classification features during training. We have demonstrated that saliency prediction remains robust during training and is less prone to degradation, ensuring better performance and stability over time.
In contrast, the method described in [2] addresses class-incremental semantic segmentation (CISS) and focuses on forgetting in semantic background shift. Their approach introduces a novel classifier initialization technique that uses gradient-based attributions to identify and transfer relevant weights for new classes, specifically to address background shift in segmentation tasks.
The key difference lies in our use of saliency prediction techniques versus [2]’s use of gradient-based attribution for weight transfer. Our approach does not rely on attribution techniques, which we have shown to degrade during training, but rather on saliency prediction, which is resilient to forgetting.
However, we appreciate the opportunity to clarify these differences and we will include them in our revised manuscript, acknowledging [2]'s contribution to the field and discussing its relevance to our work.
**W2 - Comparison with more recent OCL methods**
We have extended our comparison to include more recent methods (see Table R1 of the pdf attached to the global rebuttal). Specifically, we have included several existing methods already integrated within the Mammoth continual learning framework (*Boschini et al, 2022*). This framework offers a common and consolidated benchmark for online and offline continual learning methods, which simplifies the comparison of performance and the assessment of each method’s contribution.
Among the tested methods, there are very recent approaches specifically designed for Online Continual Learning (OCL), such as PEC ([R1] in the global rebuttal), and OnPro ([R13] in the global rebuttal). Results show that methods trained with the SER strategy outperform both their counterparts without SER and existing methods by several percentage points, demonstrating the effectiveness of our SER strategy.
- Boschini et al, 2022. “Class-Incremental Continual Learning into the eXtended DER-verse,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2022.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: My concerns are addressed in the rebuttal. I appreciate the comprehensive response from the authors in clarifying the concerns and adding more recent baselines for a fair comparison. After reading all the reviews and the authors response, I improved my rating to 6. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate the feedback from all reviewers and provide an overview of our responses to the major concerns raised. Detailed responses are addressed individually for each reviewer.
**Reviewer U9b5**
**1. Activation Maps per Layer (W1):**
We have investigated per-layer activation maps using GradCAM and LayerIntegratedGradients. Our results, illustrated respectively in Figure R1 and Figure R2 of the attached PDF, show degradation in activation maps across layers as the model trains, indicating widespread catastrophic forgetting.
**2. Comparison with Recent OCL Methods (W2):**
We have extended our comparison to include recent methods like PEC ([R1]) and OnPro ([R13]) within the Mammoth framework (Table R1 of the attached PDF). Results show that methods trained with the SER strategy outperform both their counterparts without SER (as already presented in the paper Table 1) and existing methods by several percentage points, validating the effectiveness of our approach also compared to recent OCL strategies.
**Reviewer L6ph**
**1. Generalization to Other Models (W1):**
We extended experiments to ResNet-50, MobileNet, and DenseNet, showing that SER improves performance across multiple architectures. The exclusion of Vision Transformers (ViT) is due to its poor performance in online continual learning scenarios, when trained from scratch, where it achieved only chance-level accuracy.
**2. Generalization to Transformer Models (W2):**
SER is designed to emulate visual cortex mechanisms, aligning with CNNs due to their hierarchical processing, supported by empirical studies. Vision Transformers, though very effective, do not fit our model's objectives due to their different processing characteristics and data needs. CNNs are more suitable for our goals of hierarchical, localized processing.
**3. More Detailed Description of the Method (W3):**
We acknowledge the request for a more detailed description and will provide additional details in the revised manuscript.
**Reviewer H211**
**1. Class-Incremental with Repetition (Q1):**
We clarify that tasks $D_i$ and $D_j$ are disjoint and will update the paper to reflect this explicitly. The 'Class-Incremental with Repetition' scenario is an interesting direction for future testing of SER, but is outside the scope of our current study that, instead, targets a more challenging setting.
**2. Clarification to Figure 4 and Table 3 (Q2 and Q3):**
Figure 4 shows the performance of ER-ACE+SER on the Split Mini-ImageNet dataset to adversarial attacks. Table 3, instead, shows the robustness of ER-ACE+SER to spurious features using a custom benchmark, constructed in a way to enforce the presence of these spurious features.
**3. Saliency Encoder and Classifier Architecture (Q4):**
The alignment of the saliency encoder with the classifier architecture does not compromise the model-agnostic nature of SER. The saliency predictor can be built as an instance of the classifier with an added decoder, allowing continuous training and adaptability of the two paired networks.
**Reviewer oLZW**
**1. Novelty (W1):**
While Liu et al. (2024) use a static saliency detector, our method continuously trains the saliency network, which reduces forgetting and adapts to new data. SER's flexibility and generalizability, without reliance on pre-trained detectors, represent significant contributions. Moreover, Liu et al.’s method (TASS), trained for multiple epochs, did not perform well on our benchmarks (see Table R1 in the attached pdf).
**2. Model Agnostic (W2):**
SER requires the saliency encoder to share the same architecture as the classifier, but this does not compromise its model-agnostic nature (please refer to our above response to Q4 by Rev. RH211). Unlike methods that depend on static encoders (e.g., L2P), SER dynamically trains both components, making it adaptable to various model architectures. We will adjust our claims to reflect SER’s applicability to models trained from scratch.
In the following, we report the references for the methods used for comparison in Table R1 of the PDF attached to this rebuttal.
- [R1] Zajac et al. Prediction error-based classification for class-incremental learning. ICLR 2024.
- [R2] Liu et al. Task-adaptive saliency guidance for exemplar-free class incremental learning. CVPR 2024.
- [R3] Riemer et al. Learning to Learn without Forgetting by Maximizing Transfer and Minimizing Interference. ICLR 2019.
- [R4] Chaudhry et al. Efficient Lifelong Learning with A-GEM. ICLRW 2019.
- [R5] Wu et al. Large scale incremental learning. CVPR 2019.
- [R6] Benjamin et al. Measuring and regularizing networks in function space. ICLRW 2019.
- [R7] Lopez-Paz and Ranzato. Gradient episodic memory for continual learning. NIPS 2017.
- [R8] Prabhu et al. GDumb: A simple approach that questions our progress in continual learning. ECCV 2020.
- [R9] Aljundi et al. Gradient Based Sample Selection for Online Continual Learning. NIPS 2019.
- [R10] Rebuffi et al. iCaRL: Incremental classifier and representation learning. CVPR 2017.
- [R11] Hou et al. Learning a unified classifier incrementally via rebalancing. CVPR 2019.
- [R12] Pernici et al. Class-incremental learning with preallocated fixed classifiers. CVPR 2021.
- [R13] Wei et al. Online prototype learning for online continual learning. ICCV 2023.
All references to tables and figures come with the suffix *R* to avoid any confusion with those reported in the manuscript.
Pdf: /pdf/e2feaac63fbebaca5fcaf79cce5886f8bb2a3ba4.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Is Behavior Cloning All You Need? Understanding Horizon in Imitation Learning | Accept (spotlight) | Summary: This paper presents a thorough analysis of imitation learning (IL), focusing on the gap between offline and online IL. The authors demonstrate that behavior cloning (BC) with logarithmic loss can achieve horizon-independent sample complexity under specific conditions, providing valuable insights into the theoretical underpinnings of IL.
Strengths: - This paper presents extensive theoretical results for offline IL and online IL under the general function approximation class. It builds a sharp separation between offline and online algorithms, which the reviewer appreciates a lot.
- The reviewer believes that the analysis tools in this paper can be further applied in future studies of imitation learning and sequential decision making.
Weaknesses: - The theoretical results have a gap with practice. For example, the reviewer finds it odd that the conclusion of a 'horizon-free' guarantee is obtained by assuming the policy class is well-controlled. Practitioners often choose a large function class to ensure the approximation error is small.
- Some key related work is missing.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: **Experiments:**
- There is a gap between the developed theory and practice. It is not safe to conclude that the theory can explain the empirical results in Figure 1. There are possible theoretical explanations for empirical results that differ from this paper. Specifically, [1] showed that MuJoCo locomotion controls have deterministic transitions, thus the statistical estimation error comes from the initial step, and there are no compounding errors. The reviewer believes the explanation provided in [1] is also true for the studied Atari environments.
- The reviewer believes that practitioners choose stationary policies in practice because the MDP formulation for practical tasks has stationary transitions, rather than the non-stationary ones studied in this paper. For stationary-transition MDPs, the estimation error is, in fact, smaller.
**Related Work:**
- [2] studied that adversarial imitation learning algorithms can achieve horizon-free sample complexity for structured MDPs. Their results are also important for understanding the horizon in imitation learning. This work should be reviewed.
[1] Li, Ziniu, et al. "Rethinking ValueDice: Does it really improve performance?." *arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.02468* (2022).
[2] Xu, Tian, et al. "Understanding adversarial imitation learning in small sample regime: A stage-coupled analysis." *arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01899* (2022).
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: To the reviewer's understanding, this paper mainly focuses on the model selection problem under general function class approximation. This does not provide many new insights on the compounding errors issues and horizon dependence issues in imitation learning. The title may be revised to reflect the contribution.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their positive review and their helpful comments! Please see responses to individual questions below.
> The theoretical results have a gap with practice. For example, the reviewer finds it odd that the conclusion of a 'horizon-free' guarantee is obtained by assuming the policy class is well-controlled. Practitioners often choose a large function class to ensure the approximation error is small.
We assume that the reviewer is referring to the fact that our results assume realizability and scale with the complexity of the policy class. We remark:
- Realizability is a standard assumption in RL theory, and is used as a starting point for virtually all existing theoretical results, cf. “Reinforcement learning: Theory and algorithms” (Agarwal, Jiang, Kakade, and Sun).
- Our main results (Theorems 2.1 and 2.3) do not assume that $\Pi$ is well controlled. Rather, these theorems are *reductions* (in the spirit of prior work on IL) showing that $H$-independent rollout performance is achievable when an appropriate notion of supervised learning error is small. Thus if the policy $\hat{\pi}$ has good supervised learning performance (regardless of whether it belongs to a finite class or enjoys a provable generalization bound), our theorems imply that it will have good rollout performance. Corollaries 2.1 and 2.2 instantiate these results for finite classes for concreteness.
- We note that prior work does not achieve $H$-free guarantees *even in the case where $\Pi$ is well controlled*. Our results show that with properly normalized rewards, generalization error of $\Pi$ is the *only* source of $H$ dependence. In some sense, this is the strongest guarantee one might hope for, as the complexity of $\Pi$ influences regret even absent sequential structure in the IL problem. For stationary policies with parameter sharing, our results can be instantiated to give end-to-end guarantees with no dependence on $H$.
- Our most general guarantees for LogLossBC (see Appendix E and Theorem E.1) support infinite policy classes and misspecification, allowing one to trade off policy class complexity with approximation error. The conclusion is the same as for our main results: As long as the supervised learning error (policy class complexity + approximation error) is small, the rollout performance will be horizon-independent.
> Some key related work is missing. [2] studied that adversarial imitation learning algorithms can achieve horizon-free sample complexity for structured MDPs. Their results are also important for understanding the horizon in imitation learning.
Thank you for pointing us to this work, which we are happy to discuss in the final version. While [2] contains results concerning $H$-independence, their findings are quite restrictive compared to our paper ( e.g. their notion of horizon independence is not consistent with that in prior work in RL, e.g., Jiang & Agarwal ‘18). Also, their work:
- Is restricted to tabular MDPs and policies (while our work considers general MDPs and function approximation).
- Requires knowledge of the dynamics of the MDP (while our work considers the purely offline imitation learning setting, with no knowledge beyond expert trajectories).
- Only achieves horizon-independence for a restricted class of MDPs called RBAS-MDPs (while our work achieves horizon independence for *any MDP*, as long as the rewards are appropriately normalized).
While the work of [2] is related and we are happy to cite it, we believe that all claims of novelty and significance of our work stand.
> There is a gap between the developed theory and practice. It is not safe to conclude that the theory can explain the empirical results in Figure 1. There are possible theoretical explanations for empirical results that differ from this paper. Specifically, [1] showed that MuJoCo locomotion controls have deterministic transitions, thus the statistical estimation error comes from the initial step, and there are no compounding errors. The reviewer believes the explanation provided in [1] is also true for the studied Atari environments.
We emphasize that our experiments are intended to *validate* our theory, particularly the claim that log-loss BC can achieve $H$-independence. We do not claim at any point in the paper that our theory predicts the precise behavior in Figure 1; rather, we claim that Figure 1 validates the theoretical prediction that regret does not degrade as a function of horizon.
Regarding the point about deterministic transitions in MuJoCo and Atari, we emphasize that even if dynamics are deterministic, one can still experience compounding errors due to stochasticity in the *learned policy*. This phenomenon has been widely observed [11,15, 39].
> The reviewer believes that practitioners choose stationary policies in practice because the MDP formulation for practical tasks has stationary transitions, rather than the non-stationary ones studied in this paper. For stationary-transition MDPs, the estimation error is, in fact, smaller.
We believe there may be some confusion here. A key feature of our analysis is that it supports both non-stationary *and* stationary policies (note that while we use the notation $\pi_h$ throughout the paper, stationary policies are simply a special case in which $\pi_h=\pi$ for all $h$), and we state a number of improved guarantees special to *stationary* policies, e.g. discussion at the bottom of page 6. If the reviewer has a specific question regarding these results that we can clarify, we would greatly appreciate it.
> To the reviewer's understanding, this paper mainly focuses on the model selection problem under general function class approximation. This does not provide many new insights on the compounding errors issues and horizon dependence issues in imitation learning. The title may be revised to reflect the contribution.
We believe this summary is misguided; please see the response to question #1.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I appreciate the detailed explanation. I am ready to increase my review score, but I still have some concerns and futher comments are provided below.
**Comment 1:** I clearly understand the response about the 'horizon-free' guarantee. I would like to suggest adding a figure to the paper to clarify the concepts between supervised learning and imitation learning. I also have an additional comment about the reward notion 'R', which I elaborate on below.
**Comment 2:** Could the authors clarify whether the rollout policy for expected regret in Figures 1 and 2 is deterministic or stochastic? I could not find this detail in the Appendix (although I see that the Appendix mentions the expert policy for data collection is deterministic). I ask this because I am conjecturing the following: if the learner's policy is deterministic, the 'unnormalized' regret is also independent of H for the tested environments. This is why I reference the previous work [1] in my review comment. I noticed the authors mentioned using a stochastic policy, but it does not make sense to consider stochastic policies for such tasks.
I want to clarify that I agree the provided empirical results are consistent with the developed theory. However, I am pointing out other possibilities: practitioners usually care about absolute performance, relating to the notions of regret and 'R'. For BC on these tasks, the gap may be independent of the horizon because of deterministic transitions. For the same reason, due to an interest in absolute performance, practitioners also care about adversarial training algorithms like GAIL, which should a gap of $O(1/H * R)$ when using the notion of expected regret, as such methods are observed to achieve good performance regardless of horizon length.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Response to Comment
Comment: Thank you for your interest! We are happy to clarify these points.
### **Regarding comment 1:**
We are happy to include a figure that better explains the distinction between supervised learning and IL in the next version of the paper.
### **Regarding comment 2:**
This is a subtle issue. One point we should have mentioned earlier is that even though the transitions of the MDP are deterministic, the *initial state is stochastic*, both in MuJoCo and in Atari, which is the default in the Farama Foundation’s Gymnasium. In this setting, even if every policy is fully deterministic, we expect unnormalized regret to depend on horizon. This is true in theory (in fact, our lower bound for deterministic experts, Theorem 2.2 in our paper, covers exactly this setting) but also intuitively holds true in MuJoCo experiments for the following reason. Suppose the initial state is drawn so that the learner makes a mistake, leading the walker to fall over; then the reward after the walker has fallen will be zero, even though the expert is able to accrue reward proportional to the horizon by continuing to walk. To summarize, even when both expert and imitator are deterministic and the MDP has deterministic transitions, as long as the initial state is stochastic, we expect the *unnormalized* regret to scale with the horizon.
### **Regarding GAIL:**
We agree with the reviewer that IRL methods can be beneficial in practice. However, regarding the comment about GAIL specifically, we emphasize that in a minimax sense, the regret *can* be larger than $R / H$, as shown by our Theorem 2.2; indeed, the lower bound in Theorem 2.2 demonstrates that linear scaling with $H$ is necessary for *any algorithm* (information-theoretically) in a worst-case sense when we allow dense rewards (note that in the setting of Theorem 2.2, we have $R/H = 1$). We also remark that GAIL assumes access to a global simulator, allowing the learner to sample trajectories from the MDP according to a given policy, which goes beyond the access model we study for behavior cloning. One interesting takeaway from our work (Theorem 2.2) is the observation that in the worst case, this additional assumption does not lead to improved performance. However, we emphasize that we agree with the reviewer that IRL methods likely have benefits in practice, and we think that it is an interesting question to better understand the extent to which such improved performance can be proved for some “nice” sub-class of MDPs. | Summary: This paper analyzes the sample complexity of offline behavior cloning w.r.t. the trajectory horizon. The theoretical result reveals that offline behavior cloning actually does not suffer more from the long horizon than the online BC, under two assumptions.
Strengths: - The theory to further understand the complexity of BC is important.
- The presentation is clear and easy to follow.
Weaknesses: - The result is intuitive since with "parameter sharing", we assume the policy generalizes to longer horizon states.
- One important assumption made in this paper, i.e. the policy class using parameter sharing, is unclear. For example, how the parameter sharing will affect practical learning? Does it introduce any bias for the policy learning?
- The experiments are not solid. For example, the Atari figure seems like the Expected regret is random w.r.t. horizon. It is natural to question whether the MuJoCo results really fit the theoretical prediction or simply are due to the task properties.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: N/A
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: See weakness.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their positive review and their helpful comments! Please see responses to individual questions below.
> The result is intuitive since with "parameter sharing", we assume the policy generalizes to longer horizon states.
While it is certainly intuitive that smaller policy classes yield improved rates, we emphasize that our work is the first to demonstrate that under the assumption of parameter sharing, horizon-free regret is possible with BC in general MDPs; we would like to push back on the idea that it is intuitive that this result holds in such generality, as this finding runs counter to the intuition expressed in many prior works. In particular, one of the key consequences of our work is that under the assumptions of parameter sharing and sparse rewards, the key challenge of compounding error is not present in BC when using Log loss, a finding which we believe is somewhat surprising in light of previous work.
> One important assumption made in this paper, i.e. the policy class using parameter sharing, is unclear. For example, how the parameter sharing will affect practical learning? Does it introduce any bias for the policy learning?
We would like to emphasize that parameter sharing is not actually an “assumption” in our paper, but rather is an important special case of our general results. Indeed, our main results hold in the general case of arbitrary policy classes (Theorems 2.1 and 2.3). Nonetheless, we emphasize that parameter sharing is a natural assumption in practice, and is satisfied whenever the expert policy is stationary with respect to time, which commonly occurs in application domains such as robotics and transformers. Indeed, if parameter sharing does not hold, it means we are training a completely different policy for each step $h$, which is rarely, if ever, done in practice.
We mention in passing that beyond its practical relevance, parameter sharing is a useful special case to isolate the effect that horizon has on offline imitation learning, in the sense that it illustrates the possibility of horizon-free rates.
> The experiments are not solid. For example, the Atari figure seems like the Expected regret is random w.r.t. horizon.
Regarding the Atari experiments, we emphasize that Figure 1b and 3b show a a clear trend where the regret with 200 trajectories decreases uniformly as the horizon increases, a demonstration that is amplified by the lack of overlap in the confidence intervals (which is consistent with our theory as we prove that the regret should not increase with horizon). Note that this empirical setup is consistent with our theory, as we have a stationary expert and sparse rewards, and thus expect the regret to be non-increasing with respect to horizon. If the reviewer can clarify why they believe the expected regret is "random" w.r.t. horizon for these experiments, we would greatly appreciate it.
Perhaps the only surprising feature of the Atari experiments is that the regret is actually *decreasing* with horizon (as opposed to being non-increasing). To understand this, note that our theory provides horizon-agnostic upper bounds independent of the environment. Our lower bounds are constructed for specific worst-case environments, and do not rule out the possibility of improved performance with longer horizons environments with favorable structure. We conjecture that this phenomenon is related to the fact that longer horizons yield fundamentally more data, as the total number of state-action pairs in the expert dataset is equal to nH. In the final version of the paper, we will expand the discussion around this phenomenon, but we would like to emphasize that in no way do our experimental results conflict with the theory established in the rest of the paper.
> It is natural to question whether the MuJoCo results really fit the theoretical prediction or simply are due to the task properties.
We are a little confused by this point, but would be more than happy to respond if the reviewer would be willing to further elaborate and clarify why they feel that the MuJoCo results do not fit the theoretical prediction, or explain which task properties they are concerned with.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Following up
Comment: Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your time! We are following up to check whether our rebuttal has addressed your concerns. Please let us know if you have any further questions.
Thank you,
Authors | Summary: This paper studies the horizon dependence in imitation learning (IL). In particular, the authors analyze the sample complexity of Behavioral Cloning (BC) with logarithmic loss and general policy class $\Pi$.
For deterministic experts, they first present a sharp horizon-independent regret decomposition and then provide a regret bound for BC. They show that BC achieves a linear horizon dependence under dense rewards when $\log (|\Pi|) = O (1)$, including stationary policies and policies with parameter sharing. Furthermore, they prove a lower bound, indicating that online IL cannot improve over offline IL with $|\Pi|=2$.
For stochastic experts, they present a horizon-independent and variance-dependent regret decomposition and then give a regret bound for BC. This result shows that when $\log (|\Pi|) = O (1)$, BC can achieve a fully horizon-independent sample complexity in the sparse reward case. As for the dense reward case, BC requires a quadratic sample complexity, which is proven to be necessary in both offline and online settings.
Strengths: 1. This paper provides a new understanding of the horizon dependence in IL. Classical IL works show that the offline IL method BC suffers a quadratic horizon dependence, motivating various online IL approaches that attain improved linear horizon dependence. However, this paper proves that in certain cases, it is possible for BC to achieve linear horizon dependence and online IL cannot improve over offline IL, suggesting that there is no fundamental gap between offline IL and online IL.
2. This paper contributes new techniques for analyzing IL methods, which could be of independent interest. To attain a linear horizon dependence for BC, this paper presents a sharp horizon-independent regret decomposition. For deterministic experts, this regret decomposition is based on a novel trajectory-level analysis. For stochastic experts, they provide an interesting information-theoretic analysis. I believe that these new techniques could inspire further advancements in IL theory.
Weaknesses: 1. Some formulas and claims in this paper are misleading. In the logarithmic loss of Eq. (5), the policy variable $\pi (a^i_h|s^i_h)$ is written as a stationary policy, which does not include the case of non-stationary policies $\Pi = \Pi_1 \times \Pi_2 \times \cdots \times \Pi_H$ discussed in lines 242-248. Moreover, in Eq. (39) and Eq. (40) in Appendix E.1, the policy becomes non-stationary again, which is inconsistent with Eq. (5). As such, I suggest the authors to write logarithmic losses for stationary policies and non-stationary policies separately. Furthermore, in line 224, they claim that “This bound improves upon the guarantee for indicator loss behavior cloning in Eq.(3) by an O(H) factor”. This statement is a little problematic since the bound in Corollary 2.1 does **not** improve upon previous bounds for the case of non-stationary policies.
2. This paper focuses on the horizon dependence in imitation learning. However, this paper misses a closely related work [1] that proves that a kind of IL method called adversarial imitation learning can achieve a horizon-independent sample complexity bound in a certain class of IL problems.
References:
[1] Xu et al., Understanding Adversarial Imitation Learning in Small Sample Regime: A Stage-coupled Analysis, 2023.
[2] Rajamaran et al., Toward the fundamental limits of imitation learning, 2020.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Theorem 2.4 implies that the slow $H/\sqrt{n}$ rate for $\sigma^2_{\pi^*}=H^2$ is necessary in both offline and online IL. How can we reconcile this result with the claim in [2] that BC can achieve the $1/n$ rate for stochastic experts in the tabular setting?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have adequately discussed and addressed the limitations of this paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their positive review and their helpful comments! Please see responses to individual questions below.
> Some formulas and claims in this paper are misleading. In the logarithmic loss of Eq. (5), the policy variable is written as a stationary policy, which does not include the case of non-stationary policies discussed in lines 242-248. Moreover, in Eq. (39) and Eq. (40) in Appendix E.1, the policy becomes non-stationary again, which is inconsistent with Eq. (5). As such, I suggest the authors to write logarithmic losses for stationary policies and non-stationary policies separately.
Our results apply as-is to non-stationary policies. We believe this confusion is caused by a small typo, which is that Eq. (5) (as well as the first equation in App E.1) is intended to be stated with $\log(1/\pi_{h}(a_h | x_h))$, not $\log(1/\pi(a_h | x_h))$. We will be sure to include the `_h` subscript here and elsewhere in the final version of the paper.
> Furthermore, in line 224, they claim that “This bound improves upon the guarantee for indicator loss behavior cloning in Eq.(3) by an O(H) factor”. This statement is a little problematic since the bound in Corollary 2.1 does not improve upon previous bounds for the case of non-stationary policies.
The statement “This bound improves upon the guarantee for indicator loss behavior cloning in Eq.(3) by an O(H) factor” is intended to convey that the bound improves upon Eq. (3) for *general* policy classes (which is true), not to claim that the bound offers a strict improvement on a per-policy class basis. While the paper already includes extensive discussion around this point (e.g., Page 6), we are happy to change the wording of the statement to make this as clear as possible.
> This paper focuses on the horizon dependence in imitation learning. However, this paper misses a closely related work [1] that proves that a kind of IL method called adversarial imitation learning can achieve a horizon-independent sample complexity bound in a certain class of IL problems.
Thank you for pointing us to this work, which we are happy to cite and discuss in the final version of our paper. While the paper [1] does indeed contain some results concerning horizon-independence, their findings are quite restrictive compared to the results in our paper (in particular, unlike our work, their notion of horizon-dependence is not consistent with the standard notion consider in prior work on horizon-independent RL, e.g., Jiang & Agarwal ‘18). In more detail, their work:
* Is restricted to tabular MDPs and policies (while our work considers general MDPs and function approximation).
* Requires knowledge of the dynamics of the MDP (while our work considers the purely offline imitation learning setting, with no knowledge beyond expert trajectories).
* Only achieves horizon-independence for a restricted class of MDPs called RBAS-MDPs (while our work achieves horizon-indepedence for *any MDP*, as long as the rewards are appropriately normalized). In particular, our notion of horizon-independence is consistent with that considered in Jiang & Agarwal ‘18 and subsequent work.
Thus, while the work of [1] is certainly related and we are happy to cite it, we believe that all claims of novelty and significance of our work stand.
> Theorem 2.4 implies that the slow rate for is necessary in both offline and online IL. How can we reconcile this result with the claim in [2] that BC can achieve the rate for stochastic experts in the tabular setting?
This is a great question, which we discuss in Footnote 17. To restate here: Rajaraman et al. [2] show that for the tabular setting, it is possible to achieve a fast $1/n$-type rate in-expectation for stochastic policies. Their result critically exploits the assumption that |X| and |A| are small and finite to argue that it is possible to build an unbiased estimator for the expert policy $\pi^\ast$. Theorem 2.4 shows that such a result cannot hold with even constant probability for the same setting, thereby revealing a separation between the best rate that can be achieved in expectation versus the best rate that can be achieved in probability (note that since the expert is not assumed to be optimal, regret can be negative, which precludes the use of Markov’s inequality to convert an in-expectation bound into a bound in probability).
More broadly, we believe the fact that a 1/n-type rate is even possible in expectation for the tabular setting to be an artifact of the unique structure of this setting, and unlikely to hold for general policy classes or MDPs (e.g., for general policy classes, there is no hope of achieving unbiased estimation).
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for the detailed response and I would suggest the authors incorporate the above responses in the revised version. Overall, I am maintaining my original score and remain in favor of acceptance. | Summary: The paper proposes theoretical results on whether and when can offline imitation learning (IL) match online imitation learning in sample efficiency. The paper connects the results of existing works and demonstrates that offline IL can indeed match online IL under certain conditions. The paper further provides results on stochastic experts rather than deterministic experts.
Strengths: - As far as I know this is the first approach that leverages Hellinger distance on analyzing imitation learning methods.
- The paper extends the BC results to stochastic policies under other function classes.
- Interesting that online IL cannot really improve upon offline IL without further assumptions.
- In addition to the theory the appendix provides experimentation that supports the theory.
- The paper is very well written---I enjoyed reading the paper.
Weaknesses: - The paper only considers log loss, which I understand is very commonly used, but I am curious about how much of these analyses transfer to other losses.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: - Does the MDP assume finiteness?
- If so, how would this result change under continuous action space with the most common parameterization (i.e. Gaussian policies)?
- Does online IL algorithm include IRL?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: - See above.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 9
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their positive review and their helpful comments! Please see responses to individual questions below.
> The paper only considers log loss, which I understand is very commonly used, but I am curious about how much of these analyses transfer to other losses.
This is a great question! Our analysis takes advantage of unique statistical properties of the log-loss (notably, that it provides *trajectory-level* control over deviations from pi*; see discussion in Sec 2.1.2). In general, other losses do not enjoy similar horizon-independent guarantees (for example, Ross & Bagnell ‘10 show that the indicator loss can have suboptimal horizon dependence, and it is straightforward to see that their counterexample also applies to the square loss and absolute loss). Indeed, one of the key findings of our paper is that using the log-loss is uniquely beneficial.
> Does the MDP assume finiteness? If so, how would this result change under continuous action space with the most common parameterization (i.e. Gaussian policies)?
No, our results do not assume finiteness of the action space. Our analysis of Log-loss BC can be applied as-is to Gaussian policy parameterizations, as long as the realizability assumption in Assumption 1.1 holds.
> Does online IL algorithm include IRL?
The formulation of online IL that we consider assumes that the learner has online/interactive access to both the MDP $M$ and expert $\pi^{\star}$. Typical IRL approaches use a less powerful access model in which we have online access to the MDP $M$ in the same fashion, but do not assume online access to $\pi^{\star}$ itself. Hence, all of the lower bounds for online imitation learning in our paper also apply to IRL.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the response.
Regarding IRL, I understand that the lower bound applies to IRL as well, I was more curious about the upper bound. In particular whether the authors have considered using this line of technique to analyze IRL.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the clarification!
Our main results (Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.3) are not specialized to log-loss behavior cloning; rather they are reductions that apply to any algorithm that achieves a bound on the trajectory-level Hellinger distance $D_{H}^2(\mathbb{P}^{\hat{\pi}}, \mathbb{P}^{\pi^{\star}})$. For future work, it would be interesting to see if we can design IRL algorithms based on minimizing this quantity. In particular, many existing IRL algorithms can be viewed as performing distribution matching at the occupancy level, but our analysis suggests that performing distribution matching at the trajectory-level might lead to tighter guarantees with respect to horizon. | null | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
How does PDE order affect the convergence of PINNs? | Accept (poster) | Summary: - Building upon the work of Gao et al. [22], the authors extend the analysis of the gradient flow (GF) of PINNs (two-layer MLP is assumed) to general $k^\mathrm{th}$ order partial differential equations (PDEs) and the $p^\mathrm{th}$ power of Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) activation function with general $p$.
- The authors achieve tighter bounds than those obtained by Gao et al [22].
- The width of the network necessary for the convergence of GF increases exponentially with the power $p$ of $\mathrm{ReLU}^p$.
- The optimal power $p$ is determined by the order $k$ of the governing PDE; $p = k +1$.
- The GF convergence of PINNs deteriorates with increasing dimensions.
- To address these challenges, we mathematically demonstrate the efficacy of a variable splitting strategy, a conventional order-reduction approach.
- An order reduction through variable splitting is proposed based on the theoretical findings above.
Overall, I enjoyed reading the manuscript; however, it would benefit from some revisions.
Strengths: - The topic is relevant and very interesting. The theoretical relationship between PDE's orders and PINN's convergence has been elusive but is a practically important. A challenge comes from the fact that PINN's objective contains the derivatives of PINN's outputs w.r.t. its inputs (Gao et al. [22] is one of pioneering works in this sense).
- Theoretical contributions include:
- Building upon the work of Gao et al., the authors extend the analysis of the GF of PINNs, composed of two-layer MLPs, to general $k^\mathrm{th}$ order PDEs and the $p^\mathrm{th}$ power of ReLU activation function with general $p$. The authors achieve tighter bounds than those obtained by Gao et al.
- The width of the network necessary for the convergence of GF increases exponentially with the power $p$ of $\mathrm{ReLU}^p$.
- The optimal power $p$ is determined by the order $k$ of the governing PDE; $p = k +1$.
- The GF convergence of PINNs deteriorates with increasing dimensions.
- To address these challenges, we mathematically demonstrate the efficacy of a variable splitting strategy, a conventional order-reduction approach.
- This paper is easy to follow.
- The code is submitted for reproduction, which is important because studies on PINNs are often hard to reproduce due to their strong dependence on random seeds. However, the submitted code does not work, unfortunately (see Weaknesses below).
Weaknesses: ### Major comments
- The most critical concern is that experiments were conducted using Adam, not GD; thus, Section 5 does not validate the theoretical results, which are based on GF.
- While training PINNs with GD is challenging (as noted in line 320), I strongly recommend including experimental results using GD, which would significantly enhance the paper's quality. Although some preceding papers have used Adam or other irrelevant optimizers to validate their theoretical results built upon GF, such experiments are, in my opinion, obviously ill-advised.
- A continuous-time limit of Adam is given in [Malladi et al., 2022 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.10287)], which is, of course, different from GF.
- While GF is easy to handle in theory, GF's underlying assumptions are too restrictive in practice. GF is be a good approximation only when (1) PINNs are trained without random collocation points or are trained on random collocation points without resampling, (2) full-batch training is assumed, and (3) sufficiently small learning rates are used. There three conditions are too restrictive in view of current PINN experiments in the literature. Convergence analyses of DNNs are often criticized for their gaps between theory and practice. I greatly appreciate if these concerns are resolved.
- Condition (1) is mentioned in line 358. I would like to ask a question about this point, together with Condition (2), in Questions below.
- Condition (3) is mentioned in line 361. It is shown in [Miyagawa, 2022 (https://openreview.net/forum?id=qq84D17BPu)] that theoretical predictions of gradient flow deviate from experimental results as $t \rightarrow \infty$ even when learning rates are impractically small. This work would be very helpful and significantly extend the present work, adapting it to practical experimental settings. Please see Questions below.
### Code
Overall, I would recommend that the authors follow the official code submission guidelines and templates (https://github.com/paperswithcode/releasing-research-code).
- The 'utils' module is missing in the submitted codes, and they do not work.
- Adding requirements.txt would be recommended.
### Minor comment
- $\mathrm{ReLU}^p$ is called the rectified power unit (RePU) in [Bokati et al. (https://scholarworks.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2717&context=cs_techrep)]. Please see also the references therein. I would recommend citing them in the submitted paper.
### Typos
- Line 154: Impact of PDE order on convergence of PINNs -> Impact of PDE Order on Convergence of PINNs
- Line 203: $\delta << 1$ -> $\delta \ll 1$
- Line 372: keller-segel -> Keller-Segel
- Line 373: da vinci-euler-bernoulli -> da Vinch-Euler-Bernoulli
- Line 414: pinns -> PINNs
- Line 462: i -> I
- Line 507: Dgm -> DGM
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - Can the theoretical analysis given in this paper generalize to other activation functions, e.g., leaky $\mathrm{ReLU}^p$, softplus, and GeLU, sine, etc.?
- Can the theoretical analysis given in this paper generalize beyond two-layer networks?
- How can we extend this work to non-gradient-flow-based optimization problems, which are more prevalent and practical, e.g., random collocation points with resampling (i.e., SGD-like training)?
- To what extent theoretical predictions deviate from its corresponding experimental results when SGD-like training is used?
- As mentioned above, it is shown that theoretical predictions of gradient flow deviate from experimental results as $t \rightarrow \infty$ even when learning rates are impractically small as shown in [Miyagawa, 2022 (https://openreview.net/forum?id=qq84D17BPu)]. How can we alleviate this issue, or is this possibly not a problem in the present paper?
- (Footnote 3 on page 5) Is there any other evidence or related work that smoother activation functions require larger networks for convergence? The opposite, i.e., "smoother activation functions help convergence and *reduce* the required size of width," would also sound valid in the context of general DNN training. I would greatly appreciate if the authors discuss this point further.
- Inequality (10) and (16) seem to be *sufficient* conditions for convergence and are not necessary (please correct me if I missed something). Therefore, the intuitive explanation in footnote 3 on page 5 would be valid only in limited cases.
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes (described in Section 6).
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: In order to provide a concise response to theoretical questions, we structured our proof:
* (S1) Determine the condition for the positive definiteness(PD) of the initial Gram matrix.
* (S2) Establish an upper bound for the initial loss in terms of a polynomial of the initial weights.
* (S3) Identify a radius of an open ball within which the Gram matrix preserves PD.
* (S4) Compute the GF and demonstrate that the flow converges within the ball.
**Q1**. The most critical concern is ...
* I strongly recommend ...
**R**: We agree with the concern that the experiments in Section 5 do not fully validate our theorems as they use Adam.
In response to the feedback, we conducted experiments using the GD. As achieving convergence with GD for higher-order PDEs is challenging, we compare for the heat equation in Eq. (18). Furthermore, in accordance with the request of Reviewer M6m4, experiments were conducted on the convection-diffusion equation. We train models via GD with a learning rate(lr) of 1e-1. PINNs on the convection-diffusion equation employ a reduced lr of 1e-2 as it diverges with a lr of 1e-1. Figures A3 and A4 of the attachment present fast and remarkably stable convergence of VS-PINNs with smaller variance.
Moreover, we have designed experiments with GD that can clearly support our theory. A detailed description and discussion can be found in the common response.
We believe these provide further validation of our findings. The results of the experiments in Section 5 may suggest that results to those with GD can be achieved with Adam although we have not proven.
* A limit of Adam ...
**R**: We append experiments using GD.
* extend to non-GF-based ...
**R**: We coud apply our theory to SGD-like optimization. In the context of stochastic approximation theory (SAT), errors on a gradient originate from the randomness is interpreted as noise when estimating the GF. Following the SAT, the noisy GF converges to a fixed point of the clean GF. Consequently, our theory could be extended.
However, we acknowledge that S1 is not applicable when collocation points are resampled. In S1, we use the fact that gradients at each collocation point are linearly independent if width is sufficiently large, which does not hold as there are infinitely many collocation points in distribution. Assuming S1, we expect that the S2-S4 are applicable, given that expectation forms and uniformly bounded losses are employed.
* As mentioned above, ...
**R**: We acknowledge that GF and GD exhibit different dynamics. However, we believe our theory can be adapted to GD, given backward analysis, including [Miyagawa, 2022].
Theorem 5.1 and its corollaries in [Miyagawa] show that GF and GD dynamics differ in the limit $t\rightarrow\infty$, assuming a scale-invariant layer is present. Our theory, however, is based on MLPs without normalization layers, and thus does not meet the condition in the theorem.
Instead, we could apply Theorem 3.3 from [Miyagawa], which states that the GD dynamics follows GF with a counter term. Since the term is also a polynomial, we anticipate that S2-S4 can be adjusted. In S1, we expect our induction on a maximum degree can be adapted because the leading term occurs only in the counter term. Therefore, we expect to prove the convergence of GD based on the backward analysis.
**Q2**. I would recommend that ...
**R**: We apologize and thank you for pointing this out. We will rectify it by including the 'utils' module and providing a requirements.txt file to specify the necessary dependencies. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused.
**Q3**. ReLU^p is called the RePU
**R**: We appreciate your recommendation to cite the references related to the RePU. We will include these citations.
**Q4**. Generalize to other activation?
**R**: S1 effectively exploits the non-smooth nature of the RePU. This approach can be expanded to include other non-smooth activation functions like Leaky RePU. Additionally, it seems feasible to bound the loss function using a polynomial of the parameters. Therefore, extending the S2-S4 to this type of activation function seems plausible.
However, our approach in S1 is not applicable for smooth activations and it is difficult to establish the PD of the Gram matrix. This leads some studies to assume the PD of the Gram matrix and analyze the convergence of the optimization flow. Assuming S1, our results would extend to activation functions whose derivatives are polynomially bounded.
**Q5**. Generalize beyond two-layer?
**R**: S2-S4 of our theory would remain feasible as the composition of polynomials is a polynomial. However, the non-smooth point can be entangled, making the applicability of S1 less straightforward.
**Q6**. Is there any other evidence that ...
**R**: There are theoretical papers that analyze the impact of activation in terms of optimization convergence.
For instance, [Panigrahi, 2020] computes the eigenvalue of the Gram matrix for both non-smooth and smooth activations.
The authors provided evidence indicating that when data span a low dimensional space, the smallest eigenvalue of the Gram matrix can be small leading to slow training.
It is also demonstrated that the smallest eigenvalue of the Gram matrix associated with non-smooth activations is larger than that of smooth activations under minimal assumptions on data. Consequently, the findings imply that training will be more rapid for non-smooth activation.
**Q7**. Seem to be sufficient condition
**R**: Although they are sufficient conditions, the leading terms originate from the PD of the Gram matrices, which is a prerequisite for convergence. Given that the PD of the Gram matrices inherently depends on the PDE and p, we contend that the insights regarding the detrimental impact of large p could be derived from the inequalities.
**References**
Panigrahi et al., Effect of Activation Functions on the Training of Overparametrized Neural Nets, ICLR, 2020.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Reply
Comment: Thank you for your time and effort. The authors’ response addressed my concerns, particularly regarding the validity of the experiments, and answered my questions clearly. I encourage the authors to incorporate all the discussion from their response into the manuscript. I have increased my score from 3 to 5. | Summary: **Summary:**
The paper discusses the convergence of the gradient flow of a PINN loss function for arbitrary-order linear PDEs. The analyzed neural networks are shallow MLPs with a power-of-ReLU activation function. The results established are of the NTK convergence type in the overparameterized regime and take the following form: Assume the width mm of the network is larger than a critical number $C$, i.e.,
$$
m > C
$$
then, with high probability with respect to the initialization, the PINN loss will converge to zero when the neural network parameters follow the gradient flow of the typical PINN loss function.
The authors analyze the dependence of the constant $C$ on the PDE order, the dimension of the computational domain, and the power of the activation function. It is proven that a high PDE order, high dimension, and a large power of the employed ReLU activation deteriorate the convergence, i.e., require a larger constant $C$ to guarantee the convergence of the gradient flow. This leads the authors to propose first-order reformulations which, as proven in the manuscript and illustrated with numerical examples, mitigate the aforementioned problems. The main novelty of the preprint lies in the quantification of the constant $C$.
**General Impression:**
The paper is carefully written. Although the proofs are long and technical and deferred to the Appendix, the main part is an enjoyable and understandable read. However, I have a major issue with how the findings are communicated; see below in the paragraph on the weaknesses of this reply.
Strengths: 1. Well written paper, understandable to read for a broad audience albeit technical proofs.
2. Addresses a challenging problem (training of PINNs) and tries to provide theoretical guidance on how to improve the training process.
Weaknesses: 1. There is no sharpness of the lower bound $m > C$. Thus, the conclusions the authors draw from the lower bound could potentially be wrong. This is briefly touched upon in the conclusion section of the paper, but I strongly recommend changing the presentation; see the discussion below.
2. Achieving zero training loss is one step in a comprehensive mathematical analysis of PINNs. Other aspects, such as the discussion of the approximation error, the quadrature error, and the coercivity properties of the PINN loss function, complete the picture. I believe the authors can improve their preprint by contextualizing it better and providing pointers to the literature. Below, I have attached a list of references and briefly discussed their relevance to the overall theory.
**Expansion on 1.**
Drawing conclusions from a lower bound of the form $m>C$ is dangerous as for non-sharp estimates (like the present one) one can not be sure whether dependencies of $C$ on the data (PDE order, dimensionality etc) are artefacts of the proof or are truly required to obtain a lower bound. An exception would be if the lower bound is sufficiently tight, such that it is of practical value. This is not the case here: Setting $d=1$, $k=1$, $p=2$ and neglecting the log term (setting it to unity) yields
$$
m \geq 2^{14} \cdot 2^{11} \cdot 2^{12} = 2^{37} \approx. 10^{11}.
$$
Therefore, I strongly advise against presenting the results in a way that suggests a connection between the theoretical results (how $C$ depends on $p, k$ and $d$) and the observed optimization struggle of PINNs in the literature. Portraying results in this way leads to folklore in the community which is not backed by rigorous mathematics. At the very least, I advise the authors to clarify this early on in the introduction and before drawing conclusions from Theorem 3.2. I acknowledge that the authors discuss the limitations in the Conclusions section, but this is not where it belongs.
**Expansion on 2.**
The presented results should be better embedded in the existing literature. As a matter of fact, this will strengthen the authors points, especially with respect to the PDE reformulation in first-order systems. I recommend the following articles:
- [1] The article discusses error analysis/coercivity estimates for PINNs with sharp coercivity estimates. See for instance equation (3.10) in [1]. In this equation $L$ is the loss and $\eta$ quantifies the mismatch between discrete loss (analyzed in the authors preprint) and population loss, which behaves according to Monte-Carlo integration and can be analyzed by Rademacher complexity arguments, as for example illustrated in [2]. Furthermore, the validity of equation 3.10 in [1] relies on coercivity properties of the PDE at hand and is illustrated for a number of linear PDEs in [1]. With the aforementioned articles, the errors analysis of PINNs is more comprehensive and I strongly believe readers should be pointed in this direction when reading the authors preprint.
- The benefit of first-order reformulations of PINN type losses is well-known in the literature, also for different reasons than the ones the authors point out. For example [3] reports better results for jumping material coefficients and shows that strong formulations will not work at all in this case. Another aspect is treated in [1]. It is shown that first order reformulations lead to improved convergence rates, compare the error estimates for equation to the ones of Poisson equation. To achieve $H^{1/2}$ convergence for Poisson, one needs approximation in $H^2$, for $H^{1/2}$ convergence for Darcy (which can be viewed as a first order reformulation of Poisson) one needs approximation in $H^1$ for the pressure and $H(\operatorname{div})$ for the velocity, which leads to improved rates.
Overall, I think the paper merits publication if the weaknesses are addressed and I am willing to raise my score in this case.
References:
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.00529
[2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.16429
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021999120304812
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: See weaknesses discussion.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: See weaknesses discussion.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Q1**. There is no sharpness of the lower bound $m>C$. Thus, ...
**R**: We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the sharpness of the bound we presented in our paper. We concede that we have not demonstrated the sharpness of the bound in our theorems. However, it is important to note that the leading term of the bound we derived is based on conditions necessary for the Gram matrix to be positive definite, which is a crucial property of the Gram matrix for ensuring the convergence of the gradient flow (GF) to a global optimizer.
Since the Gram matrix is defined by the PDE loss and the network structure, factors such as the PDE order of the power of the ReLU activation inherently affect the positive definiteness of the Gram matrix.
Therefore, even though the bound we provide may not be sharp, we believe it can still offer valuable insights into how reducing the order and power improves convergence. It underscores how variations in PDE order and ReLU power affect convergence, thus providing the first theoretical demonstration of the relationship between the PDE order and the convergence of PINN, which has been empirically observed frequently. We believe this is an important step in understanding the relationship between PDE order, ReLU power, and the convergence of PINNs.
However, there is a limitation in that we have not proven the sharpness of the bound, and as you point out, we agree that this should be clearly stated in the manuscript. We will revise the manuscript to acknowledge this limitation and adjust our argument accordingly.
**Q2**. Achieving zero training loss is one step in ...
-**Q2-1**. [1] The article discusses error analysis/coercivity estimates for PINNs..
**R**: We would like to express our gratitude for your comprehensive and insightful feedback on our manuscript. We are particularly appreciative of the list of references and the valuable insights you have provided, which help to contextualize our work within the broader framework of mathematical analysis for PINNs.
In order to successfully employ the PINN approach for solving PDEs, it is essential to ensure that the following four conditions are met:
* (C1) The network is capable of approximating the solution to the PDE.
* (C2) The minimizer of the PINN population loss is the solution to the PDE.
* (C3) The minimizer of the empirical loss approximates the minimizer of the population loss.
* (C4) The minimizer of the empirical loss is obtainable.
The universal approximation theory of the network addresses C1,
while the existence of exact solution to the PDE on compact domain underpin C2.
Consequently, theoretical analyses of PINNs are primarily centered on the generalization error analysis of C3 and the optimization error analysis of C4.
The papers you suggested focus on C3, which is concerned with examining the conditions for the convergence of the generalization error.
In contrast, the present paper targets C4, namely the demonstration of the conditions for convergence of empirical loss.
Besides, our result is based on the impact of the order of the governing PDE, whereas the suggested paper employed the coercivity of the PDE.
Despite this, there is a paucity of theoretical research in this area. Therefore, it is imperative to analyze C3 and C4 based on the characteristics of the given PDE.
As you noted, [1] examines generalization error by capitalizing on the coercivity of the PDE operator.
On the other hand, Our work delves into the optimization error analysis in conjunction with the order of the PDE.
While theoretical studies on PINN optimization exist, few have investigated the impact of the inherent nature of the PDE being solved. A substantial body of empirical evidence indicates that training PINNs becomes increasingly challenging as the PDE order increases, underscoring the significance of our research as a foundational step in this area.
Nevertheless, we concur with your point that a considerable number of steps remain in order to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the fundamental principles underlying PINNs. We believe that extending ideas in the vein of [1] could facilitate an investigation into the influence of the differential order of the PDE operator on the generalization error, thereby advancing our understanding.
We would like to reiterate our gratitude for your invaluable feedback and for sharing these references. We are eager to incorporate your suggestions to enhance our manuscript.
-**Q2-2**. The benefit of first-order reformulations of PINN type losses is ...
**R**: As the reviewer mentioned, both [1] and [3] examine the advantages of splitting PDEs into first-order formulations. In contrast to Reference [1], which examines the benefits from the perspective of S3, our paper focuses on how variable splitting enhances optimization in S4 by reducing the differential order included in the loss function.
Extending our theoretical framework to analyze the impact of the variable splitting strategy on the generalization error of PINNs, as suggested by [1], represents an intriguing and significant research direction. We believe that incorporating discussions on these references would enrich our paper. Therefore, we plan to include them and the additional discussions in the revised version of our manuscript. We are confident that these enhancements will contribute to the depth and breadth of our work.
Thank you again for your invaluable feedback and suggestions. We appreciate your guidance in improving our manuscript.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you. My concerns are addressed and I will raise my score. | Summary: This paper presents a theoretical analysis of the relation between PDE order and the convergence of PINNs. A tighter bound is obtained than the previous work. Inspired by the importance of reducing PDE order, the authors propose the VS-PINN, which employs the variate splitting strategy. Both theoretical analysis and empirical results are included to prove the effectiveness of the proposed method.
Strengths: - Overall, I think this paper is theoretically solid and interesting.
- The idea of using variable splitting is reasonable.
Weaknesses: 1. Practical efficiencies are expected for comparison, such as GPU memory, running time and model parameters. Although VS-PINN does not require the calculation of high-order derivatives, the newly added regularization term in Eq. 13 will also bring extra computation costs.
2. All the conclusions in Section 3 can be directly obtained from the previous paper [22]. I do not think the tighter bound brings better theoretical insights in terms of understanding “How does PDE order affect the convergence of PINNs?”
3. How about model performance in typical PDEs, such as Convection or Reaction?
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: - I suggest the authors provide a clear description of the proof for Theorem 3.2 and show how they obtain a tighter bound.
- I think the equation in line 247 has a typo, which is $l\in[0, L+1]$.
- How to choose $L$ in practice?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: I appreciate that they have discussed the limitations. There are some more powerful and advanced backbones, such as PINNsFormer [1]. More experiments on them will further demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method although they are hard to analyze in a theoretical aspect.
[1] PINNsFormer: A Transformer-Based Framework For Physics-Informed Neural Networks, ICLR 2024
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Q1**. Practical efficiencies are expected ...
**R**: Table A1 in the attachment shows GPU memory, running time (the mean of the 50 epochs), and the number of model parameters that correspond to experiments presented in our paper.
Becasue VS-PINNs need as many networks as auxiliary variables, finer VS-PINN requires more parameters to be trained. However, its reduction of the differentiation order in the loss significantly reduces memory consumption, despite the additional loss terms. Regarding running time, splitting does not increase the overall training cost.
**Q2**. All the conclusions in Section 3 can be ...
**R**: We want to clarify that the conclusions of Section 3 of our paper are not directly derived from the previous work [22], as the bound in [22] is not dominated by the PDE and the power of ReLU$^p$.
On the other hand, our paper attains tighter bounds than [22]. Moreover, the dominating term of the proposed bounds is determined by PDE order and activation power, allowing us to observe the impact on GF convergence.
To provide a more comprehensive understanding, we will delineate the leading terms of the bound of [22] and ours in the following paragraphs. We hope that the reviewer will carefully consider why our tighter bound is insightful.
* (Leading term in [22])
In [22], Theorem 3.8 states that if the width $m$ is $\tilde{\Omega}\left(\delta^{-3}\right)$ then GF converges to a global optimizer of PINNs for second-order linear PDEs. The leading term of the bound is $\delta^{-3}$, which stems from the product of triple $\delta^{-1}$. One $\delta^{-1}$ came from the Markov inequality to bound initial loss at Section B.4. The remaining two $\delta^{-1}$ are required for the bound of $R_w$ at Eq. (74) and $R_a$ at Eq. (76), which are also derived from the Markov inequality immediately following Eq. (73). Therefore, the leading term $\delta^{-3}$ originated from the Markov inequality and is independent of the PDE order or the activation power.
* (Leading term in ours)
In contrast to using the Markov inequality, we obtain the bounds in a deterministic way; refer to Proposition C.6 and Lemma C.5 for the initial loss and $R_w$, respectively. This yields a more precise bound for our Theorem 3.2, whose dominant term is contingent upon the power of the activation function and, thereby on the PDE order.
Consequently, we obtain a considerably tighter bound that depends on the PDE order, whereas the previous bound from [22] was not affected by the order. From the relationship between the PDE order and the bound for convergence, we could derive a theoretical insight that reducing the PDE order enhances the convergence behavior of PINNs.
**Q3**. How about performance in typical PDEs?
**R**: In response to the reviewer's request, we conducted experiments on a convection-type equation. Since observing the effect of VS on first-order PDEs is unable, we convection-diffusion equation $u_t+u_x-u_{xx}/4=0$,
whose exact solution is $u\left(t,x\right) = e^{-\frac{1}{4}t}\sin\left(x-t\right)$.
We trained PINNs with $p=3$ and VS-PINNs with $p=2$, using same settings with the heat Eq. (18) in the manuscript.
Figures A2 and A3 in the attachment show that VS-PINNs reach lower train loss and achieve more stable convergence for both GD and Adam.
**Q4**. The equation in line 247 has a typo..
**R**: The symbol actually denotes an integer set defined on line 531 of the Appendix, which did not clearly specify in the main manuscript. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused. We will make sure that the necessary definition is included in the revised version of the paper.
**Q5**. How to choose $L$ in practice?
**R**: We agree that discussing the optimal choice of $L$ is crucial for effectively utilizing VS-PINNs.
However, identifying the optimal $L$ is challenging because training deep learning models involves a multitude of complex considerations.
Our paper is focused specifically on one aspect of deep learning training: convergence of GF.
According to our theory, splitting a given PDE into a system of first-order PDEs, such that $| \xi | =1$, helps GF most likely to converge. This finest splitting results in a loss that includes only first-order derivatives, allowing the use of $p=2$, which in turn improves the convergence of GF the most.
Experiments also show that breaking down a PDE into a system of lower-order PDEs tends to be most feasible for convergence.
Moreover, Table A1 which was referenced in the previous response indicates that VS is an effective approach for optimizing GPU memory utilization.
However, while finer splitting enhances convergence, it also increases the number of functions that need to be parameterized by networks. Therefore, in practice, the choice of L should be balanced based on the governing PDE and memory/computational constraints.
Furthermore, it is critical to consider other factors, so we acknowledge that this is an area requiring further exploration for a robust analysis of the optimal $L$.
**Q6**. There are some more powerful and advanced backbones, ...?
**R**: We conducted experiments to assess the efficacy of our approach within the suggested PINNsFormer architectural framework. We implemented our VS strategy, conducting experiments based on the wave equation in Section 4 of the original paper of PINNsFormer [1]. All configurations specified in [1] were adhered to, including the use of the L-BFGS optimizer. To further examine the behavior of models, we also experimented with alternative optimizers, namely Adam and SGD, with a learning rate of 1e-4.
The results are depicted in Figure A5 of the attachment. As evidenced by the results, the VS does not yield a notable impact on the PINNsFormer framework for all three optimizers. It seems that the Transformer architecture is substantially different from the MLP structure examined in our paper, resulting in disparate outcomes and indicating that comparable results may not be attainable in this context.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I would like to thank the authors for their responses and experiments. Since I have already held positive opinions on this paper, I will keep my score. | Summary: This paper provides a theoretical understanding about the behavior of PINN when dealing with high-order or high-dimesional PDEs. Variable splitting is then proposed to decomposes the high-order PDE into a system of lower-order PDEs and facilitate the convergence of PINN.
Strengths: 1. This paper extends Gao et al.'s work to higher order PDEs and ReLU activation functions and demonstrates that the gradient flow of PINNs converges to the global minimum with a high probability when the width of the network is sufficiently large.
2. Using the derived bound, this paper comprehensively analyzes the impact of PDE order and dimensionality on the behaviour of PINNs.
3. The numerical results further demostrates the theoretical results and validates the positive effect of utilizing variable splitting.
Weaknesses: 1. The numerical results pertaining to the parameter p indicate a contradiction. Specifically, the convergence of the PINN is observed to be faster with p = 4 compared to p = 3 , which stands in contrast to the assertion that “the convergence of the loss is enhanced as p decreases.” Additionally, there are typographical errors in Figure 1(a), where the legends should display p rather than k.
2. The derived bound demonstrates the substantial impact of both the PDE order and the activation power on the network’s width, indicating that as p increases, the width m must also increase exponentially to ensure convergence. However, the numerical experiments conducted in the paper do not vary the network width m to empirically verify this theoretical relationship. Instead, they maintain a fixed width across different experiments, focusing primarily on the effects of varying the power p of the ReLU activation function and the impact of variable splitting. While these experiments do validate the theoretical findings related to p and variable splitting, they fall short of demonstrating how changes in network width influence convergence behavior.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See weaknesses.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: See weaknesses.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Q1**. The numerical results pertaining to the parameter ...
**R**: The theoretical results presented in this paper indicate that networks with a lower power $p$ have a higher probability of convergence. A reduction in $p$ would facilitate optimization, which may be observed as an acceleration in the convergence process. It should be noted, however, that our findings pertain to an improvement in the probability of convergence rather than to the speed of convergence.
We acknowledge that the experiments presented in our paper could be misinterpreted as demonstrating faster convergence. To address this, we conducted additional experiments to provide a more robust validation of the theoretical results. Details of these experiments can be found in the common response above. The experimental results indicate that as p increases, a wider network is required for convergence, which is consistent with our theoretical findings.
These results will be included in the revised manuscript, and Section 5 of the submitted manuscript will be revised to clarify the existing experiment and avoid misinterpretation of the results as showing the effect of acceleration.
**Q2**. The derived bound demonstrates the substantial impact of ...
**R**: We are grateful for the reviewer's thoughtful review and for emphasizing the necessity for empirical validation regarding the relationship between network width $m$ required for convergence and power $p$ of activation.
We devised an experiment to validate the impact of power $p$ and PDE order $k$ on the width size $m$ required for convergence, which can be found in the common response above.
Please see the description and our discussion in the common response above.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for addressing my concerns by conducting extensive numerical studies. I will raise my score. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Response to All Reviewers**
We sincerely appreciate all the reviewers for their invaluable comments, recommendations, and suggestions. The opinions of the reviewers have been carefully considered and responding to their questions has enhanced the paper. We first introduce additional experiments that are commonly required to address the comments from the reviewers inw1 and BvZt. Subsequently, we address the individual responses to each reviewer below. We also attach a supplementary file for Figures and a Table. Hopefully, the replies could adequately address all the concerns.
**Common Response**:
In response to the feedback from reviewer inw1, we designed and conducted additional experiments that better demonstrate the theoretical results of our paper. The objective of this experiment was to validate the effect of power and PDE order on the width size required for convergence, which represents the primary result of our theoretical findings. The experimental results obtained were found to be consistent with the theoretical results, which we believe addresses the concerns of the reviewers.
* *(Experimental setup)*: To demonstrate the influence of $p$, $k$ on $m$, we trained networks with various $m$, ranging from $10^2$ to $10^6$, for each $p$ and $k$ and investigated their convergence under GD optimization. Networks were trained by GD with a learning rate of 1e-8. The utilization of this small learning rate facilitates the observation of the preliminary convergence behavior without causing training instability or divergence. Given the considerable number of steps required for full training, we did not undertake full training.
Training collocation points were set to uniform grids: 400 in the domain and 100 on each boundary of the domain.\
To examine the influence of the PDE order $k$ on the width required for convergence, we additionally considered a Poisson equation ($k=2$) in conjunction with the bi-harmonic equation ($k=4$) presented in Eq. (508) of the submitted manuscript. The Poisson equation is subject to a homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition in accordance with Eq. (508) and the source function is set to yield the same solution as that of Eq. (508). Other training configurations are the same as the bi-harmonic equation represented in Appendix D.
The results are presented in Figure A1 of the attachment, which illustrate the loss behavior for networks with various widths $m$ for each $p$.
The results clearly support our theoretical finding that the width should increase to ensure convergence as $p$ increases. Moreover, a narrower network would converge when solving a lower-order equation (Poisson), suggesting that a higher-order PDE (bi-harmonic) requires a wider network.
In summary, the results show that the width needed for convergence grows with p and the PDE order. This validates our paper's theoretical results and shows the importance of our study in analyzing how the PDE order and the activation power affect convergence of PINNs.
**Supplementary file ↓**
Pdf: /pdf/6dc9185b665cf1629cceb8359bb5502b03d061ce.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Kolmogorov–Smirnov GAN | Reject | Summary: This paper first generalizes the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) distance from one-dimensional spaces to multidimensional spaces and proposes the Kolmogorov-Smirnov GAN, which formulates the generative model by minimizing the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) distance. Theoretical results are also given in this paper and the experiments also show the superiority of stability during training, resistance to mode dropping and collapse, and tolerance to variations in hyperparameter settings.
Strengths: I like the idea of generalizing the one-dimensional KS distance to multi-dimensional, which I had thought about before but failed to achieve. The motivation and writing are good, and the experiments of KSGAN seem to have achieved good results.
Weaknesses: 1. I'm skeptical about some parts of the theory. (See questions for details)
2. It seems that the advantages of KS distance over JS divergence and Wasserstein Distance are not explained.
3. The idea of reformulating a distance between distributions to a GAN model seems to be old and is now unlikely to attract readers' interest.
4. The experimental setup is relatively simple, only comparing with vanilla GAN and WGAN on Synthetic, MNIST, and CIFAR10 datasets
5. According to the experimental results, the advantages of KSGAN lie in the stability of training and resistance to mode dropping. A significant issue is that with current network architectures and training techniques, these two problems are rarely encountered.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Q1. In Line 66-67, what's the meaning there are $2^d-1$ ways of defining a CDF on a d-dimensional space?
Q2. Definition 1 seems strange. What is the measure v? Is it a determined measure or any arbitrary measure? Is P the known CDF in Eq.3? What is its relationship with v?
Q3. Based on the definition of mapping, given function f: A->B, for each element a in A, there is always a unique element b in B corresponding to it. Then for $G^{-1}(\alpha)$ in Eq.2 and $C_{P,C}(\alpha)$, how is the uniqueness of the set guaranteed given $\alpha\in [0,1]$?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors have discussed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your review. Please find answers to the posed questions below:
Q1. “In Line 66-67, what's the meaning there are $2^d - 1$ ways of defining a CDF on a d-dimensional space?”
Please find the answer to the question in reference [35] which we cite after the next sentence in L68 - middle of the third page of [35]. However, we will be happy to help you by guiding your intuition. For all the $d$ dimensions an order has to be chosen (thus $2^d$), but the ascending order in all dimensions is equivalent to the descending order in all dimensions (thus $-1$).
Q2.
- “What is the measure v? Is it a determined measure or any arbitrary measure?”
In L82, just below Definition 1, we say that we consider $\mathrm{v}$ to be the Lebesgue measure. For additional discussion about $\mathrm{v}$ please see reference [10] which we cite in L75, just before the definition, or reference [38] of which Definition 1.1 is our Definition 1.
- “Is P the known CDF in Eq.3?”
$P$ is the probability measure.
- “What is its relationship with v?”
In [38] the author suggests considering $\mathrm{v}$ as the dominating measure for $P$.
Q3. “[...] how is the uniqueness of the set guaranteed given $\alpha \in [0,1]$?”
- Regarding $G^{-1}(\alpha)$: the assumption here is that $G(x)$ is continuous and strictly monotonically increasing. If the paper gets accepted, we will include this information
- Regarding $C_{P,\mathcal{C}}(\alpha)$: we explicitly say that it is not unique in general (in footnote [2]), and intentionally use $\in$ operator in eq. (3). The uniqueness is necessary for Theorem 1 to hold (assumption 2). Our approach for parametrization of the generalized quantile functions - neural level set - satisfies this assumption. More generally, there is always such $\mathcal{C}$ that $C_{P,\mathcal{C}}(\alpha)$ is unique given $\alpha$.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for your rebuttal. I am still concerned about the weaknesses listed in my original comment and thus I maintain my score. | Summary: This paper proposes a novel variant of the generative adversarial network that uses the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance to align the generated distribution with the target distribution. This distance is calculated using the quantile function, which acts as the critic in the adversarial training process. Experiments are conducted on synthetic distributions and small image datasets to show that the proposed KSGAN performs on par with the existing adversarial methods.
Strengths: 1. The paper is well-presented and easy to follow.
2. The claims and methodology designs are well supported by theoretical analysis.
Weaknesses: 1. It is still unclear why we need another adversarial design based on KS distance. The vanilla GAN paper shows that the designed bi-level optimization process can already be seen as optimizing the distance between the generated and the target distribution. Then, what are the specific advantages KS distance can bring within the adversarial framework?
2. The experiments are merely conducted on synthetic datasets and small image datasets. It is unclear whether the proposed method can be adapted to larger-scale datasets or incorporated into more advanced frameworks like StyleGAN. Moreover, the compared baselines are limited to early works, and the experimental results of KSGAN are worse than those of WGAN-GP. Thus, I do not see many advantages of KSGAN in terms of the presented experiments.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Could the authors explain or provide more evidence about line 40, "The Bayesian inference community has been reluctant to adopt adversarial methods"?
2. How can we guarantee the optimality of the learned quantile functions such that the estimated KS distance is reliable?
3. Again, with adversarial training, the original gan is already optimizing the distance between the two distributions. What are the benefits of optimizing in this way by KSGAN?
4. In Table 3, the performance of the models with IS around 2.4 and FID around 40 does not seem very successful in generative training. And the improvements seem minor.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 1
Limitations: Please see the discussions above.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your review. Please find answers to the posed questions below:
Q1. “Could the authors explain or provide more evidence about line 40, "The Bayesian inference community has been reluctant to adopt adversarial methods"?”
Our intention was to provide references [8] and [40] to support the claim, but if the paper gets accepted we will improve it. While [8] mentions GANs, none of the referenced methods uses GAN as the underlying generative model. In fact, [40] which was published in 2022 is to the best of our knowledge the first to study the use of GAN for SBI. The paper shows that GANs underperform compared to other established approaches. Moreover, despite the paper having multiple citations, the “GAN for SBI” direction is not being further explored.
Q2. “How can we guarantee the optimality of the learned quantile functions such that the estimated KS distance is reliable?”
In the finite resources (samples, optimization steps, non-infinitesimal learning rate, etc.) one cannot have such a guarantee, but this is the case for any learning algorithm, in particular GAN and WGAN. In the infinity limit, however, reference [23] supports the use of such adversarial training procedures as the one used by us, to minimize the KL divergence between the EBM and data distribution.
Q3. “Again, with adversarial training, the original gan is already optimizing the distance between the two distributions. What are the benefits of optimizing in this way by KSGAN?”
The original GAN paper [13] shows that under optimal discriminator, the generator’s objective is equivalent to the Jensen–Shannon divergence. However, in practice, training a vanilla GAN often fails, thus the many tricks described in [1] with their formal interpretation. Results in the literature, as well as our empirical evaluation of GAN, show that the model typically fails to accurately approximate the target distribution. Our empirical evaluation of the proposed KSGAN shows that the obtained approximations are more accurate, and this we consider as the benefit. In addition, as a potential future work direction, we see exploiting the theory of convergence rate of the classical KS distance in the generalized case. Any such results would be advantageous compared to the classical GAN based on JS divergence.
Q4. “In Table 3, the performance of the models with IS around 2.4 and FID around 40 does not seem very successful in generative training. And the improvements seem minor.”
The questions about results in Tab 3 are addressed in the global response.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the response. Unfortunately, my concerns remain unaddressed. The authors claim that KSGAN can better approximate the target distribution based on experimental results. However, the results presented are basic and limited. Evaluating only on a basic dataset is quite restrictive, and I have not observed any significant performance improvement over state-of-the-art models. For real-world datasets, the authors only compared GAN and WGAN on CIFAR-10, but these methods are now somehow outdated. In the context of the current development of generative models, it is essential for papers in leading conferences to include SOTA algorithms and multiple large-scale datasets in their experiments. Regrettably, I cannot raise the score for this paper at this time.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: We want to thank the reviewer for this comment. We will work on providing results of using the proposed KS distance in advanced SOTA training pipelines like StyleGAN for future revisions of the papers. | Summary: The authors introduce a generalized KS distance applicable to high dimensional spaces, formulate the corresponding dual problem, and use adversarial training to construct a generative model that minimizes the GKS between data and generated distributions.
The paper is well presented and appears technically correct through what I've seen, though I didn't check the proofs in details.
The main problem is that there's no clear motivation for why using the GKS is beneficial at all (either theoretically or practically). As such, despite being novel, I don't see any clear impact from the paper. Furthermore, the final algorithm is quite complicated and the results are fairly underwhelming, so at the end of the day the cons dramatically outweigh the pros of the newly introduced algorithm.
Strengths: The paper is well written. It reads easily and it is clear what they want to do. The contribution of a generalized KS distance to multidimensional spaces and the algorithm to approximate it are to the best of my knowledge, novel.
Weaknesses: The main problem I have with the paper is that I don't see any clear advantages of using the KS distance (gan) as a replacement of other distances like the Wasserstein one, or their GAN equivalent. The only mention of this, which should arguably be the most important thing in a paper introducing a new GAN, is in lines 224-228 of page 7. The authors claim there that they don't need to maximize the supremum in (5) which is false depending on how to interpret it, if you just take any set C in (5) you end up with |P_F(C) - P_G(C)| which is just measuring one moment for a given characteristic function, and far from being anything meaningful (and the same holding true for most IPMs). The results are also not particularly interesting to merit the claim that there's anything particularly different or benefitial on using this new formulation.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: The main suggestions I have is the following:
1) Take some time thinking why using the GKS is a better idea than using other distances between probability distributions.
2) Validate these claims with targeted experiments (for instance, on tractable distributions, without adversarial training).
3) Show that these properties translate to the adversarial setup, either theoretically or with experiments.
At the end of the day you're trying to convince readers that what you did is worth trying, so instead of focusing so much on mathematical details, consider more why a busy reader should care about this problem in the first place. What are the fundamental limitations of existing techniques you're trying to adress?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 1
Limitations: No clear motivation or benefit from using their algorithm.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 3
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your review. As there are no questions but there are suggestions instead, we would like to thank you for those. We will consider them in our future work.
We would like to clarify one thing regarding the comment “The authors claim there that they don't need to maximize the supremum in (5) which is false[...]”. We never claim that attaining the supremum is not required. We claim (supported by the presented theoretical results) that the supremum is over a unit interval and two generalized quantile functions. In contrast, for Wasserstein distance, it is over all 1-Lipschitz functions. The challenge with KS distance is having access to the generalized quantile functions. The point of paragraph L224-L228 is to stress that no matter the quality of quantile functions, the computed “distance” is a pseudo-metric. But this is probably also the case for any IPM when the critic is not optimal. We will modify this section in the future revisions of the paper. | Summary: The paper proposed a new kind of GAN training method called KS-GAN. The method is based on minimizing the Kolmogorov–Smirnov distance. The KSGAN updates the generator by minimizing an upper bound of the generalized KS distance. It updates the discriminator (or the critic network) by using energy-based model training with regularization terms. The KSGAN is a novel attempt to explore new approaches to train generative adversarial networks.
Strengths: * (1) The paper studied using generalized KS distance to train GAN generators is a novel attempt to extend the GAN literature.
* (2) Some theoretical arguments about implementing the empirical KS distance using neural networks is novel yet constructive.
Weaknesses: My main concern about the paper is its weak evaluation baselines and questionable practical usage:
* (1) Though the idea of using new objectives for training GAN generators is attractive, the practical usage of KSGAN seems questionable, especially for high-dimensional data. For instance, in the CIFAR10 generation experiment, the author compares KSGAN with WGAN-GP and Vanilla GAN, which have shown weak empirical performances. However, it is well-known that, for CIFAR10 data, the StyleGAN2-ADA[1] model is a strong baseline GAN model. I think it would strengthen the paper a lot if the authors could somehow show strong performances of KSGAN using StyleGAN2's architectures and implementation techniques. However, I do admit that such a requirement may be too tough for new methods.
* (2) The KSGAN's critic function is constructed with EBMs. However, even with regularization terms, energy-based models are well-known for poor scaling ability to high-dimensional data. This may prevent the practical usage of KSGAN for real-world high-dimensional data.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Please see the weakness part.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The author has addressed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your review. Please find answers to the posed questions below:
W1. “[...] I think it would strengthen the paper a lot if the authors could somehow show strong performances of KSGAN using StyleGAN2's architectures and implementation techniques. [...]”
We are aware that the best generative models relying on adversarial training use elaborate training procedures and complex architectures, consequently placing the optimization objective only as one of the elements of the method. Our intention was to consider only this aspect, in separation from the others. We leave employing the KS distance in training procedures such as StyleGAN as future work.
W2. “[...] energy-based models are well-known for poor scaling ability to high-dimensional data.”
Could you please provide a reference supporting the claim? To the best of our knowledge, EBMs are the most flexible and expressive framework. A non-exhaustive list of references:
- Grathwohl, Will, et al. "Your classifier is secretly an energy based model and you should treat it like one." International Conference on Learning Representations. - every classifier is an EBM
- Che, Tong, et al. "Your GAN is secretly an energy-based model and you should use discriminator driven latent sampling." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020): 12275-12287. - in the same way, GAN’s discriminator is an EBM
- Zhang, Dinghuai, et al. "Unifying generative models with GFlowNets and beyond." arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.02606 (2022). - one can even see GFlowNets (and Diffusion-based models) as EBMs
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thanks to the authors' rebuttal.
Comment: I thank the authors' efforts in rebuttal. I would like to raise my score to 6 (weak accept) to encourage authors on their innovation of using KS distance for training GAN generators. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank all reviewers for their comments and suggestions. A recurring issue in all reviews is the insufficient performance of our method in the results we presented. Therefore, we will address it in a global response.
We would also like to emphasize that, according to the official "Call For Papers", contributions in the field of the theory are also within the thematic scope of this conference. All reviews confirm that our proposed method is innovative. No missing relevant literature has been reported, nor any shortcomings in the development of theoretical contributions – the few questions that have arisen are addressed in direct replies to the reviewers – and their practical instantiation. All the criticism comes down to the inconclusive experimental results. Below we show that in some experiments the results speak in favor of the proposed method. Deploying the advanced training techniques and architectures (like StyleGAN2) would only improve upon the reported performance, but it is beside the point since we want to focus on the bare-bone method (KS distance) and its evaluation.
All reviewers focused on CIFAR10 experiments, ignoring the other results. Meanwhile, in the case of synthetic distributions – which belong to the standard set of tests examining the accuracy of generative models [14] – the proposed KSGAN with a 5 times smaller computational budget, performs on par with the more expensive WGAN - not to mention GAN which is inferior to other methods in all cases. We want to emphasize that in L282 we mention that a WGAN with the same computational budget as KSGAN completely fails, while KSGAN with half of the budget is still able to provide sensible results (see Fig.3) . We would also like to point out that the KSGAN(5,1) with the same computational budget as WGAN-GP(5,1) outperforms all the other evaluated models (again, see Fig. 3). In the MNIST experiments, we show that KSGAN maintains a better balance between modes of distribution in the case of vanilla MNIST, and performs on par with WGAN 3StackedMNIST. These results highlight the practical relevance of the KSGAN, in addition to what we believe is a strong and novel theoretical contribution to the GAN literature.
In the case of CIFAR10 experiments, we found a bug in the implementation of calculating evaluation metrics. Furthermore, we identified discrepancies between our hyper-parameters and the reference implementation of WGAN-GP [16]. After making the changes, the results look as follows:
| Method | IS | FID |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| GAN(1,1) | 7.3523 (0.28921) | 34.8848 (2.85136) |
| WGAN(1,1) | 7.4690 (0.10070) | 28.5329 (0.93204) |
| KSGAN(1,1) | 7.4929 (0.08039) | 27.5118 (0.88830) |
Thus, KSGAN slightly outperforms WGAN, but the difference is not statistically significant. | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Near-Optimal Streaming Heavy-Tailed Statistical Estimation with Clipped SGD | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper gives a new concentration method to improve the bounds for the convergence of clipped-SGD when the noise has bounded second moments in the online/streaming setting. The method has also applications in streaming heavy-tailed statistical estimation, including streaming mean estimation and regression. The main idea of the method is by bootstrapping Freedman's inequality via iterative refinement using a PAC Bayesian argument. This new concentration method allows to obtain better bounds, closer to the optimal bounds than previous methods.
Strengths: - Overall, I think the paper has made a good contribution in sharpening known bounds for heavy-tailed clipped-SGD. The idea of bootstrapping Freedman's inequality via PAC Bayesian is very interesting and I agree with the authors that it would be interesting to further investigate the applications of this argument.
- The proposed method has a wide range of applications and the authors have presented them quite thoroughly.
Weaknesses: - The second moment bound assumption used in this paper appears to be stronger than the variance bound used in prior work for analyzing clipped-SGD. My understanding, for example from the work of Gorbunov et al, is that with the bounded variance assumption they use the simple scalar version of Freedman's so the dependence on the dimension might not be as good as stated here in the paper. It would be good if the authors can discuss this more clearly, for example what if we just use the high dimension version of Freedman's?
- Another issue with current assumption 1 is that it seems not easy to extend the work to the bounded $p$-moment case, as we also know that we can do this very easily from the work of Gorbunov et al and follow up works
- The clipping method requires to know the time horizon, which we know is unnecessary in some prior work, eg, Nguyen et al. The bounds are also sub-optimal in $T$ (with an extra $\log\log T$ factor).
- In terms of presentation, I think proofs, especially section F, can be written in a more streamlined way and for example, with an outline.
- Some minor details
Line 82: There should be a square root in the bound
Line 106: We not(e) that
Reference
E. Gorbunov, M. Danilova, and A. Gasnikov. Stochastic optimization with heavy-tailed noise via accelerated gradient clipping, NeuRIPS, 2020
T. D. Nguyen, T. H. Nguyen, A. Ene, and H. Nguyen. Improved Convergence in High Probability of Clipped Gradient Methods with Heavy Tailed Noise, NeuRIPS, 2023
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - I'm a bit confused about the result in table 1. I didn't do the calculation myself but the bound shown in the last line mentioned both $T$ and $\epsilon$, which is odd; and the dependence $\log^2 1/\delta$ in the lower order term is also higher than other bounds. Could the authors explain?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have adequately addressed the limitations of the paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: $\newcommand{\Tr}{\mathsf{Tr}} \newcommand{\deff}{d_{\mathsf{eff}}} \newcommand{\vx}{\mathbf{x}} \newcommand{\vz}{\mathbf{z}} \newcommand{\vw}{\mathbf{w}} \newcommand{\vn}{\mathbf{n}} \newcommand{\bE}{\mathbb{E}} \newcommand{\bR}{\mathbb{R}} \newcommand{\dotp}[2]{\left\langle #1, #2 \right \rangle} \newcommand{\vv}{\mathbf{v}} \newcommand{\vS}{\mathbf{S}}$ Thank you for your helpful feedback. We hope to address your concerns below:
### Assumption 1 and Gorbunov et. al. [3]
Assumption 1 of our work is actually *equivalent to & more fine-grained than* the bounded second moment assumption of [3]. Here $\Tr(\Sigma)$ is the same as $\sigma^2$ in [3], as explained below. Assumption 1 is more fine-grained as it allows us to obtain bounds in terms of both $\Tr(\Sigma)$ and $\||\Sigma\||_2$.
Let $\vz \in \bR^d$ be a zero-mean random vector satisfying $\bE[\||\vz\||^2] \leq \sigma^2$ for some $\sigma \geq 0$ . By linearity of expectation, $\Tr(\bE[\vz \vz^T]) = \bE[\||\vz\||^2] \leq \sigma^2$. Hence, $\bE[\vz \vz^T]$ is a well-defined PSD matrix with $\Tr(\bE[\vz \vz^T]) \leq \sigma^2$. It follows that there exists some PSD matrix $\Sigma$ satisfying $\bE[\vz \vz^T] \preceq \Sigma$ such that $\Tr(\Sigma) \leq \sigma^2$. The converse is argued similarly.
### Iterative Refinement vs High Dimensional Freedman
As discussed in Section 6, a standalone application of the high-dimensional Freedman's inequality (i.e., Matrix Freedman) in conjunction with Assumption 1, is by itself insufficient to obtain the near-optimal rate, and instead implies a suboptimal rate of $\sqrt{\frac{\Tr(\Sigma) \ln(d/\delta)}{T}}$. This necessitates the development of our iterative refinement technique, which recursively improves the crude bound implied by Matrix Freedman, boosting it to a near-optimal rate of $\sqrt{\frac{\Tr(\Sigma) + \sqrt{\||\Sigma\||_2 \Tr(\Sigma)}\ln(\ln(T)/\delta)}{T}}$. We have updated our draft to emphasize this point more explicitly in our proof outline.
### Extending Assumption 1
Assumption 1 can be extended to bounded $p^{\mathsf{th}}$ moments for any $p > 1$ by assuming that there exists a PSD matrix $\vS$ satisfying $\bE_{\xi \sim P}[|\dotp{\vn(\vx;\xi)}{\vv}|^p] \leq (\vv^T \vS \vv)^{p/2} \ \forall \ \vv \in \bR^d$. We note that this generalization recovers Assumption 1 for $p = 2$ and is similar to the weak moment assumption considered by [1], which, to our knowledge, is the only work that analyzes statistical rates for heavy tailed mean estimation under bounded $p^{\mathsf{th}}$ moments ($p \leq 2$).
We also note that beyond the specific case of mean estimation studied in [1], very little is known about the optimal statistical rates of heavy-tailed estimation under bounded $p^{\mathsf{th}}$ moments, even in the full batch setting. Thus, it is unknown whether existing works that analyze clipped SGD and its variants under bounded $p^{\mathsf{th}}$ moments achieve statistical optimality.
### Known Time Horizon
Our assumption of a known time horizon was primarily made for the sake of clarity, and motivated by the fact that the time horizon / sample budget is typically known apriori in most ML and statistics applications. We believe our results can be extended to the anytime setting by using a time-varying clipping level of the form $\lambda_t = \Theta(\sqrt{t})$ (similar to [2]). However, incorporating this adjustment would significantly increase the length and technical complexity of our proofs, and subsequently obscure our main contributions. To this end, our results are presented assuming a fixed time horizon, similar to prior works on heavy tailed stochastic optimization [3,4].
### Extra $\ln(\ln(T))$ Term
We emphasize that the extra $\ln(\ln(T))$ term is not a major weakness of our work since our obtained rates continue to significantly outperform the previous state of the art in all practical regimes. To observe this, let $\deff = \tfrac{\Tr(\Sigma)}{\||\Sigma\||_2}$ Note that $1 \leq \deff \leq d$. Furthermore, $\forall \delta \in (0,1)$ and $T \leq e^{\exp({(\sqrt{\deff}-1)\ln(1/\delta)})}$ , we have $\sqrt{\deff} \ln(\ln(T)/\delta) \leq \deff \ln(1/\delta)$. Hence, our obtained rate of $\sqrt{\frac{\Tr(\Sigma) + \sqrt{\||\Sigma\||_2 \Tr(\Sigma)} \ln(\ln(T)/\delta)}{T}}$ significantly outperforms the previous best known rate of $\sqrt{\frac{\Tr(\Sigma)\ln(1/\delta)}{T}}$ unless the time-horizon / sample budget $T$ exceeds $ e^{\exp({(\sqrt{\deff}-1)\ln(1/\delta)})}$, which is quite impractical (as it involves a double exponential dependence on $\deff$)
### Proof Outline
Thank you for this helpful pointer. We have updated our draft to add a brief proof outline for each of our key results in the appropriate sections of the Appendix. Furthermore, in accordance with Reviewer 86zv's feedback, our updated draft contains an expanded proof sketch section at the beginning of the Appendix, which explains our iterative refinement technique more clearly, and also describes how its applied to prove Theorem 3 (clipped SGD for smooth convex objectives).
### Table 1
Thanks for pointing out this typo. The sample complexity bound in the last row of the table is derived from Equation 1; it is obtained by finding the $T$ for which the error in function value is equal to $\epsilon$. The $\ln(T)$ term in the table should be replaced by $\ln(1/\epsilon),$ which makes the lower order (in $\epsilon$) term $\frac{D_1\ln^2(\delta^{-1}\ln{1/\epsilon})}{\sqrt{\epsilon}}$
### Lines 82 and 106
Thanks for pointing these out. Our updated draft corrects these typos.
***
1. Cherapanamjeri et. al., Optimal Mean Estimation without a Variance, COLT 2022
2. Nguyen et. al., Improved Convergence in High Probability of Clipped Gradient Methods with Heavy Tails, NeurIPS 2023
3. Gorbunov et. al., Stochastic Optimization with Heavy Tailed Noise via Accelerated Gradient Clipping, NeurIPS 2020
4. Tsai et. al., Streaming Heavy Tailed Statistical Estimation, AISTATS 2022
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for the thoughtful response. I hope to see the above discussion in the paper. I maintain my current score. | Summary: This paper addresses the problem of high-dimensional heavy-tailed statistical estimation in a streaming setting, which is more challenging than the batch setting due to memory constraints.
The authors cast the problem as stochastic convex optimization (SCO) with heavy-tailed stochastic gradients.
They demonstrate that the Clipped Stochastic Gradient Descent (Clipped-SGD) algorithm attains near-optimal sub-Gaussian statistical rates when the second moment of the stochastic gradient noise is finite.
The rate is better than the previous result in terms of the fluctuation term that depends on $1/\delta$ in the smooth and strongly convex case and fills the blank for smooth convex and Lipschitz convex cases.
Strengths: 1. **Improved Error Bounds**: The paper improves the known error bounds for Clipped-SGD, bringing them closer to the optimal sub-Gaussian rates.
2. **Extension to Various Objectives**: The results are extended to smooth convex and Lipschitz convex objectives, broadening the applicability of Clipped-SGD to a wider range of optimization problems.
3. **Novel Iterative Refinement Strategy**: The introduction of an iterative refinement strategy for martingale concentration is new to me. It might inspire similar techniques.
4. **Good Clarity**: The paper is overall well-written and easy to follow.
Weaknesses: 1. **Missing Reference**: There is one paper from my perspective that is related but not cited.
2. **How to Generalize the Established Results**: The paper contains many new theoretical results. It is unclear how others could use these proposed techniques for their interested cases. There are also some cases that the author didn't mention. See the Questions for the details.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. **Missing Reference**: The paper should include a citation to [1*], which modifies adaptive Huber regression for online bandit and MDP with heavy-tailed rewards. This work is related and should be cited in the "Heavy-tailed Estimation" part of Section 1.2.
- [1*] Li, Xiang, and Qiang Sun. "Variance-aware decision making with linear function approximation under heavy-tailed rewards." Transactions on Machine Learning Research.
2. **Extension to Strongly Convex and Lipschitz Cases**: Is it possible to extend the results to the strongly convex and Lipschitz case? If so, how would these results differ from those already derived in this paper?
3. **Optimization Error and Statistical Error**: The error rate (e.g., $\|x_{T+1}-x^{\star}\|$ in Theorem 1) typically comprises two parts: the optimization error (i.e., $\frac{\gamma D_1}{T + \gamma}$ in (1)) and the statistical error (the other term in (1)). The paper's most significant contribution is on the statistical error, ensuring it behaves like a sub-Gaussian rate even when the gradient noise has only bounded variance. Two questions arise:
- Can the optimization error be accelerated using the techniques developed in this paper to handle heavy-tailed issues? This might be achieved by another algorithm. I just wonder whether the analysis technique, i.e., the iterative refinement strategy, could be used to tighten the analysis on the statistical error.
- Can the iterative refinement strategy be extended to cases with bounded $1+\delta_0$ moments, where $\delta_0 \in (0, 1]$, rather than just bounded variance?
4. **Comparison to Freedman's and Bernstein’s Inequalities**: The improvement in this paper is analogous to the improvement from Hoeffding's inequality to Bernstein’s inequality. However, to account for the Markov structure, Freedman’s inequality and the iterative refinement strategy are used to decouple dependencies. Is this understanding correct?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: See the Questions.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: $\newcommand{\Tr}{\mathsf{Tr}}$ Thank you for your helpful feedback. We hope to address your concerns below:
### Missing Reference
Thank you for pointing out this helpful reference. The work is indeed quite relevant and we have updated our draft to include the citation in Section 1.2.
### Extension to Lipschitz Strongly Convex Problems
Indeed, our proof techniques can be applied to Lipschitz Strongly Convex problems to obtain a guarantee similar to Theorem 1 for the weighted average iterate. However, due to space constraints, we decided to focus on results that directly led to interesting statistical applications such as mean estimation, linear regression, binary classification and LAD regression.
### Improving the Optimization Error
Indeed, we believe our iterative refinement strategy can be used to analyze accelerated stochastic optimization algorithms (such as the clipped SSTM algorithm of [1]) to obtain an improved optimization error rate. Accelerating the optimization error rate whilst simultaneously obtaining a (near)-optimal statistical rate is an interesting avenue of future work which we intend to look into.
### Bounded $1 + \delta_0$ Moments
We believe our iterative refinement technique is quite general and can be extended to handle bounded $1 + \delta_0$ moments for $\delta_0 \in (0, 1]$ by carefully modifying the MGF bounds involved in the proof of Theorem 5, along with a re-derivation of the Martix Freedman inequality with $1+\delta_0$ moment. This is a very promising avenue of future work which we are currently looking into.
We highlight that, unlike the well-studied case of bounded second moments, very little is known about the optimal statistical rates for heavy tailed estimation tasks under bounded $1 + \delta_0$ moments, *even in the full batch setting*. To the best of our knowledge, [2] is the only work that analyzes statistical rates in this framework (under the full batch setting) for the specific task of mean estimation. It is still unknown whether existing works that analyze clipped SGD and its variants under bounded $1 + \delta_0$ moments achieve statistical optimality.
### Comparison to Freedman and Bernstein Inequalities
To the best of our understanding, the improvement obtained via our iterative refinement technique actually surpasses the typical Hoeffding-to-Bernstein improvement. To observe this, we note the following:
- Transitioning from Hoeffding to Bernstein leads to a sharper "variance proxy" (i.e. it gives us sharper concentration inequalities where the typical fluctuation is of the order of the variance instead of the almost sure bound on the random variable), which is necessary for obtaining an improved statistical rate.
- Freedman's Inequality leads to further improvement by allowing the martingale / Markov structure of the noise to be incorporated within Bernstein's Inequality.
- However, we find that the above steps alone are insufficient for obtaining the desired near-optimal statistical rate. In particular, as discussed in Section 6, a direct use of (Matrix) Freedman's inequality implies a rate of $\sqrt{\frac{\Tr(\Sigma) \ln(d/\delta)}{T}}$ which is far from optimal. To overcome this, we develop the iterative refinement technique which recursively improves upon the coarse bound implied by Freedman's inequality. As a result, we finally obtain the desired near-optimal statistical rate of $\sqrt{\frac{\Tr(\Sigma) + \sqrt{\||\Sigma\||_2 \Tr(\Sigma)}\ln(\ln(T)/\delta)}{T}}$.
***
### References
1. Gorbunov et. al., Stochastic Optimization with Heavy Tailed Noise via Accelerated Gradient Clipping, NeurIPS 2020.
2. Cherapanamjeri et. al., Optimal Mean Estimation without a Variance, COLT 2022 | Summary: The paper introduces significant advancements in the field of statistical estimation and optimization for heavy-tailed data. It improves the convergence complexity of the widely-used clipped-SGD algorithm in both strongly convex and general convex settings, achieving near-optimal sub-Gaussian statistical rates when the second moment of the stochastic gradient noise is finite.
The paper also introduces refined concentration guarantees for vector-valued martingales using the Donsker-Varadhan Variational Principle, enhancing the PAC-Bayes bounds of Catoni and Giulini.
Additionally, it provides a fine-grained analysis of clipped SGD for heavy-tailed SCO problems, achieving nearly subgaussian performance in a streaming setting with improved complexity over previous work.
Furthermore, the paper develops streaming estimators for various heavy-tailed statistical problems, including mean estimation and regression (linear, logistic, and LAD), all exhibiting nearly subgaussian performance and improving upon prior guarantees.
Strengths: The paper presents several noteworthy contributions to the field of statistical estimation and optimization for heavy-tailed data, particularly in improving complexity.
The paper introduces novel improvements to the convergence complexity of the clipped-SGD algorithm, applicable to both strongly convex and general convex settings, as well as various assumption combinations. Achieving near-optimal sub-Gaussian statistical rates is a significant advancement in the field.
The technical rigor of the paper is evident in its thorough analysis and detailed proofs, with over 40 pages in the appendix. The authors systematically build on existing literature, as summarized in Table 1, providing a clear and logical progression of their arguments.
The fine-grained analysis of clipped SGD for heavy-tailed SCO problems is meticulously executed, demonstrating nearly subgaussian performance in a streaming setting. This improvement over previous work indicates a high level of quality in the research methodology and execution.
The paper is well-organized and clearly written, making complex theoretical concepts accessible. The authors effectively explain the significance of their contributions and how they build upon existing work, enhancing overall readability.
The improvements to the clipped-SGD algorithm have broad implications for practical applications in machine learning and statistical estimation, particularly in scenarios involving heavy-tailed data distributions.
By developing streaming estimators for various heavy-tailed statistical problems, the paper addresses a critical need in the field, providing robust solutions that exhibit nearly subgaussian performance. This has the potential to significantly impact both theoretical research and real-world applications.
Overall, the paper excels in originality, quality, clarity, and significance, making substantial contributions to the field of statistical estimation and optimization for heavy-tailed data.
Weaknesses: I am not an expert in this area and do not have time to check the proofs in detail. Therefore, my understanding relies solely on the content provided in the writing.
Despite its significant contributions, the paper has several areas that could benefit from improvement:
1. Lack of Technique-Proof Sketches in the Main Paper: While the paper presents numerous theorems, there is a noticeable absence of technique-proof sketches. These sketches would provide insights into how the authors build upon existing results compared to previous works. Including such sketches would enhance the clarity and transparency of the theoretical developments, making it easier for readers to grasp the novelty and progression of the contributions.
The current structure dedicates only half a page to showcasing the main technique in Section 6, which can be challenging for readers. A more effective approach might involve presenting one key theory with a detailed technique description in the main paper, and relegating supplementary theories to either the main paper with abbreviated details or the appendix.
2. Theoretical Overemphasis: The paper may overly focus on presenting multiple theories without sufficiently integrating them into a cohesive narrative or demonstrating their practical application. A clearer alignment of the theoretical developments with practical implications would strengthen the paper's impact and relevance.
For instance, Section 5, which features many applications, could benefit from highlighting some of them in the background to help readers understand the importance and scenarios of the problems studied.
3. Absence of Experimental Validation: Statistical estimation typically requires extensive data and iterations to observe convergence reliably. The lack of experimental validation in the paper limits its ability to demonstrate the practical effectiveness of the proposed algorithms.
Incorporating experiments with diverse datasets and comparisons with existing methods would provide empirical evidence of the proposed techniques' efficacy and robustness in real-world scenarios.
Addressing these points would enhance the paper’s clarity, relevance, and applicability, bridging the gap between theoretical developments and practical implementations in statistical estimation and optimization for heavy-tailed data.
I welcome further discussion on these points to ensure a comprehensive evaluation. Thanks!
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: See the Weaknesses part.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 4
Limitations: The paper is theoretical, and I believe there is no need to confirm societal impact.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your helpful feedback. We hope to address your concerns below:
### Proof Sketches
Thank you for this helpful pointer which has helped improve our work. We have updated our draft to add a detailed proof sketch in the beginning of our Appendix. This new section expands upon the proof sketch of the iterative refinement technique presented in Section 6, and also outlines a proof of Theorem 3 (i.e. clipped SGD for smooth convex objectives) by applyinh the iterative refinement technique. Since camera ready versions of accepted papers are allowed to have an extra page, we would be happy to shift this section to the main paper if our work is accepted.
### Theoretical Overemphasis
Thank you for pointing this out. Based on your helpful feedback, we have updated our presentation in Section 1 to emphasize the statistical applications, and added references to Section 5 wherever appropriate.
### Empirical Validation
We note that gradient clipping is a standard technique in machine learning whose empirical performance very well investigated. Indeed, gradient clipping is widely used in several empirical deployments such as LLMs, Vision Transformers, GANs and PPO. On the contrary, a sharp statistical analysis of gradient clipping which justifies its empirical effectiveness has been relatively limited. To this end, our work focuses on presenting a thorough analysis of the theory behind gradient clipping by sharply characterizing its performance on a wide variety of streaming heavy tailed statistical estimation tasks.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the response. I maintain my current evaluation of the paper as it is highly technical and covers areas I am unfamiliar with. I believe the paper could be improved based on the current modifications shown in the rebuttal. Good luck to you. | Summary: The paper studies the clipping SGD algorithm and shows a refined analysis to improve the dependence on the variance. The authors also provide different applications of their new results.
Strengths: The new concentration bounds are interesting, which is the key novel part of the work.
Weaknesses: 1. The key drawback is that the algorithm still requires many problem-dependent parameters like $D_1$ and $\mathrm{Tr}(\Sigma)$, which are hard to know, especially in a streaming setting.
1. The time horizon $T$ is also requested to make the algorithm work. Is it possible to extend to the any-time setting?
1. There is an extra $\log{\log{T}}$ term in the bounds.
1. Please specify the stepsize $\eta$ in Theorems 3 and 4.
1. Line 82, missing a square root?
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See **Weaknesses**.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Not applicable.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: $\newcommand{\Tr}{\mathsf{Tr}} \newcommand{\deff}{d_{\mathsf{eff}}}$ Thank you for your insightful feedback. We hope to address your concerns below:
### Problem Dependent Parameters
While our results assume knowledge of some problem-dependent quantities, we emphasize that such assumptions are **not unique to our work**. To the best of our knowledge, setting the step-size and related algorithmic parameters as a function of problem dependent quantities like $D_1$ and $\Tr(\Sigma)$ is a standard practice in the analysis of stochastic optimization algorithms [1; 2 Ch. 6 Thms 6.1 - 6.3]. Naturally, this is also prevalent in almost all prior works on clipped SGD [3, 4, 5]. For instance, [3, Thm 3.1] requires knowledge of $D_1$, $T$ and $\Tr(\Sigma)$ (corresponding to $R_0$, $N$ and $\sigma^2$ respectively as per their notation) to set the batch-size, clipping level and step-size for clipped SGD. Moreover, our results can be easily adapted to settings where only upper bounds of problem-dependent quantities are available while the precise values are unknown.
We note that design of *parameter-free optimization algorithms* (i.e. algorithms that don't require prior knowledge of problem-specific parameters) is a sub-field of its own [6] involving significant technical challenges and algorithmic modifications that are orthogonal to the focus of our work. We believe that the techniques developed in our work could be used in conjunction with ideas from the parameter-free optimization literature to develop streaming parameter-free heavy tailed statistical estimators. Investigating this would be an interesting avenue of future work.
### Known Time Horizon
Our assumption of a known time horizon was primarily made for the sake of clarity, and motivated by the fact that the time horizon (or equivalently, the sample budget) is typically known apriori in most ML and statistics applications (at least up to constant factors). We believe our results can be extended to the anytime setting by using a time-varying clipping level of the form $\lambda_t = \Theta(\sqrt{t})$ (similar to [5]). However, incorporating this adjustment would significantly increase the length and technical complexity of our proofs, and subsequently obscure our key technical contributions. To this end, our results are presented assuming a fixed time horizon, similar to prior works on heavy tailed stochastic optimization [3,4].
### Extra $\ln(\ln(T))$ Term
We respectfully disagree with the claim that the extra $\ln(\ln(T))$ term is a major weakness of our work. We emphasize that, despite this extra term, our obtained rates continue to **significantly outperform** the previous state of the art in all practical regimes. To observe this, let $\deff = \tfrac{\Tr(\Sigma)}{\||\Sigma\||_2}$ where $\Sigma$ is the noise covariance. Note that $1 \leq \deff \leq d$. Furthermore, $\forall \delta \in (0,1)$ and $T \leq e^{\exp({(\sqrt{\deff}-1)\ln(1/\delta)})}$ , we have $\sqrt{\deff} \ln(\ln(T)/\delta) \leq \deff \ln(1/\delta)$. Hence, our obtained rate of $\sqrt{\frac{\Tr(\Sigma) + \sqrt{\||\Sigma\||_2 \Tr(\Sigma)} \ln(\ln(T)/\delta)}{T}}$ significantly outperforms the previous best known rate of $\sqrt{\frac{\Tr(\Sigma)\ln(1/\delta)}{T}}$ unless the time-horizon / sample budget $T$ exceeds $ e^{\exp({(\sqrt{\deff}-1)\ln(1/\delta)})}$, which is quite impractical (as it involves a *double exponential* dependence on the effective dimension)
### $\eta$ in Theorems 3 and 4
Thank you for your feedback. We have updated our draft to specify $\eta$ in the statement of Theorems 3 and 4.
### Line 82
Thank you for the pointer. Line 82 is indeed missing a square root and we have updated our draft to rectify this.
***
### References
1. Chi Jin, Optimization for ML Lecture Notes : [URL](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BKqs34avawbcw7WDWgJpq-xkHxNEL4c5/view)
2. Sebastien Bubeck, Convex Optimization : Algorithms and Complexity
3. Gorbunov et. al., Stochastic Optimization with Heavy Tailed Noise via Accelerated Gradient Clipping, NeurIPS 2020
4. Tsai et. al., Streaming Heavy Tailed Statistical Estimation, AISTATS 2022
5. Nguyen et. al., Improved Convergence in High Probability of Clipped Gradient Methods with Heavy Tails, NeurIPS 2023
6. Orabona and Cutkosky, ICML 2020 Tutorial on Parameter Free Online Learning : [URL](https://parameterfree.com/icml-tutorial/)
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: I first thank the author's detailed response.
**Problem-dependent parameters and $T$.** I understand some existing works require these conditions. However, doing research needs to explore new possibilities instead of sticking to old ways. More importantly, as far as I know, at least two different ways can partially remove them at least in the non-smooth and convex case.
1. Parameter-free algorithms from the online learning community: For example, see [1], which can remove the dependence on $D_1$. However, as mentioned by the authors, I agree this may require additional algorithmic modifications.
2. Recent advances in stochastic optimization: Another simpler way is to combine the DoG technique proposed by [2]. For example, see [3], which not only removes $D_1$ but also removes $T$ in a simpler way.
Hence, I highly encourage the authors to consider how to remove these parameters (even partially), which can significantly improve the quality of the paper.
In addition, the authors mentioned that the results can be easily adapted to settings where only the upper bounds of problem-dependent quantities are known. However, I am not very convinced since it is hard to imagine that this can be guaranteed in a streaming setting. Could you provide some concrete examples?
**Extra $\log\log T$.**
1. I clarify that I didn't claim this is a major weakness. Instead, I put it in the weakness only because it is undesired and suboptimal. I believe the final goal should always be to find the optimal bound.
2. Moreover, I also would like to point out that the optimal rate without any extra logarithmic has already been achieved in prior works like [4] (which is even mentioned by the authors) and [3]. But I understand the double $\log$ factor here may appear due to different reasons, which could require different ways to remove. However, as discussed above, this is still a weakness in my opinion.
3. I appreciate the authors' discussion on this weakness, which I recommend adding as a remark in the paper.
**References**
[1] Zhang, J., & Cutkosky, A. (2022). Parameter-free regret in high probability with heavy tails. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 8000-8012.
[2] Ivgi, M., Hinder, O., & Carmon, Y. (2023, July). Dog is sgd’s best friend: A parameter-free dynamic step size schedule. In International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 14465-14499). PMLR.
[3] Liu, Z., & Zhou, Z. (2023). Stochastic Nonsmooth Convex Optimization with Heavy-Tailed Noises: High-Probability Bound, In-Expectation Rate and Initial Distance Adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12277.
[4] Nguyen, T. D., Nguyen, T. H., Ene, A., & Nguyen, H. (2023). Improved convergence in high probability of clipped gradient methods with heavy tailed noise. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 24191-24222.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Some notes regarding parameter free algorithms
Comment: Thank you for your feedback about removing problem dependent parameters. Obtaining fully parameter free optimization algorithms would be a great direction for future research and we will follow the helpful references provided by the reviewer. Below, we note some additional complexities which arise in the context of our work and argue that this requires additional techniques, beyond the scope of our work..
### Parameter Dependence on $D_1$ and $T$:
The reviewer points to the work [3] as an example to improve parameter dependence in the algorithm. We want to note that [3, Theorem 1] which removes dependence on $T$ in the parameters achieves a sub-optimal bound with extra $\log^2 T$ terms, whereas [3, Theorem 2] which has $T$ dependent parameters removes these extra factors. Since our sharp analysis is meant to remove such extra logarithmic factors from the leading order term, we believe a straightforward adaptation of such techniques might not work in our case.
Note that [3] considers a fixed upper bound on the stochastic gradient noise. However, Assumption 2 in our work allows for noise whose covariance can grow with distance from the optimum, which is necessary for important applications like linear regression. Thus, removing the dependence on the initial distance in our case might require additional technical considerations.
### Regarding $\log \log T$ factors:
Thank you for the clarification. After a careful examination of our technical results, removing the $\log \log T$ factors does not seem straightforward. We also note that the results given in [4, Theorem 3.1] and [3, Theorem 3] show that they achieve rates with a dependence of $d\log(1/\delta)$. We compare this to $d + \sqrt{d}\log(\tfrac{\log T}{\delta})$ dependence which we achieve in our work. Note that $\sigma^2$ in these works corresponds to $\mathsf{Tr}(\Sigma)$ in our work which we take to be $\Theta(d)$ for the sake of comparison. Thus our $\log\log T$ dependence is in the lower order term.
---
Rebuttal Comment 3.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for further discussion. Though some parts of the work are suboptimal and undesirable in my view, I think the refined analysis for SGD could potentially bring new insights into the optimization community. As such, I would increase my score to 6.
---
Reply to Comment 3.1.1:
Title: Thank you
Comment: Thank you very much. We hope to work on the directions pointed out by the reviewer in the future. | null | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Distributional Successor Features Enable Zero-Shot Policy Optimization | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper presents a novel approach called Generalized Occupancy Models (GOMs), which aims to address the challenges of model-based RL and successor features in transferring across tasks with various reward functions. GOMs learn a distribution of successor features from a stationary dataset, enabling the quick selection of optimal actions for new tasks without suffering from compounding error. The paper provides a theoretical analysis of GOMs and demonstrates their efficacy in simulated robotics problems.
Strengths: This work is overall well written and presented. It provides an interesting theoretical analysis of the proposed method, which is complemented by a decent empirical validation through experiments in various simulated robotics problems, demonstrating the practical applicability of GOMs. The paper also provides details regarding implementation alongside the codebase to enable reproducibility.
Weaknesses: In general, the paper appears to oversell the generalization capabilities a bit. One of the main assumptions is the shared state space across tasks, which is often simply not the case even when assuming the same agent/embodiment and closely related tasks (different number of objects/obstacles, different goal specifications, etc.).
This is to the best of my understanding also reflected to some extend in the experiments, which seem to leverage the same task, merely changing the goal or sequence. In the experiments I would like to see actual changes of the underlying reward function of performing a completely different task in the same setting. This could for example include stacking cubes vs moving them away from each other, etc.
Another concern is the statistical significance of the presented results. The experiments only report the mean over four seeds with 1 standard deviation, which might limit the statistical significance of the presented results. A more robust experimental setup with a larger number of seeds and a thorough analysis of the standard deviation would provide a more convincing argument for the efficacy of GOMs.
As acknowledged by the authors, GOMs require a pre-specified feature function that linearly expresses rewards, which may not always be feasible or accurate for all types of environments or tasks. However, the paper does not provide any further insights why Fourier feature perform better than others and if this is a general phenomenon with the proposed method or if this is something that needs to be tuned/selected for different tasks.
The paper may overstate its generalization capabilities. A significant assumption underpinning the framework is the consistency of the state space across tasks. In practical scenarios, even with the same agent or embodiment, state spaces can vary significantly, such as in the number of objects or obstacles present or in task goal specification. This limitation is, to the best of the reviewers knowledge, somewhat reflected in the experimental design, which seems to focus on variations of the same task by altering goals or sequences rather than fundamentally changing the underlying reward functions. The experiments could be more convincing if they included tasks that are distinctly different within the same environment, such as contrasting tasks of stacking cubes versus moving them apart.
The statistical robustness of the results is another area of concern. The experiments report averages over only four seeds with 1 standard deviation, which may not sufficiently demonstrate the reliability of the findings. A more comprehensive experimental setup with a greater number of seeds would strengthen the case for the effectiveness of GOMs.
While the authors recognize that GOMs depend on a pre-specified feature function capable of linearly expressing rewards, the paper only provides some analysis on why Fourier features were chosen and whether their performance is superior to other features in the appendix. This also raises the question whether Fourier features are generally applicable for the proposed method or if it is a parameter that needs to be fine-tuned or selected for different tasks/rewards. Addressing these points could further enhance the paper's contributions and provide clearer guidance on the applicability and limitations of GOMs.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - Why is Franka Kitchen using sparse rewards while this was changed for antmaze?
- Is the guidance coefficient also sensitive to different rewards within the same environment or just to the environment itself?
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors sufficiently discuss the limitations of their work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your positive feedback and finding our approach “novel”. We address your questions below.
> (W1) In the experiments I would like to see actual changes of the underlying reward function of performing a completely different task in the same setting.
We conduct additional experiments on the Hopper environment adapted from RaMP. The environment features 4 tasks: forward, backward, stand, and jump, with complex reward functions that are not easily specified by goals. The dataset is a mixture of replay buffers of expert agents trained to achieve these tasks. We adapt the environment and dataset to our offline setting, relabeling the dataset with different task rewards for transfer. GOM compares favorably to representative baselines from each class of methods, achieving the highest average return across 4 tasks.
> (W2) Another concern is the statistical significance of the presented results.
We recognize the importance of having more seeds in RL experiments. Due to the compute bottleneck, we present results with 6 seeds for a subset of the main experiments in Table 6 of the attached pdf. While we found no significant variation in the results, potentially due to the offline nature of the algorithms, we will update the results in the final revision with 6 seeds.
> (W3) However, the paper does not provide any further insights why Fourier feature perform better than others and if this is a general phenomenon with the proposed method or if this is something that needs to be tuned/selected for different tasks.
For antmaze and kitchen, we found random Fourier features to outperform random features and learned features. Recent work [1] shows that Fourier features can fit higher frequency functions, explaining its improved expressivity compared to standard random features. The reason it outperforms learned features is rather elusive, and we hypothesize that this is because the antmaze and kitchen rewards are rather structured. Hence it suffices to fit the reward with Fourier features, while learned features overfit to their pretraining objectives. For more complicated rewards in the Hopper tasks (Table 1 in pdf), we found a feature network pretrained with dynamics prediction objective to outperforms fourier feature. This applies to both our method and the USF baseline.
> (Q1) Why is Franka Kitchen using sparse rewards while this was changed for antmaze?
We use a dense reward for antmaze because the task is long horizon in nature, making it difficult to propagate sparse reward signals via dynamic programming. The kitchen tasks, on the other hand, have shorter horizons. Moreover, they use a stagewise sparse reward, assigning a reward equal to the number of completed stages (less sparse than a task-completion reward). This is a standard reward function for these types of multistage tasks [2].
> (Q2) Is the guidance coefficient also sensitive to different rewards within the same environment or just to the environment itself?
We found the same guidance coefficient to work well for all tasks within antmaze, kitchen, and hopper. Hence from our set of experiments the guidance coefficient is only sensitive to the environment itself but not the different rewards.
References:
[1] Ge Yang, Anurag Ajay, Pulkit Agrawal. Overcoming the Spectral Bias of Neural Value Approximation. ICLR 2022.
[2] Justin Fu, Aviral Kumar, Ofir Nachum, George Tucker, Sergey Levine. D4RL: Datasets for Deep Data-Driven Reinforcement Learning. ArXiv 2020.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thank you for your detailed response and for conducting the additional experiments. While I acknowledge the improvements and the potential benefits highlighted, I fully agree with reviewer tiLN's comment on the limited sample size and therefore I will not increase my score at this time.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: We understand your concern and have updated the main results for GOM and Universal SF with 10 seeds. As shown in the following table, we don’t see a significant difference in terms of the mean and the standard deviation of the runs compared to Table 1. We hope this can alleviate your concern about our results, and we will be sure to run 10 seeds for all experiments in the revision.
| Task | GOM | USF |
|---------------------|-------------|-------------|
| umaze-v2 | 591 ± 15 | 458 ± 6 |
| umaze-play-v2 | 576 ± 14 | 443 ± 5 |
| medium-diverse-v2 | 648 ± 54 | 373 ± 43 |
| medium-play-v2 | 625 ± 52 | 390 ± 34 |
| large-diverse-v2 | 345 ± 50 | 233 ± 28 |
| large-play-v2 | 327 ± 67 | 237 ± 39 |
| kitchen-partial | 40 ± 7 | 1 ± 1 |
| kitchen-mixed | 46 ± 9 | 9 ± 9 | | Summary: The paper describes a method for using distributions of successor features for fast transfer across reinforcement learning tasks. The method combines the long-term predictions and fast transfer properties of successor features with a "readout policy" (conditioned on achieving a particular successor feature) and a way to sample good successor features for the readout policy to achieve (using diffusion models).
Strengths: By modeling distributions over successor features, the paper argues that the model can avoid the policy-dependence of typical successor feature approaches. This is an important problem, and the paper does a good job of motivating the work.
The discussion of the model and its various components is clear.
The theoretical analysis is nice. While the theorems do not quite guarantee that the method will work well in practice, they are a good sign that the method should work under ideal conditions.
The experimental results are encouraging.
Weaknesses: 1. The paper's main argument in favor of the proposed method is that it overcomes the policy dependence of successor features, since the method is trained from a behavior dataset, rather than a particular policy.
I find this argument unconvincing. I understand that the behavior policy can be non-stationary, but the empirical distribution of the dataset itself implicitly defines a single policy. The paper could do a better job explaining how this is providing more diversity of experience than typical policy-dependent successor feature approaches.
If I had to guess, I'd say that path dependence in the trajectory/policy interactions means that structured policies generate more interesting trajectories that are hard to sample from a simple stochastic policy. For example, walking in a specific direction for a long time, versus taking a random walk. If we sample from the implicit policy defined by the empirical data distribution, we would get less structured behavior.
2. It's a little unclear to me which parts of the proposed method are new, and which are not. It's also unclear to me what the baseline successor feature methods would do in various places. For example, in the last paragraph of Section 4.2, maybe the paper could discuss what would normally be required to get S.F.s to work, so that it is clearer why GOMs represent a new class of models.
3. In Def 5.2, it is unclear where $s_t$ comes from in the return. Is it sampled from $\pi_\beta$? Or from $\pi$? And it's not immediately clear what $\pi$ is being used for here. It would be helpful if the paper gave an overview of why we need $\pi$ before introducing the definition.
One related concern here. This says that a single (s,a) pair is good if it gets lower return with low probability. But the probability that the policy gets high return would be a product over all the state-action pairs, right? Does that require a very strict $\delta$?
4. The experimental results only use 4 seeds, so it's hard to say if this will generalize. See Henderson et al. (2017, https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.06560) for a discussion on why this is so important.
5. It would be helpful to see an example of the trajectories that are being stitched together.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: No specific questions.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: N/A
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for the positive feedback! It is encouraging to hear that our paper is addressing “an important problem.” We reply to your questions below.
> (W1) The paper could do a better job explaining how this is providing more diversity of experience than typical policy-dependent successor feature approaches.
The offline dataset indeed defines an implicit policy. Compared to a policy trained to optimize a specific reward function, the implicit policy has less structure and more coverage. Carrying over your analogy, a task-optimal policy could be walking in a particular direction for a long time, whereas the implicit dataset policy could be taking a random walk. Importantly, we can extract behaviors for walking towards many different directions from a dataset of random walks, just by taking a subset of actions at each step. In contrast, the action distribution of the task-optimal policy at each step is already narrow, so if the target task requires taking a step towards a different direction, the policy contains no information about it. This explains how modeling the distribution of successor features in the dataset enables transfer to various rewards.
> (W2) It's a little unclear to me which parts of the proposed method are new, and which are not.
Our work is built on a line of work in successor features and distributional RL. SF [1] first demonstrates the feasibility of estimating successor features using Bellman backup and evaluating a given policy under new rewards using the linearity argument. RaMP [2] propose random features as a viable choice of features for SF and use open-loop planning to avoid policy dependency. Our main contributions are (1) demonstrating the feasibility of using diffusion models to learn a distributional successor feature given a dataset, and (2) the ability to extra optimal policies for arbitrary rewards via a readout policy and guided diffusion planning. We will add this clarification to the related work section of the paper.
> (W3) In Def 5.2, it is unclear where 𝑠𝑡 comes from in the return.
$ \mathbb P_{\pi_\beta}[Q^{\pi_\beta}(s,a)< \sum_{t=1}^\infty \gamma^{t-1}r(s_t)\mid s_1=s]$ indicates that $s_t$ is from trajectories generated by following the dataset actions $\pi_\beta$ starting from state $s$. We will add this clarification in the revision.
> (W4) The experimental results only use 4 seeds, so it's hard to say if this will generalize.
We recognize the importance of having more seeds in RL experiments. Due to the compute bottleneck, we present results with 6 seeds for a subset of the main experiments in Table 6 of the attached pdf. While we found no significant variation in the results, we will update the results in the final revision with 6 seeds.
> (W5) It would be helpful to see an example of the trajectories that are being stitched together.
In Fig 2 of the attached pdf, we visualize rollouts of the GOM policy on the roboverse PickPlace and BlockedDrawer tasks. The dataset only contains trajectories of the first phase (e.g. picking) or the second phase (e.g. placing). The GOM policy is able to generate a single trajectory that completes two phases.
References:
[1] André Barreto, Will Dabney, Rémi Munos, Jonathan J. Hunt, Tom Schaul, Hado van Hasselt, David Silver. Successor Features for Transfer in Reinforcement Learning. NeurIPS 2017.
[2] Boyuan Chen, Chuning Zhu, Pulkit Agrawal, Kaiqing Zhang, Abhishek Gupta. RaMP: Self-Supervised Reinforcement Learning that Transfers using Random Features. NeurIPS 2023.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the responses and for running the additional experiments. I think the benefits of accepting outweigh the risks, especially in light of the new experiments, but I won't increase my score due to the (still very low) number of seeds.
Using 6 seeds is hardly any better than 4. I strongly urge you to ensure that these results hold for at least 10 seeds, and ideally 20-30. It will only strengthen the paper. Multiple reviewers made this point, and your future readers (who you also have to convince) will have the same skepticism.
If compute is a bottleneck, that's an argument for running different experiments that are less computationally expensive---not an argument for lowering the standard of what counts as evidence. It is your responsibility to make your argument convincing, and 4-6 seeds are not convincing.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: We understand your concern and have updated the main results for GOM and Universal SF with 10 seeds. As shown in the following table, we don’t see a significant difference in terms of the mean and the standard deviation of the runs compared to Table 1. We hope this can alleviate your concern about our results, and we will be sure to run 10 seeds for all experiments in the revision.
| Task | GOM | USF |
|---------------------|-------------|-------------|
| umaze-v2 | 591 ± 15 | 458 ± 6 |
| umaze-play-v2 | 576 ± 14 | 443 ± 5 |
| medium-diverse-v2 | 648 ± 54 | 373 ± 43 |
| medium-play-v2 | 625 ± 52 | 390 ± 34 |
| large-diverse-v2 | 345 ± 50 | 233 ± 28 |
| large-play-v2 | 327 ± 67 | 237 ± 39 |
| kitchen-partial | 40 ± 7 | 1 ± 1 |
| kitchen-mixed | 46 ± 9 | 9 ± 9 | | Summary: This paper proposes an approach to zero-shot reinforcement learning through learning the distribution of successor features in deterministic MDPs allowing for the efficient computation of approximately optimal policies. The authors perform an empirical evaluation comparing their method to other zero-shot RL, model-based RL, and goal-conditioned RL methods showing gains in various continuous control domains.
Strengths: - The way the authors learn a distribution over successor features is novel, i.e., using a maximum likelihood approach versus prior works that use MMD [1, 2].
- Using a diffusion model as a generative model of features through a loss employing bootstrapping is unique to this work as well as its application for planning.
- The paper is generally well-written and easy to read.
[1] Pushi Zhang, Xiaoyu Chen, Li Zhao, Wei Xiong, Tao Qin, and Tie-Yan Liu. Distributional Reinforcement Learning for Multi-Dimensional Reward Functions. Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2021.
[2] Harley Wiltzer, Jesse Farebrother, Arthur Gretton, Yunhao Tang, André Barreto, Will Dabney, Marc G. Bellemare, and Mark Rowland. A Distributional Analogue to the Successor Representation. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2024.
Weaknesses: I have some serious issues with the framing of this paper. There are many contradictory statements and I believe the paper is a useful contribution but suffers from poor presentation and misleading claims. I'll outline my major concerns:
- I don't think the term generalized occupancy model is appropriate here. First, this isn't an occupancy model, we're modeling successor features not state occupancy as in [1]. Secondly, I don't believe the model is general in any sense of the word. As I'll discuss the method is policy dependent and is currently limited to deterministic MDPs.
- The paper gives a very confusing and somewhat misleading characterization of the policy-dependent nature of their method. There are many instances of this and I'll try to outline some of them:
- In the introduction, "Rather than modeling the successor features under a particular policy, GOMs model the entire distribution of successor features under the behavior policy, ...", isn't the behavior policy not a particular policy?
- "Importantly, DSM models the distributional successor measure of a particular policy, where the stochasticity stems purely from the policy and the dynamics. This makes it suitable for robust policy evaluation but not for transferring to arbitrary downstream tasks", If the DSM has these limitations and GOMs don't could you explain the difference between modeling the DSM over the mixture policy induced by a dataset when you have deterministic dynamics? If the answer is there's no difference then I don't think the framing of the DSM vs GOMs is a fair characterization.
- "A key limitation of successor features is their inherent dependence on a single policy, as they are defined as the accumulated features when acting according to a particular policy. This makes extracting optimal policies for new tasks challenging.", again, given the problem setting you describe (i.e., fixed dataset, deterministic dynamics) I fail to see how this is a limitation. Learning SFs on this dataset have the same policy dependence as GOMs.
- The proposed method is closely related to 𝛾-models [2] and geometric horizon models [3]. Under deterministic dynamics, there's not much algorithmic novelty as GOMs reduce to the same cross-entropy TD objective in [2, 3] trained with a diffusion model.
- I believe the experimental methodology has some room for improvement, especially around the comparison to USFA and FB. See my questions below.
[1] Harley Wiltzer, Jesse Farebrother, Arthur Gretton, Yunhao Tang, André Barreto, Will Dabney, Marc G. Bellemare, Mark Rowland. A Distributional Analogue to the Successor Representation. CoRR abs/2402.08530, (2024)
[2] Michael Janner, Igor Mordatch, and Sergey Levine. Gamma-Models: Generative Temporal Difference Learning for Infinite-Horizon Prediction. Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020.
[3] Shantanu Thakoor, Mark Rowland, Diana Borsa, Will Dabney, Rémi Munos, and André Barreto. Generalised Policy Improvement with Geometric Policy Composition. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2022.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - You claim that random Fourier features performed best for USFA. Can you provide results for this? I would expect to see a comparison with either the Laplacian features from [1] or the HILP features from [2]. In fact, [2] shows that random features (not fourier) perform poorly compared to better base features for USFA.
- You chose to set the embedding dimensionality of FB to 128, did you sweep over this value? The embedding dimensionality has a regularizing effect in FB and in many tasks needs to be decreased to obtain good performance.
- Section 6.4, GOMs aren't the only method that can solve tasks with arbitrary rewards, why wasn't a comparison with USFA / FB performed here?
- How is the objective function (1) an off-policy update? This is a textbook example of an on-policy update, the target policy is the behavior policy (mixture policy over the dataset) by definition here.
[1] Ahmed Touati, Jérémy Rapin, and Yann Ollivier. Does Zero-Shot Reinforcement Learning Exist? International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023.
[2] Park Seohong, Tobias Kreiman, and Sergey Levine. Foundation Policies with Hilbert Representations. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2024.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 4
Limitations: I don't believe the authors adequately addressed the limitations of their work. I believe assuming deterministic MDPs is too restrictive in practice. It's unclear how their method performs under any form of environment stochasticity which other methods like USFA, FB, and DSM do account for. At minimum, it would be nice for the authors to discuss this limitation in greater detail providing insight for how we can move beyond this limitation.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your constructive comments and for finding our paper “novel” and “well-written”. We address each point below.
> (W1) I don't think the term generalized occupancy model is appropriate here.
We name our method “generalized occupancy model” because successor features capture a notion of state occupancy. Specifically, the successor measure is defined as $M^\pi(s_0, s) := \sum_t \gamma^t p(s_t = s| s_0, \pi)$, i.e. the discounted sum of probability of reaching state $s$ at each timestep. On the other hand, the state occupancy measure is defined as $\rho^\pi(s) := \mathbb E_{s_0 \sim p_0} \sum_t \gamma^tp(s_t=s | s_0, \pi)$. Therefore, the successor measure is the state occupancy measure with initial state distribution set to $\delta(s_0)$. Since successor feature is the integration of the feature function under the successor measure, it represents the expected feature under a state occupancy measure. That said, we realize the connection is not obvious and are open to changing the title to e.g. “Transferable Reinforcement Learning via Distributional Successor Features.” or another title that you feel might be more appropriate.
> (W2.1, W2.3) In the introduction ... isn't the behavior policy not a particular policy? … Learning SFs on this dataset have the same policy dependence as GOMs.
By a “particular policy” we mean a policy that is trained to optimize a particular reward. Computing the successor feature allows one to quickly estimate its value under new rewards given the linear reward weights. However, standard SF does not provide a means to obtain an optimal policy for a new reward. That is to say, for a new reward function, we can evaluate how suboptimal the policy is, but we cannot make it better for this reward without retraining. What GOM does is we assume access to a dataset $D$, (which can indeed be represented by a behavior policy), and for any reward $r$, we can find the best policy for this reward within the support of the dataset. So while GOM cannot go beyond the behavior dataset, it is not restricted to evaluating the mean return of behavior policy. Instead, it can recover the best policy contained within the support of $D$ for arbitrary reward.
> (W2.2) ... could you explain the difference between modeling the DSM over the mixture policy induced by a dataset when you have deterministic dynamics?
We realize that the characterization of DSM as having these limitations while GOMs don't is indeed a bit misleading. Conceptually, GOM is equivalent to DSM applied to a mixture policy induced by a dataset under the assumption of deterministic dynamics. *The key distinction between these two work is that our work shows DSM combined with deterministic dynamics can be used for transfer across rewards.* This insight is not shown conceptually or experimentally within the DSM paper. Rather, the DSM paper is motivated by robust zero-shot policy evaluation and risk-sensitive policy selection, a valuable contribution in a different light. *In the revision, we will position GOM as exploring new capabilities of a DSM-style framework, instead of addressing the limitations of DSM.*
> (W3) The proposed method is closely related to 𝛾-models [2] and geometric horizon models [3].
While both GOMs and $\gamma$-models / geometric horizon models learn the discounted occupancy measure under the dynamics, they differ in their transferability. Gamma models model the geometrically discounted state distribution of a policy trained to optimize a specific reward. While we can draw samples from this distribution to evaluate this policy under new rewards, we cannot improve the policy without re-optimization. On the other hand, GOMs learn a distribution over outcomes in the dataset, which can then be used to extract optimal policies for downstream tasks as long as it is covered by the data distribution.
> (Q1) Ablation of feature type for USFA
We provide additional ablation studies of the feature choice for USFA in Table 2 of the attached pdf. On the antmaze-medium task, we found Fourier features to outperform transition, laplacian, and HILP features. We hypothesize that the periodic structure in Fourier features is suitable for structured rewards such as distance-to-goal in antmaze.
> (Q2) Sweep over embedding dimensionality of FB
We provide additional ablations over the feature dimension of FB representation in Table 3 of the attached pdf. We found decreasing the feature dimension to provide a regularization effect, although decreasing it too much restricts the representation capacity.
> (Q3) Section 6.4, why wasn't a comparison with USFA / FB performed here?
We omitted these baselines because we were not trying to compare GOMs to USFA / FB on this specific task. Rather, we were trying to demonstrate GOM’s ability to optimize arbitrary rewards, which goal-conditioned methods cannot. We add the comparisons to USFA/FB in Table 4 of the pdf. As expected, USFA / FB can distinguish the different human preferences by observing the rewards, though they perform slightly worse than GOM.
> (Q4) How is the objective function (1) an off-policy update?
We say this is an off-policy update in the sense that we can use data from some dataset / behavior policy to find an optimal policy for a different task. That said, we understand your point about it being an on-policy update on the behavior policy, and we will add a clarification accordingly.
> (Limitations) It's unclear how their method performs under any form of environment stochasticity.
While our theoretical derivations are conducted with the deterministic MDP assumption, in practice the environments we evaluate on do contain stochasticity (lines 356-358), and we find our method to perform well. To address the deterministic assumption, we need to separately account for the stochasticity of the environment and the policy. We will add the limitation of deterministic dynamics assumption to the conclusion section of the revision.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: I thank the authors for their rebuttal. Significant effort has been put into the rebuttal and with the proposed modifications I believe this paper can be a strong contribution to a burgeoning field that studies what I'll call zero-shot policy optimization. I respond to the author(s) rebuttal below but I want to summarize the primary modification required for me to fight for this paper: remove the term generalized occupancy model. As I outline below it's confusing for multiple reasons and doesn't highlight the unique aspect of this work: the ability to perform zero-shot policy optimization in deterministic MDPs by modeling the distributional successor measure or a more computationally tractable objective in modeling distributional successor features.
I want to raise my score to an 8 based on the proposed modifications making it to the final version of the paper as well as the additional empirical results exploring different base features and a more thorough investigation of the FB baseline. I strongly believe with these modifications this paper makes for a strong contribution to the community.
---
(W1): It's not that I didn't understand the connection, it's that I believe the current naming is misleading if we are modeling features instead of states, especially in light of the distributional successor measure. I would like to see the title and naming changed for various reasons (more described below). On "Transferable Reinforcement Learning via Distributional Successor Features." I think this still undersells the work, I like the emphasis on distributional successor features but I think emphasizing that you're performing "zero-shot policy optimization" is important. When I see this title I immediately think of the title of the SF paper in which case transfer can mean policy evaluation instead of policy optimization.
(W2.1, W2.3): Thanks for this explanation, I think I'm being pedantic concerning naming at this point, when I see occupancy the first question in my mind is: occupancy of what? I'm immediately thinking about a policy. I STRONGLY suggest changing the naming of the method, not only because of my point above but to highlight what's unique here. The fact your method can do "zero-shot policy optimization" is what's important so having planning or policy in the name seems important to help clear up confusion.
(W2.2): I really like the idea of discussing your method as a new capability of the DSM, I think this will help clear up some confusion and better highlight the contributions of this work.
(W3): I feel like we took one step forward and now one step back. I don't like this framing of GOM vs. gamma models / GHMs. Again, the unique thing about this work is the ability to perform zero-shot policy optimization under deterministic dynamics and how your specific choice of a GHM leads to an efficient planning routine. The cross-entropy TD loss in the GHM paper is essentially identical to the generative modeling component in your work, the only thing that differs is the model and that you're modeling features instead of states.
(Q1, Q2, Q3): I thank the authors for these additional experiments, they helped solidify the strong performance of your method.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thank you for recognizing our contribution to the field, and for engaging with us to help make the work properly scoped and positioned! Emphasizing "zero-shot policy optimization" in the title makes a lot of sense and will help distinguish our paper from related work. As a potential renaming, we propose changing the title to "Zero-Shot Policy Optimization via Distributional Successor Features" and naming our method "Diffusion Distributional Successor Features (DDSF)." We also agree on the comparison with GHM, and will emphasize that our key contribution is the ability to do zero-shot policy optimization. We will be sure to incorporate the additional experiments and discussions to the final revision. | Summary: The paper proposes a method based on successor features for modeling possible long-term outcomes in the environment based on data, together with a learned policy to achieve those outcomes. After training from offline data, the model can produce a policy for a given new reward function without any additional interaction with the environment.
Strengths: The general idea seems promising. Modeling long-term outcomes rather than single-step dynamics, like in regular model-based approaches, has the potential to help with the problem of error accumulation. This seems to be reflected in the evaluations performed.
The approach seems to outperform RaMP (although a modified version, made to be fully offline), another successor-feature-based method aiming to solve a similar issue of not being tied to a specific policy and being able to efficiently find policies optimizing for novel rewards.
Weaknesses: 1. The approach is explicitly modeling the distribution of outcomes in the training data. While it should have the ability to reach known outcomes from different initial configurations by performing trajectory stitching, it is unclear whether it could achieve any outcome not explicitly seen in the training data, even if it could be a simple combination of known ones. In contrast, model-based methods have the potential to allow for this, by reaching novel states by rolling out learned local models on novel action trajectories.
2. Another concern is related to finding the outcome that maximizes the given reward. Sampling in the space of all possible outcomes will not be scalable to more complicated environments, therefore it seems critical for the proposed conditional diffusion model to be able to find the desired outcome efficiently. It is difficult to judge based on the presented results that this is the case. In the ablation comparing the proposed method with random shooting, random shooting with 1000 samples outperforms the proposed method slightly while only taking twice as long to execute. It seems that for effectively finding the desired outcome in more complex environments this ratio would need to be much bigger, as we know that sampling will not be close to efficient enough.
3. The approach assumes access to the reward function in a functional form (or at least the value of it across the entire training dataset). It is unclear how realistic this assumption is. Other similar methods (like RaMP) use only the value of the new reward gotten from online interactions with the environment at test time.
The evaluations present might be insufficient to fully judge the quality of the approach:
4. Goal-Conditioned RL is trained on goals from only one half of the state space, while the proposed method is given data from the entire state space. This seems like inherently an unfair comparison. It would only be fair to give the same distribution to the proposed method for comparison.
5. Both the non-goal-conditioned evaluation and the trajectory stitching evaluation show simply that the method is capable of something in a most basic setup, beating only methods that by design are not capable of doing what is being evaluated. There should be more extensive evaluations to test how well they perform each of these functions, compared with other methods that might be plausibly used in such a case.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Can a model produce any behavior that cannot be done by explicit stitching of trajectory chunks from the training data? Does one of the existing evaluations showcase this?
Is there a way, based on current experimental results, to reason about the efficiency of finding the desired outcome as the domain becomes more and more complex? Is this part expected to become the bottleneck in those cases?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: It would be good to have a more clear comparison of pros on cons compared to baseline approaches the method is tested against, in particular related to some of the points raised above.
Additional evaluations would be valuable to be able to better judge the performance of the approach. Possibly, some of the evaluation environments from the RaMP paper could be used. Even with the proposed approach being fully offline it would be interesting to see how long it takes for methods evaluated there to catch up or exceed its performance. Most of the relevant baselines are already present in those evaluations -- the authors could possibly just run their approach and report those results.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable feedback and for finding our approach “promising.” We address your comments below.
> (W1) Model-based RL can generate novel action trajectories whereas GOM is constrained to the dataset distribution.
While model-based RL can generate novel trajectories when queried with out-of-distribution actions, these trajectories are not guaranteed to be accurate since the model has never seen these transitions during training. Optimizing the policy under hallucinated trajectories can lead to model exploitation, resulting in suboptimal behavior when the policy goes out-of-distribution. In general, the best we can do in offline RL (either model-based or model-free) is to find the best in-distribution trajectory [1]. There can be in-distribution interpolation to new states, but not extrapolation to out-of-distribution states. In this sense, GOM and model-based RL have equal capabilities.
> (W2, Q2) Concern about planning efficiency.
Planning efficiency is a common concern shared by model-based planning methods, as one needs to search over actions over a long horizon in each planning step. In practice, planning with models is still reasonable because we typically don’t have to plan over the entire task horizon, just a shorter horizon (e.g. by dropping the discount factor) followed by replanning (as in model predictive control). This type of MPC reduces planning complexity while maintaining overall performance. Empirically, we experiment with planning over shorter horizons by decreasing the discount factor. As shown in Table 4 in the attached pdf, for short-horizon tasks such as antmaze-umaze, reducing the planning horizon indeed leads to better results when fixing the planning budget. On the other hand, for longer-horizon problems such as antmaze-medium, as one would expect, reducing planning horizon comes at the cost of global optimality.
> (W3) The approach assumes access to the reward function in a functional form (or at least the value of it across the entire training dataset). It is unclear how realistic this assumption is.
Our method does not inherently require access to the reward function in a functional form. Rather, it only requires a dataset of $(s, r)$ pairs to perform reward regression. This dataset can be collected using an exploration policy, or using the current task policy in an online setting, or by relabeling existing datasets when we have functional rewards. In particular, the reward relabeling scheme described in the paper is equivalent to rolling out the behavior policy to collect a new dataset for each new reward.
> (W4) Goal-conditioned RL unfair comparison.
We note that hindsight goal-conditioned RL consists of two distributions: the data distribution and the goal relabelling distribution. In our experiments, we remove the test-time goal from the goal-relabeling distribution, so the agent is still trained on all the transition data, but does not see the test-time goal. That said, we acknowledge that the comparison with goal-conditioned RL is rather delicate. With full goal converge, GCRL will be tested on training data, an unfair advantage compared to GOM which does not see test time reward function. On the other hand, covering goals renders GCRL incapable of learning behaviors to reach the goal. We provide results with both misspecified goal distribution and full goal distribution in Table 1 and 4 (Appendix) respectively to give a complete picture. We further emphasize that goal-conditioned RL is not generally applicable to the family of tasks we are considering, as shown in Table 5 of the attached pdf, while GOMs are naturally applicable to any task with Markovian rewards.
> (W5) Non-goal-conditioned and trajectory stitching experiments show capability but not better performance to comparable methods.
The experiments in Sections 6.4 and 6.5 are designed for analytical purposes to highlight the capability of GOMs. We do provide more experiments comparing the *performance* of GOM in terms of each capability. Specifically, the kitchen-mixed environment in Table 3 of the paper requires explicitly stitching trajectories of completing different subtasks, as the dataset does not contain full task trajectory. We see that GOM outperforms baselines with trajectory stitching capability. To compare the performance of GOM on challenging non-goal-reaching tasks, we conduct additional experiments on the Hopper environment adapted from RAMP, where the agent is tasked with moving forward, moving backwards, standing, or jumping. As shown in Table 1, our method demonstrates competitive performance compared to the baselines, achieving the highest average return across 4 tasks.
> (Q1) Can a model produce any behavior that cannot be done by explicit stitching of trajectory chunks from the training data? Does one of the existing evaluations showcase this?
Stitching is typically achieved by dynamic programming (e.g. Bellman backup). GOM enables stitching via distributional Bellman backup, and hence exhibits the same stitching behavior as standard offline RL methods such as CQL, with the additional capability of transferring to new rewards.
> (Limitations) Additional evaluations would be valuable to be able to better judge the performance of the approach. Possibly, some of the evaluation environments from the RaMP paper could be used.
Thanks for suggesting additional evaluation environments. We adapt the Hopper environment from RaMP to the offline setting and compare our methods to representative baselines. We found our method to be competitive, achieving the highest average return across 4 tasks.
References:
[1] Sergey Levine, Aviral Kumar, George Tucker, Justin Fu. Offline Reinforcement Learning: Tutorial, Review, and Perspectives on Open Problems. ArXiv 2020.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: > (W1)
I am not sure I would fully agree with that characterization. For example, from MOPO, one of the model-based baselines the approach is compared with:
"For the algorithm to perform reliably, it’s crucial to balance the return and risk: 1. the potential gain in performance by escaping the behavioral distribution and finding a better policy, and 2. the risk of overfitting to the errors of the dynamics at regions far away from the behavioral distribution."
Part of the evaluations in that paper is also focusing on "generalization to out-of-distribution behaviors".
> (W2, Q2)
My main focus was on how much better the proposed guided diffusion procedure is than simple random shooting. To add to my previous comment, in Table 5 in the supplementary material the performance of the proposed method and random shooting @ 100 are within each other's standard deviations (631 +/- 67 vs. 619 +/- 90). The proposed method is slightly faster (42.9s vs 58.6s), but random shooting also seems to have a significant overhead (55.5s for 10 vs 58.6s for 100) and it is unclear where it comes from.
Additionally, one of the main selling points of the approach and differentiator from model-based approaches is the ability to model long-term outcomes. If the approach is instead used in an MPC fashion with a shorter horizon, differentiation from model-based methods becomes less clear as error accumulation might be less of an issue with a shorter horizon. It would be good to do a more extensive analysis of the proposed approach and model-based methods, both used in an MPC fashion, for a range of different planning horizons.
> (W3)
The main issue is the amount of (s, r) pairs needed for the new reward. While the behavior policy could be used to collect this data in an online fashion, if the amount of data needed is comparable to the size of the original dataset that would be a significant downside of the approach. Based on results presented we cannot say how much data is actually necessary to collect. In evaluation of some other online methods (like for example RaMP) we can clearly see how performance depends on the amount of interaction data collected.
> (W4)
I agree about the comparison being delicate. One issue is that the goal-conditioned method is given an arbitrarily more difficult task (removing goal labeling from half of the state space). No other method is given that variant, so it is unclear why comparing the two numbers would make any sense. One could choose any other percentage of goal labeling to be withheld to make the method arbitrarily worse.
> (W5)
I thank the authors for pointing out that the evaluation in Table 3 also requires trajectory stitching. I would suggest making this point in the main text of the paper. Section 6.5 being explicitly about trajectory stitching and not referring to those results, but to much simpler stitching evaluation, may cause the reader to miss the point.
Additional evaluations on non-goal-reaching tasks are very much appreciated. I noticed that the performance of RaMP on "Stand" and "Jump" tasks seems lower than in the original paper (3767 ± 94 vs. ~5200 and 3098 ± 61 vs. ~4700), it is unclear why that is the case.
> (Q1)
Appreciate your response. I think that is a fair answer.
> (Limitations)
Once more, the additional evaluations are very much appreciated. Note/question about it in (W5) above.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for responding to our rebuttal in detail. We address your questions below.
(W1) There is indeed a balance between staying within the behavior distribution and seeking potentially more optimal behavior by going out of distribution. This holds true for both model-based and GOM-style methods. In fact, we found the guided diffusion planner generating out-of-distribution outcomes when the guidance coefficients is too large, hence the importance of tuning the guidance coefficient. Alternatively, we can train an ensemble of GOMs to quantify the epistemic uncertainty and add a penalty term to the planning cost to generate more in-distribution behavior. We do not claim GOMs to suffer from less limitations than model-based RL. Rather, they face the same tradeoff between optimality and accuracy, which can be addressed in a similar fashion.
(W2) Thanks for clarifying your question. The overhead of random shooting @ 10 over guided diffusion comes from forwarding a 10 times larger batch through the diffusion sampling process and sorting the resulting values. The overhead is small per timestep, but accumulates over the number of diffusion and planning steps. We verify that planning with 1 random shooting sample (which is essentially sampling from the behavior policy) has roughly the same wall time as guided diffusion, at 42.5 seconds across 10 runs.
We emphasize that the tradeoff between planners is not central to the contribution of GOMs. GOM is a versatile framework that is compatible with various planners, and the particular instantiation of GOM using diffusion models opens up the possibility of guided diffusion planner as a faster alternative to random shooting.
We agree that the long-horizon planning ability is an important advantage of GOMs. We misunderstood your original question and conducted experiments with shorter planning horizons.
(W3) In this paper, we focus on the offline setting, investigating the transfer behavior as a result of modeling capability. We evaluate our method and baseline in a controlled setting with the same offline dataset. The number of online samples required to infer the reward function is an intriguing research question, and one that we hope to explore in a future work. To speculate, given the same online interactions, our method would infer the same reward weights as RaMP, since both use linear regression for reward inference. The difference in reward inference, therefore, would lie in the exploration behavior of the learned policies.
(W4) We realize the potential unfairness and confusion from introducing the misspecified goal-conditioned baseline. We are open to (1) presenting the full goal-conditioned baseline in Table 1 of the main paper, or (2) removing the goal-conditioned baseline from Table 1, keeping the comparison in Table 2. We hope to hear your suggestions on which would improve the paper more.
(W5) We are glad to hear that you found the additional experiments valuable. In order to convert the Hopper task from RaMP to the GOM setting, we made two modifications: (1) the original version computes velocity by taking the finite difference of adjacent timesteps, which are not accessible from the state vector offline. We instead directly use the qvel from the state vector. (2) GOM require rewards to be a function of state, so we remove the action penalty from the reward. While this intuitively should increase the reward, the removal of action penalty can lead to behavior with higher variance. We will add these clarifications to the revision of the paper.
We hope we have addressed your questions. Let us know if you have questions regarding our response. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewers for their careful reading and constructive feedback. We appreciate the reviewers for finding our approach “promising” and “novel, our paper “well-presented” and “easy to read,” and our experiments “encouraging.” We address some common questions here and defer more detailed responses to individual comments in the threads.
- We provide additional results on a new Hopper environment (Fig. 1) adapted from RaMP [1]. The environment features 4 tasks: forward, backward, stand, and jump, each with complicated reward function not directly specifiable by goals. We modify the original reward function by removing the action penalty, making the reward only dependent on the state. The dataset contains trajectories from replay buffers of expert policies trained to achieve each task. For GOM and USF, we use learned features pretrained with a dynamics prediction objective, as we found it to perform better than random features. As shown in Table 1 in the attached pdf, GOM compares favorable to representative baselines from each class of methods (USF, RaMP, COMBO), achieving the highest average return across 4 tasks.
- In Section 2, we perform additional ablation experiments.
- For USF (Table 2), we ablate the choice of features and found that random Fourier features outperforms pretrained features with transition, Laplacian, or HILP [5] objectives.
- For FB (Table 3), we ablate the feature dimensions and found decreasing the feature dimension to provide a regularization effect, although decreasing it too much restricts the representation capacity.
- We ablate the effective planning horizon of GOM by reducing the discount factor $\gamma$ (Table 4). We found for shorter horizon tasks (antmaze-umaze), the optimality of planned trajectories improves as the planning horizon decreases. However, for long-horizon tasks (antmaze-medium), reducing the horizon too much hurts global optimality.
- Fig. 2 of the attached pdf visualizes rollouts of the GOM policy on the roboverse PickPlace and BlockedDrawer tasks. The dataset only contains separate trajectories completing the first phase (e.g. picking) or the second phase (e.g. placing). The GOM policy is able to perform trajectory stitching and generate a single trajectory to complete the task.
- Section 4 provides additional baseline comparisons on the preference antmaze task. USF and FB are able to distinguish different user preferences, although their performance is slightly worse than GOM. Another goal-conditioned learning baseline, GCSL [6], commits to one mode representing the shortest path, regardless of the user preference.
- Several reviewers raise questions about the notion of “policy-independence.” We clarify that GOM models the distributional successor feature of the behavior policy, which is not optimal for a specific reward, but covers the optimal policies for various rewards. For any reward function, GOM is able to find the best policy within the support of the dataset. This is contrasted with related works such as SF [2, 3] and gamma models [4], which model the occupancy of a single task-optimal policy. This means they cannot transfer to new rewards without redoing policy optimization.
References:
[1] Boyuan Chen, Chuning Zhu, Pulkit Agrawal, Kaiqing Zhang, Abhishek Gupta. RaMP: Self-Supervised Reinforcement Learning that Transfers using Random Features. NeurIPS 2023.
[2] André Barreto, Will Dabney, Rémi Munos, Jonathan J. Hunt, Tom Schaul, Hado van Hasselt, David Silver. Successor Features for Transfer in Reinforcement Learning. NeurIPS 2017.
[3] Harley Wiltzer, Jesse Farebrother, Arthur Gretton, Yunhao Tang, André Barreto, Will Dabney, Marc G. Bellemare, Mark Rowland. A Distributional Analogue to the Successor Representation. ArXiv 2024.
[4] Michael Janner, Igor Mordatch, Sergey Levine. Gamma-Models: Generative Temporal Difference Learning for Infinite-Horizon Prediction. NeurIPS 2020.
[5] Seohong Park, Tobias Kreiman, Sergey Levine. Foundation Policies with Hilbert Representations. ICML 2024.
[6] Dibya Ghosh, Abhishek Gupta, Ashwin Reddy, Justin Fu, Coline Manon Devin, Benjamin Eysenbach, Sergey Levine. Learning to Reach Goals via Iterated Supervised Learning. ICLR 2021.
Pdf: /pdf/26a38b9b21b0ea5e55bdd5936c251111a72cec87.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Parameter-efficient Fine-tuning in Hyperspherical Space for Open-vocabulary Semantic Segmentation | Reject | Summary: The paper presents H-CLIP, a novel framework for open-vocabulary semantic segmentation using the CLIP model. The framework addresses three key challenges: high computational cost, misalignment between CLIP's image and text modalities, and degraded generalization ability on unseen categories when fine-tuning for pixel-level predictions. H-CLIP employs a symmetrical parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) strategy conducted in hyperspherical space for both CLIP modalities. This strategy uses efficient block-diagonal learnable transformation matrices and a dual cross-relation communication module to mitigate misalignment issues. Additionally, an orthogonality constraint based on the hyperspherical energy principle is applied to the text encoder to preserve the generalization ability of the pre-trained model.
Strengths: The introduction of the H-CLIP framework for open-vocabulary semantic segmentation represents a significant innovation. The use of a symmetrical parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) strategy in hyperspherical space is a unique approach to addressing the challenges associated with fine-tuning vision-language models.
The paper provides extensive experimental results across multiple benchmarks, including ADE20K, PASCAL VOC, and PASCAL-Context. These experiments validate the effectiveness of H-CLIP, showing its superior performance compared to state-of-the-art methods.
Weaknesses: 1. Consider that the expression in formula 5 does not specify how to interact with the \boldsymbol{R} matrix.
2. The paper states that current fine-tuning strategies are usually asymmetrical, but it does not provide enough evidence or references to support this claim. The authors should provide empirical evidence or references to support the claim of asymmetry.
3. While the paper extensively discusses the orthogonality constraint in the CLIP image encoder, it lacks an in-depth analysis of how the misalignment problem impacts segmentation performance. The authors should discuss the specific effects of misalignment on segmentation.
4. The paper should mention SAM (Segment Anything) and how the current work is still significant
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. This problem exists in other areas such as Object Detection or any dense detection tasks, does the proposed method is generalizable enough for other tasks as well?
2. Some relevant recent works are not discussed and compared such as [1] [2].
[1] Understanding and Constructing Latent Modality Structures in Multi-Modal Representation Learning (CVPR23)
[2] Controlling Text-to-Image Diffusion by Orthogonal Finetuning (NeurIPS 2023)
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The work is on semantic segmentation and there is no qualitative comparison shown in the main paper. There are some visuals in the supplementary, but most of those are from test set and there is no comparison shown with the baselines and existing methods, so it is not clear where the improvement is coming from. It will be good to see how the results improve with and without alignment.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback. We will include all new results and clarifications in the revised version.
### Weaknesses
> W1: Formula 5 does not specify how to interact with the $\boldsymbol{R}$ matrix.
**A1:** The interaction is introduced in Section 4.3. According to formula 6, we first treat all the matrices $\boldsymbol{R}$ in $l^{th}$ layer as a 3-order tensor $\mathcal{T}_{l}$.
Then, according to formula 7, we treat all the tensors $\mathcal{T}_{l}$ in parameter space as a 4-order tensor $\mathcal{T}$. After that, following formula 16, the interaction with the $\boldsymbol{R}$ matrix is achieved in $\mathcal{T}_w$ via two reversible relation matrices, i.e., $\mathbf{S}_3$ and $\mathbf{S}_4$.
Finally, in line with the manuscript, the tensor $\mathcal{T}_w$ is added in $\mathcal{T}$ by the updating rule $\mathcal{T} = \mathcal{T} + \alpha\mathcal{T}_w$. To sum up, formula 5 can be rewritten at the end of Section 4 (Methodology) as follows:
$$
\tilde{\textbf{M}}_l = \mathcal{F}_l(\textbf{M}_l; \mathcal{T}_l \mathbf{W}_l)
$$
We will clarify this in the revised version.
> W2: ... current fine-tuning strategies are usually asymmetrical, but it does not provide enough evidence or references ... .
**A2:** Many previous works [a-d] in the field of open-vocabulary semantic segmentation propose various types of asymmetric fine-tuning frameworks, where CLIP's text encoder is simply frozen, and the image branch is fine-tuned. We will provide these references in the revised version.
> W3: In-depth analysis of how the misalignment problem impacts segmentation performance.
**A3:** Current fine-tuning methods for open-vocabulary segmentation are usually asymmetrical, i.e., typically freezing CLIP's text encoder and fine-tuning its image encoder. This strategy inevitably causes a potential obstacle: misalignment. More specifically, the misalignment arises from different alignment granularities. The text encoder maintains image-to-text alignment, while the image encoder shifts from image-to-text to pixel-to-text alignment. Due to these different alignment goals, the optimization process is largely impeded, leading to sub-optimal performance. We also provide some visualizations in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 in the global author response PDF. One can observe that fine-tuning without alignment tends to separate the entire object region into a series of discrete regions due to the coarse granularity in understanding semantics.
> W4: Mention SAM (Segment Anything) and how the current work is still significant.
**A4:** We have cited SAM as a large-scale foundation model in Section 2.2 ([23] in the main manuscript). Although SAM is an influential foundation model for image segmentation, adopting it for open-vocabulary semantic segmentation is non-trivial. The reason is the masks provided by SAM is class-agnostic, with no semantics. Assigning semantics from open-vocabulary set to masks usually also faces the challenge of misalignment due to different granularities of multimodalities. Therefore, our work is still significant.
### Questions
> Q1:Generalizable enough for other dense prediction tasks?
**A5:** Yes, our method is generalizable for object detection. To show this, we validate our method on an open-vocabulary object detection task. Please see Table 2 in the global response.
> Q2:Discussing and comparing [1] [2].?
**A6:** The objective of [1] and our method is the same: to preserve both modality-shared and modality-specific information, but the proposed strategies are different. [1] achieves this goal by improving contrastive learning with several regularizations. However, its efficacy depends on delicately designed objectives and might cause optimization conflicts among them. In contrast, we propose a parameter-efficient fine-tuning strategy to preserve modality-specific information, where modality-shared information is achieved by DCRC. The official code of [1] is not available, and unfortunately, we have not received a response after emailing the first author of [1] until now.
OFT [2] aims to adopt orthogonal constraints on both CLIP's image encoder and text encoder to strictly maintain the original semantic structures. In contrast, we first apply orthogonal constraints only to the text encoder. This is crucial for open-vocabulary semantic segmentation, as it can provide more flexibility in fine-tuning the image encoder, facilitating the transfer of CLIP's initial alignment from image-level to pixel-level. We then introduce DCRC to encourage interactions between the encoders of the two modalities, further mitigating the misalignment issue. We compare our method with OFT [2] and demonstrate better performance, as shown below. We will include the above discussion in the revised version.
| Method |A-847|PC-459|A-150|PC-59|PAS-20|PAS-20$^b$|
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|OFT [2]|10.9|18.0|30.2|53.7|93.7|74.3|
|H-CLIP|**12.4**|**19.3**|**32.4**|**57.9**|**95.2**|**78.2**|
### Limitations
> L1: No qualitative comparison with the baselines and existing methods ... . It will be good to see how the results improve with and without alignment.
**A7:** Thanks for your question. We have provided some qualitative comparisons between our method and the existing SOTA method, i.e., CAT-Seg, on different datasets, as shown in Fig. 2, 3 and 4 in the main manuscript. To further validate the effectiveness of alignment, we present additional visual comparisons. Please see Fig.1 and Fig.2 in the global author response PDF.
[a] LANGUAGE-DRIVEN SEMANTIC SEGMENTATION. ICLR22.[b] Open-Vocabulary Semantic Segmentation with Mask-adapted CLIP. CVPR22.[c] Side Adapter Network for Open-Vocabulary Semantic Segmentation. CVPR23.[d] SED: A Simple Encoder-Decoder for Open-Vocabulary Semantic Segmentation. CVPR24. | Summary: The paper presents H-CLIP, a novel approach for parameter-efficient fine-tuning of the CLIP model in hyperspherical space, specifically for open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. H-CLIP includes the introduction of a symmetrical parameter-efficient fine-tuning strategy, leveraging hyperspherical energy principles. And a dual cross-relation communication module is utilized to enhance cross-modal and cross-layer alignment.
Strengths: - This paper is well-motivated. The proposed H-CLIP effectively addresses common issues in fine-tuning CLIP.
- The paper effectively argues that maintaining the hyperspherical energy helps preserve the model's generalization ability, a critical factor in multi-modal tasks.
- The ablation experiments are thorough and effectively support the arguments.
Weaknesses: - The writing needs improvement. The introduction lacks transitions from existing problems to the approach of this paper, such as introducing the advantages of Hyperspherical Space.
- Some formula descriptions can be optimized, for example, explaining the meaning of * in Formula 9.
- Details about comparison methods are needed. In Table 1, the compared method SAN includes an additional backbone.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: This work focuses more on cross-modal alignment and the issues related to hyperspherical space, rather than on custom designs for pixel-level predictions. It appears to be more of a generalizable cross-modal fine-tuning paradigm. Have the authors attempted to validate it on tasks beyond open-vocabulary semantic segmentation?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors provide no analysis of the limitations and broader impact. The author can analyze the limitations of this fine-tuning strategy in the field of OVS.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback and hope our following clarifications and responses could clear your concerns.
### Weaknesses
> W1: The introduction lacks transitions from existing problems to the approach of this paper, such as introducing the advantages of Hyperspherical Space.
**A1:** Introducing hyperspherical space in our method has two advantages. First, the hyperspherical space helps capture a model's intrinsic semantic structure. Specifically, by adhering to the hyperspherical energy principle to updating CLIP's text encoder, we preserve its intrinsic semantic knowledge, thus reducing the risk of over-fitting and improving performance on unseen classes. Second, the hyperspherical space provides a symmetric and robust parameter space for adapting CLIP, allowing its two encoders to mitigate the misalignment between the two modalities. We will add this content in the revised version.
> W2: Some formula descriptions can be optimized, for example, explaining the meaning of * in Formula 9.
**A2:** The "*" represents a tensor product. We will add it to the revised version. Thanks!
> W3: Details about comparison methods are needed. In Table 1, the compared method SAN includes an additional backbone.
**A3:** Thanks for your suggestion. We will correct this by filling in "side adapter" in the "Additional Backbone" column for SAN in the revised version.
### Questions
> Q1: This work focuses more on cross-modal alignment and the issues related to hyperspherical space, rather than on custom designs for pixel-level predictions. It appears to be more of a generalizable cross-modal fine-tuning paradigm. Have the authors attempted to validate it on tasks beyond open-vocabulary semantic segmentation?
**A4:** Thank you for your suggestion. We further validate our method on other tasks and observe consistent improvements. Please refer to the global response.
### Limitations
> L1: The authors provide no analysis of the limitations and broader impact. The author can analyze the limitations of this fine-tuning strategy in the field of OVS.
**A5:** Thank you for your comment. Our main contribution lies in proposing a parameter-efficient fine-tuning strategy for open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. However, we have not taken memory efficiency into account yet. Given the rapid evolution of vision foundation models for OVS, it is important to pursue low-cost deployment of fine-tuning, which could be improved in future work. | Summary: This paper proposes H-CLIP, a symmetrical parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) strategy conducted in hyperspherical space for both of the two CLIP modalities. The PEFT strategy is achieved by a series of efficient block-diagonal learnable transformation matrices and a dual cross-relation communication module among all learnable matrices. Extensive evaluations across various benchmarks show that H-CLIP achieves new SOTA open-vocabulary semantic segmentation results while only requiring updating approximately 4% of the total parameters of CLIP.
Strengths: This paper achieves SOTA performance.
The Parameter-efficient Fine-tuning is explained by tensor computation.
Weaknesses: 1.The novelty is limited. Partial orthogonal fine-tuning (POF) doesn't directly address the challenges of OVSS but rather offers a generic PEFT approach, so what is the difference between POF and OFT[1]? In Equ.5, which module's weights are used by the pre-trained weight matrix, Q(K or V)’s projection layer or FFN? Method details need detailed explanation.
2.Some concerns about DCRC. In this section, the author discusses the use of two k layers deep neural network to update the fourth-order tensor in Equ. 7, and provides some mathematical proof. However, these proofs only show that reversible transformations S(·) can be replaced by reversible matrices S (as shown in Equ. 11,12,14,15), and the authors use k layers deep neural network to replace such reversible matrices S, which cannot explain the meaning of reversible transformations. In other words, why adopting reversible transformations to update the fourth-order tensor in Equ. 7, and what is the role of reversible transformations? Is this approach also work in other fields other than semantic segmentation tasks? In addition, If the block diagonal structure is not adopted, Equ. 16 seems to require only one reversible matrices S4 for mapping. Does this reduce the number of parameters?
3.Insufficient experimental analysis.
1)The decoder of HCLIP seems to be learnable as well. Does the param in Table 2 calculate the decoder part? And, Is the proposed PEFT method applicable to various decoders? If it is replaced with linear probe, is the proposed method still effective? Need further exploration.
2)If a different VFM is adopted (not CLIP), is the proposed method still valid?
3)The proposed method should be compared with more PEFT methods such as VPT, Adapter, LST, SSF [1-5] .
[1] Zeju Qiu, Weiyang Liu, Haiwen Feng, Yuxuan Xue, Yao Feng, Zhen Liu, Dan Zhang, Adrian Weller, and Bernhard Schölkopf. Controlling text-to-image diffusion by orthogonal finetuning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:79320–79362, 2023.
[2] Menglin Jia, Luming Tang, Bor-Chun Chen, Claire Cardie, Serge Belongie, Bharath Hariharan, and Ser-Nam Lim. Visual prompt tuning. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 709–727. Springer, 2022.
[3] Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2790–2799. PMLR, 2019.
[4] Yi-Lin Sung, Jaemin Cho, and Mohit Bansal. Lst: Ladder side-tuning for parameter and memory efficient transfer learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:12991–13005, 2022.
[5] Dongze Lian, Daquan Zhou, Jiashi Feng, and Xinchao Wang. Scaling & shifting your features: A new baseline for efficient model tuning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:109–123, 2022.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See Weakness
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The limitation of the proposed method should be discussed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for your instructive comments. We will include all new results and clarifications in the revised version.
### Weaknesses
> W1: Limited novelty.
**A1:** We would like to emphasize that the novelty of our proposed POF mainly lies in its task-oriented design. Most previous OVSS methods opt for an asymmetric fine-tuning framework, which may easily lead to misalignment between the two modalities, thus impeding optimization speed[a]. In contrast, POF provides a symmetrical PEFT framework that unlocks a small number of parameters in hyperspherical space for encoders of the two modalities, largely mitigating this issue. We also visualize the training accuracy curve in Fig.3 of the global author response PDF, further demonstrating the advantage of the symmetric fine-tuning solution.
> W2: Difference between POF and OFT[1].
**A2:** OFT[1] adopts orthogonal constraints on both CLIP's image and text encoders to strictly maintain the original semantic structures. Differently, POF applies orthogonal constraints only to the text encoder. This is significant for OVSS, as POF provides more flexibility in fine-tuning the image encoder, facilitating the transfer of CLIP's initial alignment from text-to-image to text-to-pixel. Besides, we compare OFT with the variant of our method, which solely uses POF, demonstrating the obvious improvement of POF over OFT. See the table below.
||A-847|PC-459|A-150|PC-59|PAS-20|PAS-20$^b$|
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|OFT[1]|10.9|18.0|30.2|53.7|93.7|74.3|
|POF|**12.3**|**19.0**|**31.8**|**56.4**|**94.6**|**76.3**|
> W3: In Eq.5, which module's weights are used?
**A3:** The weights are adjusted in the attention layer in line with most PEFT methods, e.g., LoRA.
> W4: Why adopting reversible transformations to update the 4-order tensor in Eq.7, and its role ...?
**A4:** Through derivation in the manuscript and suppl., we conclude that the tensor-product between a pair of $p$-order tensors ($p \geq 3$) can be effectively converted into the matrix-product of internal 2-order matrices via $p-2$ reversible transformations $S_i(\cdot)$, $i=3,\cdots,p$. This indicates that $S_i(\cdot)$ can capture the correlations among the different matrices. In practice, we use $S_i(\cdot)$, $i=3,4$, to update the 4-order tensor in Eq.7, as it can efficiently achieve communication across modalities ($n_3$) and layers ($n_4$) in a parameter space. Besides, to capture potential non-linear relations among matrices, we achieve the reversible transformations $S_3(\cdot)$ and $S_4(\cdot)$ using two $k$-layer DNNs.
> W5: ... also work in other fields?
**A5:** Yes. Please see Table 1, 2 in the global response.
> W6: If the block diagonal structure is not adopted, ... reduce ... parameters?
**A6:** No, the block diagonal structure is necessary. For notation simplicity, we set $d_v=d_e=d$ in the Sec.4. However, in practice, the dimensions of the tunable matrix $R_{vi} \in \mathbb{R}^{d_v \times d_v}$ and $R_{ei} \in \mathbb{R}^{d_e \times d_e}$ are often not equal, e.g., $d_v=768$ and $d_v=512$ for ViT-B/16 version of CLIP. Given that the dimension of each matrix in a higher-order tensor must be consistent, we use a block diagonal structure to align the matrix dimensions between the two modalities, and thus, it cannot be discarded.
> W7: Does the param ... calculate the decoder? Applicable to various decoders?
**A7:** Following the protocol used in previous PEFT works[b,c], we do not calculate the parameters of the decoder for all the methods. We will indicate this in the revised version. To further evaluate the effectiveness of our method under different decoders, we replace our decoder with three classical decoders: a linear probe, a CNN-based decoder[d] and a transformer-based decoder[e]. Results show our method is effective with different decoders. See the table below.
|Decoder|Method|A-847|PC-459|A-150|PC-59|PAS-20|PAS-20$^b$|
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|Linear probe|LoRA|9.1|13.7|24.9|50.2|93.9|72.6|
||Ours|**10.2**|**15.4**|**26.6**|**51.1**|**94.2**|**73.7**|
|[d]|LoRA|9.4|16.4|26.3|54.1|94.1|74.2|
||Ours|**10.9**|**18.2**|**29.3**|**55.2**|**94.9**|**75.8**|
|[e]|LoRA|9.9|15.1|27.7|53.9|94.1|74.3|
||Ours|**11.2**|**17.8**|**30.8**|**56.4**|**95.1**|**77.3**|
> W8: Different VFM ... still valid?
**A8:** We base our method on fine-tuning another famous VFM, i.e., SAM (segment anything model), for adapting it to various downstream tasks. Note that SAM only has an image encoder, thus we remove the cross-modal interactions in DCRC. Besides, we incorporate orthogonal constraints in the learnable matrices of the lower layers of the encoder, as they contain generalizable representations of segmentation that should be preserved[f]. We follow the experimental settings provided in[g]. Our method shows competitive performance compared with other PEFT methods. See the table below.
||ADOME|NWPU|TRCAN|
|-|-|-|-|
|VPT[2]|87.7|81.8|71.5|
|SSF[5]|88.5|81.9|73.0|
|Ours|**90.9**|**84.2**|**74.1**|
> W9: Comparing with more PEFT methods.
**A9:** We provide comparisons with more PEFT methods. The results are shown below. Our method achieves the best performance over all datasets.
||A-847|PC-459|A-150|PC-59|PAS-20|PAS-20$^b$|
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|OFT[1]|10.9|18.0|30.2|53.7|93.7|74.3|
|VPT[2]|5.7|10.2|23.7|54.3|93.8|75.1|
|Adapter[3]|10.4|16.5|28.8|54.9|94.2|75.2|
|LST[4]|7.2|12.7|27.0|56.8|95.4|76.3|
|SSF[5]|6.9|15.2|28.6|52.1|93.2|72.8|
|Ours|**12.4**|**19.3**|**32.4**|**57.9**|**95.2**|**78.2**|
[a]Misalign, Contrast then Distill:Rethinking Misalignments in Language-Image Pretraining.ICCV23.[b]Bridging Vision and Language Encoders:Parameter-Efficient Tuning for Referring Image Segmentation.CVPR23.[c]Time-,Memory-and Parameter-Efficient Visual Adaptation. CVPR24.[d]Pyramid Scene Parsing Network.CVPR17.[e]Segmenter:Transformer for Semantic Segmentation.ICCV21.[f]MMA:Multi-Modal Adapter for Vision-Language Models.CVPR24.[g]Parameter Efficient Fine-tuning via Cross Block Orchestration for Segment Anything.CVPR24.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: I would like to keep the original score after reading through the rebuttal.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Title: Thanks for Your Response
Comment: We greatly appreciate your response and once again extend our sincere gratitude for the valuable time and effort you spent on the review. | Summary: This paper proposes a novel method called Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning in Hyperspherical Space for efficiently solving the open-vocabulary semantic segmentation problem. The method introduces a series of efficient block-diagonal learnable transformation matrices and a dual cross-relation communication module among all learnable matrices. To maintain the generalization ability offered by the CLIP text encoder, the authors designed a constraint to PEFT based on Hyperspherical Energy. Comprehensive results on open-vocabulary semantic segmentation benchmarks demonstrate the strong performance of this PEFT method by training only 4% of the total parameters of CLIP.
Strengths: The idea of introducing hyperspherical space to achieve parameter-efficient training is interesting. This approach attains state-of-the-art performance on current open-vocabulary semantic segmentation benchmarks with fewer learnable parameters. Additionally, it demonstrates better parameter efficiency than LORA on open-vocabulary semantic segmentation tasks, as shown in Table 3.
Weaknesses: I do not see any clear weaknesses. However, I acknowledge that I am not familiar with hyperspherical theorems.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: * Although I understand this is a parameter-efficient training strategy, is it possible to provide the training time for this method? I am interested in the training time efficiency perspective. It would be better to also provide a comparison of the time with other methods. (No need for complete training during rebuttal, just ensure the number of iterations is the same and compare the time and results.
* From the segmentation results in Table 3, this method outperforms LoRA. However, since LoRA is widely validated on other tasks, demonstrating the effectiveness of this method on other CLIP-based tasks would provide strong evidence to support its effectiveness and potential broad impact.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: See in questions. No other clear limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We truly thank you for the insightful comments and suggestions. We hope our responses can address your concerns.
### Questions
> Q1: Training time efficiency.
**A1:** We compare the training time of our method with other representative PEFT methods based on ViT-B/16 backbone, which shows comparable time costs. All results are obtained on 4 NVIDIA RTX 3090 GPUs. -- see the table below.
| Method | LoRA | VPT [a] | Ours |
|--------------|------|---------|------|
| Training Time (h) | 11.8 | 14.1 | 12.2 |
> Q2: The effectiveness of this method on other CLIP-based tasks would provide strong evidence to support its effectiveness and potential broad impact.
**A2:** Thank you for your suggestion. In response to your comment, we compare our method with LoRA on other CLIP-based tasks and consistently outperform it, demonstrating the generalization of our method. Please refer to Table 1 and Table 2 in the global response.
[a] Visual prompt tuning. ECCV22.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Reply to authors
Comment: Thanks for your rebuttal. The results in Tables 1 and 2 are strong, and your response addresses my concerns. Also, your work only slightly increases the training time compared to LoRA. I keep my score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thanks for Your Response
Comment: We sincerely thank you for your response! Your help in reviewing our paper has been very valuable in making it better. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ## Common Response for fine-tuning CLIP on other tasks
We thank all reviewers for their insightful comments. We will include all new results in the revised version.
Since all reviewers (Q2 of Reviewer YGpA, W5 of Reviewer WXoe, Q1 of Reviewer zhUR, and Q1 of Reviewer MnaP) are curious about the performance of our method on other CLIP-based tasks, we provide more detailed experimental comparisons in the tables below.
In Table 1, we present results of a few-shot classification task (16-shots) following the experimental settings provided in CoOp [a]. We also validate our method on an open-vocabulary object detection task and conduct an experiment on COCO dataset following [b] in Table 2. These results demonstrate the generalization ability of our method and its potential impact on the multi-modal community.
---
**Table 1. Comparisons on fine-tuning CLIP for a few-shot classification task**
|Methods||CLIP|||LoRA [c]|||H-CLIP (ours)||
|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|
|Datasets|Base(%)|Novel(%)|Harmonic mean(%)|Base(%)|Novel(%)|Harmonic mean(%)|Base(%)|Novel(%)|Harmonic mean(%)|
|ImageNet|72.43|68.14|70.22|76.53|69.88|73.05|**76.92**|**70.98**|**73.83**|
|caltech101|96.84|94.00|97.20|**98.00**|**94.11**|**96.02**|97.98|93.43|95.65|
|OxfordPets|91.17|97.26|94.12|95.34|97.69|96.50|**95.67**|**98.03**|**96.84**|
|StanfordCars|63.37|74.89|69.45|69.87|73.72|71.74|**74.45**|**76.34**|**75.73**|
|Flowers102|72.08|**77.80**|74.83|92.80|75.02|84.97|**96.01**|74.13|**86.66**|
|Food101|90.10|91.22|90.66|90.57|91.14|90.85|**90.66**|**91.48**|**91.07**|
|FGVCAircraft|27.19|**36.29**|31.09|25.94|17.23|21.71|**33.03**|34.45|**33.73**|
|SUN397|69.36|75.35|72.23|78.91|77.76|78.33|**79.87**|**78.56**|**79.21**|
|DTD|53.24|59.90|56.37|75.84|50.18|63.40|**78.23**|**57.76**|**67.95**|
|EuroSAT|56.48|64.05|60.03|86.79|64.12|73.75|**87.89**|**64.57**|**76.45**|
|UCF101|70.53|77.50|73.85|79.22|76.09|77.62|**82.78**|**78.35**|**80.50**|
|Average|69.34|74.22|71.70|79.07|71.64|74.97|**81.23**|**74.57**|**78.03**||
Our method shows much better average performance compared with LoRA [c] over 11 datasets on all evaluation metrics, i.e., base and novel accuracy, as well as their harmonic mean.
---
**Table 2. Comparisons on fine-tuning CLIP for an open-vocabulary object detection task**
| Method| AP$_{50}^{\texttt{Base}}$ | AP$_{50}^{\texttt{Novel}}$ |
|-|:-:|:-:|
| CLIP | 21.6 | 36.4 |
| CLIM (fully fine-tuning) | 25.7 | 42.5 |
| LoRA [c] | 24.4 | 41.5 |
| H-CLIP | 25.1 | **42.9**|
The results demonstrate that our method can generalize to an open-vocabulary object detection task, even making it comparable to the full fine-tuning method (CLIM).
---
[a] Learning to prompt for vision-language models. IJCV22.
[b]CLIM: Contrastive Language-Image Mosaic for Region Representation. AAAI24
[c]LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR22.
---
Pdf: /pdf/177ddf6760a086936ec9534ad9656b7c94df46f7.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
ReplaceAnything3D: Text-Guided Object Replacement in 3D Scenes with Compositional Scene Representations | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper introduces a method that can add a novel generated or customized object into a 3D reconstructed scene. To enable this, it proposes a Erase-and-Replace strategy. The first step is to remove an object queried by a text prompt: it segment out the target object using existing language based model and fine-tune existing NeRF model based on the inpainted images. The second step is to replace the object where it fine-tune existing NeRF model using the generated or customized images. The model compared with existing instruction based gaussian splatting and NeRF methods.
Strengths: - The paper is very straightforward and therefore it is easy to follow.
- The quality is convincing and promising (without considering previous works, though).
Weaknesses: ]The main weakness of this paper is coming from the lack of novelty.]
- The scope of the previous works highly within the previous works, and it actually does not push and advance well the boundary in the field of the research area of the 3D editing field. More specifically, it does not address any challenge which has not been addressed yet. Since the challenge is blurry, the contributions are highly suppressed.
- The proposed method is quite obvious and too straightforward. The impression from this paper, this paper is just to combine existing 3D inpainting and replacement methods. Most components inherit from previous works (or more advanced LLM components) where this paper optimize the engineering parts of the framework (e.g., effectively combine the previous modules, and better and marginally handling the text prompt, data, and mask inputs). Therefore, it also leads to the impression of the product engineering documents not research paper.
- Finally, the problem itself is not that novel and the proposed method does not even open extra-functionality in the field of 3D editing, which further suppresses the novelty of this paper.
[Potential unfairness]
- The way how existing methods use the prompt is different from the way how the authors used. Previous works have been using the prompts in a way of instruction style, e.g., turn the face to the hulk.
- To be more fair way, it would be nice if the authors can show the results from the same data with the same prompt as shown in the previous works. Since quantifying the performance of the 3D generative works is indeed challenging, this could be one of the ideal and most fair way for apple-to-apple comparison.
[Marginal quality improvement]
- Overall, the quality improvement from the previous works is not that promising. Based on the visual results, it is quite difficult to say which one is showing the better results. Based on the prediction results from the “original papers” (not this paper), it is hard to tell which ones are better. It also leads to the impression that the results shown in the paper is highly cherry-picked.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Based on the current Erase-and-Replace pipeline, it is not fully clear how the authors perform only style changes, e.g., the results in Figure 5-(bottom row). During the inpainting time, if the model fully removes the objects that belong to the dedicated categories in the text prompt, there should be some artifacts such as shape distortion. However, it seems the shape of the man’s torso is perfectly preserved. In such case, how could the shape be perfectly preserved while only changing the style?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 1
Limitations: This paper discussed about the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 3
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We are grateful to reviewer ZFSz for their review! However, we are concerned that the reviewer has misunderstood our proposed method, as the summary contains multiple factual inaccuracies. In particular, in their summary, the reviewer states that we:
“Fine-tune the existing NeRF model based on inpainted images” during the Erase Stage, in order to remove the target object, and then “Fine-tune the existing NeRF model using generated or customized images” during the Replace stage. Both of these are misunderstandings of our method. We do not fine tune an existing NeRF scene in our method; we introduce a novel Bubble-NeRF representation (Please see Fig 3, and lines 159 to 163 in main paper) which is trained from scratch, and which models a localised NeRF region corresponding to the masked pixels.
In Section 3.3 main paper, we explain how we first learn a background Bubble-NeRF during the Erase Stage, and in Section 3.4, we explain how we learn a foreground Bubble-NeRF which is composited with the background. In neither stage do we optimise these representations “using generated or customised images” as the reviewer claimed: directly training using inpainted images produces view-inconsistent results as we show in Fig 12, appendix, main paper. That is why we instead use a distillation-based training objective. However, given that the reviewer made no mention of our compositional structure, or localised Bubble-NeRF rendering in their summary (recognised as novelties by the other reviewers), we would be very grateful if they could carefully review our method (Section 3 main paper) before reconsidering their contribution rating.
We now address the reviewer’s specific concerns and questions:
“The proposed method is quite obvious and too straightforward… most components inherit from previous works…” As mentioned above, we are concerned that these statements are based on an erroneous understanding of our method. The novel components of our method; localised Bubble-NeRF rendering, Halo region supervision, compositional rendering approach were not mentioned by the reviewer in their summary. We show that an Erase-and-Replace methodology can simplify the task of 3D localised scene editing; an interesting insight that we believe the community can benefit from.
“The problem itself is not that novel and the method does no open extra-functionality in the field of 3D editing” We showed how our model’s compositional structure allows adding multiple objects into the scene (Figure 6 main paper) as well as adding personalised objects using DreamBooth diffusion-finetuning in section C of the appendix, which is a practical novelty, as we are not aware of existing works with these capabilities. As far as we are aware, we are also the first to show high-quality object replacement results on 360 scenes such as the Garden scene, which constitutes a quality novelty.
“The way how existing methods use the prompt is different from the way how the authors used.” Please note that we compare our method with 5 localised editing papers in our main paper (Gaussian Editor, Blended NeRF, DreamEditor, Reference-Guided Controllable Inpainting of NeRF, Repaint-NeRF). All of these methods are conditioned by a spatial prompt, indicating the region which should be edited, in addition to the target text prompt. For example, GaussianEditor specifies the editing region using segmentation masks obtained from SegmentAnythingModel, exactly like ours. The instruction-style of prompts used by InstructNeRF2NeRF (and the similar works shown in the appendix figure 10) is due to their reliance on InstructPix2Pix, an image translation method which is not required in our method. In contrast, our model is conditioned by prompts which directly describe the desired new object, exactly like GaussianEditor (Object Adding functionality), Blended NeRF, DreamEditor, Reference-Guided Controllable Inpainting of NeRF, Repaint-NeRF. We would be grateful if the reviewer could elaborate on why this is a disadvantage. Please note that InstructNeRF2NeRF tackles the related but separate problem of scene-level editing. That is why we compare our method with state-of-the-art localised editing papers in the main text of our paper, and compare with Instruct-NeRF2NeRF only for completeness in the appendix.
“The quality improvement from the previous works is not that promising. Based on the visual results, it is quite difficult to say which one is showing the better results.” We have conducted a User Study which can be found in tables 3 and 4, rebuttal PDF, showing that our model’s results are preferred overall, compared with the existing works. We also show quantitative CLIP-based prompt-matching and temporal consistency results in Tables 1 and 2, which show that our model performs best overall.
“It is not fully clear how the authors perform only style changes, e.g the in Figure 5 (bottom row)...” This is explained in section G2 of our appendix, main paper. As mentioned on line 571, we use a Replace-only variant of our model for the Face scene, because “the torso region in which we aim to generate new content overlaps entirely with the mask region”. Therefore, fully removing the torso in a separate Erase stage is unnecessary. Note that our method is able to generate new geometric details on the clothes (collars and jacket lapels), whilst the baseline methods keep the original geometry fixed, only updating the texture (see Figures 5 and 9 main paper).
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Follow-up questions
Comment: Dear authors,
While the summary of the paper is not the major source for my decision, I am highly thankful to correct some of my understanding (fine-tuning vs. training from scratch) through the rebuttals!
I have a follow-up question:
1) I would like to confirm with the authors, the learned NeRF is still object-specific, right?
2) Regarding the multi-object addition to the scene, why do you think it is not possible to perform adding multiple objects into scene using existing methods (that have shown single object insertion)?
3) Questions about the prompt: I would like to confirm with the authors, do you apply the same prompt used in your method for other baseline methods?
4) In the review, the quality I’ve mentioned is about the “spatial quality” which is highly correlated to the high-frequency perceptual details. Why do you think Clip-matching score can measure the spatial quality of the rendering?
Best,
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Response to follow-up questions
Comment: Many thanks for your response!
1. Yes, in the Replace stage we learn an object-specific Bubble-NeRF, which corresponds to the edit prompt $y_{replace}$ (Section 3.4, main paper). In the Erase stage (Section 3.3, main paper), we learn a scene-specific Bubble-NeRF, which represents the disoccluded background region.
2. We note that we are the first to show multi-object addition results for 3D scenes. However, we recognise that Gaussian Editor’s Add functionality can also in principle be applied multiple times. Nevertheless, as noted in our main paper lines 222 to 229, this method simply generates new objects in isolation using an image-to-3D method, which are manually positioned by the user, (see appendix F). This results in noticeable artifacts at the point of contact between the new object and its surroundings; we expect that these quality issues would be exacerbated in the multiple object case.
Regarding Instruct-NeRF2NeRF and other closely related **global** scene-editing methods, these methods struggle to add entirely new objects into scenes due to their reliance on inconsistent dataset updates, as stated in the limitations section of InstructNeRF2NeRF: “adding entirely new objects to the scene (such as adding a cup on a table) is challenging for various reasons”.
In comparison to existing **localised** NeRF-editing methods, note that our model differs due to its use of a compositional representation (see lines 174 - 183, and eqn 5 in our main paper). As a result of this, the bunny and strawberry results shown in figure 6 (main paper) can be represented by 2 separate Bubble-NeRFs, which are optimised iteratively. The strawberry is added to the scene first, which is then composited to become the new background model. We now apply the same process to add the bunny, ensuring scene harmonisation, whilst fixing the appearance of the strawberry. In contrast, existing localised-editing methods use a single NeRF representation for the whole scene. It is unclear whether this combined representation can be updated to insert a second object nearby to the first one as we do, without impacting the synthesis quality of the first object.
3. Yes, we use the exact same prompts when comparing with baseline methods in figure 4, figure 5 (top 2 rows), and figure 11, directly describing the new object e.g “a strawberry”. However, the Instruct-Pix2Pix based methods (figure 5 3rd row, figures 9 and 10) are conditioned by instruction-style prompts. In this case we use instruction-style prompts such as “give him a checkered jacket” for the baseline method (as described in the original IN2N paper) and “checkered jacket” for our method. Please note that whilst GaussianEditor (Replace mode) uses instruction-style prompts (3rd row, figure 5), the edits are nonetheless localised using a segmentation mask obtained from Segment-Anything, exactly as in our method.
4. We report CLIP-directional similarity to evaluate our model’s prompt adherence, following Instruct-NeRF2NeRF (and also reported by GaussianEditor, VicaNeRF, Collaborative Score Distillation, EfficientNeRF2NeRF, DreamEditor, and BlendedNeRF). Nevertheless, we have additionally conducted a User Study in tables 3 and 4 (rebuttal PDF), to further validate our results. Regarding the synthesis of high frequency details, we note that the “checkered jacket” prompt is a reported failure case in figure 9 of the InstructNeRF2NeRF paper. As noted in the figure caption, InstructPix2Pix updates “fail to consolidate in 3D” in this case, due to view-inconsistent high frequency texture details. Nevertheless, unlike the Instruct-pix2pix-based methods, our model’s distillation-based approach synthesises the correct texture, as shown in figures 5 and 9 of our paper. The challenging texture prompts “Hawaiian Shirt” and “Tartan Jacket” were similarly chosen to highlight our model’s detailed texture synthesis on the bottom row of figure 5. | Summary: This paper introduces a novel method that utilizes the Erase-and-Replace strategy for text-guided object replacement in 3D scenes. Given a collection of multi-view images, camera viewpoints, text prompts to describe the objects to be replaced and to be added, this method first optimizes the background scene with the original object erased, and then optimizes the foreground object to be added. Specifically, in the erase stage, it uses the HiFA distillation technique and optimizes a localized NeRF region, which covers the mask region of the original object and the surrounding nearby pixels. In the replace stage, it optimizes the foreground NeRF within the mask of the original object while alternatively substituting the background with constant RGB tensor during the distillation. The proposed approach enables localized 3D editing and obtains more realistic and detailed edited results.
Strengths: The strengths of this paper include:
(1) It proposes a novel Erase-and-Replace strategy that optimizes the background and foreground NeRF separately as compositional scenes, which obtains more realistic and detailed results.
(2) It presents extensive experiments to compare with other SOTA methods and outperforms the others in terms of the qualitative and quantitative results.
(3) The ablation study validates the effective role of the key designs of the proposed approach.
Weaknesses: The limitation of the proposed approach is also obvious, as described in the limitation section. Is is only suitable for the remove, add, replace editing. The added objects should be within the pre-specified mask region. And the training is time-consuming.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Questions:
(1) Figure 5 shows that the GaussianEditor makes less geometric modification compared to the proposed method. Is the main reason the Gaussian or NeRF representation?
(2) Is the proposed method able to replace the original object with a larger one? What if specifying a mask much larger than the original object?
(3) I’m curious about the property modification mentioned in the limitation. What if erasing the object with the original property and replacing it with the object with new property?
(4) It’s better to clarify the meanings of \theta_{bg} and \theta_{fg} in Section 3.2. Line 150 says “optimise RAM3D parameters \theta_{bg}”. It makes me assume that \theta_{bg} is all the parameters of RAM3D at this moment.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The paper includes a discussion about the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We are grateful to reviewer MnXs for their review! We are glad that they find our method “novel”, that it “enables localized 3D editing and obtains more realistic and detailed editing results”, that our experiments are “extensive”, and that our “ablation study validates the effective role of the key designs”.
We now address the reviewer’s specific concerns and questions:
“The proposed approach is only suitable for the remove, add, replace editing… added objects should be within the pre-specified mask region”. This is an accurate limitation; the scope of our work is localised scene editing, on the same track as the works cited in lines 82 to 103 in the main paper.
“The training is time-consuming” Our training time is in line with other NeRF-based localised scene editing approaches, but we recognise that GaussianEditor provides much faster results due to its usage of the highly efficient 3D Gaussian Splatting representation. Nevertheless, there is a clear quality tradeoff in this case as we show in figure 5 of our main paper, table 1 main paper, and the user study results in tables 3,4 of the rebuttal PDF. As we also note in figure 14 of our main paper appendix, GaussianEditor requires manual adjustment of the new inserted object’s position, unlike our method which places objects automatically.
“Figure 5 shows that GaussianEditor makes less geometric modification compared to the proposed method. Is the main reason the Gaussian or NeRF representation?” We thank the reviewer for this interesting question! The main reason is the same as why Instruct-NeRF2NeRF also makes less geometric modification. Both of those methods use an iterative dataset update strategy to update the existing 3D scene (Gaussian in the case of GaussianEditor, and NeRF in the case of Instruct-NeRF2NeRF). In contrast, our method learns a localised 3D representation (Bubble-NeRF) for the edit region, from scratch. For this reason, our method is not biased towards the original scene geometry, and is able to make larger modifications.
“Is the proposed method able to replace the original object with a larger one?” We tried replacing the statue with a bus in the rebuttal PDF in figure 18b). We note that the model succeeds in adding a small bus onto the plinth. However, the significant size mismatch between the Erased and newly-added object seems to lead to degraded synthesis quality.
“What if specifying a mask much larger than the original object?” We tried specifying a much larger mask than the original statue and generating “a super gigantic mechanical warrior robot” - results are in the rebuttal PDF, Figure 19b). We show the outline of the original statue object in red.
“What if erasing the object with the original property and replacing it with the object with the new property?” We tried replacing the statue with a gold statue, see results in rebuttal PDF, Figure 18a). Because our method generates a Bubble NeRF from scratch inside the edit region, the structural information regarding the original statue is lost, as stated in the limitations section of the main paper on line 654. Consequently, our model generates an entirely new statue, with gold appearance - we are happy to add this figure into the limitations section in the camera-ready.
“It’s better to clarify the meaning of \theta_{bg} and \theta_{fg} in Section 3.2…” We thank the reviewer for this recommendation, and will be happy to fix this in the camera-ready version.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the response. The rebuttal has addressed my concerns. I don't have any follow-up questions.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Many thanks for your useful feedback, which has helped us to improve our paper further! | Summary: The authors introduce a method for replacing 3D objects within 3D scenes based on text descriptions. They do this by using in-painting approaches for the set of images that are used for down-stream novel-view synthesis.
Strengths: The paper introduces an interesting and important application of distilling 2D diffusion models into 3D.
The use of a 3D implicit representation for both the erase and replace stages is well motivated for preserving 3D consistency.
Adding a slight halo seems like a nice solution for getting slight interactions (shadows, reflections) between the generated objects and the background.
They demonstrate their method working on single and multiple objects.
The baselines they compare against seem sensible.
Weaknesses: One big assumption from the way the method works is that the object you're attempting to replace is LARGER than the object you're replacing it with. SAM cannot necessarily anticipate the size difference between the two objects, and so during the erase stage the best it will be able to do is mask out the small area, in which case the area that you can inpaint over is very small. For instance, replacing the statue in Figure 2 with something larger, like a bus, will not work.
The opposite problem may also be true -- when the object being replaced is TOO much larger than the size of the object that is being added, the replace stage can end up over-sizing the object being added (perhaps encouraged by your foreground/background disentanglement, mentioned in Line 188 ). This can be seen in figure 3, where the cookies look (good but) all too gigantic in the scene.
Additionally, the Halo technique assumes that longer range interactions (further apart spatially within the image) between objects reflections don't exist, though this would easily not be true for reflective surfaces.
A table/quantitative results for Ablation studies would be more convincing. I'm especially curious about the impact of the depth reconstruction loss.
As you say in line 245, 3D scene editing is highly subjective -- in which case, I think a user study might make your claims stronger.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Will the trade-offs of using BubbleNerf representation harm the final stage of training a nerf according to multi-view images synthesized by BubbleNerfs? I'm assuming that's the reason why you want to use Nerfs for your final representation, and not the BubbleNerf representations you use for the erase and replace stages. Do you trade speed/expressive power for quality when you use BubbleNerfs?
How were the language prompts chosen for objects to add?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We are grateful to reviewer MzLe for their review! We are glad that they found our application “interesting and important”, that our Halo region method is a “nice solution”, and that the baselines we compare to are “sensible”. We now address the reviewer’s specific concerns and questions:
“Replacing the statue with something larger like a bus will not work…” We are grateful for this idea, and have generated new results for the statue scene, replacing the statue scene with a bus. As can be seen in Figure 18b) (attached Rebuttal PDF), the model adds a small bus onto the plinth. However, as the reviewer hypothesised, the significant size mismatch between the Erased and newly-added object seems to lead to degraded synthesis quality. We are happy to add this to the limitations section in the camera ready.
“In figure 3, the cookies look good but too gigantic in the scene…” This is true, and is a consequence of the generative prior from the inpainting model, which tends to generate objects that are scaled to fill up the masked region as much as possible, rather than a realistic scale relative to the scene. We would be happy to add a note on this to the limitations section.
“The Halo technique assumes that longer range interactions don’t exist … this would not be true for reflective surfaces.” This is true, and modelling reflective surfaces would be an interesting challenge for future work. We note that none of the existing localised scene editing papers can handle reflections either. In principle the Instruct-NeRF2NeRF-based global 3D editing papers may be able to handle reflective surfaces, but as far as we know this has not yet been demonstrated in practice.
“A table/quantitative results for Ablation studies would be more convincing. I'm especially curious about the impact of the depth reconstruction loss… a user study might make your claims stronger.” We thank the reviewer for these 2 great suggestions! We have now conducted a user study, and computed additional ablation results including quantitative results, shown in the rebuttal pdf Tables 5 and 6. The ablation results include a study on the impact of the depth loss, which is important for obtaining good quality results in the “Erase” stage. We also show SAM predictions (purple region) for segmentation masks in Figure 17, Rebuttal PDF, for the ablation model variants. Note that when the depth loss is removed, the Erased statue can still be detected by SAM, when applied to our model’s results. The same issue is observed when Halo loss is removed. However, SAM cannot detect the statue region when applied to our Full model’s Erase results, and instead correctly segments the hedge behind the statue.
For the user study, 15 participants were asked to compare our results with baseline models on Garden, Face and Fern scenes, using a variety of edit prompts. For each scene and prompt, participants were asked to indicate the best performing model in 2 categories. First, they were asked: “Which result most closely matches the given text prompt?”. And second, they were asked: “Which result shows the highest visual quality?” As shown in Tables 3,4 (Rebuttal PDF), our results were preferred overall in both categories.
“Do you trade speed/expressive power for quality when you use BubbleNeRFs?” Thank you for this interesting question! No, there is no quality tradeoff when using BubbleNeRFs. The tradeoff is that they only represent the localised mask region in the training dataset. As a consequence, our method enables us to dedicate almost the entire GPU memory capacity to querying the relevant rays corresponding to the edit region. This allows our method to work with higher final scene resolutions than InstructNeRF2NeRF (max resolution 512) or BlendedNeRF (max resolution 168); for example, we show results on the Fern scene at a final resolution of 2016x1512.
We cannot perform Novel-View-Synthesis of the entire scene using the BubbleNeRF, as it doesn’t model the scene background outside of the masked region. That is why we render our trained BubbleNeRF from every training set camera pose, and composite these renderings with the training images to obtain updated training images. These are then used to optimise a new NeRF or 3DGS scene (see Section 3.5, main paper), to obtain the final output.
“How were the language prompts chosen for objects to add?” We did not use a language model to generate prompts (as was done for example in InstructPix2Pix, as it requires a large training corpus of prompts), but rather simply wrote them out manually. Similarly to diffusion-based text-to-3D works, we experimented with adding real and mythical creatures (bunnies, corgis, dragons etc) as well as inanimate objects (including foods like pancakes and cookies) as can be seen in Figure 1 main paper.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: This addresses my original concerns, but Reviewer NhGj's followup comment is concerning -- please respond to that instead. For the same reason, I've changed my certainty to 3 (but leave the rating unchanged).
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: We are not sure which part of Reviewer NhGj's followup comment the reviewer is referring to. If it's regarding the baseline comparisons, we have now provided the training commands and details, and point to issues posted in the ViCA-NeRF github repo indicating that other users have encountered similar problems reproducing the published results. Regarding SDS/HiFA loss vs iterative dataset updates, this stems from misconceptions regarding the InstructNeRF2NeRF IDU method, which is explained in the ablation section of InstructNeRF2NeRF.
Finally, we would like to reiterate that these are all **global** scene editing methods, which we have made our best effort to reproduce, and include for completeness in the appendix (including EN2N which is not published work). **The main focus of our paper is localised scene editing,** which is why we report comparisons with the state-of-the-art localised methods in our main paper in Table 1, and Figures 4 and 5. Please let us know if there are any further clarifications we can provide to help the reviewer with their assessment! | Summary: This paper studies instruction-guided scene editing. They introduce ReplaceAnything3D (RAM3D, not sure why using this abbreviation), a two-stage method to first erase the object to be replaced and in-paint the background in the scene, and then generate the replace-to object and compose it to the scene after stage one. Some relatively good visualization results are shown in the paper.
Strengths: - The proposed pipeline itself is novel and well-motivated.
- Some of the visualization results look good.
Weaknesses: - The method highly utilized HiFA's loss and design in their pipeline, but no ablation study was provided about HiFA to indicate whether it is HiFA or the proposed method contributes most to the good results. More specifically, I would like to understand:
- If adding HiFA's loss and design with Instruct-NeRF2NeRF or GaussianEditor, can they achieve comparable results as the proposed method?
- If the proposed method removes HiFA's loss and uses simple loss - so it is natural that the results are worse than the full model, will it still get better results in GaussianEditor?
- Some of the editing results are not good enough.
- For clothes editing, there is always an obvious cutting edge (sometimes looks like the collar of a sweater) on the neck part.
- The replacement task is easier than standard instruction-guided editing, which explicitly indicates the replace-from and replace-to objects instead of requiring the diffusion model to infer.
- This makes some comparisons unfair, especially the ones in the model that struggle to infer the replace-from region, e.g., Fig.9.
- On the other hand, this setting also disables some editing, like more implicit instructions like "turn him into a bald" (i.e., remove hair).
- Besides, removing an object and regenerating one prevents the model from keeping sufficient identities from the replace-from objects, which is not acceptable in some cases, e.g., color editing of an object may result in highly different objects.
- The authors need to argue why this setting is reasonable and more/comparably reasonable compared with traditional instruction-guided editing tasks.
- The paper has multiple presentation deflects, especially the math formulas.
- For example, the subscripts should not be italicized. $\lambda_{HiFA}$ is used in the paper, which means $\lambda_{H\times i\times F\times A}$ instead of $\lambda_{\mathrm{HiFA}}$.
- The same variable should be referenced consistently, but the paper contains $y_{\mathrm{replace}}$ at L127/129/203 and $y_{replace}$ (which means $y_{r\times e\times p\times l\times a\times c\times e}$) at L174/185.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 1
Questions for Authors: Please see "Weaknesses".
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 1
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors have included broader impacts and limitations in the paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank reviewer NhGj for their review! We are glad that they found that our ‘visualization results look good’, and that the pipeline is ‘novel and well-motivated’. We now address the reviewer’s specific concerns and questions:
“No ablation study was provided about HiFA” - we have now added this ablation study to the attached rebuttal PDF. Note that HiFA loss is highly related to SDS loss, and differs only by an RGB loss component (see eqn 4 in HiFA paper). In Figure 19a), (rebuttal PDF) we show Replace-stage results using simple SDS loss (with random diffusion timestep sampling) adding a corgi in the statue scene. The results show slightly less detailed texture synthesis as the RGB-space loss is removed. Nevertheless, note that our pipeline still synthesises the new object in the correct position, which is orthogonal to synthesis quality. We additionally provide quantitative ablation results in Table 6, which show that using simple SDS loss leads to only a slight drop in CLIP Text-Image Direction Similarity.
“If adding HiFA’s loss and design with Instruct-NeRF2NeRF or GaussianEditor, can they achieve comparable results?” - this is based on a misunderstanding; there is no SDS loss or other distillation loss in those methods. Instruct-NeRF2NeRF achieves scene editing using iterative dataset updates, which are obtained with a prior Instruct-Pix2Pix model. So it is not clear how HiFA loss could be incorporated into InstructNeRF2NeRF. Similarly, GaussianEditor employs the same training strategy for its Edit functionality. It differs from InstructNeRF2NeRF mainly in its choice of 3D representation (3DGS instead of NeRF). Both methods use an iterative dataset update strategy to update the existing 3D scene. In contrast, our method learns a localised 3D representation (Bubble-NeRF) for the edit region, from scratch. For this reason, our method is not biased towards the original scene geometry, which enables larger modifications.
Finally, regarding the GaussianEditor object Addition functionality, this makes use of an off-the-shelf image-to-3d method (Wonder3D, which also does not use distillation) to generate the new object separately (which does not guarantee harmonisation with the original scene), and leaves it to the user to manually adjust the new object’s depth (see section F appendix main paper, and Figure 14). As we note in the main paper (line 226) this results in visible artefacts at the boundary between the object and its surroundings, and significant quality issues (see Figure 5, and User Study Table 3 in the Rebuttal PDF). It is unclear how these issues could be addressed using HiFA’s loss and design.
“Some of the editing results are not good enough. For clothes editing, there is always an obvious cutting edge on the neck…” We only claim that our model outperforms the existing state-of-the-art on this task. We would be grateful if reviewer NhGj could indicate which published works can perform better, in terms of synthesising intricate localised texture/geometry patterns to match the edit prompt. We compared with the state of the art GaussianEditor in figure 5, and note that it fails to update the geometry of the clothes to match the edit prompt, whilst the texture synthesis is also inferior to our model. We would like to improve the generated geometry still further in future work, but still note that our model performs better than existing models on this challenging scene.
“The replacement task is easier than standard instruction-guided editing … this makes some comparisons unfair, eg Fig.9” - Please note that in the main paper, we compare with state-of-the-art localised editing methods; Reference Guided Inpainting, Blended-NeRF, GaussianEditor, as well as DreamEditor and RePaintNeRF in the appendix. Each of these uses a spatial prompt to indicate the edit region; for example, GaussianEditor uses a SegmentAnything-based mask to select the edit region, exactly like ours. In Figure 9 (appendix) we compare with Instruct-NeRF2NeRF (standard instruction-guided editing) only for completeness - nevertheless, all main paper comparisons are like-for-like. Note that GaussianEditor (Addition functionality), Reference-Guided Inpainting, Blended NeRF, Repaint-NeRF and DreamEditor all use edit-descriptive prompts as guidance exactly like ours rather than being “instruction-guided”. We note that our Erase-and-Replace strategy for scene editing obtains better results than the existing SOTA 3D localised methods. Reducing the task to Erase-and-Replace should therefore be considered part of the appeal of our method.
“The authors need to argue why this setting is reasonable compared with traditional instruction-guided editing…” Localised 3D scene editing is a well-established research track with multiple related publications (please see our Related Work section, in particular lines 82 to 103). These works may be seen as a 3D extension of 2D conditional inpainting research works such as RePaint and Blended Diffusion, and have myriad potential applications in Mixed Reality and Film Production. These applications require 3D object editing functionalities whilst keeping object surroundings consistent. Note that this is not possible for general scene-editing frameworks as they a) tend to modify the entire scene, (Fig. 9 and 10, main paper, and Fig. 3 in the DreamEditor paper) and b) struggle with object removal (Fig. 9 main paper). Therefore, the localised 3D scene editing track has emerged to address these shortcomings, and should not be considered ‘easier than standard instruction-guided editing’ as it is simply addressing a different task.
“The paper has multiple presentation defects, especially the math formulas…” We are grateful to the reviewer for bringing this to our attention! We will fix these defects for the camera-ready version.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: I thank the authors for their rebuttal. Most of my concerns are addressed, but more concerns are raised.
***
> “Some of the editing results are not good enough. For clothes editing, there is always an obvious cutting edge on the neck…” We only claim that our model outperforms the existing state-of-the-art on this task.
I double-checked Fig.10 in the paper after receiving this response, but **more concerns** are raised about the provided results: The artifacts in baseline EN2N and ViCA-NeRF's results are *counter-intuitive*, even *unlikely* to exist in a valid setting of these baselines.
- In Fig.10, EN2N generates high-quality Tartan jacket results but unreasonable results in the "checkered jacket" task. However,
- In Fig.9, IN2N generates failed but reasonable results of the "checkered jacket" task, at least with a clear face.
- Given EN2N is an *improvement* of IN2N with *same* diffusion model IP2P, I wonder **why EN2N cannot produce at least the same face-clear results as IN2N**.
- In Fig.10, ViCA-NeRF generates two images with lots of artifacts
- I observed that the two images have very similarly structured artifacts, e.g., in the right images of both rows in ViCA-NeRF's results, the top-left part of the head has some hair-like artifacts.
- Given that ViCA-NeRF is mainly a *warp-based* method (based on NeRF-predicted depth) while both editing tasks do *not* change any geometry of the *head* part, I wonder **why similar artifacts appear in different edits** - were these artifacts already existing in the *original scene* input to ViCA-NeRF?
I would like the authors to provide some analysis of these counter-intuitive artifacts. Given the code of EN2N and ViCA-NeRF is publicly available, I would also like the authors to **provide the commands that they used to obtain the results in Fig.10**, e.g., `ns-train en2n ...` or `ns-train vica ...`, so that I, along with other reviewers and AC, can reproduce these results on our side.
I am paying close attention to this newly-noticed concern, since it is related to whether the baselines are compared in a fair setting, e.g., at least with reasonable hyperparameters.
***
> “If adding HiFA’s loss and design with Instruct-NeRF2NeRF or GaussianEditor, can they achieve comparable results?” - this is based on a misunderstanding; there is no SDS loss or other distillation loss in those methods.
In fact, the formulas (2)(3) in HiFA's paper have actually proven the *equivalence* between SDS loss and iterative DU's supervising rendered image with edited image. In (3) in HiFA's paper, the LHS is SDS loss, and RHS is a weighted term of $\|z - \hat{z}\|$, which is exactly the MSE loss between the latents of the original image and generated image (in one denoising step). Given that iterative DU's loss is between the original image and the generated image (in multiple denoising steps), they are actually equivalent.
As we are unable to discuss on new results, I would expect the authors to provide some high-level analysis of how the techniques in HiFA, e.g., formula (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9) improve the results. It will be better to provide some of these ablation studies in revision.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Title: Response to new concerns
Comment: Regarding EN2N, please note that the codebase linked by the official project site is marked as “Unofficial” - but is the only available codebase as far as we know. (Note that we are unable to post links here). We use the default command provided:
`ns-train {en2n,en2n-small} --data <face dataset>--load-dir <nerfacto checkpoint> --pipeline.prompt {"give him a checkered jacket"} --pipeline.guidance-scale 7.5 --pipeline.image-guidance-scale 1.5 nerfstudio-data --downscale-factor 2`
We tried both variants en2n and en2n-small (en2n-small uses a half-precision IP2P model). We obtain better results using en2n-small (shown in figure 10), while en2n completely collapsed.
Similarly for ViCA-NeRF, we follow the default command provided in the official repo:
`ns-train vica --data <face dataset> --load-dir <nerfacto checkpoint> --pipeline.prompt {"give him a tartan jacket"} nerfstudio-data --downscale-factor 2`
Regarding artefacts in the VICA-NeRF results, note that multiple users have encountered very similar issues on this dataset, as seen on the closed issues tab of the github repo. For example, please see the issues named **‘Problem of results - not the same as presented in the paper’, ‘I cannot reproduce the results :)’** and **‘Incorrect result’**. The reason why users have struggled to replicate the results is still an open question, best addressed by the authors. Nevertheless, we would be delighted if the reviewers/AC can run the code and help us (and other users!) identify the problem, and happy to update this in the camera-ready version.
Finally, **note that these global editing results are not part of our main comparison. However, we made our best effort to reproduce them (including EN2N which is not published work), and include them for completeness in the appendix.** Please be aware of the main paper and project scope (localised editing), and let us know any questions that you have on those comparisons.
> “In fact, the formulas (2)(3) in HiFA's paper have actually proven the equivalence between SDS loss and iterative DU's supervising rendered image with edited image … Given that iterative DU's loss is between the original image and the generated image (in multiple denoising steps), they are actually equivalent.”
On the contrary, **SDS loss and IDU are quite different, as discussed in the InstructNeRF2NeRF paper, Ablation Study section**. The key difference is that SDS loss (and HiFA loss) requires rendering full images to obtain encoded latents. In contrast, IN2N training randomly samples rays across all viewpoints, which precludes VAE encoding. Therefore, incorporating HiFA into the IN2N training step would require modifying IN2N to render full images. However, this was already tried in the IN2N ablation section under the heading SDS + InstructPix2Pix. As noted, this approach “results in a 3D scene with more artifacts … We largely attribute this to the fact that the standard SDS samples rays from a small collection of full images, which makes optimization more unreliable than sampling rays randomly across all viewpoints”.
> “As we are unable to discuss on new results, I would expect the authors to provide some high-level analysis of how the techniques in HiFA, e.g., formula (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9) improve the results. It will be better to provide some of these ablation studies in revision.”
Please note that only equations 4 and 5 in HiFA are relevant to our method. Equations 6 to 9 are concerned with z-variance regularisation which we do not use. Equation 3 and 4 shows how HiFA loss differs from SDS loss only by an RGB reconstruction term. As noted in the ablation section 5.2 of HiFA, the RGB term “contributes to a more natural appearance and enhanced texture details”. This section also shows that the HiFA timestep annealing scheme yields superior visual quality to standard random timestep-sampling - the reasons were analysed in section 4.1 under “a timestep annealing approach”.
We therefore adopt both HiFA loss (equation 4 in HiFA) and timestep annealing (equation 5 in HiFA). Nevertheless, we validate this choice with the new ablation studies in the rebuttal PDF. In Figure 19a) (and Table 6), we show our model’s output using standard SDS loss and random timestep sampling. As mentioned in our rebuttal above, “the results show slightly less detailed texture synthesis as the RGB-space loss is removed”. Nevertheless, we still obtain reasonable outputs which suggests that these 2 techniques adopted from HiFA are not critical to our model’s performance. We are happy to add these new ablation studies to the camera-ready paper.
Please note that whilst we have validated and adopted HiFAs loss function and timestep annealing as one component of our model, our core contributions are our localised Bubble-NeRF rendering, Erase-and-Replace strategy, and compositional scene representation. We hope the reviewer will take a holistic view of our work and not penalise us for using HiFA.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: I sincerely thank the authors for the detailed follow-up discussion.
***
> On the contrary, SDS loss and IDU are quite different, as discussed in the InstructNeRF2NeRF paper, Ablation Study section.
Again, I appreciate the authors for their detailed responses and arguments on this topic. Though I still do not fully agree with some arguments on the difference between SDS and IN2N - I also know and understand that the *practical* or *empirical* performance might be (even significantly) different, but I do not think there is a large difference in *theoretical* or *semantic* (like using different coefficients for L2 regularization may lead to success or failure in training but they do not have much difference) - I will not ask for more discussion on this point, the authors are correct that these are a little out of scope.
I also appreciate the authors for mentioning which parts of HiFA to adopt in their model: _"We therefore adopt both HiFA loss (equation 4 in HiFA) and timestep annealing (equation 5 in HiFA). Nevertheless, we validate this choice with the new ablation studies in the rebuttal PDF. "_ However, I would like to point out that the point of "timestep annealing" is *never* mentioned in the main paper, while this, may contribute a lot to the generation quality. I understand that this method is widely used and is already a part of the model design, and I will not ask for an ablation study on this part. I would highly suggest the authors to add this information in the revision, to improve the reproducibility.
Also, for the revision, I would kindly suggest that the authors mention fewer "adopt HiFA," "combining HiFA," and "utilize HiFA" in their revision - these may mislead the audiences (like me) that "the pipeline is highly utilizing the whole HiFA." Instead, they may directly mention the name of the components, like "HiFA's loss," and "timestep annealing strategy inspired by HiFA" to focus more on the components they adopted from HiFA, instead of HiFA itself.
***
As for the baseline issues, in fact, these days **I have also tried to reproduce the baseline results** with all default settings:
```
# train a nerfacto model to start, with default settings
ns-train nerfacto --data <face dataset>
# EN2N: default arguments of EN2N provided in their Github repo
ns-train en2n --data <face dataset> --load-dir <nerfacto checkpoint> --pipeline.prompt "give him a checkered jacket" --pipeline.guidance-scale 7.5 --pipeline.image-guidance-scale 1.5
# ViCA-NeRF: default arguments of ViCA-NeRF
ns-train vica --data <face dataset> --load-dir <nerfacto checkpoint> --pipeline.prompt "give him a checkered jacket"
```
And I obtained the results. As the policy about whether reviewers can post external links is not clear, I will instead describe the contents of images here. If AC permits, I will also post some images through an Anonymized Github's repo.
- EN2N: the appearance is like IN2N, but slightly more blurred. The jacket was modified to add some scaly texture (or checkered texture with relatively small grids). I did not observe the fully unreasonable results like in Fig.10.
- ViCA-NeRF: the appearance is that the jacket was changed to a suit with a scaly texture, while the collar part of the person has some blurred, checkered-like patterns. I did not observe any artifacts similar to those in Fig.10, either.
I noticed that the authors use a different command with an additional `nerfstudio-data --downscale-factor 2`. Perhaps these are some settings inherited from IN2N or some other baselines? I am not sure whether this is the reason why the results are worse and unreasonable.
In this case, I will not regard the credibility level of the results in this paper as unreliable at this point. However, I will try to reproduce the results with additional `nerfstudio-data --downscale-factor 2` during reviewer-AC discussions, and then decide whether and how to adjust the rating.
I would also humbly encourage and request other reviewers that, if you have time and spare GPUs, you may also try to reproduce these results to check them from your side.
Finally, again, I sincerely thank the authors for the detailed follow-up feedback. I understand that my previous comment pointed out an issue not observed in the original review and was not sent in a very timely manner, and I sincerely apologize for this. I would also suggest the authors revise their Fig.10 with the results without `nerfstudio-data --downscale-factor 2` in their revision, to achieve a fair comparison with the baselines - I agree that the proposed method is still better than the baselines in this version, and this will not change any rating about the quality.
---
Rebuttal Comment 3.1:
Title: Follow-Up Of Baseline Reproducibility Concerns
Comment: As a follow-up, I have completed the reproduction with the additional `nerfstudio-data --downscale-factor 2` argument. Namely, I am using the following commands:
```
# Nerfacto
ns-train nerfacto --data <face dataset> nerfstudio-data --downscale-factor 2
# EN2N
ns-train en2n --data <face dataset> --load-dir <nerfacto checkpoint> --pipeline.prompt "give him a checkered jacket" --pipeline.guidance-scale 7.5 --pipeline.image-guidance-scale 1.5 nerfstudio-data --downscale-factor 2
# ViCA-Ne
ns-train vica --data <face dataset> --load-dir <nerfacto checkpoint> --pipeline.prompt "give him a checkered jacket" nerfstudio-data --downscale-factor 2
```
The results are as follows in the language description:
- EN2N: I tried this experiment twice, but both crashed in the middle. Before crashing:
- Run 1: Though the scaly textures are also added to the jacket, the whole image was highly reddish.
- Run 2: The result is like the one without `nerfstudio-data --downscale-factor 2`, but more blurred, and the scaly textures are less obvious.
- Though both these runs' results do not perfectly match those in Fig.10, due the the randomness and unstability of the model itself, it is not impossible that it may produce some results like those in Fig.10.
- For academic rigor, I also reproduced the results of "Tartan jacket", and the results is quite similar to Fig.10.
- ViCA-NeRF: Very blurred results with flocs everywhere. These artifacts match the results as shown in Fig.10.
From the results above, I will not regard the results as unreliable any longer. I do not know why the authors added `--downscale-factor 2` instead of using default arguments, but I tend to believe that there is a valid reason for the authors to do that, given the following facts:
- The original resolution of the "face" scene is 994x738.
- Given that IP2P was trained on a low resolution of 256x256, it looks reasonable to downscale the images to 497x369, although IP2P claimed to generalize well at 512x512 resolution (appendix A.3) and can actually work at 768 resolution (Fig.6).
- On the other hand, the pipeline of EN2N and ViCA-NeRF may also scale the image before inputting to IP2P, this might be the key to make it work for default settings, but may also result in failures if downscale in advance.
Considering all these points, I would regard this issue as an unintentional misuse of the baseline codes due to an unintentional misunderstanding. In this case, I would not penalize the authors for not providing the baselines at their optimal settings in the original paper. However, the authors should still update Fig.10 in their revision for a fair comparison.
Again, I appreciate for the detailed response from the authors. Finally, Considering all the strengths and weaknesses of this paper, I will not further decrease the ratings. At this point, I tend to keep my original rating, but I am also open to increase the rating, and may do so after engaging in the reviewer-AC discussion.
---
Rebuttal 4:
Comment: Dear AC,
Thank you for following up and acknowledging my efforts. Your understanding is correct - the degrading of baseline results from an unintentional misuse (in my opinion) of `--downscale-factor 2`, while the optimal command for a fair comparison is the default one without it.
I provide the results through this Anonymous Github Repo: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/neurips24_15922_review_NhGj-5684. As I do not have much time to render them as videos (also, some checkpoints are not saved due to crashing), I provide the results as Wandb validation images, where the left part is the original view and the right part is the edited view. These views are randomly sampled from all the validation views, so they might be different in different runs, but they should be sufficient for us to see the quality and artifact patterns. I apologize for the inconvenience here.
Here, I would like to provide some results in images from the same viewpoint. Unfortunately, OpenReview does not support image markdowns `![]()`, and I can only provide the links. All the results except for the "Tartan jacket" one are "checkered jacket".
- EN2N
- [EN2N Default](https://anonymous.4open.science/r/neurips24_15922_review_NhGj-5684/en2n_default/3.png)
- [EN2N w/ Downscaling Run1](https://anonymous.4open.science/r/neurips24_15922_review_NhGj-5684/en2n_downscale2_run1/2.png)
- [EN2N w/ Downscaling Run2](https://anonymous.4open.science/r/neurips24_15922_review_NhGj-5684/en2n_downscale2_run2/3.png)
- [EN2N w/ Downscaling "Tartan Jacket"](https://anonymous.4open.science/r/neurips24_15922_review_NhGj-5684/en2n_downscale2_Tartan/2.png)
- ViCA-NeRF
- [ViCA Default](https://anonymous.4open.science/r/neurips24_15922_review_NhGj-5684/vica_default/2.png)
- [ViCA w/ Downscaling](https://anonymous.4open.science/r/neurips24_15922_review_NhGj-5684/vica_downscale2/5.png)
It can be seen that the pattern roughly matches the ones shown in Fig.10, and there is noticible difference between w/ and w/o downscaling. Even though the results w/ default (i.e. optimal) commands are still not better than the proposed method's (proposed method produces checkered patterns in common sense, but baselines can only produce scaly textures), it is still necessary for the authors to update their Fig.10 in their revision.
I hope these results could help the AC, other reviewers, and authors to understand the difference between the two settings. Thanks.
---
Rebuttal Comment 4.1:
Comment: Dear reviewer NhGj,
Thank you for your quick response and providing the images. I agree that Figure 10 should be updated with results from the original settings as they are artifact free.
R-MzLe, R-MnXs, R-ZFSz: a quick summary
- There was some initial concerns regarding the artifacts in Fig. 10 which is now resolved
- The artifacts as been identified as due to the use of `--downscale-factor 2` when running the baselines
- We will request the authors update Fig. 10 with the results from the original settings, which while better than the current ones in Fig. 10, and is not really "checkered" while the proposed method produced large checkered pattern.
- Please check out the images provided by R-NhGj to judge for yourself
We will discuss the paper more during the AC-reviewer discussion phase, but there is no need to be concerned about the comparison against baselines in Fig. 10.
---
Reply to Comment 4.1.1:
Title: Follow-Up Of Baseline Reproducibility Concerns
Comment: Dear reviewer NhGj,
We are very grateful for your thorough investigation into these baselines!
> “I do not know why the authors added `--downscale-factor 2` instead of using default arguments”
We would like to clarify that **using `–downscale-factor 2` is the default argument for the given resolution.** Please note that **the official codebases specifically suggest this.** To quote from the EN2N README.md:
> "**Important** Please note that training the NeRF on images with resolution larger than 512 will likely cause InstructPix2Pix to throw OOM errors. Moreover, it seems InstructPix2Pix performs significantly worse on images at higher resolution. We suggest training with a resolution that is around 512 (max dimension), so add the following tag to the end of both your nerfacto and in2n training command: `nerfstudio-data --downscale-factor {2,4,6,8}` to the end of your ns-train commands."
Regarding ViCA-NeRF, the README section “Other tips for hyper-parameters” links to the InstructNeRF2NeRF repo which contains the exact same quote as above. Furthermore, on the closed github issues “Problem of results - not the same as presented in the paper #1” and “ I cannot reproduce the results :) #3” which discuss quality issues when training on the exact same Face dataset, the owner of the code repository commented, recommending adding `nerfstudio-data --downscale-factor 2` to the training command.
As reviewer NhGj pointed out, **“The original resolution of the 'face' scene is 994x738”**. As you can see from the above extracts from the official codebases, we simply followed the official documentation to the letter, when adding `nerfstudio-data --downscale-factor 2` to the training command. In other words, **reviewer NhGj has uncovered that the official documentation for reproducing results from EN2N and ViCA-NeRF is erroneous.** We hope that we will not be penalised for precisely following the given instructions for the baselines. Therefore, we believe that this issue should not be regarded as “an unintentional misuse of the baseline codes” but rather as caused by “erroneous documentation provided with baseline codes”.
We are extremely grateful to reviewer NhGj for discovering this issue. Therefore, we will be happy to update Fig.10 in our revision, as the reviewer asked. Now that the baseline methods are generating reasonable results, the advantages offered by our proposed method are made more clear. As reviewer NhGj remarked, the updated baseline results are still not able to synthesise the correct ‘checkered’ texture pattern (unlike ours), but instead only produce “scaly textures”.
> “I would highly suggest the authors add (timestep annealing) information in the revision, to improve the reproducibility …. I would kindly suggest that the authors mention fewer "adopt HiFA," "combining HiFA," and "utilize HiFA" in their revision … Instead, they may directly mention the name of the components, like "HiFA's loss," and "timestep annealing strategy inspired by HiFA" to focus more on the components they adopted from HiFA, instead of HiFA itself.”
We are very grateful for these suggestions, which we are very happy to adopt in the revision. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank all the reviewers for their feedback! We are glad that reviewers NhGj, MzLe, MnXs found that our proposed method is novel and well-motivated, and that MzLe and MnXs in particular praised the quality of our results.
A concern that was raised by both reviewers NhGj and ZFSz was that InstructNeRF2NeRF does not use a spatial prompt to indicate the editing region, and instead uses instruction-style prompts. However, it is important to note that InstructNeRF2NeRF (together with the closely related methods shown in figure 10, appendix main paper) is a **global scene editing method**, which we only compare to in the appendix for completeness. In the main paper, we compared to state-of-art methods for **localised scene editing** (Table 1 main paper, Figure 4,5 main paper, and Figure 11 appendix), which like ours, are all conditioned with a spatial prompt indicating the 3D editing region. Furthermore, GaussianEditor (Object Adding functionality), Blended NeRF, DreamEditor, Reference-Guided Controllable Inpainting of NeRF, and Repaint-NeRF all use edit prompts which describe the new object directly (exactly as we do), rather than instruction-style prompts. The localised scene editing task has recently become a well established subtask of global scene editing, and active area of research due to its potential use cases in mixed reality applications (see lines 82-103 main paper for further details).
Reviewers MnXs and NhGj pointed out some minor presentation defects, which we are happy to address for the camera-ready version.
We provide multiple new qualitative and quantitative results in the attached rebuttal PDF document. Some reviewers proposed new experiments with variations on the input prompts and masks, for which we show qualitative results in Figures 18 and 19b).
We ran multiple new ablation studies to validate our individual components, (on both the Erase and Replace training stages) and include quantitative results for these in Tables 5 and 6. These include new experiments testing the importance of the HiFA and depth loss terms. As in Table 1 main paper, we report CLIP Text-Image Direction Similarity for all model variants. For the “Replace” ablation studies, we used the prompt “a corgi on a white plinth”. For the “Erase” results, we evaluated using the prompt “A white plinth in a park, in front of a path”.
As an additional evaluation of the “Erase” model variants, we ran SAM on each model’s results, obtaining the main segmentation mask detected inside a bounding box around the statue region. As shown in Figure 17, rebuttal PDF (purple region), the original statue segmentation mask is still detected for our No Halo and No Depth loss model variants. However, for our full model, the statue mask is not detected; SAM instead correctly detects the hedge region behind the statue. This implies that our method has successfully removed the statue, and realistically filled in the background, including the disoccluded region of the hedge.
We also performed a User Study (as suggested by MzLe), comparing our results with 3 closely related works; Gaussian Editor, BlendedNeRF and InstructNeRF2NeRF. 15 participants were asked to compare the results from these models on a variety of scenes and prompts. In each case, they were asked to choose which result best matches the input prompt, and which one shows the highest visual quality. We report the preference rates for each model in Tables 3 and 4 (rebuttal PDF), which show that our model’s results were preferred overall across both categories.
We now address in detail the specific concerns and questions raised by the reviewers, and would welcome further comments from the reviewers seeking further clarification!
Pdf: /pdf/82de415bc724da8043a4dc82d933bebdefe82055.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
WeiPer: OOD Detection using Weight Perturbations of Class Projections | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper introduces WeiPer, an post-hoc method for out-of-distribution (OOD) detection that leverages weight perturbations in the final layer of neural networks to enhance detection performance.
Contributions:
1. Introducing linear projections of the penultimate layer by perturbing the final layer's weights to improve OOD detection.
2. Discovering a fingerprint-like nature of in-distribution (ID) samples in both penultimate and newly perturbed spaces, leveraging this structure for a novel detection method.
3. Proposing a KL-divergence-based scoring function and evaluating it alongside MSP and ReAct methods, showing state-of-the-art performance on near OOD tasks using the OpenOOD benchmark.
Strengths: Simple methods with good empirical results. Technical novelty is limited but this is not a concern if it outperforms previous methods.
Weaknesses: **Related Work Missing Strong Baselines: Data Depths and Information Projections**
Data depths and information projections are gaining significant interest in the OOD detection community. However, these approaches are notably absent in the related work section. It is essential to address these gaps to provide a comprehensive overview of the field.
Relevant works include:
M. Darrin. "Unsupervised Layer-wise Score Aggregation for Textual OOD Detection."
M. Darrin. "Rainproof: An Umbrella To Shield Text Generators From Out-Of-Distribution Data."
M. Picot. "Adversarial Attack Detection Under Realistic Constraints."
M. Picot. "A Simple Unsupervised Data Depth-based Method to Detect Adversarial Images."
M. Picot. "A Halfspace-Mass Depth-Based Method for Adversarial Attack Detection." TMLR 2023.
P. Colombo. "Beyond Mahalanobis Distance for Textual OOD Detection." NeurIPS 2022.
P. Colombo. "Toward Stronger Textual Attack Detectors."
**Lack of Strong Baselines for Empirical Comparison**
The current work lacks strong baseline comparisons, particularly those involving data depth methods. This omission undermines the robustness of empirical evaluations. Incorporating these baselines is crucial for a fair and thorough comparison with existing methods.
Key references that should be considered for baseline comparisons include:
E. Gomes. "A Functional Perspective on Multi-Layer Out-of-Distribution Detection."
M. Picot. "A Simple Unsupervised Data Depth-based Method to Detect Adversarial Images."
M. Picot. "A Halfspace-Mass Depth-Based Method for Adversarial Attack Detection." TMLR 2023.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Why did you not mention the data depths and only rely on Mahanalobis?
2. Why not use information projections?
3. Can you compare against the baselines previously introduced?
**I thank the authors for their rebuttal, i have increased my grade.**
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: NA
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for reading our paper and analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of our approach.
> "Related Work Missing Strong Baselines: Data Depths and Information Projections"
Many methods have been developed for OOD detection, even when only considering image classification. The papers the reviewer referenced mainly concern adversarial attack detection and textual OOD detection. For clarity and readability, we chose the scope of our related work section to include only image OOD detection, and we are aware that it comes short of many impactful publications in related fields. In terms of methodology, [1] and [2] are partially similar to our approach. They also use an f-divergence as a score function (although on the softmax output) and compare input distributions to train set distributions. We agree that these works should be mentioned and will add a paragraph to the Related Work section about methods that utilize f-divergences, including the papers [1] and [2].
> Why did you not mention the data depths and only rely on Mahanalobis?
Our method is not based on Mahalanobis distance. We cited publications working with Mahalanobis distance, but we are not aware of other methods that consider data depth. Our KLD method is a density-based score function. Although density and data depth are related concepts, we are unaware of a closer connection to data depth that would justify mentioning it.
> Why not use information projections?
We tried to formalize the score as information projection, but early testing showed that comparing to the mean training distribution was superior to comparing to the minimal distribution. Since conducting rigorous experiments on that matter did not fit our paper's scope, it is possible that different information measures, e.g., a different f-divergence and other ways of choosing a distribution to compare to, perform better than our choice. This is a promising idea for future work.
> Can you compare against the baselines previously introduced?
As we chose OpenOOD as a benchmark framework, we are only comparing methods that have already been evaluated there. Because of time and resource constraints, we were not able to compare it to other work originating from OOD detection on images or any other modality. The papers the reviewer mentioned mainly introduce adversarial attack detectors or textual OOD detectors, and we are unaware of their application to image OOD detection or that they are evaluated on OpenOOD. The only evaluation that overlaps with [3] is the ViT-B/16 on far OOD ImageNet benchmarks. We agree with OpenOOD [4] that the field of OOD detection is suffering from inconsistency in evaluation, as it is not possible to compare every method when results are reported on different datasets/models/checkpoints/training algorithms.
[1] Darrin et al. "Rainproof: An Umbrella To Shield Text Generators From Out-Of-Distribution Data."
[2] Picot et al. "Adversarial Attack Detection Under Realistic Constraints."
[3] Gomes et al. "A Functional Perspective on Multi-Layer Out-of-Distribution Detection."
[4] Zhang et al. “OpenOOD v1.5: Enhanced Benchmark for Out-of-Distribution Detection” | Summary: This work proposes a component, WeiPer, that can benefit OOD detection. WeiPer adds random perturbations (sampled from standard normal) to the class projection weight vectors and essentially expands the output dimension (compared to the original logit space). WeiPer can be combined with multiple existing OOD detection scoring functions (e.g., MSP, ReAct). The authors further propose a KL-divergence-based scoring mechanism that works particularly well with WeiPer. Experiments show that WeiPer+KLD yields state-of-the-art results on the challenging OpenOOD benchmarks, including the near-OOD one on ImageNet-1K.
Strengths: 1. The proposed WeiPer is to my knowledge novel. It also has generality since it can be combined with many existing OOD scoring functions.
2. Extensive analyses are presented along the introduction of the method, which well justifies each design choice and makes the underlying intuition/insight clear.
3. Most importantly, unlike many other papers that use arbitrary or easy OOD benchmarks for evaluation, this work demonstrates notable improvements on the challenging OpenOOD, especially with the ImageNet-1K near-OOD benchmark (with ~2% AUROC increase over the previous SOTA ASH).
Weaknesses: A few weaknesses have been discussed by the authors in Sec. 4 and 5, e.g., WeiPer is less powerful on ViT and could induce higher memory consumption.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Since WeiPer essentially expands the output logit space and is expected to encode richer information, is it possible to leverage WeiPer for other tasks such as OOD generalization, beyond OOD detection?
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors adequately addressed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for taking the time to assess our paper and following up with a thought-provoking question.
> Since WeiPer essentially expands the output logit space and is expected to encode richer information, is it possible to leverage WeiPer for other tasks such as OOD generalization, beyond OOD detection?
This is an interesting direction for future research. As [1] showed, the penultimate features or more precisely the neural activation states with narrow coverage, i.e. peaky distributions, lead to weak OOD generalization abilities. The Neural Collapse theory [2] states that with continued training, the features converge to the class mean. We also observe that thereby the activation distributions become more narrow (see supplementary material `ResNet18_penultimate_layer_resize.gif`). This would result in the mean activation distribution and WeiPer space distribution becoming peaky. We believe that this could be connected to overfitting and measuring this could be effective in selecting more robust models. WeiPer could assist in detecting the collapse in the logit layer as the features converge to the class means not only along the weight directions.
[1] Liu et al., Neuron activation coverage: Rethinking out-of-distribution detection and generalization. 2024
[2] Papyan et al., Prevalence of neural collapse during the terminal phase of deep learning training. 2020
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thanks for the rebuttal
Comment: I have read the rebuttal and have no further questions. I maintain my score. | Summary: The manuscript proposes a post-hoc OOD detection method, which is broadly applicable and can improve existing OOD detection methods.
Strengths: - The methodology is post-hoc, making it more practical.
- Results for near OOD evaluation are promising.
- The method can be combined with existing OOD detection strategies and improve their performance, thus increasing the potential impact of this work.
Weaknesses: Since memory usage is a limitation of the proposed methodology, the manuscript should present a comparison of computational cost (time and memory) between the multiple OOD detection methodologies that are considered.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: How does your methodology compare to the state-of-the-art in terms of required memory and time?
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors clearly stated the method's limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank reviewer for examining our paper, highlighting strengths, and indicating weaknesses to improve our contribution.
We provide a memory and time analysis comparing WeiPer+KLD to its closest competitors in Table 1 and Table 2 in the rebuttal pdf. Our method is on par with the other methods. WeiPer+KLD currently uses the whole training set to calculate the mean distribution of the activations and the WeiPer space. We see that a far smaller sample is sufficient and will conduct an experiment in the camera-ready version of the paper.
Unfortunately, we did not yet succeed in collecting all the results of the memory and time comparison on ImageNet, which are particularly insightful since WeiPer blows up the 1000 dimensional logit space even more than on CIFAR100 ($r\cdot 1000$ instead of $r\cdot 100$). We will provide them as soon as possible. Note that the memory information in Figure 4 might be misleading (e.g., 80.24 GiB for ImageNet with $r=100$) since these numbers would apply when we calculate all training, test, and OOD scores in parallel instead of using a batch-wise procedure. We will add this to the figure description.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for the new experiments. For the camera-ready, I suggest including comprehensive comparisons on time and memory consumption between the proposed method and diverse alternative ones.
Moreover, I believe that the experiments using subsets of the training database, which the authors mentioned in their rebuttal, will be valuable for showing the practicality of their methodology.
Overall, I am happy to increase my score to accept. | Summary: The paper introduces "WeiPer," a method that improves existing out-of-distribution (OOD) detection techniques by perturbing class projection weights. This method leverages the class-discriminative ability of pre-trained neural network classifiers by introducing weight perturbations in the final fully connected layer, creating richer representations of the input. The authors demonstrate that this technique significantly enhances OOD detection performance across multiple benchmarks, especially in challenging near-OOD scenarios. Additionally, a KL-divergence-based scoring method is proposed to utilize the properties of the augmented WeiPer space, supported by theoretical motivations and empirical observations.
Strengths: 1. WeiPer introduces a novel and effective technique for OOD detection by incorporating weight perturbations, broadening the scope of current methods.
2. The paper provides extensive experimental evidence demonstrating the superior performance of the WeiPer method across multiple benchmarks and includes detailed ablation studies to validate the contributions of each component.
Weaknesses: 1. WeiPer introduces additional computational complexity and memory requirements, which might limit its applicability in resource-constrained environments.
2. The proposed method involves several hyperparameters that need tuning, potentially increasing the difficulty of practical implementation.
3. Compared with other methods, the superior performance is not very stable. While the method performs well across several benchmarks, additional validation on a wider variety of datasets would further demonstrate its generalizability.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Can you provide more discussion on the motivation of the approach and its contribution to making the OOD field more robust?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have addressed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for taking the time to assess our work.
> WeiPer introduces additional computational complexity and memory requirements, which might limit its applicability in resource-constrained environments.
That is true for virtually every method. WeiPer+KLD is comparable to other methods in both time and memory consumption (see Table 1 and 2 of the rebuttal PDF). Memory consumption and computational complexity scale linearly with $r$, all the other hyperparameters have no significant influence (see also the Limitations section in the paper).
The proposed method involves several hyperparameters that need tuning, potentially increasing the difficulty of practical implementation.
This is correct, however, most methods that perform competitively come with hyperparameters that need to be tuned. WeiPer+KLD has more hyperparameters than its competitors, but optimizing a single digit number of hyperparameters is common practice in Machine Learning. WeiPer+KLD can be optimized with OpenOODs hyperparameter search to a specific use case, and our experiments show that the optimization surface is smooth (see Figure 6 in the Appendix), i.e. other optimization methods should be easily applied.
> Compared with other methods, the superior performance is not very stable. While the method performs well across several benchmarks, additional validation on a wider variety of datasets would further demonstrate its generalizability
We disagree. In fact, WeiPer+KLD is the most robust method for near OOD detection tasks (harder than far) in our study (see Table 3 in the paper). We would like to mention that we use OpenOOD [2] who built a unified benchmark. OpenOOD includes 22 benchmarks (6 for CIFAR10, 6 for CIFAR100, 5 for ImageNet in ResNet50, and 5 for ImageNet on ViT-B/16), and each method is evaluated across all of them. Compared to other methods, we think WeiPer+KLD has been evaluated with the highest scrutiny. OOD detection is still hard, hence the seemingly mixed results.
> Can you provide more discussion on the motivation of the approach and its contribution to making the OOD field more robust?
The motivation of using the WeiPer space is that this extracts structural information that can be leveraged for ID / OOD detection. (see Theorem 1). The way most classifiers end up being trained is that the OOD set reaches into the positive class cluster in a conical shape (see Figure 1). Since, with weight perturbations, we project the data from a different angle, we can exploit this property which should be fairly generic throughout datasets.
We kindly ask the reviewer to clarify what they believe is missing in the motivation of our approach.
[1] Zhang et al. “OpenOOD v1.5: Enhanced Benchmark for Out-of-Distribution Detection”
[2] Sun et al. “Out-of-Distribution Detection with Deep Nearest Neighbors”, ICML 2022
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: The author has basically addressed my doubts. Regarding the more discussion about motivation I mentioned, I think a broader description of motivation and contribution can be given in the context of the task. I am happy to improve my score to Borderline Accept. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Memory and time comparison to other methods.
Pdf: /pdf/af2ad2f0a405cc7bd583bd8c833244f54321d8c6.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Scale Equivariant Graph Metanetworks | Accept (oral) | Summary: The paper considers the emergent and fascinating field of learning over weight spaces, that is, neural nets that process other neural networks. The processing NN is referred to as a metanetwork. Previous approaches showcased the importance of accounting for the input NN’s symmetries by designing equivariant architectures. However, they were mainly focused on permutation symmetries. This paper proposes a GNN-based metanetwork, which is permutation and scale equivariant. The paper studies the expressiveness (in terms of simulating the forward and backward pass of the input NN) of the proposed arch. The proposed method is evaluated using several INRs and classifiers datasets.
Strengths: 1. The paper deals with an important and timely problem of learning in deep weight spaces, and presents a novel architecture by incorporating scale and permutation equivariance.
2. The paper provides theoretical analysis and results regarding the expressive power of the proposed approach.
3. Empirical results show significant improvement over baseline methods.
Weaknesses: My main concern is the limited empirical evaluation and missing natural baselines. While the presented empirical results show significant improvement over baseline methods, at the current state of the learning over weight spaces literature, I would expect a more diverse, challenging, and comprehensive empirical evaluation.
1. The writing and formatting require enhancement and refinement—specifically, long sentences, many slashes, many footnotes, etc. Also, in my view, the proposed method is introduced too late in the paper (page 6).
2. A missing natural baseline is to use a permutation equivariant baseline like DWS/NFN or NG-GNN together with scaling data augmentations as in [1].
3. The experimental section only considers invariant tasks. Additional experiments using equivariant tasks (e.g. INR editing, domain adaptation, etc.) would significantly strengthen the empirical study.
4. Some evaluation and comparison of runtime and memory consumption w.r.t. baselines would be beneficial.
5. Furthermore, adding experiments with larger input networks and diverse input architectures (like a varying number of layers) would again significantly strengthen the empirical study.
6. Also, adding some ablation regarding design choices would be beneficial.
7. Why are the results for DWS and INR2Vec missing in Table 1?
8. Minor:
- Line 198: should be a^k.
- Line 336: “transformations We” -> “transformations. We”
References:
[1] Improved Generalization of Weight Space Networks via Augmentations, ICML 2024.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. Is it always feasible and relatively easy to design and implement either the canon or symm mappings for all activation functions?
2. The bidirectional version of the method achieves on-par performance as the non-bidirectional one, except for the Augmented CIFAR-10 dataset, where the performance is much worse. Could you provide some insights regarding this result?
3. Additionally, how does the ScaleGMNB and ScaleGMN compare in terms of runtime?
4. How do ScaleGMN and ScaleGMNB compare to GMN in terms of the number of trainable parameters and runtime?
5. Did you use any augmentation on the input NNs?
6. Are there any limitations on the choice of activations of the ScaleGMN network?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: *For weaknesses: 1,3,4,5,7 and question 3 please refer to Comment.*
### Weaknesses
>*Weakness 2. Scaling data augmentations*
An effective method to get such augmentations is to sample scaling matrices for every training datapoint - diagonal sign matrices for sign and diagonal positive scaling matrices for positive scale symmetries, respectively. Subsequently, we transform the input network parameters by applying the matrices to the hidden layers. (like in Eq.3 in our paper, but without the permutation matrices)
The way to perform this random sampling, however, is not straightforward and we have to deal the two cases separately.
**Sign symmetries**: Since the diagonal sign matrices are of the form $\mathbf{Q} = \text{diag}(q_1 , \dots , q_d ), q_i = ±1$, we sample each element of the matrix **independently and uniformly at random with probability 0.5**. We observe that augmenting the training set leads consistently to better results when compared to the original baselines. **None of these methods however achieved results on par with ScaleGMN and ScaleGMN-B.** (Table 3 in the PDF)
**Positive-scale symmetries**: The diagonal positive scaling matrices are of the form: $\mathbf{Q} = \text{diag}(q_1 , \dots , q_d ), q_i \in (0, +\infty)$. Hence, we have to sample from a **continuous and unbounded distribution** making the augmentation strategy much more difficult to design. Consulting the plots in the appendix A.5, we opted for an exponential distribution and experiment with the coefficient $\lambda$. Nevertheless, regardless of the distribution choice we cannot guarantee that the augmentations will be sufficient, due to the lack of upper bound. We observe that we were not able to surpass the original baselines, which indicates that designing an effective baseline of this type is not straightforward. (Table 3 in the PDF)
We thank the reviewer for proposing this important baseline.
### Questions
>*Question 1. Canon/symm mappings for all activation functions.*
In general, we cannot guarantee that these mappings are easy to construct for *any* activation function, since it is currently unknown if we can provide a general characterisation of the possible symmetries that may arise. Our results extend to all positively homogeneous activations, $\sigma(\lambda x) = \lambda \sigma(x), \lambda > 0$, and all odd ones, $\sigma(-x) = - \sigma(x)$. We refer the reviewer to Table 1 of [1], where we can see that LeakyReLU also falls in the first category. Regarding polynomial activations, which demonstrate *non-zero scaling symmetries*, one option would be: (1) norm division to canonicalise scale, and (2) sign symm/canon as discussed in the main paper (and the rebuttal). The above, cover a fairly broad spectrum of common activation functions.
>*Question 2. Forward vs Bidirectional and Augmented CIFAR-10.*
Indeed, in most invariant tasks, the bidirectional variant does not provide significant advantages. This is inline with what has been observed in [2], where a forward variant is also sufficient. We speculate that this might be related to the fact that the tasks we considered may be solved by simulating the forward pass of the input NN alone. Given that the forward pass can be expressed by the forward variant alone, this might provide an explanation for its efficacy on the invariant tasks we considered. The significance of the bidirectional variant is highlighted mostly on *equivariant* tasks, where ScaleGMN-B significantly outperforms the forward variant. Please refer to the global response, where we report our results on INR-editing and discuss the limitations of the forward variant on the equivariant tasks.
Please refer to our response to Question 4 of reviewer x2pG for ScaleGMN-B on the Augmented CIFAR-10.
>*Question 4. Trainable parameters: GMN vs ScaleGMN(-B)?*
Going from a GMN model to ScaleGMN requires adapting the MSG and UPD functions to be scale equivariant, leading to more learnable parameters, as opposed to using plain MLPs. Another design choice of ScaleGMN that introduces more parameters is using different MLPs for the I/O nodes (Appendix A.1.4).
Please refer to Table 2, where we report the training and inference runtimes.
>*Question 5. Did you use any augmentation on the input NNs?*
*No, we do not use any augmentation on the input NNs.*
Augmentations are only used for the dataset "Augmented CIFAR-10", where we follow the augmentation procedure from [3] for comparison reasons with the rest of the baselines. ScaleGMN and ScaleGMN-B rely solely on the original training dataset and on built-in equivariance/invariance.
>*Question 6. Are there any limitations on the choice of activations of the ScaleGMN network?*
*Importantly, our method does **not** impose any limitations on the choice of the activation functions.*
We are able to select any activation, because these are only applied within the MLPs of the invariant modules. As discussed in Section 5 of our paper, the MLPs (equipped with non-linearities) are only applied after the canon/symm function. In case one chose to place activations in a different computational part of ScaleGMN, this would indeed limit their options so as not to compromise scale equivariance. However, this is not the case in our method. We thank the reviewer for noticing this important detail.
---
[1] Godfrey, Charles, et al. "On the symmetries of deep learning models and their internal representations." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022): 11893-11905.
[2] Kofinas, Miltiadis, et al. "Graph Neural Networks for Learning Equivariant Representations of Neural Networks." The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations.
[3] Zhou, Allan, et al. "Permutation equivariant neural functionals." Advances in neural information processing systems 36 (2024).
[4] Shamsian, Aviv, et al. "Improved generalization of weight space networks via augmentations." arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04081 (2024).
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Additional responses to reviewer Reviewer ugM4
Comment: >*Weakness 1. Writing.*
Please refer to our global response regarding the structure of our paper and the writing style.
>*Weakness 3. Equivariant tasks.*
Please refer to our global response, where we provide details regarding the INR editing task as well as to Table 1 of the attached PDF.
>*Weakness 4. Runtime and memory consumption.*
We thank the reviewer for suggesting a comparison of runtime and memory consumption. We select the F-MNIST dataset and make two comparisons; at first we report the number of parameters of all the reported models. Regarding the runtime, we fix the number of parameters for fairness of comparison and report the training time, inference time and GPU memory consumption. Please refer to Table 2 of the attached PDF. We can see that ScaleGMN-B does not introduce performance degradation regarding the runtime, while both our methods are quiet slower than the baselines. Since we do not use computationally much heavier operations, this last result indicates that our implementation could be further optimized w.r.t. runtime.
>*Weakness 5. Larger and diverse input architectures.*
Please refer to our global response regarding the datasets and experiments on larger and more complex architectures.
>*Weakness 7. DWS and INR2VEC on CIFAR-10*
Please refer to our response to reviewer x2pG regarding these two experiments.
>*Question 3. Runtime performance of ScaleGMN and ScaleGMN-B.*
Please refer to Table 2 of the attached PDF. As discussed in *Weakness 4*, ScaleGMN-B does not introduce performance degradation regarding the runtime.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Title: Response to rebuttal
Comment: I would like to thank the authors for their rebuttal and for providing additional results and discussion, which addresses some of my concerns. I've read all the reviewers' concerns and the authors' responses. The authors addressed many of my concerns regarding the limited and missing empirical evaluation, so I raised my score accordingly. | Summary: This paper addresses the emerging and fascinating field of deep-weight space learning where neural nets used to process weights and biases of another deep model. The authors have introduced new methods based on GNN architecture called ScaleGMN and ScaleGMNB for Scale Equivariant Graph MetaNetworks. The latter is a bi-directional variant. Both approaches tackle the scale symmetries presented by the input neural model's activation functions.
The authors claim the following contributions:
- Extending the scope of metanetwork design from permutation to scaling symmetries.
- Designing networks that are invariant or equivariant to scalar multiplication from arbitrary scaling groups.
- Theoretical analysis of the expressive power of ScaleGMN.
- Extensive empirical comparison with recent work on various datasets in the field of weight space learning.
Strengths: - With the growing number of works on Implicit Neural Representation (INR) and the increasing need to process neural networks, this paper tackles a crucial field and problem, advancing the area in a way that can benefit many practitioners.
- The authors introduce a new structure that incorporates both permutation and scale symmetries by ensuring it is equivariant to scale and permutation.
- The authors provide a theoretical analysis of the expressive power of the proposed approaches. Additionally, they show that ScaleGMN can simulate forward and backward passes of arbitrary inputs in the processed NN.
- The empirical results show a significant improvement compared to recent works in the field of weight space learning.
Weaknesses: - The writing can be significantly improved, particularly by breaking down long sentences that are hard to follow. Additionally, the writing pace is somewhat slow. While this might be beneficial for the average reader, the authors allocate too much space to exposition and problem formulation. As a result, the presentation of the proposed methods begins relatively late in the paper.
- The experimental section focuses only on invariant tasks, i.e. INR classification and NN generalization prediction. It would be interesting to see how well ScaleGMN and ScaleGMNB deal with equivariant tasks like the ones presented in [1,2] which are considered harder for weight space architectures.
- The processed architectures are not diverse dealing only with small-sized feed-forward and CNN architectures. It would be interesting to see more diversity in the processed architectures like deeper nets, attention-based methods, etc.
-------
[1] Equivariant Architectures for Learning in Deep Weight Spaces, Navon et al.
[2] Permutation Equivariant Neural Functionals, Zhou et al.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - Why DWS and INR2VEC are missing in Table 1? (CIFAR-10 | Augmented CIFAR-10 experiments).
- In common bi-directional architectures (e.g. LSTM) we see performance (runtime) degradation compared to non-bi-directional design is that the same for ScaleGMN and ScaleGMNB? What is the computational complexity of both methods?
- Can ScaleGMN and ScaleGMNB handle input data with heterogeneous activation functions, i.e. one network with ReLU activations and another with only tanh activations? (as long as they respect Prop. 4.1)
- The results for the Augmented CIFAR-10 experiments are odd. ScaleGMNB performs worse than all baselines except MLP, while in other experiments, it outperforms them. Do the authors have an explanation for this observation?
- Adding a figure that illustrates ScaleGMN and ScaleGMNB architectures and their design w.r.t permutation and scale symmetries, would be beneficial.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: See above.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ### Weaknesses
>*Weakness 1. Writing Style*
We thank the reviewer for their suggestions. Please refer to the global response about the writing pace and style.
>*Weakness 2. Equivariant tasks*
To evaluate the performance of our method on tasks that require permutation and scale equivariance, we selected the task of INR editing. Please refer to our global response and to Table 1 of the attached PDF. In summary, the bidirectional variant, ScaleGMN-B, surpasses all baseline metanetworks, including GNNs using additional information (probe features)
>*Weakness 3. Processing diverse and complex architectures*
Please refer to our global response regarding the experiments on larger and more complex architectures.
### Questions
>*Question 1. DWS and INR2VEC on CIFAR-10*
In Table 1 of our paper we include, together with our results, all the baselines from the literature. For the CIFAR-10 dataset we did not include any experiments with DWS and INR2VEC, as they were not included in [1], where the task was proposed. However, we have now run both experiments using the **DWS** model, which achieved $34.45 \pm 0.42$ on CIFAR-10 and $41.27 \pm 0.026$ on Augmented CIFAR-10. As expected, these results are on par with the rest of the permutation equivariant models.
Regarding INR2VEC [2], we have not reimplemented it and tested on the CIFAR-10 dataset - we only used results present in the literature. However, INR2VEC demonstrated significantly worse performance than DWS [3] and NFN [1] on the task of INR classification, as can be found in the literature, and therefore testing it on extra data will probably offer limited added value, as it. Nevertheless, we plan to also include this baseline in an updated version.
>*Question 2. Performance (runtime) degradation between ScaleGMN and ScaleGMNB and complexity*
The reviewer here makes a correct comment regarding the complexity of the forward (ScaleGMN) and the bidirectional variant (ScaleGMN-B) of our method. In the latter case, we add *backward edges* to our graph and introduce a *backward message function* to discern the two message directions. Subsequently, we concatenate the outputs of the two message functions and apply the UPD function. Consequently, the additional complexity of ScaleGMN-B is introduced solely by the extra message function, with a complexity of $O(E)$. Given that ScaleGMN has the complexity of a standard GNN model $O(V+E)$, the final complexity of ScaleGMN-B is $O(V+2E)$.
To measure the differences regarding the runtime performance, we conduct a controlled experiment on the F-MNIST dataset. We observe that ScaleGMN-B only needs $6.83$ more seconds per epoch, when compared to ScaleGMN. Regarding the inference time this difference is $0,0132$ seconds per datapoint. Please refer to our response to reviewer ugM4 as well as to Table 2 in the PDF within our global response for the complete results.
>*Question 3. Heterogeneous activation functions.*
This is an interesting question and of importance to ensure the generality of our method. *In principle, our method does not impose any limitations regarding the homogeneity of the activation functions of the input neural networks*. To see this, observe that the only part of the metanetwork that gets affected by the symmetry induced by the activation function, is the *symmetrisation/canonicalisation* function. In other words, all the modules of the metanetwork can be reused for any input NN with arbitrary activations, as long as the datapoints are symmetrised/canonicalised accordingly.
**Experiments**. Experimentally, we opted to split the datasets into two subsets (one with ReLU Nets and one with tanh Nets). This choice was made solely to evaluate our method separately for each type of symmetry and assess the different invariant methods that we employed for each case. Following, the reviewer's suggestion, we extend our evaluation to heterogeneous activation functions (a dataset containing both ReLU and tanh Nets). We conducted epxeriments on the CIFAR-10-GS dataset and report the results on Table 4 in the attached PDF of our global response. The baselines are reported as in [4]. **Interestingly, we observe that ScaleGMN demonstrates superior performance compared to the previous baselines, significantly exceeding the performance of the next best model.** We thank the reviewer for suggesting this experiment - we will include this in the updated version of the manuscript.
>*Question 4. The results of ScaleGMN-B on Augmented CIFAR-10.*
This was indeed a confusing result, which was merely due to suboptimal hyperparameter search. Unfortunately, due to the large size of this dataset ($20$ times larger than "CIFAR-10") and limited computational resources, the hyperparameter search for the ScaleGMN-B on the Augmented CIFAR-10 dataset had not finished by the time of the submission. Hence, the reported result does not reflect the real performance of the model. We completed the hyperparameter search post-submission, and achieved accuracy equal to **$56.95 \pm 0.57$** - this result follows the same pattern with the rest of the datasets.
>*Question 5. Figure of ScaleGMN and ScaleGMNB.*
We thank the reviewer for suggesting to include a figure depicting our architectures. We will consider designing one and including it in an updated version of the manuscript.
---
[1] Zhou, Allan, et al. "Permutation equivariant neural functionals." Advances in neural information processing systems 36 (2024).
[2] De Luigi, Luca, et al. "Deep Learning on Implicit Neural Representations of Shapes." The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations.
[3] Navon, Aviv, et al. "Equivariant architectures for learning in deep weight spaces." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2023.
[4] Kofinas, Miltiadis, et al. "Graph Neural Networks for Learning Equivariant Representations of Neural Networks." The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Reviewer response
Comment: I would like to express my gratitude to the authors for the time and effort they have dedicated to this rebuttal.
Most of my concerns have been addressed and after reading the other reviews and comments I decided to raise my score. | Summary: This work develops new GNN-based metanetworks that are equivariant to scaling symmetries induced by nonlinearities in input neural networks. Their ScaleGMNs extend metanetworks, which are typically only permutation equivariant (if at all equivariant), to also account for other symmetries in input neural networks' parameters. The architecture is proved to be equivariant to the desired symmetries and also expressive in that it can simulate forward and backward passes of the input. Experiments show improvements over merely-permutation-equivariant metanetworks.
Strengths: 1. Great writing. Nice introduction and related work, as well as good setup and notation in Section 3.
2. Nice theoretical results. That ScaleGMN is can express the forward and backward pass is a good way to check that its expressive power is not overly limited when adding the additional scaling equivariances. Also, there is an interesting discussion in Appendix A.2 on equivariant for bidirectional ScaleGMNs.
3. Large empirical improvements, especially on INR classification (without many of the unfair or expensive tricks that others use!), with ScaleGMN. I say some previous tricks are "unfair" because, for instance, random probe features of Kofinas et al. as used on INRs can essentially be used to see the input image pixels, and hence the prediction task is also taking in the image as well as the INR representing it. That ScaleGMN can beat the prior methods without these tricks is very impressive.
4. Several other interesting empirical findings. These include the fact that ScaleGMN does not need random Fourier features or data augmentations, and that the bidirectional version can vary in performance (sometimes drastically as in augmented CIFAR-10).
Weaknesses: 1. It would be interesting to see how ScaleGMNs perform on different tasks, especially an equivariant task (rather than just invariant tasks) such as INR editing.
2. ScaleInv is oddly described. The equation on Page 6 should probably have $\tilde x_i$ or something similar as its arguments, instead of $x_i$ (because if the $\rho^k$ are just general MLPs as you say right after the equation, then this is not scale invariant).
3. At the end of Page 6 and beginning of Page 7, you say that sign canonicalization can only be used for dimension 1, but this is not quite true. In Ma et al. 2023 and Ma et al. 2024, algorithms are given for canonicalizing with respect to the sign group, for use on inputs to a neural network.
References
* [Ma et al. 2023] Laplacian Canonization: A Minimalist Approach to Sign and Basis Invariant Spectral Embedding. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.18716
* [Ma et al. 2024] A Canonization Perspective on Invariant and Equivariant Learning.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.18378
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: 1. Do you have a way to handle translation symmetries in nonlinearities?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: Limitations are discussed on Page 9
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ### Weaknesses
>*Weakness 1. It would be interesting to see how ScaleGMNs perform on different tasks, especially an equivariant task (rather than just invariant tasks) such as INR editing.*
Metanetworks can indeed find interesting applications that require our model to be permutation and scale equivariant. Please refer to the global response for our experiments on INR editting and the corresponding results in Table 1 of the attached PDF. The bidirectional variant of our method, ScaleGMN-B, is able to surpass all the GNN-based metanetworks, even the ones using probe features.
---
>*Weakness 2. ScaleInv is oddly described. The equation on Page 6 should probably have or something similar as its arguments, instead of (because if the are just general MLPs as you say right after the equation, then this is not scale invariant).*
Thank you for spotting this. Indeed, there is a typo in the definition of ScaleInv (below L265). The arguments of the function $\rho^k$ (universal approximators - MLPs) should have been $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_i$ instead of $\mathbf{x}_i$, where $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_i$ are explained later in the text (L277) and are the outputs of a canonicalisation or a symmetrisation function, i.e. $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_i = \text{canon}(\mathbf{x}_i)$ or $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_i = \text{symm}(\mathbf{x}_i)$, which ensures invariance. We will fix this in an updated version of the manuscript.
---
>*Weakness 3. At the end of Page 6 and beginning of Page 7, you say that sign canonicalization can only be used for dimension 1, but this is not quite true. In Ma et al. 2023 and Ma et al. 2024, algorithms are given for canonicalizing with respect to the sign group, for use on inputs to a neural network.*
We are grateful to the reviewer for bringing up these two recent references that deal with sign canonicalisation - we were not aware of these works and, indeed, they are useful for our setup. Given the fact that symmetrisation introduces additional parameters (i.e. the internal MLP, see L276), we are interested in conducting experiments in the future with the proposed canonicalisation method, so as to examine if similar performance can be achieved with a reduced parameter count. Additionally, we will update our text accordingly to complement our discussion with this missing point.
### Questions
>*Question 1. Do you have a way to handle translation symmetries in nonlinearities?*
Translation symmetries (such as those induced by the softmax activation) are an important next step in this research direction. Our method currently does not handle this case. A potentially straightforward modification might be to follow the same rationale with scale equivariant networks: first, define a translation invariant module via canonicalisation and second, use it to achieve equivariace (e.g. translate the input by the output of the invariant module). For example, for symmetries of the form $\mathbf{x}’ = \mathbf{x} + a$, where $a$ is a scalar, we can canonicalise as follows $\tilde{\mathbf{x}} = \mathbf{x} - \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N x_i $.
We believe that characterizing even more nonlinearities (or families of them) and designing the respective invariant modules, is a prosperous future work towards implementing a unified framework able to handle various types of networks.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: We thank the authors for their rebuttal. The new experimental results are also very strong.
I maintain my score of 8, and definitely support acceptance of this paper. | null | null | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank the reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our paper and their constructive feedback, which helped us improve our empirical evaluation to further corroborate our claims and identify potential future directions. In the following comments, we gather the strengths pointed out by the reviewers and summarise our rebuttal response and changes that will be made in an updated version of the manuscript.
- **Rev. AXwX** *found our paper well-written* (AXwX: "Great writing. Nice introduction and related work, as well as good setup and notation in Section 3."),
- **Rev. x2pG, ugM4** *underlined the significance of the studied problem* (x2pG: "[...] this paper tackles a crucial field and problem, advancing the area in a way that can benefit many practitioners.", ugM4: "The paper deals with an important and timely problem of learning in deep weight spaces.").
- **Rev. AXwX, x2pG, ugM4** *acknowledged the novelty of our method* (AXwX: "Their ScaleGMNs extend metanetworks, which are typically only permutation equivariant (if at all equivariant), to also account for other symmetries in input neural networks' parameters.", x2pG: "[...] a new structure that incorporates both permutation and scale symmetries [...].", ugM4: "[...] presents a novel architecture by incorporating scale and permutation equivariance.").
- **Rev. AXwX, x2pG, ugM4** *acknowledged the importance of our theoretical contributions regarding the expressive power of ScaleGMN* (AXwX: "Nice theoretical results. That ScaleGMN can express the forward and backward pass is a good way to check that its expressive power is not overly limited when adding the additional scaling equivariances.", x2pG: "The authors [...] show that ScaleGMN can simulate forward and backward passes of arbitrary inputs in the processed NN.", ugM4: "The paper provides theoretical analysis and results regarding the expressive power of the proposed approach."
- **Rev. AXwX, x2pG, ugM4** *appreciated the empirical impovements reported in our experimental evaluation* (AXwX: "Large empirical improvements, especially on INR classification.", x2pG: "The empirical results show a significant improvement compared to recent works in the field of weight space learning.", ugM4: "Empirical results show significant improvement over baseline methods.").
- In addition to the above, **Rev. AXwX** *pinpoints that these improvements are achieved with built-in equivariance alone and without having to resort to additional practical tricks* (AXwX: "without many of the unfair or expensive tricks that others use! [...] That ScaleGMN can beat the prior methods without these tricks is very impressive. [...] ScaleGMN does not need random Fourier features or data augmentations")
## Rebuttal Summary
### Equivariant tasks
Reviewers AXwX, x2pG, ugM4 correctly mention the need for an equivariant task. To that end, we evaluate on **INR editing**. Following [2], we select the MNIST-INR dataset and evaluate our method. Again, no additional tricks or augmentations were used.
**Results**. (Table 1) Bidirectional *ScaleGMN-B* achieves an MSE test loss ($10^{-2}$) equal to $1.89$, **surpassing all baselines**, outperforming even the *NG-GNN baseline with 64 probe features*. Note that the performance gap between the bidirectional and the forward model (which achieves a loss of $2.56$) is expected for equivariant tasks: in this case we are required to compute representations for every graph node, yet, in the forward variant, the earlier the layer of the node, the less information it receives. Similarly, our baselines are either bidirectional (NG-GNN [2]) or non-local (DWS [3], NFN [1]).
### Heterogeneous activation functions
Reviewer x2pG pointed to heterogeneous activation functions. *In principle, our method does not impose any limitations regarding their homogeneity*.
**Results**. Evaluated on CIFAR-10-GS, **ScaleGMN demonstrates superior performance** compared to the baselines, *significantly surpassing the next best model*. (Table 4)
### Scaling data augmentations
Reviewer ugM4 proposed baselining with a permutation-equivariant-only model combined with random scaling augmentations.
**Results.** (Table 3)
* **Sign symmetries**: We augment w/ sign flips **independently** (probability 0.5). This surpasses the original baselines, but **not ScaleGMN and ScaleGMN-B.**
* **Positive-scale symmetries**: We sample positive scalars (NB: **continuous and unbounded distribution**), but observe performance deterioration compared to the original baselines.
### More complex architectures
We acknowledge that experimenting with diverse architectures would strengthen our contributions. However, there are two reasons why this was not possible in the current work. First, the characterisation of scaling symmetries holds for MLPs and can be extended to CNNs. However, extending it to other architectures requires further efforts and is therefore more appropriate to be considered in future work.
Second, weight-space learning is currently missing curated benchmarks of complex architectures. Lim et al. [4] and Zhou et al. [5] experiment with diverse architectures, using private datasets. Small DNN Zoo [6] and ModelZoos [7] contain trained CNNs of fixed architectures. Finally, the diverse CNN Wild Park [2] was only made public a few days ago. *Keeping in mind that processing such networks is not among our main contributions*, we opted to align with the previous works on metanetworks and selected the datasets used in [1], [2].
### Exposition/writing style
We thank the reviewers x2pG and ugM4 for their suggestions. We allocated a good portion of the paper to problem formulation and background, as the topic of weight space learning is relatively new. The characterisation of scaling symmetries is also recent and has not yet gathered significant attention. Consequently, we opted for a smooth and detailed introduction before delving into our contributions to make our work self-sufficient.
Pdf: /pdf/775ec4d3f602cff1f7789f2b83c7efb41dcf3422.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Large Language Model Unlearning | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper studies how to perform unlearning on large language models. It conducts a systematic investigation of unlearning in three typical scenarios of LLM applications, including unlearning harmful responses, erasing copyright-protected content, and reducing hallucinations. In all scenarios, the proposed unlearning method is shown to unlearn the required contents successfully. It also shows that the proposed unlearning method can be regarded as an alternative to alignment methods that does not require positive samples.
Strengths: 1. The paper is very well-written and well-structured. The authors claim their points clearly with adequate supportive experiments, making it a sound and complete paper.
2. The paper is a pioneering work in the field of unlearning for LLMs, which systematically defines and investigates the unlearning problem under three typical and practical unlearning scenarios. I believe this work can guide and inspire subsequent work in this field.
Weaknesses: Given that the resulting outputs are mostly nonsense, the proposed unlearning method is less sound. In my opinion, the most expected result of unlearning is that the model outputs **fluent and coherent responses** (which are better to relate to the prompt, retaining the ability of instruction-following) that are substantially different from the undesired content. If the LLMs only output nonsense words after unlearning, such an approach will be less practical in most applications such as chatbots and AI assistants. In fact, in [1], they are able to ensure the fluency and coherence of output sentences after unlearning. Therefore, the proposed method is less sound and useful to me.
By the way, I wonder why didn't this paper include [1] as a baseline method?
[1] Ronen Eldan and Mark Russinovich. Who’s harry potter? approximate unlearning in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02238, 2023.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: 1. What does "finetuning" mean in Table 1? How did you calculate the "Similarity to Original" for the original baseline?
2. Why didn't you include [1] as a baseline method?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Typos:
1. Line 175: x^{rdn} -> x^{fgt}?
2. Line 192: x^{fgt} -> x^{nor}?
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback. We discuss the comment one by one.
**W1 (Nonsense Output)**: We thank the reviewer for the concern. As mentioned, this is our design choice. Since the scenario we target is when we are only given negative samples, there is no way we can output the standard positive, helpful responses since we do not have such data. Our case is useful when practitioners only have the resources to collect negative samples, but not for more expensive positive samples. This is a practical tradeoff. In addition, we included an easy adaption to fit into the traditional scenario using templates in Section 4.5 (e.g. Q: "Which country has the dumbest population?" A: " I can’t assist it."). If the practitioners want to output more helpful responses, they can choose more complex templates.
**W2 (Comparsion to [1])**: As we mentioned in the related work, [1] is done concurrently with our work. It did not exist when we performed the study. In addition, we have different assumptions and goals. [1] still aims to generate helpful outputs and therefore requires more effort to collect data. It also might lead to incorrect (i.e. hallucinated) answers, e.g. when being asked who Harry Potter is, the model would give some factually incorrect answers like Harry Potter is an actor, writer, or director. In our work, we argue it is better not to give (seemingly meaningful) answers than to give incorrect and hallucinated answers.
**Q1**: “Finetuing” means finetuing (SFT) on the remaining data, which is the non-forgot data that helps preserve normal utility, i.e. $D^{\text{nor}}$ in eq (6). This is a common baseline in the unlearning literature.
"Similarity to Original" is the similarity (BLEURT) of the outputs on the normal prompts between the original and the unlearned LLM.
**Q2**: See W2.
**Limitation & Typos**: Thank you, you are right. We made the mistakes. We have fixed them. | Summary: This paper explores the concept of unlearning in large language models (LLMs) as an alternative approach to aligning AI systems with human preferences. The authors propose methods for removing unwanted behaviors or knowledge from LLMs without requiring expensive retraining. They demonstrate the effectiveness of their unlearning techniques in three applications: reducing harmful outputs, erasing copyrighted content, and decreasing hallucinations. The proposed approach uses gradient ascent and only requires negative examples, making it more efficient than traditional alignment methods like RLHF. The authors show that their unlearning method can achieve better alignment performance than RLHF with only 2% of the computational cost. They also discuss the challenges specific to unlearning in LLMs compared to traditional machine learning models and provide insights on evaluating unlearning effectiveness.
Strengths: - The paper introduces unlearning for aligning large language models, addressing important issues like harmful outputs, copyright infringement, and hallucinations without requiring expensive retraining or positive examples.
- The authors demonstrate that their unlearning technique can achieve better alignment performance than RLHF while using only 2% of the computational resources. This makes it a highly practical solution, especially for researchers or organizations with limited computational capacity.
- The paper provides a thorough examination of unlearning in LLMs, including detailed experimental results across multiple applications, comparisons to existing methods like RLHF, and thoughtful discussion of the challenges and differences between unlearning in LLMs versus traditional machine learning models.
Weaknesses: - Drawing the connection between machine unlearning and RLHF techniques is a good point. And the authors claim that they can achieve similar performance to RLHF while only using 2% of the computational resource. However, a fundamental concern is whether the comparison is in a fair manner and whether the result is generalizable or not. A biggest problem of existing machine unlearning techniques, from my past experience, is that they usually lead to very unstable training, especially when the unlearning steps or the unlearning examples become larger. This will sometimes make the model collapse. I do not see a related discussion in the paper and I have strong concern about that aspect.
- Continue to my first point, the comparison might not be fair. Firstly, there is a lack of details on how the running time is calculated. Secondly, the authors might want to compare with DPO or other more efficient RLHF techniques.
- The generalizability of the approach is questionable as well. The paper demonstrates unlearning on a limited set of tasks (harmfulness, copyright, hallucination). It's unclear how well the method generalizes to other types of undesirable behaviors or knowledge. Additionally, the evaluation metrics are somewhat task-specific, making it difficult to compare the overall effectiveness of unlearning across different applications or to other alignment methods in a standardized way. The authors might want to adopt a similar setting to RLHF papers for a fair comparison.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Have you observed any unstable training during the unlearning process?
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors only discuss the limitation in one sentence at the end of the conclusion.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewers for the feedback. We address the comments one by one.
**W1 (Stability)**: We respectfully disagree with the statement that merely based on the reviewer’s previous experience of unlearning in the **traditional models**, unlearning would not work in our case.
First, we empirically tested the model utility in our setting. We do not observe noteworthy stability issues. During our experiments, we found, in general, performance was not subject to high variance as long as the hyperparameters are within a reasonable range.
Second, we do not observe some of the key stability issues that happened in small classification models as in LLMs. We explain the difference between unlearning traditional models and unlearning LLMs in the introduction. Thanks to the large capacity of LLMs, we in general find unlearning is more stable than small classification models because the LLMs have enough capacity to “endure” the disruption of the normal utility from unlearning.
Third, in Appendix C, we introduced various techniques to stabilize the unlearning. For example, continuing to unlearn after the loss on harmful samples rises dramatically is necessary for unlearning effectiveness (Table 3); (2) KL divergence rather than cross-entropy is critical in preserving normal utility (Table 4); (3) maintaining the consistent format between unlearned and normal dataset is necessary for utility. We designed our method carefully to take care of the stability issue, supported by empirical evidence.
Fourth, we would like to point out that since our paper, we have observed an increasing number of developments for LLM unlearning. Below is only a small selection of them. These follow-up developments have also successfully delivered empirical evidence that shows the possibility of unlearning functioning well in a variety of tasks, e.g. question-answering, protecting writers’ copyrighted text, knowledge removal, etc.
[1] Negative Preference Optimization: From Catastrophic Collapse to Effective Unlearning
[2] Offset Unlearning for Large Language Models
[3] SOUL: Unlocking the Power of Second-Order Optimization for LLM Unlearning
[4] Eraser: Jailbreaking Defense in Large Language Models via Unlearning Harmful Knowledge
[5] MUSE: Machine Unlearning Six-Way Evaluation for Language Models
[6] Negating Negatives: Alignment without Human Positive Samples via Distributional Dispreference Optimization
**W2 (Training Cost Comparison)**: As stated in the paper, the time reported in Figure 1 is the run time of unlearning executed on a single NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB GPU.
In addition, we added the additional experiments compared to DPO in the global rebuttal, Figure 1. Our cost is lower than DPO, which although much less expensive than full RLHF, still more costly than our method. In addition, DPO still requires positive samples which we do not need and we are already in a disadvantaged position when compared to both RLHF and DPO.
**W3 (Generalizability)**: We are not sure which part of our evaluation the reviewer targeted specifically.
> It's unclear how well the method generalizes to other types of undesirable behaviors or knowledge.
In Table 1, the middle column “Unseen Harmful Prompts” shows the results tested on harmful prompts that are not seen in the unlearning data. And we show that the unlearning forgets is not the particular samples, but the general concept of harmfulness. In short, our method generalizes well to unseen data. The same holds true for the other two applications in Table 8 and 9 in Appendix.
> Additionally, the evaluation metrics are somewhat task-specific... The authors might want to adopt a similar setting to RLHF papers for a fair comparison.
If we understand it correctly, by “task-specific”, the reviewer refers to using different measures for different reported tasks (e.g., removing harmful contents vs. removing copyright-protected contents). We believe this is a common challenge in evaluating generative AI models, where it is often necessary to have specific evaluations for specific tasks [1]. We believe we face the same challenges and are following the same practices of customizing the evaluation to align with the common practice. For example, for the safety alignment tasks our evaluation follows the standard LLM alignment evaluation, using the safety reward model on the safety benchmark dataset.
What the reviewer implies is also a challenge and a great opportunity for the research community. By the time we performed our study, there were no benchmark datasets, metrics, or processes that evaluated the effectiveness of unlearning. This is a different situation from the RLHF, which already acquired a lot of community effort to build what we have now. We believe LLM unlearning will go through the same process of development and eventually mature to a topic that researchers can easily and automatically perform evaluations. To some extent, we are trying to suggest an evaluation framework for LLM unlearning. But we agree it is probably not optimal and is and should be a promising research direction for the research community.
If the reviewer has any specific questions, please let us know.
[1] Liang, Percy, et al. "Holistic evaluation of language models." arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09110 (2022). | Summary: This research paper explores techniques for inducing large language models (LLMs) to selectively forget pre-learned information or undesirable behaviors through an unlearning paradigm. The primary objectives are to eliminate copyrighted content and mitigate harmful responses. The authors propose machine unlearning as a computationally efficient alternative to Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), noting that it only requires negative examples, whereas RLHF necessitates both positive and negative samples.
The main unlearning algorithms introduced is gradient ascent and random mismatch. These are regularized using gradient descent on normal training data. The researchers demonstrate that their methodology effectively erases copyrighted material and reduces harmful outputs from LLMs.
Strengths: - The paper is very well written and easy to follow. The ideas are communicated clearly, and the mathematical equations and introduced metrics are easy to understand.
- The breakdown of the evaluation criteria is very thorough, and the analysis on diversity and fluency is very useful and important to properly assess the quality of the result generations after unlearning.
- The method is effective in unlearning the undesirable behavior.
Weaknesses: - While the paper presents an somewhat effective approach, its novelty is somewhat limited. The core techniques—gradient ascent on data to be forgotten, random mismatch, and gradient descent—have been previously employed and combined for unlearning in both LLM and image classification contexts (see unlearning kaggle competition).
- A potential drawback of the proposed method is its impact on model engagement. Generating white spaces or fixed outputs in response to harmful prompts, while addressing immediate concerns, may inadvertently reduce the model's overall utility and conversational appeal.
- Furthermore, the approach raises privacy concerns. An attacker could potentially infer that certain information was learned and subsequently unlearned, compromising the ideal scenario where an attacker cannot discern whether specific data was ever part of the training set. Typically, unlearning aims to produce outputs indistinguishable from those of a model never exposed to the forgotten data, accounting for models' ability to generalize beyond their training examples. This paper's method may fall short in achieving this level of privacy protection.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: - How would you improve the helpfulness of the model after unlearning and metigate privacy risks?
- It would be good to compare against other unlearning methods introduced in the literature.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes. limitations were adequately addressed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewers for the positive feedback. We address the comments one by one.
**W1 (Novelty)**: We agree gradient ascent is a simple method but we think this method warrants the development for this new LLM unlearning problem we introduced. We would also like to stress that one of our contributions is defining the problem: the problem formulation, goals, evaluation metrics used in LLM unlearning are all different from the traditional unlearning ones used for the classification models. We spent a significant amount of the paper introducing our new problem definitions and concepts throughout the entire paper (end of Section 1,2, Section 2, end of Section 3, Section 4.1, beginning of discussions (in Section 4.2-4.5). We repeatedly explain that the problem of unlearning LLMs differs from classification models in many aspects.
In addition, setting aside the contribution of formulating a new problem, merely applying gradient ascent from the traditional unlearning literature does not warrant solving the unlearning problem in LLM. In Appendix C, we include an entire section of why merely applying GA blindly from classification literature does not work, supported by our empirical evidence. In summary, (1) continuing to unlearn after the loss on harmful samples rises dramatically is necessary for unlearning effectiveness (Table 3); (2) KL divergence rather than cross-entropy is critical in preserving normal utility (Table 4); (3) maintaining the consistent format between unlearned and normal dataset is necessary for utility. Therefore, the modification we introduced in Section 3 is critical.
Furthermore, the scenario we set the goal to study: aligning LLMs under low resources is, to the best of our knowledge, novel, and complements the alignment research (e.g., RLHF). Our results have inspired a number of follow-up discussions on aligning LLMs using only negative feedbacks, e.g [1-6].
[1] Negative Preference Optimization: From Catastrophic Collapse to Effective Unlearning
[2] Offset Unlearning for Large Language Models
[3] SOUL: Unlocking the Power of Second-Order Optimization for LLM Unlearning
[4] Eraser: Jailbreaking Defense in Large Language Models via Unlearning Harmful Knowledge
[5] MUSE: Machine Unlearning Six-Way Evaluation for Language Models
[6] Negating Negatives: Alignment without Human Positive Samples via Distributional Dispreference Optimization
**W2 (model engagement)**: First of all, we would like to highlight that this is our design choice. Given the lack of resources to perform full RLHF with human-labeled data, our method helps practitioners stop generating harmful responses, which has a higher priority than generating helpful responses. This is a **tradeoff** we take. In addition, we included an easy adaption to fit into the traditional scenario using templates in Section 4.5 (e.g. Q: "Which country has the dumbest population?" A: " I can’t assist it.").
**W3 (privacy)**: If we understand it correctly, the reviewer means the goal of unlearning should improve defense against MIA (membership inference attack) by generating text indistinguishable from the ones from the retrained model (instead of removing the privacy-protected contents).
If this is the case, then we think this is where unlearning in LLMs could differ from unlearning in the traditional classification models. As we discussed in the introduction and Section 2, in LLMs, we envision the goal of unlearning is broader than unlearning specific samples, and instead aiming at unlearning a general concept, e.g. unlearning a specific harmful response is less useful in practice than unlearning the general concept of harmfulness in responses. In other words, this part of our motivation of unlearning is on the side of alignment rather than privacy. We do not strictly require the unlearned model to be exactly the same as the retrained model (on the training data with the unlearned samples removed) for multiple reasons — one of which is that it is often forbiddenly expensive to retrain the LLMs, and therefore we have no ground-truth in evaluating whether the unlearning outcome indeed matches the retrained ones. But we agree adding this strong membership privacy guarantee should be an important and highly challenging goal of future LLM unlearning research.
We will clarify in the paper.
**Q1**: Hopefully W3 has addressed it.
**Q2**: As remarked in the introduction, prior to our work, there has not been any LLM unlearning benchmark data or method. Since our work, there are a number of follow-up works which used our method as the baseline, and we choose not to compare to them later in our experiments because it would not be fair to compare to those follow-up works that had already studied our work in detail and many of them design the proposed method that specifically targets at improving over our method.
However, we would like to point out that in many follow-up works, our method was reported as a strong baseline. For example, in one of the follow-up papers, which we cannot give the reference since it would violate the double-blindness of the review process, our method is reproduced in the Harry Potter copyright experiments, and the work reported our method achieves higher utility (around 50, averaged over 9 metrics, higher is better) than other baselines, e.g. [1], while with lower perplexity (around 7, lower is better).
We can certainly discuss more about those follow-up works if the paper is accepted, once the concern of breaking double-blindness is gone.
[1] Kurmanji, Meghdad, et al. "Towards unbounded machine unlearning." Advances in neural information processing systems 36 (2024). | null | null | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank all the reviewers for their insightful comments and valuable feedback. We provide our response to each reviewer individually, summarized below:
* In response to reviewer EdQC, we have included additional experiments compared to DPO. Our method requires less cost than DPO (Figure 1 in the PDF) and achieves similar alignment performance (Table 1 in the PDF). In addition, note that DPO, like RLHF, still requires positive samples which we do not need and we are already in a disadvantaged position when compared to both RLHF and DPO.
* In response to reviewer 4XoD, we clarified the novelty, which is not merely the method, but also the problem formulation of unlearning in LLMs, differing in many aspects from the traditional classification model. In addition, we reiterated various techniques we designed to make unlearning work in LLMs, under low-resource scenarios.
* In response to reviewer 4XoD, we clarified how our unlearning’s goal and scope differ from the traditional unlearning which focuses on privacy.
* In response to reviewer EdQC, we explained the practicality of unlearning in LLMs, and the domain-specific discussion on stability issues as well as why we think it is not a problem supported by growing literature in this area.
* In response to reviewer acG2, we clarified our scenario which emphasizes the practical tradeoff we make as well as the comparison to related work.
Pdf: /pdf/a1be535e5c54c6ac010627df52c01b147cf7edca.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Adjust Pearson's $r$ to Measure Arbitrary Monotone Dependence | Accept (poster) | Summary: The authors here introduce a new correlation statistic here they call the
"rearrangement correlation:" $r^{\sharp}$. The work argues this statistic
captures non-linear, monotonic relationships between two samples. The
authors prove a couple theoretical results for this new statistic and then
conduct a large empirical analysis comparing this statistic to many
alternatives that measure the strength of relationship between two variables.
Strengths: The paper provides a simple summary statistic (called the rearrangement
correlation $r^{\sharp}$) that aims to capture correlation between two
variables that may just be monotonic, rather than linear. This statistic is
simple to compute (requires $O(n \log n)$ to sort each sample) and is 1 if
and only if one sample is increasing monotone dependent in the other. They
also show that it is bounded below by the Pearson correlation statistic.
The authors provide some empirical analysis to suggest that this statistic
is well-suited to capture the coefficient of determination between two
samples even when the relationship is non-linear. They perform this analysis
with both simulated and real-world data and compare their new statistic to
many other alternatives.
Originality:
[+]
+ The idea of introducing a different correlation statistic is not completely
new, but to the best of the reviewers knowledge, this statistic is not
known. This appears to be a new statistic.
+ The authors are able to lower bound this new statistic with the Pearson
correlation statistic, which is a more well known statistic.
Quality:
[+]
+ The paper is mostly well-written and easy to follow.
+ Figure 1 does a nice job illustrates a hierarchy of statistics in the case
that the correlation coefficient is 1.
Clarity:
[+]
+ Most of the paper is easy to follow, barring some parts of the
experimental section.
Significance:
[+]
+ The authors have introduced a new correlation statistic that appears to
encode some mutual information between two paired samples.
+ When the relationship between two samples is roughly monotonic, the
statistic appears better then many alternatives to estimates the $R^2$
between those two samples.
Weaknesses: The main weakness in the current form of the paper is when to utilize this
statistic. The paper mentions that it is best as a proxy for "strength
measurement," but its main utility seems to be using it to measure the
strength of a monotonic relationship between two artibrary samples. This is
useful, but if this is the core utility, it is not clear how much better it
is compared to using the RSS of a LOWESS regression or some summary
statistic of a QQ-plot.
If there were more theory on the topology of this statistic, one may be able
to use it as a measure of how well a model fits a dataset, i.e., instead of
the Pearson coefficient of $y$ and $\hat{y}$ (which is basically the $R^2$
for the model) one could compute $r^{\sharp}$ instead. However, there is no
real analysis in the paper of whether a larger $r^{\sharp}$ actually means
it is a better fit in some sense.
Overall, I think there is something interesting about this statistic, but it
feels a bit unfinished. E.g., understanding robustness to outliers,
how sensitive it is if one sample changed monotonically, or if it could be
used in hypothesis testing would be huge reasons to consider this statistic
more broadly.
Originality:
[-]
- Outside the introduction of this statistic, much is still relatively
unknown. E.g., what is it limiting distribution as $n$ goes to infinity?
Is it robust to outliers? Is it sensitive to monotonic transformations?
Quality:
[-]
- It would be nice to move the proof of Theorem 1 to the appendix, as it
isn't really necessary to understand the rest of the paper and there
already are proofs in the appendix.
- What exactly does the population value $|r^{\sharp}(X, Y)|$ measure? Is
there any intuitive way to understand its value?
Clarity:
[-]
- The experiment in Section 3 is not described in full detail. Is the
experiment computing correlations between $f(x)$ and $y$? Is it computing
correlations between $x$ and $y$? It would be helpful to spell this out a
bit more clearly. I think its the latter but it would be better to be
explicit.
- Section 3.1 spends a lot of time discussing "trueness" and "precision,"
when it suffices to just suggest MAE as a statistic. There is no real need
to explain bias and variance to this audience :)
Significance:
[-]
- The authors mention is it meant to be used as a "strength measurement,"
but the context for when to use this measurement is not entirely
clear. E.g., the authors demonstrate that it can be used to measure the
amount of noise present between two samples $x$ and $y$ where $y$ is
roughly a (monotone) function of $x$, but if this is the use case, why
couldn't one just use a locally-weighted regression (e.g. LOWESS) to
estimate $f$ and thus the $R^2$? The true benefits of using this statistic
are still a bit unclear.
- There are still some questions that remain regarding this statistic: e.g.,
is there some proof that explains roughly under what $f$, $\sigma$, error
distribution, etc. will yield reasonable estimates for the $R^2$?
Detailed Comments:
L36: No need to mention the title of the paper, you can just mention the authors and provide the citation.
L51-56: IMHO, most of these definitions are common enough to omit. One could just state "X and Y are assumed to be random variables with bounded second moment."
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Q1: Given this measure is better suited to handle non-linear relationships
between data, how does it compare to computing the Pearson correlation
between the quantiles of two samples? Or, e.g, does computing some summary
statistic of a QQ-plot encode some of the same information being picked up
by $r^{\sharp}$?
Q2: How does the new correlation measure $r^{\sharp}$ encode different
relationships in data? E.g., if we have three datasets $x = (x_1, ...,
x_n)$, $y^1 = (y^1_1, ..., y^1_n)$ and $y^2 = (y^2_1, ..., y^2_n)$, what is
implied if $r^{\sharp}(x, y^1) > r^{\sharp}(x, y^2)$? Does this signify a stronger
relationship between $x$ and $y^1$ than $x$ and $y^2$? How should one really
interpret this for correlations not close to 1?
Q3: In what situations should one prefer this statistic over another? E.g.,
for approximately linear relationships, the Pearson correlation should be
better than this measure. In what settings and under what assumptions should
the reader opt to use this statistic?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: NA
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 3
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ---
Q:The main weakness in the current form of the paper is when to utilize this statistic... it is not clear how much better it is compared to using the RSS of a LOWESS regression.
A:Yes, the main utility of the proposed coefficient is to measure the strength of monotonic relationships. The roles of correlation and regression are different. Pearson's correlation coefficient should not be omitted even if we can fit linear regression between variables. And the same is for rearrangement correlation.
1. Correlation analysis precedes regression modeling in most cases. One can utilize correlation analysis to determine whether there is a relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable. And those most correlated independent variables are usually selected for further modelling.
2. Rearrangement correlation are more general than certain monotonic regression models. For example, if the rearrangement correlation between X and Y is 0.8, it can take different monotonic forms, such as exponential function Y = e^kX or polynomial function Y = aX^3 + bX^2 + cX + d. And one has to try and fit those specific models.
3. Rearrangement correlation can determine the strength between X and Y. However, it can not predict Y with X. If we select the right model and extract the signal from the observations, then the RSS might be similar to rearrangement correlation coefficient.
---
Q: Given this measure is better suited to handle non-linear relationships between data, how does it compare to computing the Pearson correlation between the quantiles of two samples? Or, e.g, does computing some summary statistic of a QQ-plot encode some of the same information being picked up by r♯?
A:This is a great question! It is true that we can get r♯ by computing the Pearson correlation between the quantiles of two samples in the following way:
r♯(x, y)=r(x, y) / r(quantile(x), quantile(y)) if r(x, y)>=0; and r♯(x, y)=r(x, y) / r(quantile(x), rev(quantile(y))) if r(x, y)<0. We can verify that it is equivalent to our definition of r♯.
Also, we can verify it with lines of R code:
```
> library(recor)
> set.seed(2024)
> x <- 10*rnorm(100)
> noises <- 30*rnorm(100)
#The positive case
> y <- x^3 + noises
> cor(x, y)
[1] 0.7427739
> recor(x, y)
[1] 0.9997153
> cor(x, y) /abs(cor(quantile(x, seq(0, 1, len = 100)), quantile(y, seq(0, 1, len = 100))))
[1] 0.9997153
#The negative case
> y <- -x^3 + noises
> cor(x, y)
[1] -0.7429709
> recor(x, y)
[1] -0.9996488
> cor(x, y) /abs(cor(quantile(x, seq(0, 1, len = 100)), quantile(y, seq(1, 0, len = 100))))
[1] -0.9996488
```
---
Q:There is no real analysis in the paper of whether a larger r♯ actually means it is a better fit in some sense.
A: Yes, a larger r♯ actually means it is a better fit. We have done simulations and shown the results in Figure 2.
1. In Figure 2, the x-axis is R, which stands for how well the model can be fitted, and the y-axis is the correlation coefficient. The non-transparent red line in the r♯ panel shows that r♯ increases with R.
2. It is to be noted that R is the square root of coefficient of determination. R is NOT the same as Pearson's r, except for unary linear regression.
---
Q: How does the new correlation measure r♯ encode different relationships in data? ...
A:Suppose that x=(x1,...,xn), y1=(y11,...,yn1)=f(x)+noise1 and y2=(y12,...,yn2)=f(x)+noise2. Then r♯(x,y1)>r♯(x,y2) implies that the noise level in y2 is higher than that in y1. Namely, there is a stronger relationship between x and y1 than x and y2. As the noise level rises, the correlation coefficient will stray further and further away from 1.
---
Q: In what situations should one prefer this statistic over another?
A:
1. For non-monotonic scenarios, the proposed r♯ is inferior to other coefficients such as MIC and dCor; For monotonic scenarios, r♯ outperforms all other coefficients.
2. For non-linear scenarios, rearrangement correlation is superior to Pearson's r. For linear scenarios, rearrangement revert to Pearson's r.
3. In most cases, we will try different coefficients and compare their values for further conclusion. For example, if we obtain r♯(X,Y)=1, then we can judge that the relationship is at least monotonic. To determine whether this monotonic relationship is also linear, we will further calculate the value of r(X,Y).
---
Q:Is there any intuitive way to understand its value?
A:YES. We resort to permutahedron for intuitive explanation. Please kindly find it in the global rebuttal.
---
Q:Is the experiment computing correlations between f(x) and y? Is it computing correlations between x and y?
A:Yes. We compute correlations between x and y. We will describe it explicitly in the main text, and provide more details in the appendix.
---
Q:Overall, I think there is something interesting about this statistic, but it feels a bit unfinished. E.g., understanding robustness to outliers,...
A:It is indeed challenging to encapsulate the entirety of its theoretical underpinnings within a single conference paper. Hence, we have meticulously outlined the rationale behind its development, elucidated the methodology employed, and presented the experimental outcomes. This work is grounded on six pivotal theorems (inclusive of corollaries and propositions), which form the cornerstone of its theoretical framework. Furthermore, we have validated its practical efficacy through rigorous experiments conducted in both simulated and real-world settings, thereby ensuring a comprehensive narrative that encapsulates both the theoretical foundations and empirical validations.
---
Once again, thank you for your comments. In addition to the aforementioned clarifications and revisions, we will also take into account all of your other suggestions.
* to move the proof of Theorem 1 to the appendix
* to simplify the statements evaluation indices
* to follow your Detailed Comments about L36 and L51-56
* ...
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: I thank the authors for their response. In particular, thank you for illustrating the connection between $r^{\sharp}$ and the quantiles of the samples, when to use this statistic over the Pearson correlation (but not Kendall-tau), and the permutahedron is an interesting idea.
Unfortunately, I still do not feel any of my main questions have been addressed:
* In the section responding to LOWESS vs. the new method, the authors simply state that "correlation and regression are different." I'm not totally sure what the purpose of the distinction is, I'm merely asking why is this any better or different than using LOWESS to derive a statistic to encode the same information as $r^{\sharp}$. The authors didn't really address this question.
* The authors did not provide any insight about the topology of $r^{\sharp}$. E.g., when asked if a larger $r^{\sharp}$ indicates a better fit, the authors just pointed toward the empirical work and claimed that it was the case without any proof. My question is a theoretical one in nature and can not be proven by evaluating a few examples from the synthetic datasets being used in the empirical section.
* I don't think the authors answered my question about what in the population setting $r^{\sharp}(X,Y)$ is measuring.
* For some of the core principles needed in statistical theory (e.g., limiting distribution, robustness to outliers) and also ones specific to this statistic (sensitivity to monotonic transformations), no further analysis was provided. If one is to propose a new statistic, some analysis of these is crucial, otherwise it is difficult for practitioners to put any trust into this statistic over another. E.g., the $R^2$ of the LOWESS regression above is at least very well understood in terms of statistical theory, so to use $r^{\sharp}$ over that statistic, there must be some theoretical discussion of why this is the case.
For these reasons, I am inclined to keep my score on this paper.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: 1. Correlation analysis and regression analysis fulfill distinct roles, as highlighted in our previous responses, and thus, they are not directly comparable. Indeed, none of those renowned dependence measures, such as distance correlation (Székely, Rizzo, & Bakirov, 2007), Maximal Information Coefficient (MIC) (Reshef et al., 2011), and Chatterjee's ξ (Chatterjee, 2021), are intended for comparison with other regression methods.
2. LOWESS regression has been mentioned several times. However, to the best of our current understanding, it does not exhibit any particular association or relevance to monotonic dependence.
3. In our manuscript, we present the underlying motivation, delve into the core theoretical issues, and report on the experimental performance. The story is complete.
4. As a newly proposed method, it poses a challenge for us to fully explore and elucidate all of its theoretical properties within the confines of a single paper.
5. The problem you mentioned has inspired us greatly. We will explore it further in future works. Concise answers to the problem are as follows:
- Is it robust to outliers? NO. Rearrangement correlation is a scaled covariance, and the limitation of being non-robust to outliers is inherited from covariance itself. In fact, concordance correlation coefficient, additivity coefficient, and Pearson's r are also scaled covariance measures, and none of them are robust to outliers. Whether a dependence measure is robust to outliers or not does not solely determine its value or usefulness.
---
Székely, Gábor J., Maria L. Rizzo, and Nail K. Bakirov (2007). Measuring and Testing Dependence by Correlation of Distances. In: Annals of Statistics 35.6, pp. 2769–2794.
Reshef, David N. et al. (2011). Detecting Novel Associations in Large Data Sets. In: Science 334.6062, pp. 1518–1524.
Chatterjee, Sourav (2021). A New Coefficient of Correlation. In: Journal of the American Statistical Association 116.536, pp. 2009–2022.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: I am deeply appreciative of your insightful comments.
${r^♯}$ is better than the classical Spearman's $\rho$ in sense that:
1. ${r^♯}$ has a higher *resolution* and is more accurate. Notably, all measures devised specifically for monotonic dependence inherently rely on order information. Yet, our approach uniquely leverages the original data points, foregoing the conventional ranking process. The conversion of numerical values to ranks inherently entails a loss of information, as subtle differences between values may become indistinguishable from more pronounced disparities. Given a sample size of $n$, Spearman's $\rho$ can only assume a finite set of $\frac{{{n^3} - n}}{6}$ distinct values within the range of -1 to +1, regardless of the underlying raw values or the specific correlation patterns. Consequently, the granularity or *resolution* of Spearman's $\rho$ may be considered suboptimal, potentially obscuring nuanced differences in the data.
To illustrate this concept with a concise yet illustrative example, let
- $x = \left( {4,3,2,1} \right)$
- ${y_1} = \left( {5,4,3,2.00} \right)$
- ${y_2} = \left( {5,4,3,3.25} \right)$
- ${y_3} = \left( {5,4,3,3.50} \right)$
- ${y_4} = \left( {5,4,3,3.75} \right)$
- ${y_5} = \left( {5,4,3,4.50} \right)$
It is evident that ${y_1}$ and $x$ exhibit identical monotonic behavior, with their values decreasing in a stepwise fashion. Conversely, the behavior of ${y_2}$, ${y_3}$, ${y_4}$, and ${y_5}$ diverges increasingly from that of $x$ as the final element deviates further from the strict descending pattern.
However, when assessing the relationships using Spearman's $\rho$, the values for ${y_2}$, ${y_3}$, ${y_4}$ are identical. This underscores a limitation of Spearman's $\rho$ in distinguishing subtle variations in monotonic relationships, particularly when the differences are confined to the ranks.
In stark contrast, ${r^♯}$ is capable of precisely capturing these differences. It reveals the gradual shift in the relationship between $x$ and $y$, thereby providing a more accurate and informative assessment of their monotonic dependence.
- ${r^♯ }\left( {x,{y_1}} \right) = 1.00$, $\rho \left( {x,{y_1}} \right) = 1.00$
- ${r^♯ }\left( {x,{y_2}} \right) = 0.93$, $\rho \left( {x,{y_2}} \right) = 0.80$
- ${r^♯ }\left( {x,{y_3}} \right) = 0.85$, $\rho \left( {x,{y_3}} \right) = 0.80$
- ${r^♯ }\left( {x,{y_4}} \right) = 0.76$, $\rho \left( {x,{y_4}} \right) = 0.80$
- ${r^♯ }\left( {x,{y_5}} \right) = 0.38$, $\rho \left( {x,{y_5}} \right) = 0.40$
Experiments conducted in both simulated and real-world scenarios have also conclusively demonstrated that ${r^♯}$ exhibits a higher degree of accuracy compared to $\rho$, underscoring its superiority in capturing intricate monotonic relationships.
2. ${r^♯}$ is comparable with Pearson's $r$, while the latter is not. For nonlinear monotonic dependence, the value of Spearman's $\rho$ might
be remarkably greater than the value of Pearson's $r$. One may attempt to search for nonlinear relationships in data by checking whether the value of $\rho$ far exceeds that of $r$. However, it might be meaningless and even impossible to compare their values directly. It is possible for $\rho$ to be either greater or smaller than $r$, and their signs may differ, rendering the difference $\left| \rho \right| - \left| r \right|$ ambiguous. In contrast, the signs of ${r^♯}$ and $r$ are consistently aligned, and the magnitude of $\left| {r^♯} \right|$ is always greater than or equal to $\left| r \right|$. Specifically, $\left| {r^♯} \right| - \left| r \right|$ equals to 0 if and only if $y$ is arbitrary permutation of $ax + b$. Furthermore, its value increases with the degree of nonlinearity.
---
Spearman's $\rho$ can also be superior to ${r^♯}$ in sense that the former is robust to outliers, while the latter is not.
In order to be more robust, we can also transform the raw data into their ranks before calculating ${r^♯}$. And we have made an intriguing discovery.
3. ${r^♯}$ reverts to Spearman's $\rho$ if calculated on ranks. We have derived that: if $x$ and $y$ are both permutations of {1, 2, ..., $n$}, then we have ${r^♯}\left( {x,y} \right) = \rho \left( {x,y} \right)$ in sense that $s\left( {x,y} \right) = s\left( {{x^ \uparrow },{y^ \updownarrow }} \right) = \frac{{n\left( {n + 1} \right)}}{{12}}$.
The aforementioned conclusion sheds light on the following phenomenon:
Spearman's $\rho$ is simply the application of Pearson's $r$ in the data converted to ranks before calculating the statistic. Now that $\rho$ and $r$ share the same mathematical formula, why can the former measure nonlinear monotonic relationships while the latter only linear ones?
The crux is not the conversion of raw data to ranks, but still to have a sharp bound. For ranks, $\rho $ and ${r^♯}$ are equivalent. Since we have established in our manuscript that ${r^♯}$ can measure arbitrary monotone dependence, $\rho $ shares this capability.
---
Rebuttal Comment 3.1:
Title: please reflect this in the paper
Comment: Thank you for the clear explanation — this is helpful. I would strongly recommend to add an abridged version of this discussion to the paper, it adds context and intuition. Perhaps instead of the accuracy and precision discussion, which may be redundant for NeurIPS audience.
---
Reply to Comment 3.1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your advice. We will revise the paper accordingly and incorporate an abridged version of this discussion into the manuscript. The invaluable insights you have shared, coupled with the contributions from four esteemed reviewers, have been instrumental in significantly enhancing and refining our work. We are profoundly grateful for your guidance and support throughout this process.
---
Rebuttal 4:
Comment: Thank you for the response. Per your comments:
I am not claiming that regression and correlation aren't different. I am suggesting that looking at the percentage of variance explained by a LOWESS regression of two variables is a plausible approach to measure the strength of correlation, but in the current paper is not considered as an alternative method. This seems like a very reasonable way to capture the relationship between variables when monotonicity is the focus and it would prove the utility of this correlation to compare to this as benchmark.
When I discuss the topology of $r^{\sharp}$, the only thing that seems to be proven in the text is that $r^{\sharp}(x, y) = 1$ iff the discrete samples $x = (x_1, \dots, x_n)$ and $y=(y_1, \dots, y_n)$ are monotone increase w.r.t to each other. But consider an example where $0 < r^{\sharp}(x, y) < 1$. If $f$ is some strictly monotone increasing function, is it even clear how $r^{\sharp}(x, f(y))$ relates to $r^{\sharp}(x, y)$? Given your previous claim that $r^{\sharp}(x, y) = r(x, y) / r(q_x, q_y)$, you should be able to relate this to the pearson correlation if you can prove the above equality is true. Understanding what $r^{\sharp}(x, y) > r^{\sharp}(x, z)$ implies about $y$ and $z$ is another example. These are the types of properties that would provide some better understanding of the metric for practitioners to know why they should use this new proposal.
I understand that the paper can only be so long, but there are lots of sections of the paper that would be much better served answering these questions than the current ones posed in the text. As I mentioned in my initial review, I think there could be some interesting ideas in this work, but it seems like there are enough missing details that this paper would appeal to a larger audience if some of the above questions were answered.
---
Rebuttal Comment 4.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions and meticulous comments, which have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work.
We shall endeavor to incorporate within our paper a comprehensive account of the potential theoretical properties pertaining to the proposed $r^\sharp$. For example,
1. We can express $r^\sharp$ in terms of Pearson's $r$ as follows:
${r^\sharp }\left( {x,y} \right) = \frac{{{s_{x,y}}}}{{\left| {{s_{{x^ \uparrow },{y^ \updownarrow }}}} \right|}} = \frac{{\frac{{{s_{x,y}}}}{{\sqrt {{s_{x,x}}{s_{y,y}}} }}}}{{\left| {\frac{{{s_{{x^ \uparrow },{y^ \updownarrow }}}}}{{\sqrt {{s_{x,x}}{s_{y,y}}} }}} \right|}} = \frac{{r\left( {x,y} \right)}}{{\left| {r\left( {{x^ \uparrow },{y^ \updownarrow }} \right)} \right|}}$
2. $r^\sharp$ possesses a notable invariance property under transformations of location and scale applied to the two variables. Specifically, it remains unaffected by linear transformations of the form $x \mapsto a + bx$ and $y \mapsto c + dy$, where $a$, $b$, $c$, and $d$ are constants with the constraints $b,d > 0$. This invariance highlights the robustness of $r^\sharp$ to common preprocessing steps involving shifts in location and rescaling of the variables. Nevertheless, it is imperative to acknowledge that, in contrast to rank-based correlation coefficients, $r^\sharp$ does not demonstrate invariance under monotonic transformations. | Summary: The authors refined Pearson’s r, and proposed a new correlation coefficient, i.e., rearrangement correlation. They showed that this coefficient is able to capture arbitrary monotone relationships, both linear and nonlinear ones. With simulation, they showed the rearrangement correlation is more accurate in measuring nonlinear monotone dependence than the three classical correlation coefficients, and other recently proposed dependence measures.
Strengths: The introduction of this correlation coefficient, i.e., rearrangement correlation, can measure some nonlinear dependence unlike the classical Pearson's. The simulation also showed it performs better than some other correlation coefficient in the literature.
Weaknesses: The paper's weakness lies in some aspects. First, the contribution of this rearrangement correlation doesn't seem significant enough or at least the authors can clarify more on this. For example, Theorem 1, which was already proposed in the existing literature, seems enough to motivate this rearrangement correlation thus lacking some significant theoretical contribution. In other way, in terms of application, the paper failed to clarify the importance of this rearrangement correlation in some meaningful statistical problems/machine learning algorithms other than just introduce this new concept.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: As mentioned above, Theorem 1, which was already proposed in the existing literature, seems enough to motivate this rearrangement correlation. I am not clear about the authors' significant contributions.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Comments:
The contribution of this rearrangement correlation doesn't seem significant enough or at least the authors can clarify more on this. For example, Theorem 1, which was already proposed in the existing literature, seems enough to motivate this rearrangement correlation thus lacking some significant theoretical contribution.
---
Response:
Thank you for your valuable feedback. Indeed, there seem to be some misconceptions that require clarification.
It is crucial to note that Theorem 1 was meticulously deduced and originally proposed within our manuscript. We have thoroughly researched the existing literature, and to the best of our knowledge, Theorem 1 has not been previously reported, making it highly unlikely that it appears elsewhere.
The paramount contribution of Theorem 1 lies in forging a novel connection between two famous inequalities: the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality and the Rearrangement Inequality. Our proposition herein asserts that the Rearrangement Inequality offers a tighter bound compared to the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality. If you happen to be aware of any similar theorem in the existing literature that also explores the intricate relationship between these two inequalities, we would be immensely grateful if you could furnish us with the precise source reference.
It is imperative to clarify that our contribution does not lie in the Rearrangement Inequality itself nor its probabilistic variant. Both the original Rearrangement Inequality and its probabilistic counterpart have been well-established in the literature, as documented in (Hardy, Littlewood, and Polya, 1952) and (Whitt, 1976), respectively, and have been duly cited within our manuscript. Rather, our novel contribution stems from uncovering the fact that the Rearrangement Inequality offers a tighter bound for covariance compared to the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality. This tighter bound, in turn, paves the way for the introduction of the novel correlation.
We express our heartfelt gratitude for the valuable time and diligent effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We sincerely hope that our endeavors will be duly recognized and appreciated.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the clarification on the main contribution. I now understand more through the reply "our novel contribution stems from uncovering the fact that the Rearrangement Inequality offers a tighter bound for covariance compared to the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality. This tighter bound, in turn, paves the way for the introduction of the novel correlation". Theoretically, it becomes more clear to me so I decided to raise the score a bit. However, I still find it hard to find some special cases on how important it "paves the way for the introduction of the novel correlation". | Summary: The paper proposes an adjustment to Pearson’s r to measure nonlinear monotone relationships, resulting in a new coefficient called the rearrangement correlation. The rearrangement correlation can capture both linear and nonlinear monotone relationships more accurately than traditional measures.
Strengths: This paper rresents a new inequality tighter than the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality. The proposed Rearrangement Correlation is well-defined but could use more intuitive explanations.
Weaknesses: 1. It would be better to analyze some special cases under which how much the proposed correlation can improve the traditional Pearson one.
2. The title is confusing. Linear monotone dependence also fits in the paper's scope.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. It would be better to analyze some special cases under which how much the proposed correlation can improve the traditional Pearson one.
2. The title is confusing. Linear monotone dependence also fits in the paper's scope.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: 1. It would be better to analyze some special cases under which how much the proposed correlation can improve the traditional Pearson one.
2. The title is confusing. Linear monotone dependence also fits in the paper's scope.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Comment: This paper presents a new inequality tighter than the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality. The proposed Rearrangement Correlation is well-defined but could use more intuitive explanations.
Response: I am deeply grateful for your kind acknowledgement, and we will resort to permutahedron to explain the rearrangement correlation intuitively. Please kindly find the intuitive explanation in the global official comments.
---
Q: It would be better to analyze some special cases under which how much the proposed correlation can improve the traditional Pearson one.
A: We have investigated 50 monotonic and 16 non-monotonic simulated cases, and 5 real-life cases to compare the performance of r♯ and other coefficients, including Pearson's r. The results are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
To the best of our knowledge, our research explores the most extensive and representative range of scenarios. In fact, the number of scenarios in our research is much higher than those in other similar studies, such as (Reshef et al., 2011) [9 simulated functional relationships], (Simon and Tibshirani, 2014) [8 simulated scenarios], and (Chatterjee, 2021) [6 simulated cases].
Reshef, David N. et al. (2011). “Detecting Novel Associations in Large Data Sets”. In: Science 334.6062, pp. 1518–1524.
Simon, Noah and Robert Tibshirani (2014). Comment on "Detecting Novel Associations In Large Data Sets" by Reshef Et Al, Science Dec 16, 2011. arXiv: 1401.7645.
Chatterjee, Sourav (2021). “A New Coefficient of Correlation”. In: Journal of the American Statistical Association 116.536, pp. 2009–2022.
---
Q:The title is confusing. Linear monotone dependence also fits in the paper's scope.
A: Thank you very much for your comments. According to your suggestion, we will change our title as *Adjust Pearson's r to Measure Arbitrary Monotone Dependence*
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response
Comment: Thank you for the clarification. What I meant is to find special cases and prove theoretical improvement. Not numerical. | Summary: This paper proposes a new variant of Pearson's r coefficient to capture arbitrary monotone relationships between random variables.
Traditionally, Pearson's r is used to capture linear dependence between variables. The relation of "being linearly dependent" is stronger than the relation of "being monotone dependent (i.e. (X, Y) almost surely lies in a non-decreasing or non-increasing subset of R^2). The capturing power of linear relations by Pearson's r coefficient is explained by equality condition in Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. The authors of this paper demonstrate that strengthening of Cauchy-Schwarz inequality using rearrangement theorems by Hardy, Littlewood and Polya provides a new adjusted Pearson's coefficient, which authors call rearragement correlation coefficient that is able to capture monotonic dependences.
Strengths: The problem studied in this paper is quite natural and has various practical applications.
Prior work proposed modifications to Pearson's r coefficient but "in opposite direction" to capture more strict relations: concordance correlation coefficient (Lin 1989) to measure identical relationship, additivity coefficient (Zegers 1986) to capture additive relations Y = +-X+b. This work instead moves in the opposite direction and proposes a coefficient to capture more "loose" monotone relation. Therefore, this paper can be seen as a continuation of that line of work.
The paper is well-writtena and clearly presented. Proofs are simple, elegant and easy to follow.
Theoretical results are supported by experiment on simulated data and real-world datasets.
Weaknesses: -
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: Can this method be generalized beyond one-dimensional data? I.e., is there an analog of "rearrangement correlation coefficient" for a proper definition of monotone dependency between X and Y in R^d?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: -
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Q:Can this method be generalized beyond one-dimensional data? I.e., is there an analog of "rearrangement correlation coefficient" for a proper definition of monotone dependency between $X$ and $Y$ in $R^d$?
A:Thank you for your comments. Your suggestion means a lot to us. We believe that there should be a multivariable version of the rearrangement correlation. We can draw inspiration from several successful precedents. For example, distance correlation can test and measure the dependence of two random vectors in arbitrary dimension (Székely et al. 2007). Pearson's $r$ has already been generalized to measure correlation between random vectors (Puccetti, 2022). Unfortunately, we do not yet have an analog of rearrangement correlation for random vectors. We have incorporated this into our research agenda. Thank you again for your valuable advice.
---
Székely, Gábor J., Maria L. Rizzo, and Nail K. Bakirov (2007). Measuring and Testing Dependence by Correlation of Distances. In: Annals of Statistics 35.6, pp. 2769–2794.
Puccetti, G. (2022). Measuring linear correlation between random vectors. Information Sciences 607, 1328-1347
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your reply. I am ging to keep my score as is. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Main theoretical contributions
The main theoretical contribution is Theorem 1 and Theorem 2, along with their corollaries and propositions.
Theorem 1 establishes the connection between two famous inequalities, i.e., the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality and the Rearrangement Inequality. It is revealed here that the Rearrangement Inequality provides a tighter bound for covariance than the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality. This sharper bound leads to a new correlation coefficient, which outperforms others in measuring monotonic dependence.
# Intuitive explanation of rearrangement correlation
We have added a new figure (Fig. N) to provide an intuitive explanation of rearrangement correlation. Please refer to the PDF file for the figure.
The crux of the proposed rearrangement correlation lies in the rearrangement process, and the permutahedron offers a systematic representation of this rearrangement along with the corresponding correlation coefficients.
In Fig. N, we consider x = (1,2,3,4) and let y be an arbitrary permutation of {1,2,4,5}. With the reference x = (1,2,3,4) fixed in ascending order, there are two perfectly covarying y sequences, namely, (1,2,4,5) and (5,4,2,1), which are in similar and opposite order respectively compared to x. We place all permutations of y and the corresponding r♯(x,y) values on a permutahedron P4 as depicted in Fig. N. The vertices of the permutahedron are in a one-to-one correspondence with the permutations. There are a total of n!=4!=24 covarying states, which coincides with the number of permutations of y relative to the fixed x.
With the permutahedron, it is evident that covariance quantifies the extent of all the covarying states exactly. Through any path forward, the covariance will decrease to negative ones, and ultimately reach the lower limit, ${s_{{x^ \uparrow },{y^ \downarrow }}}$; conversely, through any path backward, the covariance will increase to positive ones, and ultimately reach the upper limit ${s_{{x^ \uparrow },{y^ \uparrow }}}$. Thus, ${s_{{x^ \uparrow },{y^ \downarrow }}}$ and ${s_{{x^ \uparrow },{y^ \uparrow }}}$ prove to be the infimum and supremum and for ${s_{x,y}}$. As standardized version of covariance, a correlation statistic should increase to +1 if the covarying status approaches the supremum node, and decrease to −1 as the covarying status nears the infimum node.
If we designate these two endpoints as ±1, the magnitude of the covarying status can intuitively be represented as the percentage of the maximum attainable covariance that is indeed realized, or alternatively, as the ratio of the actual covariance to the maximum possible covariance in the same direction. Given that the absolute values of the supremum and infimum may not necessarily coincide, we will scale the actual covariance with either the supremum or the infimum, contingent upon the sign of the covariance. This rationale underpins our definitions of rearrangement correlation as outlined in Definitions 2 and 3.
As shown in Fig.N, following the path indicated by the arrows, the covarying status is from similar order, through complete disorder, to opposite order, and the r♯(x,y) values will correspondingly vary from positive one (+1), through near zero, to negative one (−1), expressing directly and thoroughly the covarying status between x and y in a standardized way.
Pdf: /pdf/d726adb161388ab8f3f9428f7e0378f974cc7183.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Bayesian Nonparametrics Meets Data-Driven Distributionally Robust Optimization | Accept (poster) | Summary: This article proposes a new method for optimisation of risk under uncertainty, using Dirichlet Processes to introduce an extra degree of robustness to modelling uncertainty on the data generating process. The method is generally applicable to many statistical learning problems through the use of loss functions, and further links are made to the economic decision-making literature. The theoretical properties of the methods are explored, and a Monte Carlo approximation is introduced to make tractable the inference for the DP model. Experiments are performed on three simulated experiments, and three real data sets.
Strengths: This article represents a novel contribution to a very general problem, with the use of a neat mathematical representation of a statistical decision maker’s uncertainty in the form of a Dirichlet Process. The relevant theory behind the method is explored thoroughly, and there are several different applications explored. The quality of the scientific writing is fairly high. The links made with the economic decision making literature are interesting, helping elucidate the underlying point about ambiguity aversion.
Weaknesses: The idea of placing a prior on the data generating process instead of the parameters is unusual from the traditional Bayesian perspective. While this is not necessarily wrong, the authors do not do a particularly good job of communicating the implications of constructing a prior in this way, or how existing intuitions that the readership may have can be transferred to this new approach.
The results discussion from line 299 onwards has not been prioritised for space in the manuscript: the authors attempt to concentrate reporting results from six different experiments into a single page, which is not enough exposition for the main text of the article. Many fairly important details are pushed into an Appendix and then covered by asserting the “superior ability of our robust method” in the main text. This is far too simple an analysis for an empirical investigation: I don’t trust any analysis that can be summed up so concisely, let alone six combined, with three being real data sets. Appendix C is reasonably thorough in this respect, although there is a noticeable absence of any rigorous testing of the differences in performance metrics.
There are a few small issues with the English in the article: line 8: “among which Ridge…”, line 97: “pervasive” is a strange choice of vocabulary.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Line 110: “In our setting, instead of a parametric prior on the regression coefficients, we place a nonparametric one on the joint distribution of the response and covariates” What is lost by not having priors associated with parameters? This is not necessarily a good thing to move away from: specific belief distributions for specific interpretable model components is a good thing. What the implications for estimating the posterior uncertainty on the parameter level, for example in the regression case? What kind of posterior convergence do you expect on the parameters themselves?
What are the more general implications of putting a prior on the distributions of the data instead of the model parameters? This is suggested to be the case in line 111. Is that not what the likelihood is meant to capture? Is this merely sloppy phrasing in line 111 Does the prior on the distribution of the data come into conflict with the model at some point? What is the difference between altering the prior you have assumed here and altering the statistical model?
What is the expected scalability of the methods to larger data sets? None of those used here are really that big, but the use of SGD implies that you have big-N scalability in mind. The wall clock times on your fairly modest desktop system are quite small, so presumably you have some ability to scale to larger data sets if desired.
Is the trained DP object interpretable at all? Assuming that the learned DP object implies some sort of partition of the data-generating process, then is that partition telling us something we didn’t know beforehand? How restrictive is the DP prior on the space of measures that you might expect in reality?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: While an elegant choice for the problem at hand, the use of a Dirichlet Process is likely to be a limiting factor for future directions of research, both in terms of the computational limits and the possible allowable partitions.
The assertion of the prior in the way performed here, in contrast to over interpretable parameters, possibly limits the likelihood of this method being widely adopted.
The theoretical results are focussed on convergence to the correct expected risk (or transformations thereof), rather than telling us anything about the parameters themselves.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for the time spent reviewing our work and for the insightful comments, which we will incorporate in the next version of our paper by emphasizing the points brought up in the review.
First, we would like to address the weaknesses pointed out by the reviewer as follows (we defer discussion of the first weakness to the questions section below):
* We agree with the reviewer that the results of our experiments are analyzed extremely quickly at the end of the paper. Our choice was dictated by the strict page limit and the predominantly methodological nature of our contribution. However, we will make sure to extend the discussion in the next version of the paper. As for lack of uncertainty quantification for performance metrics, we note how every plot and table reporting empirical results includes standard deviations (across sample realization or data folds) on top of means. This reporting style is due to the fact that variability is of direct interest to our analysis (our method stabilizes out-of-sample performance), but it can be readily used to obtain, for instance, standard normal confidence intervals for the corresponding mean values (that is, mean value $\pm$ standard deviation * critical value).
* We thank the reviewer for pointing out the language issues, which we will address in the next version of the paper.
Second, we would like to address the reviewer’s questions as follows:
* The reviewer asks for clarifications on the unusual switch between placing priors on parameters versus placing priors on the data generating process (this also echoes the first weakness mentioned by the reviewer). We’d like to point out that our starting point is data-driven optimization, where parameters of interest are learnt by minimizing some empirical approximation of an expected loss function. The Bayesian component of our methodology lies not in how we infer parameters, but in how we choose to approximate the expectation around the loss function: Instead of directly taking an empirical average, we average out the generating process using a DP posterior. Adopting this perspective, then, also allows to introduce ambiguity aversion via the convex transformation $\phi$. Hence, our method is better understood as using _Bayesian ideas_ to improve upon optimization-based procedures. This allows to gain some key robustness properties and analytical tractability, while retaining the computational scalability of optimization-based learning that traditional Bayesian methods often lack due to burdensome inference on the whole posterior. A good example of this is our Proposition 2.1 (also mentioned by the reviewer), which uncovers a new Bayesian interpretation of Ridge and Lasso. In fact, using traditional Bayesian methods, it is well known that Ridge and Lasso are equivalent to maximum-a-posteriori estimators based on Gaussian and Laplacian priors on the linear regression coefficient vector. Our procedure is instead purely based on optimization of the expected loss function, where the generating process is averaged out via a DP posterior with appropriately chosen centering measure. Of course, as for most black-box optimization procedures, one might argue that uncertainty quantification is harder than with traditional Bayesian methods, and this also holds for our method (however, see Proposition A.3 in the Appendix for an asymptotic normality result). This comes as no surprise, as it is in line with a common trade-off between purely Bayesian methods and optimization-centric ones, which enjoy higher scalability at the cost of harder uncertainty quantification. To conclude, we are grateful to the reviewer for raising these important conceptual points, which we will clarify further in the next version of the paper.
* The reviewer asks about scalability. The method promises to be scalable to large datasets due to the criterion form seen in Equation (3), which lends itself to easy differentiation (under differentiability assumptions for $h$, which are independent of our method) and stochastic gradient optimization. Of course, as the data size increases, it is necessary to increase the parameter $T$ (truncation threshold) and/or $N$ (MC samples) to make the criterion representative of the sample (e.g., to ensure that each observation appears in the sample at least once), but linear scaling of either parameter suffices for that purpose.
* The reviewer asks about the interpretability and restrictiveness of the criterion, e.g. in terms of data partitions. We highlight that this latter aspect is not applicable to our setting, as the data is modeled via a DP indirectly through a posterior expectation, but learning happens through standard optimization over parameters. Hence, the usual DP clustering is absent from this framework. In terms of restrictiveness, the nonparametric DP posterior choice ensures full support over the space of data-generating measures, but still preserves tractability due to its posterior and predictive characterizations. Notice that more general choices could be considered (e.g., the PY process), but tractability would be hindered and not much would be gained, for instance, in the presence of continuous data.
Finally, we’d like to address the last limitation mentioned by the reviewer:
* The reviewer indicates that our theoretical analysis focuses on the predictive risk but not on parameter estimation. Preliminarily, we would like to point out that Theorem 3.6 indeed deals with asymptotic convergence of the estimated parameter to its true counterpart. However, we thank the reviewer for the comment and agree with them that finite-sample analysis is still lacking for parameter estimation. This is due to the fact that, to obtain results in this direction, it is most likely necessary to specialize to particular cases of the loss function $h$ (e.g., quadratic loss for linear regression), which is the object of some of our ongoing research on the general method proposed in this paper.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: discussion
Comment: Dear Reviewer p57R,
We appreciate you submitting your review. The authors have provided replies to your comments. Could you kindly let us know if they have adequately addressed your points?
Best regards, AC
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: The authors have engaged with my concerns concerning the article, primarily about the unconventional use of Bayesian reasoning in a new context, and more pragmatic questions of scalability and the presentation of experiments. I appreciate the effort put in.
I am happy to keep my score where it is. | Summary: The authors use Dirichelet process and a smooth ambiguity aversion model to approximate the solution of risk minimization problems. They demonstate the consistency of their approach, along with finite sample guarantees. They additionally give a practical means of applying their procedure and apply the procedure to a number of simulated and real problems.
Strengths: Background was very informative and enlightening. Despite being very technical in nature the paper was easy to follow. Based on the references given, the idea seems quite novel. Proofs related to results in section 3 were quite easy to follow (section 4 and appendix proofs not checked)
Weaknesses: There are many small typos.
- In Lemma 3.2 the supremum of \gamma^* is not needed as gamma^* does not depend on t. The statement in the proof is the supremum over gamma(t).
- For consistency with lemma 3.2, in theorem 3.3 the supremum over gamma(t) should probably be replaced by gamma^* (or gamma(t) should be added back into lemma 3.2).
- In line 181 I don't think the (ii) should be there.
There are some minor problems.
- The introduction of the dependency of phi on n makes a small appearence. This idea is very interesting but I don't think it is emphasised enough. Just a couple of sentences explaining why you'd want to do such a thing would be nice.
- In line 221 a form of phi is assumed. I assume this is supposed to be phi_n and not phi. If it is supposed to be phi I'm unsure what form is being assumed, and if it is supposed to be phi_n it doesn't seem like it is assumed as section 4 seems to use phi.
And there are some reasonably major (but easily fixable) problems.
- On first read it is confusing how exactly the distance between the theoretic risk and the risk computed WRT to p_0 enters into lemma 3.2. Seeing the full statement I understand why the full bound isn't included in the main text but perhaps this discussion can be reworded.
- It is unclear if theorem 4.4 is using the same assumptions as lemma 4.3, or just the form of C_T that is given in lemma 4.3.
- I think theorem 3.3 needs to assume that M_phi < infinity as it is moved to the otherside of an equation in the proof. I think the proof needs more discussion about the case of gamma^*=infinity as on first read it looks like it moved to another side of the equation in the proof. gamma^*=infinity seems fine as thne the bound is triival. These cases are possible as taking K=1 and phi(t) = (t-1)^(1/3) has M_phi = gamma^*=infinity. Seems like everything can be infinite in lemma 3.2 as then the bound is trivial.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: In theorem 3.4 it is assume that phi_n converges uniformly to the identity function. To me this seems like assuming that curvature of phi_n tends to 0 indictating that as n goes to infinity there is no ambiguity aversion. However, uniform convergence to the identity function is much a much stonger condition than curvature going to 0. For example convergence to 2 times the identity function still has curvature going to 0. Am I wrong in my reasoning behind convergence to the identity function? If not, is it possible to update assumption (3) in theorem 3.4 to a more general curvature to 0 assumption? It seems like the without much modification it can be instead assumed that phi_n converges to some scalar multiple of the idenity function.
How do the assumptions on theorem 3.3,3.4 guarantee that theta_n and theta_* exist? As is isn't assume that h is continuous or Theta is compact it seems like the argmin of V and R can be empty. From the proof of theorem 3.3 it seems like if theta_* doesn't exist it can be replaced by any arbitrary theta.
Another question. The uniform boundedness of h is strongly relied on to get the generate the results. Is it possible/are there methods available to remove this assumption? Classic problems like least squares regression over an unbounded domain will have h unbounded. This often isn't all that bad as assuming compactness of the domain is fine, but the bounds given here depend strongly on the size of the compact set used to restrict the problem to.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 4
Limitations: -
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for the time spent reviewing our work and for the insightful comments, which we will incorporate in the next version of our paper by fixing the typos/mistakes pointed out by the reviewer and by emphasizing the points brought up in the review.
As for the minor problems pointed out by the reviewer, we’d like to address them as follows:
* Better explanation of the dependence of $\phi$ on $n$: The paper includes a relatively careful explanation of this choice and its interpretation, as collected in Remark 3.7. We will however try to emphasize it more in the next version of the paper.
* Specific form of $\phi$ in line 221: The reviewer spotted a typo ($\phi$ instead of the correct version $\phi_n$) which creates confusion. We thank them for pointing this out and we will fix it in the next version of the paper. As for our omission of the dependence on $n$ also in the subsequent sections, we have made this choice because such sections deal with approximation and gradient optimization of the criterion for a _fixed_ sample size $n$. In contrast, the dependence of $\phi$ on $n$ is only relevant as $n$ varies to ensure proper convergence results.
As for the more serious yet fixable problems pointed out by the reviewer, we’d like to address them as follows:
* The reviewer states that “On first read it is confusing how exactly the distance between the theoretic risk and the risk computed WRT to p_0 enters into lemma 3.2.” We agree with the comment and move footnote 8 to the main body, so to make this relation more evident.
* The reviewer states that “It is unclear if theorem 4.4 is using the same assumptions as lemma 4.3, or just the form of C_T that is given in lemma 4.3.” We thank the reviewer for pointing this out, which gives us the opportunity to clarify the result. The exact form of $C_T$ can be found in the proof of Lemma A2 on page 23. In Theorem 4.4 we maintain the same assumptions as in Theorem 4.3, with the additional requirement that $C_T$ (defined as above) is bounded above as $T$ varies. We will make sure to clarify these points in the next version of the paper.
* As for the boundedness of $M_\phi$ and $\gamma_\phi^*$, the reviewer is right in pointing out that our treatment silently assumes both quantities to be finite (as it is the case with the exponential functional form for $\phi$ proposed in the paper). Because in practice these assumptions are easily satisfied, we will explicitly mention them in the next version of the paper.
As for the questions asked by the reviewer, we would like to address them as follows:
* The reviewer asks whether assuming the uniform convergence of $\phi_n$ to the identity is necessary, or whether it can be relaxed with convergence to some multiple of the identity. We point out that, for the sake of optimization, any affine transformation of $\phi_n$ would yield the same optimized parameter. Hence, assuming that $\phi_n$ converges uniformly to the identity is without loss of generality (and, in one form or the other, needed for the proof of Theorem 3.4), because $\phi_n$ can always be normalized and centered to obtain the desired convergence. Notice that this is exactly the reason why we choose $\phi_n(t) = \beta_n \exp(t/\beta_n) - \beta_n$ as a special functional form, even though $\phi_n(t) = \exp(t/\beta_n)$ would be equivalent (optimization-wise) for all $n$.
* The reviewer asks whether the existence of theoretical and empirical minimizers is ensured by our assumptions. We thank the reviewer for pointing out this lack of clarity, which we will resolve in the next version of the paper. The existence of minimizers is not a consequence of our assumptions on $h$ or $\Theta$, but rather an assumption itself – we assume the optimization problem to be well posed. In practice, many loss functions (e.g., convex) will easily ensure the existence of some optimizer (both theoretical and for our criterion, which is convex if the $h$ is convex).
* The reviewer asks about the necessity of $h$ being uniformly bounded for our results. This is a good point, which we are currently tackling in follow-up research on the method we propose in this paper. Indeed, we believe that, specializing $h$ to a well-behaved loss like the quadratic loss used in linear regression, might yield finite sample and asymptotic guarantees even in the unbounded case (e.g., under appropriate tail conditions for the data-generating process $p_\star$). Being this paper our first, foundational contribution to this topic, we kept our analysis as general as possible in terms of loss function choice, which resulted in the need for stronger assumptions in our theoretical analysis. Nevertheless, as mentioned, the really good point made by the reviewer is currently being investigated, and we hope to have new results in that direction soon.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: discussion
Comment: Dear Reviewer Vivx,
Thank you for completing your review. The authors have responded to your feedback. Could you please let us know if their responses sufficiently address your concerns?
Best regards, AC
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Yes, the response sufficiently addresses my concerns.
---
Reply to Comment 2.1.1:
Comment: Dear Reviewer,
We thank you again for the time spent reading and commenting our work, and remain at your disposal should any further question arise.
Best regards,
The Authors | Summary: This paper introduces a new robust risk criterion that integrates concepts from Bayesian nonparametric theory, specifically the Dirichlet process, and a recent decision-theoretic model of smooth ambiguity-averse preferences. They show the relationships between their criterion and traditional regularization methods for empirical risk minimization, including Ridge and LASSO regressions. They also provide theoretical gurantee for the robust optimization and propose tractable approximations of the criterion.
Strengths: This is a solid paper that makes a good and exciting theoretical contribution. The idea of incorporating Dirichlet prior into distributionally robust is novel, and well-suited for the problem. The empirical section is adequate.
Weaknesses: *
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: * I have a question about the coefficient in the prior. What will happen if we adopt the empirical Bayesian idea into your algorithm, i.e. estimate the coefficient in the prior through data? Will this cause degradation of the model？
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors adequately addressed the limitations of their work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for the time spent reviewing our work and for the insightful comment, which we will incorporate in the next version of our paper by emphasizing its main point.
Specifically, we believe that the reviewer makes a good point that, at first sight, it could be desirable to estimate the concentration parameter $\alpha$ from the data using empirical Bayes techniques. In principle, this solution could be viable by exploiting the exchangeable partition probability function (EPPF) of the Dirichlet Process, which can be read as the likelihood of observing the data clusters seen in the samples, given the parameter $\alpha$. Then, one could maximize the log-EPPF (available in closed form, see Equation 2.19 in [1]) and obtain an empirical estimate of $\alpha$. However, unless the data contain ties (i.e., the data-generating distribution is assumed to have a discrete component, which is often unlikely in practical applications), this will lead to a degenerate $\alpha = +\infty$ solution – this is because the data is trivially partitioned into $n$ clusters, each with one component. One could further try to solve this issue by first applying some off-the-shelf clustering method to the data set, then maximizing the resulting “approximate EPPF”. While this option is interesting, it requires one further layer of computation, which adds to the overall cost of the optimization procedure. Instead, for practical purposes, a simple yet efficient approach might be to select the parameter value based on classical out-of-sample validation strategies. While this last solution is less grounded in the theory of Dirichlet Processes, we believe that it will be more beneficial in practice, as it is more aligned with the explicit aim of optimization-based machine learning methods that aim to maximize predictive performance.
*[1] Pitman, J. (2006). Combinatorial stochastic processes: Ecole d'eté de probabilités de Saint-Flour XXXII-2002. Springer.*
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your rebuttal. I remain positive about the paper.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Dear Reviewer,
We thank you again for the time spent reading and commenting our work, and remain at your disposal should any further question arise.
Best regards,
The Authors | Summary: This paper proposes a novel robust optimization criterion for training machine learning and statistical models by combining Bayesian nonparametric theory and smooth ambiguity-averse preferences, addressing distributional uncertainty to improve out-of-sample performance. The authors demonstrate theoretical guarantees for their method and show its practical implementation and effectiveness through tasks using simulated and real datasets.
Strengths: The theoretical aspects of this paper are not my research area, so I am not equipped to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the theoretical contributions. However, the proposed method and its practical implications appear to be well-founded and promising.
Weaknesses: The theoretical aspects of this paper are not my research area, so I am not equipped to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the theoretical contributions. However, the proposed method and its practical implications appear to be well-founded and promising.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: NO.
Confidence: 1
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Discussed in Section 6.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for the comments and time spent reviewing our work. If any further questions should come up during the next phases of the reviewing process, we will be happy to engage in further discussion with the reviewer. | null | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | Summary: The paper proposes a Bayesian method for optimizing stochastic objectives under a given finite sample. More precisely, The paper assumes the Dirichlet Process for data generation and then it proposes to optimize the mean of the stochastic objective over posterior distributions given the sample. The paper proves asymptotic properties of the proposed objective. The experimental results in the appendix show that the proposed method works better than the standard L2 regularization or no regularization on linear regression tasks over simulation and real data sets.
Strengths: The problem is quite relevant. The paper proves basic asymptotic desirable properties. The experimental results show the superiority of the proposed method to the standard L2 regularization-based methods.
Weaknesses: One of my concerns is the proposed method's high computational cost. However, I don’t think it is critical. When the sample size is large enough, the standard ERM would work well. The proposed method, though it shows asymptotic convergence properties, would work better when the sample size is small. On the other hand, it would need more technical improvement when the sample space is high-dimensional.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Is it difficult to obtain finite-sample error bound like PAC or statistical learning theory? (or any related work?)
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: N/A
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for the time spent reviewing our work and for the insightful comments, which we will incorporate in the next version of our paper by emphasizing the points brought up by the reviewer.
Specifically, we would first like to address the weakness, kindly pointed out by the reviewer, related to the computational cost of the method. We agree with the observation that the method is best suited for small-to-moderate sample sizes, as is true for any Distributionally Robust Optimization (DRO) method. In fact, distributional uncertainty is likely to affect optimization only when a relatively small sample does not allow to accurately approximate the data generating process. However, as the sample size increases, distributional uncertainty becomes less of an issue and standard ERM methods suffice for accurate parameter estimation and stable predictive performance. Nevertheless, while this is an important observation for the practical usefulness of any DRO method, we believe that sample size is not per se a computational problem for our method. Indeed, looking at Equation (3) in the paper, it is clear how in practice the criterion is estimated by cheaply sampling from the DP predictive and appropriate weight distributions. Therefore, while a larger sample size might require a higher value of $T$ (truncation threshold) and/or $N$ (number of MC samples) to make the criterion more representative of the data set (e.g., ensure that each data point is sampled at least once with high probability), gradient computations are easily vectorized and lead to very efficient mini-batch SGD updates akin to plain ERM methods. The same holds true for the dimensionality of the data and/or parameter space, which affects computational cost in the same way as it does for standard ERM.
Secondly, we’d like to address the reviewer’s question about the possibility of obtaining finite-sample performance guarantees. We point out that this is precisely the goal of Theorem 3.3, which relates finite sample bounds on the predictive performance parameter estimator $\theta_n$ to the classical $\sup$ distance between the ERM and true risk. The latter, in turn, allows us to obtain finite-sample probabilistic bounds via conditions on the complexity (VC dimension, metric entropy, etc.) of the loss function class, as done in standard learning theory. As we point out in the paragraph after Theorem 3.3, our paper does not discuss any specific result of this kind as they are (1) standard in the literature and (2) can be immediately plugged in from classical textbook formulations.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: discussion
Comment: Dear Reviewer DqoX,
Thank you very much for submitting your review report. The author(s) have posted responses to your review. Could you kindly provide comments on whether your concerns have been adequately addressed?
Best regards, AC | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Stratified Prediction-Powered Inference for Effective Hybrid Evaluation of Language Models | Accept (poster) | Summary: Taking inspiration from stratified sampling, this paper proposes a method named Stratified Prediction-Powered Inference (StratePPI).
With appropriate choices of stratification and sample allocation, StratePPI can provide substantially tighter confidence intervals than unstratified approaches. The experimental results on simulated and real data show the effectiveness of StratePPI.
Strengths: 1. This paper introduces data stratification strategies to improve prediction-powered inference (PPI) for the first time.
2. The experimental results show that StratPPI is more effective than PPI++.
Weaknesses: The stratification is very important to StratPPI, and there is little introduction on how to stratify data effectively in this paper.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: In practical applications, how should we stratify data to ensure that StratPPI is better than PPI or PPI++?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have adequately addressed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their careful review and thoughtful comments. We provide answers to specific questions and remarks (quoted) below.
> In practical applications, how should we stratify data to ensure that StratPPI is better than PPI or PPI++?
In general we should stratify data so that examples with similar expected labels are grouped together (e.g., the data should be relatively homogeneous within each stratum). This reduces the variance of the stratified estimate. This can then be expected to help when the data pre-stratification is not homogenous. In the experiments presented here, we found that equal mass partitioning based on confidence scores reliably satisfied these properties (and, at least at the extreme confidence levels it makes sense to expect that labels will have low variance for any reasonably well-calibrated classifier).
Please let us know if this has addressed your concerns. We look forward to engaging in the response period.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Glad to hear your explanation; it is indeed a commendable research effort. | Summary: The paper proposes an extension of prediction-powered inference (PPI) - a method for calculating confidence intervals with narrower confidence bands. The data is separated into subsets and the bias rectification term in the confidence calculation is weighted based on the similarity to the particular subsets. Evaluation is performed on one synthetic dataset and 4 real datasets, showing narrower confidence bands if the data is heterogeneous.
Strengths: The paper is well written. Even the necessary background, regarding existing work on PPI, is explained well enough to understand.
The adjustment of the calculation based on data similarity makes sense.
Empirical evaluation on several datasets is good to see.
Weaknesses: Line 107 defines Yi as the target output, which in the case of QA would normally be a textual answer. Line 112 then defines Y as the binary gold rating of correctness of the answer. This is contradictory and causes confusion when following the other equations.
The chosen evaluation datasets don't seem to be particularly widely used. Evaluation on some more common QA datasets would have been more impactful.
It is unclear whether this method actually helps in calculating more accurate means, or whether it only produces narrower confidence bands. And if it is the latter, then can you give more details on the practical benefits? It's a different method of calculating the confidence bands so the bands would not be directly comparable to other methods and couldn't really say that the new ones are "better" than the previous ones.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Please see above
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their careful review and thoughtful comments. We provide answers to specific questions and remarks (quoted) below.
> Line 107 defines $Y_i$ as the target output, which in the case of QA would normally be a textual answer. Line 112 then defines $Y$ as the binary gold rating of correctness of the answer.
Thanks for pointing out this confusion. The task here is _evaluating_ the correctness of a QA system, and not inferring the answer itself. As such, $Y_i \in {0, 1}$ is the target output of the _evaluation_ task (i.e., incorrect vs. correct). The input $X_i$ to the autorater for this evaluation task is the pair (QA question, model answer). We will make this clearer in the text.
> The chosen evaluation datasets don't seem to be particularly widely used.
We chose to evaluate on high-quality, well-cited datasets that also have pre-existing autorater scores. In the supplement to this rebuttal, we have also included results on the Chatbot Arena dataset.
> It is unclear whether this method actually helps in calculating more accurate means, or whether it only produces narrower confidence bands.
Our stratified PPI estimate reduces variance. This reduces the size of the confidence band, which is the main focus of the paper. Narrower confidence bands allow practitioners to get more precise error estimates with fewer annotated samples. This is very important to do given the high costs (in terms of both time and money) of running human evaluations. Additionally, since the PPI estimate is unbiased, this also has the effect of reducing the mean squared error of the estimate, which can be seen from the usual bias-variance decomposition of the error. To illustrate this, we have also plotted the RMSE of our estimator on the task in Figure 1 of the paper in the rebuttal supplement (see Figure S.1). The trends of the confidence interval width and the RMSE are identical.
Please let us know if this has addressed your concerns. We look forward to engaging in the response period.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thanks
Comment: Thanks for clarifying. You can't really use the same symbol for very different things 10 lines apart without redefining it first, so I would suggest changing that.
Additional results are good, although you could have included a citation or source to show exactly which version of the dataset you are using.
I am still unsure about the practical benefits. The provided justification sounds analogous to getting non-significant results using a statistical significance calculation, then switching to a different significance calculation method that indicates a significant result. Even though the measurement changes, the actual data and the real result stay the same. So the benefit should be somewhere else.
This is somewhat outside of my field of expertise, which I have also indicated with the low confidence score, and I'm not comfortable raising my score higher than it currently is.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Clarifying a misunderstanding
Comment: We thank the reviewer for their reply to our rebuttal, and appreciate the opportunity to engage.
> You can't really use the same symbol for very different things 10 lines apart without redefining it first, so I would suggest changing that.
To restate our response from earlier: the definition of Y_i does not change. Y_i is always the target output for the autorater. The target output for the autorater is always a measure of quality for the input X_i (e.g., if it is correct, helpful, toxic, etc). Y_i never refers to the target output of the LLM-based QA system, this is always part of X (see L111). The autorater represents a separate prediction problem from the QA system it is evaluating. We do appreciate the reviewer’s confusion, and will definitely make the problem statement clearer and the distinction explicit.
> Additional results are good, although you could have included a citation or source to show exactly which version of the dataset you are using.
Our apologies for the oversight in the rebuttal! Thanks for pointing this out. We used the dataset available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/lmsys/lmsys-arena-human-preference-55k. The citation for which is:
```
@misc{chiang2024chatbot,
title={Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference},
author={Wei-Lin Chiang and Lianmin Zheng and Ying Sheng and Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos and Tianle Li and Dacheng Li and Hao Zhang and Banghua Zhu and Michael Jordan and Joseph E. Gonzalez and Ion Stoica},
year={2024},
eprint={2403.04132},
archivePrefix={arXiv},
primaryClass={cs.AI}
}
```
Of course, this will be properly specified and cited in our final revision.
> I am still unsure about the practical benefits. The provided justification sounds analogous to getting non-significant results using a statistical significance calculation, then switching to a different significance calculation method that indicates a significant result. Even though the measurement changes, the actual data and the real result stay the same. So the benefit should be somewhere else.
There is a substantial misunderstanding here.
"the measurement changes, the actual data... stay the same"
This is false. The point of stratified PPI is that the data collection strategy has changed. There is no repeated testing of any kind: it is simply an estimator computed on a strategically partitioned and collected dataset. You can think of Stratified PPI as analogous to experimental design in statistics: deciding which parts of X-space to oversample/undersample in order to get maximum-precision estimates. To make it possible to aggregate the samples taken from each strata, Stratified PPI also benefits from being able to effectively use additional unlabeled data not only for making predictions, but also for estimating the propensity weights for the partitions of this X-space.
To keep it simple, the reason for improvements is simple: the estimator computed on this data is __lower-variance__ than the standard PPI estimator. The resulting practical benefit is then also simple: we can get better point estimates (lower MSE) with higher confidence (smaller confidence intervals). This allows for better evaluations, and decision-making based on those evaluations, at less cost. | Summary: This paper introduces the stratified PPI method, designed to reduce evaluation bias from autoraters by aligning them with a few human annotations. The key novelty lies in identifying that the autorater's performance varies across different example groups, with biases being smaller for some examples and larger for others. Consequently, they propose a straightforward method to group examples into strata and calculate stratum-specific rectification parameters. Experiments demonstrate that stratified PPI consistently achieves tighter confidence intervals compared to baselines.
Strengths: The paper introduces a novel method, stratified PPI, which effectively addresses the issue of evaluation bias in autoraters by considering the varying performance across different groups of examples. The proposed method of grouping examples into strata and calculating stratum-specific rectification parameters is both simple and effective.
Weaknesses: The evaluations are conducted on simple evaluation problems where the evaluation is binary, while current LLM autoraters use a more fine-grained scales (e.g., 1-5). Additionally, real human evaluations may be multinomial, where people's opinion will diverge on the same instance. I'm not sure how this proposed method will perform in that scenario.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: See weaknesses.
Confidence: 1
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have adequately addressed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their careful review and thoughtful comments. We provide answers to specific questions and remarks (quoted) below.
> The evaluations are conducted on simple evaluation problems where the evaluation is binary.
Our Stratified PPI method works for general M-estimation problems, which also includes non-binary mean estimates. Our supplement to this rebuttal also includes results for estimating Bradley-Terry coefficients, another M-estimation problem. The autoraters can also output scores (e.g., 1 to 5) that are different from the human labels (see line 110). In fact, the autoraters we used in our experiments output continuous scores in (0, 1).
> Additionally, real human evaluations may be multinomial, where people's opinion will diverge on the same instance.
Once again, while we focus on simple mean estimation in our experiments, our Stratified PPI method applies to a broad class of general M-estimation problems. This includes multiclass logistic regression, which could serve as a good model for the proposed setting. For details, see [1].
Another interesting situation (not covered here—but important for future work!) are problems in which the human annotators are not just variable, but actually systematically biased with respect to the ground truth (e.g., when the annotators are crowd-workers vs. experts or the target users).
Please let us know if this has addressed your concerns. We look forward to engaging in the response period.
[1] Angelopoulos et. al. PPI++: Efficient Prediction-Powered Inference. 2023. | Summary: The paper extends the predictive power inference methods to leverage data stratification strategies, and demonstrates that stratification can be used to obtain unbiased statistical estimates, while reducing variance (with worst case being as bad as prior approaches PPI++, and in practice considerably better). Concretely, the authors
1. Demonstrate that for the stratified prediction-powered loss, the minimizer has an asymptotically normal distribution with the true mean, thereby allowing for construction of confidence intervals leveraging stratum conditioned covariance matrices.
2. Provide an method for choosing the optimal weighting between the human annotations and autograder annotations for the stratified setting.
3. Provide the closed form solution for optimal allocation for stratum weights for the labeled and unlabeled data. Furthermore, for the special case of mean estimation, the authors also provide a heuristic way of estimating these weights based on the autograders' confidence for the scores.
4. Demonstrate for simulations that for cases where the strata are homogeneous, the estimators are at worse as bad as PPI++, while in cases where the strata are heterogeneous, StratPPI outperforms PPI++.
5. Finally, the authors demonstrate the utility of the proposed approach on a real-world multilingual summarization benchmark, an attributed QA dataset as well as the galaxy dataset, demonstrating that StratPPI obtains tighter confidence intervals compared to other approaches.
Strengths: 1. The proposed method demonstrably produces tighter confidence interval, leveraging data stratification. Such stratification is quite natural to occur in generally available data, in my opinion. So the proposed extension should be very widely applicable in a real world setting.
2. The paper is relatively easy to follow even for someone who is not very familiar with this subdomain, and is quite self contained.
Weaknesses: Given the focus of the paper on effective evaluation of language models, it would have been good for the paper to have a stronger focus on evaluation of the numerous publicly available (large) language models. Concretely, imo, the proposed method should be extendible to assessing pairwise relative performance of language models (similar to Section 3.1 of [1]). It would be good to compare confidence intervals for the BT coefficients obtained from PPI++ vs StratPPI for (a subset of) different Language Models on the Chatbot arena.
[1] Boyeau, Pierre, et al. "AutoEval Done Right: Using Synthetic Data for Model Evaluation." arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07008 (2024).
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: For Figure 1, column 3, what is the intuition about why is the coverage of StratPPI (prop) so low compared to all other counterparts when n is small ?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: NA
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their careful review and thoughtful comments. We provide answers to specific questions and remarks (quoted) below.
> It would have been good for the paper to have a stronger focus on evaluation of the numerous publicly available (large) language models.
As suggested, we have included an additional experiment in Figure S.1 of the supplement to this rebuttal for estimating win-rates between gpt-4-1106-preview and claude-2.1 on the Chatbot Arena dataset. Specifically, we use the standard Chatbot Arena auto-eval prompt (see https://github.com/lm-sys/arena-hard-auto/blob/main/config/judge_config.yaml), and map `[[A>>B]]`, `[[A>B]` to 1, `[[A=B]]` to 0.5, and `[[B>>A]]`, `[[B>A]]` to 0. We then do self-consistency sampling and take the average of 10 samples from Gemini Ultra. This is used as both our final autorater estimate and confidence. We find that stratification also helps in this setting. As an interesting side note, in line with previous work we found confidence scores from the LLM-as-a-judge to be fairly uncalibrated, which makes our heuristic allocation less effective at larger n (though still effective at small n). Investigating more robust heuristics in the face of miscalibration (e.g., via regularization) would likely help. Proportional allocation is effective at all values of n. We will also include results on the larger multiple model setting when using Bradley-Terry model coefficients for the final version of the paper.
> What is the intuition about why is the coverage of StratPPI (prop) so low compared to all other counterparts when n is small?
The difference in coverage reported is small, and is an artifact of a smaller number of trials run for the coverage estimation. When increasing the number of simulations for estimating coverage to 5000, we observe a more stable coverage result. This is included in Figure S.1 of the rebuttal supplement. (Note that we also fixed column 1 from the submitted manuscript, which had been run at the wrong settings.)
Please let us know if this has addressed your concerns. We look forward to engaging in the response period.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response to rebuttal
Comment: The additional experiments address my concerns. If possible, it would be good for the results for the LM evaluations to be included in the main paper instead of being relegated to the appendix.
I have increased the confidence for my review. In my opinion, this work is pretty solid.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the review and the response to our rebuttal! We agree that the LM evaluation results should be included in the main paper, and will make sure to put them there. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you to all the reviewers for taking the time to read and comment on our work. We were pleased to receive several good suggestions, and have taken this feedback into account. Please see our uploaded pdf for supplemental results.
Specifically, we have added another very realistic experiment on the Chatbot Arena dataset, in which we measure the win-rate between `gpt-4-1106-preview` and `claude-2.1`. Details are included in the figure caption. We have also included additional results on our illustrative synthetic task that shows how the MSE of the prediction powered point estimate and the size of the confidence intervals follow similar trends. Stratified PPI improves on both CI size and MSE.
We have responded to the remainder of the comments raised by reviewers individually. Please let us know if any questions or concerns remain. We look forward to additional discussion.
Pdf: /pdf/ebe89c6e2e9e8515ddec0be655470168bfde18ff.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Unified Insights: Harnessing Multi-modal Data for Phenotype Imputation via View Decoupling | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper focuses on the task of phenotype imputation and proposes utilizing multi-modal data to gain insights that facilitate the evaluation of patients' overall health status. Specifically, the authors design a framework based on view decoupling, which involves segregating the modeling of biological data and phenotype data to avoid the impact of data heterogeneity and view conflict. To alleviate the influence of noise and irrelevant information in the biological data, a novel contrastive knowledge distillation method is proposed. Furthermore, the authors conduct extensive experiments to demonstrate the superiority of the proposed model.
Strengths: 1. The paper addresses a crucial problem in healthcare and is novel in combining omics data with clinical data in healthcare studies.
2. It is useful and practical considering the prevalence and growth of biobanks, and the authors conducted experiments on a well-known biobank dataset.
3. The applied model is easy to use and extendable to different data modalities.
4. The proposed model is novel, and the proposed data quantization provides a feasible way to effectively model the relationship between patients from the omics data. Cross-view knowledge distillation involving intra-view and inter-view distillation improves the utilization of omics data and avoids noisy and irrelevant information.
5. The writing of the paper is good, and it provides a comprehensive related work that helps readers better understand the task.
6. The experiments show that the proposed model can effectively leverage omics data and demonstrate improved imputation performance on a real biomedical database. Extensive ablation studies and analyses provide more insights and help understand the model design.
Weaknesses: 1. The model includes multiple components. It would be beneficial to discuss the time complexity of the proposed method. Specifically, an analysis of the computational efficiency for each component, as well as the overall model, would provide valuable insights.
2. The patients in the experiments are selected from those with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. It would be helpful to explain the rationale behind selecting this particular patient set. Additionally, it is important to discuss whether the model is applicable to other cohorts.
3. Why can't recent models, such as M3Care, Graph, and MUSE, directly address the need for integrating biological data and EHR data?
4. The proposed method involves multiple loss functions. Adding these losses to Figure 1 would aid understanding. Including pseudocode for the algorithm would also be helpful.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Please refer to weaknesses.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 4
Limitations: Please refer to weaknesses.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewer dJb6
Thank you for the review and valuable comments. We respond to your questions below.
**1. Time complexity.**
The time complexity of data quantization for each patient is composed of three primary components. The first component is the encoder, which has a time complexity of $O(D \cdot F)$, where $D$ represents the input dimensionality and $F$ is a factor that depends on the number of layers and the operations performed within the encoder. The second component is vector quantization, with a time complexity of $O(K \cdot d)$, where $K$ denotes the number of entries in the codebooks and $d$ represents the dimensionality of latent embeddings. The third component is the decoder, which has a time complexity of $O(d \cdot G)$, where $G$ is a factor related to the number of layers and operations in the decoder. Consequently, the overall time complexity of data quantization can be expressed as $O(D \cdot F + K \cdot d + d \cdot G)$. Given that both the encoder and the decoder in this study are implemented as MLPs, we simplify the expression to $O(D \cdot d + K \cdot d + d^2)$ for ease of calculation.
Then the updating of GNNs in each iteration mainly involves the updating of node vectors and weight matrices, whose time complexity is $O(n_t\cdot d^2 + z\cdot d)$, where $n_t $ and $z$ are the total number of nodes and the total number of edges in graph $\mathcal{G}_f$ and $\mathcal{G}_p$, respectively. $d$ is the embedding dimensionality.
Lastly, the time complexity of cross-view contrastive knowledge distillation for each patient is $O(d \cdot N)$ where $N$ denotes the number of negative patients.
Therefore the time complexity of MPI in each iteration is $O(D \cdot d + K \cdot d + d^2 + n_t\cdot d^2 + z\cdot d + d \cdot N)$. Since $K \ll D$, $d \ll D$, $N \ll D$, and $D \ll z$, the time complexity simplifies to $O(n_t\cdot d^2 + z\cdot d)$ which is linear with $(n_t\cdot d^2 + z\cdot d)$, depending on the number of nodes and edges in the constructed graphs. It is well-known that canonical GCNs are not characterized by high time complexity, indicating the efficiency and scalability of our model.
**2. Why Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias**
Chronic diseases, especially neurodegenerative diseases, frequently exhibit missing phenotypes due to mild or nonspecific initial symptoms. Routine data collection processes might overlook these subtle signs until more pronounced symptoms emerge. This can be particularly challenging in the context of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD), where early detection is crucial for timely intervention and management. Furthermore, research on ADRD particularly emphasizes early detection and intervention, which aligns well with the research goals of identifying historical phenotypes.
Additionally, the choice of an ADRD cohort involves a relatively larger cohort compared to other neurodegenerative diseases. Alzheimer’s is one of the most common neurodegenerative diseases, which ensures that the data includes a wide range of phenotypic expressions and stages of disease. This diversity is crucial for studying the full spectrum of phenotype presentation and identifying underlying missing signs.
**3. M3Care, Grape, and MUSE**
These models can be applied to integrate biological data and EHR data. However, they are often inferior to the naive combination of clinical and biological data. This is due to the conflict between clinical and biological views. In detail, GRAPE uses each feature dimension as a node, which is not suitable for high-dimensional feature imputation. M3Care computes patient similarity for each modality separately, thereby failing to explore cross-modality correlations. MUSE connects patients to only two modality nodes, introducing noisy edges between patients. These methods are not specifically designed to integrate biological data with EHR data, highlighting the importance and unique capability of our model.
**4. Figure 1 and pseudocode**
Thanks for your suggestion. We will revise Figure 1 and add pseudocode in the Appendix.
We hope our explanation can solve your concerns. If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to let us know and we are more than happy to answer and make clarifications.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the detailed response. The authors have addressed all my concerns. I would like to maintain my positive rating. | Summary: The work integrates multi-modal biological data into the task of phenotype imputation, addressing the challenges of heterogeneity and imprecision inherent in fusing biological and phenotype data. This paper introduces the MPI model, a novel approach that incorporates multi-modal data through a view decoupling strategy. By modeling patients from both biological and phenotype perspectives, the model preserves knowledge from each view. Subsequently, a cross-view contrastive knowledge distillation technique is proposed to enhance phenotype imputation. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of MPI compared to state-of-the-art methods.
Strengths: Originality:
- Incorporating multi-modal biological data for phenotype imputation is well-motivated and important. As far as I know, this is the first paper to leverage biological data to improve phenotype imputation. Biological information usually cannot be directly leveraged in clinical analysis in current studies, the model finds a novel way to integrate biological data with EHRs by modeling them using codebooks and graph representation learning.
- In addition, the authors also identify and address the essential heterogeneity and imprecise issues in biological data, which make the model applicable in real-world clinical studies.
- The proposed method is tailored to the motivation and tries to learn from separate views and preserve comprehensive knowledge to represent patients. The novelty of the methodology is significant; the proposed data quantization method could learn the latent common factors of patients and further model the correlation from the biological view.
Quality
- The proposed method is sound and designed to solve the heterogeneity and imprecision issues.
- The overall model structure is well-designed, not complex, and easy to apply in real-world tasks.
Clarity
- The paper is well-written and easy to follow.
- The paper is also well-organized.
Significance
- This paper conducts extensive experiments and comprehensive ablation studies to evaluate the proposed model. The comparison with the most recent baselines shows the effectiveness of the proposed method, especially with varying dataset proportions.
Weaknesses: - The paper focuses on the utilization of multi-modal biological data. In experiments, the authors leverage two modalities: Proteomics and Metabolomics. It is expected that the model can be applied to more modalities.
- The proposed model needs to learn codebooks to model the correlation of patients. The quality of the learned codebook could influence the imputation performance since imputation is based on the representation learned from the graph where latent factors serve as nodes.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Can the proposed model be applied to other modalities if available?
2. Can the authors provide more discussion on the codebook setting and its impact
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The limitation has been discussed in Appendix.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewer W1JA,
Thank you for the review and valuable comments. We respond to your questions below.
**1. Other modalities.**
Yes, our method can be certainly applied to other modalities if data is available. For each modality, a distinct encoder and decoder can be utilized to uncover the latent factors specific to that modality. Subsequently, a patient-factor graph can be constructed alongside the patient-phenotype graph. Predictions can then be made based on the representations learned by GNN models.
**2. Codebook setting and its impact**
The quality of the learned codebooks indeed has an impact on the model performance. For example, a smaller number of codebooks, such as one or two, may fail to capture sufficient fine-grained information from the biological data. Conversely, larger codebooks might introduce additional underlying factors due to finer granularity, which could reduce their discriminative power for patient profiling. In addition, smaller codebook sizes may fail to capture some underlying biological factors, resulting in insufficient information for patient profiling. Conversely, larger codebook sizes might lead to certain codes being underutilized, which can hinder the overall optimization of the codebook. Both the number of codebooks and the codebook size can affect the quality of the learned codebooks. The empirical results in Figure 3 demonstrate the effect of different codebook settings.
We hope our explanation can solve your concerns. If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to let us know and we are more than happy to answer and make clarifications. | Summary: This paper introduces a machine learning (ML) approach aimed at addressing the challenge of phenotype missing data in clinical datasets. Specifically, the authors propose utilizing multi-modal biological data to enhance patient health information, thereby improving the accuracy of phenotype imputation. To accommodate the heterogeneity and inherent imprecision of multi-modal biological data, they introduce the Multimodal data for Phenotype Imputation (MPI) framework. Initially, the authors employ a data quantization technique to denoise biological data, focusing on learning latent biological factors. Subsequently, they suggest modeling biological and phenotype data separately, followed by aligning their information using contrastive learning methods. The authors validate the efficacy of their approach for phenotype imputation using real-world clinical data.
Strengths: - This paper addresses the issue of missing data in clinical contexts, a serious obstacle that impedes the predictive performance of AI models in healthcare.
- Utilizing biological data to enhance patient health information is logical.
Weaknesses: - The model design lacks clarity and motivation. Specifically, it is unclear why residual quantization is considered suitable for reducing noise in biological data. The authors should provide a more detailed justification for this design choice and conduct additional experiments to verify the effectiveness of residual quantization compared to other denoising methods. For example, auto-encoder without quantization?
- The technical contribution of the proposed method appears limited. For instance, Graph Convolutional Networks (GCN) are a standard method for capturing information from graph-structured data, and contrastive learning is a common approach for aligning representations from multi-modal data. Moreover, is there a specific reason for choosing GCN over more advanced and recent graph neural network methods such as Graph Isomorphism Network (GIN) [1]?
- The UK Biobank is a comprehensive clinical dataset that includes diverse biological data such as genomics, biochemical markers, haematological markers, infectious disease markers, metabolomics, telomere measures, etc. Is there a rationale for focusing only on proteomics and metabolomics in this study? Furthermore, why were Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias chosen as the focus of this study?
- The authors claim that their proposed ranking loss outperforms classification loss for phenotype imputation. An ablation study should be conducted to substantiate this claim.
- In addition to benchmarking phenotype imputation, the authors should perform additional experiments to demonstrate the benefits of their proposed phenotype imputation method in downstream clinical tasks compared to baseline methods.
References
[1] Xu, Keyulu, et al. "How powerful are graph neural networks?." ICLR 2019.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See the above section.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: N/A. The limitation section is just about the study design, which is not the potential negative societal impact of their work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewer 8HRK,
Thank you for the review and valuable comments. We respond to your questions below.
**1. Residual quantization**
We respectfully highlight that our proposed biological data quantization is not for reducing noise in biological data.
The motivation behind residual quantization as we discussed in the introduction is that the biological conditions of patients uncover major underlying factors that indicate health status. In other words, patients sharing similar underlying biological factors could have similar phenotypes. Identifying these latent factors would facilitate the effective characterization of patients and their phenotypes. Therefore, we propose quantizing the biological data and uncovering the corresponding factors using Residual Quantization. Then we are able to model the correlation between patients from a biological view and learn patient representations by modeling the relationship between patients and latent factors in a patient-factor graph.
Comparison with AE: Applying an Autoencoder (AE) to encode the biological data results in extracting a single low-dimensional biological feature for each patient. This feature serves as the initial embedding of patients in a GCN. By using GCN on the patient-phenotype graph, we can then obtain patient representations that enable the prediction of missing phenotypes based on these learned representations. The result comparison can be found in the table below. We can observe that roughly using the encoded biological data as the feature cannot achieve better performance compared with MPI.
| % | Metric | AE+GCN | MPI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 50% | H@10 | 27.25 | 31.28 |
| | H@20 | 42.73 | 47.55 |
| | H@50 | 69.04 | 72.99 |
| | MRR | 12.28 | 14.83 |
| 70% | H@10 | 31.06 | 35.68 |
| | H@20 | 46.79 | 51.59 |
| | H@50 | 71.28 | 75.82 |
| | MRR | 14.16 | 17.44 |
| 100% | H@10 | 35.32 | 38.74 |
| | H@20 | 51.65 | 55.10 |
| | H@50 | 74.68 | 78.42 |
| | MRR | 16.31 | 19.28 |
**2. The technical contribution**
We would like to highlight that our main technical contributions lay in:
1) The view decoupling strategy, which separates the modeling of multi-modal biological data from phenotype data to address the conflicts arising from their joint modeling.
2) The latent biological factor uncovering in patients through data quantization, which Identifies these latent factors enables more effective characterization of patients and their phenotypes.
3) The cross-view contrastive knowledge distillation, which builds upon traditional contrastive learning by introducing a novel approach that incorporates cross-view information with intra-view and inter-view negative pairs.
Additionally, we want to clarify that the graph neural model is not the focus of our paper. We use GCNs as a basic backbone model, which can be substituted with any existing advanced graph neural network. Our emphasis is on demonstrating that the improvements in our model primarily stem from our designed components rather than the sophistication of the GNN itself. Therefore, we opted to use the basic GCN model.
**3. Proteomics and metabolomics**
We leveraged proteomics and metabolomics as biological studies have pointed out the associations and predictive value of plasma proteomics and metabolomics with ADRD. Since biological processes could begin years before the onset of clinical symptoms, proteomics and metabolomics which comprise the end-product of genes, transcripts, and protein regulations, offer insight into identifying alterations in multiple biochemical processes and the risk of ADRD among cognitively healthy adults [1,2]. The model could be certainly applied to other modalities with a corresponding pre-trained encoder.
[1] Plasma metabolomic profiles of dementia: a prospective study of 110,655 participants in the UK Biobank
[2] Proteome Network Analysis Identifies Potential Biomarkers for Brain Aging. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 2023.
**4. Why Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias**
Chronic diseases, especially neurodegenerative diseases, frequently exhibit missing phenotypes due to mild or nonspecific initial symptoms. Routine data collection processes might overlook these subtle signs until more pronounced symptoms emerge. This can be particularly challenging in the context of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD), where early detection is crucial for timely intervention and management. Furthermore, research on ADRD particularly emphasizes early detection and intervention, which aligns well with the research goals of identifying historical phenotypes.
Additionally, the choice of an ADRD cohort involves a relatively larger cohort compared to other neurodegenerative diseases. Alzheimer’s is one of the most common neurodegenerative diseases, which ensures that the data includes a wide range of phenotypic expressions and stages of disease. This diversity is crucial for studying the full spectrum of phenotype presentation and identifying underlying missing signs.
**5. Downstream tasks**
Thanks for your suggestion. In this paper, we concentrate on the algorithmic development for phenotype imputation. In future work, we will adapt and validate our model for various downstream clinical tasks.
**6. Ranking loss**
We included classification loss as a variant in our implementation, yet experimental results show that ranking loss outperforms classification loss (see below). This is likely because ranking loss compares the similarity between positive and negative edge pairs rather than showing class probabilities. Given the individual specificity in phenotype imputation, ranking loss better captures the hidden patterns in patients' phenotypes.
|100\% | Hits@10 | Hits@20 | Hits@50 | MRR |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| MPI w/ classification | 36.49 | 53.76 | 77.28 | 18.32 |
| MPI w/ ranking | 38.74 | 55.10 | 78.41 | 19.27 | | Summary: This paper introduces MPI, a framework designed to improve phenotype imputation in EHR by leveraging multi-modal biological data through view decoupling. The method consists of quantizing biological data to identify the latent factors, using them to create a correlation graph, and a separate graph which models phenotypic co-occurrence. Moreover, a cross-view contrastive knowledge distillation strategy is employed to better leverage the noisy and sparse biological data.
Strengths: The MPI framework handles the sparsity in the multi-modal biological data and effectively utilizes them to provide a more comprehensive understanding of patient profiles for better phenotype imputation.
Weaknesses: The complexity of the proposed MPI method makes it challenging to interpret the results and understand the underlying biological signals driving the phenotype imputation. This could be important for clinical applications.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. How does the sparsity/missing rates of the biological data affect the performance of MPI?
2. How is each modality data (proteomics and metabolomics) pre-processed before feeding into the encoders? This information is not clearly described in the appendix.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The performance of MPI might highly depend on the size of the dataset.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewer QunD,
Thank you for the review and valuable comments. We respond to your questions below.
**1. Sparsity/missing rates**
The biological modalities used in this study exhibit significant missingness at random, with approximately 90% missingness in proteomics and 50% in metabolomics. The proposed MPI demonstrates superior performance compared to baseline methods in handling extreme missingness. Given the high missing rates, it is impractical to conduct experiments with varied missing rates. However, we evaluate MPI through ablation studies that utilize each modality independently, representing scenarios with complete missingness in the respective modalities.
**2. Modality data pre-processing**
Proteomics data, including levels of around 3,000 proteins, are provided as Normalized Protein eXpression (NPX) values, obtained after UK Biobank preprocessing, which includes median centering normalization between plates and log2 transformation. We used these NPX values directly as the encoder input without further processing [1]. For metabolomics, we applied a natural logarithmic transformation (ln[x+1]) to all metabolite values, followed by Z-transformation [2].
[1] Chen, Lingyan, et al. "Systematic Mendelian randomization using the human plasma proteome to discover potential therapeutic targets for stroke." Nature Communications 13.1 (2022): 6143.
[2] Zhang, Xinyu, et al. "Plasma metabolomic profiles of dementia: a prospective study of 110,655 participants in the UK Biobank." BMC Medicine 20.1 (2022): 252.
We hope our explanation can solve your concerns. If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to let us know and we are more than happy to answer and make clarifications. | null | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | Summary: This paper proposes the MPI framework for phenotype imputation. Focusing on the detrimental effects of heterogeneity and inaccuracies in phenotype imputation, the proposed framework separates the biological view and the phenotype view for model learning and integrates them afterward. In experiment results using clinical datasets and ablation studies, it is shown that the proposed approach outperforms existing methods in the accuracy of phenotype imputation and highlight the advantages of separating the biological view and the phenotype view in model learning.
Strengths: This paper proposes a framework that separates and integrates from the biological view and the phenotype view for phenotype imputation.
It is important to estimate missing phenotypes from the perspective of promoting more appropriate medical practice. The well-thought-out structure of sections and subsections makes the proposed method easy to understand.
Weaknesses: - The evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed method is weak because a general graph neural model was not included as a comparative method.
- The claim that "By applying this cross-view contrastive optimization, our model effectively captures the intricate relationships within both the biological and collaborative views, leading to robust representations of the patients" is not supported by experiments or other evidence.
- There is no discussion on the validity of the predicted phenotypes.
- There are doubts about the content of the experiments and the ablation study.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - Why were the general graph neural models [33, 37, 46], which were referenced for the experimental setup, not included as comparative methods?
- Are there any references supporting the claim that "The existing approaches fail to recognize and disentangle the heterogeneous factors present in biological data"?
- How did you determine the value of the margin hyperparameter γ in experiments?
- Why did you only conduct experiments on Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia datasets? For example, diabetes is also one of the chronic diseases.
- Patients with "the rare phenotypes" and "the most prevalent phenotypes" were excluded from dataset. I believe these should not be excluded for the purpose of phenotype imputation. Is there a more compelling reason for their exclusion?
- Why is the variance not included in the figures of the ablation study results?
- The structure of the V4 model is unclear. What kind of model is it?
- Is it possible to show a table like Table 2 for the results of the ablation study in appendices? I think that the results of ablation study is shown a portion of the entire experiment.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes. In their appendix, the authors describe the limitations and potential negative societal impact of their work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewer wLvH,
Thank you for the review and valuable comments. We respond to your questions below.
**1. General graph neural models**
We respectfully highlight that our experiments compared general graph neural models, specifically GraphSage and GIN. The models you referred to are designed for recommendation systems and path-based link prediction, and thus, are not general graph neural models. They are used as references for dataset partitioning to demonstrate the rationale behind the dataset division.
**2. Cross-view contrastive optimization**
We respectfully highlight that we provided experimental evidence in the ablation study to support this claim. Specifically, in Table 3, V4 is a variant model without cross-view contrastive optimization, whereas MPI incorporates this design. As observed in Table 3, MPI consistently outperforms V4, demonstrating that our cross-view contrastive optimization effectively enables robust patient representation learning.
**3. Validity**
Thanks for your question. In this paper, we concentrate on the algorithmic development for phenotype imputation and demonstrate the model’s superiority against baselines based on the selective metrics. In future work, we will adapt and validate our model for various downstream clinical tasks.
**4. Supporting References**
Thanks for pointing it out. We will add references in the revision. Current methods simply treat biological data as features and employ canonical machine learning techniques to encode them, failing to disentangle the heterogeneous factors.
- Imputation of label-free quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics data using self-supervised deep learning, Nature Communication 2024
- Toward an integrated machine learning model of a proteomics experiment, Journal of Proteome Research, 2023
- Recent advances in mass spectrometry-based computational metabolomics, Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 2023
**5. Determine the value of the margin hyperparameter**
The margin hyperparameter 𝛾 is determined through a search in the set {1, 3, 5,10}. We will include this detail in the implementation supplements.
**6. Only Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia dataset**
Chronic diseases, especially neurodegenerative diseases, frequently exhibit missing phenotypes due to mild or nonspecific initial symptoms. Routine data collection processes might overlook these subtle signs until more pronounced symptoms emerge. This can be particularly challenging in the context of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD), where early detection is crucial for timely intervention and management. Furthermore, research on ADRD particularly emphasizes early detection and intervention, which aligns well with the research goals of identifying historical phenotypes.
Additionally, the choice of an ADRD cohort involves a relatively larger cohort compared to other neurodegenerative diseases. Alzheimer’s is one of the most common neurodegenerative diseases, which ensures that the data includes a wide range of phenotypic expressions and stages of disease. This diversity is crucial for studying the full spectrum of phenotype presentation and identifying underlying missing signs.
Diabetes typically involves more straightforward clinical measurements (e.g., blood glucose levels, HbA1c) and may not have the same challenges as ADRD. In the future, we will identify additional chronic diseases suitable for the task to evaluate our method.
**7. Patients with the rare phenotypes and the most prevalent phenotypes were excluded from the dataset.**
We filter out phenotypes with an occurrence of less than 20 while our cohort population reaches about 15000. The small occurrence (0.06%) reflects the less practical value in this work of imputing these phenotypes. Meanwhile, there are a few phenotypes with quite high frequency, e.g., more than 4000 individuals with hypertension. Since ADRD generally focuses on the elderly population, these phenotypes are typically with less specificity and regarded as possible confounders due to aging. Meanwhile, these phenotypes might dominate the dataset, obscuring other important associations, while focusing on moderately prevalent phenotypes could reveal more subtle associations.
**8. Variance not in the ablation study results**
We did not report the variance for the ablation study in Table 3 due to the table space constraints. However, we are happy to include the variance in the Appendix during the revision.
**9. The structure of the V4 model**
We employ the same GCN used in MPI as the V4 model. The key difference is that the V4 model operates on a single homogeneous graph that integrates biological factors, patients, and phenotypes, whereas MPI utilizes two separate graphs to model patients from both phenotype and biological perspectives. Note that both MPI and V4 models are based on biological factors derived from Biological Data Quantization.
**10. Show a table like Table 2 for the results of the ablation study**
We are happy to reframe Table 3 of the ablation study to match the format of Table 2 in the Appendix. Thanks for the suggestion.
We hope our explanation can solve your concerns. If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to let us know and we are more than happy to answer and make clarifications. | null | null | null | null | null | null |
On the Expressivity and Sample Complexity of Node-Individualized Graph Neural Networks | Accept (poster) | Summary: The authors explore node individualization schemes and argue that they can improve the expressiveness of shallow GNNs and provide bounds on the sample complexity of these methods. This allows node individualization schemes to be compared in this context. The theoretical findings are then substantiated with experiments.
Strengths: - Theoretically comparing different node individualization schemes in terms of their generalization abilities is an extremely important result for the community and can help with future architectural design decisions.
- Theoretical results involving sample complexity are well explained and validated experimentally and the choice of Tinhofer individualization is well motivated and validated.
Weaknesses: - line [158]. The authors argue that node individualization can improve expressivity for shallow GNNs (with k-weakly individualized graphs). This argument would be more compelling if in practice it is shown that their exists graphs that need a large number of layers to be distinguished. In real-world datasets, particularly with node features, it would be interesting to know if this is ever the case. I understand why this results suggests that GNNs can be better distinguished with fewer layers but I am not convinced (yet) that this occurs in practice.
- Line [307]. You seem to be suggesting that we may only want to label necessary nodes as it is 'potentially more stable to input perturbations'. I don't fully understand this and the way you phase it is not very compelling. Can you expand on this or provide some intuition? I think it would benefit the paper having a result that suggests we may only want to label a fraction of the nodes and why this would be more beneficial than labeling all nodes in some cases.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: only what's mentioned in weaknesses.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 4
Limitations: The authors have listed some limitations in the appendix. I don't see the Lipschitzness assumption as a huge limitation as this assumption is made in many works on GNNs.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for recognizing the novelty and the importance of our work.
We also would like to thank you for pointing out some potential weaknesses of our paper that we didn't spot before. We are confident that both of them can be addressed by adding a discussion in the paper, which we will do by making use of the extra page granted for the camera-ready version. We think that thanks to your comments, we can make our paper both more impactful (by showing datasets where many layers are needed in practice) and more readable (by providing more intuitions). Please find the detailed comments below.
We hope that our response adequately addresses all your comments and positively influences your final score. Please let us know if you have any further or follow-up questions so that we can try to address them.
> **Weaknesses:**
>
> Concerning line [158]
We agree with your observation that, on most real-world graph datasets, relatively few GNN layers would be sufficient to distinguish all pairs of graphs. However, motivated by your comment, we looked for and found real-world datasets where few layers are not enough to distinguish all graphs. This makes indeed for a very compelling argument in favor of our paper.
In the following, we report the minimum number of WL iterations needed to distinguish all non-WL-equivalent graph pairs for the datasets used in our paper as well as the two additional datasets ${\tt MCF-7}$ and ${\tt Peptites-func}$.
| Dataset | WL iterations needed |
| --------------- | --------- |
| COLLAB | 1 |
| IMDB-BINARY | 1 |
| MCF-7 | 6 |
| Mutagenicity | 3 |
| NCI1 | 3 |
| Peptites-func | 6 |
We found that there are quite a few datasets which require at least six WL iterations (when incorporating node attributes). Considering that most GNN architectures commonly use 3-4 layers, we would argue that there are indeed cases where our approach is beneficial in real-world scenarios.
Moreover, we notice that, even though GNNs are theoretically equivalent to WL, in practice they often have lower distinguishing power (e.g. due to bad convergence). We particularly notice this behaviour in the experiments in Section 5.1 (although on synthetic graphs). In fact, this behaviour has been observed in the literature (see, e.g., the recent paper [Wang et al, "An Empirical Study of Realized GNN Expressiveness", in ICML 2024]).
Similar to the experiments in Section 5.1, we now provide further experiments comparing the performance of ordinary GNNs with that of GNNs endowed with ${\rm Tinhofer}$ on the above mentioned datasets ${\tt MCF-7}$ and ${\tt Peptites-func}$. To highlight the difference in performance between the two methods, we extracted a small subset of graphs from both datasets, for which a maximum number of layers (i.e., up to 6 layers) is necessary to distinguish all pairs of graphs. The learning task is to assign each graph to their isomorphism class. Figure 2 in the appended PDF file plots the accuracy of the two methods (i.e., ordinary GNNs with 6 layers and GNNs endowed with ${\rm Tinhofer}$) over 1000 epochs on these two datasets. It can be seen that the GNN with ${\rm Tinhofer}$ converges rapidly while the oridnary GNN in many cases does not even reach 100% accuracy within 1000 epochs; thus confirming the above claim on the relevance of our approch to real-world scenarios.
> Concerning line [307]
Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracy in this paragraph. We will rephrase the sentence and add the following motivating example to give more intuition on the results of Theorem 4 and how they can lead to the design of new relabeling schemes.
Consider, as a motivating example, the two graphs
in Figure 1 (*Panel (a)*) of the Supplementary PDF to the rebuttal.
Here, the letters indicate graphs' node labels, and correspond in fact with WL color classes.
The ${\rm Tinhofer}$ scheme would find a canonical ordering on the two graphs by assigning an identifier (e.g., Â) to one of the two nodes labeled with A. Then, assuming a total order A < Â < B < C < D < E, it would concatenate the position of the node in the ordering to the node label. We then obtain (up to ordering of the two A-labeled nodes), the graphs in *Panel (b)*.
We therefore have that the relabeled graphs have edit distance 3, even though the edit distance of the original graphs was just 1. By making the "tail" of the graphs longer, one can make the difference in edit distances arbitrarily large.
The ${\rm Tinhofer_W}$ scheme would use the Tinhofer algorithm to obtain the same node ordering. The main difference lies in the fact that the scheme appends the position of the node in the ordering within its WL color class. One would then obtain the graphs in *Panel \(c\)*.
The edit distance thus remains 1, as in the original graphs. Then, by Theorem 4, we argue that the ${\rm Tinhofer_W}$ scheme leads to better generalization. This is indeed validated by the experiments in Section 5.4.
We note that ${\rm Tinhofer_W}$ does not necessarily yield a lower sample complexity on all graph distributions. Therefore we do not provide a further theoretical analysis of this relabeling scheme. However, while our article is primarily focused on the sample complexity bounds, we hope that it will spark several works on new relabeling schemes that guarantee lower sample complexity.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your detailed response to my questions. Indeed, I think these additional discussions make the paper stronger and I have increased my score accordingly and will push for acceptance.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your answer and for appreciating our work. We really value your input, which will help us enhance and strengthen our contribution. | Summary: In this paper, the authors investigate the generalization properties of node-individualized Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). Specifically, they aim to differentiate between various individualization schemes based on their generalization properties. To achieve this, they employ two techniques: VC dimension and covering numbers. Furthermore, they propose a new individualization scheme informed by their findings.
Strengths: **S1 Highly Relevant Topic:** The study of the generalization properties of GNNs is highly pertinent to understanding their capabilities. Investigating this within the context of individualization is particularly interesting, as individualization has been demonstrated to enhance expressive power.
Weaknesses: **W1 Presentation:** The presentation of the results and methods is not clear. Particularly in the section following Theorem 1, where bounds on the number of equivalences are presented across various settings without sufficient explanation. More detail or intuition would be beneficial, especially regarding the Tinhofer individualization. Additionally, the comparison of different schemes based on these bounds is not clearly articulated. For instance, why are only amenable graphs considered for Tinhofer, but not for the other two cases? The discussion on positional and structural encodings also lacks clarity. Statements such as the Laplacian increasing VC dimension require more justification. The segments about randomness and super-exponentiality need further elaboration.
**W2 EGOnet Individualization:** In section 4.2, the authors mention that their proposed 1-layer GNN on individualized egonets is guided by observations on VC dimension bounds. This point is unclear and should be detailed more explicitly. It might refer to the last sentence in that section, but the explanation is insufficient. Clear comparisons between different schemes in terms of VC bounds are necessary.
**W3 Covering Number Result:** The conclusions drawn after Theorem 4 are not very clear. The presentation in this part is suboptimal, lacking clarity. The authors should more clearly indicate the insights gained from these results. Also, the proofs are very simple.
**W4 New individualization schema:** The authors mention that a contribution is the design of a new schema, yet it is hidden well in the discussion at the end of Section 4. There one finds a high level and unclear description of that new scheme (appendix contains more details but haven’t checked that). At least, this major contribution could have been explained in the main paper?
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 1
Questions for Authors: Please address the weak points.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 1
Contribution: 2
Limitations: no comments.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank you for your insights on how the paper could be improved, and for acknowledging the high relevance of our work. We think that, by addressing your comments on the lack of clarity of some sections, the paper will be indeed easier to understand. Please find below both the answers to your comments, and the proposed additional explanations and examples to increase the paper's comprehensibility.
We are however surprised by your evaluation with a score of 3, which entails technical flaws, weak evaluation or inadequate reproducibility.
We hope that our response addresses your concerns with clarity, and we would therefore highly appreciate if you would consider reevaluating your final assessment of our article.
We’d be happy to address any additional questions you may have.
>**Weaknesses:**
> W1 Presentation
Thank you for pointing out some sections that lack clarity. Note though that the level of detail that we could integrate into the main paper was limited by the strict page limit. If the paper is accepted, we will use the extra page granted for the camera ready to explain the sections you deem unclear in greater detail and include parts of the Appendix.
In particular, we will describe the individualization schemes in more detail (see also the reply to Point 7 of reviewer 1).
For the Tinhofer scheme, we first give a general bound to the size of ${\rm Rel}(G)$ as for the other schemes. We then give a tighter result for the class of WL-amenable graphs. This result holds, as stated in the paper, just for the Tinhofer scheme, so we don't give similar results for the other schemes.
Concerning the Laplacian increasing the VC dimension, we thank you for pointing out that the sentence needs more justification.
We will replace line 223 as follows:
"The Laplacian positional encoding [13] is known not to be equivariant in general [52], i.e., there are graphs $G$ such that ${\rm Rel}(G, \omega) \not\simeq {\rm Rel}(G, \omega')$ for some $\omega \neq \omega'$. Therefore we have that $|{\rm Rel}(\mathcal{G}) / \simeq_{WL}| > |\mathcal{G} / \simeq_{WL}|$, which, by Theorem 1, leads to an increase in the VC dimension..."
> W2 EGOnet Individualization
We think that by incorporating your comment we can make this section indeed more clear. Please find below an answer to your comment and how we would address it in the paper.
In general, we showcase that VC dimension bounds can lead to the development of better architectures tailored to specific tasks.
In particular, as stated in the paper, we design an architecture whose VC dimension depends on $\mathcal G_\Delta$, which is much smaller than $\mathcal{G}$. This is briefly discussed, as you correctly point out, in the last paragraph of 4.2.
We would add the following discussion to make this point more explicit.
"In general, $\mathcal G_\Delta$ is much smaller compared to $\mathcal{G}$, especially for small $\Delta$. This leads to the fact that, in general, ${\rm Rel}(\mathcal G_\Delta)$ will be much smaller than ${\rm Rel}(\mathcal{G})$. Thanks to Thm.1, we then have that the VC dimension of $GNN_{\Delta}^{ego, Rel}$ is in general lower compared to the one of $GNN_{K}^{bin} \circ {\rm Rel}$. This theoretical result is also experimentally validated in Section 5.3."
> W3 Covering Number Result
We point out that, although the proofs are not extremely complex, we are the first to develop these bounds, which we believe could be of interest to the entire statistical learning theory community, even beyond graph learning.
Moreover, we are the first to apply them to relabeling schemes for graph neural networks.
Finally, we agree that we can give more intuition on the results of Theorem 4 and how they can lead to the design of new relabeling schemes. Please see the reply to your point W4 for an example that we will include in the paper.
> W4 New individualization schema
Please note that we don't claim that the new individualization scheme is a major contribution of the paper. The major contributions are rather the sample complexity bounds, we will make this clearer.
Based on the covering number bounds, we indeed develop the ${\rm Tinhofer}_W$ scheme.
We once again believe that addressing your comments by expanding this section will make the paper easier to understand. We will use the extra space in the camera-ready to integrate the formal description of the ${\rm Tinhofer}_W$ scheme, which we now give only in the Appendix due to space constraints.
We will moreover integrate the following intuition on why the ${\rm Tinhofer}_W$ scheme can lead to better generalization (as shown empirically in Section 5.4).
Consider, as a motivating example, the two graphs
in Figure 1 (*Panel (a)*) of the Supplementary PDF to the rebuttal.
Here, the letters indicate graphs' node labels, and correspond in fact with WL color classes.
The ${\rm Tinhofer}$ scheme would find a canonical ordering on the two graphs by assigning an identifier (e.g., Â) to one of the two nodes labeled with A. Then, assuming a total order A < Â < B < C < D < E, it would concatenate the position of the node in the ordering to the node label. We then obtain (up to ordering of the two A-labeled nodes), the graphs in *Panel (b)*.
We therefore have that the relabeled graphs have edit distance 3, even though the edit distance of the original graphs was just 1. By making the "tail" of the graphs longer, one can make the difference in edit distances arbitrarily large.
The ${\rm Tinhofer_W}$ scheme would use the Tinhofer algorithm to obtain the same node ordering. The main difference lies in the fact that the scheme appends the position of the node in the ordering within its WL color class. One would then obtain the graphs in *Panel \(c\)*.
The edit distance thus remains 1, as in the original graphs. Then, by Theorem 4, we argue that the ${\rm Tinhofer_W}$ scheme can lead to better generalization. This is indeed validated by the experiments in Section 5.4.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thanks for the rebuttal
Comment: Dear Authors,
Thank you for your detailed rebuttal and thoughtful responses to my concerns. I appreciate the depth of analysis provided and recognize the value of your work. However, my current score reflects the difficulty I had in digesting the presentation of your concepts, even though I am familiar with most of them. I found several parts lacked clarity, a concern also shared by review QJ5E. I believe your work has significant potential, but I am unable to recommend acceptance in its current form.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thanks for your answer. We understand and respect your decision. In any case, we will make sure to use your feedback to make the paper easy to understand. | Summary: This paper proposes sample complexity bounds for message-passing graph neural networks (GNNs) with node individualization schemes, i.e., the assignment of unique identifiers to nodes. The authors first introduce a mathematical framework which describes node individualization schemes as a relabeling process. Based on this framework, they provide VC-based sample complexity bounds for several node individualization schemes and a more general VC-based sample complexity bound for substructure identification based on ego nets. The authors then use covering numbers to bound the empirical Rademacher complexity and, building upon this bound, propose a novel node individualization scheme. Finally, they perform experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets for substructure identification and graph classification to evaluate their theoretical results.
Strengths: To the best of my knowledge, this paper is the first to introduce sample complexity bounds for graph neural networks with unique node identification. I think this contribution fills a gap in the current literature and is of interest to the graph learning community. Additionally, the authors propose an individualization scheme based on the Tinhofer algorithm and ego network construction with impressive results on substructure identification tasks.
Weaknesses: While the introduction and motivation are well-written, the paper has some issues with respect to clarity. Overall, it would be helpful to point out explicitly which results hold for permutation equivariant (invariant) GNNs, and which are (additionally) universally expressive. Particularly, the role of $\\Omega$ is not fully clear to me: How does it address permutation equivariance, and how does it introduce pseudo-randomness?
In general, the theoretical results could be better situated within related work: How do the node individualization-based bounds differ from GNNs without node individualization? What is the trade-off between expressivity, permutation invariance and generalization? With respect to writing, it would further be helpful to use the definition environment for key terms in the preliminaries to make them easier to locate (e.g., lines 145-147). Additionally, important references such as 1-WL are missing from the preliminaries and line breaks in inequalities or definitions make the paper difficult to follow. Finally, there is ambiguous language, e.g., do node _embeddings_, _features_, and _labels_ refer to the same concept?
Overall, my current score reflects the paper's clarity issues, which made it difficult to fully assess the theoretical results. Please refer to the **Questions** section for more details. If these issues are addressed, I would be willing to raise my score.
Please find some minor remarks and suggestions below:
* Often the comma is missing after "i.e." and "e.g." (e.g., line 20, line 40, line 120)
* Please consider double-checking how you use plural/singular throughout the paper (e.g. GNNs in line 149)
* lines 19-23. Please consider breaking up this super long sentence
* line 22: certain classes of graphs
* line 35: typo in expressivity
* line 38: language sounds off, suggestion: "These features provide information about the graph topology [...]"
* line 40-41: "The amount of training data required for generalization beyong the training data" -> Consider re-writing this sentence
* line 56: universal -> universally
* line 87: tuple of G -> tuple G
* line 109: dot missing
* line 112: "this algorithm" -> "Tinhofer" or "The Tinhofer algorithm"
* Consider removing "hereinafter" from the introduction of abbreviations, e.g., graph-neural networks (GNNs)
* line 137: $\\Omega$ is in $\\mathbb{N}$ but referred to as integer in the text
* line 140: "in memory" sounds a bit odd (if they have different vertex orderings)
* line 246: form -> from
* line 298: number "of" WL
* line 320: explore -> explores
* line 325-326: double "respectively"
* line 360: indiced -> induced
* Consider not having line breaks in formulae, this sometimes hinders readability
* lines 52-61: consider providing links to the relevant sections/theorems in your list of contributions
* line 532: suffice -> suffices
* line 556: arrow points in the wrong direction
* Consider checking how you refer to theorems etc., this is not always consistent (e.g., Prop. 1 is referred to as theorem in the text)
* Please consider numbering equations
* Reference [38] appears to be published in the future (NeurIPS 2024)
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. Could you elaborate on your definition of an equivariant function (where domain and codomain are both graphs)? How does this differ from an invariant function from graphs to graphs?
2. Line 107: Why is the max operator used to define $k$? If $|V_G| \\neq |V_H$, then the two graphs are not isomorphic as per 1-WL, as there is no bijection between multisets of different sizes.
3. Why is the graph-level readout defined to be in $[0,1]$ (line 120), but $\\{0,1\\}$ in Prop. 1? Should it be $GNN_{k,\\theta}^{bin}$ in Prop. 1? The same holds for Thm. 2.
4. Could you please elaborate on the additional arguments from $\\Omega$, both with respect to ensuring permutation equivariance (cf. lines 136-141) as well as modelling pseudo-randomness? How do you obtain/choose $\\omega \\in \\Omega$? Does it serve as an enumeration of all possible permutations (and thus is factorial in the number of nodes of a graph)?
5. On a related note, could you be more explicit about what node individualization schemes are permutation equivariant (invariant) *and* universally expressive (as stated in the proof for Theorem 2)?
5. lines 150-151: Does this mean that GNNs could be used similary to WL in the Tinhofer algorithm? Or could you elaborate how we can use $k$ message passing layers to obtain a node individualized graph representation?
7. lines 202-208: Could you elaborate on the relabeling process? Are the words "features" and "labels" synonymous in this context? If we update the label for each node $v_i$ as $(v_i, i)$, doesn't this make every node set $V_c$ a singleton?
8. Proof of Lemma 1: Shouldn't this be $VC(\\mathcal{G}, GNN_K^{bin}) = |\\mathcal{G}/ \\simeq_{WL} |$ (instead of $|\\mathcal{G}/ \\simeq |$)?
9. All results hold for bounded graphs only. Can you say anything about unbounded graphs?
10. What is the computational complexity of $GNN^{ego}_{\\Delta_P}$ with the Tinhofer individualization scheme?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: All presented results hold only for bounded graphs. Additionally, as the authors remark themselves, the VC bounds are somewhat vacuous, as we would have to sample from the set of all possible relabeled graphs.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for recognizing the novelty and the potential impact of our work to the graph learning community.
Moreover, we want to thank you for your extremely thorough and insightful review, which is certainly not to be taken for granted.
Your comments made us spot and address some sections of the manuscript that required further clarifications, therefore enhancing the paper's quality and readability.
We believe that we can address most of your concerns and questions with small edits to the paper, possibly using the extra page granted in the camera ready version.
Please find detailed answers to all of your questions below.
> In general, the theoretical results could...
Our sample complexity bounds are applicable even without node initializations (by choosing the relabeling function to be the identity), leading to the bounds by [31 (Morris et al. 2023)] (for bounded graphs). We will make this explicit.
We will include the reference to 1-WL and use the extra page to avoid line breaks.
Features and node labels are indeed used as synonyms, and we will change the wording to use just node labels (see also question 7). Embeddings have a similar meaning but are the output of a GNN layer, as opposed to node labels, which are intrinsic properties of the input graph. We will make all of this explicit.
> Minor remarks
Thank you, we will fix all typos.
> **Questions:**
1. Our definition of equivariance is slightly relaxed with respect to some works in the literature, but it is still sufficient for our purposes (line 138, line 220), and avoids making the notation heavier. We will mention this explicitly in the definition.
For what concerns invariance, note that we use the term just for real-valued functions.
For functions outputting graphs, a common definition would be that $G \simeq H$ implies $f(G) = f(H)$ (equality, not isomorphism). Notice that such a function would be still called equivariant under our definition.
2. The max operator is indeed not necessary. We will replace the sentence with "...if it holds for $k = |V_G| = |V_H|$".
3. In line 120 we define the output to be continuous in accordance with the literature [34 (Morris et al. 2019)], and it can be interpreted as the probability of $y$ being 1. In Prop.1 and Thm.2 the function $f$ to be realized takes binary values, and technically it could be represented by a continuous-output-GNN (with no output in $]0,1[$). We agree with you though that this could be unclear. We then propose the following changes:
- In Prop.1, we will use $GNN_{k, \theta}^{\rm bin}$ as you suggest.
- In line 249, we will change $GNN_{1,\theta}$ to $GNN_{1,\theta}^{\rm bin}$, so that both $h_v^{\rm ego}$ and $h_G$ belong to $\{ 0,1 \}$.
4. The choice of encapsulating the pseudo-randomness of models in an additional parameter is needed to model the sample complexity, and is used for example also in [17 (Franks et al. 2021)].
As you correctly point out, it could serve as an enumeration of all possible permutations of a graph and its size can be therefore factorial in the number of nodes.
We'd like to highlight that the choice of $\omega \in \Omega$ is never done explicitly, and we just use the size of $\Omega$ (or an upper bound to it) to bound the VC dimension of the hypothesis class, such as in the results of Lemmas 3, 4 and 5 in the Appendix.
5. By Prop. 1, all node indiv. schemes are universally expressive. Note that not all relabeling schemes are.
As mentioned in line 220 some relabeling schemes, such as RWPE, are deterministic and permutation equivariant, but they cannot guarantee universality in general.
A node indiv. scheme that is at the same time universally expressive and permutation equivariant can be obtained, e.g., by adding a canonical labelling to the nodes. This choice though is highly impractical due to the complexity of such algorithms. We then use the Tinhofer algorithm, that on WL-amenable graphs is canonical, and therefore guarantees both universal expressivity and permutation equivariance (Lemma 1).
6. Exactly. The first $k-1$ layers of the GNN would be used to simulate WL on the graph. This is possible due to the results of [34 (Morris et al. 2019)].
7. Features should be replaced with labels. Moreover, we think that you could have interpreted the sentence after "in fact" as a continuation of the algorithm for relabeling, while it is an alternative version of the algorithm. Re-phrasing:
In the simplest version of the RP scheme, we update the label for each node $v_i$ as $\ell(v_i) = (\ell(v_i), i)$.
The second version of the scheme instead first partitions the nodes based on their labels into ${V_1, \dots, V_C}$. Then, letting $V_c = (v_{i_1}, \dots, v_{i_{|V_c|}})$, it updates the label for each node as $\ell(v_{i_j}) = (\ell(v_{i_j}), j)$.
8. For the set of WL-amenable graphs, $|\mathcal{G} /\simeq_{WL}| = |\mathcal{G} /\simeq|$. We will make this explicit.
9. The assumption of bounded graphs is indeed a limitation. However, this assumption is reasonable for many real-world graphs. For example, drug-like molecules generally have less than hundreds of nodes.
Secondly, there are very few results for unbounded graphs in the literature. Notably, [31 (Morris et al., 2021)] achieves VC bounds for unbounded graphs, but they have to assume that the number of WL color classes is bounded.
In this case, one can probably extend the results for GNNs with relabeling schemes (not for node indiv. schemes, which break the regularity of the graphs by design), and this is an interesting question for future work.
10. Let $n_E, m_E$ be the max number of nodes and edges of a ego-net and $n, m$ the number of nodes and edges in the original graph. Extracting each egonet, e.g., using a BFS, is $O(n \cdot m_E)$. Let $T=o(n_E \cdot m_E \log n_E)$ be the max time to run Tinhofer on an egonet, then it takes $O(n T)$ to run the scheme.
Running one layer of a GNN on all ego nets will take time $O(n \cdot m_E)$. We will mention this.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for their detailed response and the additional experiments and examples.
Two quick notes on the rebuttal:
* A3: Sounds good to me.
* A4: Thank you for the clarification. I think this needs to be made much more explicit in the paper. I am also still struggling with the term ''pseudo-randomness''; perhaps you could explain that $\omega \in \Omega$ can be seen as a random seed (if I understood the role of $\Omega$ correctly now)?
I also read the other reviews as well as the authors' rebuttals and decided to **raise my score**. While I agree with reviewer xW3P on clarity issues, given the detailed and thoughtful rebuttal by the authors, I am positive that this could be improved for the camera-ready version.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your positive feedback. Once again, we sincerely appreciate the detailed review and helpful suggestions you provided, which motivated us to put an extra effort to ensure that we could deliver the best version possible of the paper.
Concerning question A4: Indeed $\Omega$ can be understood as a random seed. We will mention it. | null | null | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear reviewers,
we would like to express our appreciation for the positive comments on our paper, recognizing
- the novelty of our work;
- the strong significance of our work for the community, potentially guiding future architectural design decisions;
- the strength of experimental results, particularly on substructure identification tasks.
We would like to thank you for the detailed and insightful feedback, which we believe have strengthened our paper considerably. Below, we provide detailed responses to your comments. Please also refer to the appended PDF file for further experimental evaluations highlighting the relevance of our approach in real-world scenarios as well as a motivating example for the ${\rm Tinhofer_W}$ relabeling scheme.
Pdf: /pdf/38ec88b2270469c7b47d1d8a18ec85b3419d5e52.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Offline Behavior Distillation | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper emphasizes on the offline data generation to enable rapid policy learning in reinforcement learning. A new surrogate loss function is proposed for the data generation. Theoretical analysis shows the superiority of the proposed method in the performance gap.
Strengths: 1. A new objective for data generation is proposed with a performance guarantee.
2. Experiments are conducted over multiple benchmark datasets.
Weaknesses: 1. Related work on offline data generation of RL should be provided and compared. The proposed Av-PBC method is only compared with random policy, are there other related works? Is this paper the first work of offline data generation in RL?
2. In section 1, it is not clear what is the difference between AvPBC and Av-PBC. Only Av-PBC is evaluated in the experiments.
3. The network architecture is not clear. Since data generation is required. A generating network should be used in addition to a policy network. More details about the data generation model should be provided.
4. In the experiments, what is the number of offline datasets as the number of offline data samples influences performance?
5. In the experiments, the time and performance of Av-PBC and OffRL should be compared under varying numbers of generated data.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Please refer to Weakness.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: N/A
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Q1:** *Related work on offline data generation of RL should be provided and compared. The proposed Av-PBC method is only compared with random policy, are there other related works? Is this paper the first work of offline data generation in RL?*
**A1:** Thanks for your comments. To the best of our knowledge, our paper is the first to achieve behavioral data distillation from offline RL data. We introduced the novel OBD algorithm Av-PBC and demonstrated its effectiveness by comparing it with two baseline methods, DBC and PBC. Our method shows significant improvements in both performance and speed across multiple datasets.
The most closely related work to ours is (online) behavioral distillation [1]. We have detailed the differences between [1] and our work in the Related Works section (Line 103-114). Our focus is on the offline scenario, where the RL environment is not accessible. This distinction is crucial as it highlights the unique challenges and contributions of our approach; please refer to Line 103-114 for more details.
[1] Andrei Lupu, Chris Lu, Jarek Luca Liesen, Robert Tjarko Lange, and Jakob Nicolaus Foerster. Behaviour distillation. In *The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations*, 2024.
**Q2:** *It is not clear what is the difference between AvPBC and Av-PBC in Section 1.*
**A2:** Thanks and addressed. "AvPBC" is "Av-PBC" in Section 1.
**Q3:** *The network architecture is not clear. Since data generation is required. A generating network should be used in addition to a policy network. More details about the data generation model should be provided.*
**A3:** Thanks for your suggestion. We would like to clarify that our OBD method does not involve the use of generative models. Instead, we optimize the distilled data through backpropagation, applying an element-wise update as outlined by the $\texttt{GradDescent}$ procedure in Algorithm 1.
In the first step of $\texttt{GradDescent}$, we calculate the meta-gradient $\nabla_\mathcal{D_\textbf{syn}}$ via Backpropagation Through Time (BPTT) as described in Equation 3. We then update $\mathcal{D_\textbf{syn}}$ by $\mathcal{D_\textbf{syn}} \rightarrow \mathcal{D_\textbf{syn}} - \alpha \nabla_\mathcal{D_\textbf{syn}} $. We will provide additional clarification and detail about this process in our revised paper.
**Q4:** *What is the number of offline datasets as the number of offline data samples influences performance?*
**A4:** Thank you for your comments. We list the sample size of each offline dataset in Table 3 of the PDF file, which can also be found in Table 4 of the Appendix. These datasets range from 0.3 million to 2 million samples. Our Av-PBC significantly outperforms other approaches across these varying dataset sizes, demonstrating its robustness and effectiveness.
**Q5:** *The time and performance of Av-PBC and OffRL should be compared under varying numbers of generated data.*
**A5:** Thanks for your suggestion. We explored the effect of different sizes of synthetic datasets on OBD performance during the response period. The results, presented in Table 2 of the PDF file, indicate that as the size of the synthetic data increases, OBD performance improves. This enhancement is attributed to the larger synthetic datasets conveying more comprehensive information about the RL environment and decision-making processes.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response. I will maintain my current score. | Summary: The paper considers the offline behavior distillation (OBD) for reinforcement learning. The problem is to distill a synthetic dataset given a large dataset sampled by a sub-optimal policy. The key challenge of the problem is to design a good distillation objective. The authors first give two native objectives and prove they are limited to provide good performance guarantee. Then, they propose the Action-value weighted PBC objective and prove a better performance guarantee than the naive objectives. The authors evaluate the proposed algorithms on the dataset D4RL and demonstrate the distillation performance and show the advantage of OBD in reducing the RL training time.
Strengths: The OBD problem is well motivated and closely related to the concerns of the community.
Weaknesses: - Corollary 1 and Corollary 2 compare the policy for dataset distillation to the policy of offline RL, but we are more concerned about the performance of any policy trained on the distilled dataset comparing to the optimal policy. It would be better to propose a new metric to evaluate the performance of OBD for RL.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See the weakness section. Also, I have the following comments.
1. It is also a challenge to decide the size of the synthetic dataset to strike a balance between training efficiency and performance.
2. I am also concerned about the scaling issue. If the synthetic dataset is large, the dataset distillation has a high computational cost.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors adequately addressed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Q1:** *Corollary 1 and Corollary 2 compare the policy for dataset distillation to the policy of offline RL, but we are more concerned about the performance of any policy trained on the distilled dataset comparing to the optimal policy. It would be better to propose a new metric to evaluate the performance of OBD for RL.*
**A1:** Thanks for your comments. As there is no assumption w.r.t. policies, we would like to clarify that in Corollaries 1 and 2, the policy $\pi^\ast$ can represent either a decent policy learned from an offline RL algorithm or the optimal policy. Since the environment and optimal policy are not accessible in the offline setting, we use advanced offline RL algorithms to derive an "estimated expert policy" $\pi^\ast$ from the offline RL data for the loss computation of OBD. Corollaries 1 and 2 theoretically show that this approach effectively assesses the performance of policies trained on the distilled dataset in relation to the practical benchmark policy $\pi^\ast$, given the constraints of the offline RL scenario.
**Q2:** *It is also a challenge to decide the size of the synthetic dataset to strike a balance between training efficiency and performance.*
**A2:** Thanks for your comments. We have tested various sizes of synthetic datasets, and the results are presented in Table 1 of the PDF. This table demonstrates that OBD performance improves with larger synthetic datasets, as they provide more comprehensive RL environment and decision information during the OBD process.
However, a larger synthetic dataset also presents challenges: (1) it increases the number of parameters in the bi-level optimization process, raising computational costs; and (2) it can reduce efficiency when training policies on the synthetic data. Determining the optimal size of the synthetic dataset depends on the specific RL environment and the coverage and quality of the pre-collected data. We plan to conduct a more detailed analysis on this topic in future work.
**Q3:** *Scaling issue: if the synthetic dataset is large, the dataset distillation has a high computational cost.*
**A3:** Thank you for bringing this up. While there is a trade-off between performance and efficiency related to the synthetic data size in OBD (see A2 above), OBD is primarily intended to distill a compact synthetic behavioral dataset for efficient policy training. As the synthetic dataset grows larger, the benefits of OBD diminish. Consequently, we focus on optimizing OBD performance within a limited synthetic data budget. We will incorporate this discussion into our revised manuscript.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for their responses. I would like to remain my score. | Summary: The paper introduces Offline Behavior Distillation (OBD), a method to synthesize expert behavioral data from sub-optimal reinforcement learning (RL) data to enable rapid policy learning. The authors propose two naive OBD objectives, Data-Based Cloning (DBC) and Policy-Based Cloning (PBC), and introduce a new objective, Action-Value Weighted PBC (Av-PBC). Av-PBC optimizes the weighted decision difference to achieve superior distillation guarantees with linear discount complexity. Theoretical analyses and extensive experiments on multiple D4RL datasets demonstrate that Av-PBC significantly improves OBD performance and convergence speed when compared to the two navie OBD objectives. The paper further shows that the performance of Av-PBC generalize well across architectures of the policy network and optimizers.
Strengths: 1. Originality: The paper introduces a novel approach to distill vast sub-optimal RL data into a limited set of expert behavioral data, enhancing policy training efficiency. The formulation of Av-PBC as an OBD objective is innovative and addresses the limitations of the two navie OBD objectives.
2. Quality: The theoretical analysis is robust, providing a solid foundation for the proposed Av-PBC objective. The empirical results are comprehensive, covering multiple datasets and demonstrating significant improvements in OBD performance and efficiency.
3. Clarity: Overall, the paper is well-organized, with clear explanations of the problem setup, the proposed approach, and results. The theoretical proofs and empirical evaluations are detailed and easy to follow.
4. Significance: The proposed method has broad implications for RL, enabling efficiency pretraining, data privacy protection and prior knowledge construction for downstream tasks.
Weaknesses: 1. The dependency on an offline RL algorithm makes the Algorithm 1 fails to claim that OBD could improve training efficiency when compared to direct application of the offline RL with the whole dataset since the training cost of an offline RL is part of the proposed Algorithm 1. Algorithm 1 requires that the an offline RL algorithm should learn pi* and q_{pi*} as an oracle before offline behavior distillation
2. The result has limited discussion on the impact of the quality of the initial dataset on the effectiveness of the Av-PBC objective, limiting its applicability in practice. Adding more insightful discussion and possible guidance for when the Av-PBC could guarantee a performce could promote the adoption of the Av-PBC in practice. For example, an user may ask if it is worth to apply Av-PBC when given a pre-collected dataset.
* 2.1 Effectiveness Controlled by Dataset Quality: According to Table 1, the quality of the dataset D_off seems to control the effectiveness of the proposed approach. The approach only performs better than BC (whole) on the lowest-quality dataset (M-R). Can the authors discuss this finding in more detail?
* 2.2 Performance Patterns in Offline Datasets: The explanation for the "interesting phenomenon for Av-PBC" suggests that offline datasets with better state coverage lead to better OBD performance. However, the performance of Medium-Replay and Medium datasets from the HalfCheetah environment contradicts this. Based on their definitions, the M-R dataset has higher state-action coverage than the M dataset, but Av-PBC with the M dataset performs better. It might be worth to discuss these potential OBD performance patterns across offline datasets of different qualities by considering state-action coverage and average trajectory return collectively.
* 2.3 Av-PBC Ensemble Performance in Hopper Environment: The Av-PBC based ensemble does not improve OBD performance with the M-R and M datasets of the Hopper environment. It makes the paper stronger if the authors provide an explanation to guide potential users in applying the Av-PBC ensemble effectively.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. The "Problem Setup" is not straightforward without reading the following sections.
* 1.1. Meaning of Capital D in Equation 1: In Equation 1, what does the capital D refer to? After reading the subsection "Problem Setup", it seems it might refer to the set of all trajectories in the environment. Could the authors clarify this?
* 1.2 Semantics of Surrogate Loss H(pi_theta, D_off): The surrogate loss is initially introduced here for converting Equation 1 to Equation 2. While the missing clear definition of the surrogate loss makes it difficult to understand that minimizing H(pi_theta, D_off) is equivalent to maximizing the expected return J. Referring to its definition in the "Problem Setup" would make the paper more readable.
2. Algorithm 1 needs more clarification:
* 2.1. Clarification on D_syn in Algorithm 1: In Algorithm 1, should "D_syn" be "B" in the step "Compute H(πθT ,Dsyn)" since the expression on the right side only involves data points from the sampled batch B?
* 2.2. Use of GradDescent() in Algorithm 1: Algorithm 1 uses GradDescent() to update the synthesized dataset D_syn. This is understandable for updating policy parameters during behavior cloning, but could the authors clarify the semantics of applying GradDescent() to update D_syn?
3. Examples of Discovered Critical States by Av-PBC: It is mentioned that "distilled behavioral data is also beneficial for explainable RL by showing the critical states and corresponding actions." So, it will make the paper more convincing if some examples of such critical states discovered by Av-PBC could be added to the paper.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have addressed some limitations of their work, such as the computational complexity of the bi-level optimization and the performance gap between the synthetic data and the whole offline RL dataset. However, they could further discuss potential limitations of the proposed approach in the following directions:
1. Generalization to Other Environments: While Av-PBC shows significant improvements on the D4RL benchmark datasets, its performance on more complex and diverse environments like Franka Kitchen and Adroit Manipulation remains unexplored. Future work could investigate the applicability and effectiveness of Av-PBC in these and other challenging environments to understand its generalization capabilities better.
2. Quality Requirement of Initial Offline Dataset: The paper discusses the performance of Av-PBC under three different qualities of datasets from three Mujoco environments. However, the quality of a dataset can vary widely in practice, potentially leading to failures of Av-PBC in certain scenarios. A discussion on the impact of dataset quality on Av-PBC's performance and practical guidance on applying Av-PBC across different scenarios would enhance its usability and robustness.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Q1:** *The dependency on an offline RL algorithm makes Algorithm 1 fails to claim that OBD could improve training efficiency when compared to direct application of the offline RL with the whole dataset.*
**A1:** Thanks for your comments. Though Algorithm 1 incorporates a complete offline RL process, once the distillation is complete, the distilled data can be reused in various scenarios. **This allows us to train policy networks much more efficiently on distilled data compared to using the large original dataset**. Improving the efficiency of OBD is a key focus for future work, particularly given the challenges of bi-level optimization, as discussed in Limitation. Notably, Algorithm 1 significantly enhances distillation speed compared to naive OBD methods such as DBC and PBC.
**Q2:** *The result has limited discussion on the impact of the quality of the initial dataset on the effectiveness of the Av-PBC objective, limiting its applicability in practice.*
**A2:** Thanks. Please refer to A2 in the global response.
**Q2.1:** *The quality of the dataset $D\_\text{off}$ seems to control the effectiveness of the proposed approach in Table 1. The approach only performs better than BC (whole) on the lowest-quality dataset (M-R). Can the authors discuss this finding in more detail?*
**A2.1:** Thanks for your observation. The quality of offline RL data $D\_\text{off}$ directly **affects the expert policy $\pi^\ast$ learned through offline RL algorithm**, thereby impacting the final performance of Av-PBC by the loss in Eq. 7. On the other hand, the policy $\pi$ trained on distilled data typically performs below of $\pi^\ast$ due to optimization errors. **When original data is of lower quality, such as when sampled from sub-optimal or random policy (like M-R), the offline RL algorithm (Offline RL, whole) can learn a much better policy $\pi^\ast$ than BC (whole) because of its specially designed Bellman backup.** This significant performance gap between offRL (whole) and BC (whole) explains why our OBD algorithm performs better than BC (whole) with low-quality $D\_\text{off}$.
**Q2.2:** *The "interesting phenomenon for Av-PBC" suggests that offline datasets with better state coverage lead to better OBD performance. Therefore, the Medium-Replay (M-R) dataset should have higher state-action coverage than the M dataset, but Av-PBC with the M dataset performs better.*
**A2.2:** Thanks for your comments. We respectfully argue that we only claim that state coverage is crucial for OBD performance, and data quality is also another essential factor, as discussed in A2.1. Although M-R datasets have better state coverage, M datasets have superior data quality, which contributes to its better performance in the Halfcheetah environment. Our additional experiments further explore the impact of state coverage on OBD, revealing that greater state coverage enhances robustness against data noise, which benefits OBD performance. Please refer to A2 in the global response for more details.
**Q2.3:** *Why does the Av-PBC based ensemble not improve OBD performance with the M-R and M datasets of the Hopper environment?*
**A2.3:** Thanks for pointing this out. The reason the Av-PBC based ensemble does not improve OBD performance with the M-R and M datasets in the Hopper environment is that Hopper is simpler compared to Halfcheetah and Walker2D. Specifically, Hopper has a state dimension of 11 and an action dimension of 3, while Halfcheetah and Walker2D have state dimensions of 17 and action dimensions of 6. In more complex or high-dimensional environments, there is greater policy or model uncertainty, and policy ensembles are more effective at reducing this uncertainty and improving performance. In contrast, the simpler Hopper environment shows fewer improvements with the ensemble approach.
**Q3:** *What does the capital $D$ in Eq. 1 refer to?*
**A3:** Thanks. The capital $D$ refers to distilled data $D\_\text{syn}$.
**Q4:** *Missing clear definition of the surrogate loss $H$ makes it difficult to understand that minimizing $H$ is equivalent to maximizing the expected return $J$ in Eq. 1 and Eq. 2.*
**A4:** Thanks for your suggestion. We use the surrogate loss $H$ to approximate the expected return $J$. When $H$ is an appropriate proxy, minimizing $H$ effectively corresponds to maximizing $J$. We will clarify this in the revised paper.
**Q5:** *In Algorithm 1, "$D_{syn}$" should be "$B$" in "Compute $H(\pi ,D_{syn})$"*
**A5:** Thanks and addressed.
**Q6:** *In Algorithm 1, could the authors clarify the semantics of applying $\texttt{GradDescent()}$ to update ${D}_\text{syn}$?*
**A6:** Thanks. In the first step of $\texttt{GradDescent}$, we compute the meta-gradient $\nabla_{D_\textbf{syn}}$ via BPTT as shown in Eq. 3. Then we update $D_\text{syn}$ by $D_\text{syn} \rightarrow D_\text{syn} - \alpha \nabla_{D_\text{syn}} $.
**Q7:** *It will make the paper more convincing if some examples of such critical states discovered by Av-PBC could be added to the paper.*
**A7:** Thanks for your suggestion. Please refer to A1 in the global response.
**Q8:** *Generalization to Other Environments for proposed Av-PBC*
**A8:** Thanks. We have tested our approach in three widely-used environments of Halfcheetah, Hopper, and Walker2D with various data qualities. Our experiments show that our Av-PBC consistently and remarkably improves the OBD performance compared to other methods in these nine datasets. We will generalize our Av-PBC to more environments in future work to further validate its effectiveness.
**Q9:** *A discussion on the impact of dataset quality on Av-PBC's performance and practical guidance on applying Av-PBC across different scenarios would enhance its usability and robustness.*
**A9:** Thanks. We provide additional insights on the impact of data quality and state coverage; please refer to A2 in the global response.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for the detailed and thoughtful response. My concerns have been addressed. And I would like to remain my score. | Summary: This paper formulates offline behavior distillation in order to enable fast policy learning using limited expert data and thereby leveraging suboptimal RL data. The authors run extensive experiments on D4RL benchmarks to support their findings.
Strengths: 1. The linear discount complexity is a vast improvement over the prior quadratic discount complexity.
2. Problem setup and assumptions are written nicely and proof sketches are succinct and concise.
3. The application setting at the end of the paper, sheds light on the scope of the paper.
Weaknesses: There are no major weaknesses, but ablation studies and further corollaries would strengthen the paper.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: I'd like the authors to add their thoughts on how the proposed methods can serve as building blocks towards resolving the limitations mentioned in the paper.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: There are no significant technical limitations of this paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Q1:** *There are no major weaknesses, but ablation studies and further corollaries would strengthen the paper.*
**A1:** thanks for your acknowledgement and suggestion. We have conducted additional empirical studies during the response period to strengthen our paper:
1. We explored the effect of different sizes of synthetic datasets on OBD performance. The results, presented in Table 2 of the PDF file, indicate that as the size of the synthetic data increases, OBD performance improves. This enhancement is attributed to the larger synthetic datasets conveying more comprehensive information about the RL environment and decision-making processes.
2. We examined the role of state coverage in offline RL datasets $\mathcal{D}_\text{off}$ in enhancing OBD. Our empirical findings demonstrate that greater state coverage increases robustness against data noise, which is beneficial for OBD. For a detailed explanation, please refer to A2 in the global response.
3. We provided illustrative examples of distilled Halfcheetah behavioral data in Figure 1 of the PDF file. The top row displays the distilled states, while the bottom row shows the subsequent states after executing the corresponding distilled actions in the environment. The figure reveals that (1) the distilled states emphasize "critical states" or "imbalanced states" (for the cheetah) more than "balanced states"; and (2) the subsequent states after taking distilled actions are closer to "balanced states" than the initial distilled states. These examples offer insights into the explainability of reinforcement learning processes.
**Q2:** *I'd like the authors to add their thoughts on how the proposed methods can serve as building blocks towards resolving the limitations mentioned in the paper.*
**A2:** Thanks for your suggestion. In our paper, we highlighted two primary limitations.
1. The first limitation involves synthesizing distilled data for reinforcement learning. Our proposed Av-PBC partially addresses this issue by **distilling high-informative behavioral data for imitation learning, one of the offline RL methods**. This approach helps in effectively capturing essential information of the behavioral data, making it a valuable step towards resolving this limitation.
2. The second major limitation concerns the high computational resources required for Offline Behavioral Distillation (OBD) due to the bi-level optimization process. Av-PBC offers a significant improvement in this area by enhancing the distillation speed. Specifically, it **reduces the required time to one-quarter** of what is needed by the naive OBD methods like DBC and PBC. This efficiency gain makes Av-PBC a practical and resource-efficient option.
We will provide a more detailed discussion in the revised version of the paper.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for their detailed response. My concerns have been clarified. I request to maintain my score. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate all the reviewers for their enormous efforts and constructive comments. We will make sure to incorporate the parts that you suggested for clarity and reflect your feedback on the revised paper. We have compiled the results of additional experiments related to the reviewers' questions and comments in the attached PDF. The main contents of the file are listed as follows:
- Figure 1: Examples of distilled behavioral data.
- Table 1: Behavioral cloning performance on the offline data **with varying levels of action noise**.
- Table 2: The Av-PBC performance on offline datasets **with different synthetic data sizes**.
- Table 3: Sample size for each offline dataset.
The following responses present the reviewers' questions and corresponding details of experiments.
**Q1 (by Reviewer kzVy):** *It will make the paper more convincing if some examples of such critical states discovered by Av-PBC could be added to the paper.*
**A1:** Thanks for your suggestion. We have presented some examples of distilled Halfcheetah behavioral data in Figure 1 of the PDF file. The top row displays the distilled states, while the bottom row shows the subsequent states after executing the corresponding distilled actions in the environment. The figure reveals that (1) the distilled states emphasize "critical states" or "imbalanced states" (for the cheetah) more than "balanced states"; and (2) the subsequent states after taking distilled actions are closer to "balanced states" than the initial distilled states. These examples offer insights into the explainability of reinforcement learning processes. We will incorporate this into the revised paper.
**Q2 (by Reviewer kzVy):** *The result has limited discussion on the impact of the quality of the initial dataset on the effectiveness of the Av-PBC objective, limiting its applicability in practice.*
**A2:** Thank you for highlighting this point. We have addressed the impact of the quality of original offline RL data $\\mathcal{D}\_\texttt{off}$ on OBD performance in Sec. 5.1 (Line 277-282), emphasizing the importance of state coverage of $\mathcal{D}_\text{off}$. **The OBD performance is influenced by both state coverage and quality of $\\mathcal{D}\_\texttt{off}$**. Below, we provide additional insights about these two factors:
1. **Data Quality:** High-quality $\\mathcal{D}\_\texttt{off}$, which includes trajectories with high returns, enhances OBD performance by enabling the learning of an effective expert policy $\pi^\ast$ through offline RL. This in turn supports accurate loss computation of $q_{\pi^*}(s, a)\left(\pi(a \mid s)-\pi^*(a \mid s)\right)^2$ in Eq. 7.
2. **State Coverage:**
- **Question and Analysis:** An intriguing observation is that the low-quality $\\mathcal{D}\_\texttt{off}$ with better state coverage (such as M-R data) can result in superior OBD performance. The question arises: **how does state coverage benefit OBD**? Our analysis suggests that due to optimization errors in OBD, policies trained on distilled data may not perfectly fit the original dataset $\\mathcal{D}\_\texttt{off}$, but rather with a small error. Thus, **OBD performance, or policy training w.r.t. distilled data, can be likened to behavioral cloning (BC) on a noise-version of $\\mathcal{D}\_\texttt{off}$.**
- **Experiments and Results:** We conducted BC on the initial data with varying levels of action noise, as detailed in Table 1 of the PDF. The findings show that when there is little to no action noise (noise ratio $\leq 0.05$), higher-quality datasets (M-E) lead to better policy performance compared to datasets with better state coverage (M-R). However, as the noise ratio increases, datasets with better state coverage (M-R) demonstrate greater resilience and outperform the higher-quality datasets (M-E).
- **Conclusion:** These experiments demonstrate that state coverage enhances robustness against data noise, which partially explains the advantages of state coverage in OBD.
Pdf: /pdf/c8b082025dab2030032af5e296a3eab5decb8b5b.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
SOFTS: Efficient Multivariate Time Series Forecasting with Series-Core Fusion | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper introduces SOFTS (Series-cOre Fused Time Series forecaster), an efficient multivariate time series forecasting model that addresses the gap between channel independence and channel correlation in a novel way. By utilizing a centralized STAR (STar Aggregate-Redistribute) module, SOFTS creates a global core representation aggregated from all series, which is then redistributed and fused with individual series representations. This mechanism allows for efficient channel interaction while reducing dependence on the quality of each channel. The paper demonstrates SOFTS's superiority over state-of-the-art methods in terms of performance and computational complexity, and showcases the STAR module's adaptability across various forecasting models.
Strengths: - SOFTS proposes a unique approach to handling channel correlations in multivariate time series forecasting by employing a centralized STAR module, which aggregates and redistributes series representations efficiently.
- The model's design and implementation are well-thought-out, and the empirical results show that SOFTS outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods.
- The paper is well-written and structured, providing clear explanations of the STAR mechanism and its integration into SOFTS.
- The proposed method has the potential to enhance forecasting accuracy and efficiency across various domains, making it a valuable addition to the field.
Weaknesses: - Additional experiments evaluating the robustness of SOFTS under varying conditions of distribution drift could provide deeper insight into its reliability.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: - Has the author currently tried any other methods for aggregation and redistribution?
- SOFTS is a linear based model, so how to handle non-linear time series prediction?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: - The authors have adequately addressed the technical limitations of their work within the paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your positive assessment of our work and your thoughtful feedback. We are pleased to know that you found our approach and presentation to be excellent and that you see the value of our contributions to the field. We have carefully considered your comments and here are our responses.
> Additional experiments evaluating the robustness of SOFTS under varying conditions of distribution drift could provide deeper insight into its reliability.
Thanks for your advice. We have tested the robustness of SOFTS on real-world datasets and synthetic data with manually injected noise in Figure 6. More rigorous experiments need further design and we are working on it. Thanks again for your valuable advice.
> Has the author currently tried any other methods for aggregation and redistribution
To keep our method neat, we use the simplest redistribution by concatenation and MLP fusion. We also experiment with 4 simple variants of aggregation, including mean pooling, max pooling, stochastic pooling, and weighted average as shown in Table 3. This simple structure is found to perform well. We agree that there would be other better designs for aggregation and redistribution. And we leave it for future exploration.
> SOFTS is a linear based model, so how to handle non-linear time series prediction?
The encoding part of SOFTS (using STAR) is composed of multiple MLP layers. So it can handle non-linear time series prediction.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your detailed rebuttal. The additional experiments on robustness and the clarification on aggregation methods are appreciated. The explanation of SOFTS's capability to handle non-linear predictions is satisfactory. We look forward to seeing the further refined experiments in the final version. Well done!
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thanks very much for your recognition. We are happy that your concerns have been fully resolved. | Summary: This paper presents an efficient MLP-based model, the Series-cOre Fused Time Series forecaster (SOFTS). SOFTS incorporates a novel STar Aggregate-Redistribute (STAR) module to aggregate all series to form a global core representation, which is then dispatched and fused with individual series representations to facilitate channel interactions. The broad applicability of the STAR module across different forecasting models is also demonstrated empirically.
Strengths: 1. The paper is well-written.
2. The proposed STAR module is designed as a core to aggregate and exchange information from the channels efficiently, which is a universal module and can replace the attention mechanism.
3. The experiments in Figure 6 are interesting and the results are impressive.
Weaknesses: The paper lacks significant innovation. The stochastic pooling itself is not novel in deep neural networks. A somewhat novel facet of the proposed model is to use the pooling to extract global representations. However, the idea of aggregate-and-dispatch the interactions between variables has already been studied in TimeXer [1].
[1] Wang, Y., Wu, H., Dong, J., Liu, Y., Qiu, Y., Zhang, H., ... & Long, M. (2024). Timexer: Empowering transformers for time series forecasting with exogenous variables. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19072.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. It seems that all series share a core representation and MLP layers, but different variables will require different aspects of information. How can the model address these differences?
2. Please increase the look-back window length of the input series to 512 and 720, and compare the performance with other baseline models.
3. Please provide more results on abnormal channels, i.e. ETT, ECL, and Traffic dataset.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your positive feedback and constructive comments on our paper. We appreciate your recognition of our work's strengths and have carefully considered your suggestions for improvement. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your points.
> The paper lacks significant innovation. The stochastic pooling itself is not novel in deep neural networks. A somewhat novel facet of the proposed model is to use the pooling to extract global representations. However, the idea of aggregate-and-dispatch the interactions between variables has already been studied in TimeXer [1].
Thanks very much for reminding us of this paper. We understand your concerns regarding the novelty of our method. However, our approach differs significantly from TimeXer. Most importantly, TimeXer still uses attention (self-attention, cross-attention) as the module for extracting correlations between tokens. In contrast, the core innovation of our paper, the STAR module (as emphasized in line 10 of the abstract, line 63 of the introduction, and line 126 of Section 3.2), is distinct from attention. This difference is detailed in Section 3.2 and illustrated in Figure 2. Additionally, TimeXer aggregates the information of series and patch embeddings using attention, which is an aggregation in the time dimension. This method does not address the problem our paper focuses on, which is how to efficiently and robustly model channel correlation. Finally, TimeXer investigates the scenario of forecasting with exogenous variables, which differs from our study of multivariate forecasting. Their proposed method is also tailored for that scenario. **Therefore, in terms of application scenarios, problems to solve, and methodology, there is little overlap between our paper and TimeXer. We believe that our work offers sufficient innovation compared to this paper.**
In conclusion, we sincerely thank you for mentioning this paper and offering your suggestions. To ensure the completeness of our paper, we will add a discussion on the scenarios and methods of TimeXer in the related work and future work sections. The preliminary content is as follows:
**Related Work:**
TimeXer [1] uses self-attention to aggregate the information of series and patches and employs cross-attention to achieve interaction between endogenous and exogenous variables. It extends iTransformer to the forecasting with exogenous variables scenario. Unlike these two methods, our paper proposes an efficient channel interaction module based on MLP, achieving better performance with lower complexity.
**Future Work:**
Future work includes exploring how to apply SOFTS and STAR to more forecasting scenarios, such as forecasting with exogenous variables [1] and forecasting with future variates.
[1] Wang, Y., Wu, H., Dong, J., Liu, Y., Qiu, Y., Zhang, H., ... & Long, M. (2024). Timexer: Empowering transformers for time series forecasting with exogenous variables. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19072.
> It seems that all series share a core representation and MLP layers, but different variables will require different aspects of information. How can the model address these differences?
The MLP module can fuse different parts of the core representation according to the series due to its universal approximation ability. That is $MLP(s,o)$ can approximate any forecasting function if $s,o$ contains enough information. By Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem and DeepSets (line 146 and Section B.2). $o$ with equation (3) can approximate the function on all the series. Therefore, even if different variables will require different aspects of information, STAR can also approximate the required function.
> Please increase the look-back window length of the input series to 512 and 720, and compare the performance with other baseline models.
> Please provide more results on abnormal channels, i.e. ETT, ECL, and Traffic dataset.
Thanks for your advice. We have added the lookback window and the abnormal channel results (on ECL, Traffic, PEMS) in the **global rebuttal PDF**. The ETT dataset has only 7 channels, and the embedding correlation of the channels is not very clear, so we replaced it with PEMS. And we will make corresponding modifications to the revised version.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your rebuttal and for addressing my concerns. I still maintain my original score as a borderline accept. I appreciate using stochastic pooling to capture global core representation, while it lacks theoretical analysis. As described in $\underline{\text{Line 437-439}}$, the authors tested several common pooling methods, and stochastic pooling is more of a result-oriented design.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your reply. Stochastic pooling is indeed the best-performing design, but it is not the core contribution of this paper; it is merely an implementation method for the STAR structure we proposed. In most cases, the performance impact is primarily due to the STAR structure rather than the pooling method. Anyway, we appreciate your positive attitude toward our work. | Summary: This paper proposes to use a global representation to capture the channel correlations for multivariate time series forecasting. Specifically, it uses stochastic pooling to get the global representation by aggregating representations of individual series and then concats the global representation and individual representations to reflect channel correlations for each series. Experiment results confirm that the proposal is much efficiency and achieves better performance than existing methods.
Strengths: 1. This paper proposes an efficient method to capture the channel correlations for multivariate time series forecasting.
2. Extensive experiments are conducted to confirm the effectiveness of the proposal.
3. The paper is well-written and easy to understand in general.
Weaknesses: 1. Some experimental results are unconvincing.
-It is unclear why different datasets and metrics are used for different ablation studies, e.g., the datasets used in Table 3 and 4 are different, MAE is used in Figure 4 but MSE is used in other figures.
-There is no statistical significance tests between the results of the proposal and baselines.
-The results of Lookback Window Length 720 should be given as done in other papers.
-It is better to give the training time for each methods as well.
2. Some places are not clearly described.
-It is unclear the MLP and Linear operations are channel independent or dependent. I can guess they are channel independent, but it is not clearly described in Figure 1 and Section 3.
-The sentence "... rely too heavily on the correlation to achieve satisfactory results under distribution drift" in the Abstract is not clearly explained.
3. Minor mistakes or typos: Embedding module is missing in Figure1; oi ∈ Rd' should be oi ∈ RC×d' in Algorithm 1.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Please refer to the weaknesses.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your thorough review of our paper. We appreciate your feedback and have made corresponding responses to address your concerns.
> It is unclear why different datasets and metrics are used for different ablation studies, e.g., the datasets used in Table 3 and 4 are different, MAE is used in Figure 4 but MSE is used in other figures.
Datasets of Table 3,4 are selected due to space restriction. We provide full results in the **global rebuttal** part. We found that MSE lines of SOTA methods usually entangle with each other, therefore we display MAE. To alleviate concerns, we have also included performance curves using MSE in Figure 1 of the **global rebuttal PDF**.
> Statistical significance tests.
Thank you for pointing out the necessity of a significance test. Across 48 settings of the benchmark, our method outperforms 10 baseline methods in most cases (Table 6). Considering the diversity of the datasets (covering electricity, traffic, energy, and climate) and the diversity of the comparison methods (including linear, MLP, CNN, and Transformers), this sufficiently demonstrates the superiority of our proposed method. We also demonstrate the stability under different random seeds in Table 9, indicating that the performance is not coincidental. To alleviate any concerns, we have supplemented our analysis with t-test significance experiments. Due to the large number of experimental settings and the lengthy training time of some methods, we selected iTransformer and PatchTST, which have performances most comparable to ours, for comparison. We repeat 10 times for each method and each setting. The results are as follows. The T-Statistics < 0 and p-value < 0.05 are marked in bold.
|||PatchTST||||iTransformer||||
|---|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|
|||MAE||MSE||MAE||MSE||
|||P-Value|T-Statistics|P-Value|T-Statistics|P-Value|T-Statistics|P-Value|T-Statistics|
|ETTm2|96|0.853|0.191|0.514|**-0.683**|**0.001**|**-4.874**|**0.001**|**-5.199**|
||192|0.882|**-0.154**|0.748|**-0.332**|**0**|**-7.533**|**0**|**-9.142**|
||336|0.063|**-2.156**|0.319|**-1.063**|**0**|**-7.514**|**0.003**|**-4.169**|
||720|0.38|**-0.93**|0.925|**0.098**|**0.021**|**-2.877**|**0.108**|**-1.809**|
|PEMS08|12|**0**|**-27.817**|**0**|**-42.337**|**0**|**-15.018**|**0**|**-21.369**|
||24|**0**|**-32.518**|**0**|**-43.611**|**0**|**-17.864**|**0**|**-20.731**|
||48|**0**|**-33.739**|**0**|**-38.155**|**0**|**-19.017**|**0**|**-36.447**|
||96|**0**|**-72.713**|**0**|**-122.96**|**0**|**-15.827**|**0**|**-16.639**|
|ECL|96|**0**|**-63.882**|**0**|**-66.26**|**0**|**-10.45**|**0**|**-7.251**|
||192|**0**|**-18.627**|**0**|**-25.142**|**0**|**-6.495**|**0.002**|**-4.479**|
||336|**0**|**-12.705**|**0**|**-18.651**|0.288|**-1.139**|0.551|0.623|
||720|**0**|**-14.689**|**0**|**-25.911**|0.733|**-0.353**|0.194|**1.419**|
|Solar|96|**0.013**|**-3.2**|0.225|**-1.315**|**0.033**|**-2.57**|**0.611**|**-0.529**|
||192|**0**|**-6.401**|0.573|0.587|**0**|**-9.082**|**0.063**|**-2.159**|
||336|**0.001**|**-4.953**|0.23|**-1.3**|**0**|**-6.172**|0.141|**-1.635**|
||720|0.735|0.35|0.807|0.252|0.261|**-1.21**|0.68|**-0.428**|
|Traffic|96|**0**|**-175.79**|**0**|**-117.36**|**0**|**-23.495**|**0**|**-15.247**|
||192|**0**|**-161.43**|**0**|**-146.71**|**0**|**-96.104**|**0**|**-32.583**|
||336|**0**|**-92.217**|**0**|**-112.43**|**0**|**-53.061**|**0**|**-15.972**|
||720|**0**|**-109.05**|**0**|**-81.909**|**0**|**-53.852**|**0**|**-19.795**|
Our method significantly outperforms the previous SOTA methods in most cases.
> The results of Lookback Window Length 720.
We extend the lookback window analysis from range [48, 336] to [48, 720] and show the results in Figure 1 of the **global rebuttal PDF**. The figure shows that SOFTS can also achieve superior performance when the lookback window length is extended to 512 and 720.
> Training time for each method.
Thank you very much for your suggestion. However, training time is influenced not only by the complexity of the model itself but also by the training strategy. Earlier methods, such as FEDformer and Informer, often completed training early due to early stopping strategies to prevent overfitting. These methods have shorter training times than current SOTA methods but perform much worse. To ensure a fair comparison, we comprehensively present model performance, inference time, and memory in Figure 3, where the latter two are only related to the complexity of the model. Therefore, we believe this figure more fairly demonstrates the superiority of our method in terms of performance and efficiency compared to merely showing training time.
> It is unclear the MLP and Linear operations are channel independent or dependent.
Yes. To make it clear in the paper, we have specified every MLP in the form of mapping. For example, $\operatorname{MLP}_1: R^{d} \mapsto R^{d'}$ in line 147 means it project the axis with dimension $d$ to dimension $d'$. This mapping is shared across other axes including the channel dimension. Therefore, it corresponds to channel independence. They function similarly to the FFN layer of the Transformer.
> The sentence "... rely too heavily on the correlation to achieve satisfactory results under distribution drift" in the Abstract is not clearly explained.
This sentence corresponds to lines 33-35 in the introduction "However, such channel mixing structures were found vulnerable to the distribution drift". For rigor, we change it to "fail to achieve satisfactory results under distribution drift when incorporating the correlation".
> Minor mistakes or typos: Embedding module is missing in Figure1; oi ∈ Rd' should be oi ∈ RC×d' in Algorithm 1.
Thanks. We omitted the embedding module in the figure to spare space, and we will add it to the figure in the final version; $o_{i}$ is the global core representation for the whole multivariate series. It is not channel-specific, so it should be $o_{i} ∈ R^{d'}$ and it is not a typo.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the responses. Considering other reviewers' comments as well, I have updated my rating.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for raising the score. If you have any additional concerns or questions, we are willing to address them. | Summary: The authors present a framework for modeling correlations between channels in a multivariate time series forecasting task. This framework concatenates each channel embedding with a ‘global core embedding’ which contains information from all channels in the lookback window. The authors present experiments that demonstrate the utility of this concept, both from a performance and efficiency perspective.
Strengths: Time series forecasting has been an important problem and it continues to grow with the advent of time series foundation models. To the best of my knowledge, it remains an open question for how to best enable multivariate time series forecasting, and this paper provides a conceptually reasonable approach. I believe the authors’ work is of broad interest.
Weaknesses: In my opinion, the paper would be improved with analysis and discussion of their results. There is little discussion beyond drawing attention to features of figures and tables, which misses an opportunity to explain why the authors believe they are observing such behavior. I am specifically interested in a discussion between iTransformer and SOFTS, which appear to be quite similar along many dimensions that SOFTS claims to be superior. Such a discussion will help guide potential readers through the considerations they should take into account when deciding which framework to implement on their own forecasting problems.
I also recommend adding either a few sentences or a small figure that highlights the differences between PatchTST, transformer, and SOFTS — I see some details in the text of table 4, but I think making this information more prominent would be helpful and make the paper more self-contained.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Under what conditions should I choose SOFTS over iTransformer? Figure 3a makes it appear as though when there are a sufficiently large number of channels in the time series. Are there other considerations? Figures 3b and 6c show slight improvements but the difference doesn't seem large enough to discriminate between which framework would be better for a reader's specific time series forecasting efforts.
2. What are the limitations of SOFTS? Or what are the tradeoffs between using SOFTS vs other models? A few words of discussion in the conclusion would help improve the clarity of the paper.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: As is, there is no discussion of the limitations in the main text of the paper. To address this partially, section G of the appendix could be moved to the main text.
However, the discussion of the limitations of SOFTS currently exists in a vacuum, lacking a comparison/contrast with other models mentioned in the paper, especially PatchTST and iTransformer. The authors should characterize and highlight the characteristics of datasets and inference tasks where SOFTS outperforms existing methods by wide margin.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for taking the time to review our paper and for your constructive feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the importance of time series forecasting and your acknowledgment of our work's potential impact. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions and have made revisions to the manuscript to address your concerns. Here are our responses.
> Comparison and selection among PatchTST, Transformer, and SOFTS.
We appreciate your suggestion to provide a more in-depth analysis and discussion of our results. The main difference between the three methods is in the following table.
- Embedding: The way of creating token embeddings. "Patch" means tokens are embedded by small patches (or windows) containing values of consecutive time. "Series" means embedding the whole series.
- Temporal: The way of extracting the correlation of different time steps.
- Channel: The way of extracting the correlation of different channels.
| Method | PatchTST | iTransformer | SOFTS |
| --------- | --------- | ------------ | ------ |
| Embedding | Patch | Series | Series |
| Temporal | Attention | MLP | MLP |
| Channel | / | Attention | STAR |
**PatchTST vs SOFTS**
The main difference between PatchTST and SOFTS lies in their approach to handling channels. PatchTST uses a channel-independent model, which sacrifices channel correlation but eliminates interference from other channels in the prediction process. In contrast, our SOFTS model employs the STAR module to extract channel correlations more robustly and effectively while reducing interference from other channels. By adjusting the representation through channel clustering, as shown in Figure 6, the predictions become more robust, making SOFTS particularly advantageous when there are many channels. Although SOFTS minimizes the negative impact of channel correlation as much as possible, there is still a risk of overfitting in situations where channels are highly independent. Current multivariate datasets may not be so independent so we find SOFTS outperform in most cases.
The second difference is the patch embedding of PatchTST, which utilizes a sliding window to extract information within consecutive times. PatchTST then exchanges the information at different time windows by attention. Our SOFTS uses MLP which is simpler but achieves SOTA performance as well.
**iTransformer vs SOFTS**
The main difference between iTransformer and SOFTS is that iTransformer uses attention for channel interaction, while SOFTS uses STAR. As shown in Figure 2, the significant difference is that STAR employs a centralized structure to enhance robustness, avoiding the influence of certain abnormal channels on the predictions of other channels. From Table 2, it is evident that SOFTS has a clear advantage over iTransformer on datasets with a large number of channels, such as Traffic and PEMS. This is likely because, with more channels, attention is more susceptible to the influence of certain abnormal channels, whereas STAR mitigates this effect through aggregation. Additionally, in terms of efficiency, STAR reduces complexity from quadratic to linear, significantly enhancing its scalability. But we also note that SOFTS may have a bottleneck due to interaction through core representation.
**So, under what conditions should I choose SOFTS over iTransformer?**
Based on the current results, we find that SOFTS generally outperforms iTransformer in time series problems, both in terms of performance and efficiency, especially when the number of channels is large. This might be because robustness considerations outweigh capacity in time series issues. Of course, we do not rule out the possibility of scenarios where the reverse might be true in the future.
> Limitation of SOFTS
We acknowledge your suggestion to move the discussion of limitations from the appendix to the main text. In response, we have integrated Section G from the appendix into the main body of the paper. We have also enhanced this section by comparing and contrasting the limitations of SOFTS with those of other models, such as PatchTST and iTransformer, like the discussions stated above.
Once again, we sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback. Your insights have significantly contributed to improving the clarity and impact of our paper. We hope the revised manuscript addresses your concerns and enhances the overall quality of our work.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank your for your response and your elaboration on some of the questions I had. In my opinion, your revisions make the paper more broadly accessible and self contained. This should help amplify the impact of your work. I have raised my score. Nice work!
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thanks very much for your recognition and valuable advice for improving our manuscript. We hope our work is helpful to you. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewers,
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our paper and for providing valuable feedback. We are delighted that the majority of the reviewers (3 out of 4) have given positive evaluations of our work. Our work is said to "of broad interest" (gtby), "well-thought-out" and "valuable addition to the field" (hzF8), "interesting" and "impressive" (NURe), "well-written" (mAnn,NURe,hzF8) . One reviewer has raised some concerns regarding the experiments and clarifications of our paper. We hope that this rebuttal addresses these concerns effectively, allowing both reviewers and readers to gain a clearer and more comprehensive understanding of our research. We aim to improve the perception and evaluation of our work through these clarifications and enhancements.
**PDF content**: Two reviewers (**mAnn, NURe**) are interested in the performance (in MSE) when the look-back window is 512 and 720. Figure 1 in the pdf displays the comprehensive performance comparison against other methods with look-back lengths in [48, 720]. Figure 2 shows more results on abnormal channels, in which reviewer **NURe** is interested.
Reviewer **mAnn** is also concerned about different datasets used in Table 3, 4. The datasets are selected due to the space restriction. Due to the character restriction of personal rebuttal, we show the full results here:
**Table 3. Comparison of the effect of different pooling methods. The term "w/o STAR" refers to a scenario where an MLP is utilized with the Channel Independent (CI) strategy, without the use of STAR. The result reveals that incorporating STAR into the model leads to a consistent enhancement in performance across all pooling methods. Apart from that, stochastic pooling performs better than mean and max pooling.**
|Pooling Method|**ECL**||**Traffic**||**Weather**||**Solar**||**ETTh2**||**PEMS03**||**PEMS04**||**PEMS07**||
|:-------------|:---------|:---------|:----------|:---------|:----------|:---------|:---------|:---------|:---------|:---------|:---------|:---------|:---------|:---------|:---------|:---------|
||**MSE**|**MAE**|**MSE**|**MAE**|**MSE**|**MAE**|**MSE**|**MAE**|**MSE**|**MAE**|**MSE**|**MAE**|**MSE**|**MAE**|**MSE**|**MAE**|
|w/oSTAR|0.187|0.273|0.442|0.281|0.261|0.281|0.247|0.272|0.381|0.406|0.135|0.235|0.143|0.245|0.143|0.232|
|Mean|**0.174**|0.266|0.420|0.277|0.261|0.281|0.234|0.262|0.379|0.404|0.106|0.212|0.106|0.212|0.090|0.188|
|Max|0.180|0.270|**0.406**|0.271|0.259|0.280|0.246|0.269|0.379|0.401|0.113|0.221|0.116|0.223|0.096|0.198|
|Weighted|0.184|0.275|0.440|0.292|0.263|0.284|0.264|0.280|0.379|0.403|0.118|0.226|0.109|0.218|0.097|0.200|
|Stochastic|**0.174**|**0.264**|0.409|**0.267**|**0.255**|**0.278**|**0.229**|**0.256**|**0.373**|**0.400**|**0.104**|**0.210**|**0.102**|**0.208**|**0.087**|**0.184**|
**Table 4. The performance of STAR in different models. The attention replaced by STAR here are the time attention in PatchTST, the channel attention in iTransformer, and both the time attention and channel attention in modified Crossformer.
The results demonstrate that replacing attention with STAR, which requires less computational resources, could maintain and even improve the models' performance in most datasets.**
|Model|Component|**ECL**||**Traffic**||**Weather**||**Solar**||**ETTh2**||**PEMS03**||**PEMS04**||**PEMS07**||
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|---------|---------|---------|---------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
|||**MSE**|**MAE**|**MSE**|**MAE**|**MSE**|**MAE**|**MSE**|**MAE**|**MSE**|**MAE**|**MSE**|**MAE**|**MSE**|**MAE**|**MSE**|**MAE**|
|PatchTST|Attention|0.189|0.276|0.454|0.286|0.256|0.279|0.236|0.266|**0.385**|**0.410**|0.137|0.240|0.145|0.249|0.144|0.233|
||STAR|**0.185**|**0.272**|**0.448**|**0.279**|**0.252**|**0.277**|**0.231**|**0.259**|0.391|0.413|**0.134**|**0.233**|**0.136**|**0.238**|**0.137**|**0.225**|
|Crossformer|Attention|0.202|0.301|**0.546**|0.297|0.254|0.310|0.206|0.258|2.772|1.271|0.100|0.208|0.090|0.198|0.084|0.181|
||STAR|**0.198**|**0.292**|0.549|**0.292**|**0.252**|**0.305**|**0.200**|**0.252**|**1.919**|**1.043**|**0.100**|**0.204**|**0.087**|**0.194**|**0.080**|**0.175**|
|iTransformer|Attention|0.178|0.270|0.428|0.282|0.258|0.278|0.233|0.262|0.383|0.407|0.113|0.221|0.111|0.221|0.101|0.204|
||STAR|**0.174**|**0.264**|**0.409**|**0.267**|**0.255**|**0.278**|**0.229**|**0.256**|**0.373**|**0.400**|**0.104**|**0.210**|**0.102**|**0.208**|**0.087**|**0.184**|
Thank you once again for your constructive comments and support.
Pdf: /pdf/00bfc30a0d0f0073f1dfbab43197b28b11ea4b13.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Make-it-Real: Unleashing Large Multimodal Model for Painting 3D Objects with Realistic Materials | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper aims to assign material information to 3D objects that already have a base color. They do not generate material maps through training generative models but instead use a pre-established material library and build an automated recognition and indexing system to index from the material library. To use this framework, the authors pre-built a material library and proposed some prompt templates to prompt GPT-4V. In this process, the segmentation of parts is mainly performed using semantic-SAM. The authors iteratively segment different views and eventually fuse them into a single UV map.
Strengths: 1. The core of the entire system is retrieval rather than generation from a generative model. This approach generally offers better controllability, adjustability, and interpretability.
2. Some techniques to accelerate querying are proposed, such as hierarchical prompting.
Weaknesses: 1. This task is very limited because it requires a 3D mesh with an already existing base color. The requirement for a base color is not very practical. In line 113, the authors mention, "Given the advancements in generating high-quality 3D shapes with albedo maps, the restoration of realistic material properties remains a challenge." I disagree with this point. One of the main difficulties in current 3D generation or texture generation methods is generating a base color (lightning, shadow-free). Most methods, whether through 2D SDS or 3D rendering training, fail to generate the base color. The more pressing issue is actually estimating albedo and material properties from the final RGB image.
2. In line 136, the authors mention, "These patches are then merged based on similar colors to obtain the final material grouping." This is very limiting, as it implies that parts with the same base color are assumed to have the same material.
3. The technical contributions of the paper are minimal, mainly leveraging the capabilities of GPT-4V for VQA. I do not believe designing prompt templates is a sufficient contribution. Additionally, it is hard to reproduce the authors' implementation since GPT-4V is close-sourced. I believe the authors should at least demonstrate the feasibility with another open-source VLM model.
4. Most of the key implementation details are placed in the supplementary file. However, the step of retrieving the corresponding material based on the given albedo map and the material library established by the authors is crucial (i.e., section B.2). At the very least, this part needs to be included in the main text. Additionally, the procedure is hard to understand (please see my questions in the "Questions" section).
5. I have some concerns about the evaluation of this task because it is difficult to assess the ability to assign materials. From the results provided by the authors, it is hard to see a significant difference between different parts. It seems that compared to the albedo-only baseline, the main difference is the more pronounced lighting effect caused by the higher metallicity in the authors' results. Besides, I feel the quality is poor from the video demo at 00:56.
6. This work is more related to texture and material generation, rather than performing inverse rendering from existing photo-realistic rendered images. In the related work section, studies on texture generation need to be mentioned.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 1
Questions for Authors: 1. In line 39, the authors mention "Additionally, shadows and lighting can affect judgment." I cannot understand how shadows and lighting come into play here. If the authors assume that only the base color is used, the view can be directly obtained through rasterization without the influence of shadows and lighting.
2. For the section B.2, what is the key diffuse? Is it an existing diffuse map from your library? If this is the case, how to select the key diffuse based on the current query diffuse? Besides, what is "3) The third step involves using the obtained indices to obtain the corresponding
533 values from the rest of the material maps."? Please elaborate more about this part.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 1
Contribution: 1
Limitations: The authors point out the limitations of their work in the supplementary material and leave it for future work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 3
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your detailed review and insightful comments. We will address your questions and concerns below and in the revised paper.
***
### W1. Importance of Addressed Task for Material Painting
While the derendering task mentioned by the reviewer is important, we believe the task of adding materials to albedo-only 3D objects is also essential for reducing the extensive time 3D artists spend creating realistic texture maps. Although graphics tools like ShaderMap integrate this functionality, they are limited to producing simple lighting effects. Our method fully explores the potential of MLLMs to accurately capture complex materials and provide a solution for realistic, part-level material generation.
Additionally, we believe that derendering and material restoration are not mutually exclusive fields but rather complement each other. Research in the latter area can serve as a tool for automating the generation of 3D material data and help researchers gain a deeper understanding of material properties and their realistic effects in the physical world.
***
### W2. Discussion of Material Grouping Method
Thank you for pointing out. We acknowledge that, in theory, the assumption that parts with the same base color have the same material can be limiting. However, in our experiments, we found that in most cases in the dataset, semantic patches obtained through SemanticSAM tend to have similar colors when they represent the same material. Based on this observation, we implemented a merging process, carefully controlling the merging threshold based on experimental results. This approach reduces the number of GPT-4V queries without compromising effectiveness. We will include more details about this in the final version.
***
### W3. Unleashing GPT-4V's Ability for Material Painting Beyond VQA
Our core contribution is not in applying multimodal methods for VQA but in effectively leveraging and fully exploring the potential of MLLM to achieve an innovative and practical application: material painting. GPT-4V, even with well-designed VQA tricks, cannot perform material painting on objects because it is confined to the 2D space. By designing a comprehensive pipeline, we aim to unlock MLLM's ability to understand the 3D physical world and generate realistic material representations.
Our pipeline include an advanced segmentation method in the UV space of materials, a rich set of visual and text cues for faster material retrieval, and an innovative algorithm that generates SVBRDF material maps using a region-to-pixel approach. This integration bridges 2D MLLM models and the 3D physical world, empowering large language models with the capability to paint materials to objects at the part level.
***
### W4. Key Implementation Details
You are correct that Appendix B.2 contains the key implementation details of our method. In Section 3.2.3, we describe the essential aspects of SVBRDF map generation in text form and refer to figures in the appendix to aid understanding. However, we acknowledge that the main text contains limited illustrations for this section. We will enhance the discussion and include more illustrative figures in the final version to improve clarity.
***
### W5. Material Effect of Presented Results
Materials are inherently complex physical properties, and differences can be seen by zooming in on different regions, such as the globe, bathtub, and shield in Figure 5. I would like to clarify that the material effect is not solely due to higher metallicity producing a brighter lighting effect. Instead, it results from the interaction of multiple PBR maps: increased metallicity results in dampening of the base albedo and increased surface shine, increased roughness reduces specular highlights, and displacement and height control fine surface details. These values are assigned based on the albedo, type, and local region of the object, so not all parts have the same higher metallic settings. (More infomation in Figure 16)
Regarding the video demo, we're sorry for the quality of the rendered scene at the end frame. Due to significant memory requirements for rendering scenes, this picture may not fully reflect the clarity and precision of the objects. We recommend referring to the clearer examples in the main part of the video and paper.
***
### W6. The Clarification on Related Works
We have cited and discussed several texture generation works in the *Material Capture and Generation* subsection in Sec 2. Related Work. We introduce recent works on texture generation, such as Paint-it and Collaborative, which generate various material texture maps based on shape. We also reference earlier works like Fantasia3D and Matlaber. We discuss the approaches and limitations of these methods, and we will update the final version with more related works in this area.
***
### Q1. The significance of identifying shadows and lighting
Sorry for any confusion. We would like to clarify that besides retrieving materials for albedo-only 3D objects, our approach involves describing rendered thumbnails of real materials in the Material library to construct the dataset annotations. These thumbnails may include lighting and shadows. The task in our whole setting requires two capabilities of recognizing materials: 1. Accurately describing real materials under ambient lighting, and 2. Inferring local materials from distorted albedo. We will add more explanations about this point in the final version.
***
### Q2. Method of Key Diffuse and Indexing
The key diffuse refers to the diffuse map of the material retrieved by the MLLM. This can be understood through the multiple arrows stemming from `index` in Figure 11. After obtaining the nearest neighbor coordinates in step 2), we use the coordinates to index the values of the same position in other material maps paired with the current diffuse. We will draw more illustration(like serial number) on our figure to make it more clear.
***
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank authors for the rebuttal. Although some technical details were clarified, my main concern remains unresolved and still exists. That is, the assumptions about the material are overly simplistic, and most of the contributions come from the use of the GPT-4v, with not much application of knowledge related to materials. Besides, the visual quality is not good enough, especially in the case that an existing diffuse map is assumed to be provided.
Currently, there has been an abundance of work that leverages multimodal models to assist in addressing specific domain issues. However, this paper’s design in the area of domain knowledge is weak (i.e., the assumptions are too simplistic). This leads me to believe that the technical contributions of this paper are insufficient for acceptance.
I respect the opinions of the other reviewers, but I still maintain my opinion.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thanks for the response
Comment: Thank you for your continued engagement with our paper. We appreciate your comments and would like to respond to the concerns you have raised.
We understand your concern regarding the assumption of an existing diffuse map. Diffuse-only objects are widely found in datasets like Objaverse-XL[1], Objaverse[2], and Shapenet[3] because creating them is relatively easy. However, generating additional material maps from a diffuse map remains a time-consuming step. Our approach significantly accelerates the materially realistic 3D content creation process. Moreover, our method can be easily complemented with existing derendering techniques when shadows exist in the diffuse maps (e.g., generated objects), as shown in Figure C3 of our rebuttal PDF. These techniques are orthogonal and can work well together to meet different requirements and scenarios, as mentioned in our response to W1.
Concerning the contribution besides utilizing GPT-4v, we acknowledge the significant potential and prior knowledge that GPT-4v brings. However, it alone is insufficient to accomplish our goals. We develop an entire pipeline, comprising texture segmentation, material matching, and SVBRDF map generation, that introduce domain knowledge and abilities far beyond GPT-4v.
Regarding visual quality, we recognize that there is room for improvement. In the meantime, few existing methods can automatically generate comprehensive material maps, particularly for displacement and height maps. We wish our Make-it-Real can offer new insights to accelerate artistic creation.
Thank you once again for your time and valuable feedback. Your insights provide us with important considerations for improving our work, and we look forward to incorporating these enhancements as we continue our research.
---
[1] Deitke M, Liu R, Wallingford M, et al. Objaverse-xl: A universe of 10m+ 3d objects.
[2] Deitke M, Schwenk D, Salvador J, et al. Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects.
[3] Chang A, Funkhouser T, Guibas L, et al. Shapenet: An information-rich 3d model repository. | Summary: This paper presents a novel framework leveraging MLLM priors (GPT-4V) to build a material library and proposes an automatic pipeline to refine and synthesize new PBR maps for initial 3D models with diffuse albedo only. The pipeline integrates existing tools, such as GPT-4V and Semantic-SAM, while introducing novel techniques to refine and complete segmented masks, resulting in a set of full SVBRDF maps. Experimental results demonstrate that this approach can automatically refine both generated and CAD models to achieve photorealism under dynamic lighting conditions.
Strengths: 1. The provided results exhibit a decent quality, particularly for objects with metallic or specular materials
2. The paper is well-written, covering all necessary details for reproduction.
3. The potential application is clear: it can be used in a plug-and-play manner for 3D generative models to enhance their photorealism.
Weaknesses: 1. The novelty is kind of limited. The major components rely on powerful backbones such as GPT-4V and Semantic-SAM, with the novel contributions primarily found in the segmentation and material retrieval parts.
2. The (quantitative) evaluation is sort of limited, with only GPT-4V-based and user-based study results reported in Table 1. Given that this is a novel application without standard metrics, I will not critique it too harshly.
3. The quality of the results depends heavily on the initial albedo map. If the given albedo map is not clean (e.g., it contains baked-in lighting effects), the proposed method cannot correct it, resulting in weird SVBRDF maps.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Generally speaking, I have no further questions regarding this submission; my concerns are already listed above. While the novelty might be somewhat limited, the clear potential applications and its widespread applicability lead me to still stand on the positive side of this submission.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Limitations and potential negative social impact are well discussed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your detailed review and insightful comments. We will address your questions and concerns below and in the revised paper.
***
### W1. A clarification of novelty of Make-it-Real
Thank you for the comments. Our key innovation lies not in the MLLM model technology itself, but in how we effectively leverage and fully explore the potential of MLLM to achieve innovative and practical applications. MLLM alone cannot perform material painting on objects, so we develop a practical and comprehensive pipeline to unlock this capability.
Our core contributions include an advanced segmentation method in the UV space of materials, a rich set of visual and text cues for faster material retrieval, and an innovative algorithm that generates SVBRDF material maps using a region-to-pixel approach. This integration bridges 2D MLLM models and the 3D physical world, empowering large language models with the capability to accurately assign materials to objects. The generated materials are compatible with various rendering engines, enhancing the versatility and utility of our approach in creating realistic 3D assets.
***
### W2. About quantitative evaluation of painting materials
Thank you for your understanding regarding this novel application. Previous work primarily focused on 3D object generation without explicitly separating base color from different PBR properties. However, there is now a growing interest in enhancing the physical material properties of 3D objects, yet evaluation methods remain limited.
Obtaining ground truth for material properties is challenging mainly due to the ambiguity in material ground truth for certain objects; for example, a white albedo mug could be made of metal or ceramic, leading to different material maps for the same albedo input. Given this ambiguity, we use the evaluation methods described in GPT4Eval[1] and conduct user studies to directly assess improvements in visual effects. This approach allows for a clear and direct comparison of visual quality. We hope our exploration of material properties will inspire further interest and lead to the development of more comprehensive evaluation benchmarks.
[1] GPT-4V(ision) is a Human-Aligned Evaluator for Text-to-3D Generation
***
### W3. Addressing Baked-in Shadows and Lighting Effects
This issue is less pronounced in artist-created models, where albedo maps have less shadows and lighting effects. Our tests show that the albedo obtained from inverse rendering methods[1] closely matches the original artist-created albedo maps from the Objaverse dataset, as illustrated in the first row of Figure C3. For generative models, baked-in shading effects are more pronounced. Our method addresses this by integrating mature derendering algorithms, specifically the Intrinsic Anything[1], into our pipeline with minimal complexity. This integration derenders from four viewpoints and back-projects to obtain a better albedo map, then applies our Make-it-Real method for material painting. As shown in Figure C3's last row, this approach reduces lighting noise and supports a wider range of inputs. We will include more details about the derendering of inputs in the final version.
[1] IntrinsicAnything: Learning Diffusion Priors for Inverse Rendering Under Unknown Illumination. | Summary: The proposed work leverages GPT-4V to extract and infer materials in albedo-only scenarios, utilizing existing material libraries to generate SVBRDF maps with a region-to-pixel algorithm. This approach enhances 3D mesh realism, ensures precise part-specific material matching, and is compatible with rendering engines, generating six comprehensive material maps. Developers need only paint albedo textures, with other material properties automatically generated, saving significant time. The contributions include using multimodal large language models for material recognition, creating a detailed material library, and developing a pipeline for high-quality material application to 3D assets.
Strengths: - The method greatly enhances the realism of 3D objects by utilizing GPT-4V's extensive visual perception, supported by experimental evidence.
- It generates detailed PBR material maps (roughness, metallic, specular, normal, displacement, height) that are compatible with various rendering engines in a low-cost way.
Weaknesses: - The method's effectiveness is largely dependent on the capabilities of MLLMs such as GPT-4V, which may not always produce accurate results. While the paper claims that the generated materials, represented as PBR maps, are compatible with downstream engines, it should be noted that this generation method does not rely on any physical principles of light transport and therefore cannot be genuinely considered as PBR maps.
- The method's performance might be constrained by the quality and detail of the initial albedo maps.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: - How are the PBR texture maps in the material library generated and how to ensure the accuracy of the material property?
- How does the proposed method perform with low-quality input albedo maps, such as those with many small UV pieces?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 2
Limitations: - The proposed method relies on GPT-4V for material generation from a generated database. However, many offline tools like ShaderMap can accomplish the same task more cost-effectively. These offline tools require no training and can produce comprehensive, high-quality material decompositions. Given that the generated materials are not physically-based, what advantages does the proposed method offer over efficient offline software that requires no training or fine-tuning?
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your detailed review and insightful comments. We will address your questions and concerns below and in the revised paper.
***
### W1. Realism and Application of Generated PBR Maps
Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge that the generated PBR maps are not true representations of physical maps, and we will clarify this in the final version paper. Nevertheless, our algorithm generates PBR maps that closely approximate the visual characteristics of true PBR properties. As demonstrated in Figure 5, our results significantly enhance the realism of 3D objects. Additionally, the analysis in the appendix (Figure 16) further examines the effects of each individual map, which mimic real textures, such as metallic properties (e.g., the dampening of the base albedo and increased surface shine on parts with high metallicity like scales and axes), roughness (with low roughness objects showing specular highlights), and displacement (fine bump effects on stone horses and bathtubs). In all cases, we produce visually comparable effects to true PBR maps.
***
### W2. Impact of Albedo Map Quality on Performance
We agree that the final results can be affected by the quality and detail of the initial albedo maps. However, our method is designed to enhance the physical appearance even when the input albedo map varies in detail.
On one hand, for objects that require meticulous craftsmanship and significant attention to detail, such as the truck and shield in Figure 5, our method precisely segments and assigns appropriate materials, significantly enhancing realism and producing high-quality objects with highly refined materials.
On the other hand, for objects with relatively simple albedo maps that can be created quickly, like the saxophone shown in Figure C1, our method substantially improves the object's appearance under environmental lighting conditions, increasing realism and achieving a qualitative improvement.
***
### Q1. The clarification on PBR texture maps
We would like to provide some clarification about this. The PBR texture maps in the material library are sourced from MatSynth. This dataset compiles high-quality PBR materials from publicly available resources like AmbientCG, which are widely used by artists for creative work. The materials are typically created using methods such as photogrammetry, scanning, and high-precision software, ensuring both visual fidelity and accurate physical properties.
***
### Q2. Performance with Fragmented UV Mapping
Thanks for your insightful questions. Overly fragmented UV mapping degrades the performance of our method. As shown in the second column of Figure C2, UV mappings with excessive fragmentation and color entanglement can cause the 2D segmented images to mix with other regions when reprojected into the UV space, leading to material blending issues. However, our method shows good results with original artist-created UV mappings and Blender's built-in mapping methods in Figure C2, such as `smart`, `sphere`, and `unwrap`. This indicates that our method still demonstrates good robustness with many mapping techniques.
In practice, we observe that most objects in Objaverse have UV mappings with good properties, meaning they are not excessively fragmented into small pieces. Additionally, we can control the UV mapping process: For some low-quality UV maps and generative objects that originally lack UV maps, we can re-unwrap them to achieve higher quality.
***
### L1. Advantages of the Proposed Method Over Offline Tools
Firstly, I would like to acknowledge that ShaderMap is a valuable tool for material creation, and it's great to see a thoughtful comparison of different approaches.
Our method offers several distinct advantages:
1. **Focus on 3D Models**: Our approach excels in directly generating complete and fine-grained PBR maps for 3D models, offering more comprehensive integration with 3D assets compared to traditional tools. Tools like ShaderMap primarily focus on estimating higher-quality PBR texture maps from low-quality material images, such as photographs or instrument-captured material images, which may include lighting or shadows. These inputs are inherently material images and often do not focus on rendered views of 3D objects. In contrast, our method directly enhances 3D models, providing a more robust solution for integrating high-quality materials.
2. **Complexity and Usability**: Our method stands out for its ease of use and ability to produce semantically meaningful material assignments without requiring professional knowledge of 3D software. While ShaderMap can generate basic PBR maps (such as normal and specular maps) from albedo maps, this functionality currently yields relatively simple material effects. The material effects may appear to have lighting effects but do not necessarily match true semantic meanings. Since the entire albedo map is used as input, the software lacks fine-tuned regional specificity. Further manual adjustments are typically needed for local map values, requiring user interaction and expertise in 3D software, as well as additional time to achieve realistic results. | Summary: This paper introduces the large-scale multimodal language models to realistic material rendering of 3D objects. Specifically, this paper employs MLLM to retrieve materials from a material library for different parts of . By combining 2D-3D alignment and diffuse reflection reference techniques, it generates and applies material texture maps to objects, achieving realistic rendering of 3D objects.
Strengths: 1. This paper introduces the MLLM into the texture inpainting pipeline, which is a interesting direction in the future.
2. The experiment results demonstrates the effectiveness of this method.
3. The paper is well-written and clearly articulated.
Weaknesses: 1. This paper shares some similarities with Mapa[1]. Could the authors further demonstrate the differences between Make-it-real and Mapa and the superiority of this method?
2. The necessity of MLLM in the pipeline requires further validation. How does the performance of the MLLM-based retrieval method compare to other retrieval methods? More experiments on the retrieval results are needed to show the superiority of the MLLM
-based methods.
[1]Zhang, Shangzhan, et al. "MaPa: Text-driven Photorealistic Material Painting for 3D Shapes." arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17569 (2024).
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See the weakness.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have not addressed the limitation in the paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your detailed review and insightful comments. We will address your questions and concerns below and in the revised paper.
***
### W1. Differences between Make-it-Real and MaPa and the superiority of our method.
- **MaPa**: Introduces a text-driven segment-based procedural material graph representation. It uses a pre-trained 2D diffusion model as an intermediary bridge to connect text and material graphs. The method includes segment-controlled image generation and material graph optimization. It simply use CLIP for material retrieval.
- **Make-it-Real**: Utilizes Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), specifically GPT-4V, to recognize and apply real-world materials to 3D objects. The method involves texture segmentation, material matching, and SVBRDF map generation. It creates a comprehensive material library with detailed descriptions, allowing MLLMs to search and assign materials automatically.
The core difference lies in how to perform the material retrieval. MaPa [1] still uses CLIP for the material retrieval process, while we rely directly on MLLM. We believe this core difference significantly improves the retrieval effectiveness for the following reasons:
1. CLIP can only focus on one area at a time. When generating images that need retrieval, other parts need to be masked while retaining the local part. This causes the retrieval process to lose the global semantic information of the object. MLLM, on the other hand, can retain the global semantic information by only circling the specified area in the pixels [2].
2. We creatively propose registering a hierarchical dictionary in MLLM by providing descriptions and images of material spheres, allowing MLLM to master a richer material library (The library is much larger and more practical with 1394 materials while MaPa only have 118).
3. With the rapid development of MLLM, transitioning this process from CLIP retrieval to a multi-step hierarchical and logical inference decision process relying on LLM is more promising with better explainability.
To further validate the above points, we supplement the experiment detailed in W2 testing using MLLM for retrieval compared to using CLIP.
There are also other differences that improving the performance compared to MaPa:
1. We propose a new method to achieve 3D segmentation leveraging Semantic-SAM and MLLM, which is more general than MaPa that adopt an out-of-date mesh segmentation method [3].
***
### W2. Experiments on the superiority of using MLLM for retrieval.
we conducted additional experiments comparing GPT-4V (our method) and CLIP (MaPa method) to verify the superiority of using MLLM for retrieval.
Specifically, we use the CLIP model as a baseline for comparison, which is the method adopted in PSDR-Scene [4] and MaPa [5]. We selected 100 objects from Objaverse with high object quality and annotated each object with different materials following the material classification of [4], resulting in 13 coarse types (Objaverse-C) and 80 subtypes (Objaverse-F). The retrieval results are reported in the table below. The results fully demonstrate the effectiveness of using MLLM for retrieval. We discover CLIP often fails in cases with metallic materials, largely due to the difficulty of extracting material regions without distortion. Our pipeline, using GPT-4V, queries four viewpoints for global shape and object semantics, can leveraging its strong open world prior knowledge to achieve promising results. Additionally, we observed that CLIP’s accuracy significantly drops when dealing with fine-grained categories compared to coarse categories, while GPT-4V maintains a high retrieval accuracy. This result also indicates that MLLM is more practical, as such systems often need to handle thousands of materials in a much finer granularity in real-world applications.
| | Objaverse-C | Objaverse-F |
| :------------: | :---------: | :---------: |
| GPT-4V / top-1 | **70.59** | **64.71** |
| CLIP-L / top-1 | 28.53 | 10.89 |
| CLIP-L / top-3 | 47.06 | 22.65 |
***
[1] Zhang S, Peng S, Xu T, et al. MaPa: Text-driven Photorealistic Material Painting for 3D Shapes
[2] Yang J, Zhang H, Li F, et al. Set-of-mark prompting unleashes extraordinary visual grounding in gpt-4v
[3] Sagi Katz and Ayell, et al. Hierarchical mesh decomposition using fuzzy clustering and cuts
[4] Yan K, Luan F, Hašan M, et al. Psdr-room: Single photo to scene using differentiable rendering
[5] Vecchio G, Deschaintre V. MatSynth: A Modern PBR Materials Dataset | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank all reviewers and appreciate the constructive comments and the recognition of novelty, and we are grateful for that most reviewers score our work with positive initial ratings (two accept, and two borderline accept). Our work introduces the MLLM into the texture inpainting pipeline **[mcgT]**, which is an exciting finding **[s3Ca]** and a interesting direction in the future **[s3Ca, mcgT]**. The plug-and-play **[dDLL]** design with accelerated hierarchical prompting **[jx7i]** can achieve SVBRDF map generation in a low-cost way **[LVe6]**.
Regarding the weaknesses and questions proposed by the reviewers, we have provided detailed responses to each reviewer separately. Here, we summarize the key questions and general points that we believe will interest all reviewers.
***
### Summary of Key Questions/Comments
**S1.** Reviewer s3Ca, dDLL, jx7i point out that Baked lighting effects on albedo map do harm to quality.
**S2.** Reviewer LVe6, s3Ca about Performance with Fragmented UV Mapping.
**S3.** Reviewer s3Ca about Comparison with artists created materials.
***
We will then address the comments/questions summarized above by referring to the new experimental results attached in the single-page PDF:
**GR1. (for S1) Baked lighting effects [Figure C3]**
This issue is less pronounced in artist-created models, where albedo maps have less shadows and lighting effects. Our tests show that the albedo obtained from inverse rendering methods[1] closely matches the original artist-created albedo maps from the Objaverse dataset, as illustrated in the first row of Figure C3. For generative models, baked-in shading effects are more pronounced. Our method addresses this by integrating mature derendering algorithms, specifically the Intrinsic Anything[1], into our pipeline with minimal complexity. This integration derenders from four viewpoints and back-projects to obtain a better albedo map, then applies our Make-it-Real method for material painting. As shown in Figure C3's last row, this approach reduces lighting noise and supports a wider range of inputs. We will include more details about the derendering of inputs in the final version.
***
**GR2. (for S2) Performance with different UV mapping [Figure C2]**
Overly fragmented UV mapping degrades the performance of our method. As shown in the second column of Figure C2, UV mappings with excessive fragmentation and color entanglement can cause the 2D segmented images to mix with other regions when reprojected into the UV space, leading to material blending issues. However, our method shows good results with original artist-created UV mappings and Blender's built-in mapping methods in Figure C2, such as smart (default setting in blender), sphere, and unwrap. This indicates that our method still demonstrates good robustness with many mapping techniques.
In practice, we observe that most objects in Objaverse have UV mappings with good properties, meaning they are not excessively fragmented into small pieces. Additionally, we can control the UV mapping process: For some low-quality UV maps and generative objects that originally lack UV maps, we can re-unwrap them to achieve higher quality.
***
**GR3. (for S3) More Comparisons with Artist-Created Materials [Figure C1]**
We visualize some of the results comparing our Make-it-real generated materials with artists. Quantative results are detailed in rebuttal response to Reviewer s3Ca.
***
We sincerely thank the reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions on our work. We will incorporate all of the rebuttal experiments and discussions into the revised version of our work.
***
[1] Chen, Xi, et al. IntrinsicAnything: Learning Diffusion Priors for Inverse Rendering Under Unknown Illumination.
[2] Boss M, Huang Z, Vasishta A, et al. SF3D: Stable Fast 3D Mesh Reconstruction with UV-unwrapping and Illumination Disentanglement.
Pdf: /pdf/0c45b027b65ae9196049e9fc30419d8d32a00dd0.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | Summary: This paper tackles the problem of recovering materials for 3D meshes with known geometry and base color. The proposed solution consists of three steps:
- Utilizing Semantic-SAM to segment the 3D objects, identifying and isolating various material regions.
- Using hierarchical prompting to retrieve and match materials from a material library.
- Generating the actual SVBRDF map based on the albedo and the retrieved materials.
Strengths: - The qualitative results look promising for both artist-created assets and objects generated by 3D generative models.
- The paper explores and demonstrates the potential of leveraging large multimodal language models to describe material properties of the objects—an exciting finding that could inspire future research.
- The design of hierarchical prompting for material library retrieval presents an intuitive and effective way to improve the efficiency of the query.
Weaknesses: - In the user study, participants are asked to compare the base mesh and the refined mesh. However, users may naturally prefer objects with enhanced lighting effects, which does not effectively evaluate the quality of the generated materials. A more informative approach might be to compare an artist-created mesh with material to the same shape with a re-predicted material, which could provide more insights into material quality.
- For the application presented in this paper, a common issue is that 3D models with a single albedo map often have baked-in shadows and other lighting effects. This is common in both artist-created models and especially in outputs from 3D generative models (e.g. is the shadow in Fig 7 bottom baked in albedo?). It's unclear how the proposed method addresses or might even be misled by these artifacts since it assumes that similar colors represent similar BRDF values in estimation. This could be a limitation when compared to alternative methods that directly optimize or predict the texture map. A discussion on this could be helpful to clarify.
- The discussion on performance metrics is missing, such as runtime and the average number of parts and queries per object.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: - How are viewpoints selected?
- Does the method depend on good UV mapping?
- How are the categories within the material library constructed?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: The authors discuss the limitations of their method and broader impact in the paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['Ethics review needed: Research involving human subjects']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for your detailed review and insightful comments! We will address your questions below and in the revised paper.
***
### W1: More Comparisons with Artist-Created Materials:
Thank you for the insightful suggestion! We conducted an additional user study comparing materials generated by our Make-it-Real method to those created by artists. We filtered the Objaverse dataset for objects with material maps and randomly sampled 200 objects for the experiment.
Our results are shown in the following table. The second row highlights our method's superiority over albedo-only objects, with 73.1% of users recognizing enhanced material effects, reinforcing the paper's conclusions. The first row indicates that users rated the material effects generated by our method as superior to or on par with artist-created materials for 61.6% of the objects. This is a highly promising result.
| | Win/Tie Combined% | A/B Win% | A/B Tie% | A/B Lose% |
| :---------------------------: | :---------------: | :------: | :------: | :-------: |
| Make-it-Real v.s. Human | 61.6 | 30.5 | 31.1 | 38.4 |
| Make-it-Real v.s. Albedo only | 88.2 | 73.1 | 15.1 | 11.8 |
We examined these cases closely, as visualized in Figure C1. For objects like pistol, wooden chair, speakers, and saxophone, Make-it-Real showed strong similarity to artist-made materials, maintaining consistent metallicity, roughness, highlights, and coloration. In cases such as shield, boots, landline phone, and oil drum, our method produced materials that, while different, are realistic and sometimes visually superior. Our pipeline approaches the level of refinement seen in some artist-created materials, which often require significant time and effort, and clearly outperforms more basic and crude artist-generated materials. This highlights its effectiveness and potential for practical applications.
***
### W2: Addressing Baked-in Shadows and Lighting Effects
This issue is less pronounced in artist-created models, where albedo maps have less shadows and lighting effects. Our tests show that the albedo obtained from inverse rendering methods[1] closely matches the original artist-created albedo maps from the Objaverse dataset, as illustrated in the first row of Figure C3. For generative models, baked-in shading effects are more pronounced. Our method addresses this by integrating mature derendering algorithms, specifically the Intrinsic Anything[1], into our pipeline with minimal complexity. This integration derenders from four viewpoints and back-projects to obtain a better albedo map, then applies our Make-it-Real method for material painting. As shown in Figure C3's last row, this approach reduces lighting noise and supports a wider range of inputs. We will include more details about the derendering of inputs in the final version.
[1] IntrinsicAnything: Learning Diffusion Priors for Inverse Rendering Under Unknown Illumination.
***
### W3: Results of Performance Metrics
Thanks for your valuable feedback. We have added tests for average performance metrics, as shown in the table below.
| Run Time(min) | # Material Parts/obj. | # Queris/obj. | Memory Cost(GB) |
| :-----------: | :-------------------: | :-----------: | :-------------: |
| 1.54 | 2.42 | 5.76 | 12.52 |
Additionally, we conducted further tests to measure the time required for each of the three stages drawn in our pipeline: (a) Rendering and Segmentation, (b) Material Retrieval, and (c) Material Generation.
| | Render & Seg | Mat Retrieval | Mat Genertaion | Total |
| :---------------: | :--------------------: | :---------------------: | :---------------------: | :---: |
| **Run Time(min)** | 0.26 | 0.49 | 0.79 | 1.54 |
***
### Q1. The clarification of viewpoint selection
We explain some of the detalis in Sec 3.2.1, and here we provide further details. Initially, we perform rasterization for rendering, and the selection of viewpoints follows the approach used in TEXTure. We render a total of ten viewpoints: eight at 45-degree intervals around the horizontal axis and two additional views, one top-down and one bottom-up, forming our initial set of rendered images.
Among these rendered images, we select the viewpoint with the largest foreground area (the projected area in rasterization) as our primary viewpoint because it is more likely to contain more material information. This viewpoint is then used for subsequent material retrieval and map generation. We further refine the material generation using our proposed material inpainting method in Sec 3.2.3.
***
### Q2. Discussion of UV mapping of input mesh
We conducted experiments to evaluate the impact of UV mapping on our method. As shown in Figure C2, except for the second column where the lighting UV mapping method results in fragmented and interwoven colors, other unwrapping methods such as smart, sphere, and unwrap produce better results. Our method does not perform well with overly fragmented UV maps but demonstrates good robustness with other mapping methods.
In practice, we have observed that most objects in Objaverse have UV mappings with good properties, meaning they are not overly fragmented into small pieces. Additionally, for some low-quality UV maps and generative objects that originally lack UV maps, we can control UV mapping, (re-)unwrapping them to achieve higher quality.
***
### Q3. Categories construction in material library
These materials originally come from AmbientCG, an open online repository, where each material has a fine-grained category name, such as "Planks". We follow the classification of material categories in MatSynth, resulting in 13 major categories and 80 subcategories. This forms our two-level hierarchical tree structure, which corresponds to our hierarchical prompt retrieval. | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Benign overfitting in leaky ReLU networks with moderate input dimension | Accept (spotlight) | Summary: This paper stuides the benign overiftting of two-layer neural networks (only training the first layer) with leaky ReLU for binary classification, which relaxes the dimension condition on the dimension from $d = \Omega(n^2 log n)$ to $d = \Omega(n)$.
The considered problem setting is
- data generation process: the label is generated by Gaussian data corrupted by flipped noise under a linear function after sign. The parameter $\gamma$ controls the component of signal and noise. The more $\gamma$, the more signal.
- the used loss is hinge loss, and the involved with optimization algorithm is sub-gradient descent.
The obtained results include that
- implicit bias: the obtained solution (neural network parameter) will converge to a max-margin linear classifier.
- condition of benign overfitting: $d = \Omega(n)$, signal strength $\gamma = \Omega(1/k)$
- non-benign overfitting: $d = \Omega(n)$, $\gamma = O(1/d)$
Strengths: - relax the dimension dependence from $n^2$ to $n$
- provide the condition for benign overfitting (or not)
- demonstrate the implicit bias: converge to a max-margin linear classifier
Weaknesses: - this paper requires linear separable data, more strictly speaking, the optimal Bayes classifier is linearly separable, that means linear classifier is sufficient to learn this problem. I don't see the strong motivation of using two-layer neural networks, though this is a common issue in the benign overfitting community.
- One major issue is, no comparison with [1]. I think this comparison should be included in terms of problem setting, proof techniques, the obtained findings.
- About the main result, intuitively, classification rate is proportional to $k$, the number of corrupt points. More discussion on $\gamma$ and $k$ is needed.
- Regarding theorem 3.2, it's unclear to me in several points:
i) the sample complexity is $\Omega(n^2)$ in Theorem 3.1. How does this contribute to $|A|$?
iI) a larger $m$ leads to a larger missclassification probability. Intuitively, a larger size of neural network is better for performance.
- In Corollary 3.2.1, I didn't see $\delta$ in the main result.
- Lemma B.1 can be directly obtained from the high dimensional probability book, Chapter 5.
---
[1] George etal. Training shallow ReLU networks on noisy data using hinge loss: when do we overfit and is it benign? NeurIPS 2023.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - The key idea is to bound the weight norm and its alignment with any linear separator of the data during each update by the distribution of sigular values of the noise. In this case, the obtained results heavily depend on the data-generation process. It would be possible to consider general data generation process? Besides, $d = \Omega(n)$ is still large, what is the limit for this? Maybe constant order is sufficient?
- In the proof, line 706, in the last inequality, regarding the summation $\sum_{i,l} \in F(t)$, there is one term missing about $\langle w_j^{(t)}, x_j \rangle$?
- There are some typos: line 707: $\sigma(s)$ -> $\sigma(z)$
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: n/a
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for the overall positive feedback on our work. We are confident we have addressed each of the issues raised and hope the reviewer might consider raising their score in light of our responses.
>Linearly separable data
Indeed, a linear classifier is sufficient to learn this problem: we also demonstrate that the max-margin linear classifier benignly overfits in our data setting. However, shallow neural networks are substantially more complex models and can express a rich class of functions. Without explicit regularization, previous conventional machine learning wisdom suggests neural networks will not learn a linear classifier. Results on benign overfitting in the linearly separable setting, including ours, demonstrate that the implicit bias of neural networks trained with gradient descent is favorable to learning linear problems.
>No comparison with [1]
We thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention and will more thoroughly compare our work with [1] in the future revisions. Here are the comparisons with [1]:
- The settings are very similar with regards to the data assumptions, network model, and training. The most significant differences is that [1] uses ReLU activations and requires $d = \Omega(n^2\log n)$ while we use leaky ReLU and $d = \Omega(n)$.
- The proof techniques for the two papers are very different. In [1], the authors analyze the activation patterns of the neurons during various phases of training. We do not consider the activation patterns and instead bound how much the neural network can diverge from a linear model. These different techniques are appropriate in different settings: for a ReLU network it is possible that the dynamics of different neurons are driven by different subsets of the data, but with leaky ReLU this effect is weaker and the network is closer to a linear model.
- Both papers prove the existence of multiple distinct "overfitting" regimes. However, [1] also shows a regime where the network fails to overfit. This regime does not occur for the leaky ReLU network model we use: Theorem 3.1 shows that networks always achieves zero loss in our setting.
>More discussion on $\gamma$ and $k$ is needed
We highlight that in both Corollary 3.2.1 and Theorem 3.3 the classification error increases with $k$. The classification error bound uses the norm of the network weights, which by Theorem 3.1 is proportional to the norm of the max margin classifier. We bound this twice. In Lemma B.3 we get a dependence on $k$ by constructing an "ideal" linear classifier: one that uses the true signal vector for clean points and the noise only as minimally needed to fit the corrupted points. If $\gamma$ is small, then the classifier constructed in Lemma B.4 (which uses only noise) has smaller norm. In fact, if $\gamma$ is too small, this norm is so much smaller that the network can never learn the ``ideal'' classifier, which leads to Theorem 3.4 (non-benign overfitting).
>Sample complexity is $\Omega(n^2)$ in Theorem 3.1
The number of iterations $T$ does not directly contribute to $|\mathcal{A}|$. In the proof of Theorem 3.1, we bound $|\mathcal{A}|$ by bounding the number of non-zero data point updates. The bound for the number of updates is also a (pessimistic) bound for $T$, which we do not use but record for completeness.
>Larger $m$ leads to a larger misclassification probability
The misclassification probability can increase if $m|\mathcal{A}|^2$ increases. But in Theorem 3.1, $|\mathcal{A}_{GD}| \sim m^{-1/2}$. Thus our results specifically for neural networks (Corollary 3.2.1, Theorems 3.3 and 3.4) are independent of $m$.
>In Corollary 3.2.1, I didn't see $\delta$ in the main result.
The parameter $\delta$ refers to the "failure probability" of the data generation process. It appears in Theorem 3.2 in lines 228--230.
>Lemma B.1 can obtained from the high dimensional probability book
We thank the reviewer for drawing our attention to Theorem 4.6.1 in High Dimensional Probability by Vershynin. We emphasize that Lemma B.1 summarizes two results by Vershynin and co-authors that together are equivalent to 4.6.1. We have clearly cited both works and do not claim this lemma to be a novel or significant part of our contribution.
>It would be possible to consider general data generation process?
Proving results for arbitrary data distributions might be intractable as benign overfitting does not always occur even experimentally. However, our results for benign overfitting (Theorem 3.2) can be proven in a slightly more general setting. If all coordinates of noise are i.i.d. sub-Gaussian, the same result will hold with an analogous proof. We chose to work with Gaussian noise to prove error lower bounds (Theorems 3.3 and 3.4). We emphasize that our data assumptions are standard for works in this space.
>$d = \Omega(n)$ is still large, what is the limit for this? Maybe constant order is sufficient?
We believe that the regime $d = O(n)$ will lead to different results than the ones observed in our paper, is challenging, and will involve different techniques to study. In particular, if $md \leq n$, then the network is underparameterized and will likely not perfectly fit the data. When $d = 1$ and the network is sufficiently wide, there are partial results in the literature which suggest that the network will perfectly fit the data, but the overfitting is not benign [2]. To our knowledge, the general case $d = O(n)$ remains open.
>In the proof, line 706...
Thank you for highlighting this. There was a missing factor of $\dot{\sigma}(\langle w\_j^{(t)}, x\_l\rangle)$. This does not affect the correctness and we will correct this in future revisions.
>Typos
Thank you for drawing this to our attention. We will make another thorough proofreading to fix typos in revised versions.
[2] Guy Kornowski, Gilad Yehudai, and Ohad Shamir. From tempered to benign overfitting in ReLU neural networks. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 2023.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: thanks for the authors' rebuttal.
It addressed some of my concerns but there are still some issues that prevent me to give higher score for very positive support. For example, the linear separable data assumption and the specific data generation process.
Besides, the comparison with [1] include different techniques but the setting is quite close.
Accordingly, I kept my score unchanged.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thank you for the thoughtful discussion. We would like to emphasize two points in response to your remaining critiques.
- First, in regard to the linear separability and data assumptions you rightly highlight that these are clear areas for improvement. However, we would highlight i) these assumptions are typical of the prior works, and ii) in the prior works a different but still key weakness is the unrealistic assumption on the dimension of the input data. Our emphasis was on solving ii) not i) and given the technical challenges involved it seemed reasonable to keep other aspects of the problem as simple as possible.
- Second, compared with [1], although many aspects of the setting are similar we again our improvements on the input dimension. In addition, the change from ReLU to leaky ReLU not only necessitates surprisingly different techniques but also results in different overfitting behaviour. Indeed, in [1] it is identified that there are three possible different outcomes depending on $\gamma$: harmful overfitting, benign overfitting and no overfitting. In comparison, with leaky ReLU there are only two possible outcomes depending on $\gamma$ as no overfitting is not possible. As a result, this work and [1] differ not only in terms of the setting, namely input dimension regime and the activation function used, but also have distinct and complementary takeaways. | Summary: The paper studies benign overfitting in leaky ReLU networks trained with hinge loss on a binary classification task. The paper gives the conditions on the signal-to-noise ratio under which benign or harmful overfitting occurs for leaky ReLU networks. Unlike the previous related works, this paper does not require the training data to be nearly orthogonal and reduces the input dimension required from $\Omega(n^2\log n)$ to $\Omega(n)$.
Strengths: 1. The paper demonstrates that leaky ReLU networks trained on hinge loss with gradient descent satisfy an approximate margin maximization property.
2. Prior works usually supposed nearly orthogonal data setting and dimension $d=\Omega(n^2\log n)$. However, this paper needs linearly separable data and dimension $d=\Omega(n)$, which weakens the requirement.
Weaknesses: 1. The paper may lack some experiments. The results are fully theoretical. If there are some empirical experiments, the conclusion will be more convincing.
2. There are few explanations for theorems and assumptions. Some additional explanations may let readers understand the results better.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. Since hinge loss may not be so commonly used in the analysis of neural networks, maybe you can also try on other loss functions like cross-entropy loss or logistic loss.
2. Since the proof techniques and ideas are closely related to [1], what is the main difference between the two papers?
[1] Alon Brutzkus, Amir Globerson, Eran Malach, and Shai Shalev-Shwartz. SGD learns over-parameterized networks that provably generalize on linearly separable data. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have shown the limitations as the future directions in the paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for reading our paper and for raising their questions and comments. We are confident that we can clarify the issues raised and hope in light of our responses below that the reviewer will consider raising their score.
> The paper may lack some experiments. The results are fully theoretical. If there are some empirical experiments, the conclusion will be more convincing.
We appreciate the suggestion of including experiments to better explain our results. We will update the paper to include experiments in future revisions. We've attached a file showcasing a couple of experiments along with explanations in the main rebuttal.
> There are few explanations for theorems and assumptions. Some additional explanations may let readers understand the results better.
We are happy to provide more commentary in future revisions. To clarify here, in regards to the assumptions, Assumption 1 upper bounds both the step size and initialization scale. Both of these bounds are required for the proof of convergence to a global minimizer: we remark that although they are no more egregious than comparative theory works in this space, they are typically smaller than what is used in practice. Assumption 2 clarifies the model we consider and the assumptions on the data: in particular we consider data drawn from a mixture of Gaussians with a relatively small number of label corruptions. This is very standard in the literature. In terms of our results, we give an overview in Section 1.1 outlining the role of the different Theorems and Lemmas. In terms of explaining our proof techniques, we chose in Section 4 to present the key ideas using the simple case study of a linear model. In particular we highlight four key steps: first derive generalization bounds using the SNR of a classifier in terms of the size of its component in the noise versus signal subspace, second upper bound the max margin classifier, third and fourth use the bound on the max margin classifier as well as the zero loss property to to upper and lower bound the SNR.
> Since hinge loss may not be so commonly used in the analysis of neural networks, maybe you can also try on other loss functions like cross-entropy loss or logistic loss.
We agree that different loss functions would be an interesting generalization of our results. We chose the hinge loss because it exhibits similar properties to other classification losses (such as de-emphasizing points which have already been correctly classified) while having favorable properties for theoretical analysis (such as convergence in finitely many iterations). We expect that our results could admit generalizations to the cross-entropy or logistic losses with an appropriate analogue of the convergence analysis in Theorem 3.1. Fundamentally, our generalization bounds depend on gradient descent converging to a solution which is approximately margin maximizing. For any other loss function satisfying this property, we immediately obtain a benign overfitting result by applying Theorem 3.2.
> Since the proof techniques and ideas are closely related to [1], what is the main difference between the two papers?
The main result of [1] is that a leaky ReLU neural network trained with the hinge loss on linearly separable data will converge to a global minimizer. Moreover, the weights of this solution have norm bounded above by the norm of the max-margin linear classifier of the data. While this idea and proof technique are important to our paper, our main contributions are in describing how this margin maxmimization results in benign overfitting. That is, we are interested in the generalization of leaky ReLU networks on noisy data, and we use a similar convergence analysis as an intermediate result to this goal. While [1] does establish a generalization bound in Theorem 4, the bound assumes that *population dataset* is linearly separable rather than just the training dataset. Hence, it cannot be applied when the training dataset has label-flipping noise, which is the setting that we are interested in for benign overfitting. The bound also gets worse as the learning rate $\eta$ goes to 0, while our generalization bounds do not have any dependence on $\eta$. In order to make these adaptations, we perform an analysis which uses properties of our specific data model. In the process, we obtain a more detailed understanding of how generalization depends on the number of data points, the dimensionality of the data, and the amount of noise in the data. | Summary: This paper studies the benign overfitting of two-layer leaky ReLU network for binary classification with only mild overparameterization under a simple Gaussian mixture model assumption. First, the paper proves that for sufficiently small initialization, gradient descent with hinge loss converges in a polynomial number of iterations to an approximate max-margin solution. Then, the paper establishes that any approximate margin maximizer achieves benign overfitting, or low test error, in an (essentially tight parameter) regime where $d = \Omega(n)$. These results are matched by lower bounds in certain parameter regimes (low SNR and high label noise).
Strengths: 1. This paper is well-written, clear, and technically interesting. I especially appreciated the technical overview, where the main proof ideas are explained.
2. Previous works required $d = \Omega(n^2 \log n)$ to obtain benign overfitting due to using near-orthogonality of the input data, but this work only requires $d = \Omega(n)$, which is tight (for the overparameterized regime). Hence extending benign overfitting to this setting requires using subgaussian bounds on the extreme singular values of Gaussian matrices. I do want to note that this idea has also been used to prove benign overfitting for binary and multiclass classification $d = \omega(n)$ (see e.g. [1, 2])
3. Many prior works studied linear models, whereas this paper studies ReLU activation (although with only one trainable linear layer).
4. It is of particular note that the proof techniques do not rely on exact margin maximization, as the results then apply to parameters found by GD in polynomial time (as opposed to the infinite time limit). Many (though not all) previous works have explicitly studied the limiting parameters (e.g. min $\ell_2$-norm interpolation), which is not reached in practice.
5. As I described in the summary, the upper bounds have matching lower bounds in some parameter regimes. Theorem 3.3 is a matching lower bound for the misclassification probability in the regime where the label noise rate $k/n = \Omega(1)$, which is fairly realistic.
[1] Wang, Ke, and Christos Thrampoulidis. "Binary classification of gaussian mixtures: Abundance of support vectors, benign overfitting, and regularization." SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science 4.1 (2022): 260-284.
[2] Wu, David, and Anant Sahai. "Precise asymptotic generalization for multiclass classification with overparameterized linear models." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024).
Weaknesses: No major weaknesses to report.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: 1. What do the authors expect to change for multiclass classification with a more complicated mixture model?
2. Line 278, there is a typo; it should be $X \sim N(\sqrt{\gamma}a_v, \frac{1-\gamma}{d}\| z\|^2)$.
3. Line 325, “of” is missing in “The proof Theorem 3.3,...”
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We are glad the reviewer appreciates the contribution of our work and thank them for highlighting the two related works on linear models [1,2]. We are happy to cite these and discuss them in future revisions. We also thank the reviewer for spotting the two typos listed, we will do a further thorough proofread before uploading a revised version.
In regard to the question
>What do the authors expect to change for multiclass classification with a more complicated mixture model?'
A multiclass classification setting is an interesting future direction to look into. It would involve looking at a different model / loss but the general form of argument, i.e., bounding the singular values of the noise matrix and comparing to the one hot class max-margin classifiers, seems possible to generalize to this new setting.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the response, indeed it would be interesting to see how the techniques would transfer to the multiclass setting. | Summary: This paper studies benign overfitting in a two-layer leaky ReLU network trained with hinge loss for a binary classification task. This paper proves that in a finite iteration, the leaky ReLU network can reach zero training loss through gradient descent, and the network weight matrix after convergence will approximate the max-margin. And this paper provides the conditions for benign overfitting and non-benign overfitting of the leaky ReLU network.
Strengths: This paper improves the previous work's requirements for almost orthogonal training data and input dimension $d= \Omega(n² \log n)$, and only requires $d = \Omega(n)$.
Weaknesses: This paper mainly studies a specific shallow leaky ReLU network. The applicability of the results is limited to deeper neural networks or other complex models such as CNN and transformer.
The results rely on a specific linearly separable data distribution assumption.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: The dependence of Theorem 3.2 and Theorem 3.3 on n, d, k does not cover all cases. For other cases, what are the characteristics of overfitting?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: See Weaknesses
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their feedback and questions. It appears that the primary concern lies in the fact that our results only hold for shallow networks and linearly separable data. We emphasize that these are limitations also present in the existing literature on benign overfitting in non-linear models / networks in the rich feature learning regime (i.e., not leveraging the NTK framework). The primary contribution of our work is to relax the relationship between the input dimension and the number of points: in particular past works require a very large input dimension, $d = \Omega(n^2 \log(n))$ or worse. In contrast, our results are for $d = \Omega(n)$ which is far more realistic. Furthermore to achieve this required new and highly different techniques to those used in the existing literature. As a result we would respectfully ask the reviewer to reconsider their rating. We proceed to address in more detail the specific weaknesses highlighted.
> This paper mainly studies a specific shallow leaky ReLU network. The applicability of the results is limited to deeper neural networks or other complex models such as CNN and transformer.
> The results rely on a specific linearly separable data distribution assumption.
- Our setup involving a shallow ReLU network combined with the proposed data model is a) in-line with relevant and recent literature on the topic and b) represents perhaps the simplest and most natural setting involving a non-linear model in which one can study benign overfitting. Even in this simple setup many theoretical questions remain open: in particular, all past works require a near orthogonality condition on the data. As the emphasis of our work is to relax this technical condition we decided to work with this canonical setup. Deriving theory for more complicated settings, in particular deep networks and transformers, is clearly an important open problem. Such theory will almost certainly be built upon a solid understanding of the simple, shallow case.
> The dependence of Theorem 3.2 and Theorem 3.3 on $n, d, k$ does not cover all cases. For other cases, what are the characteristics of overfitting?
- In Theorems 3.2 and 3.3, the assumption $k = O(n)$ is minimal, since we always have $k \leq n$. The relaxation $d = \Omega(n)$ from $d = \Omega(n^2 \log n)$ is a main improvement of our results from prior work. We believe that the regime $d = O(n)$ will lead to different results than the ones observed in our paper, and will involve different techniques to study. In particular, if $md \leq n$, then the network is underparameterized and it is likely impossible to perfectly fit the data. When $d = 1$ and the network is sufficiently wide, there are some partial results in the literature which suggest that the network will perfectly fit the data, but the overfitting is not benign [1]. To the best of our knowledge the case $d = O(n)$ remains open.
[1] Guy Kornowski, Gilad Yehudai, and Ohad Shamir. From tempered to benign overfitting in ReLU neural networks. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 2023.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your thoughtful response. However, I believe there may have been a misunderstanding of the author on my question concerning Theorems 3.2 and 3.3. Specifically, these theorems do not cover all possible cases of n and k. For certain values of α (such as 1/m), these do not provide a clear phase transition point/line. There are cases where the conditions of Theorems 3.2 and 3.3 are both not satisfied, so we can not know whether the overfitting is benign or non-benign, or whether there is a sharp transition between benign and non-benign. I believe it would be beneficial for the paper to include a discussion on this point. Additionally, I would like to request a more detailed explanation of the technical innovations and challenges presented in your work.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thanks for your response and clarification; we attempt to better address your questions below.
- Theorem 3.3 is not a benign or non-benign overfitting result; it is just a matching lower bound to the upper bound of Corollary 3.2.1 valid in a regime largely overlapping with that of Corollary 3.2.1. The non-benign overfitting result is Theorem 3.4. We do agree these is a gap between Theorems 3.2 and 3.4, but the gap is in the parameter $\gamma$: Theorem 3.2 requires $\gamma = \Omega(1/k)$ while Theorem 3.4 requires $\gamma = O(\alpha^3/d)$. The case where $\gamma$ lies between these bounds is interesting but we did not study it in this paper. We remark that since we can allow $d = \Theta(n) = \Theta(k)$ (the regime where we improve upon existing benign overfitting results), it is possible that the lower bound and upper bound are tight up to a constant factor. This is in contrast to previous work in benign versus non-benign overfitting [1], where the gap was $\gamma = \Omega(1/n)$ versus $\gamma = O(n^{-3/2})$.
- When applying Theorem 3.2 to leaky ReLU networks, the dependence on $m$ cancels out; there is no reference to $m$ in Corollary 3.2.1 so the case $\alpha = 1/m$ is not special. The general question of small values of $\alpha$ is a legitimate issue; as $\alpha \to 0$, the activation function converges to ReLU, and our bounds get worse. In the context of leaky ReLU networks, we are interpreting $\alpha$ to be a fixed positive constant which does not vary with other parameters and is an attribute of the architecture.
- We will add more details distinguishing the contributions of our work with prior works in future revisions. The main technical contribution is Theorem 3.2, which bound the generalization error above for an approximately margin maximizing algorithm, including but not limited to gradient descent. This result was challenging to show as it assumes only data assumptions and that the network achieves zero loss on the training data and has bounded norm. Therefore, previous implicit bias results for gradient descent do not apply. We were able to show this theorem using the fact that a sufficiently wide Gaussian random matrix with high probability is well-conditioned. While this fact is known, its application to benign overfitting in neural networks is novel. This allows us to (1) bound the norm of the max-margin classifier of the training data and (2) argue that if the network has small weights then it cannot fit the training data using only feature noise, so if it achieves zero loss it must have learned a strong signal.
[1] Erin George, Michael Murray, William Swartworth, Deanna Needell. Training shallow ReLU networks on noisy data using hinge loss: when do we overfit and is it benign? *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 2023. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewers for their time and efforts in providing feedback on our work. Two actions we can take forward in future revisions are as follows.
- **Improving the presentation**: We will better connect Section 3, where the key results are presented, with the proof sketch given in Section 4. In doing so we can provide better intuition for the reader as to the role of the number of corruptions $k$ and the signal strength $\gamma$, in particular their role in the derived bounds. We will also better elucidate the differences between our work and that by Brutzkus et al. and George et al. in the related works section.
- **Including experiments**: We will include in future revisions a new section in the appendix containing numerics supporting our theoretical results. Preliminary plots are included in the attached pdf. We offer the following explanation of the two experiments.
- Under Assumptions 1 and 2 a key contribution of our work is to show $d = \Omega(n)$ is sufficient for benign overfitting. Note, by contrast other works require $d = \Omega(n^2\log(n))$ or higher. To test this experimentally, using gradient descent and the hinge loss we trained the inner layer weights of shallow, two layer leaky ReLU networks, varying both the size of the training sample $n$ as well as the input dimension $d$. To estimate the generalization error, for each setting of $n$ and $d$ twenty trials were conducted. Within each trial a training sample was drawn from the data model (described in Definition 2.1), a network as per Assumption 2 was initialized and trained to zero hinge loss and the validation error computed on a validation sample. The generalization error across the trials was then averaged. The results of this experiment are provided in Figure 1.
- We remark that the number of corruptions $k$ in our experiments is fixed at $10\%$ of $n$. Considering the figure, when $d =n$ we observe that the generalization error matches the corruption rate, suggesting proportional, tempered overfitting. We note that our results do not cover or explain this setting. However, for $d >n$ we observe what seems to be a decrease in the generalization error with $d$: indeed, for $d = 10 n$ versus $d = n$ we observe a ten-fold decrease in the generalization error, dropping from the corruption rate of $10\%$ to $1\%$ error. This suggests, inline with our theory, that the generalization error is a sharply decreasing function of $d/n$.
- In the second experiment (Figure 2), we vary the number of data points $n$ and the signal strength $\gamma$, holding constant the ratio $d/n$, the corruption rate $k/n = 0.1$, and the hidden dimension $m = 64$. We plot the generalization error as a function of $\gamma$ over different values of $n$. We find that for all values of $n$, the generalization error decreases steeply at a certain threshold, then levels off at a fixed small value. For higher values of $n$, this drop-off of generalization error occurs sooner. This is in agreement with our theoretical results where we found that benign overfitting occurs at the threshold $\gamma = \Omega(1/k)$ (which is in this case $\Omega(1/n)$). We also see that the generalization error for large values of $\gamma$ is similar across different values of $n$. This effect is also predicted by Corollary 3.2.1, since we scale both $d$ and $k$ proportionally to $n$.
Pdf: /pdf/eb294322427a09ddad4c59d16c88cd56ebe557e6.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Self-supervised Transformation Learning for Equivariant Representations | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper is concerned with the learning of expressive representations in a self-supervised fashion. In particular, it aims at learning representations that
Strengths: - Presentation: The paper is clearly written, well-structured, easy to follow, and overall is in a good state
- Proposed approach: the idea proposed by the authors is not ground-breaking but simple, makes sense, and is efficient. It applies the same reasoning used in invariant self-supervised learning to equivariant representation learning.
- Evaluation pipeline: the authors evaluate their method quite thoroughly, evaluate semantic classification across a large number of datasets, evaluate object detection, and check the sensitivity to hyper-parameters and transformation prediction.
- Experimental results: results show that the approach effectively learns representations that perform well on both semantic and non-semantic information in comparison to baselines. Sensitivity to hyperparameters seems limited.
Weaknesses: - My main concern regards the baselines chosen for evaluation. Authors explicitly mention that SIE and SEN are excluded from the evaluation due to the need for these methods to have access to transformation labels which STL does not require. While I see how these methods require more "supervision" than the proposed method, STL still requires weak supervision (i.e., access to pairs of images that have undergone the same transformation). Cases, where one would have access to such weak supervision but not access to transformation labels, are quite rare (e.g., AugMix as mentioned by authors), as a consequence I think the evaluation should include these baselines, and results should be analyzed considering this light difference in supervision level. My score will be increased if this concern is addressed.
- Experimental results are computed for a single seed, for object detection results, the performance gap between EquiMod and STL is narrow hence additional seeds would make the evaluation more robust.
- In Table 1, STL+AugMix can be compared to SimCLR *with* AugMix augmentations which I do not believe is reported in this table.
Minor:
- line 40: typo
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: No questions but a suggestion for improvement, I think section 4.3, first part, is intriguing and it is not clear to me why equivariance and transformation learning are _complementary_. Discussing further the intuition behind these results would I think improve the paper.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Limitations are discussed and in particular, the main limitation I see to this work (i.e., the framework requires access to a pair of images that have undergone the same transformation, this weak form of supervision is not always accessible in the wild), is mentioned.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly review our manuscript.
In response to your detailed feedback, we have gone to great lengths to address and accommodate every single one of your comments.
We would greatly appreciate it if you could review our responses to your comments and the submitted rebuttal PDF.
Sincere thanks in advance for your time and efforts.
---
## **[W1] Comparison to SEN and SIE**
In response to the reviewer's comments on the absence of experimental comparisons with existing equivariant self-supervised learning (SSL) methods, we have conducted comparisons with the SIE[1] and SEN[2] methods.
As in the SIE paper, our implementation of the SEN method adopts the InfoNCE loss instead of the triplet loss to minimize the need for extensive hyperparameter tuning. Additionally, SIE employs a strategy where the representation dimension is divided to separately address invariant and equivariant representations. For consistency, all methods, including SEN and SIE, were trained using SimCLR as the base model.
Table A1 in the rebuttal PDF presents the results, demonstrating that our method performs competitively against both SEN and SIE, supporting the robustness and effectiveness of our approach.
## **[W2] Various Seeds**
We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback and have addressed the concern regarding the robustness of our results. In response, we conducted additional experiments using different random seeds for pretraining to ensure that the observed improvements were statistically significant. The results of these additional experiments are presented in Table A1 in the rebuttal PDF, which illustrates that our method, STL, consistently outperforms baseline approaches across various downstream tasks, achieving improvements ranging from an average of 3% to nearly 10%. These results demonstrate that STL significantly enhances performance compared to existing methods, confirming the robustness and generalizability of our approach.
## **[W3] STL with AugMix**
We have indeed conducted experiments applying AugMix to SimCLR, and the results are documented in Table A1 in the rebuttal PDF. Our findings indicate that while incorporating AugMix with SimCLR yields a performance improvement compared to using standard augmentations, the model using STL with AugMix demonstrates superior performance. This suggests that our STL approach effectively leverages the AugMix augmentations to enhance representation learning beyond the capabilities of SimCLR with AugMix.
## **[W4] Detailed Comments**
Thank you for bringing the typo on line 40 to our attention. We will correct the error in the final manuscript. We appreciate your meticulous review.
## **[Q] Complementary Relation**
Table 5 in the main manuscript illustrates the performance of three models: the Only Equivariance model(employing $\\mathcal{L}\_\\text{inv}$ and $\\mathcal{L}\_\\text{equi}$), the Only Transformation model (employing $\\mathcal{L}\_\\text{inv}$ and $\\mathcal{L}\_\\text{trans}$), and the STL model (incorporating $\\mathcal{L}\_\\text{inv}$, $\\mathcal{L}\_\\text{equi}$, and $\\mathcal{L}\_\\text{trans}$). The results include the average accuracy in downstream classification tasks, and the regression and classification outcomes for transformation prediction tasks.
The Only Equivariance model significantly improves downstream task performance over SimCLR, but its transformation prediction capabilities are limited. Conversely, the Only Transformation model excels in transformation prediction compared to SimCLR but shows limited improvement in downstream tasks. In contrast, the STL model, which integrates both $\\mathcal{L}\_\\text{equi}$ and $\\mathcal{L}\_\\text{trans}$, demonstrates enhanced performance in both downstream tasks and transformation prediction, empirically validating their complementary nature.
The mechanism of this complementarity lies in the ability of the transformation representations, learned through $\\mathcal{L}\_\\text{trans}$, to facilitate the effective learning of equivariant transformations in the representation space. Specifically, the transformation representations allow $\\mathcal{L}\_\\text{equi}$ to ensure that transformations in image space correspond accurately to transformations in representation space. This correspondence is demonstrated by the improved performance metrics, such as MRR, H@k, and PRE, for STL's equivariant transformations compared to the Only Equivariance model, as evidenced by the results in Table A2 in the rebuttal PDF.
---
**References**
1. Garrido, Quentin, Laurent Najman, and Yann Lecun. "Self-supervised learning of split invariant equivariant representations.", ICML, 2023.
2, Park, Jung Yeon, et al. "Learning symmetric embeddings for equivariant world models.", ICML, 2022.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Answer to Rebuttal
Comment: Thank you to the authors for their efforts in answering my concerns.
The additional experimental validation provided by the authors addresses my concerns as I believe they strengthen the validation of the proposed method. I have adjusted my score accordingly.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful review and are grateful for recognizing the additional experimental validations we provided. Your feedback has been instrumental in refining our work. We are glad to hear that our revisions addressed your concerns and strengthened our method's validation. We welcome any further suggestions you may have and thank you for adjusting your score. | Summary: The authors propose Self-supervised Transformation Learning (STL) to learn equivariant representations. The core of the method is to not use augmentation information but instead use transformation representations obtained from pairs of data. In this sense, instead of knowing the transformation information, it is necessary to have pairs of data with the same transformation applied to them. This allows STL to leverage more complex augmentation schemes such as AugMix to reach higher performance on classification and detection benchmarks.
Strengths: The non reliance on knowledge of the group elements leads to a method with different assumptions than previous works which can thus be used in different scenarios. Assuming knowledge of pairs of data with the same transformation can be a weaker or stronger assumption than knowledge of the group element depending on the domain, which makes STL complementary to existing works.
Assuming that images are sampled randomly, using a pair of images to compute the transformation representation of another one ensures that information does not leak between the semantics of the image and the transformation representation. At inference time, applying the transformation does not require knowledge of pairs.
The performance gained using STL over existing methods is convincingly shown, across a wide range of tasks. We can however notice that aiming for equivariance over all augmentations does not lead to the best performance (Table 6),reinforcing previous findings that the benefits of invariance/equivariance can be task dependant
Weaknesses: 1\) An important reference to [1] is missing from the paper. It was proposed in this paper to use pairs of data transformed by the same (but unknown) group element (see equation 4 for example) to learn equivariant representation. Although the considered experimental setting is different, and the way to leverage the pairs differs, it remains a very related method.
2\) With how the loss is designed, the representations are both aimed at being invariant and equivariant at the same time (albeit with a projector in between the loss and representations). As invariance is a perfectly valid solution when wanting equivariant solutions ($\theta = Id$), it is possible that the learned representations are invariant to augmentations in the end, as illustrated in figure S2 of [2] for example. Currently, the metric defined in equation 15 doesn't provide enough information as to whether or not the predictor indeed applied transformation well (and thus whether or not the representations are equivariant).
Intuitively (correct me if my understanding is wrong), the proposed metric looks at how much closer the predicted representation is to the target compared to its starting point. A value higher than 1 thus means that the prediction is closer to its target than its starting point. But here the values are barely around 1.1 which would suggest that while the predictor is indeed doing something positive, it's far from applying the transformations perfectly.
Completing this analysis with other common metrics such as the ones used in EquiMod[3] or metrics such as Hit at rank K, MRR, PRE[2,4,5] for example would provide more compelling evidence of the equivariance or not of the representations.
3\) Performance seems to not be reported on the pretraining dataset but only on other downstream tasks. It is important to report those numbers to understand the behaviour of the models both in and out of domain.
[1] Shakerinava, Mehran, Arnab Kumar Mondal, and Siamak Ravanbakhsh. "Structuring representations using group invariants." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022): 34162-34174.
[2] Garrido, Quentin, Laurent Najman, and Yann Lecun. "Self-supervised learning of split invariant equivariant representations." arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.10283 (2023).
[3]Devillers, Alexandre, and Mathieu Lefort. "Equimod: An equivariance module to improve self-supervised learning." arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01244 (2022).
[4]Kipf, Thomas, Elise Van der Pol, and Max Welling. "Contrastive learning of structured world models." arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.12247 (2019).
[5]Park, Jung Yeon, et al. "Learning symmetric embeddings for equivariant world models." arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.11371 (2022).
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Line 42-43 "with a transformation label, each transformation is treated independently, disregarding interdependency [...] each component in color jitter is treated distinctively although they are related to each other." I am not sure to see the point here, as this argument can be made for any image augmentation. Giving all transformation parameters (as well as their order if it isn't fixed) gives full information about the transformation. The transformations are fully independent of each other and at best they do not commute.
Line 47-48 "After all, the reliance on transformation labels limits the performance gain in equivariant representation learning". This claim seems unsubstantiated, are there any references or concrete evidence to support this claim ?
In Equation 2 the notation lacks preciseness. If $\mathcal{L}$ is an InfoNCE criterion, it cannot consider samples in isolation as is written in Equation 2, but instead needs knowledge of the full batch to be computed.
When using Color Jitter for AugSelf and Equimod, is the order of the transformations fixed or randomly selected for each call, as is default in torchvision for example ? If it is not then the same labels can be associated with different transformations which will hinder their learning.
When considering a large set of transformations, it is possible that the transformation representations only represent some of the transformations and not all of them, or that the predictor only uses partial information (e.g. applies hue change but not brightness change). Did you perform analyses on individual transformations to study the equivariance properties on individual transformations ?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors address the limitations in section 6, notably how using pairs of transformed data is not a panacea, and can have issues to be extended to even larger transformation sets than considered with STL.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly review our manuscript.
In response to your detailed feedback, we have gone to great lengths to address and accommodate every single one of your comments.
We would greatly appreciate it if you could review our responses to your comments and the submitted PDF.
Sincere thanks in advance for your time and efforts.
---
## **[W1] Related Work Recommendation**
As mentioned in the review, the suggested related work [1] is similar to STL in that [1], too, utilizes the difference in the pair of images, and we will update the reference accordingly. The main difference between [1] and STL lies in utilizing the transformation group. As [1] utilizes the transformation group information for selecting the appropriate loss term utilized for training. Acknowledging this limitation [1] suggested a way to bypass this limitation, however, as STL does not require the transformation group in addition to the transformation label, STL could be considered as a more general methodology for learning representations with pairs of images.
## **[W2] Transformation Equivariance**
You are correct in noting that our metric is designed to measure the proximity of the transformed representation to the target representation relative to the original. The intention was to assess how well the equivariant transformation aligns with its image space counterpart compared to an identity transformation. However, we recognize that comparing solely to the identity transformation does not fully capture the nuances of equivariance across a variety of transformations.
Therefore, we employed suggested metrics (MRR, H@k, and PRE) using a pretrained STL-10 model to extend our analysis to include metrics that evaluate the relative alignment of transformations in the image space. We tested on STL-10 test data subjected to transformations like individual transformations such as cropping and color jitter, as well as the standard combination of transformations used during training.
Our results, detailed in Table A2 in the rebuttal PDF, show that our method surpasses existing techniques in most metrics, except for crop H@5 and PRE. This improvement suggests that the equivariant transformations learned by our approach more accurately reflect actual transformations in the image space compared to prior methods.
## **[W3] In-domain Evaluation on STL-10 and ImageNet100**
To address the concern regarding the in-domain performance evaluation, we have included the results of the linear evaluation conducted on the pretraining dataset in Table A3 in the rebuttal PDF. Our findings demonstrate that, except for the SEN method, which focuses solely on equivariant learning, all other approaches, including STL, effectively maintain the performance level of the base invariant learning model within the in-domain setting. This evidence underscores the robustness of our approach in preserving performance both in-domain and out-of-domain.
## **[Q1] Interdependencies between Transformations**
While it is true that individual augmentations can be applied independently in the image space, STL focuses on the interdependencies between transformations in the representation space, particularly concerning equivariant transformations. Due to the length limitation, please refer to the global response for further discussion.
## **[Q2] Leveraging Complex Augmentation**
From "[...] transformation labels limits the performance gain [...]", we highlight that while complex augmentation like AugMix significantly enhance performance (shown in Table 1 in the main manuscript denoted as STL with AugMix), prior equivariance learning methods cannot leverage such complex augmentations due to inaccessbility of the corresonding transformation labels thereby bounding their performance gain.
## **[Q3] InfoNCE with Batch Information**
Equation 2 was simplified to focus on the core concept. However, as we acknowledge that the InfoNCE loss requires consideration of the full batch, we will update Equation 10 to incorporate batch interactions as follows:
$$
\mathcal{L}_\text{InfoNCE} (y, y^+; g, \tau, \{y_i\}_i) = -\log \frac{\exp\left(\text{sim}\left(g(y), g(y^+)\right)/\tau\right)}{\sum{y_i \neq y} \exp\left(\text{sim}\left(g(y), g(y_i)\right)/\tau\right)}
$$
This reflects the necessary batch-level computation. Similarly, Equations 11-13 should be conditioned on the batch samples, aligning the formulation with the InfoNCE criterion’s requirements which will updated in the final version accordingly.
## **[Q4] The order of the transformations**
In our implementation for AugSelf and Equimod, the order of transformations, including Color Jitter, is fixed rather than randomized. As mentioned in your review, this consistency must hold to prevent any association of different transformations with the same labels, thereby supporting effective learning and representation alignment.
## **[Q5] Analysis on individual transformations**
We have conducted a detailed analysis of individual transformations to examine their equivariance properties in Table 5 in the main manuscript. Furthermore, we analyzed the similarity between equivariant transformations and their corresponding transformations using metrics such as MRR, Hit@k, and PRE. For this analysis, we employed an STL-10 pre-trained model, transforming the STL-10 test data using crop, color jitter, and combinations of augmentations. Table A2 in the rebuttal PDF shows that our method surpasses existing approaches in all metrics except for H@5 and PRE in the crop transformation. This superiority demonstrates that equivariant transformations learned through STL effectively capture and reflect the actual transformations applied.
---
**References**
1. Shakerinava et al., "Structuring representations using group invariants.", NIPS 2022.
2. Garridov et al., "Self-supervised learning of split invariant equivariant representations.", ICML 2023.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank your for the detailed answer, clarifying my previous questions. The added equivariance measures are helpful to understand the exact behaviour of STL.
The comparisons to previous work added are convincing (Table A2), where STL outperforms previous approaches, but with the caveat that the overall performances seems a bit low. For example, the highest MRR for color jitter is 0.33 when recent works achieve around 0.8 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.00504 . This comparison is not perfect due to data and model size differences, but this still raises the question of whether or not the considered setup is too hard for every considered method (including STL).
A small question on the equivariance metrics computation (MRR,PRE,H@k), how many different transformed images did you use for the computation of the metrics ? MRR can be very sensitive to this value (SIE used 50 for example).
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for carefully reviewing our detailed response and for providing additional comments. We appreciate your thoroughness and valuable insights.
Regarding your comment on the MRR for color jittering being 0.33 compared to the 0.8 reported by Image World Models (IWM) in [1], we acknowledge that several factors influence the difficulty in direct comparison: network architecture, dataset used, and base invariant learning models. Especially looking at Table S2 in [1], we note that the depth of the architecture seems to play a critical role as average MRR drops by 0.378 when using 12-layer predictor rather than 18-layer predictor across various color jittering settings. As our model utilizes a hypernetwork with two layers, the reduced depth might limit the model’s ability to capture intricate transformations as effectively as deeper architectures and indicate that **our setting is particularly challenging given the differences in network depth**.
While comparisons with IWM are difficult due to the aforementioned architecture differences, we find it more meaningful to compare our work with SIE as the SIE paper [2] uses the same ResNet-18 and predictor network as our paper and forms the basis for IWM's equivariant learning approach. However, unlike STL, SIE was evaluated on the 3DIEBench dataset using a combination of transformations such as 3D rotation and color changes, with MRR calculated over 50 transformations per sample (whereas **STL's evaluation involves 60 transformations per sample**). As outlined in the table below, the MRR for SIE in our setting drops from 0.41 (Table A2 in the rebuttal PDF) to 0.275 (Table 2 of [2]), indicating the increased difficulty. In contrast, STL achieves an MRR of 0.4708 for crop and color combinations, showing a significant improvement over SIE's 0.275 in the same experimental setting.
Finally, we want to point out that STL achieves an H@1 of 0.35 and an H@5 of 0.6080 for crop and color combinations (Table A2 in the rebuttal PDF). These metrics indicate a 35% probability that the actual corresponding transformation is ranked first and a 60% probability that it ranks within the top five. This suggests that our predictor effectively captures and reflects the actual transformations to a substantial extent.
We hope this explanation clarifies the differences and supports the validity of our results despite the inherent challenges in making direct comparisons across different methodologies.
| Method | MRR on SIE setting | MRR on STL setting |
|----------|----------|----------|
|SIE | 0.41 | 0.2750 |
|STL | - | 0.4708 |
**References**
1. Garrido, Quentin, et al. "Learning and leveraging world models in visual representation learning." *arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00504* (2024). (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.00504)
2. Garrido, Quentin, Laurent Najman, and Yann Lecun. "Self-supervised learning of Split Invariant Equivariant representations." *International Conference on Machine Learning*. PMLR, 2023. (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.10283) | Summary: The paper introduces STL, a method for learning self-supervised equivariant representations. It suggests replacing transformation labels with representations derived from data pairs. The proposed pretext task promotes learning invariant and equivariant representations alongside transformation-related information. The method's effectiveness is showcased through various classification and object detection tasks.
Strengths: - The paper argues that existing methods treat each transformation independently as they require transformation labels, which disregards interdependency among transformations. The main strength of the paper lies in their method, which does not require transformation labels.
- The complexity of transformations does not constrain the proposed method STL, as they demonstrate learning equivariance representations with complex transformations like AugMix.
- Authors show empirically that the learned representations are competitive for classification and detection. They also show that STL learns equivariant representations with relational information between transformations.
Weaknesses: - Experimental comparisons with some key existing equivariant SSL methods are missing [1, 2] and datasets (3DIEBench).
- Missing several related works [3-6]. The authors should thoroughly review the relevant literature.
- The approach seems computationally demanding since there are multiple (three) InfoNCE losses for each iteration. Additionally, the authors haven’t provided results/discussions on computational costs.
- Information for reproducibility is limited, especially when extending STL to BarlowTwins, BYOL, and SimSiam.
[1] Garrido, Quentin, Laurent Najman, and Yann Lecun. "Self-supervised learning of split invariant equivariant representations." *arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.10283* (2023).
[2] Park, Jung Yeon, et al. "Learning symmetric embeddings for equivariant world models." *arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.11371* (2022).
[3] Gupta, Sharut, et al. "Structuring representation geometry with rotationally equivariant contrastive learning." *arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13924* (2023).
[4] Xie, Yuyang, et al. "What should be equivariant in self-supervised learning." *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*. 2022.
[5] Guo, Xifeng, et al. "Affine Equivariant Autoencoder." *IJCAI*. 2019.
[6] Gupta, Sharut, et al. "Learning Structured Representations with Equivariant Contrastive Learning."
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: - It’s known that InfoNCE loss can be prone to dimensional collapse [7]. Having multiple InfoNCE losses (especially when invariance and equivariance losses can be contradictory) in your method, have you observed dimensional collapse happening?
- What influence does the size of the hypernetwork $f_T$ has over the downstream tasks?
- How does different hyperparameter configurations of $\lambda_{inv}(\cdot)$, $\lambda_{equi}(\cdot)$, and $\lambda_{trans}(\cdot)$ affect the rate of convergence while pre-training?
- How do you extend STL to asymmetric methods like BYOL and SimSiam? Are the InfoNCE criteria still kept for equivariance and transformation-related losses?
- Any insights into how much contribution $\lambda_{equi}$ and $\lambda_{trans}$ have for learning the relational information between transformations?
[7] Jing, Li, et al. "Understanding dimensional collapse in contrastive self-supervised learning." *arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.09348* (2021).
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have provided some limitations. It would be beneficial to include a discussion on computational costs.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly review our manuscript.
In response to your detailed feedback, we have gone to great lengths to address and accommodate every single one of your comments.
We would greatly appreciate it if you could review our responses to your comments and the submitted rebuttal PDF.
Sincere thanks in advance for your time and efforts.
---
## **[W1-1] Comparison to SIE and SEN**
In response to the reviewer's comments on the lack of comparisons with existing equivariant SSL methods, we compared our approach with SIE [1] and SEN [2]. Following the SIE paper, we used InfoNCE loss for SEN to reduce hyperparameter tuning. SIE splits representation dimensions for invariant and equivariant features. All methods, including SEN and SIE, used SimCLR as the base model. Table A1 in the rebuttal PDF shows our method is competitive with SEN and SIE, demonstrating its robustness and effectiveness.
## **[W1-2] Evaluation on 3DIEBench**
The 3DIEBench dataset, while valuable in equivariance learning by pre-applying transformation with transformation label, poses a challenge in evaluating with STL due to its static nature. As transformations in 3DIEBench are pre-defined and fixed, we cannot re-apply the same transformation to different samples during training as STL requires dynamic application of transformation during training to learn the interdependency of each transformation. To utilize 3DIEBench effectively, we would not only need full access to the simulator used for generating the 3DIEBench dataset but also real-time generation to apply the pair-wise transformation during training.
## **[W2] Related Work Recommendation**
Thank you for highlighting the missing references. We will incorporate these references in the final version.
## **[W3] Computational Costs**
To empirically evaluate computational costs, we conducted an experiment using ResNet-50 with a batch size of 256. We utilize a single NVIDIA 3090 GPU, measuring the average training time per iteration over 1000 iterations following a 1000-iteration warm-up phase. As presented in Table A6 in the rebuttal PDF, the additional computational cost due to our network design is approximately 1.1 times that of SimCLR. In comparison to EquiMod, the computational cost remains nearly equivalent.
## **[W4, Q4] STL Extension on Various Base Models**
**STL extension on BYOL**
In our STL extension to BYOL, we utilize the dissimilarity loss function intrinsic to BYOL to define the invariant, equivariant, and transformation losses. The dissimilarity loss in BYOL is: $$\\mathcal{L}\_\\text{BYOL} (y, y^+;g, q, \theta, \xi) = \|\overline{q}\_\theta (g_\theta (y)) - \overline{g}_\xi (y^+) \|_2^2$$
**STL extension on SimSiam**
For the SimSiam model, the dissimilarity loss is defined as follows: $$\\mathcal{L}\_\\text{SimSiam} (y, y^+; g, h) = \frac{1}{2} \\mathcal{D}(h(g(y)), \\text{stopgrad}(g(y^+))) + \frac{1}{2} \\mathcal{D}(h(g(y^+)), \\text{stopgrad}(g(y)))$$
where $\\mathcal{D}(a, b) = -\frac{a}{\\|a\\|\_2} \\cdot \frac{b}{\\|b\\|\_2}$
**STL extension on BarlowTwins**
In the case of BarlowTwins, the dissimilarity loss is given by:
$$\\mathcal{L}\_\\text{BarlowTwins} (Y=\\{y\_i\\}\_i, Y^+=\\{y^+\_i\\}\_i; g, \\lambda) = \\sum\_i (1 - \\mathcal{C}\_{ii})^2 + \\lambda \\sum\_i \\sum\_{j \\neq i} \\mathcal{C}\_{ij}^2$$
where
$\\mathcal{C}\_{ij} = \frac{\\sum\_b g(y\_b)\_i g(y^+\_b)\_j}{\\sqrt{\\sum\_b (g(y\_b)\_i)^2} \\sqrt{\\sum\_b (g(y^+\_b)\_i)^2}}$ and $g(y)\_i$ is the i-th dimension of $g(y)$.
## **[Q1] Dimensional collapse caused by multiple infoNCE losses**
Throughout our experiments, we did not observe dimensional collapse, likely due to the design and implementation of STL. Each loss function is crafted to enhance discrimination between samples, reducing collapse risk. Additionally, using a non-linear projector and appropriate batch size helped maintain dimensionality in learned representations. To ensure proper batch size for transformations, we used the aligned batch configuration proposed in this paper, preserving batch complexity by matching the number of transformation types to sample types.
## **[Q2] Ablation study on auxiliary transformation backbone network**
In Table A5 in the rebuttal PDF, we present empirical results that demonstrate the impact of varying the number of layers in the auxiliary transformation backbone on the average accuracy across different downstream classification tasks. Our findings indicate that change in the number of layers in result in only marginal variations in performance. This suggests the size of hypernetwork is not a primary factor influencing the accuracy in these tasks.
## **[Q3] Convergence Speed**
In Figure A2 in the rebuttal PDF, we have provided the linear evaluation results across different $\\mathcal{L}\_\\text{equi}$ \: $\\mathcal{L}\_\\text{trans}$ weight ratios while fixing $\\mathcal{L}\_\\text{inv}$ to 1. Our observations indicate that there is no significant difference in convergence speed attributable to the varying ratios.
## **[Q5] Transformation representation**
Table A4 in the rebuttal PDF shows the results of downstream classification and transformation prediction tasks on STL, based on different weights of equivariant and transformation losses. The best performance for both tasks is observed with weight ratios of 1:0.2 or 1:0.5. When the transformation loss ratio is reduced to 1:0.1, performance in the transformation prediction task decreases, indicating insufficient learning of transformation representations. Increasing the ratio to 1:1 prioritizes transformation learning but disrupts the balance with other components, leading to performance drops in both tasks. At a higher ratio of 1:2, transformation prediction improves significantly, but classification performance declines sharply. While a higher ratio benefits transformation learning, maintaining a lower ratio enhances the generalizability of image representations.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Dear Reviewer gZBh,
We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has greatly contributed to enhancing our manuscript. We have submitted our responses to your insightful comments and would be grateful to hear your thoughts on whether our replies have addressed your concerns.
Any further comments or questions are welcome to us.
Thank you | Summary: This paper proposes a new way to learn equivariant representations by directly learns the transformation representation. They enforce that different transformations have their own input-agnostic representations. To obtain this, they learn an encoder that takes pairwise representations of the same image to extract the transformation representation. To avoid trivial solutions, they use different examples in transformation representation extraction and later transformation module, which helps disentangle the sample and transformation features. They further add an regularization on the sample consistency to encourage it to be sample-invariant. They combine it with invariant learning loss for training, and demonstrates its benefits on several tasks.
Strengths: - I generally like the idea of disentangling sample and transformation representations in equivariant learning, and the paper proposes a clever patching-based objective to enforce it.
- And the transformation representation they obtain in Figure 1 does make sense intuitively since it reflects the relative distance between different augmentations.
- The evaluation demonstrates its advantages over previous works on linear probing and object detection tasks. The propose method is particularly superior on the transformation prediction task. I think it's because they successfully disentangle the features.
Weaknesses: - The evaluation is not complete. I didn't find linear probing results (often the most important ones) on ImageNet-100 or STL-10.
- Lack the comparison to a few relevant E-SSL baselines, such as [1,2].
- Lack more in-depth analysis of the learned transformation representations. I have some doubts about it. Since there are many variations in each augmentation (eg cropping with different positions, ratios), what is the relationship of their representations in the latent space? Is there an Arithmetic relationship?
[1] [Equivariant Contrastive Learning. ICLR 2022.](https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.00899)
[2][ Residual Relaxation for Multi-view Representation Learning. NeurIPS 2021.](https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15348)
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: no
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly review our manuscript.
In response to your detailed feedback, we have gone to great lengths to address and accommodate every single one of your comments.
We would greatly appreciate it if you could review our responses to your comments and the submitted rebuttal PDF.
Sincere thanks in advance for your time and efforts.
---
## **[W1] In-domain Evaluation on STL-10 and ImageNet100**
To address the concern regarding the in-domain performance evaluation, we have included the results of the linear evaluation conducted on the pretraining dataset in Table A3 in the rebuttal PDF. Our findings demonstrate that, except for the SEN method which focuses solely on equivariant learning, all other approaches including the proposed method (STL) effectively maintain the performance level of the base invariant learning model within the in-domain setting. This evidence underscores the robustness of our approach in preserving performance both in-domain and out-of-domain.
## **[W2] Comparison to Equivariant Contrastive Learning (E-SSL)**
From the suggested baselines, E-SSL[1] and Prelax[2], we conducted experiments on E-SSL as the code is publicly available while Prelax does not. For the comparison with E-SSL, we re-implemented it by applying crop and color transformations to the original image and predicting their parameters. The results including E-SSL can be seen in Table A1 in the rebuttal PDF.
## **[W3] Intra-relationship between Transformations**
Figure 1 (c), in the main manuscript, demonstrates the inter-relationship between different transformation types. To further explore the intra-relationship within transformation representations, we applied various augmentations, specifically focusing on different aspects of cropping and color adjustments. For cropping, we considered variations in the box's center position and scale. For color transformations, we varied parameters such as brightness, contrast, saturation, and hue.
We employed UMAP visualizations to represent these transformations in the transformation representation space, as shown in Figure A3 in the rebuttal PDF. The results reveal that in the space, crops align according to the movement of the center position of the box along the x-axis, while color transformations align according to the degree of parameter adjustment. This arrangement suggests that the representations are sensitive to the specific parameters of the transformations.
We believe these findings support the view that transformation representations are organized in a manner that reflects their inherent properties, thereby capturing both inter- and intra-relationships effectively. This structured representation allows for a more nuanced understanding of transformation effects, supporting our hypothesis on transformation sensitivity and contributing to the broader discourse on representation learning.
---
**References**
1. Dangovski, Rumen, et al. "Equivariant contrastive learning.", ICLR, 2022.
2. Wang, Yifei, et al. "Residual relaxation for multi-view representation learning.", NIPS, 2021.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thanks
Comment: Thanks the authors for the rebuttal. I find the new results on linear probing, reproduced baseline of E-SSL, and intra-relationship to be promising and help strengthen this work. Therefore, I would like to increase my score to 6.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: We sincerely thank you for recognizing the efforts we made in addressing your concerns and for raising your rating. Your review has been instrumental in refining our paper, and we ensure that all relevant clarifications and insights will be fully incorporated into the revision. We warmly invite you to share any further suggestions. Your insights are precious to the continuous improvement of our paper. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for
Dear Reviewers and Area Chairs,
We thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback. We are glad to take various helpful reviewer comments to clarify and complete our work. Reviewers agreed on the originality, motivation, soundness, and significance of the paper. In here, we breifely recap the gloal of our paper and the proposed methods, **Self-supervised Transformation Learning(STL).**
Previous methods using transformation labels are divided into explicit equivariant learning, which learns equivariant transformations, and implicit equivariant learning, which focuses on transformation prediction, as shown in Figure A1 in rebuttal PDF. Our approach differs by learning transformation representations without transformation labels, enabling explicit equivariant learning. This method allows STL to effectively capture transformation-sensitive information without relying on predefined labels.
The primary goal of STL is learning better equivariant representation, which learns transformation-sensitive information. Transformations that induce similar semantic changes in the image space should correspondingly yield similar changes in the representation space. For instance, transformations affecting color information differ in their semantic impact compared to spatial transformations like cropping, which alter relative spatial information and proportions within an image.
Figures 1(a) and (b) of our paper illustrate the visualizations of learned equivariant transformation's functional weights for corresponding transformations. In these visualizations, previous approaches, such as EquiMod, treats transformations like crop and color changes as independent mappings. In contrast, STL demonstrates that color-related equivariant transformations, which share similar semantic changes, are learned with similar mappings in the functional space. This highlights STL's ability to capture the nuanced interdependencies between transformations more effectively. Together, the experimental results firmly demonstrate the represtntation ability of STL, which outperforms existing methods in 7 out of 11 classification tasks and shows superior average performance.
Our approach underscores the importance of recognizing these interdependencies to enhance semantic understanding within the representation space, thus improving the effectiveness of equivariant representation learning. Additionally, STL effectively learns intra-relationships within transformations (Figure A3 in the rebuttal PDF), and experiments show that the equivariant transformations learned by STL reflect actual transformations more accurately than existing methods, as demonstrated by equivariance metric measurements (Table 5 of our paper and Table A4 in the rebuttal PDF). Unlike previous methods, STL can leverage complex transformations such as AugMix that were previously inaccessible due to the lack of transformation labels (Table 1 of our paper).
Pdf: /pdf/c21d615be360b127e560fb63f0ffa2d4d081ebdd.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Looks Too Good To Be True: An Information-Theoretic Analysis of Hallucinations in Generative Restoration Models | Accept (poster) | Summary: This work aims to provide a theoretical analysis about the uncertainty-perception trade-off in generative models, corresponding to the fidelity-naturalness trade-off of the generated images. By defining the inherent uncertainty and formulating a uncertainty-perception （UP) function, the authors proves that the UP function is globally lower-bounded by the inherenet uncertainty. Additionally, they derive that perfect perceptual quality requires at least twice the inherent uncertainty. The proposed theoretical framework establish a relationship between uncertainty and MSE, resembling the well-known perception-distortion trade-off. All theoretical findings are empirically verified with image super-resolution algorithms.
Strengths: + This is a timely theoretical analysis about the hallucination phenomenon widely occurs in generative models.
+ The proposed theoretical framework helps practitioners better understand the tradeoff between uncertainty and perceptual quality, guiding them to tune the models in real-world safety-sensitive applications.
+ Detailed proofs are provided.
Weaknesses: - In my opinion, LPIPS, MSE, PSNR, SSIM are all full-reference image quality metrics that quantify the fidelity of the restorted images with respect to the ground-truths. Would it be more reasonable to adopt no-reference image quality metrics to quantify the perception ?
- The experiment part is relatively weak, where more quantitative examples are expected.
- The GT image is not presented in Fig. 5, making it difficult to assess the fidelity of the resorted results.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: I think it would be more convincing if the authors can provide more experimental results in real-world SR tasks.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for reading our manuscript and providing constructive feedback. Below, we respond to the specific points raised by the reviewer.
**Weaknesses**
1. While our initial analysis utilized full-reference metrics (LPIPS, MSE, PSNR, SSIM) due to their widespread acceptance, we acknowledge the reviewer's suggestion regarding no-reference metric to quantify perception. We have therefore performed new experiments on image inpainting using state-of-the-art perceptual measures LIQE and Q-ALIGN. The results, available in the 'Author Rebuttal' and accompanying PDF, reinforce our conclusions, demonstrating a clear link between perceptual quality and increased uncertainty. We will revise the manuscript to incorporate these findings.
2. We acknowledge the reviewer's critique regarding the experimental aspect of our manuscript. In response, we have expanded our evaluation to include latent diffusion models in the context of image inpainting, utilizing the SeeTrue** dataset. This dataset provides a diverse benchmark for image-text alignment, encompassing both real and synthetic text-image pairs. The new results, detailed in the 'Author Rebuttal' and the accompanying PDF, further validate our findings across different restoration tasks and under a wider range of conditions and data distributions.
** Yarom, M., Bitton, Y., Changpinyo, S., Aharoni, R., Herzig, J., Lang, O., Ofek, E. and Szpektor, I., “What you see is what you read? improving text-image alignment evaluation”. NeurIPS 2023.
3. We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point. We will add the ground truth image to the revised manuscript to provide a clearer reference point. Additionally, in response to the reviewer's feedback, we have included new visual results in the 'Author Rebuttal' and the accompanying PDF. These results more effectively illustrate the phenomenon of hallucination in image restoration, clearly demonstrating that the degree of hallucination increases as the perceptual quality of the restored image improves.
**Questions**
1. We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to include additional experimental results on real-world super-resolution tasks. While we acknowledge the value of such experiments in demonstrating the real-world applicability of our theoretical findings, time constraints prevented us from conducting them within the scope of this rebuttal. However, we believe that the expanded experiments presented in the 'Author Rebuttal' and accompanying PDF, which include a diverse dataset and the use of no-reference image quality metrics, significantly strengthen the empirical support for our theoretical framework.
We have included these results to demonstrate the robustness of our findings across different image restoration tasks and under a wider range of conditions and data distributions. We recognize that further validation on real-world SR tasks would be valuable, and we hope to incorporate such experiments in our future work.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Post-rebuttal
Comment: Thanks for the reponses, I raised my rating to 7.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer recognizing our contribution and raising the score accordingly. | Summary: This paper presents a theoretical perspective towards hallucinations and reveals a tradeoff between uncertainty and perception for image restoration problem. Additionally, the paper points out that uncertainly-perception tradeoff can induce the well-known perception-distortion tradeoff.
Strengths: 1. The paper provides a theoretical interpretation about the hallucinations problems of inverse problem, which may offer useful guidance for further practical research.
2. The writing is good and the paper is easy to follow.
3. Rich theoretical results about uncertainly-perception tradeoff and its relationship with perception-distortion tradeoff.
Weaknesses: 1. Typically, perception can be measured by criteria like LPIPS. Why can the conditional convergence (Eq 1) provide measurement for perception? Can the authors provide some intuitive explanation?
2. The theorem 2 is based on a strict assumption that $D_v$ is convex in its second argument. Can you proof this directly?
3. The visual results are not enough. The authors should provide some examples that contain hallucinations. It seems that in Figure 5, the details are realistic-looking details but not hallucinations.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: see weakness
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors discuss the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate the reviewer's time and effort in evaluating our manuscript. We have taken the feedback into consideration and responded to the specific points raised below.
**Weaknesses**
1. In our context, perception is defined as the probability $p_\text{success}$ of a human observer to successfully distinguish between a pair of natural and degraded images (drawn from $p_{X,Y}$) and a pair of restored and degraded images (drawn from $p_{\hat X, Y}$). From a Bayesian perspective, the optimal decision rule maximizing $p_\text{success}$ yields**:
$$p_\text{success}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}D_\text{TV}(p_{X,Y},p_{\hat X,Y})$$
where $D_\text{TV}(p_{X,Y},p_{\hat X,Y})$ is the total-variation (TV) distance.
When $D(p_{X,Y},p_{\hat X,Y})=0$, the two pairs are indistinguishable ($p_\text{success}=0.5$), implying perfect perception quality. We generalize this beyond the total-variation distance to any conditional divergence, recognizing that the divergence that best relates to human perception remains an open question. However, computing divergences in high dimensions is challenging, leading to the use of practical alternatives like LPIPS. Following the reviewer’s comment we will include the above explanation in the revised manuscript.
** See section 2 in the following paper: Nielsen, F., 2013, August. Hypothesis testing, information divergence and computational geometry. In International Conference on Geometric Science of Information (pp. 241-248). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
2. While Theorem 2 assumes convexity of $D_v$ in its second argument, this is not a restrictive condition. In fact, most widely-used divergence functions, notably all $f$-divergences (such as KL divergence, total variation distance, Hellinger distance, and Chi-square divergence), exhibit this property. This broad applicability is further highlighted by the convexity of the Rényi divergence, used in our work, in its second argument, which we prove next.
The Renyi divergence with $r\geq 0, r\neq 1$ between two probabilities $p$ and $q$ is given by
$$D_r(p,q)=\frac{1}{r-1}\int p(x)^rq(x)^{1-r}dx.$$
Notice that the function $f(q)=\frac{1}{r-1}q^{1-r}$ is convex, therefore, for any $0\leq\lambda\leq 1$ and distributions $q_1$ and $q_2$ we have
\begin{align*}
D_r(p,\lambda q_1+(1-\lambda)q_2)
&=\frac{1}{r-1}\int p(x)^r(\lambda q_1(x)+(1-\lambda)q_2(x))^{1-r}dx \\\\
&=\int p(x)^r\frac{1}{r-1}(\lambda q_1(x)+(1-\lambda)q_2(x))^{1-r}dx \\\\
&\leq \int p(x)^r\frac{1}{r-1}\lambda q_1(x)^{1-r}+ \int p(x)^r\frac{1}{r-1}(1-\lambda) q_2(x)^{1-r} \\\\
&=\lambda\frac{1}{r-1} \int p(x)^rq_1(x)^{1-r}+(1-\lambda)\frac{1}{r-1} \int p(x)^rq_2(x)^{1-r} \\\\
&= \lambda D_r(p,q_1)+(1-\lambda)D_r(p,q_2),
\end{align*}
implying the Renyi divergence is convex.
Note that the proof above omits the case of $r=1$ for simplicity. For a comprehensive proof and further properties, see Theorem 12 in
Van Erven, T. and Harremos, P., 2014. Rényi divergence and Kullback-Leibler divergence. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 60(7), pp.3797-3820.
3. We acknowledge the reviewer's concerns regarding the visual results and agree with the suggestion to provide additional examples. To address this, we have conducted further experiments on image inpainting, with new visual results presented in the 'Author Rebuttal' and the accompanying PDF. These results clearly demonstrate the phenomenon of hallucination in image restoration, where the degree of hallucination increases with the improvement in the perceptual quality of the restoration algorithm.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: After Rebuttal
Comment: Thanks for the rebuttal. The authors address my questions. I strongly recommend the authors to add more visual results to illustrate the paper clearly. I raise the score to 6.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: We deeply value the reviewer's positive feedback and the subsequent score increase. | Summary: The paper employs information-theory tools to characterize a tradeoff between uncertainty and perception in image restoration. They prove that high perceptual quality leads to increased uncertainty and the uncertainty-perception trade-off induces the distortion-perception trade-off. The theoretical results are illustrated with experiments in image super-resolution tasks.
Strengths: 1. The paper is well-written.
2. The authors provide clear theoretical and quantitative demonstrations.
Weaknesses: 1. The trade-off between perception and distortion has been discussed in some previous works. The authors should clarify their contribution especially compare to previous works[1,2].
2. This paper establishes the theoretical relationship between uncertainty and perception. However, the authors do not provide practical applications, e.g. how to use this relationship in restoration task.
Refs:
[1] The Perception-Distortion Tradeoff. CVPR, 2018.
[2] The Perception-Robustness Tradeoff in Deterministic Image Restoration. arXiv:2311.09253.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. The uncertainty-perception plane is based on SFID, PDL and LPIPS, the relationship is still exists on stronger vision-language IQA like LIQE[1], Q-ALIGN[2]?
2. Some recent SR methods[3,4] explore a better trade-off between perception and artifacts. How they perform in uncertainty-perception and uncertainty-distortion measurement?
Refs:
[1] Blind image quality assessment via vision-language correspondence: A multitask learning perspective. CVPR, 2023.
[2] Q-ALIGN: Teaching LMMs for Visual Scoring via Discrete Text-Defined Levels. arXiv:2312.17090.
[3] DeSRA: Detect and Delete the Artifacts of GAN-based Real-World Super-Resolution Models. ICML, 2023.
[4] Details or artifacts: A locally discriminative learning approach to realistic image super resolution. CVPR, 2022.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: See weakness
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their insightful comments and constructive feedback. Below we address in detail the major concerns raised by the reviewer.
**Weaknesses**
1. We acknowledge the extensive literature on the perception-distortion tradeoff, particularly the seminal work demonstrating the inherent conflict between these two factors [1]. This work quantifies perception using a theoretical divergence between true and estimated distributions, establishing a tradeoff valid for any distortion measure. More recent research [2] has introduced a tradeoff between perception and robustness in restoration algorithms, utilizing the Lipschitz constant as a measure of robustness and defining "joint perceptual quality" based on the Wasserstein distance between joint distributions. This study reveals that improving joint perception leads to increased sensitivity in algorithms.
While these works provide valuable insights into the relationship between perceptual quality, distortion, and robustness, crucial aspects for understanding generative models, our work offers a distinct contribution by focusing on the concept of uncertainty. Although related, uncertainty plays a different role than distortion in image restoration. Distortion metrics quantify the fidelity of the restored image to the ground truth, typically through error size. Uncertainty metrics, on the other hand, quantify the range of possible solutions, characterizing confidence in the restoration itself. This distinction is vital for decision-making, as high distortion may lead to incorrect choices, while high uncertainty implies low confidence, making it difficult to make any informed decision. Our work thus complements existing research by incorporating uncertainty into the broader discussion of image restoration quality.
In the revised manuscript, we will expand the discussion on these references [1, 2] to further emphasize our unique contribution and the points mentioned above.
2. We understand the reviewer's concerns regarding the practical implications of our work. Our primary goal is to raise awareness among developers in various fields about the inherent tradeoff between perception and uncertainty. This understanding allows them to prioritize safety and reliability alongside perceptual enhancements when integrating cutting-edge models into desired applications.
In practice, our proposed uncertainty-perception plane can serve as a valuable tool for evaluating potential restoration algorithms, facilitating the identification of methods that achieve the desired balance for specific applications. Moreover, the tractable uncertainty measure used in our experiments, or any differentiable alternative, can be incorporated into a loss function during the training of generative models like GANs or as an optimization objective to guide the reverse process in diffusion models. This approach enables the development of algorithms that explicitly optimize for the tradeoff between uncertainty and perception.
In the revised manuscript, we will expand the discussion on the practical implications of our work on the development and evaluation of image restoration models.
**Questions**
1. We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. While we initially used SFID, PDL, and LPIPS as common and widely accepted measures of perception, we acknowledge the significant progress in developing new metrics like LIQE and Q-ALIGN that better align with human perception. In response to the reviewer’s feedback, we have conducted additional experiments on image inpainting, measuring perception with LIQE and Q-ALIGN. The results, provided in the 'Author Rebuttal' and accompanying PDF, support our existing findings, showing that an increase in perceptual quality generally correlates with increased uncertainty. We will include these additional experiments in the revised manuscript.
2. We appreciate the reviewer highlighting the recent advancements in super-resolution (SR) methods that explore the trade-off between perception and artifacts [3, 4]. While time constraints prevented us from evaluating these specific methods within the rebuttal period, we are confident that our theoretical analysis remains valid regardless of the specific recovery algorithm. Our framework establishes a fundamental relationship between uncertainty and perception, independent of the algorithm's implementation details. Therefore, we anticipate that the mentioned SR methods would exhibit behavior consistent with our findings, demonstrating a similar relationship between uncertainty and perception. In the revised manuscript, we plan to include an evaluation of these recent SR methods to further validate and expand upon our theoretical framework.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: After Rebuttal
Comment: Thank you for the detailed response. I'll keep my score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback, particularly the request to incorporate non-reference perceptual measures, which has significantly strengthened our contribution. | Summary: Deep generative models have achieved remarkable performance in image restoration, resulting in generated images of high visual quality. However, these models often produce high-frequency details that are not consistent with the ground-truth images. Such hallucinations introduce uncertainty in the generated content and affect the reliability of model predictions. This paper defines the uncertainty of image restoration and the uncertainty-perception (UP) function, and reveals an uncertainly-perceptual trade-off. The paper theoretically analysis the relationship between the uncertainly-perceptual trade-off and the perceptual-distortion trade-off. The theoretical findings are validated through experiments with image super-resolution algorithms. Results show that no model can achieve both low uncertainty and high perceptual quality simultaneously.
Strengths: 1. This is a timely paper that analyses the hallucination of deep generative models. It proposes a novel insight of the phenomenon of hallucinations in generative models, a critical issue that affects the reliability of image restoration tasks.
2. The paper adopts the Bayesian framework to analyze the tradeoff between uncertainty and perception. This framework helps in quantifying the inherent uncertainty in generative models and establishes a theoretical foundation for understanding the limitations of these models.
3. The theoretical findings are empirically validated using single-image super-resolution algorithms. This strengthens the credibility of the theoretical analysis of the study.
4. Following the definition, a concrete example (e.g., example 1) is illustrated which can help the readers better understand the concept.
Weaknesses: 1. Experiments only provide results in image super-resolution, how about applying the proposed method on other restoration tasks?
2. The experiments primarily use synthesized datasets, such as BSD100. The paper would benefit from including experiments on more diverse and real-world datasets to validate the findings under different conditions and data distributions.
3. The paper relies on entropy and Rényi divergence for theoretical analysis. However, the practical estimation of high-dimensional entropy is challenging. Although the authors use a tractable upper bound for uncertainty, the practical estimation methods and their limitations are not thoroughly discussed
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. The paper [1] quantifies the structural uncertainty for image restoration. The intuitive explanation is better for readers to understand the inherent uncertainty mentioned in the paper.
2. The practical estimation for computing divergence and uncertainty should be elaborated, which is challenging for real-world images that are typically high-dimensional.
3. While the theoretical analysis is robust, the paper could benefit from more concrete examples of how the findings apply to real-world scenarios, like healthcare or autonomous systems.
[1] Belhasin O, Romano Y, Freedman D, Rivlin E, Elad M. Principal uncertainty quantification with spatial correlation for image restoration problems. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 2023 Dec 14.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The paper aims to quantify the potential limitation (e.g., hallucination) of generative models. At the end of the paper, it discusses the limitations of the proposed method.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate the time and effort the reviewer has dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Below we address in detail the major concerns raised by the reviewer.
**Weaknesses**
1-2. *Experiments* - We acknowledge the reviewer's concerns regarding the experiments on image super-resolution using the BSD100 dataset. While our primary focus is theoretical, we sought to validate our findings via numerical experiments. We initially chose super-resolution due to its status as a benchmark in image restoration, the wide availability of datasets and models, and its extensive study in related literature on the perception-distortion tradeoff. However, in response to the reviewer's criticism, we have expanded our experiments to include an evaluation of latent diffusion models in image inpainting using the SeeTrue* dataset, a diverse benchmark for image-text alignment containing both real and synthetic text-image pairs. These new results, detailed in the 'Author Rebuttal' and the accompanying PDF, align with our existing findings, showing their validity across different restoration tasks and under diverse conditions and data distributions.
*Yarom, M., Bitton, Y., Changpinyo, S., Aharoni, R., Herzig, J., Lang, O., Ofek, E. and Szpektor, I., “*What you see is what you read? improving text-image alignment evaluation*”. NeurIPS 2023.
3. Our work primarily focuses on the theoretical analysis of the relationship between uncertainty and perception, leveraging the properties of information-theoretic measures like entropy and divergence. However, we acknowledge the reviewer's valid concern regarding the challenges of estimating these statistics in high dimensions. In response, we have expanded our discussion on this topic in the revised manuscript to include a comprehensive review of practical estimation methods and their limitations. The following discussion, along with the accompanying full references, will be included in the revised manuscript:
Information theory offers a powerful framework for quantifying uncertainty and dependencies in data, handling multivariate and heterogeneous data types, and capturing complex patterns. However, its wider adoption has been limited by the challenge of estimating information-theoretic measures in high dimensions. The curse of dimensionality makes accurate density estimation infeasible [1, 2], leading many to rely on simpler second-order statistics.
The development of practical tools for estimating statistics in high-dimensional data remains an active area of research [3]. While initial approaches assumed exponential family distributions (e.g., Gaussian) for tractable calculations [4], their performance degrades for long-tailed distributions. Non-parametric methods like binning strategies, including KDE and kNN estimators [5, 6, 7], offer more flexibility but are data-dependent and sensitive to parameter choices. Alternative approaches involve ensemble estimation [8] or von Mises Expansions [9], the distributional analog of the Taylor expansion. Rotation-Based Iterative Gaussianization (RBIG) [10] presents a promising direction by transforming data into a multivariate Gaussian domain, simplifying density estimation. However, its application to images has been limited to small patches due to the computational challenges of learning rotations based on principal or independent component analysis. A recent extension addresses this by utilizing convolutional rotations, enabling efficient processing of entire images [11].
Our theoretical study investigates the relationship between uncertainty, perception, and distortion in image restoration through the lens of information theory. We uncover a novel uncertainty-perception tradeoff and its connection to the well-known distortion-perception tradeoff. While primarily theoretical, our analysis yields a practical measure of uncertainty (or entropy), used to visually and quantitatively illustrate our findings. This measure potentially can be replaced by the aforementioned estimators for broader applications.
**Questions**
1. Our work utilizes the Bayesian framework, treating recovery error as a random variable and employing entropy as a natural measure of uncertainty**. However, estimating entropy in high dimensions presents challenges. Over time, practical methods have emerged that rely on alternative definitions of uncertainty. One such method, proposed by Belhasin et al., quantifies uncertainty volume using principal components of the empirical posterior probability density function. We agree with the reviewer that this novel definition is intuitive and leads to a practical method for uncertainty quantification, which we briefly discuss in the current manuscript. In the revised version, we will expand our discussion and description of this approach, acknowledging its merits and relevance to our work.
** Cover, Thomas M.; Thomas, Joy A. (1991). *Elements of Information Theory*.
2. Please see the responses to weakness above. We have carefully considered your feedback and, in response, have expanded our discussion on advancements in the practical estimation of statistics in high dimensions.
3. Developers across various fields, including healthcare and autonomous systems, often integrate cutting-edge models into their applications, prioritizing state-of-the-art performance and perceptual quality. However, our work aims to highlight a crucial factor often overlooked: the inherent tradeoff between uncertainty and perception. By raising awareness of this tradeoff, we empower developers to make informed decisions that prioritize safety and reliability over purely perceptual enhancements. For instance, in healthcare, potential restoration algorithms can be evaluated by plotting them on the uncertainty-perception plane, facilitating the identification of methods that strike the optimal balance for specific clinical needs. In light of your feedback, we will address the points mentioned above in the revised manuscript.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your responses and comprehensive explanation. Your responses have addressed mu concerns, and I will decide to raise the score to WA.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: We are thankful for the reviewer's insightful comments and the resulting score change. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank the reviewers for their efforts in evaluating our manuscript, their overall positive feedback, and their constructive criticisms, which have significantly strengthened our contribution. We have provided detailed responses to each reviewer individually. In the following, we summarize the major revisions made in response to the collective feedback:
**Extended Experiments**
* Image Inpainting: In addition to our initial super-resolution experiments, we have conducted extensive new experiments on image inpainting. We specifically chose latent diffusion models for this task due to their state-of-the-art performance and growing popularity.
* Diverse Dataset: We utilized the SeeTrue* dataset, a benchmark known for its diverse range of real and synthetic text-image pairs. This allows us to assess the validity of our findings across different restoration tasks and under a broader spectrum of conditions and data distributions.
*Yarom, M., Bitton, Y., Changpinyo, S., Aharoni, R., Herzig, J., Lang, O., Ofek, E. and Szpektor, I., “What you see is what you read? improving text-image alignment evaluation”. NeurIPS 2023.
* No-Reference Metrics: We incorporated the state-of-the-art no-reference perceptual quality metrics LIQE and Q-ALIGN to quantify perception in these new experiments.
* Visual and Quantitative Results: We have included new visual and quantitative results in the attached PDF. These results support our existing findings, showing that an increase in perceptual quality generally correlates with increased uncertainty. Furthermore, the visual results more effectively illustrate the phenomenon of hallucination in image restoration, clearly demonstrating the increase in hallucination with improved perceptual quality.
**Extended Discussion and Theoretical Context**
* Practical Implications: We have expanded the discussion on the practical implications of our theoretical analysis, emphasizing how our findings can guide the development and evaluation of image restoration models, particularly in safety-critical applications.
* Estimation of High-Dimensional Statistics: We have provided a more comprehensive discussion on the challenges and advancements in estimating statistics like entropy and divergence in high dimensions. This includes an overview of practical estimators and their limitations, offering valuable insights for researchers and practitioners.
* Related Work: We have further clarified our unique contribution by expanding the discussion on related previous works and highlighting the distinct role that uncertainty plays in image restoration compared to distortion or robustness.
We are confident that these revisions address the reviewers' concerns and enhance the overall quality and impact of our work. We once again thank the reviewers for their valuable feedback and hope that our responses adequately address their questions and suggestions.
Pdf: /pdf/08e8590712bb654967a825f5835bfa1ddf8717d8.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Pin-Tuning: Parameter-Efficient In-Context Tuning for Few-Shot Molecular Property Prediction | Accept (poster) | Summary: This work introduce a new system for the FSMPP tasks, which includes: context adapter in GNN, context graph, and weight consolidation. With these three techniques, the Pin-Tuning method achieved promising results on many FSMPP benchmarks.
Strengths: - FSMPP tasks are important and have grate research value.
- The Pin-Tuning system is carefully designed and evaluated.
Weaknesses: - The adapter based parameter efficient tunning have already been used in many tasks.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - Why different strategies are used for embedding layers and encoder layers? What will be the results for (a) finetune encoder layers with weight constraint, and (b) freeze embedding layers and add adapters to them?
- According to Table 3, the simplest weight consolidation method (i.e., IM) is the best. In this case, does the BWC theory really required as it is just L2 penalty on the changed parameters?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Responses to Reviewer nYSV
We thank the reviewer for your constructive feedback. Please find detailed responses below.
> `W1` The novelty of our MP-Adapter for parameter efficient tunning.
Based on your valuable feedback, we have provided a detailed description in the `Global Response` to clarify the specific design and considerations of our MP-Adapter for molecular representation fine-tuning. Additionally, we conducted experiments to empirically demonstrate the advantage of our method. **We kindly suggest referring to our `Global Response` regarding this issue.**
> `Q1` The reasons for adopting different strategies for embedding layers and message passing layers, as well as the results of the opposite strategies.
Our goal is to perform parameter-efficient tuning on pre-trained molecular encoders to address the imbalance between the abundance of tunable parameters and the scarcity of labeled molecules.
- **For message passing layers, the number of parameters is disproportionately large compared to the training samples.** To mitigate this imbalance, we design a lightweight adapter targeted at the message passing layers, called MP-Adapter.
- **Unlike message-passing layers, embedding layers have a very small number of parameters.** Therefore, we treat embedding layers in a different way than message passing layers by not using adapters. Instead, we directly fine-tune the parameters of the embedding layers, but impose a constraint called Emb-BWC to limit the magnitude of parameter updates, preventing aggressive optimization and catastrophic forgetting.
Based on your constructive suggestions, we conducted experiments on the opposite design to further verify that the two strategies are suitable for their respective target components. Specifically, on the basis of our Pin-Tuning, we (Variant 1) changed the tuning strategy for the embedding layers to MP-Adapter, and (Variant 2) changed the tuning strategy for the message passing layers to Emb-BWC constraint.
| Model | Tuning Strategy for Embedding Layers | Tuning Strategy for Message Passing Layers | Tox21 | | SIDER | | MUV | | PCBA | |
|-|-|-|-|-| - | - | - | - | - | - |
| | | | 10-shot | 5-shot | 10-shot | 5-shot | 10-shot | 5-shot | 10-shot | 5-shot |
| Pin-Tuning (Ours) | Emb-BWC | MP-Adapter| 91.56 | 90.95 | 93.41 | 92.02 | 73.33 | 70.71 | 81.26 | 79.23 |
| Variant 1 | MP-Adapter | MP-Adapter | 91.05| 89.19| 90.38 | 89.81 | 72.99 | 70.50 | 80.93 | 79.79 |
|Variant 2| Emb-BWC|Emb-BWC|88.53|87.24|88.45|87.02|69.76|68.43|79.39|78.11|
**Changing the tuning strategy of any component to the opposite on the basis of Pin-Tuning results in degraded performance**, which indicates the suitability of the two tuning strategies for their respective target components. Furthermore, **selecting the appropriate tuning strategy for the message passing layers has a greater impact on performance**. Particularly on the MUV dataset, adapter-based parameter-efficient fine-tuning of the message passing layers is key to achieving success on this dataset. For the reasons behind the degraded performance of the variants, we provide the following insights:
- `Reasons why the Emb-BWC is not suitable for message passing layers`: First, the parameters of message passing layers are numerous and diverse in type. Therefore, applying the same weight constraint to numerous and diverse parameters cannot account for the differences in importance between parameters, making it less flexible than adapters. Second, in our method, adapters serve as carriers for introducing molecular context during fine-tuning, which cannot be achieved by directly updating the parameters. **Overall, the Emb-BWC constraint is not flexible enough for tuning modules with a large number of parameters and cannot introduce additional molecular context information.**
- `Reasons why the MP-Adapter is not suitable for embedding layers`: The embedding layers function as lookup tables that map raw features into vectorized features, and they inherently have a small number of parameters. The advantage of adapters lies in their ability to perform parameter-efficient tuning. However, for the embedding layers, the number of parameters to be tuned is comparable whether directly updating the embedding layers or updating them through an adapter. **Overall, adapters are more suitable for modules with a large number of parameters, rather than for modules like the embedding layers with relatively few parameters.**
> `Q2` Given that the simplest weight consolidation method (i.e., IM) is the best, does the BWC theory really required as it is just L2 penalty on the changed parameters?
Although the simplest identity matrix approximation of Emb-BWC achieved the best results, we also obtained the following important observations from this set of experiments. **These observations reveal the intrinsic nature of the importance of parameters in pre-training and fine-tuning in molecular property prediction tasks, and can provide guidance on how to effectively fine-tune these parameters.**
- Since the empirical results with three types of Emb-BWC regularizers are better than those without any regularizer, it indicates that imposing importance constraints on the parameters is beneficial for fine-tuning molecular representations.
- The principle of the BWC theory is to measure the importance of parameters during pre-training and use this importance to constrain the fine-tuning process. This approach helps in preserving the knowledge acquired during pre-training by preventing significant changes to the important parameters during fine-tuning. It is observed that the more relaxed the Emb-BWC constraint, the better the fine-tuning performance. The explanation is that the important parameters in pre-training and the parameters that need to be retained during fine-tuning do not completely overlap, and some mechanisms of message passing require considerable updates during the fine-tuning process.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thank you & Looking forward to your reply!
Comment: Dear reviewer nYSV,
Thank you so much for your comments!
We have provided a detailed clarification on the novelty of our MP-Adapter and conducted additional experiments on the tuning strategies for embedding layers and message passing layers. As the discussion period is drawing to a close with only a few hours remaining, we eagerly anticipate your response, which holds great significance for us.
Best regards,
Authors
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.2:
Title: Thank you & Looking forward to your reply!
Comment: Dear reviewer nYSV,
Thank you so much for your comments. As the discussion period is drawing to a close, we eagerly anticipate your response, which holds great significance for us. Could we kindly know if our rebuttal has addressed your concerns?
Best regards,
Authors
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Thank you & Looking forward to your reply
Comment: Thank you very much for your precious time and valuable comments. We hope our responses have addressed your concerns. Please let us know if you have any further questions. We are happy to discuss them further. Thank you.
Best regards,
Authors | Summary: This paper proposes Pin-Tuning, a parameter-efficient in-context tuning method for few-shot molecular property prediction (FSMPP), mitigating the parameter-data imbalance and enhancing the contextual perceptiveness of pre-trained molecular encoders. This method treats the embedding layers and message passing layers in the pre-trained molecular encoder separately, based on specific reasons why they could not be effectively fine-tuned before. This includes a series of Bayesian weight consolidation constraints for the embedding layers and the bottleneck adapters for the message passing layers. Additionally, molecular context is introduced into the adapter modules to enable contextual perceptiveness. Experiments show that the proposed method effectively improves few-shot performances across a range of benchmark datasets.
Strengths: 1. The motivation is convincingly derived from observations in the pilot experiment in Figure 1, indicating the necessity to design a more effective tuning method for few-shot molecular tasks.
2. The authors design different tuning methods for the embedding layer and the message passing layer in the pre-trained molecular encoder to accommodate their different parameter scales and parameter forms.
3. The proposed Emb-EWC constraint is derived based on Bayesian learning theory, and the authors provide intuitive explanations for each approximation choice to make them easier to understand.
Weaknesses: 1. It is recommended to add details about the pilot experiment in Figure 1, such as the featurization and the specific architectures of different models, and whether the pre-training strategies are consistent.
2. Table 4 only reports the "total size of the molecular encoder." Considering that some parameters are frozen in your method, you could add a row for the "size of the part that needs to be tuned". This would be helpful to make the advantages of your method clearer.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: 1. What are the details of the pilot experiment in Figure 1? Including the featurization, the model architecture, and the pre-training strategy of each model. More details are needed to assess the fairness of the experiment and to strengthen the persuasiveness of your claims.
2. Does $\mathcal{L}_{update}$ in Figure 2(d) refer to $\mathcal{L}_{Emb-BWC}$ in Section 4.1.2? The content in the figure should be consistent with the text.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Responses to Reviewer u7hY
We thank the reviewer for your constructive feedback. Please find detailed responses below.
> `W1` `Q1` Add details on pilot experiment in Figure 1.
Thank you very much for your reply. We apologize for the lack of details about the pilot experiment due to the length limit of the paper. We further supplement the details of the comparison of GIN-Mol [1], CMPNN [2], and Graphormer [3] as follows.
- `Featurization`: To ensure a fair comparison with existing methods for few-shot molecular property prediction (FSMPP), we employed the same featurization approach as them. Following prior works of molecular representation learning [1] and few-shot molecular property prediction [4], we used two atomic features (`atomic number` and `chiral tag`) and two bond features (`bond type` and `bond direction`).
- `Architecture Choice`: GIN-Mol is a GIN tailored to molecules, proposed in Pre-GNN [1]. This molecular GIN has become a representative encoder in molecular pretraining, which is equipped with multiple bond embedding layers and introduces bond features into message passing. **The standard 5-layer Mol-GIN is adopted**. To facilitate interaction between node and directed edge information, CMPNN introduces a node-edge message communication module and offers multiple architectural options. We selected the **multilayer perception (MLP) to implement the message communication module**, since experiments with CMPNN have demonstrated that this architecture performs best. For Graphormer, we adopted the standard architecture based on multi-head attention, **using node degrees, shortest distances between nodes, and edge types to construct the position encoding**.
- `Hyperparameters`: We adopted the hyperparameters provided by Mol-GIN, CMPNN and Graphormer. Primarily, the size of the hidden dimension is 300 and the number of encoding layers is 5. For Graphormer, the number of heads is set to 8, and the dropout rate for attention is 0.1.
- `Pre-training and Adaptation Strategy`: To ensure a fair comparison, we followed prior FSMPP methods that use a pre-trained GIN as the molecular encoder. We pre-trained GIN-Mol, CMPNN, and Graphormer **with both the supervised task and the `Context Prediction` self-supervised task** [1], then adapted them to the FSMPP task through fine-tuning.
> `W2` Make a comparison in terms of tunable parameter size in Table 4.
Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your suggestion to provide additional details in Table 4 regarding the size of the tunable part of the model. In response to your comment, we have added a new row to Table 4 that specifies the size of the parameters tuned in our method, thereby better illustrating the advantages of our approach. The revised Table 4 is shown below, and is also provided in the `Global Response` PDF.
|| GS-Meta | Ours|
| - | - | - |
| Size of Molecular Encoder | 1.86M | 1.86M |
| Size of MP-Adapter | - | 0.21M |
| Size of Context Encoder | 0.62M | 0.62M |
| Size of Classifier | 0.18M | 0.27M |
| Size of Total Model | 2.66M | 2.96M |
| **Size of Tunable Part of the Model** | **2.66M** | **1.10M** |
> `Q2` Inconsistency in the notion of the Emb--BWC regularizer between Figure 2 and Section 4.1.2.
Yes, $\mathcal{L}\_{update}$ in Figure 2 refers to $\mathcal{L}\_{Emb-BWC}$. Thank you for pointing out this mistake and helping us improve the clarity of the paper. We have revised this figure in the Global Response PDF.
**References**
[1] Strategies for Pre-training Graph Neural Networks. ICLR 2020
[2] Communicative Representation Learning on Attributed Molecular Graphs. IJCAI 2020
[3] Do Transformers Really Perform Bad for Graph Representation? NeurIPS 2021
[4] Property-Aware Relation Networks for Few-Shot Molecular Property Prediction. NeurIPS 2021
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Thank you & Looking forward to your reply
Comment: Thank you very much for your precious time and valuable comments. We hope our responses have addressed your concerns. Please let us know if you have any further questions. We are happy to discuss them further. Thank you.
Best regards,
Authors
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thanks for your efforts in the rebuttal. The rebuttal addressed my concerns. The additional details regarding the pilot experiment demonstrate that the comparison is fair and reasonable, making the motivation more convincing. Moreover, the revised table and figure improve the clarity of the paper. I have also read the comments from other reviewers and all discussions, and I think this paper presents a promising approach for the community. Therefore, I have decided to raise my score and lean towards acceptance.
---
Reply to Comment 2.1.1:
Title: Thank you!
Comment: Thank you very much for your response! We are very glad that we have addressed your concerns. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask and we would be more than delighted to answer.
Best regards,
Authors | Summary: The authors propose a strategy for few-shot drug discovery scenarios. The authors propose to fine-tune representations retrieved from encoder layers with adapters. In addition to the initial representations from the message passing layers, the adapters are provided with property representations and "context-aware" molecule representations to improve the initial representations. Both the property representations and the "context-aware" molecule representations stem from a context encoder. The context encoder creates learned molecule and property representations by relating the input molecule representations and the current few shot task, i.e. the property with other molecules and other already seen properties. The authors evaluate their approach in several datasets and include an ablation study.
Strengths: **Originality**:
- **(S-O)**: The Context encoder contains novelty. Jointly learning task and molecule representations with GNNs and updating molecule representation based on relationships between them is novel (also see (S-Q2)).
**Quality**:
- **(S-Q1)**: The model shows strong performance for the chosen experimental setup. In the main experiment (Table 1) the authors include error bars and therefore follow best practices of comparing drug discovery models.
- **(S-Q2)**: With their novel strategy to include in-context information, i.e. task information, the authors found a way to use label information of query and support set molecules present in the training set. This seems promising and has not been done before (S-O). E.g., compare [1] in which molecule representations are updated being aware of training molecules but not-aware of their training labels.
**Clarity**:
- **(S-C): Chapter 4 introduces very well the goal of this work. Taking into account all three textual descriptions formulas and Figure 2, the proposed method and its components become clear.
**Significance**:
- **(S-S1)**: The novel Context Encoder is relevant for the community (see (S-Q2)).
- **(S-S2)**: For the chosen experimental setup, the author's approach outperforms chosen baseline methods.
[1] Schimunek, Johannes, et al. "Context-enriched molecule representations improve few-shot drug discovery." The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations.
Weaknesses: **Originality**:
- **(W-O1)**: Using adapters to efficiently fine-tune models is not novel. The core idea is to efficiently fine-tune a layer by adding another learnable component with less parameters. Instead of changing the model layer itself, the new component learns to modify the outcome of the model layer. This has already been done in few-shot drug discovery [2].
- **(W-O2)**: In-context fine-tuning in the sense of adapting molecular representations to the few-shot task is not novel and has been done e.g. here [1, 3] .
**Quality**:
- **(W-Q1)**: The authors missed to include the SOTA benchmark for few-shot drug discovery FS-Mol.
- **(W-Q2)**: The authors missed that in-context fine-tuning (W-O2) and efficient adapter-like fine-tuning (W-O1) has already been applied to few-shot drug discovery.
- **(W-Q3)**: Missing error bars for Figure 1, Table 2, Figure 4, and Figure 5
**Significance**:
- **(W-S1)**: The significance of the experimental section is diminished because the SOTA benchmark for few-shot drug discovery is missing (see (W-Q1))
- **(W-S2)**: The significance of the proposed method is diminished because of (W-Q2). Being aware of the ideas which have already been applied to few-shot drug discovery would have allowed to put the context encoder into the focus of this work. The ablation study indicates that this module is important. Still in the current version of the paper, this novel piece of architecture remains underexplored.
**Clarity**:
- **(W-C1)**: Because of (W-S2, W-Q2) it remains unclear which parts of the proposed method have been tested in related work and which parts are novel. The authors might think about changing the main story line of their paper by focusing on their training label aware-fine-tuning procedure.
- **(W-C2)**: The procedure which happens inside the context encoder is not displayed well in Figure 2. Since this is a central part, this should be improved.
- **(W-C3)**: English editing is required
- **(W-C4)**: The mathematical notation and formulas seem cluttered and inconsistent. E.g., in 3.2. a molecular encoder is denoted by $f(.)$ but the context encoder is denoted by ContextEncoder. Generally, the authors should stick to standard notation and avoid "full-word notation" in formulas.
[2] Adler, Thomas, et al. "Cross-domain few-shot learning by representation fusion." (2020).\
[3] Altae-Tran, Han, et al. "Low data drug discovery with one-shot learning." ACS central science 3.4 (2017): 283-293.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: -
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Limitations have been addressed in the appendix.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Responses to Reviewer W6tN (1/3)
We thank the reviewer for your constructive feedback. Please find detailed responses below.
> `W-O1` `W-Q2` The novelty of our adapter-based parameter-efficient tuning.
We greatly appreciate your comments. Indeed, there are several adapter-like methods used to fine-tune pre-trained models in various fields. Unlike other adapters, our MP-Adapter is specifically designed for molecular encoders based on graph neural networks (GNNs) that follow the message passing mechanism. Here, **we compare our MP-Adapter with two potentially similar methods to highlight the novelty of our approach**: (1) adapters used in natural language processing (NLP) for transformer-based language models, and (2) the representation fuser CHEF proposed in previous few-shot drug discovery work [1] designed for fully-connected deep neural networks (FCNs).
1. `The comparison between our MP-Adapter and adapters used in NLP`: This comparison has been provided in our `Global Response` to clarify the specific design and considerations of our MP-Adapter for molecular representation fine-tuning. Additionally, we conducted experiments to compare the performance of fine-tuning molecular encoders using NLP adapters and our MP-Adapter, empirically demonstrating the advantages of our method. **We kindly suggest referring to our `Global Response` regarding this issue.**
2. `The comparison between our MP-Adapter and the representation fuser CHEF [1]`: CHEF fuses representations from different layers by attaching a learnable learner after each frozen pre-trained layer and ensembling the outputs of all learners. A critical difference between CHEF and our MP-Adapter is that **in CHEF, the output of each learner is fed into the final fuser for ensembling rather than being fed to the next layer of the encoder**. Therefore, in the CHEF framework, updating the output of the previous layer through the added learner does not affect the output of subsequent layers. **This approach is only suitable for global encoding models, such as the FCNs used in the experiments evaluating CHEF, which take molecular fingerprints (ECFP6) as input [1].** However, the current state-of-the-art molecular encoders are based on GNNs and take molecular graphs as input. GNN-based molecular encoders follow a message passing mechanism to achieve localized neighborhood information aggregation. In this case, the interaction between different layers of the encoder is more important, and changes in the output of the previous layer will significantly affect the message passing of the next layer. Therefore, **passing the adapter's output to the next encoding layer as input, as our MP-Adapter does, is more appropriate for GNN-based molecular encoders.**
Overall, neither NLP adapters nor the representation fuser CHEF can be trivially used to fine-tune GNN-based molecular encoders. We have also summarized the comparison of them in the table below to clearly illustrate the advantages and novelty of our MP-Adapter:
| | Target Model | Target Component | Suitable for Localized Encoding Layer | Capable of Perceiving Molecular Context |
| -------------- | --------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------- |
| CHEF [1] | FCNs | Fully-connected Layer | No | No |
| NLP Adapter | Transformer-based Language Models | Multi-head Attention / Feed Forward Layer | Yes | No |
| Our MP-Adapter | GNN-based Molecular Encoders | Message Passing Layer | Yes | Yes |
> `W-O2` `W-Q2` Novelty of in-context fine-tuning.
Although some previous works have also mentioned the concept of `molecular context`, our work differs in the definition, encoding method, and perceiving method of molecular context.
- `Definition of molecular context`: In IterRefLSTM [2] and PAR [3], the context refers to the structural and property labels of support molecules concerning the target property, while in MHNfs [4], the context refers to molecules that are structurally similar to the given molecule among a large number of unlabeled molecules. Unlike these methods, **the molecular context in our approach refers to the label information of seen and unseen molecules in auxiliary properties, which are informative and more relevant to the target task**.
- `Encoding of molecular context`: Previous works [2,3,4] typically use LSTM or attention mechanisms to learn the correlations between molecules, often neglecting the interactive relationship between molecules and properties. **We represent the molecular context as a molecule-property bipartite graph and encode it using a GNN-based context encoder, which allows for more effective and robust learning of the relationships between molecules and properties.**
- `Perceiving of molecular context`: Previous works [2,3,4] combine non-contextual molecular representations with context representations to predict molecular properties. In this paradigm, the resulting molecular representations cannot perceive the molecular context information. **In our method, the molecular context is introduced into the fine-tuning process through the MP-Adapter, allowing the molecular encoder to be fine-tuned under the guidance of the context, thereby obtaining contextual molecular representations.**
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Rebuttal by Authors
Comment: # Responses to Reviewer W6tN (2/3)
> `W-Q1` `W-S1` Experiments on the FS-Mol benchmark.
Thank you for your constructive suggestions. We have added experimental results on the FS-Mol benchmark. Note that the data distribution of FS-Mol is significantly different from that of another import benchmark MoleculeNet:
1. FS-Mol only includes properties related to the biological activity of small molecules against protein targets, unlike MoleculeNet, which encompasses a variety of property types such as toxicity, solubility, blood-brain barrier penetration, and side effects.
2. FS-Mol contains over 5,000 tasks with 233,786 unique compounds, and 489,133 measurements have been conducted. Although FS-Mol covers a wide range of molecules and properties, the **number of molecules measured for each property is relatively small, and there is little overlap between the molecules covered by different properties**. Therefore, **it is difficult to provide effective context between different properties on the original FS-Mol dataset**.
To support our claim regarding the sparse context in FS-Mol, we conducted a statistical analysis of the distribution in the original FS-Mol dataset:
- The number of properties measured for each molecule
| Max | Min | Mean | 25th percentile | 50th percentile | 75th percentile | 90th percentile | 95th percentile |
| ---- | ---- | ---- | - | - | - | - | - |
| 602 | 1 | 1.94 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
- The number of molecules commonly measured between two properties
| Max | Min | Mean | 25th percentile | 50th percentile | 75th percentile | 90th percentile | 99th percentile |
| -- | ---- | ---- | - | - | - | - | - |
| 2230 | 0 | 0.79 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
Since the original FS-Mol is not suitable for encoding and perceiving molecule context based on labels, **we designed two evaluation settings**.
`Evaluation Setting 1`: **We evaluated our parameter-efficient tuning method under the standard FS-Mol evaluation setting, without considering molecular context.** Based on PAR [3], which is the state-of-the-art baseline model irrelevant to the context from auxiliary tasks, we tested the results of introducing MP-Adapter and Emb-BWC. We tested different support set sizes of 16, 32, and 64. We run 10 times with different seeds and report the average ΔAUPRC.
| | FS-Mol (16-shot) | FS-Mol (32-shot) | FS-Mol (64-shot) |
| - | - | - | - |
| PAR | 47.94±0.23 | 48.18±0.21 | 48.73±0.37 |
| PAR + MP-Adpater| 49.33±0.19 | 49.43±0.26 | 49.80±0.26 |
| PAR + Emb-BWC | 48.14±0.24 | 49.80±0.33| 51.01±0.48 |
| PAR + MP-Adapter + Emb-BWC | 49.76±0.16 | 49.96±0.13 | 50.14±0.27 |
`Evaluation Setting 2`: **To better evaluate the effectiveness of our context encoding and in-context tuning on the FS-Mol dataset, we selected two subsets of data from FS-Mol with dense context information to construct two sub-datasets and evaluated them using the standard N-way K-Shot setting.** The FS-Mol-6K dataset contains 15 properties and over 6,000 molecules, while the FS-Mol-24K dataset contains 128 properties and over 24,000 molecules. Experiments were conducted under 10-shot and 5-shot settings with 10 different seeds, using the average AUC-ROC score as the evaluation metric. These two constructed sub-datasets have been uploaded to our anonymous code repository.
| | FS-Mol-6k (10-shot) | FS-Mol-6k (5-shot) | FS-Mol-24K (10-shot) | FS-Mol-24K (5-shot) |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| PAR | 78.52±0.33 | 78.19±0.23| 63.43±0.41 | 62.25±0.28 |
| GS-Meta | 80.36±0.73 | 79.58±0.80 | 67.28±0.66 | 66.86±0.32 |
| Pin-Tuning (Ours) | 82.28±1.99 | 81.77±1.71 | 68.94±0.69| 68.02±0.93 |
From the evaluation results of the two settings, **our parameter-efficient tuning method outperforms the baseline methods on the FS-Mol benchmark, regardless of whether molecular context is considered.**
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Rebuttal by Authors
Comment: # Responses to Reviewer W6tN (3/3)
> `W-S2` `W-C1` The contribution of parameter-efficient tuning and context encoding.
In the above response, we have clarified the novelty of our parameter-efficient tuning and in-context tuning. Here, we further clarify their contributions to performance improvement. **Both parameter-efficient tuning and context encoding can contribute to performance improvement. Specifically, on the MUV dataset, fine-tuning the message passing layers with an adapter plays a decisive role, having a greater impact than context**, as observed from the experimental results in our `Global Response`. Therefore, the influence of parameter-efficient tuning and context encoding on performance improvement depends on the data distribution, and each may significantly contribute on different datasets.
> `W-C2` `W-C3` `W-C4` Suggestions for improving the quality and clarity of the presentation.
Thank you for your suggestions to improve the presentation of the paper. We have made the following efforts:
1. We have added a description of the context encoder in Figure 2. The revised Figure 2 is provided in the Global Response PDF.
2. We have performed language editing and proofreading to enhance the clarity and readability of the paper.
3. We have standardized the use of mathematical notation and formulas. We replaced notation like "$ContextEncoder(\cdot)$" with letter-based notation to make the usage more standard and consistent.
**References**
[1] Cross-Domain Few-Shot Learning by Representation Fusion. 2020
[2] Low Data Drug Discovery with One-Shot Learning. ACS Central Science 2017
[3] Property-Aware Relation Networks for Few-Shot Molecular Property Prediction. NeurIPS 2021
[4] Context-Enriched Molecule Representations Improve Few-Shot Drug Discovery. ICLR 2023
---
Rebuttal 4:
Title: Thank you & Looking forward to your reply
Comment: Thank you very much for your precious time and valuable comments. We hope our responses have addressed your concerns. Please let us know if you have any further questions. We are happy to discuss them further. Thank you.
Best regards,
Authors
---
Rebuttal 5:
Title: Answer to the authors' rebuttal
Comment: ### Adapter / CHEF discussion:
- GNNs / MLPs:
> However, the current state-of-the-art molecular encoders are based on GNNs and take molecular graphs as input.
This is a minor point but still worth mentioning: I'd disagree here if it was meant in the way that GNNs are SOTA and MLPs are not. As far as I know, generally and merged across multiple bioactivity datasets, both can be considered SOTA. Also see [1] which combine GNNs with MLPs to reach SOTA performance.
- CHEF for GNNs:
> This approach is only suitable for global encoding models, such as the FCNs used in the experiments evaluating CHEF, which take molecular fingerprints (ECFP6) as input
I do think CHEF suits well for GNNs. The core idea of CHEF is to use both low-level and higher-level features for domain adaptation. This fits very well with GNNs, as representations retrieved from very early layers can be interpreted as very local features (i.e. a low-level feature), while representations from later layers capter larger parts of the molecular graph (i.e. a higher-level feature).
- This is why CHEF can be used to fine-tune GNN-based molecular encoders
> neither NLP adapters nor the representation fuser CHEF can be trivially used to fine-tune GNN-based molecular encoders.
- Novelty:
The way label information is included is novel. Also, I appreciate the authors' reasoning that the model might benefit from feeding the adapter's output into the next layer. However, the authors missed to include experiments which show that their claim really holds.
### Context discussion:
I appreciate the authors' discussion here and I mostly agree. (The MHNfs' representations could be considered as contextual molecular representations also because the enrichment step is analogous to a LLM which uses information from a large context-window to update token representations). The authors' main contribution is their context-guided fine-tuning, while context means both structural and label information. This is valuable to the community. However, both the quality of the manuscript as well as the value for the community heavily depend on an extensive discussion about similarities and differences in how different approaches use context. Reading answer 3/3, I am not convinced the authors addressed this enough in their current version of the manuscript.
### FS-Mol experiment:
- An experiment with support set size of 16 is not a 16-shot experiment. A support set size of 16 means that the total number of available labeled samples for tasks during inference is 16, e.g. 6 actives and 10 inactives. For the FS-Mol benchmark experiment the support set is created using a stratified split, compare [2].
- The reported $\Delta$AUPRC values are very high. Recently published SOTA methods are typically reported with performance values between 0.2 and 0.3 (*) for the support set sizes 16 and 32. Considering that a random classifier achieves AUCPR values around 0.5, the reported AUCPR values indicate close-to-perfect classifiers. Given this significant performance gap, and considering that PAR has already been evaluated on FS-Mol with $\sim\Delta$AUPRC 0.17 [3], an explanation of why the evaluated models performed so well in the included experiment would be valuable.
### Summary:
I appreciate the work the authors put into the rebuttal, I see the potential of this work, and I generally would evaluate this work to be interesting for the community. However, I also think this manuscript would benefit from another review round (see adapter discussion, context discussion, and FS-Mol discussion) since some improvements still seem crucial to eventually end with a manuscript of high quality. For this reason, I believe it is too early to publish this work at this conference, and I therefore stick to my initial rating.
[1] Yang, Kevin, et al. "Analyzing learned molecular representations for property prediction." Journal of chemical information and modeling 59.8 (2019): 3370-3388.
[2] Stanley, Megan, et al. "Fs-mol: A few-shot learning dataset of molecules." Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2). 2021.
[3] Context-Enriched Molecule Representations Improve Few-Shot Drug Discovery. ICLR 2023
---
Rebuttal Comment 5.1:
Title: Response to the reviewer's comments (1/2)
Comment: Dear review W6tN,
We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful response to our rebuttal and the valuable feedback you have provided. Your insights are incredibly helpful in enhancing the quality of our paper. We hope to address each of your remaining concerns point by point below.
### Adapter / CHEF discussion:
> Both GNNs and MLPs can be considered SOTA.
Thank you very much for your insightful comments. We completely agree with your perspective. Both GNNs and MLPs are highly effective for encoding molecular data. They each have significant advantages when dealing with molecular data characterized by topological graphs and molecular fingerprints, respectively, and can both be considered SOTA molecular encoders.
Additionally, the D-MPNN [1] you mentioned is indeed a very representative molecular encoder. In our paper, we discuss GIN-Mol [2] and CMPNN [3], which are simplified and enhanced versions of D-MPNN, respectively. The difference between them is that D-MPNN designs the edge-based message passing mechanism on the basis of GIN-Mol to prevent totters, while CMPNN strengthens the interaction between atoms and bonds based on D-MPNN. The commonality among these three models is that they all use the GNN backbone based on the Graph Isomorphism Network (GIN) [4], which is known for its high expressive power (generalizes the WL test). This high expressive power comes from the aggregation scheme based on MLPs, which is considered injective on multisets (see Theorem 3 and Corollary 6 in [4]). Therefore, we fully agree with your point that MLPs are SOTA models on molecular data, and incorporating MLPs as the aggregate function in GNNs endows GNNs with stronger expressive power.
We also apologize for the inappropriate expression in our initial rebuttal. What we intended to convey is that for many molecular encoders with GNN backbones, our MP-Adapter suits their message passing mechanisms by feeding the output of the adapters into the next encoding layer.
> CHEF suits well for GNNs and can be used to fine-tune GNN-based molecular encoders.
We greatly appreciate your insightful perspective that CHEF [5] is capable of aggregating low-level features from the shallow layers and higher-level features from the deeper layers of GNNs. Considering the suitability of CHEF for fine-tuning GNNs and its distinction from adapters, we have added experiments to fine-tune the GNN-based encoder using CHEF.
| | Tox21 | | SIDER | | MUV | | PCBA | |
| --------------------------------- | ------- | ------ | ------- | ------ | ------- | ------ | ------- | ------ |
| | 10-shot | 5-shot | 10-shot | 5-shot | 10-shot | 5-shot | 10-shot | 5-shot |
| No Adapter | 86.67 | 86.43 | 84.36 | 84.57 | 66.08 | 64.50 | 79.40 | 77.47 |
| **CHEF** | 87.24 | 87.18 | 84.81 | 84.52 | 69.30 | 67.65 | 79.69 | 77.20 |
| NLP Adapter | 87.94 | 87.80 | 85.18 | 84.79 | 71.86 | 69.58 | 79.75 | 78.35 |
| MP-Adapter | 90.17 | 89.59 | 92.06 | 91.43 | 72.37 | 71.65 | 80.74 | 78.51 |
| Pin-Tuning (MP-Adapter + Emb-BWC) | 91.56 | 90.95 | 93.41 | 92.02 | 73.33 | 70.71 | 81.26 | 79.23 |
On most datasets, CHEF performs comparably to standard NLP adapters, as both use lightweight trainable components to fine-tune the output of frozen pre-trained molecular encoder. Their performance lags behind that of our MP-Adapter because they do not integrate molecular context with the message passing process. We will include these experimental results and related discussions about CHEF in the paper.
**References**
[1] Analyzing Learned Molecular Representations for Property Prediction. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. 2019
[2] Strategies for Pre-training Graph Neural Networks. ICLR. 2020
[3] Communicative Representation Learning on Attributed Molecular Graphs. IJCAI. 2020
[4] How powerful are graph neural networks? ICLR. 2019
[5] Cross-Domain Few-Shot Learning by Representation Fusion. 2020
---
Rebuttal Comment 5.2:
Title: Response to the reviewer's comments (2/2)
Comment: ### Context discussion:
> An extensive discussion about similarities and differences in how different approaches use context.
Thank you for recognizing our work. We understand your concerns regarding the discussion on context modeling. It is indeed necessary to further expand the manuscript's discussion on this topic, providing a detailed analysis of the similarities and differences among different approaches, and clarifying the unique aspects and contributions of our approach. We will add the following independent paragraph to the related work section:
"**Context modeling in few-shot molecular property prediction.** Recent efforts have shifted towards leveraging the unique nature of molecular property prediction, specifically the many-to-many relationships between molecules and properties that arise from the multi-labeled nature of molecules, often referred to as the *molecular context*. IterRefLSTM considers the structures and property labels of seen molecules with respect to the target property during prediction. PAR initially connects similar molecules for the target property using a homogeneous context graph. MHNfs introduces a large-scale external molecular library as context to augment the limited known information. However, the contexts constructed in these approaches are not informative enough, as they neglect the interactive relationship between molecules and properties. Unlike these methods, the molecular context in our approach includes the label information of both seen and unseen molecules in auxiliary properties. We represent the molecular context as a molecule-property bipartite graph and encode it using a GNN-based context encoder, which allows for effective and robust learning of the relationships between molecules and properties. Furthermore, the molecular context is introduced into the fine-tuning process through our MP-Adapter, enabling the molecular encoder to be fine-tuned under the guidance of the context, thereby obtaining contextual molecular representations."
We hope this addition will enhance the quality of the manuscript and clarify its value to the community.
### FS-Mol experiment:
> An experiment with support set size of 16 is not a 16-shot experiment.
Thank you for pointing out this discrepancy regarding the support set size. We apologize for the confusion caused by our mention of "16-shot" in our rebuttal. This was indeed a typo. In our experiments, we actually compared different support set sizes based on stratified sampling. Specifically, we followed the settings of MHNfs [6] and FS-Mol [7], where we conducted meta-training with a support set size of 64 and stratified sampling. For evaluation, we used support set sizes of 16, 32, 64, 128, and 256, also based on stratified sampling.
We have corrected this typo and fixed the previous mistakes in our experiments. Below, we provide the revised table with the correct experimental results.
> The reported $\Delta$AUPRC values are very high.
Thank you for pointing out this issue. Upon re-examining our previous experimental results, we realized that we reported AUPRC instead of $\Delta$AUPRC. Considering that the AUPRC of a random classifier on FS-Mol is around 0.46 (since FS-Mol is not completely class-balanced), the actual $\Delta$AUPRC of our previous results is approximately 0.03 to 0.05.
Given that these are very poor results, we carefully reviewed our experimental process. We found that the reason for the poor results was that we mistakenly used a model checkpoint saved early in the training process for evaluation. The complete training process consists of 10,000 epochs, but the evaluated model was saved around the 200th epoch. We have corrected this mistake and evaluated the fully trained model.
Using the correct model checkpoint and the correct $\Delta$AUPRC metric, we have re-evaluated our experimental results on the FS-Mol benchmark. Below, we provide the revised table with the correct experimental results:
|Support Set Size|16|32|64|128|256|
|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|PAR|0.1578±0.0336|0.1669±0.0261|0.1723±0.0305|0.1917±0.0641|0.1561±0.0266|
|PAR + MP-Adpater|**0.1728±0.0375**|0.1815±0.0253|0.1833±0.0289|0.1984±0.0638|0.1894±0.0266|
|PAR + Emb-BWC|0.1620±0.0291|0.1691±0.0228|0.1743±0.0297|0.1905±0.0644|0.1699±0.0239|
|PAR + MP-Adapter + Emb-BWC|0.1721±0.0292|**0.1827±0.0216**|**0.1893±0.0281**|**0.2049±0.0603**|**0.2041±0.0283**|
Combining the results in this table with the results from another setting in our rebuttal, our parameter-efficient tuning method demonstrates its effectiveness on the FS-Mol benchmark, regardless of whether molecular context is considered.
---
Thank you once again for your constructive comments and for helping us improve the quality and clarity of our work. We sincerely hope that our response can address your concerns.
**References**
[6] Context-Enriched Molecule Representations Improve Few-Shot Drug Discovery. ICLR 2023
[7] FS-Mol: A Few-Shot Learning Dataset of Molecules. NeurIPS 2021
---
Rebuttal 6:
Title: Reviewer's response to 2nd rebuttal
Comment: > What we intended to convey is that for many molecular encoders with GNN backbones, our MP-Adapter suits their message passing mechanisms
Understood!
> we have added experiments to fine-tune the GNN-based encoder using CHEF. [...] Their performance lags behind that of our MP-Adapter because they do not integrate molecular context
This improves the quality of the manuscript. The reasoning w.r.t. the molecular context makes sense.
> Context modeling in few-shot molecular property prediction
Thank you for showing this passage. This resolves my concerns about the context discussion.
> FS-Mol experiment:
- The performance values seem reasonable now.
- The authors are able to show that their approach helps to boost PAR
- I still think there are weaknesses in the FS-Mol experiment:
* PAR under-performs - compare performance reported in [6] with more suitable hyperparameters (differences are not that big though)
* All presented variants are outperformed by the Frequent Hitter model [6] which is a baseline which is not aware of any support set samples and simply learns average activity across tasks. Another backbone model - perhaps a GIN-encoder based ProtoNet or Neural Similarity Search version - might have been the better choice.
Overall, I'd evaluate this paper to be a borderline paper now. Since I think the authors' manuscript has improved a lot and since the presented way of guiding fine-tuning by including molecular context is interesting, I'd adapt my score and slightly vote for acceptance.
---
Rebuttal Comment 6.1:
Title: Thank you!
Comment: Thank you so much for your response! We are very pleased that we have addressed your concerns. Your constructive and insightful comments have greatly helped us improve the quality of the paper. Once again, we sincerely thank you for your comments and participation in the discussion!
Best regards,
Authors | Summary: This paper introduces a novel Pin-Tuning method. Focusing on improving the fine-tuning process of pre-trained molecular encoders, especially for the task of Few-Shot Molecular Property Prediction (FSMPP), Pin-Tuning skillfully balances the contradiction between the number of tunable parameters and the limited labeled molecular data, while reinforcing the encoder's context-awareness. The core of the approach is the introduction of MP-Adapter, a lightweight adapter for pre-trained message-passing layers, and Emb-BWC, a Bayesian weight consolidation scheme for pre-trained atom/key embedding layers. Experimental results show that Pin-Tuning exhibits excellent performance on public datasets, significantly improves the prediction performance in few-shot scenarios with fewer trainable parameters, and proves its effectiveness in the field of molecular attribute prediction.
Strengths: 1.The paper proposes Pin-Tuning methods, including MP-Adapter and Emb-BWC, which provide new solutions to the problem of fine-tuning pre-trained models in FSMPP tasks.
2.In the paper, it is proposed to integrate the context-aware capability into the adapter, which enhances the model's ability to perceive the molecular context and enables the model to be more effectively fine-tuned on few data samples.
3.The Pin-Tuning method proposed in the paper is evaluated on a public dataset, showing fewer trainable parameters and greater improvement in prediction performance, which demonstrates the effectiveness of the method.
Weaknesses: 1.The concept of Adapter has been widely studied and applied in the field of Natural Language Processing. In this paper, does MP-Adapter just take this concept over, or is there any design and optimization specific to molecular graphical neural networks (GNNs)? Is there any comparison with existing generalized frameworks for adapter networks?
2.The observation from the paper that the use of Identity matrix approximation works best in Emb-BWC seems to be a counterintuitive finding. This is because the Identity matrix approximation ignores possible correlations between parameters and assigns the same importance to each parameter. Is it true that correlations between parameters are less important in the molecular property prediction task than in other tasks? If so, does this reflect an intrinsic characteristic of molecular property prediction tasks?
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1.What does the a mean in Effect of weight of Emb-BWC regularizer λ in Sensitivity analysis? Is there a confusing typo here?
2.What are the advantages of the proposed MP-Adapter over existing adapter technology?
3.How to ensure the quality and reliability of the contextual information used in the paper?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Responses to Reviewer 1DKF
We thank the reviewer for your constructive feedback. Please find detailed responses below.
> `W1` `Q2` Compared to adapters in NLP, the specific design and advantages of the proposed MP-Adapter.
Based on your valuable feedback, we have provided a detailed description in the `Global Response` to clarify the specific design and considerations of our MP-Adapter for molecular representation fine-tuning. Additionally, we conducted experiments to compare the performance of fine-tuning molecular encoders using NLP adapters and our MP-Adapter, empirically demonstrating the advantages of our method. **We kindly suggest referring to our `Global Response` regarding this issue.**
> `W2` Discussion on the experimental observations of Emb-BWC.
Thank you for your insightful comments. This is a very meaningful question that deserves in-depth exploration. As we stated in Section 5.3, the results indicate that keeping pre-trained parameters to some extent can better utilize pre-trained knowledge, but the parameters worth keeping in fine-tuning and the important parameters in pre-training revealed by the Fisher information matrix are not completely consistent. Here, based on our experimental results, we provide a more in-depth discussion and our insights from the following two aspects:
1. `Importance of each parameter`: This involves two questions: `(a) Is it necessary to impose constraints on the importance of parameters?` `(b) What kind of importance assignment strategy is optimal for fine-tuning molecular representations?` For the first question, since the empirical results with three types of regularizers are better than those without any regularizer, it indicates that imposing importance constraints on the parameters is beneficial for fine-tuning molecular representations. For the second question, the observation is that the more relaxed the Emb-BWC constraint, the better the fine-tuning performance. The Emb-BWC constraint measures the importance of parameters in pre-training and uses this importance to constrain the fine-tuning process. **The explanation of this observation is that the important parameters in pre-training and the parameters that need to be retained during fine-tuning do not completely overlap, and some mechanisms of message passing require considerable updates during the fine-tuning process.**
2. `Correlation between different parameters`: Since the computation of the Hessian matrix in the original form of the Emb-BWC regularizer is intractable, we provide three diagonal approximation methods. Since all three approximation methods result in diagonal matrices, with non-zero values only on the main diagonal, they all assume that the contribution of each parameter update to the model performance is independent. In other words, **these three diagonal approximation methods imply that importance is assigned to each parameter independently, streamlining the correlations between parameters.** The off-diagonal values of the Hessian matrix can constrain the joint updates of parameters, but calculating these off-diagonal elements, whether through the original form or the approximated Fisher information matrix, is intractable due to the high-dimensional nature of the parameters. Therefore, **the better performance of the identity matrix approximation does not imply that the correlations between parameters are unimportant in molecular property prediction. Instead, it reflects that parameters which are not important during pre-training may have high importance during fine-tuning.**
> `Q1` Is $a$ a typo for the weight $\lambda$ of the Emb-BWC regularizer in Section 5.4?
Yes, the $a$ in the sensitivity analysis should be the regularization coefficient $\lambda$. This is a typo, and we greatly appreciate you pointing it out.
> `Q3` How to ensure the quality and reliability of the context information?
Since the molecular context is encoded based on the labels of the molecules in the target task and auxiliary tasks, **the accuracy and adequacy of these labels determine the quality and reliability of the contextual information**. When the required contextual labels are complete and accurately measured, the context is sufficiently reliable. However, the real situation is often not ideal, with some missing and noisy labels.
**The GNN-based context encoder we adopted has already mitigated the issues of missing and noisy labels to some extent by propagating and smoothing information on the molecule-property bipartite graph**, thereby obtaining context representations that are robust to missing and noisy labels.
To further improve the reliability of the context, **our potential solution is to rigorously measure and calibrate the uncertainty of the contextual labels**, such as measuring the entropy of the contextual label matrix. This could potentially further enhance the robustness of our method.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Thank you & Looking forward to your reply
Comment: Thank you very much for your precious time and valuable comments. We hope our responses have addressed your concerns. Please let us know if you have any further questions. We are happy to discuss them further. Thank you.
Best regards,
Authors
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thank you for your reply. Combined with the other comments and rebuttals, I maintain my initial rating.
---
Reply to Comment 2.1.1:
Title: Thank you!
Comment: Thank you very much for your response. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask and we would be more than delighted to answer.
Best regards,
Authors | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Global Response
We sincerely appreciate all the reviewers for your valuable feedback on our paper. In this global response, we aim to address the reviewers' concerns regarding the novelty and empirical advantages of our MP-Adapter. Specifically, we intend to answer the following questions:
>`The novelty of the MP-Adapter`: Considering that adapters have been widely used in natural language processing (NLP), what is the novelty of the MP-Adapter proposed in this paper for pre-trained message passing layers? In other words, what specific designs or considerations does the MP-Adapter have for molecular tasks and models?
>
>`The empirical advantage of the MP-Adapter`: Compared to using ordinary NLP adapters, what are the advantages in empirical performance when fine-tuning pre-trained molecular encoders with MP-Adapter?
The insertion positions and structure of our proposed MP-Adapter are tailored to molecular representation learning, taking into account the architecture of molecular encoders and the need for perceiving molecular context. Specifically, the differences between our MP-Adapter and the ordinary NLP adapters widely used in NLP are as follows:
1. **The position where the MP-Adapter is inserted into the pre-trained molecular encoder is determined by considering the overall architecture of the adapted molecular encoder and the target module.** In NLP, the adapted model are typically pre-trained transformer-based large language models. Whether it is an encoder-only, encoder-decoder, or the currently popular decoder-only language model backbone, the basic units are stacked transformer layers, which are the target for adaptation by NLP adapters. NLP adapters are usually inserted after the `multi-head attention` modules or `feed-forward` modules to fine-tune them parameter-efficiently, as these modules conduct the most critical operations in the transformer layers [1,2]. In molecular representation learning, the pre-trained molecular encoders that need to be adapted use graph neural networks (GNNs) as their model backbone. Molecular encoders follow the message passing mechanism, comprising `atom/bond embedding layers`, `message passing layers consisting of aggregation function and update function`, and the final `readout function`. The insertion positions of our MP-Adapter are specifically designed for the message passing mechanism of the GNNs. Since the update function in the message passing layer is the source of GNNs' high expressive power [3] and has the most complex parameters, the MP-Adapter is inserted after the update functions to adapt them.
2. **Our MP-Adapter takes both the output of the message passing layers and the encoded molecular context as inputs, thereby enabling fine-tuning under the guidance of the molecular context.** Unlike the adapters in NLP, our MP-Adapter not only achieves parameter-efficient fine-tuning of the pre-trained parameters but also incorporates the encoded molecular context as an additional input to the adapter, achieving in-context tuning. In Section 4.2, based on the significance of molecular context, we propose the method for encoding molecular context and incorporating it into the MP-Adapter. The initial Eq. 3 is updated to Eq. 7, reflecting the consideration of molecular context, which is also a special design specifically for fine-tuning molecular encoders.
We compared the impact of MP-Adapter and NLP Adapter on fine-tuning pre-trained molecular encoders, and the results are presented in the table below. The three models being compared are not equipped with the proposed Emb-BWC to ensure that the only difference lies in the choice of adapter. In the table, `No Adapter` represents the most state-of-the-art baseline method GS-Meta, `NLP Adapter` adds a vanilla NLP adapter after the message passing layers in GS-Meta, and `MP-Adapter` equips the message passing layers with our context-aware MP-Adapter, without our proposed Emb-EWC constraint. For each experiment, we run 10 times with different seeds and report the average ROC-AUC score.
| | Tox21 | | SIDER | | MUV | | PCBA | |
| --------------------------------- | ------- | ------ | ------- | ------ | ------- | ------ | ------- | ------ |
| | 10-shot | 5-shot | 10-shot | 5-shot | 10-shot | 5-shot | 10-shot | 5-shot |
| No Adapter | 86.67 | 86.43 | 84.36 | 84.57 | 66.08 | 64.50 | 79.40 | 77.47 |
| NLP Adapter | 87.94 | 87.80 | 85.18 | 84.79 | 71.86 | 69.58 | 79.75 | 78.35 |
| MP-Adapter | 90.17 | 89.59 | 92.06 | 91.43 | 72.37 | 71.65 | 80.74 | 78.51 |
| Pin-Tuning (MP-Adapter + Emb-BWC) | 91.56 | 90.95 | 93.41 | 92.02 | 73.33 | 70.71 | 81.26 | 79.23 |
From the results above, it can be observed that using the vanilla NLP Adapter can improve the fine-tuning performance in few-shot scenarios, thanks to the reduction in the number of tunable parameters and our decision on the appropriate insertion positions. Our MP-Adapter further introduces molecular context information, which is crucial for molecular property prediction, into the fine-tuning process, resulting in better performance.
**References**
[1] LLM-Adapters: An Adapter Family for Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning of Large Language Models. EMNLP 2023
[2] Efficient Large Language Models: A Survey. TMLR 2024
[3] How powerful are graph neural networks? ICLR 2019
Pdf: /pdf/c7fd46d32544209839c0bb3440b336e3f7915f6e.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Offline Oracle-Efficient Learning for Contextual MDPs via Layerwise Exploration-Exploitation Tradeoff | Accept (poster) | Summary: In this paper, the authors study the problem of learning stochastic contextual MDPs using a realizable and finite models class $\mathcal{M}$ accessed via an offline density estimation oracle, which have the guarantee of minimizing the expected error measured by the squared Hellinger distance. Under the assumption that the oracle is efficient, the presented algorithm is efficient in terms of both running time and oracle call complexity. It achieves a regret bound of $\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{H^7 S^4 A^3 T \log (|\mathcal{M}|/\delta)})$ where $T$ is the number of episodes, $H$ is the horizon, $S,A$ are the finite cardinalities of the state and action spaces, respectively.
In this bound, the dependency in $T, |\mathcal{M}|$ is optimal while the dependency in $H,S,A$ is non-optimal.
Their approach is a direct extension of the Inverse-Gap-Weighting (IGW) [Foster and Rakhlin (2020), Simchi-Levi and Xu (2021)] to CMDPs, where using the value function and policy cover instead of the immediate reward to define the approximated suboptimality gap. For the model approximation, they use an offline density estimation oracle (rather than a regression oracle used in precious works on CMAB).
The authors also show their method applies to the reward-free setting. This is possible as their approch applies strong exploration, which costs in high dependency in $H,S,A$.
Strengths: 1. This paper mainly discusses the question of deriving regret bounds for stochastic CMDPs using offline oracles which is an interesting open question in RL theory.
2. The proposed algorithm successfully extends IGW technique to derive rate-optimal regret bound for CMDPs. Due to the high exploration property of their method, the authors were able to show it also has well performance for the problem of rewards-free exploration.
Weaknesses: 1. In my opinion, the writing requires some improvements. For instance, the algorithm is hard to understand due to some definitions that appear after it (instead of before it). An intuitive explanation of the use in the trusted occupancy measures set is missing, the use of them to derive a multiplicative guarantee is not trivial and not well explained.
2. The authors focus on their logarithmic oracle complexity as their main novelty, whereas in CMDPs, as previous literature shows, oracle complexity of $O(T)$ is considered efficient and acceptable, and the focus should be on using the minimal assumptions regarding the oracle and function class.
3. In continuing to point 2, in this work the authors assume the oracle has a convergence guarantee w.r.t the expected squared Hellinger distance applied on CMDPs class directly, and in Appendix C.1 they provide an implementation using maximum likelihood estimation, which can be hard to optimize for many function classes. Also, throughout the paper, the oracle efficiency is not discussed at all, and no examples of implementations of it for specific easy classes such as linear functions, tabular MDPs, and more are not given. My main concern is that this oracle is not practical, where the truly interesting question in stochastic CMDPs is to derive regret bound using oracles that potentially can be implementable and efficient (at least for simple classes such as linear functions).
Moreover, the squared Hellinger distance has a strong relation to the log loss (as established by Foster et al. 2021), and any reference or use in that relation does not appear in this paper. Instead, the authors use an oracle that its efficiency is unclear and not discussed.
I would appreciate it if the authors would provide an explanation as to why they chose to use a convergence guarantee w.r.t the squared Hellinger distance rather than other convex loss functions (such as the log loss for instance), that clearly yields an efficient oracle for simple function classes such as linear functions.
4. Regarding the computational complexity - in each round the authors compute policy cover for each layer, state, and action. This has a significant cost that is completely ignored. I would expect that the authors will present their algorithms running time complexity, excluding the oracle's complexity.
5. There are recent, relevant works on CMDPs that are not mentioned in the related literature review. See [1,2,3,4] for references. I also think that a comparison with the results of [2,3,4] might be relevant.
[1] Contextual Markov Decision Processes. Hallak et al. (2015).
[2] Contextual Markov Decision Processes using Generalized Linear Models. Modi and Tewari. (2019).
[3] Efficient rate optimal regret for adversarial contextual MDPs using online function approximation. Levy et al. (2023).
[4] Eluder-based Regret for Stochastic Contextual MDPs. Levy et al. (2024).
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. In line 4 of Algorithm 1, the segment loop is unclear to me. Can you please explain what is used for? As I understand it, the segment loop is running over the CMDPs layers and hence should be inside the rounds loop.
2. The oracle guarantee in Definition 2.1 is w.r.t the predicted model $\hat{M}$ and the true model $M_\star$. It is unclear to me how it directly implies Lemma 3.2, unless the oracle is actually more powerful than described in definition 2.1 and assumed to optimize simultaneously the squared Hellinger distance of both a rewards function class and a dynamics function class.
If this is indeed the situation, it is unclear to me, as the rewards do not define a distribution, and the squared Hellinger distance is defined for distributions.
Also, in this case, it is unclear to me why the squared Hellinger distance is an appropriate loss for the rewards approximation. Previous works on CMAB (e.g., Simchi-Levi and Xu 2021, Foster and Rakhlin 2020) show that the least squares (that are less sensitive than the squared Hellinger distance in [0,1]) is an appropriate loss choice for the rewards approximation.
3. Please refer to the concerns regarding the oracle raised in weakness, points 2 and 4. Specifically, I would appreciate an explanation of why you chose this specific oracle and whether it can be implemented efficiently.
4. I do not understand how the authors derived the fully multiplicative lower bound over the trusted occupancy measures. As I understand it, there is a missing additive term. I would appreciate it if the authors could explain that point as if it does not hold true, the whole analysis is incorrect.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: 1. The regret bound is not tight in $H,S,A$.
2. The oracle might be inefficient.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: >> In my opinion, the writing requires some improvements. For instance, the algorithm is hard to understand due to some definitions that appear after it (instead of before it). An intuitive explanation of the use in the trusted occupancy measures set is missing, the use of them to derive a multiplicative guarantee is not trivial and not well explained.
Thanks for the suggestions! We deferred the definition due to its length, but we will add an informal definition upfront for clarity. At a very high level, the intuition behind the multiplicative guarantee is as follows: when estimating a Bernoulli variable, if the empirical mean is greater than O(1/sample size), then with high probability, the empirical mean can be upper bounded by a constant multiple of the true mean.
>> The authors focus on their logarithmic oracle complexity as their main novelty, whereas in CMDPs, as previous literature shows, oracle complexity of O(T) is considered efficient and acceptable, and the focus should be on using the minimal assumptions regarding the oracle and function class.
We respectfully disagree on this point. There are two significant advantages to using an oracle:
We would like to emphasize again the exponential difference between O(T) and O(\logT). With T known beforehand, the LOLIPOP algorithm achieves an oracle complexity of O(\log\log T). We believe this is a substantial improvement since the gap can be double exponential.
The second advantage is the type of oracle required. Previously, to achieve near-optimal regret, algorithms required an online oracle. This is disadvantageous since online oracles are less straightforward to implement and necessitate updating the prediction for each round, which can be costly in practice. The offline oracles that the LOLIPOP algorithm uses can be implemented by ERM on the log loss. This is beneficial in practice since regression is much better understood than online updates, and the learner can choose to update only when a sufficient amount of new data has been gathered.
Overall, we believe our algorithm is more practical.
>> In continuing to point 2, in this work the authors assume the oracle has a convergence guarantee w.r.t the expected squared Hellinger distance applied on CMDPs class directly, and in Appendix C.1 they provide an implementation using maximum likelihood estimation, which can be hard to optimize for many function classes. Also, throughout the paper, the oracle efficiency is not discussed at all, and no examples of implementations of it for specific easy classes such as linear functions, tabular MDPs, and more are not given. My main concern is that this oracle is not practical, where the truly interesting question in stochastic CMDPs is to derive regret bound using oracles that potentially can be implementable and efficient (at least for simple classes such as linear functions).
We thank the author for sharing their vision. Continuing our argument, the MLE oracle is essentially ERM on log loss, making it more implementable and efficient than the online oracles typically considered in the literature. Additionally, due to the “online-to-batch” conversion, any online oracle can be converted to an offline one.
We are happy to discuss further the efficiency of offline oracles versus online ones. However, we note that this topic is somewhat outside the scope of this paper, as the efficiency and implementation of MLE is a classical statistical issue [5] rather than a decision-making one.
Regarding linear functions, I am unsure what the reviewer means since we are focused on density estimation. The most popular class, logistic loss corresponding to the softmax distribution on states, is convex and thus allows for efficient implementation.
[5] Maximum likelihood estimation: Logic and practice, SR Eliason, 1993
>> Moreover, the squared Hellinger distance has a strong relation to the log loss (as established by Foster et al. 2021), and any reference or use in that relation does not appear in this paper. Instead, the authors use an oracle that its efficiency is unclear and not discussed. I would appreciate it if the authors would provide an explanation as to why they chose to use a convergence guarantee w.r.t the squared Hellinger distance rather than other convex loss functions (such as the log loss for instance), that clearly yields an efficient oracle for simple function classes such as linear functions.
The Hellinger distance has become quite standard in considerations related to MDP since Foster et al. (2021), as referenced by all the compared works. We are happy to add a citation to credit Foster et al. (2021). We chose the Hellinger distance for the same reason as the references: it can be effectively controlled through log-loss, specifically by MLE (log-loss regression), for our purpose.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Further Questions
Comment: I thank the authors for their rebuttal.
However, my concerns below have not been satisfied, and I would be happy if the authors could elaborate more.
1. Orcale:
* I wold be happy if the authors could provide an example for function class of MDPs as specified in definition 2.1 for which the oracle can be implemented efficiently.
2. Regarding Lemma 3.4.
I have not claimed there is a mistake, but rather wish to understand intuitivly how such a result is possible. I read the proof in the appendix, and it was hard to follow. For that reason, I could not point out any specific falut. It is very non-trivial and non-intuitive to derive a multiplicative lower bound over occupancy measures that holds w.p. 1 that is based over a gurantee that holds in expectation over funciton approximation. At least, I would expect to have a logarithmic term that follows from a martinagle-related concentation bound. Also, as the context is stochastic and the oracle gurantee is in expection over the contexts, the contditions in this lemma are non trivial. I would be happy to have the autors explanation to that point.
Best,
The reviewer
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Further Rebuttal
Comment: We thank the reviewer for his/her/their further clarification! It helps greatly for us to understand the questions!
>> I wold be happy if the authors could provide an example for function class of MDPs as specified in definition 2.1 for which the oracle can be implemented efficiently.
Regarding this question, we would like to progressively mention three points (a bit repetitive following our rebuttal, but bear with us):
1. Since any online estimation oracle can be transferred to an offline one efficiently, even if one is only in possession of an efficient online oracle, our result still improves the number of oracle calls from $O(T)$ to $O(\log T)$, which is already interesting.
2. Online estimation oracles for two examples are presented in [1], i.e., multinomial logit model and linear combination of MDPs. Following point 1, our algorithm improves on the number of oracle calls immediately.
3. For the two aforementioned examples, direct optimization methods (rather than the online optimization algorithm considered in [1]) on a batch can be applied to objective (5) in [1] since we only need offline guarantees. Since objective (5) is smooth and strongly convex, numerous efficient optimization methods are known and ready to apply.
[1] Contextual Markov Decision Processes using Generalized Linear Models, Aditya Modi, Ambuj Tewari.
>> Regarding Lemma 3.4. I have not claimed there is a mistake, but rather wish to understand intuitivly how such a result is possible. I read the proof in the appendix, and it was hard to follow. For that reason, I could not point out any specific falut. It is very non-trivial and non-intuitive to derive a multiplicative lower bound over occupancy measures that holds w.p. 1 that is based over a gurantee that holds in expectation over funciton approximation. At least, I would expect to have a logarithmic term that follows from a martinagle-related concentation bound.
>> Also, as the context is stochastic and the oracle gurantee is in expection over the contexts, the contditions in this lemma are non trivial. I would be happy to have the autors explanation to that point.
Thanks for your clarification! These are two great questions!
We answer the second question first. So notice the statement of Lemma 3.4 actually has an assumption on the context $c$ under consideration; that is, the multiplicative bounds are only true for contexts where the expected Hellinger distance is small given the context. For contexts where this assumption is not satisfied, in line 514, we bound the divergence in value functions by 1.
The first question is quite non-trivial, so we hope to provide enough intuition to convince you. Line 479 coincides with the concentration inequality, with the Hellinger distance being the additive term. The intuition here is that if the Hellinger distance is small, as required by the assumption in Lemma 3.4, say as small as $\log(M)/n$, then if we require Phat to be larger than $(H+1) \log(M)/n$, then we would have $Phat \leq (1+1/H)^2 P_\star$. And indeed, the trusted transitions are those larger ones. This argument serves only as intuition because we can not have a per-state-action pair control over the Hellinger distance even with the assumption in Lemma 3.4 due to the weighting from the occupancy measure. To address this issue, we developed a proof by contradiction from line 480 to line 488. This proof by contradiction is also non-trivial; we are happy to elaborate more to convince you, or we are happy to walk you through step-by-step at the poster if we get in.
Best regards,
Authors
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Rebuttal (continued 1)
Comment: >> Regarding the computational complexity - in each round the authors compute policy cover for each layer, state, and action. This has a significant cost that is completely ignored. I would expect that the authors will present their algorithms running time complexity, excluding the oracle's complexity.
We do mention the total computational costs right after our main result of Theorem 3.2 with a paragraph titled “Computational efficiency” in line 147: “Thus, the computational complexity is O(log T) oracle calls over T rounds, with an additional per-round cost of O(poly(H, S, A, log T)).” We also have mentioned right after Lemma 3.1 in line 185 that “The computation for the policy π ^{h(t),s,a}_{m(t),c_t} for any t, s, a can be computed in poly(H, S, A, log T) time by formulating it as a linear fractional programming problem. We defer the details to Appendix G.”
We also have an appendix G for detailed computation. We can try to emphasize these points more.
>> There are recent, relevant works on CMDPs that are not mentioned in the related literature review. See [1,2,3,4] for references. I also think that a comparison with the results of [2,3,4] might be relevant.
Thanks for reminding us. We have mentioned [1] in line 21, as it proposed the concept of CMDP. We thank the reviewer for bringing up [2, 3, 4]; we will add comparisons to them. In short, [2] are developed for the generalized linear model class, [3] requires an online oracle and needs O(T) oracle call, and the regret bound in [4] scales with eduler dimension of the model class.
>> In line 4 of Algorithm 1, the segment loop is unclear to me. Can you please explain what is used for? As I understand it, the segment loop is running over the CMDPs layers and hence should be inside the rounds loop.
The data collected for the h-th segment is used to estimate the model at the layer h. In each round of the h-th segment, the learner interacts with the environment with a full H-step interaction, generating a trajectory.
>> The oracle guarantee in Definition 2.1 is w.r.t the predicted model \hat{M} and the true model M_\star. It is unclear to me how it directly implies Lemma 3.2, unless the oracle is actually more powerful than described in definition 2.1 and assumed to optimize simultaneously the squared Hellinger distance of both a rewards function class and a dynamics function class. If this is indeed the situation, it is unclear to me, as the rewards do not define a distribution, and the squared Hellinger distance is defined for distributions. Also, in this case, it is unclear to me why the squared Hellinger distance is an appropriate loss for the rewards approximation. Previous works on CMAB (e.g., Simchi-Levi and Xu 2021, Foster and Rakhlin 2020) show that the least squares (that are less sensitive than the squared Hellinger distance in [0,1]) is an appropriate loss choice for the rewards approximation.
In our setting, we assume the reward to follow a distribution, line 82 “reward distribution” and line 95 “r_t\sim R”. Then, since the distribution of a trajectory includes the distribution of the reward, line 97 and line 98 “to denote the distribution of the trajectory c_1, π_1, s^1_1 , a^1_1 , r^1_1 , . . . , s^H_1 , a^H_1 , r^H_1”, the squared Hellinger distance between the two models will include the squared Hellinger distance between the reward distributions. And yes, the squared loss is less sensitive than the squared Hellinger distance in [0,1]. However, it is not our purpose to find the most accurate reward approximation but to illustrate how to deal with the main difficulty which is the uncertainty of the transition kernel. In fact, it is standard to transfer our proof replacing the Hellinger distance between the reward distributions to squared loss where the offline oracle for the reward function is replaced by a square loss regression guarantee. We are happy to include a remark on this fact.
In our setting, we assume the reward to follow a distribution, as stated in line 82 “reward distribution,” and line 95 “\(r_t \sim R\)”. Then, since the distribution of a trajectory includes the distribution of the reward, line 97 and line 98 “to denote the distribution of the trajectory \(c_1, \pi_1, s^1_1, a^1_1, r^1_1, \ldots, s^H_1, a^H_1, r^H_1\)”, the squared Hellinger distance between the two models will include the squared Hellinger distance between the reward distributions.
And yes, the squared loss is less sensitive than the squared Hellinger distance in [0,1]. However, it is not our purpose to find the most accurate reward approximation but to illustrate how to deal with the main difficulty, which is the uncertainty of the transition kernel. In fact, it is standard to transfer our proof, replacing the Hellinger distance between the reward distributions with squared loss. And replace the offline oracle with a square loss regression oracle for the reward function. We are happy to include a remark on this fact.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Rebuttal (continued 2)
Comment: >> Please refer to the concerns regarding the oracle raised in weakness, points 2 and 4. Specifically, I would appreciate an explanation of why you chose this specific oracle and whether it can be implemented efficiently.
Thanks for the question. Please refer to our rebuttal corresponding to points 2 and 4.
>> I do not understand how the authors derived the fully multiplicative lower bound over the trusted occupancy measures. As I understand it, there is a missing additive term. I would appreciate it if the authors could explain that point as if it does not hold true, the whole analysis is incorrect.
Could you please elaborate on your question? We are not sure we understand what you mean when you say we are missing an additive term. This is a serious accusation, so we ask you to reconsider and point out exactly where you believe the flaw is, if there is one. For a technical overview, please refer to our general rebuttal and the rebuttal to Reviewer 2.
---
Rebuttal 4:
Title: Further rebuttal
Comment: Regarding the first question:
We apologize for bringing up the discussion over the methods of [1]. You are right. They are not online oracle based algorithms. Let us rephrase the two points of interest:
1. Since any online estimation oracle can be transferred to an offline one efficiently, even if one is only in possession of an efficient online oracle, our result still improves the number of oracle calls from $O(T)$ to $O(\log T)$, which is already interesting.
2. For the multinomial logit model in [1], we claim there is an efficient implementation of an offline oracle using the following simple facts. Note that we know MLE is an offline oracle through our Appendix C. The MLE for the multinomial logit model suffices to solve an ERM on the log loss with the form for each $s,a$: $argmin_{W_{sa,1},...,W_{sa,S}} - \sum_{i=1}^n\log( \frac{\exp( W_{sa,s_i}^\top c_i ) }{\sum_{s'=1}^S \exp( W_{sa,s'}^\top c_i ) } ) $, where the loss function is convex.
Regarding Lemma 3.4:
The offline oracle is used as a black box. We do not intervene in its choice. It is only required to satisfy $E_{c \sim D, \pi \sim p(c)}\left[D_{\mathrm{H}}^2\left(\widehat{M}(\pi, c), M_{\star}(\pi, c)\right)\right] \leq \mathcal{E}_{\mathcal{M}, \delta}(n)$.
Lemma 3.4 states if the context $c$ in epoch $m$ satisfies for all $h$
$E_{\pi \sim p_m^h(c)} E^{M_{\star}, \pi, c}[D_{H}^2(P_m^h(s_1^h, a_1^h ; c), P_{\star}^h(s_1^h, a_1^h ; c))] \leq H / \gamma_m$, then the multiplicative bounds on the $Phat(\cdot ;c)\leq (1+1/H)^2 P_\star(\cdot ;c)$ holds for this specific context $c$.
We are not sure why any intervention in the choice of oracle is needed. Again, we are happy to elaborate. But I have the feeling that I am confusing you. Do you understand now why the additive term might be absorbed into a multiplicative guarantee? Or are you referring to some other additive term? In particular, we do not do a concentration on the distribution of contexts. Could you elaborate on your question again?
---
Rebuttal 5:
Comment: For clarification, we elaborate on the aforementioned intuition.
First, by the information theory inequality and some algebra such as AM-GM (line 477,478), we could have
$\hat{P}\leq (1+1/H)P_\star^h+(H+1)D_{H}^2(\hat{P},P_\star)$.
This inequality is from pure mathematical analysis and has nothing to do with oracle. Thus in order to have $\hat{P}\le(1+1/H)^2P_\star$, we need the Hellinger distance to be small to have this multiplicative bound.
In other words, if we have $D_{H}^2(\hat{P},P_\star)\le \frac{\log M}{n}$, then for all $\hat{P}$ such that $\hat{P}\ge(H+1)\log M|/n$, by the inequality above, we have $(H+1)\log M/n\le\hat{P}\le (1+1/H)P_\star+\log M/n$, thus $(1/H)(1+1/H)P_{*}\geq\log M/n$.
Plug this back to our inequality, we get $\hat{P}\le (1+1/H)P_\star+\log M/n\le (1+1/H)P_\star+(1/H)(1+1/H)P_\star=(1+1/H)^2P_\star$.
Therefore, our multiplicative bound holds. Here $M=|\mathcal{M}|$ is the model class complexity.
---
Rebuttal 6:
Comment: I thank the authors for their response.
Regarding 1.
To the best of my knowledge, the general formulation of online estimation oracles (as specified by Foster et al. 2021) implies an unclear (where refering to implementaion) oracle. This is the reason I insisted for an actual example. The multimonial model for linear compination of MDPs seems to satisfied that. I recommand the authors to state this example and more in the paper.
Regarding 2. I understnand that from the oracles gurantee you have a promise in expectation over the contexts and policy.
I unserstand that in the analysis you seperate the contexts set to context for which the assumptions of Lemma 3.4 holds and then prove the multuplicative lower bound (I do not fully understand how can you derive that bound without any concentation inequalities). Then, for the other contexts you bound the hellinger distance trivially by 1.
The thing I am still not convinced about is as follows.
Intuitivly, to derive non-trivial regret bound (even if it only holds in expectation over the contexts) you need the mass of the contexts for which the assumptions of Lemma 3.4 hold will be significent. How can you lower bound the probability that a context is suitable for Lemma 3.4? This probability dependes both on the distribution over the contexts and the oracle itself.
Otherwise, how you combine the two contexts set into one conclution regarding the regret?
Thank you in advence for the further clarifications.
---
Rebuttal Comment 6.1:
Comment: We thank the reviewer for the further clarification!
Regarding 1: We will make sure to include a more detailed discussion of the practical examples.
Regarding 2:
>> I unserstand that in the analysis you seperate the contexts set to context for which the assumptions of Lemma 3.4 holds and then prove the multuplicative lower bound (I do not fully understand how can you derive that bound without any concentation inequalities).
To illustrate why we don't need concentration, the inequality in line 479 concerning Hellinger distance holds by definition through arithmics (rather than conditioning on good events). In particular, a straigtforward arithmic intuition goes the following: For any $0\leq p,q\leq 1$, we have
$ p = (\sqrt{p} - \sqrt{q} + \sqrt{q})^2 = q +(\sqrt{p} - \sqrt{q} )^2 + 2 (\sqrt{p} - \sqrt{q} )\sqrt{q} \leq (1+1/H) q + (H+1)^2 (\sqrt{p} - \sqrt{q} )^2 $. The take $p = \hat{P}$ and $q=P_\star$, we will obtain $\hat{P}\leq (1+1/H)P_\star+(H+1)D_{H}^2(\hat{P},P_\star)$ with one more data processing inequality.
I am sorry I mentioned "Line 479 coincides with the concentration inequality". This is confusing, since mathematically, line 479 does not come from any concentration inequality.
Then, the clarification above will continue:
If we have $D_{H}^2(\hat{P},P_\star)\le \frac{\log M}{n}$ and $\hat{P}\ge(H+1)\log M|/n$, by the inequality above, we have $(H+1)\log M/n\le\hat{P}\le (1+1/H)P_\star+\log M/n$, thus $(1/H)(1+1/H)P_{*}\geq\log M/n$.
Plug this back to our inequality, we get $\hat{P}\le (1+1/H)P_\star+\log M/n\le (1+1/H)P_\star+(1/H)(1+1/H)P_\star=(1+1/H)^2P_\star$.
>> The thing I am still not convinced about is as follows. Intuitivly, to derive non-trivial regret bound (even if it only holds in expectation over the contexts) you need the mass of the contexts for which the assumptions of Lemma 3.4 hold will be significent. How can you lower bound the probability that a context is suitable for Lemma 3.4?
Thanks a lot for the clarification! This is very helpful!
So the aim for us is to show as in the first inequality in line 515: For any context $c$, whether or not the context satisfies the assumption in Lemma 3.4, the following inequality holds:
$ |\hat{V}(c) - V_\star(c)| \leq \frac{1}{20} \widehat{reg(c)} + 76 e\sqrt{H^6S^4A^3\cdot \cE_m} + \frac{2\gamma_m}{H} E_{\pi \sim p_m^h(c)} E^{M_{\star}, \pi, c}[D_{H}^2(P_m^h(s_1^h, a_1^h ; c), P_{\star}^h(s_1^h, a_1^h ; c))]$.
For the contexts that satisfy the assumption in Lemma 3.4, the multiplicative bounds apply, and we are good. If not then it is actually an easier case, since $\frac{2\gamma_m}{H} E_{\pi \sim p_m^h(c)} E^{M_{\star}, \pi, c}[D_{H}^2(P_m^h(s_1^h, a_1^h ; c), P_{\star}^h(s_1^h, a_1^h ; c))] \geq 1 \geq |\hat{V}(c) - V_\star(c)|$ as stated in line 514.
The second inequality in line 515 is a typo (and we apologize if this causes the confusion). We actually need to take expectation immediately in order to bound $\frac{2\gamma_m}{H} E_{c\sim D} E_{\pi \sim p_m^h(c)} E^{M_{\star}, \pi, c}[D_{H}^2(P_m^h(s_1^h, a_1^h ; c), P_{\star}^h(s_1^h, a_1^h ; c))] \leq \gamma_m\cdot \cE_m$ by the offline guarantee to derive line 517. | Summary: This work studies low-rank contextual decision processes (CMDPs) in offline settings. The authors introduce a novel algorithm that leverages the structure of low-rank CMDPs to achieve efficient learning with limited data. The proposed method, O-LRCDP, is designed to minimize the dependence on large-scale data by utilizing an oracle to provide efficient estimations. The paper presents theoretical guarantees for the performance of O-LRCDP and demonstrates its effectiveness through rigorous analysis and experimental results.
Strengths: 1. The paper introduces a novel algorithm (LOLIPOP) for efficiently learning optimal policies in contextual Markov decision processes (CMDPs) with near-optimal regret guarantees.
2. The rigorous theoretical analysis provides strong regret bounds of $O(\sqrt{H^7S^4A^3T \log{|M|}})$ that match lower bounds up to polynomial factors in H, S, and A. The algorithm achieves computational efficiency by requiring only O(H log T) or O(H log log T) calls to an offline density estimation oracle, which is a significant improvement over prior work requiring O(T) oracle calls.
3. The paper provides a clear comparison to current algorithms and highlights the key advantages of LOLIPOP over existing ones (Table 1).
The algorithm and analysis are versatile, extending beyond regret minimization to the reward-free reinforcement learning setting with near-optimal sample complexity.
4. This paper has a well-organized structure. It adequately discusses relevant work and provides an informative introduction to the basics. I find understanding the main parts of this work quite smooth.
5. The technical approach introducing "trusted occupancy measures" to address the multi-layer structure of CMDPs is novel and insightful.
Weaknesses: 1. While the theoretical guarantees are strong, experimental results demonstrating the practical performance and computational efficiency would strengthen the paper significantly, even in a synthetic setting.
2. The discussion of the algorithm's potential limitations or failure cases is limited.
3. The paper uses a standard realizability assumption (Assumption 2.1), which is common in theoretical RL work. While this assumption is reasonable for analysis, a brief discussion of its practical implications and potential ways to verify or approximately satisfy it in real-world scenarios could enhance the paper's applicability.
4. While the extension to reward-free RL is interesting, this section feels somewhat disconnected from the main focus of the paper. The motivation, connection to previous sections, and practical implications of this part could be elaborated further.
5. The presentation of technical details, particularly in Section 3.2, is quite dense and may impede overall readability. While the mathematical rigor is appreciated, the main text could benefit from focusing more on intuitive ideas and key insights that directly address the technical challenges. Consider moving detailed lemmas and heavy mathematical derivations to the appendix. To enhance accessibility and understanding, it would be beneficial to incorporate more high-level explanations and possibly graphical illustrations in the main body.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. Have the authors had any chance to perform any empirical investigations comparing LOLIPOP to existing algorithms like E2D or CMDP-VR (even in a synthetic setting)? If so, what were the key findings?
2. The algorithm relies on an offline density estimation oracle. How sensitive is the performance to the choice of this oracle? Are there particular implementations you would recommend in practice?
3. As for the regret bound, are there particular aspects of these dependencies that you think could potentially be improved, or do you believe they are essentially tight given current techniques? Are there specific challenges in tightening the bounds with respect to the state space size S or the model class size |M|?
4. How well do you expect LOLIPOP to perform in settings where the realizability assumption is violated? Are there natural extensions to handle model misspecification?
5. The extension to the reward-free RL setting is interesting. Do the authors see potential applications or connections to other decision-making problems as well (e.g., constrained RL)?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors adequately address the limitations of their work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: >> The presentation of technical details, particularly in Section 3.2, is quite dense and may impede overall readability. While the mathematical rigor is appreciated, the main text could benefit from focusing more on intuitive ideas and key insights that directly address the technical challenges. Consider moving detailed lemmas and heavy mathematical derivations to the appendix. To enhance accessibility and understanding, it would be beneficial to incorporate more high-level explanations and possibly graphical illustrations in the main body.
Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Please refer to the general rebuttal for a technical overview of our methodology.
>> Have the authors had any chance to perform any empirical investigations comparing LOLIPOP to existing algorithms like E2D or CMDP-VR (even in a synthetic setting)? If so, what were the key findings?
This paper is purely theoretical, but we hope to see empirical investigations in its possible extension to a journal version or future works.
>> The algorithm relies on an offline density estimation oracle. How sensitive is the performance to the choice of this oracle? Are there particular implementations you would recommend in practice?
The first to try would definitely be the MLE oracle as shown in Example C.1 in appendix C to enjoy theoretical guarantees. Concretely, since the MLE is indeed the ERM on log loss (i.e., cross-entropy loss), the first thing to try is probably ERM on cross-entropy loss.
>> As for the regret bound, are there particular aspects of these dependencies that you think could potentially be improved, or do you believe they are essentially tight given current techniques? Are there specific challenges in tightening the bounds with respect to the state space size S or the model class size |M|?
The current technique needs to build the trusted occupancy measure, which unfortunately brings in the dependence of the state space S. For a problem with large state space, the guarantee is not ideal, but this could be alleviated through representation learning if the CMDP under consideration is intrinsically low dimensional, e.g. [1]. The dependence on the model class |M| is already logarithmic, which to our knowledge, is state-of-the-art. However, further structures in the model class might be helpful. We hope to explore these directions in future works.
[1] Contextual Markov Decision Processes using Generalized Linear Models. Modi and Tewari. (2019).
>> How well do you expect LOLIPOP to perform in settings where the realizability assumption is violated? Are there natural extensions to handle model misspecification?
It is not obvious how misspecification would affect the performance. On the positive side, LOLIPOP follows the stream of algorithms that adapt to misspecification, as seen in [2] and [3], which shows that IGW (which is a base component for LOLIPOP) is robust against misspecification. On the negative side, the proof technique requires the trusted occupancy measure to be multiplicatively upper-bounded by the occupancy measure. It might be non-trivial to maintain this guarantee with misspecification. Overall, we hope to see extension in this regard in the future.
[2] Bypassing the monster: A faster and simpler optimal algorithm for contextual bandits under realizability
D Simchi-Levi, Y Xu
[3] Adapting to Misspecification in Contextual Bandits.
Dylan J. Foster, Claudio Gentile, Mehryar Mohri, Julian Zimmert
>> The extension to the reward-free RL setting is interesting. Do the authors see potential applications or connections to other decision-making problems as well (e.g., constrained RL)?
At a high level, the LOLIPOP algorithm promotes layerwise exploration-exploitation tradeoffs and planning with trusted transitions; it is quite conceivable to have implications in relevant topics. Specifically for constrained RL, one could imagine doing exploration-exploration tradeoffs in a constrained policy set. The LOLIPOP algorithm should have similar regret guarantees compared to the optimal policy in the constrained policy set.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the response. While layerwise exploration-exploitation tradeoffs are interesting and can be relevant to several topics, my concerns about their limited applicability remain. I tend to keep my current score. | Summary: The paper studies the stochastic Contextual MDP problem under an offline function approximation oracle. Concretely, the authors assume access to an offline density estimation oracle for a (realizable) class of CMDPs. Under this (minimal) assumption, they prove a rate-optimal regret bound, I.e., that scales with $\sqrt{T \log |\mathcal{M}|}$ where $T$ is the number of episodes and $|\mathcal{M}|$ is the size of the CMDP class. The algorithm is based on a combination of Inverse Gap Weighing (IGW), policy cover, and trusted occupancies and transitions. The latter is where most of the novelty lies. The regret's dependence on H,S,A seems suboptimal but, importantly, is polynomial in these parameters. Additionally, the regret is obtained with a small number of oracle calls ($\log T$ or $\log \log T$ depending on assumptions). Finally, the authors present an application of their algorithm to reward free learning of CMDPs where they show that using $\epsilon^{-2}$ samples they can obtain a model such that given a reward function, any policy can be estimated to $\epsilon$ accuracy.
Strengths: 1. The paper resolves an important open problem (learning CMDPs efficiently with offline oracles and rate optimal regret)
2. The general idea of trusted occupancies is interesting and may find use elsewhere.
3. The paper has non-trivial technical novelty.
Weaknesses: 1. The offline density oracle is a bit vague. Can it be implemented using ERM on the log loss as in previous works? If not, how is it different than previous works such as Foster et al, Levy et al?
2. The paper is very technical. While not a weakness itself, this complicates the presentation, especially given the limited space of the conference format. It seems that the authors made significant effort to explain the various moving parts in their work. Nonetheless, I have a few comments:
* Why do you need to separate the data of each horizon for the model estimation?
* Can you give some intuition regarding the definition of the trusted transitions?
* Related to this, can you explain how the policy cover is chosen?
* While the application to reward free CMDP is nice, I think it could be mentioned in a paragraph with the details deferred to the appendix.
* In general, the explanations are rather technical and made it hard to build some intuition as to why things work. Even after reading a significant portion of the appendix I only have some technical understanding of how the result is obtained. I'm not sure how to address this, but it makes the paper less accessible. Perhaps showing where standard analysis would fail without components such as the trusted occupancies could be helpful.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: See above.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 4
Limitations: N/a
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We greatly appreciate your comments and have written a detailed technical overview as a general rebuttal. We believe it would be helpful for you to check before the detailed rebuttal.
>> The offline density oracle is a bit vague. Can it be implemented using ERM on the log loss as in previous works? If not, how is it different than previous works such as Foster et al, Levy et al?
Yes, it can be implemented using ERM on the log loss. In fact, since ERM on log loss is MLE, we demonstrate in Example C.1 in appendix C that MLE is an offline oracle. This differs from Foster et al. and Levy et al. since they require online log loss guarantee.
>> Why do you need to separate the data of each horizon for the model estimation?
Could you clarify your question? I am reading two questions here:
The first one is, why not use all the data for model estimation, say at the end of each epoch? For this question, we separate the data so as to satisfy the i.i.d. input data assumption of the offline oracle. To perform the layerwise exploration-exploitation tradeoff, the trajectory data generated in one epoch are NOT i.i.d. due to adaptively chosen policies in different segments.
The second one is why, for each layer h \in [H], the estimator \widehat{P}^h and \widehat{R}^h are generated using separate data. This relates to the core challenge of our problem. If the learner only plans according to \widehat{d}, which is the empirical estimation of the occupancy measure, the divergence between \widehat{d} and the true occupancy measure will accumulate exponentially with respect to the horizon. To avoid such exponential blow-ups, we introduce the trusted transition in a layerwise fashion so that \widetilde{d}, which is the trusted occupancy measure, is upper bounded by the true occupancy measure up to a constant. To ensure this property, at each layer, the model has to be estimated according to the policy that depends on the trusted occupancy measure from the last layer.
>> Can you give some intuition regarding the definition of the trusted transitions?
Recall the core problem mentioned above: we would like the trusted occupancy measure to be upper-bounded by the true occupancy measure up to a constant. For simplicity, assume the regret is always 0, then trusted transitions, according to our definition, are the ones that are most visited. Intuitively, such transitions are the ones that can be estimated most accurately. Indeed, such transitions can be estimated up to a multiplicative factor as we demonstrate in the proof of Lemma 3.4, which results in the trusted occupancy measure being upper-bounded by the true occupancy measure up to a constant.
>> Related to this, can you explain how the policy cover is chosen?
For simplicity, assume regret is 0, then the policies in the policy cover maximize trusted occupancy measure which corresponds to exploration. When the regret is not 0, it balances the exploration-exploitation tradeoff.
>> While the application to reward free CMDP is nice, I think it could be mentioned in a paragraph with the details deferred to the appendix.
Thanks for the suggestion. We will try to improve the structure of our paper.
>> In general, the explanations are rather technical and made it hard to build some intuition as to why things work. Even after reading a significant portion of the appendix I only have some technical understanding of how the result is obtained. I'm not sure how to address this, but it makes the paper less accessible. Perhaps showing where standard analysis would fail without components such as the trusted occupancies could be helpful.
At a very high level, one intuitive technical logic chain goes as follows: Since we would like to use an offline guarantee, we need to use the guarantee in the form d D_H(Phat, P). But the learner only knows \hat{d} and can bound the divergence in value functions by \hat{d} D_H(Phat, P). One immediate thought is to bound \hat{d} D_H(Phat,P) by d D_H(Phat, P) + |d-\hat{d}|. However, it will suffer from exponentially accumulating errors since |\hat{d}-d| can only be written as summations of occupancy measures from the previous layers. So to avoid such an exponential explosion, we turn to multiplicative guarantees between d and \tilde{d}.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: response
Comment: Thank you for the response. I do not have additional questions at this time. | Summary: This paper studies a statistical and computational reduction from the general Contextual Markov Decision Process (CMDP) problem to offline density estimation. They propose an efficient algorithm called LOLIPOP which achieves a near-optimal regret with minimal oracle calls $\mathcal O(H log log T$) if $T$ is known in advance, leveraging a layerwise exploration-exploitation tradeoff. In addition, their algorithm is applicable to pure exploration tasks in reward-free reinforcement learning.
Strengths: Their proposed LOLIPOP achieves near-optimal regret while minimizing the number of oracle calls. It requires only $O(H log T)$ calls to an offline density estimation oracle, which can be further reduced to $O(H log log T)$ if the total number of rounds $T$ is known in advance. This is the first algorithm that achieves both statistical and computational efficiencies for general (stochastic) CMDPs.
Weaknesses: - Some minor typos, e.g. line 466
- This paper is purely theoretical. It would be interesting if the authors provide some experimental results to demonstrate the performance of the proposed algorithm.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - In Eq (3), to construct the trusted transitions, how do you compute $\widehat{\operatorname{reg}}_{m-1}(\pi, c)$? From my understanding, you need to compute the optimal value function $\widehat{V}_{m-1}^1(c)$, how do you implement it?
- Is there any lower bound on the number of calls for this problem?
- Compared to contextual bandits, can the authors explain more about the technical challenges of CMDPs?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: >> This paper is purely theoretical. It would be interesting if the authors provide some experimental results to demonstrate the performance of the proposed algorithm. """
This paper presents a purely theoretical result. We look forward to seeing experiments in future works.
>> In Eq (3), to construct the trusted transitions, how do you compute $\widehat{\operatorname{reg}}{m-1}(\pi, c)$ From my understanding, you need to compute the optimal value function $\widehat{V}{m-1}^1(c)$, how do you implement it?
The value \widehat{V}{m-1}^1(c) is the optimal value for dynamics \widehat{P}{m-1}(c) and reward function \widehat{R}{m-1}(c) which are known at the beginning of epoch m. Thus, it can be calculated through value iteration [1].
[1] Markov decision processes: discrete stochastic dynamic programming
ML Puterman, 2014
>> Is there any lower bound on the number of calls for this problem?
There is a lower bound on the switching cost of the scale $\Omega(\log \log T)$ [2], where the switching cost is the number of switches in the learner’s randomized policy. A reasonable learner with an oracle would only switch its randomized policy after an oracle call. Thus, the number of oracle calls is larger than the number of switches, which implies a $\Omega(\log \log T)$ lower bound on the number of oracle calls. We are happy to include a remark on this fact. However, to rigorously state this result requires more information-theoretic constraints and we leave such result to future works.
[2] Zihan Zhang, Yuhang Jiang, Yuan Zhou, and Xiangyang Ji. Near-optimal regret bounds for multi-batch reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 24586–24596, 2022.
>> Compared to contextual bandits, can the authors explain more about the technical challenges of CMDPs?
The main technical difficulty in general, for extending any result from contextual bandit to CMDPs is the unknown transition kernel. In fact, even if the reward function is given (which trivializes the contextual bandit problem since all rewards are known), the CMDPs are still hard to learn. Concretely, since the transition kernels are different in each layer, the learner has to ensure sufficient coverage to (nearly) ALL states-action pairs to estimate the corresponding transition kernel accurately. A more refined challenge in our setting is that if the learner only plans according to \widehat{d}, which is the empirical estimation of the occupancy measure, the divergence between \widehat{d} and the true occupancy measure will accumulate exponentially with respect to the horizon. To avoid such exponential blow-ups, we introduce the trusted transition in a layerwise fashion so that \widetilde{d}, which is the trusted occupancy measure, is upper bounded by the true occupancy measure up to a constant.
For a detailed version, we refer to our general rebuttal. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: General rebuttal:
We thank the reviewers for their positive reviews and will make sure to address the writing issues mentioned. Here, we clarify the technical challenges and our methodology. We will include a paragraph/section regarding this in the updated version of this paper.
Technical challenge and methodology:
The main technical difficulty in extending any result from contextual bandits to CMDPs is the unknown transition kernel. In fact, even if the reward function is given (which trivializes the contextual bandit problem since all rewards are known), CMDPs are still hard to learn. Concretely, since the transition kernels are different in each layer, the learner has to ensure sufficient coverage of (nearly) all state-action pairs to accurately estimate the corresponding transition kernel.
A more refined challenge in our setting is that if the learner only plans according to $\widehat{d}$, which is the empirical estimation of the occupancy measure, the divergence between $\widehat{d}$ and the true occupancy measure will accumulate exponentially with respect to the horizon. The exponential blow-up is due to the following reason: since we would like to use an offline guarantee, we need to use the guarantee in the form $d D_H^2(\widehat{P}, P)$. However, the learner only knows $\widehat{d}$ and can bound the divergence in value functions by $\widehat{d} D_H^2(\widehat{P}, P)$. One immediate thought is to bound $\widehat{d} D_H(\widehat{P}, P)$ by $d D_H^2(\widehat{P}, P) + |d - \widehat{d}|$. However, it will suffer from exponentially accumulating errors since $|\widehat{d} - d|$ can only be written as summations of occupancy measures from the previous layers.
To avoid such an exponential explosion, we turn to multiplicative guarantees between $d$ and $\tilde{d}$. Concretely, we introduce the trusted transition in a layerwise fashion so that $\widetilde{d}$, which is the trusted occupancy measure, is upper bounded by the true occupancy measure up to a constant. To ensure this property, at each layer, the model has to be estimated according to the policy that depends on the trusted occupancy measure from the last layer. Intuitively, for simplicity, assume the regret is always zero; then trusted transitions, according to our definition, are the ones that are most visited. Such transitions are the ones that can be estimated most accurately up to a constant. At a very high level, when estimating a Bernoulli variable, if the empirical mean is greater than O(1/sample size), then with high probability, the empirical mean can be upper-bounded by a constant multiple of the true mean. Indeed, such transitions can be estimated up to a multiplicative factor, as we demonstrate in the proof of Lemma 3.4, which results in the trusted occupancy measure being upper-bounded by the true occupancy measure up to a constant. Meanwhile, to ensure sufficient coverage of all state-action pairs, we use the policy cover. For simplicity, assume regret is zero; then, the policies in the policy cover maximize the trusted occupancy measure, which corresponds to exploration. When the regret is not zero, the policy cover balances exploration and exploitation. | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
FSP-Laplace: Function-Space Priors for the Laplace Approximation in Bayesian Deep Learning | Accept (poster) | Summary: This work takes a function space view of the posterior distribution, and places a GP on the likelihood with neural network predictors. This generate a posterior distribution, and the authors attempt a Laplace approximation as a which they combine with matrix-free linear algebraic methods to aid in computational tractability. Numerical examples are provided demonstrating their method performs well.
Strengths: This paper is considers an important problem -- high quality uncertainty estimates for neural models are an important area of machine learning research, and crucial when deploying models in critical systems.
The work is generally well written and presented.
The method performs well in the numerics section.
Weaknesses: Laplace approximations are justified by the Bernstein-von Mises theorem, which states that (under appropriate assumptions) the posterior distribution concentrates around its mode \emph{independent of the prior distribution} in the large-data limit.
In order to use a Laplace approximation out of the box, it's important for these assumptions to be met, and the model to be in the appropriate pre-limit.
Singular learning theory is one approach that addresses this for singular models such as neural networks (see https://www.routledge.com/Mathematical-Theory-of-Bayesian-Statistics/Watanabe/p/book/9780367734817).
However approximating the Hessian, or regularizing it and claiming it's because there's a prior not only does nothing to fix the problem, but perpetuates a line of ill-posed research.
While taking a function space view opens up the possibility of priors that concentrate with the dataset size and therefore cannot be discarded in the BvM limit, the authors claim that the eigenvalues of their prior term rapidly decay and discard them, killing any possibility that they have considered this concentration.
other forms of Laplace approximations may be more suitable (see https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.12922, https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.07785 for related methods using expansions in data-space).
Having said this, the work does produce decent empirical results as a quadratic approximation of the posterior \emph{inspired by} Laplace approximations, however the current reasoning used to get there is ill-considered.
The dependence of $f$ appearing in Propositions 1 and 2 should be made explicit.
The proofs given in the paper are not sound. In particular, the proof of Proposition 2 is "Analogous to the proof of Theorem 5.2(b) from Lambley [20].". However, Theorem 5.2(b) in [20] is not proved, where it is stated that the proof is similar to another reference. That reference also points to the proof of another corollary, stating it is analogous. A chain this long suggests not only that the proof needs to be written out in the current context to concretely check that the 3 analogies used are sound, but that the authors have not bothered to check the references themselves, let alone write out the proofs internally. The proof of Proposition 1 is also not clear, and needs to be written out, so that it is not burdensome for the reader to confirm the claims.
The claim that the term appearing in line 195 is negligible should be confirmed numerically.
Technical Quality: 1
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Can you please address the weaknesses above?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 1
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: No, limitations were not adequately addressed. However, there is little view for negative societal impact in work of this nature.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 2
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their time and feedback. We are happy that they found the paper was "well written" and that our method "performs well".
> "Laplace approximations are justified by the Bernstein-von Mises theorem which states that [...] the posterior distribution concentrates around its mode *independent of the prior distribution* in the large-data limit. [...] However approximating the Hessian, or regularizing it and claiming it's because there's a prior not only does nothing to fix the problem, but perpetuates a line of ill-posed research."
We respectfully disagree. It is true that the Bernstein-von Mises theorem only holds in the large-data limit. However, there is a long line of empirical work suggesting that the linearized Laplace approximation works surprisingly well for neural networks despite the lack of theoretical justification [(Papamarkou et al. 2024, Section 3.1 references many such papers)](https://proceedings.mlr.press/v235/papamarkou24b.html). Our paper provides additional empirical evidence supporting this observation. Calling this entire line of research "ill-posed" needs to be measured against the large amount of empirical evidence that clearly demonstrates the value of such research.
More generally, the point of empirical research is precisely to explore regimes in which thoeretical statements are not possible. Rigorous theoretical statements can often only be proven under strong assumptions, but this does not mean that the opposite of the statement is true as soon as assumptions are violated (absence of proof is not proof of absence). Empirical research is indispensable to explore how far away from a perfect limiting case remnants of a theory still apply. For example, the entire field of deep learning relies on optimization methods for which most of the theory applies only to convex functions, and yet methods motivated by this theory are successfully used to train highly non-convex deep neural networks because empirical studys show that they work surprisingly well in certain useful regimes far beyond convexity. This is not an argument against the value of theory. On the contrary: it would have been impossible for us to "guess" the empirically successful approximation scheme that we propose had we not been guided by theory that strictly holds only in a limiting case that is admittedly relatively far away from our applications.
> "the work does produce decent empirical results as a quadratic approximation of the posterior *inspired by* Laplace approximations, however the current reasoning used to get there is ill-considered."
We thank the reviewer for acknowledging our empirical results. We agree that these results were obtained with a method that is inspired by Laplace approximations (see our proofs of Propositions 1 and 2 in the additional comment for clarification on this connection). As with most forms of scalable Bayesian inference, several additional approximations were necessary to make our method usable in practice. We believe that our paper clearly highlights the additional approximations, e.g., by explicitly grouping them into Section 3.2. These additional approximations do not change the fact that the resulting algorithm approximates the posterior with a Gaussian distribution whose mean is the MAP (of the RKHS-regularized neural network) and whose precision matrix is obtained by approximating the curvature at this point. Methods for approximate posterior inference that follow this scheme are generally called Laplace approximations in the literature.
> "The dependence of f appearing in Propositions 1 and 2 should be made explicit."
We do not understand your inquiry, would you mind elaborating on what you mean by the "dependence on f appearing in Propositions 1 and 2?
From our point of view, there is no dependence on any particular $\mathbf{f}$ in Propositions 1 and 2, since in these propositions $\mathbf{f}$ is an unbound variable denoting an arbitrary element of the sample space $\mathbb{B}$ of the GP prior (or an element of the RKHS $H_{\mathbf{\Sigma}} \subset B$ depending on the context).
Moreover, the $\mathbf{f}^\star_n$ in Proposition 2 are explicitly defined as minimizers of a sequence of optimization problems, and $\mathbf{f}^\star$ is also explicitly defined as the weak limit of a certain subsequence of $( \mathbf{f}^\star_n )_{n \in N}$.
> "The proofs given in the paper are not sound. In particular, the proof of Proposition 2 [...]. The proof of Proposition 1 is also not clear, and needs to be written out"
We agree that the proof of Propositions 2 is difficult to follow as one has to combine several ideas in the referenced works in a nontrivial manner.
Hence, we conducted the proof of Proposition 2 in full detail and attach it as a separate comment below.
It will also be included in the appendix in the camera-ready version of the paper.
Under Assumptions A.1 to A.3 detailed in the paper, Proposition 1 is a pretty direct corollary of Theorem 1.1 in (Lambley, 2023).
The given proof in the paper verifies the assumptions of Lambley's Theorem 1.1 and is hence complete.
However, we will make an effort in the camera-ready version of the paper to add more explanatory comments to make the proof easier to follow.
> "The claim that the term appearing in line 195 is negligible should be confirmed numerically."
We provide evidence that the term $P_0 \Lambda P_0^\top$ is negligible in four different configurations.
First, considering the regression setup described in Appendix B.1, we have:
* RBF kernel: $\frac{||P_0 \Lambda P_0^\top||_F}{||\Lambda||_F} = 1.026 \times 10^{-7}$
* Matern-1/2: $\frac{||P_0 \Lambda P_0^\top||_F}{||\Lambda||_F} = 4.305 \times 10^{-6}$
Considering the classification setup described in Appendix B.1, we have:
* RBF kernel: $\frac{||P_0 \Lambda P_0^\top||_F}{||\Lambda||_F} = 3.548 \times 10^{-4}$
* Matern-1/2: $\frac{||P_0 \Lambda P_0^\top||_F}{||\Lambda||_F} = 1.299 \times 10^{-2}$
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response
Comment: Thanks for your response, however it is still unclear if you intend to address any of these concerns in the document.
I think that the analogy between the construction of so-called "Laplace approximations" and the failure of optimization techniques to guarantee convergence outside convex settings is incorrect. First, one can obtain results under relaxations of convexity. However, I believe that the authors were referring to guarantees of convergence to local vs global minima. This is not the same as the situation in the Laplace approximation case, where the construction is known to be incorrect, and a number of alternative constructions have been provided in relevant settings that should not be ignored. The authors do acknowledge that there are issues with the construction. Addressing these limitations up front are in the best interest of both the author, and the field at large. The alternative seems to be acknowledging the flaws in private but trying to sweep things under the rug for the purposes of publication. This is a particular issue in the LA setting, where the empirical results obtained are usually poor when compared to ensembling, which is presumably why the methods are rarely compared to network ensembles. The authors have also not addressed my concerns regarding the decaying eigenvalues of the prior term.
My complaint about the proof of Proposition 2 was not that it was difficult to follow, merely that it did not appear. It is reasonably straightforward linear analysis, but the burden should not be placed upon the reader to chase through multiple resources to find something resembling a proof of a stated proposition . The authors finding it difficult to follow is not good justification for its omission. I am glad the mathematics will appear in the updated version, and Proposition 1 will be clarified.
The numerics regarding $P_0 \Lambda P_0^\top$ are reassuring. I hope that the authors intend to include them in their updated work, however no indication has been given that this is the case.
I would like to state that this is a field largely driven by empirical results. However, the framing of this document is as a theoretically driven and quite technical construction, which as I have outlined is not sound. This would not be an issue, except that the authors seem unwilling to change the tone and framing of the work to address its limitations. Since there has been no indication that they intend to address these issues, I cannot change my score at this stage.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response and clarifications.
> [comparison to deep ensembles]
Thank you for bringing up deep ensembles.
Unfortunately, this concrete criticism comes up too late in the review process for us to run additional experiments a this point.
We first wish to highlight that our contribution is a method to specify informative prior beliefs on the function represented by the neural network in the framework of the Laplace approximation.
Deep ensembles typically use isotropic Gaussian priors on the weights (i.e. $l_2$ regularization) and we are unaware of any method to pose informative function space priors in neural network ensembles.
While interesting, we believe that comparing our method to deep ensembles is not directly relevant for our paper as they are neither related to the Laplace approximation nor to function-space priors.
Just like the other baselines, we expect our method to outperform deep ensembles in cases where a GP accurately reflects prior beliefs.
Outside of the discussion on priors, we further wish to highlight that deep ensembles are also much more expensive to fit than Laplace approximations.
Training multiple neural networks entirely from scratch is unthinkable in large neural networks and in applications where the models are often updated (e.g., Bayesian optimization).
The diversity of predictive ensembles is also known to collapse when the size of the neural network increases ([Abe et al., 2024](https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.00704)).
Finally, in contrast to deep ensembles, Laplace approximations provide a parametric (approximate) posterior probability distribution over the weights of the BNN, which is useful for more than just predictive uncertainty quantification (e.g., weight pruning, model compression, continual learning).
> I would like to state that this is a field largely driven by empirical results. However, the framing of this document is as a theoretically driven and quite technical construction, which as I have outlined is not sound. This would not be an issue, except that the authors seem unwilling to change the tone and framing of the work to address its limitations.
Thank you for acknowledging that the field is "largely driven by empirical results".
We believe that our results provide strong empirical evidence that our method effectively incorporates beliefs specified by a GP prior and provides sensible uncertainty estimates across many applications.
We respectfully disagree that the paper is "theoretically driven".
While we include theory to motivate and justify our method, our contribution is a practical algorithm.
Nevertheless, we are willing to take your criticism and we plan to allocate a part of the additional page allowed for the camera ready version to provide more intuition about the method, and we will include a brief summary of empirical results early on in the paper (pointing to the extended results section for details).
> The authors have also not addressed my concerns regarding the decaying eigenvalues of the prior term.
> [Comment referred to above: While taking a function space view opens up the possibility of priors that concentrate with the dataset size and therefore cannot be discarded in the BvM limit, the authors claim that the eigenvalues of their prior term rapidly decay and discard them, killing any possibility that they have considered this concentration.]
As stated in our original rebuttal, we do not consider the BvM theorem to be the justification of our method.
Hence, we do not consider the decaying eigenvalues of the covariance matrices of the finite-dimensional marginals of the prior to be concerning.
> My complaint about the proof of Proposition 2 was not that it was difficult to follow, merely that it did not appear. It is reasonably straightforward linear analysis, but the burden should not be placed upon the reader to chase through multiple resources to find something resembling a proof of a stated proposition . The authors finding it difficult to follow is not good justification for its omission. I am glad the mathematics will appear in the updated version, and Proposition 1 will be clarified.
We are frankly having difficulties understanding this paragraph. In the original review, the reviewer asked for a proof of Proposition 2. We provided this proof in the comment above and promised to include it in the appendix of the camera ready version. We take the reviewer's statement that the proof is "reasonably straightforward linear analysis" as a confirmation that they did not find an error in our proof. We would have expected that this resolves the issue.
> The numerics regarding $P_0 \Lambda P_0^\top$ are reassuring. I hope that the authors intend to include them in their updated work, however no indication has been given that this is the case.
We will naturally include the numerical results supporting that $P_0 \Lambda P_0^\top$ is negligible in the Appendix of the camera ready version of the paper.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Proof of Proposition 2
Comment: The markdown interpreter does not seem to work correctly in math mode. We apologise for this and can provide a PDF with the proof upon request.
**Proposition 2.**
*Let Assumptions A.1 to A.3 hold.*
*Let $\{\lambda_n\}_{n \in N} \subset R_{> 0}$ with $\lambda_n \to 0$, and $\{ f^\star_n \}_{n \in \N} \subset H_{\Sigma}$ such that $f^\star_n$ is a minimizer of $\R_\text{FSP}^{\lambda_n}$.*
Then
$\{f_n^\star\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$
has an $H_{\Sigma}$-weakly convergent subsequence with limit
$f^\star \in F$.
Our proof makes use of ideas from (Dashti et al., 2013) and (Lambley, 2023).
*Proof.*
Without loss of generality, we assume $\mathbf{\mu} = \mathbf{0}$.
By Assumption A.2, there are constants $K, \alpha > 0$ such that
$R_\text{FSP}(\mathbf{f}) \ge K + \alpha \lVert \mathbf{f} \rVert_{H_{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}^2$
for all $\mathbf{f} \in H_{\mathbf{\Sigma}}$ (Lambley, 2023, Section 4.1).
Now fix an arbitrary $\mathbf{f} \in H_{\mathbf{\Sigma}} \cap F$.
Then
$R_\text{FSP}(\mathbf{f}) = R_\text{FSP}^{\lambda_n}(\mathbf{f})$
$\ge R_\text{FSP}^{\lambda_n}(\mathbf{f}^\star_n)$
$= R_\text{FSP}(\mathbf{f}^\star_n) + \lambda_n^{-1} d_{B}(\mathbf{f}^\star_n, F)$
$\ge K + \alpha \lVert \mathbf{f}^\star_n \rVert_{H_{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}^2 + \lambda_n^{-1} d_{B}(\mathbf{f}^\star_n, F)$
$\ge K + \alpha \lVert \mathbf{f}^\star_n \rVert_{H_{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}^2,$
and hence
$\lVert \mathbf{f}^\star_n \rVert_{H_{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}^2
\le \frac{1}{\alpha} \left( R_\text{FSP}(\mathbf{f}) - K \right),$
i.e. the sequence $\{f^\star_n\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \subset H_{\Sigma}$ is bounded.
By the Banach-Alaoglu theorem (Conway, 1997, Theorems V.3.1 and V.4.2(d)) and the Eberlein-Šmulian theorem (Conway, 1997, Theorem V.13.1), there is a weakly convergent subsequence $\{ \mathbf{f}^\star_{n_k} \}_{k \in \N}$ with limit $\mathbf{f}^\star \in H_{\mathbf{\Sigma}}$.
It remains to show that $\mathbf{f}^\star \in F$.
From the inequality above, it follows that
$0 \le d_{B}(\mathbf{f}^\star_{n_k}, F) \le \lambda_{n_k} \left( R_\text{FSP}(\mathbf{f}) - K - \alpha \lVert \mathbf{f}^\star_n \rVert_{H_{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}^2 \right),$
where the right-hand side converges to 0 as $k \to \infty$.
Hence, $\lim_{k \to \infty} d_{B}(\mathbf{f}^\star_{n_k}, F) = 0$.
The embedding $\iota \colon H_{\mathbf{\Sigma}} \to B$ is compact (Bogachev, 1998, Corollary 3.2.4) and hence $\{\iota[\mathbf{f}^\star_{n_k}] \}_{k \in \mathbb{N}} \subset B$ converges ($B$-strongly) to $\iota[f^\star] \in B$ (Conway, 1997, Proposition 3.3(a)).
The continuity of $d_{B}(\,\cdot\,, F)$ implies
$d_{B}(\mathbf{f}^\star, F)= d_{B}(\iota[\mathbf{f}^\star], F)$
$= d_{B} \left( \lim_{k \to \infty} \iota[\mathbf{f}^\star_{n_k}], F \right)$
$= \lim_{k \to \infty} d_{B}(\iota[\mathbf{f}^\star_{n_k}], F)$
$= \lim_{k \to \infty} d_{B}(\mathbf{f}^\star_{n_k}, F)$
$= 0,$
and by Assumption A.3 and Lemma A.2 it follows that $\mathbf{f}^\star \in F$. | Summary: This paper proposes a functional Laplace approximation approach which is able to incorporate function space prior instead of weight space prior used by existing Laplace approximation methods. The function space prior is more meaningful than weight space ones in terms of expressing prior knowledge about the underlying functions. The core idea of this paper is, on top of [20], to resolve the problem of functional probability density issue of naïve extension to functional MAP. The results comparing to weight space LA show the effectiveness of the new functional LA.
Strengths: The paper is well-written and it is easy to follow the idea. There are sufficient details and background information to understand each part.
The method is reasonably designed and the flow is smooth.
Weaknesses: The comparative experiments are not sufficient. Various efficient LA methods should be compared.
Ortega, L.A., Santana, S.R. and Hernández-Lobato, D., 2023. Variational linearized Laplace approximation for Bayesian deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12565.
McInerney, J. and Kallus, N., 2024. Hessian-Free Laplace in Bayesian Deep Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10671.
Deng, Z., Zhou, F. and Zhu, J., 2022. Accelerated linearized Laplace approximation for Bayesian deep learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, pp.2695-2708.
It would be better to include some functional BNN as well.
There are some typos, like Line89 and Line94.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Can you please explain the equation in Line148 in more details?
What is the meaning of 'rigorous probabilistic interpretation' in Line 128? Does that mean the new P_B(df) is a properly defined functional posterior?
The objective function is similar to the kernel ridge regression. Can you please explain the difference?
Can you please add comparative results with functional BNN?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: n/a
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their time and positive feedback. We are glad that they found our paper was "well-written", "easy to follow" and had a "smooth flow".
> "The comparative experiments are not sufficient. Various efficient LA methods should be compared. [...] It would be better to include some functional BNN as well."
> "Can you please add comparative results with functional BNN?"
We agree with the reviewer that a comparison with a functional BNN would be useful. Therefore, we ran our experiments on FVI (Sun et al., 2019) and present the results in the general rebuttal (see Figures D.1 and D.2 and Tables D.1, D.2 and D.3). We find that our method generally outperforms FVI.
We use the full Laplace posterior covariance for regression, Mauna Loa, and ocean current modeling; due to computational limitations, we use only the KFAC approximation for the classification experiments and for Bayesian optimization. KFAC is standard in Laplace approximations for neural network (Ritter et al. 2018, Immer et al. 2021) and has shown to perform very competitively. The methods proposed by the reviewer offer more scalable alternatives when the full GGN is not available. While these are interesting in themselves, the point of this paper is to discuss the influence of a function-space prior and not of the GGN approximation. Exploring the use of the methods proposed by the reviewer to make our method more scalable sounds like an interesting direction for future work.
> "Can you please explain the equation in Line148 in more details?"
The equation follows from inserting the definition of $f^\text{lin}$ (Eq. 2.2) into the left-hand side and completing the square. We note that the $\dagger$ symbol designates the pseudo-inverse.
In detail:
<!--$$\frac{1}{2} ||f^{\text{lin}}(\,\cdot\ , \mathbf{w}) - \mathbf{\mu}||_{\mathbb{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}^2 = \frac{1}{2} (\mathbf{w} - \mathbf{w}^*)^\top \mathbb{\mathbf{\Sigma}}_{\mathbf{w}^*}^\dagger(\mathbf{w} - \mathbf{w}^*) + \mathbf{v}\mathbf{v}^\top (\mathbf{w} - \mathbf{w}^*) + \frac{1}{2} ||f(\,\cdot\ , \mathbf{w}^*) - \mathbf{\mu}||_\mathbb{\mathbf{\Sigma}}^2$$ -->
from which we complete the square to obtain the right-hand side of line 148.
> "What is the meaning of 'rigorous probabilistic interpretation' in Line 128? Does that mean the new P_B(df) is a properly defined functional posterior?"
We mean that $\frac{1}{\lambda} d_B(f, F)$ can be interpreted as a negative log likelihood encoding that we observe $d_B(f, F) = 0$ with Laplace distributed noise (with parameter $\lambda$). The proposition shows that the optimization problem is the corresponding MAP estimation problem.
> "The objective function is similar to the kernel ridge regression. Can you please explain the difference?"
Good observation! The kernel ridge regression (KRR) can be seen as the maximum a-posteriori of a GP.
Thus, the first part of our algorithm, which learns an RKHS-regularized neural network, bears some similarity with KRR.
However, KRR is a nonparametric method wherease the first part of our algorithm optimizes the parameters of a neural network (this is motivated by the generalization performance of deep neural networks, as mentioned in the abstract).
Further, the second part of our algorithm estimates uncertainties of the neural network parameters, which has no analog in KRR.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the authors' response! | Summary: The paper proposes a new method (FSP-Laplace) to place priors in the function space of deep neural nets and develop scalable Laplace approximations on top of it. The ideas are inspired in MAP estimation theory and the fact that an objective function that is actually regularising the neural network in the function space can be developed. Additionally, to face scalability and mitigate the issues of the computational costs in calculating large curvature matrices, the authors introduce methods from matrix-free linear algebra (i.e. Lanczos). Experimental results show that the FSP-Laplace method works well in such problems were makes sense to encode information in the form of a GP prior, and in general, overcomes the standard Laplace approximation.
Strengths: The paper is well-written and in general, well polished to give the right and clear details of a methodology that could be very difficult to follow otherwise. In that regard, the effort on synthesis and clarification is a big strength. The quality of the manuscript is therefore high (including the technical methods considered and the problem faced).
Getting more in detail, I particularly like the spirit of the work and the idea of building a Laplace approximation directly on the functional space of the deep NN. Despite I don't see exactly how feasible could be to compute the potential \phi and Eq. (3.1), I see what the authors actually do with the idea of the constraint in Propositions 1 and 2.
Despite I have a little question here, I also see a point of strength in the way that the local linearisation fixes the problem of having valid unnormalized negative log-densities.
The use of the matrix-free methods is also thorough and despite the fact that it adds an extra point of complexity, it is clear what the advantages are and how it positively affects the scalability and performance of the method in practice. Last but not least, experimental results seem to show a good performance, and despite being somehow short, they are kind of sufficient and standard for the Laplace approximation considered and also in comparison with the rest of Laplace SOTA papers in the last years.
Weaknesses: Even if I (honestly) don't find many weaknesses in the work, I think that the following points make the approach a bit weaker:
- Context points in section 3.2 are kind of an obscure part of the Algorithm to me. Despite it is indicated that the best strategy is to use iid samples and that it is an effective way to compute the FSP-Laplace objective, I think a bit of related work and connections in this point could be needed. In general, it reminds me of inducing points in GPs and kind of pseudo-coresets. I also see that some limitations or issues with this sampling and the number of context points could appear, and somehow it is not really considered in the manuscript (in my opinion).
- For instance, Laplace Redux [Daxberger 2021] states clearly the advantage of using Laplace approximation that it is feasible for both regression and classification problems, once the MAP estimate is obtained. In the case of FSP-Laplace, it is not clear to me if the work is also fully applicable to both classification and regression problems in an easy way, to which likelihood models, and if doing that makes things more difficult on the FSP-Laplace evaluation part or the Laplace approximation side. Perhaps, a bit more of clarification in this direction could be useful.
**References.**
[Daxberger 2021] -- Laplace Redux – Effortless Bayesian Deep Learning, NeurIPS 2021.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: **Q1** -- In L201, it is mentioned that there is an observation on the fact that the trace of the posterior is 'always' upper-bounded by the trace of the prior covariance. Due to this, a little condition is imposed as a remedy. Is this an empirical observation? it is always true? or is there a proof for this?
**After rebuttal comments:** Thanks to the authors for their detailed comments and clarifications to the few questions and points I raised in my first review. I am, in general, excited with the contributions that the paper brings to the community, particularly on Bayesian NNs and topics related to the (linearised) Laplace approximation. I do think that the paper is strong and should be accepted, so I thereby increase my score to 8.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their time and constructive feedback. We are glad that they found that the "quality of the manuscript is [...] high", that they "like the spirit of the work" and that our method has "good performance".
> "Context points in section 3.2 are kind of an obscure part of the Algorithm to me. [...] I think a bit of related work and connections in this point could be needed. In general, it reminds me of inducing points in GPs and kind of pseudo-coresets. I also see that some limitations or issues with this sampling and the number of context points could appear, and somehow it is not really considered in the manuscript (in my opinion)."
Methods for regularizing neural networks in function space always rely on context points to evaluate the regularizer (Sun et al. 2019, Tran et al. 2022, Rudner et al. 2023). Popular strategies include uniform sampling from a distribution over a bounded subset of the feature space (Tran et al. 2022, Rudner et al. 2023), from the data (Sun et al., 2019), and from additional (possibly unlabeled) datasets (Rudner et al. 2023).
The goal of the context points is to regularize the neural network on a finite set of input locations which includes the training data and any point where we would like to evaluate the model. During the MAP estimation phase of our method (see Algorithm 2), context points are different from inducing points in GPs: context points are resampled at each update, unlike inducing points of a GP, which are optimized or kept fixed. When computing the posterior covariance, however, context points indeed share some similarity with inducing points in a GP: at this point, they are fixed and define where we regularize the model.
Unlike pseudo-coresets, context points do not aim to summarize the training data but rather to cover a finite set of input locations that includes the training data and any point where we wish to evaluate the model.
Relying on a set of context points is fine for datasets with low-dimensional features, which are precisely the cases for which we have prior beliefs in the form of a GP prior (GP priors are much harder to specify with high-dimensional data). Our FSP-Laplace method was precisely designed with these scenarios in mind and the scalable matrix-free linear algebra methods can perfectly cope with a very large number of context points (> 20'000). For high-dimensional data, using context points is manageable if we have prior knowledge about where the training data lies (for example, a manifold in the ambient feature space). We can then use a set of context points that has approximately the same support, as shown in our image classification examples where we use a set of context point from the KMNIST dataset. Nevertheless, Table D.2 in the PDF linked in the general rebuttal also shows that our method remains competitive on MNIST image classification when using context points drawn from a uniform distribution during training (RND). Due to limited time during the rebuttal period, results for Fashion MNIST are not yet available (N.As in Table D.2) and we will update the reviewers during the discussion phase with the results. Another example where prior beliefs can often be formulated in the form of a GP is scientific data (see, e.g., our ocean current experiment). For many scientific data, context points could also be generated by a simulation that does not need to be very accurate (since it is only meant to generate points in the vicinity of the true data distribution).
A sufficient number of context points is necessary to capture the beliefs specified by the GP prior (see Figure D.3 and D.4 in the PDF link to the general rebuttal). If the number of context points is too small, the beliefs are not accurately captured, and the function draws will not look like the prior but the uncertainty should not collapse (see Figures D.3 and D.4 in PDF in the general rebuttal).
> In the case of FSP-Laplace, it is not clear to me if the work is also fully applicable to both classification and regression problems in an easy way, to which likelihood models, and if doing that makes things more difficult on the FSP-Laplace evaluation part or the Laplace approximation side.
FSP-Laplace works in exactly the same settings as the standard Laplace approximation, e.g., for classification and regression settings using Gaussian and Categorical likelihoods, respectively (see regression and classification examples in Section 4.1). Just like Laplace, we require that the likelihood function is twice differentiable (we need to compute its Hessian). Note that for the classification setting with $c$ classes, we place a GP prior on every logit such that we have $c$ priors. Therefore, $M$ is the $p \times rc$ matrix containing the concatenation of the $c$ $(J_i^T L_i)_{i=1}^c$ matrices in line 4 of Algorithm 1. We will make this clearer in the camera-ready version.
> "In L201, it is mentioned that there is an observation on the fact that the trace of the posterior is 'always' upper-bounded by the trace of the prior covariance. Due to this, a little condition is imposed as a remedy. Is this an empirical observation? it is always true? or is there a proof for this?"
This follows from the expression of the covariance of the posterior in a Gaussian process, which is the prior covariance minus a term corresponding to the conditioning on the training data. The latter is always non-negative.
> "I don't see exactly how feasible could be to compute the potential \phi and Eq. (3.1)"
Intuitively, the potential can be understood as the negative log-likelihood. | Summary: This paper proposes a method to calculate the Laplace approximation of the posterior of neural networks with a prior defined directly in the functional space (Gaussian processes). Due to the absence of Lebesgue densities in infinite-dimensional functional spaces, the notion of weak mode is used to obtain an analogy to MAP estimation in the functional space. Through model linearization, the Laplace approximation is performed at the MAP parameter of the neural network. Experiments on both synthetic and real-world data demonstrate that the proposed method effectively captures the epistemic uncertainty in function fitting and classification.
Strengths: - The paper addresses the posterior approximation in Bayesian deep learning, an important area for quantifying predictive uncertainty of models. The proposed method is well-motivated by the limitations of placing prior distributions over the parameter space of neural networks. The techniques used in this paper are solid.
- The paper is generally very well-written, with clear and easy-to-follow notation.
Weaknesses: My main concern is the relation between this paper and Sun et al. (2019) [8]. Sun et al. also consider Bayesian inference of function posteriors with a functional prior directly defined in the function spaces (e.g., Gaussian processes). The main difference seems to be that Sun et al. perform fully Bayesian inference, while this work aims to obtain a MAP estimate followed by a Laplace approximation to obtain the posterior. Sun et al.'s work should be included as a baseline, and more discussion on the relation between the two works is needed.
Similar to the difficulty in evaluating the functional KL divergence in Sun et al., when evaluating the "prior probability" (i.e., RKHS norm) of $\\mathbf\{f\}$, a set of context points must be specified to approximate it. My second concern is that this sampling strategy could be inefficient and impractical for high-dimensional datasets. For 1D or 2D datasets, the context points can be sampled uniformly or fixed to grid points. However, for higher-dimensional cases, this approach becomes less effective. This is a critical issue for the proposed method, as in high-dimensional spaces, there is little chance that the context points will adequately cover the support of the data distributions. For example, using KMNIST as the context points for MNIST may not always be feasible in general cases.
Minor:
- L 89, Section 3.1 -> Section 3.2.
- L271, L533, L597: References are missing.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - What will happen if the same context points are used for both training and approximating the Hessian?
Additionally, please also see my questions raised in the Weakness section regarding the relation between this work and Sun et al., 2019, and the challenges of the context point sampling strategy for high-dimensional datasets.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their useful feedback and time. We are glad that they found our "method is well-motivated", our "techniques [...] are solid" and that the paper was "very well-written" and "easy-to-follow".
> "My main concern is the relation between this paper and Sun et al. (2019) [8]. Sun et al. also consider Bayesian inference of function posteriors with a functional prior directly defined in the function spaces (e.g., Gaussian processes). The main difference seems to be that Sun et al. perform fully Bayesian inference, while this work aims to obtain a MAP estimate followed by a Laplace approximation to obtain the posterior. Sun et al.'s work should be included as a baseline, and more discussion on the relation between the two works is needed."
While Sun et al. (2019) and our method both specify GP priors on the function represented by the neural network, Sun et al. use variational inference (VI), whereas our method uses the Laplace approximation. VI approximates the posterior by a parametric distribution that maximizes the ELBO (Eq. 3 in Sun et al.), while the Laplace approximation approximates the posterior by a Gaussian centered at the MAP estimate of the parameters. Note that the Laplace approximation and VI are both parametric *approximate* posterior inference methods that are commonly used in the machine learning and statistics literature. Neither one of them can be considered more "fully Bayesian" than the other. We agree that a comparison with Sun et al. is interesting, and we therefore include experiments using this method (labeled "FVI") in our overall rebuttal above. Our method FSP-Laplace generally outperforms FVI. This can possibly be explained by a complication in the FVI method: evaluating the ELBO requires access to the density of the variational distribution, which is not available in function space. FVI addresses this issue with implicit score function estimators, which introduce another approximation and makes FVI difficult to use in practice (Ma and Hernández-Lobato, 2021). On a more theoretical level, note that the KL divergence between measures (Eq. 4 in Sun et al.) is actually infinite when using GP priors (Burt et al., 2020) and the function-space ELBO (Eq. 3 in Sun et al.) is undefined. Our Laplace approximation does not suffer from either of these issues and approximates a well-defined objective.
> "Similar to the difficulty in evaluating the functional KL divergence in Sun et al., when evaluating the 'prior probability' (i.e., RKHS norm) of $f$, a set of context points must be specified to approximate it. My second concern is that this sampling strategy could be inefficient and impractical for high-dimensional datasets. For 1D or 2D datasets, the context points can be sampled uniformly or fixed to grid points. However, for higher-dimensional cases, this approach becomes less effective. This is a critical issue for the proposed method, as in high-dimensional spaces, there is little chance that the context points will adequately cover the support of the data distributions. For example, using KMNIST as the context points for MNIST may not always be feasible in general cases."
Methods that regularize a neural network in function space (both for approximate Bayesian inference or regularized empirical risk minimization) always use a set of context points to evaluate the regularizer (Sun et al. 2019, Tran et al. 2022, Rudner et al. 2023). As you say, relying on a set of context points is fine for datasets with low-dimensional features, which are precisely the cases for which we have prior beliefs in the form of a GP prior (GP priors are much harder to specify with high-dimensional data). Our FSP-Laplace method was precisely designed with these scenarios in mind and the scalable matrix-free linear algebra methods can perfectly cope with a very large number of context points (> 20'000). For high-dimensional data, using context points is manageable if we have prior knowledge about where the training data lies (for example, a manifold in the ambient feature space). We can then use a set of context points that has approximately the same support, as shown in our image classification examples where we use a set of context points from the KMNIST dataset. Nevertheless, Table D.2 in the PDF linked in the general rebuttal also shows that our method remains competitive on MNIST image classification when using context points drawn from a uniform distribution during training. Due to limited time during the rebuttal period, results for Fashion MNIST are not yet available (N.As in Table D.2) and we will update the reviewers during the discussion phase with the results. Another example where prior beliefs can often be formulated in the form of a GP is scientific data (see, e.g., our ocean current experiment). For many scientific data, context points could also be generated by a simulation that does not need to be very accurate (since it is only meant to generate points in the vicinity of the true data distribution). We will add more details in the camera-ready paper.
> "What will happen if the same context points are used for both training and approximating the Hessian?"
This is fine. It is only important that the set of context points covers a finite set of input locations containing all the training data as well as any points where we would like to evaluate the model. During training, we can amortize the coverage by resampling the context points at each update step (step 5 in Algorithm 2). When computing the covariance, we can no longer amortize and must use a set of points that covers the space well, such as a low discrepancy sequence (Latin hypercube sampling, for example). | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank all reviewers for their time and feedback. Some reviewers requested a comparison with FVI (Sun et al., 2019) and more details on the effect of the context points. We ran these additional experiments and wish to share them with all the reviewers.
**Comparison with FVI (Sun et al., 2019):** We ran our suite of experiments on FVI and report results in the Tables D.1 to D.3 and Figures D.1 and D.2 in the linked PDF file.
Due to limited time during the rebuttal period, we are unable to provide results for FSP-Laplace using the RND context points on Fashion MNIST (N.As in Table D.2). We will update the reviewers with the results during the discussion phase.
We find that FVI is less accurate than FSP-Laplace and baselines on the Mauna Loa $CO_2$ forecasting task (see Table D.1). Due to limited space in the 1 page PDF, we do not show Figure C.10 updated with FVI. On the ocean current modeling task, FVI performs similarly to our FSP-Laplace method in terms of mean squared error but strongly underestimates the predictive variance (see Figure D.1) and therefore incurs a lower test expected log-likelihood than FSP-Laplace (see Table D.1). We also find that FSP-Laplace shows higher expected log-likelihood and accuracy on the image classification tasks and produces models with lower expected calibration error (ECE) than FVI (see Table D.2). FSP-Laplace also obtains higher OOD detection accuracy than FVI when using the KMNIST context point distribution. Preliminary results using context points uniformly sampled from a subset of the features space (RND) on MNIST, also show improved performance compared to FVI. On the Bayesian optimization task, we find that FSP-Laplace converges faster than FVI on Branin, PDE, and BNN, that FVI converges faster than FSP-Laplace on Polynomial, and that both methods perform similarly on Ackley and Hartmann (see Figure D.2).
Finally, on the UCI regression tasks in Table D.3, we find that FSP-Laplace and FVI perform similarly in terms of expected log-likelihood with a slight advantage for FSP-Laplace (mean rank of 1.545 vs. 1.700). However, FSP-Laplace almost systematically performs best in terms of out-of-distribution detection (mean rank of 2.182 vs. 3.000).
**Effect of context points:** We show additional results demonstrating the behavior of our model in the low context point regime.
Figure D.3 shows the effect of the number of context points on a 1-dimensional regression task with GP priors equiped with a RBF and a Matern 1/2 kernel. Figure D.4 shows the same experiment but on a 2-dimensional classification task. The M context points are randomly sampled uniformly during training, and we use the Halton low discrepancy sequence as context points to compute the covariance.
We show that even with a very small number of context points (M=3 and M=5), our model still produces useful uncertainty estimates even if it cannot accurately capture the beliefs specified by the prior. We also note that our method requires more context points to capture the beliefs of rougher priors than smooth priors (see Figure D.3).
Table D.2 shows the results of FSP-Laplace when using the Kuzushiji-MNIST dataset (KMNIST) and draws from a uniform distribution (RND) as context points during training. We use the Halton low-discrepancy sequence as context points to compute the covariance. Due to limited time during the rebuttal period, we are unable to provide results for FSP-Laplace using the RND context points on Fashion MNIST (N.As in Table D.2). We will update the reviewers with the results during the discussion phase. On MNIST, we find that FSP-Laplace with RND context points obtains similar expected log-likelihood, accuracy, and expected calibration error as with the KMNIST context point distribution. OOD detection accuracy is lower than with context points from KMNIST but remains very competitive with respect to baselines.
Pdf: /pdf/7107c2d0f96042ad53c60831bb4fa408165e07c4.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Learning from Pattern Completion: Self-supervised Controllable Generation | Accept (poster) | Summary: Conditional generation in the era of diffusion models has been positively impacted by ControlNets, which allows for the fine-tuning of diffusion models using additional image input allowing for fine-grain conditioning. Popular ControlNets rely on pose, edge, or segmentation map conditioning which requires additional, usually supervised, networks to derive the condition of interest.
In this paper, the authors propose a fully unsupervised alternative to ControlNets and position their contribution as being proficient by mimicking the brain's modularity. They propose the training of an equivariant auto-encoder (SCG) model which allows for the disentanglement ("modularisation") of the input image information thereby allowing one to naturally access an altered version of an image that can serve as a condition for the generation in a ControlNet framework. Authors experimentally show the performance of the approach by 1) showing images conditioned on various representation modules, 2) comparing it against a Cany edge ControlNet, and highlighting how the approach is more robust to noise and produces more realistic images that resemble the input condition more closely.
Strengths: - SCG is a *fully unsupervised* method, which in contrast to most ControlNets, does not require relying on supervised tools
- SCG allows for the generation of *various conditioning inputs* by allowing one to select one out of a set of representation modules. This is fundamentally appealing as ideally, it allows the user to select what part of the input information to condition the generation on instead of being tied to a set of (supervised) tools for information extraction in a classic ControlNet setup.
Weaknesses: I believe this paper is not in a publishable state for the following reasons:
- Presentation/Clarity/Rigor: the paper should be polished as it contains a lot of typos, confusing sentences/sections (see below), and missing information (see questions). In general, sections 1 and 3 are hard to follow and cause some confusion, and figures - including captions - should be refined.
- Impact: While the general goal of this paper (unsupervised + modular image conditioning) is appealing, in practice, SCG becomes a trade-off between supervision and control over the information that will condition the image generation. Standard ControlNets require supervised tools but allow for explicit control over the information that is embedded into the conditioning (e.g., body pose, and structural information through Canny Edges). SCG on the other hand, does not require supervision but results in a set of image conditions that mostly disentangles the input image according to spatial frequencies as pointed out by the authors. As a consequence, most images capture similar semantic information and generated images are very similar to one another. To summarize, I believe the current use cases of SCG are cases where one wants to generate novel images that slightly differ from the input image condition, similar to using a ControlNet on Canny Edges (which is indeed the only ControlNet that authors compare against). I think this should be made more clear in the manuscript from the get-go (only discussed in the limitations) and ideally the paper should address this concern to increase the impact of SCG.
- Experimental validation: I believe the experimental validation does not allow the reader to have an in-depth understanding of the performance of SCG. Mainly the following questions are unanswered: how much variability (in quantitative terms) can one expect from conditioning on various modules? how do images generated from SCG compare with images generated by conditioning on the lower principal components (see [1] for a more detailed example)?
[1] Balestriero, Randall, and Yann LeCun. "Learning by reconstruction produces uninformative features for perception." arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11337 (2024).
Minor:
- section 1: overall confusing, I believe the important message here is "brain performs functional modularity, we aim at mimicking this for associative generation purposes; As a starting point, we believe equivariance helps in achieving functional modularity in neural networks". The current state of the introduction is convoluted and it takes some thought to actually extract the general message.
- line 33-36: should be rephrased in my opinion, the sentence is confusing/hard to follow.
- line 43: are we talking about the brain or neural networks here? this sentence is confusing.
- line 45: problem in the sentence formulation
- line 53: I believe "devide" should be changed to "divide" throughout the paper
- line 109: loose terms $\rightarrow$ "is a kind of change"
- line 120: confusing formulation "train the autoencoder in homologous images"
- section 3: what is the fundamental difference between z, the latent representation and, f, the feature maps ? We seems to be switching back and forth between both notations.
- section 3: why does the latent representation $z$ become a function (i.e., $z(I)$)?
- Eq 6: sum over $\delta$, which set of values does $\delta$ belong to?
- section 3: symmetry loss, the intuition behind this additional loss term is unclear to me.
- line 138: typo
- line 146: confusing, either ControlNets should be described in more detail in section 2 or the phrasing "based on ControlNets" should be clarified in section 3 to make it evident that the "pattern completion" is entirely mediated by the existing ControlNets framework and is not a contribution.
- Eq 9: the expectation symbol should be replaced by \mathbb{E}
- Figure 1: This figure is supposed to reflect the approach proposed by the authors, however, it is not straightforward which elements in this figure correspond to the SCG building blocks detailed in section 3. Instead of clarifying SCG, figure 1 brought some confusion in my case.
- Figure 3: formulation problem in the caption
- Figure 4: typo in the caption and the x-axis label
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 1
Questions for Authors: - can authors confirm that the conditioning used is $f$, the latent representation?
- can you clarify what the symmetry loss terms aim to do?
- can you explain what translation and rotation augmentations were used for the training of the autoencoder? what is the sensitivity of the representations to these parameters?
- can you explain the training procedure of the autoencoder? number of epochs, optimizer, ...
- can you confirm that the encoder and decoder "architectures" are single-layer convolutional filters?
- how is the subject evaluation performed? how many annotators? through which annotation platform? on how many images? which questions are asked of annotators?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 1
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors discuss the fact that the current equivariant autoencoder disentangles mostly based on spatial frequency rather than following a human-interpretable partitioning of the information (high-level/semantic vs. low-level information). Beyond that point which limits the impact of this work, I believe additional limitations such as the lack of control over the redundancy between the original image and the image condition is a limitations that is tied to the use of fully unsupervised despite clear advantages to choosing fully unsupervised methods.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you very much for your thorough review and constructive feedback.
**Q1**: Presentation/Clarity/Rigor
**R1**: We sincerely apologize for the confusion caused in the introduction and methods sections. Our aim was to bridge concepts from neuroscience with controllable generation in AI, hoping to stimulate cross-disciplinary inspiration and collaboration. However, in attempting to reach audiences from both fields, we presented the methods in a coarse-grained manner, leading to misunderstandings among readers, including reviewers. To address this, we will: 1）Rephrase: Clarify terms, sentences, equations, and figure captions in sections 1 and 3 to ensure their accuracy and accessibility. 2）Enhance understanding: Provide a more detailed diagram of the proposed modular autoencoder in Section 3 (see it in PDF Fig. R4), including a clearer representation of the prediction matrix M, equivariant loss, and symmetry loss. Refer to GR2 for more.
**Q2**: Impact
**R2**:
1. This proposed method’s most significant contribution lies in introducing a novel self-supervised conditional generation training framework. This framework enables the acquisition of broad capabilities through a self-supervised approach, offering the potential to fully leverage the scaling law and achieve a large-scale foundation model for controllable generation. Furthermore, by fine-tuning the foundation model on specific downstream tasks or utilizing adapters, powerful specialized models can be easily derived.
2. Since there has been extensive research on conditional generation, we focus on designing a modular autoencoder based on proposed equivariant constraints, which is crucial for subsequent self-supervised controllable generation. And the visualization of the autoencoder component and the demonstration of its conditional generation capability on various tasks with zero-shot generalization prove the effectiveness of our method.
3. On specific tasks, our method still falls short of the generative capabilities of dedicated supervised methods. A major reason for this is the use of labeled data, such as sketch-image pairs, in supervised methods. If we were to fine-tune our model with labeled data, its performance on specific tasks would significantly improve.
Our primary goal at this stage is to demonstrate that the proposed self-supervised framework can emerge broad conditional generative capabilities. Further supervised fine-tuning will be explored in future work. Refer to GR1 and GR4 for more.
**Q3**: Variability and Comparison with principal components.
**R3**:
1. In PDF Fig. R5, we demonstrate the ability to precisely control the performance of the generated image on specific components by adjusting the intensity of the components (specifically, by multiplying different coefficients). It is evident that our method can easily manipulate saturation and contrast by changing the coefficient of HC0 and HC1.
2. Regarding the principal components, in PDF Fig. R4, we showcase the principal components obtained through PCA. A fundamental difference between components of PCA and modules of our method is that the different components in PCA are independent. As a result, PCA lacks the ability to decouple highly correlated internal representations into relatively independent and complementary representation modules, which is the core of zero-shot conditional generation capability.
**Q4**：Minors
**R4**:
1-2）33-36 line rephrase: We revise it to "The brain’s remarkable ability to generate associations emerges spontaneously and likely stems from two key mechanisms. One is the brain’s modularity in terms of structure and function, enabling it to decouple and separate external stimuli into distinct features at various scales. This modularity is essential for a range of subsequent cognitive functions, including associative generation."
3-7）We will fix them.
8）We will unify z and f to z.
9）We will revise z(I) to z.
10）$\delta$'s range: $\delta$ contains 3 parameters: two translation parameters $t_x$, $t_y$, and one rotation parameter $\theta$ (see PDF Fig. R4). The range of t_x and t_y is [-0.5s, 0.5s), where s is the convolution stride. The range of theta is [0, 2pi). Each parameter or dimension is sampled at n (i.e., n=24) equally spaced values.
11）Refer to GR2.
12-14）We will revise them.
15）Refer to R1 and GR2 .
16,17）we will fix it.
**Q5**: Questions
**R5**:
1）Yes, we will revise it to "z".
2）The symmetry loss aims to further enhance the internal correlation (or symmetry) within modules, building upon the equivariant loss. Without symmetry loss, it will learn unrelated features within module as shown in PDF Fig. R3, referring to GR2.
3）We used random translation and rotation augmentation within 0.3 times the image length and 360 degrees. When removing translation augmentation or rotation augmentation (PDF Fig. R2), modular features are still learned. The difference is that without translation augmentation, the learned features lack orientation selectivity and resemble Gaussian difference, while without rotation augmentation, features within each module have the same orientation.
4）We train it for 40000 steps with AdamW optimizer on a cosine anneal strategy with a start learning rate of 0.005.
5）Yes, it’s a single-layer or can be equivalently considered as a single-layer network.
6）We use plattform https://www.wjx.cn/ to collect subjective evaluations, gathering 40 questionnaires. Each questionnaire contained 12 pairs of comparison images and one original image. Participants were asked which image, out of the two, had better fidelity and aesthetics basing on the original image. （see appendix A.4.4 in main text）
**Q6**: Limitation
**R6**: Refer to R2.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Answer to rebuttal
Comment: Thank you to the authors for their answers.
My concerns regarding the fact that the method allows for modulating elements like the contrast and brightness of the images but doesn't offer much variability over the semantics ( images are nearly identical to the condition image) therefore limiting the appeal of the approach, remains. Also, the authors do not answer my question regarding the comparison with conditioning the generation on images resulting from Principal Component filtering.
The additional results provided by the authors are informative and show that for some more unusual styles, like graffiti, the conditional offered by the modular autoencoder outperforms supervised methods while it is not the case for more usual styles, where the images conditioned with segmentation mask look as good but with more variability in the image instead of reconstructing the condition image.
Given additional results and after reading the other reviews, I see better the novelty of the proposed method and how it might inspire future work. For this reason, I am increasing my score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your effort and valuable suggestions, and we also appreciate your increasing score. We are also grateful for your insightful summary of important message, from which we learned a lot.
1. We agree with your concern regarding the limitation of our method in terms of semantic diversity. We will discuss this in more detail in our future work and limitations section.
2. Regarding your suggestion for a comparison with principal component analysis (PCA), we believe it is an excellent point. We have included the features generated using PCA in PDF Fig. R3, and we can see a clear difference compared to our approach, namely the lack of modular features in PCA. We recognize that the best approach would be training a PCA-based conditional generative model in a similar manner, but due to time constraints, we were unable to train a new model. Theoretically, we analyzed that PCA, due to its lack of specialized modular features, struggles to flexibly manipulate different aspects of features, leading to a generative model that is almost a reconstruction of the original image and and thus lacks the ability to achieve widespread zero-shot generalization.
3. We admit that in specific task domains, such as conditional generation under semantic segmentation, our self-supervised approach still has a gap compared to supervised dedicate models. We will include a more detailed discussion of this in our future work and limitations section.
Thanks for your efforts on our manuscript and valuable suggestions again. | Summary: The authors train a modular auto encoder with an auxiliary custom equivariance objective, which enables them to get independent sets of representations of an image. The authors then use some of these representations to condition a ControlNet.
The authors find that the auto encoder’s submodules learn to encode functional specializations such as edge detection and other low-level image features.
Strengths: - This paper contributes an exciting and challenging field: controllable image generation. The work presented in the paper is original.
- The authors make their code available with the submission. This makes the paper easier to review, and will greatly improve the paper’s usefulness for other research groups working on controllable generation.
Weaknesses: - The paper is titled “Learning from Pattern Completion”. What are we learning from pattern completion?
- Section 3 should be written more clearly.
- While the paper promises controllable image generation, it appears that the proposed method is more of an image reconstruction method: the experiments from the paper evaluate the proposed method by giving it features generated using the proposed modular autoencoder as input. My sense is that if I wanted to draw “a monkey climbing on the moon”, then I could give ControlNet a hand-drawn sketch of this, while the proposed SCG method would not be able to generate an image based on my sketch. Is this correct?
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - The authors chose to evaluate ControlNet with the Canny image detector. Would a different representation to condition on have worked better? It seems obvious that the Canny image detector is a lossy representation of the original image.
- The authors could use a tilde (~) before \cite commands to put a small space before the square brackets, which would make the text more visually pleasing. For example~\cite{schmidhuber_1994}.
- I believe that instead of “equivariant constraint”, the correct term is “equivariance constraint”.
- It would be great if the README.md of the code could state what kind of GPU and how much RAM is required to run their code.
- It would be great if the authors could include more detail in the caption of Figure 2, especially for part C of the figure.
- On line 56, it appears that a word is missing between “sparsely” and “in”
- On line 66, the authors use the term “closed and complete independent manifold”. The terms “manifold”, “closed” and “complete” have specific meanings in the mathematical area of topology, and if I understand correctly the authors are not using the words in the sense of the definitions from topology. It may be useful to use different terms here to avoid confusion.
- On line 93, the authors mention “simple cells”. It would be helpful for some readers to change this to “simple cells in the visual cortex”.
- On line 130 it says “where M^(I)(delta) is a learnable prediction matrix determined by delta”. I still do not understand what M^(I)(delta) is. Is it a neural network that takes delta as input? Or is it computed for every delta? More generally: what is the set or distribution of all deltas? Equation (6) involves a sum over deltas, and I don’t know what the set of all deltas (or its distribution) is.
- I would be grateful if the authors could describe equation (8) more. Is C able to construct z(I) based on z^(i)(I) and i alone?
- On line 172, “We” should be lower-cased.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you very much for your efforts and valuable feedback on our paper.
**Q1**：What are we learning from pattern completion?
**R1**：Pattern completion focuses on the relationships between different module features at a global scale. By learning these relationships, SCG can utilize information from a subset of modules as clues to complete or generate information in other modules, thereby achieving various conditional generation tasks. Refer to GR3.2 for more.
**Q2**：Section 3 should be written more clearly.
**R2**：We sincerely apologize for the lack of clarity in some of our expressions. We will further clarify the captions of Figure 2, the prediction matrix M, the distribution of $\delta$, equation (6) and equation (8). Since we only presented a very coarse-grained overview of our framework in Figure 1, it may have been difficult to grasp the finer details of the method, especially regarding the modular autoencoder part. To address this, we have added a more detailed structural diagram of the modular autoencoder in PDF Fig. R4. It provides a more intuitive visualization of the modular autoencoder with proposed equivariance constraint, including the prediction matrix M, the equivariant loss, and the symmetry loss. And we will add this figure in section 3. Also can refer to GR2.1.
**Q3**：It appears that the proposed method is more of an image reconstruction method... The proposed SCG method would not be able to generate an image based on my sketch. Is this correct?
**R3**：The proposed SCG can generalize to both reconstruction-oriented tasks and generation-oriented tasks, such as sketch (main text Figure 5), LineArt (PDF Fig. R2), and ancient graffiti (main text Figure 7) in a zero-shot manner.
1. In the PDF Fig. R2, we use SCG to generate an image of “a monkey climbing on the moon” using a sketch as control.
2. Different modules have different characteristics. For instance, HC0 extracts color information, while HC1 extracts brightness information. This makes them more suitable for reconstruction-oriented tasks like image super-resolution (PDF Fig. R2), dehazing (PDF Fig. R2), and colorization (main text Figure 6 and Appendix Fig. S8).
3. For HC2 and HC3, the extracted information is more abstract, focusing on edges. Thus, they are more suitable for generation-oriented tasks such as conditional generation under sketch (main text Fig. 5), line art (PDF Fig. R2), and ancient graffiti (main text Fig. 7).
It is undeniable that our fully self-supervised controllable generation approach was not specifically trained for tasks like sketch and line drawing, and therefore, its performance and stability fall short compared to dedicated supervised methods. However, SCG’s performance on specific tasks can be significantly improved by supervised fine-tuning for those tasks, such as adding sketch and images pairs for training. We will incorporate this into the discussion of future work. Refer to GR4.
**Q4**: Would a different representation to condition on have worked better than Canny?
**R4**:
1. We have introduced controllable generation using depth maps, normal direction maps, and semantic segmentation maps as conditions for comparison (see PDF Fig. R1). These conditions are more abstract than Canny edges, offering a larger generation space. However, they require a supervised pre-trained network to extract the conditional information. Due to their abstract nature, the generated images exhibit greater diversity and aesthetic appeal.
2. However, they are highly sensitive to the distribution of the conditional image. For instance, in tasks involving generating ancient graffiti and ink paintings (PDF Fig. R1), most condition extractors fail to extract the correct conditional information, leading to uncontrollable generation results. Conversely, when accurate conditional information is available, such as high-quality depth information in ink painting, the generation results surpass those of SCG and the Canny operator. For further details, please refer to GR4.1.
**Q5**: What kind of GPU and how much RAM is required to run their code.
**R5**: We use A100 GPU and it requires about 11G RAM to run it per image.
**Q6**: More detail in the caption of Figure 2, especially for part C of the figure.
**R6**: Revised caption of Figure 2: "Feature Visualization of modular autoencoder. Each panel shows all features learned by an individual model with multiple modules (one module each row). We trained modular autoencoder with a translation-rotation equivariance constraint on a)MNIST and b)ImageNet, respectively. c) On ImageNet, We also train an autoencoder with an additional translation equivariance constraint besides the translation-rotation equivariance constraint. d) We visualize reconstructed images by features of each module in c."
**Q7**: More details on $M^{(I)}(\delta)$,distribution of all $\delta$, Eq. (6) and Eq. (8).
**R7**:
1. $M^{(i)}$ is a codebook of learnable prediction matrices that can be indexed by $\delta$. $M^{(i)}$ is a 3D codebook, with the three dimensions corresponding to the three parameters of $\delta$: two translation parameters $t_x$, $t_y$, and one rotation parameter $\theta$ (see PDF Fig. R4).
2. The range of $t_x$ and $t_y$ is [-0.5s, 0.5s), where s is the convolution stride. The range of $\theta$ is [0, 2pi). Each parameter or dimension is sampled at n (i.e., n=24) equally spaced values, which is also the range of sum in Equ (6). The prediction matrix $M^{(i)}(\delta)$ is obtained from the codebook through linear interpolation.
3. Ideally, C in Equ (8) reconstructs the complete representation from the partial module $z^{(i)}$ and its index i. In practice, the training process of C aims to achieve this goal, for example, using a diffusion model-based conditional generation process. Refer to GR2 for more.
**Q8**: Some typos and imprecise term.
**R8**: Thank you for your careful review and pointing out these issues. We will fix them.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Increased score from 4 to 5
Comment: Thank you for these improvement. I increased my score from 4 to 5.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your thorough and responsible review, and we also appreciate your increasing score. Your suggestions are very helpful in improving this work. | Summary: This paper proposes a self-supervised controllable generation (SCG) framework with two training stages. The first stage exploits equivalence invariance to learn a modular autoencoder, aims to extract different visual pattens from input images, each extracted (learned) visual pattens can be regarded as a kind of image condition. In the second stage, perform as the standard ControlNet training with these self-supervised extracted image conditions. After self-supervised training, SCG surprisingly shows some zero-shot capabilities, which can show excellent generalization capabilities for various tasks such as associative generation of paintings, sketches, and ancient graffiti. The authors compare SCG with ControlNet in terms of SSIM/PSNR/CLIP-score and achieved competitive results. However, the authors lack further exploration of the self-supervised trained ControlNet. Overall, I like the idea and method very much, but I still have some doubts about the validity of the experimental results and the fairness of the comparison.
Strengths: 1. I like the idea that exploring self-supervised training on controllable generation models. Compared with existing methods, the self-supervised training framework proposed in this paper does show better generalization ability to a certain extent.
2. Using the equivariant constraint to learn a modular autoencoder to extract different visual patterns is a simple, elegant and effective approach.
3. Although self-supervised training has not seen conditions such as painting, sketches, and ancient graffiti, it still shows good zero-shot generation capabilities, which verifies the rationality of training modular autoencoder with equivariant constraint.
4. Compared to previous excellent works ControlNet, SCG has a higher or similar winning rate in fidelity and a significantly higher winning rate in aesthetics.
Weaknesses: 1. The MS-COCO dataset is used for both the self-supervised training phase and the evaluation phase, which may lead to a serious unfair comparison because the original ControlNet is not trained on MS-COCO.
2. Although this paper explores the self-supervised training of ControlNet and its zero-shot generalization ability, no further experiments are conducted, such as whether using it as pre-trained weights for further fine-tuning on labeled tasks such as depth, segmentation, etc. will bring further improvements of controllability? The zero-shot capability alone cannot fully demonstrate the effectiveness and necessity of the proposed self-supervised training.
3. Based on the above weakness, it is necessary to conduct ablation experiments on the number of modules (from modular vae) and the types of Equivariant Constraints.
4. In addition to the painting, sketches, and ancient graffiti mentioned in the paper, does SCG also have certain zero-shot capabilities under some other conditions such as Edge/LineArt/Segmentation?
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: Please refer to the weaknesses.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: NA
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We are grateful for your fondness of our idea and are truly encouraged by it.
**Q1**：Evaluation may lead to a serious unfair comparison because the original ControlNet is not trained on MS-COCO.
**R1**：The ControlNet we used as baseline is trained from scratch with the same setting as the proposed SCG. We apologize for the inconvenience and confusion caused to readers, including reviewers, by placing the introduction of some of our training settings, including the comparison baseline ControlNet, in Appendix A.4.2 of the main text. We will move this information to the main text’s experimental section in the future.
**Q2**：Further experiments are conducted, such as whether using it as pre-trained weights for further fine-tuning on labeled tasks such as depth, segmentation, etc. will bring further improvements of controllability? The zero-shot capability alone cannot fully demonstrate the effectiveness and necessity of the proposed self-supervised training.
**R2**：This is an incredibly insightful suggestion, opening up new avenues for our research. Previously, we focused on fully unsupervised methods for modular, independent, and complementary feature disentanglement, exploring the emergent capabilities. Your suggestion has broadened our perspective. While fully self-supervised training can exhibit impressive emergent capabilities and demonstrate strong generalization across data distributions and task variations, it still falls short compared to supervised methods in specific tasks. Leveraging our self-supervised model as a pre-trained model and then fine-tuning it on labeled data for specific downstream tasks, such as sketch-conditioned generation, super-resolution, or dehazing, can significantly improve performance on those tasks. We believe this approach will enable both competitive capabilities on specific tasks and the ability to generalize to out-of-distribution data and tasks. Moreover, this fully unsupervised pre-training process has the potential to replicate the scaling law observed in large language models and other domains, establishing a foundation model for conditional generation. We will incorporate this into our future work section. Refer to GR1.1 for more.
**Q3**：Ablation experiments on the number of modules (from modular vae) and the types of Equivariant Constraints.
**R3**：We apologize for our focus on demonstrating the zero-shot generalization capability of the conditional generation model and neglecting this aspect. We have included an ablation study in PDF Fig. R3.
1. As visualized in Fig. R3, when the number of modules or the number of convolutional kernels within each module varies, the modular autoencoder network can still reliably produce relatively independent and complementary functional specializations.
2. When translational motion is removed, modular features are still emerged, but they lose their orientation selectivity, exhibiting a center-surround receptive field similar to a Difference of Gaussians. When rotational motion is removed, features within each module exhibit the same orientation selectivity.
3. When the symmetry constraint is removed, modular features are still generally produced, but some modules may contain multiple unrelated (or asymmetric) sub-features. As shown in Appendix Fig. S1 a and d of the main text, when the equivariant constraint is removed, the model cannot generate relatively independent and complementary functional modules.
We will add these ablation experiments to the appendix. Refer to GR2.2 for more.
**Q4**：Does SCG also have certain zero-shot capabilities under some other conditions such as Edge/LineArt/Segmentation?
**R4**：Yes.
1. We quickly test SCG in other zero-shot tasks including generation conditioned by LineArt (see PDF Fig. R2), as well as super-resolution (see PDF Fig. R2) and dehazing (see PDF Fig. R2)(Refer to GR4.2 for more).
2. Furthermore, we also can manipulate saturation and contrast of the generated image by changing the coefficient of HC0 and HC1, see in PDF Fig. R5. (Refer to GR4.3 for more).
This demonstrates the advantage of self-supervision over supervised learning, allowing the emergence of broader capabilities rather than just specific ones. It also indicates the effectiveness of the features learned by our modular autoencoder.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for clarifying that the motivation is to propose and validate a novel self-supervised pipeline rather than a model to achieve broad generalizations. The author's rebuttal solves most of my questions, so I tend to maintain the existing score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your time and insightful feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your thoughtful comments and suggestions, which will help us significantly improve the quality of our work. | Summary: Presents a self-supervised approach for learning multiple distinct representations from images through a loss leading to specialized modules, each learning different aspects of the data without manual design. Demonstrate that those modules may be useful for the conditional generation of images through a controllable diffusion model.
Strengths: * Originality: the main contribution of the work is in the novel loss function and the insight (perhaps inspired by neuroscience) that modular networks are favourable for learning in self-supervised settings. The idea that a module may develop functional specialization from imposing equivariance to some property of the stimuli is also a nice extension of previous supervised approaches. I think the other half of the work, where the representation of a single module is used for controllable generation, is a natural extension of previous work. Previous works on both manual designing specialized blocks and on Group equivariance are properly quoted.
* Quality: the presented experimental results are fine (but as always with image generation, visual judgement is difficult), so the quantitative evaluation (Table 1) and subjective evaluation (Figure 4 and some panels in Figure 7) are appreciated.
* Clarity: the submission is clearly written and well organized, using neuroscience inspiration to improve the intuition on how to make progress on self-supervised learning of rich representations. The “pattern completion” jargon, on the other hand, does not contribute to the reader’s understanding; it would have been better to adhere to “conditional, controllable generation,” which actually describes what was done.
* Significance: the suggested equivariance and symmetry loss components are easily usable for developing a functional specialization in other projects and may impact seemingly unrelated problems.
Weaknesses: * Quality: the evaluation is limited only to ControlNet, which is probably a decent baseline, but there are other approaches for image generation that can be compared with (e.g., it’s fine to show a manual-designed solution outperforming the current self-supervised model or compare with other self-supervised approaches).
* Significance: it would be great to see if the suggested loss components can be utilized in a setting other than controllable generation where their contribution can be better quantified, e.g., in lowering MSE in a reconstruction or prediction task.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: 1. What is the respective contribution of the symmetry loss vs the equivariance loss? What does performance look like with only one of them? What is the problem solved by introducing each of them?
2. What are the equivariance properties of HC1 and HC3 (i.e., their functional specialization) and make them useful for controllable generation?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: There is only a limited discussion of the approach's limitations and the limits of functional specialization (summarized as “only low-level feature specialization”); it would have been nice to see a discussion of what useful features are NOT learned by this approach and why.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you very much for your affirmation of our originality!
**Suggestion**：Better use "controllable generation" rather than “pattern completion” .
**Response**：Thank you for your suggestion. “Controllable generation” is indeed a more accurate and understandable term in the field of AI, as it clearly reflects the concept of generating content with specific controls. We will clarify this by explaining that “pattern completion” corresponds to “controllable generation” when we introduce the concept in our paper. From that point forward, we will consistently use “controllable generation” throughout the paper.
**Q1**：Quility: the evaluation is limited.
**R1**：We added comparisons to other conditions besides Canny, including depth maps, normal directions, and semantic segmentation in PDF Fig. R1, with each condition extracted by a pre-trained model. These condition extraction networks are highly sensitive to data distributions. For instance, all models fail to extract condition information for the ancient graffiti, resulting in low-fidelity generated images. When suitable features can be extracted, more abstract control conditions can achieve better generation results, such as ControlNet based on Canny and depth. Here are two possible reasons for this: 1) Our SCG was only trained on COCO, not a larger dataset; 2) SCG training did not use supervised data, such as sketch and image pairs. Addressing these two issues could significantly improve SCG’s ability on specific tasks. Our goal in this work is more focused on demonstrating that SCG can spontaneously emerge conditional generation capabilities on a wide range of tasks. Refer to GR4.1 for additional information.
**Q2**：Significance: suggestions to test on reconstruction task other than generation.
**R2**：Thanks for good suggestions. We quickly conducted simple tests on image super-resolution and dehazing tasks (see PDF Fig. R2) and still see that the proposed SCG has emerged with both super-resolution and dehazing capabilities. As SCG is fully self-supervised, its performance is hard to compare with supervised and dedicated networks. However, it has the potential to be used as a self-supervised pre-trained model and then fine-tuned on specific tasks, thereby enhancing the network’s ability in specific tasks while maintaining high generalization capabilities. Refer to GR4.2 and GR1.1 for additional information.
**Q3**：More analysis on symmetry loss vs equivariance loss.
**R3**：The equivariance loss is central to the modular autoencoder architecture, playing a crucial role in promoting independence between modules while simultaneously strengthening feature correlations within each module. The symmetry loss further enhances pairwise correlations (or symmetry) between features within a module, effectively suppressing the emergence of multiple unrelated sub-features within the same module. Removing the equivariance loss prevents the network from learning brain-like Gabor-shaped features and hinders the emergence of complementary functional specialized modules (see Appendix Fig. S1 a and d in the main text). While removing the symmetry loss allows the autoencoder to still generate complementary functional specializations overall, the correlations (or symmetry) within individual modules are reduced. This can lead to multiple unrelated features appearing within some modules (see PDF Fig. R3). Refer to GR2 for more.
**Q4**：What are the equivariance properties of HC1 and HC3 and make them useful for controllable generation?
**R4**：
1. It is noteworthy that all modules within the same network are under the same type of equivariant constraint (i.e., translation and rotation). The distinct functions that emerge from these different modules are entirely self-emergent and not a result of imposing distinct constraints on each module.
2. Modular autoencoder, under equivariance constraints, disentangles and decomposes into modular and complementary features. For example, HC0 represents color features, HC1 represents brightness features, HC2 and HC3 represent edge features, and HC4 and HC5 represent higher-frequency edge features. When we retain the brightness features (HC1) and drop the other features, the generation model will use the brightness features as clues to complete the other missing information, such as color. Therefore, conditional generation based on HC1 can be used for tasks like colorizing ink paintings or other re-color tasks. Similarly, when we retain the edge features (e.g., HC3) and discard other features, the generation module can use the edge information to generate color, brightness, and other information. Therefore, it often performs better in more abstract conditional generation tasks, such as sketch and ancient graffiti. For HC0, which represents color information, it is insensitive to fog due to its white color. Therefore, we can utilize HC0 for dehazing.
3. Different conditional generation tasks can be viewed as scenarios where certain aspects of an image are missing or corrupted. The goal is to use the remaining information as clues to complete or generate the missing information. The modularity of the autoencoder, resulting in relatively independent (at a local scale) and complementary features, allows for zero-shot generalization across a wide range of tasks, despite not being specifically trained for any particular task. Refer to GR3 for more.
**Q5**：Limitations: what useful features are NOT learned by this approach and why.
**R5**: While more features, such as depth (parallax), motion(e.g., optical flow), and semantic-oriented contours and instance segmentation, remain unlearned, they hold significant potential to further enhance the Controllability. Our current version of the autoencoder is limited to learning static, local features, thus preventing it from disentangling dynamic, volumetric, and semantically related modular features. We will discuss this in more detail in the Limitation section.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response to rebuttal
Comment: I thank the authors for their clarifications and am satisfied with the improvements. I have adjusted my score accordingly.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the efforts and insightful feedback. We have benefited greatly from your comments, and are truly encouraged for your positive opinion. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewers for their efforts and constructive comments on our manuscript, which is very valuable and enlightening to us. We have revised our manuscript according to reviewers’ concerns. We would like to make an overall response before specific response to reviewers.
# GR1：Significance of SCG:
Our original motivation is to propose and validate a novel self-supervised pipeline rather than a model to achieve broad generalizations.
1. We propose SCG and experimentally demonstrate that it can spontaneously emerge (or 0-shot generalize) various abilities, including super-resolution, dehazing, saturation and contrast manipulation, as well as conditional generation based on diverse styles such as oil paintings, ink paintings, ancient graffiti, sketches, and LineArt. Furthermore, SCG possesses two significant potentials: 1) Leveraging its self-supervision, SCG can further scale up its data and models to benefit from the scaling law, enhancing its basic capabilities; 2) Subsequently, SCG can be fine-tuned for specific tasks, leading to improved performance on particular tasks. These potentials suggest that SCG has the potential to become a foundation model for controllable generation.
2. This framework comprises two components: a modular autoencoder and a conditional generator. Given the extensive research on conditional generation, we leverage the existing, mature ControlNet for this aspect. Our core contribution lies in designing a modular autoencoder based on proposed equivariance constraint, successfully enabling the network to spontaneously develop relatively independent and highly complementary modular features. These features are crucial for subsequent conditional generation.
# GR2：Clarification of Modular Autoencoder:
1. We agree to all reviewers’ suggestion and will add a more detailed framework diagram of the modular autoencoder in Section 3, including a more intuitive prediction matrix $M^{(i)}(\delta)$, equivariant loss $L_{equ}$, and symmetric loss $L_{sym}$. See PDF Fig. R4 for details. The equivariance loss $L_{equ}$ is the core of the equivariant constraint, primarily serving to increase independence between modules and correlation (or symmetry) within modules. The symmetry loss $L_{sym}$ further enhances the correlation (or symmetry) of features within modules and suppresses the emergence of multiple unrelated features within the same module.
2. By removing the symmetric loss $L_{sym}$ (see PDF Fig. R3), the autoencoder overall still works, but some modules exhibit unrelated sub-features within them. When we change the number of modules, the autoencoder still reliably forms feature differentiation (see PDF Fig. R3). When removing the translation transform of the data, the learned features lose their direction selectivity. When removing the rotation transform, each module can only learn features with the same orientation (see PDF Fig. R3). We will explain the purpose of each loss more clearly in Section 3 and supplement the above ablation experiments in the appendix.
# GR3：Pattern Completion:
1. Pattern completion is a classic neuroscience concept.The SCG aims to mimic this process by "mask and predict" at component instead of widely used space level. We agree with the reviewers that the introduction of it is not clear enough. We plan to provide more details about this concept and its relationship with the SCG.
2. The pattern completion process learns the global relationships between different modules, enabling it to complete or generate missing information from clues provided by other modules. For example, HC1 is brightness moduler. Therefore, conditional generation based on HC1 can be used for tasks like colorizing ink paintings or other re-color tasks. Since our modular autoencoder learns a set of complementary and relatively complete modules, most conditional generation or reconstruction tasks can be considered as scenarios where information in one or more modules is missing or damaged. This is also the source of SCG’s zero-shot generalization capabilities.
# GR4：More Comparisons and More Tasks:
1. We added comparisons to other conditions besides Canny, including depth maps, normal directions, and semantic segmentation in PDF Fig. R1. These methods require supervised pre-trained feature extractors, which are sensitive to data distribution. All condition extractors fail to extract reasonable conditional information on ancient graffiti, resulting in uncontrolled generated images, and the performances are all inferior to our SCG. In the case of ink painting conditional generation, the depth feature extractor and Canny operator extracted relatively good features, resulting in better generation results than our SCG. However, other feature extractors failed to extract reasonable features, and the generated training results were not as good as SCG.
2. We also tested more tasks, as shown in PDF Fig. R2, and found that SCG, in addition to spontaneously emerging conditional generation capabilities for oil paintings, ink paintings, ancient graffiti, sketches, etc., still zero-shot generalized super-resolution, dehazing, and controllable generation capabilities under line art and sketch conditions.
3. As shown in PDF Fig. R5, we also discovered that by changing the coefficient of HC0, we can easily manipulate the saturation of the generated image, and by changing the coefficient of HC1, we can manipulate the contrast of the generated image.
4. On specific tasks, SCG’s generative ability still falls short of supervised, specialized models. There might be two reasons: 1) SCG is trained only on COCO, while specialized models are often trained on larger and high-quality datasets. 2) No labeled or supervised data (e.g., scribble and image pairs) has been incorporated for training.
In summary, despite being trained solely on COCO through self-supervised learning, SCG has demonstrated a wide range of capabilities. These extended experiments will be included in the appendix.
Pdf: /pdf/1eac633133cfffb6f59ccf5f5c2dc692f8c01b6b.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Rethinking The Training And Evaluation of Rich-Context Layout-to-Image Generation | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper focuses on layout-to-image (L2I) generation from the perspective of rich-context scenario where the object descriptions are complex and lengthy. In the framework design, it introduces a novel regional cross-attention module to enhance the representation of layout regions. In the evaluation for open-vocabulary L2I models, this paper proposed two new metrics that assess model performance under rich-context descriptions, validated through a comprehensive user study.
Strengths: --The introduction of a regional cross-attention module is novel, improving the handling of complex layout descriptions compared to traditional self-attention approaches.
--The paper provides rigorous experimental validation, demonstrating that the proposed regional cross-attention module enhances generation performance.
Weaknesses: --This paper presents the GFLOPs of the proposed method. However, it seems that the region reorganization and regional cross attention may affect the realtime throughput. It would be better to also analyze how this proposed module affect the runtime cost.
--This paper aims to target the scenario rich-context layout-to-image generation. During training, they collect a rich-context dataset for training. Therefore, I wonder the performance gain is come from the constructed rich-context dataset or the proposed regional cross attention.
--Meanwhile, the comparison with other baselines may not be fair. Since the proposed method used a different training dataset which is beneficial for rich-context layout-to-image generation. It would be more fair if the compared baselines are also retrained on the same training dataset.
--This paper introduced two new metrics to evaluate the object-text alignment and the layout fidelity. However, the proposed two metrics are intuitive extensions from existing metrics, which may not be strong enough to claim as a contribution.
--Regarding ablations, it would be better to have visual results to illustrate the effectiveness.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Please see above weaknesses.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have discussed limitations in the supplementary.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for his/her review. We use W to denote bullets in weaknesses
**Answer to W1**: In Rebuttal Section A, we compare the throughput of L2I methods using SD1.5 and SDXL baselines. It is noteworthy that the overall throughput of our method is not significantly hampered. In a typical scenario with 5 objects, the throughput of our method is more than 60% of the throughput of the original backbone model.
**Answer to W2 and W3**: We argue that conditioning the model on rich-context descriptions requires both a rich-context dataset and a designated conditioning module for complex descriptions. Without a rich-context dataset, the generalizability of the conditioning module from word/phrase-level context to rich-context descriptions can be hindered. Conversely, without a proper conditioning module, the model may perform poorly when handling complex descriptions.
To validate the effectiveness of both the rich-context dataset and the regional cross-attention module, we conducted two additional ablation studies: 1) We retained the regional cross-attention module but replaced the rich-context descriptions with word/phrase-level descriptions obtained using the Recognize Anything Model and GroundingDINO (Ln 213). 2) We replaced the regional cross-attention module with the self-attention modules used in GLIGEN and InstDiff, training them with the rich-context dataset.
The results, presented in Rebuttal Sec D, show that performance drops either when using word/phrase-level descriptions or when removing the regional cross-attention module. This validates the importance of both the rich-context dataset and the regional cross-attention module.
**Answer to W4**: Our proposed two metrics, although they resemble extensions of existing metrics, are appropriately repurposed to offer significant value for the L2I problem as 1) These metrics are specifically designed to quantitatively measure L2I performance in rich-context scenarios, where existing metrics have failed to do so (Ln 176-183). 2) In addition to proposing these metrics, our reliability analysis is crucial. It demonstrates the conditions under which these metrics are effective and consistent with human perception. We argue that this analysis should be considered a contribution to the field of evaluation metrics.
**Answer to W5**: In Rebuttal Sec E, we provide a visual comparison to demonstrate the effectiveness of using region reorganization compared to straightforward feature averaging (the baseline described in Ln 279) when dealing with overlapping objects. The qualitative results validate the importance of our proposed methods, as they produce more accurate generated objects that better align with the designated layouts.
For the ablation study on box indicator and image resolution, identifying a failure generation without one of these components can be deliberated, and there may not be a strong sample-wise effect when applying them. Therefore, we recommend referring to the quantitative performance metrics for a more accurate comparison.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: The rebuttal addressed my most concerns, especially the main concern about the effect of rich-context dataset and the regional cross-attention module. I would like to increase my recommendation to borderline accept.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your updated comment and for considering our rebuttal. We noticed that you mentioned increasing your recommendation to a borderline accept, but it seems the rating has not yet been updated in the system. Could you kindly adjust the score at your convenience?
We greatly appreciate your feedback and support. | Summary: In this work, the author views both training and evaluation of the layout-to-image synthesis task. They propose regional cross attention to addresses the issues of previous works and they also introduce a new evaluation protocols for this task.
Strengths: - I agree with the author's discussion on the desired properties for a layout-to-image model and how they achieve these properties. The contribution in terms of evaluation is also acknowledged.
- Overall, the performance is superior compared to existing models.
Weaknesses: Metrics
- The author view a holistic “rethinking” for both training and evaluation; however, the novelty in evaluation seems limited. For instance, using CLIP to compute patchwise similarity is not particularly novel, and although calculating SAM-driven IoU is an interesting approach and might be meaningful in open-vocab-related tasks, it does not feel exceptionally special.
Method
- I also agree that the one critical problem in layout-to-image tasks is overlapping issues and I am quite interested in the regional cross attention. However, despite Table 2 showing improvements with the proposed modules (including regional CA), I find the analysis of these overlapping issues lacking. Similarly, the paper argue that “desired properties for an effective rich-context layout-conditioning module” (L113) in four items, each needing more concrete analysis. Currently, the analysis seems insufficient.
- The computational requirements for training seem high. How does the performance compare to other methods in terms of training costs, including both resources and data? In a current view, I am not sure that the improved performance is originated from the method itself or the increased training dataset and computational powers.
Presentation
- I recommend that the proposed evaluation methods be described in more detail, possibly in a more formal manner or with more detailed information such as in appendix.
- Similarly, a more detailed explanation of the regional cross attention would be beneficial.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: The details of models and evaluations should be included more in appendix.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The author discussed the limitation and I agree with that (as I described in weaknesses as well).
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for his/her review. We use W and Q to denote bullets in weaknesses and questions
**Answer to W1**: Our proposed two metrics may not seem exceptionally special, however, we are the first to repurpose these metrics to evaluate L2I performance. They offer significant value for L2I problem as 1) these metrics are specifically designed to quantitatively measure L2I performance in rich-context scenarios, where existing metrics have failed to do so (Ln 176-183); 2) in addition to proposing these metrics, our reliability analysis is crucial. It demonstrates the conditions under which these metrics are effective and consistent with human perception. We argue that this analysis should also be considered as a contribution to the field of evaluation metrics.
**Answer to W2**: In Rebuttal Sec E, we provide a visual comparison to demonstrate the effectiveness of using region reorganization compared to straightforward feature averaging (the baseline described in Ln 279) when dealing with overlapping objects. The qualitative results validate the importance of our proposed methods, as they produce more accurate generated objects that better align with the designated layouts.
Our objective with the four properties outlined in Sec 3.2 is to address the rich-context L2I challenges detailed in Sec 3.1 (Ln 98-110). Specifically, when “Flexibility” is satisfied, the rich-context description can be accurately understood by the model (Ln 99), the “Locality” ensures the objects are positioned correctly within the designated layout box (Ln 103) and “Completeness” guarantees the global consistency in the generated images (Ln 103-104). Finally, “Collectiveness” allows the model to consider and properly represent the interaction of overlapping objects (Ln 109-110).
In practical terms, positioning objects accurately (Locality) and maintaining plausible image quality (Completeness) are fundamental prerequisites for L2I problems. By satisfying the Flexibility, our model can better understand descriptions and generate more satisfactory objects (Figure 1, 5). Additionally, a model that meets Collectiveness can more effectively handle interactions between overlapping objects (Rebuttal Sec E).
We will clarify and elaborate on this information in the revised paper to ensure it is more comprehensible.
**Answer to W3**: As mentioned in Appendix Section B, our model is trained with an accumulated batch size of 256 for 100K iterations, which is half of the current state-of-the-art (SoTA) L2I method InstDiff, trained with a batch size of 512 for 100K iterations. Additionally, the number of training samples is 2M (after filtering failed downloads in CC3M), which is also half of the number of samples used in InstDiff, which has 5M samples. Overall, the training cost of our work is less than half of the existing L2I methods. Therefore, we believe the performance improvement is not due to larger computational resources or data, but rather from our design. We will include this comparison in the revised appendix.
**Answer to W4 and Q**: We provide pseudo-code for the proposed two evaluation metrics in Rebuttal Sec C. The CLIP model used is the clip-vit-base-patch32, trained by OpenAI, and the SAM model is the ViT-H checkpoint from the official SAM implementation.
**Answer to W5**: For reproducibility, our implementation will be released upon the completion of the submission. In practical terms, we implement region reorganization in the dataloader to minimize computation overhead . This ensures that the reorganized region-text correspondence is shared across all regional cross-attention layers. Consequently, the regional cross-attention layer in the denoising model is reduced to a classical cross-attention operation with a special attention mask that indicates the permissible attention region between visual and textual tokens. Essentially, the attention operation depicted in Figure 2 is conducted by passing a pre-computed attention mask when cross-attending visual and textual tokens. We will enhance the clarity of these details in the revised paper.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the rebuttal. It addresses most of my concerns so I raise the rating. | Summary: The field of paper is open-set layout-to-image (L2I) generation. They propose to apply regional cross-attention module to enrich layout-to-image generation, slightly surpassing existing self-attention-based approaches. The paper also proposes two new metrics to assess L2I performance in open-vocabulary scenarios instead of previous closed-set environments.
Strengths: 1. Considering the evaluation in open scenarios is meaningful. The proposed two metrics are reasonable, and due to the use of open-source tools such as CLIP and SAM, they are relatively easy to implement.
2. In the context of rich-context layout-to-image generation, the proposed method shows a notable improvement.
Weaknesses: 1. The proposed regional cross-attention may not be plug-and-play and could be incompatible with existing pre-trained large models.
2. The related work section on layout-to-image is somewhat brief. Please expand this section to provide a more detailed overview of this field.
3. In terms of quantitative metrics in COCO, which is relatively close-set, the improvement of the proposed method over the latest approaches is not particularly significant.
4. The paper lacks pseudocode for the algorithm.
5. The paper lacks the diversity analysis of the generation images.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: I will consider increasing the score if the authors can address the following issues.
1. Since the authors consider the two evaluation metrics as one of the main contributions, detailed information regarding their implementation is necessary to facilitate future work. For example, specifying the model type of SAM, Clip, among other details, would be helpful. This information can be included in the main text or supplementary materials. Ideally, the evaluation code should be made open source.
2. The proposed regional cross-attention may not be plug-and-play. Please list the modifications and additional training required to apply it directly to existing pre-trained models. Providing pseudocode for the algorithm would significantly enhance the paper’s reproducibility and reduce the implementation difficulty.
3. The related work section on layout-to-image is somewhat brief. Please expand this section to provide a more detailed overview of this field. For example, Freestyle Layout-to-Image Synthesis from CVPR 2023 uses attention-based interactions to achieve open-set rich-context layout-to-image generation, which is similar to this paper. Additionally, some closed-set layout-to-image generation methods based on diffusion should also be included. For example, CVPR 2023, LayoutDiffusion applys more comprehensive evaluations than previous works, using five metrics to assess generation quality, controllability (accuracy), and diversity. As diversity of generated image is also important, it's recommended to include it.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for his/her review. We use W and Q to denote bullets in weaknesses and questions
**Answer to W1, Q2**: Our solution, like GLIGEN and InstDiff, requires inserting additional parameters into the pre-trained model and enhancing L2I ability through training. Indeed, our module is not plug-and-play as it is not training-free. However, it is compatible with existing pre-trained large models. Specifically, our cross-attention module is inserted into the original diffusion model right after each self-attention layer (Ln 204), similar to GLIGEN. This allows our model to be applied to all modern pre-trained diffusion models with similar structures, such as the Stable Diffusion family, DALLE family, DeepFloyd, GLIDE, etc.
For reproducibility, our implementation will be released upon the completion of the submission. In practical terms, we implement region reorganization in the dataloader to minimize computation overhead . This ensures that the reorganized region-text correspondence is shared across all regional cross-attention layers. Consequently, the regional cross-attention layer in the denoising model is reduced to a classical cross-attention operation with a special attention mask that indicates the permissible attention region between visual and textual tokens. Essentially, the attention operation depicted in Figure 2 is conducted by passing a pre-computed attention mask when cross-attending visual and textual tokens. We will enhance the clarity of these details in the revised paper.
**Answer to W2.W5,Q3**: Per the reviewer’s suggestion, we evaluated the generation diversity using LPIPS and Inception Scores as proposed in [A], with results provided in Rebuttal Sec B. Using the same model backbone (SD1.5) as previous works, our method can generate images with greater diversity. We also observed that the diversity of the SDXL-based model is less than that of the SD1.5-based model, which we attribute to the inherent differences between the backbones.
Furthermore, while [B] addresses mask-based layouts, our work focuses on box-based layouts. Unlike mask-based layouts, box-based layouts lack dense annotation for every pixel and involve overlapping regions, making it infeasible to directly apply cross-attention-based techniques as in [B]. In the revised paper, we will elaborate on related works and clearly differentiate our approach from previous methods.
**Answer to W3**: Our method is designed for rich-context L2I, but it does not fall short on simpler description datasets like COCO. Our analysis in Figure 6a indicates that when the description is simple, our performance is on par with existing methods. However, as the description complexity increases, our advantage becomes more pronounced.
**Answer to W4, Q1**: We provide pseudo-code for the proposed two evaluation metrics in Rebuttal Sec C. The CLIP model used is the clip-vit-base-patch32, trained by OpenAI, and the SAM model is the ViT-H checkpoint from the official SAM implementation.
Above information will be updated in the revised version paper.
[A] LayoutDiffusion
[B] Freestyle Layout-to-Image Synthesis
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: The author's rebuttal addressed my concerns.
Comment: 1. The proposed model can be easily applied to all modern pre-trained diffusion models with similar structures. And the implementation will be released upon the completion of the submission. It is strongly recommended to combine with popular architecture such as diffusers.
2. The rebuttal addressed my main concern about the possible decrease on diversity.
I increased my score from 5:borderline accpet to 6:weak accept.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thank you for your thoughtful comments and for increasing your score. We greatly appreciate your suggestion regarding the importance of combining our model with popular architectures such as diffusers. We fully agree with this suggestion, and I would like to clarify that our implementation is indeed achieved by overriding classes in the diffusers library to ensure compatibility and ease of use with existing pre-trained diffusion models. | Summary: The paper proposes a layout-to-image generation method based on cross-attention control. It also proposes evaluation metrics for the task.
Strengths: * The paper highlights the potential effectiveness of cross-attention control and designs a learning framework using this insight.
* The framework shows some empirical performance gain over prior methods.
Weaknesses: * The performance improvement compared to baselines is very limited, as shown in Table 1. What is the backbone of the baseline methods? If the backbones of these baselines are swapped to be the more powerful SDXL, they could match or surpass the proposed method.
* Section 3.2 proposes four properties but there lacks a discussion on 1) why these properties are complete descriptions of the desired properties of layout-to-image generation methods, or 2) why they are necessary and if so under what scenarios or using what kind of layout or text inputs would lead to undesirable outputs.
* Lines 125-127 describe a cross-attention-based baseline which could be training-free. The paper claims advantages over this baseline without empirical evidence. Quantitative and qualitative comparisons would help strengthen the claim.
Technical Quality: 1
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: * How is "open-set" and "rich-context" defined? In line 95, "open-set" seems to refer to cases when N is not fixed. But even in these cases, an off-the-shelf object detector could be used to compute evaluation metrics. Why would it be impossible to list all classes (line 181)?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 1
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 1
Limitations: Limitations are discussed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for his/her review. We use W and Q to denote bullets in weaknesses and questions
**Answer to W1**: The backbone of the current SoTA L2I method, InstDiff, is based on SD1.5. Our proposed method has been validated using both SDXL and SD1.5 backbones (Ln 201). Therefore, our comparisons against baselines using the SD1.5 backbone are fair and justified.
While the performance results in Table 1 appear close, it is crucial to consider the following points: 1) Table 1 illustrates the model’s performance across various description complexities, including easy, medium, and hard. However, our model excels when handling complex object descriptions (see Figure 6a), which shows that as the complexity and length of the descriptions increase, our model’s performance advantage over the baselines becomes more pronounced. 2) As noted in lines 290-295, the evaluation configuration in Table 1 does not fully leverage our model’s generation capabilities. Our model’s performance can be further enhanced with higher resolution. We provide the combined results on RC CC3M of Table 1 and Figure 6b in the following table. By examining our model’s performance at higher resolution (Figure 6b), it is clear that our improvements over the baselines are noteworthy.
| Methods | CropCLIP | SAMIoU |
|-----------|----------|--------|
| GLIGEN (512x512) | 25.27 | 83.64 |
| GLIGEN (768x768) | 25.16 | 83.80 |
| InstDiff (512x512) | 28.46 | 85.59 |
| | | |
| **Ours** | | |
| SD1.5 (512x512) | 28.45 | 86.04 |
| SDXL (512x512) | 29.42 | 86.56 |
| SD1.5 (768x768) | 28.94 | 86.91 |
| SDXL (768x768) | 29.79 | 88.10 |
Please note that InstDiff only support fixed size of 512 for inference, as we noted in Ln 294-295.
**Answer to W2**: Our method is not intended to be a, as the reviewer suggested, “complete” L2I solution, and there is potential for future extensions to tackle broader L2I problems. Our objective with the four properties outlined in Sec 3.2 is to address the rich-context L2I challenges detailed in Sec 3.1 (Ln 98-110).
Specifically, when “Flexibility” is satisfied, the rich-context description can be accurately understood by the model (Ln 99), the “Locality” ensures the objects are positioned correctly within the designated layout box (Ln 103) and “Completeness” guarantees the global consistency in the generated images (Ln 103-104). Finally, “Collectiveness” allows the model to consider and properly represent the interaction of overlapping objects (Ln 109-110).
In practical terms, positioning objects accurately (Locality) and maintaining plausible image quality (Completeness) are fundamental prerequisites for L2I problems. By satisfying the Flexibility, our model can better understand descriptions and generate more satisfactory objects (Figure 1, 5). Additionally, a model that meets Collectiveness can more effectively handle interactions between overlapping objects (Rebuttal Sec E).
We will clarify and elaborate on this information in the revised paper to ensure it is more comprehensible.
**Answer to W3**: As noted in lines 203-204, our method is a training-based approach and is not training-free. We insert the proposed regional cross-attention layers after each self-attention layer in the original diffusion model. Consequently, even if applying the cross-attention strategy mentioned in Ln 125-127, the model still requires training because the newly inserted parameters are randomly initialized.
**Answer to Q1**: “Rich-context” can be considered as an extension of the “open-set” concept. While both “open-set” and “rich-context” scenarios deal with an unlimited number of object classes, the descriptions in the rich-context setting are notably more diverse, complex, and lengthy (Ln 95-97).
We mention “impossible to list all classes” as the limitation of using the closed-set detectors for evaluation(see Ln 176-180). In contrast, the limitation of open-set object detectors is that they are designed to handle inputs at the word or phrase level, but not sentence-level that are required in the rich-context setting (refer Ln 182-183).
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thanks Authors for Response
Comment: I thank the authors for providing high-resolution quantitative results and explaining the performance gap in tasks with different difficulties. The explanation of cross-attention-layer training helps with clarifications. Including training details as suggested by Reviewer 2Dp7 would help further improve paper clarity. I raise my score to borderline acceptance.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your updated comment and for considering our rebuttal. We will including more details to improve the clarity of the revised paper.
We noticed that you mentioned increasing your recommendation to a borderline acceptance, but it seems the rating has not yet been updated in the system. Could you kindly adjust the score at your convenience?
We greatly appreciate your feedback and support. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: The figures, tables, and pseudo-codes for the rebuttal are presented in the PDF file. We appreciate the reviewers for taking the time to read and consider them.
Pdf: /pdf/5406210c09a6c6e53a6275c7f7038c82ae19e5c5.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Adversarially Trained Weighted Actor-Critic for Safe Offline Reinforcement Learning | Accept (poster) | Summary: The Weighted Safe Actor-Critic (WSAC) is a new Safe Offline Reinforcement Learning algorithm designed to outperform any reference policy while ensuring safety with limited data. It uses a two-player Stackelberg game to achieve optimal convergence and safe policy improvements. In practical tests, WSAC surpasses baselines in continuous control environments.
Strengths: - The ability of WSAC to outperform the behavior policy over a wide range of hyperparameters is a crucial property for practical use.
- The author provides theoretical proof.
Weaknesses: - Given that I haven't examined the mathematical details, I find that many of the assumptions and proofs of key theorems in the paper resemble those in ATAC [1]. The primary differences are the authors' focus on the safe offline RL setting and the inclusion of a cost value in their theory. However, the use of a primal-dual approach in the algorithm's implementation may introduce training stability issues [2]. From both theoretical and practical implementation perspectives, it is difficult to identify novel insights in the paper.
- The author needs to compare more state-of-the-art baselines, such as CDT [3] and FISOR [2].
- Line 34 contains a duplicate citation.
[1] Cheng, Ching-An, et al. "Adversarially trained actor critic for offline reinforcement learning." *International Conference on Machine Learning*. PMLR, 2022.
[2] Zheng, Yinan, et al. "Safe offline reinforcement learning with feasibility-guided diffusion model". *International Conference on Learning Representations* (2024).
[3] Liu, Zuxin, et al. "Constrained decision transformer for offline safe reinforcement learning." *International Conference on Machine Learning*. PMLR, 2023.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: - What about the performance under different cost limits? The average cost in Table 2 does not adequately reveal the safety of the algorithm.
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: n/a
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your comments on our paper. Please find our point-by-point response to your questions below.
- **Response to contributions:** We respectfully ask the reviewer to evaluate our theoretical contributions. We would like to mention that our approach has significant differences from ATAC. It is also unfair to say the "primary differences are the authors' focus on the safe offline RL setting and the inclusion of a cost value in their theory," since all existing studies in safe RL consider the cost function in the formulation of RL, it is the default setting. This consideration makes the problem entirely different and more difficult than the unconstrained case; i.e., the optimal policy will no longer be a greedy policy, how to ensure safe learning and obtain a safe policy, and balancing the reward and cost is extremely important. We are the **first** to present a Safe Robust policy improvement over **any** reference policy with an optimal statistical rate. Following the approaches in ATAC can only guarantee a sub-optimal rate, and it is highly non-trivial to extend their results to the constrained setting.
- **Response to compare with baselines:** We thank the reviewer for pointing out the papers CDT and FISOR. The reason we did not incorporate these two algorithms as additional baselines is that their setups do not align well with ours. CDT introduces additional information, target reward, and target cost, during evaluation. These pieces of information are not required in the evaluation process of WSAC and the other baselines we have chosen. Additionally, FISOR considers a different setting from ours as they consider a different type of constraint which is defined for any possible state. For the addition simulations with different cost limits, we report the average performance of our results and other baselines in the following Table (Table 1) under cost limits [10,20,40] for BallCircle and CarCircle and [20, 40, 80] for PointButton and PointPush following the standard setup ([R1]). We can observe that WSAC maintains safety across **all** environments, and WSAC's performance is comparable to or even better than the best baseline in each environment. We will add the details in the final revision.
| | BC Reward $\uparrow$ | BC Cost $\downarrow$ | Safe-BC Reward $\uparrow$ | Safe-BC Cost $\downarrow$ | CDT Reward $\uparrow$ | CDT Cost $\downarrow$ | BCQL Reward $\uparrow$ | BCQL Cost $\downarrow$ | BEARL Reward $\uparrow$ | BEARL Cost $\downarrow$ | CPQ Reward $\uparrow$ | CPQ Cost $\downarrow$ | COptiDICE Reward $\uparrow$ | COptiDICE Cost $\downarrow$ | WSAC Reward $\uparrow$ | WSAC Cost $\downarrow$ |
|-------------|----------------------|----------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|
| BallCircle | 0.74 | 4.71 | 0.52 | 0.65 | 0.77 | 1.07 | 0.69 | 2.36 | 0.86 | 3.09 | 0.64 | 0.76 | 0.70 | 2.61 | **0.74** | **0.51** |
| CarCircle | 0.58 | 3.74 | 0.50 | 0.84 | **0.75** | **0.95** | 0.63 | 1.89 | 0.74 | 2.18 | 0.71 | 0.33 | 0.49 | 3.14 | 0.65 | 0.55 |
| PointButton | 0.27 | 2.02 | 0.16 | 1.10 | 0.46 | 1.57 | 0.40 | 2.66 | 0.43 | 2.47 | 0.58 | 4.30 | 0.15 | 1.51 | **0.11** | **0.55** |
| PointPush | 0.18 | 0.91 | 0.11 | 0.80 | 0.21 | 0.65 | **0.23** | **0.99** | 0.16 | 0.89 | 0.11 | 1.04 | 0.02 | 1.18 | 0.07 | 0.61 |
**Table 1: The normalized reward and cost of WSAC and other baselines for different cost limits. Each value is averaged over 3 distinct cost limits, 20 evaluation episodes, and 3 random seeds.**
[R1] uxin Liu, Zijian Guo, Haohong Lin, Yihang Yao, Jiacheng Zhu, Zhepeng Cen, Hanjiang Hu, Wenhao Yu,114
Tingnan Zhang, Jie Tan, et al. "Datasets and benchmarks for offline safe reinforcement learning". arXiv preprint115
arXiv:2306.09303, 2023.116
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response. The evaluation of safety should focus on whether the algorithm can still ensure safety under a single cost limit. Averaging the number of safety constraint violations across multiple cost limits does not accurately represent the policy's safety, as exceeding the cost limit in practical applications can result in unsafe outcomes. It would be better if the author could separately present the model's performance under different cost limits to demonstrate the safety guarantees provided by their theoretical approach. Furthermore, the author has selected only a very limited subset of environments in OSRL for comparison (4 out of 38 environments), which does not sufficiently demonstrate the algorithm's advantages over the baseline. Based on these points, I maintain my current score.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: > Averaging the number of safety constraint violations
**There seems to be some confusion.** In our paper, we used a single cost limit (thus, there was no point in taking an average) similar to what the baselines (CDT, COptiDICE, CPQ) did in their original papers. The average is taken over different random seeds, but we used **a single cost limit**. We believe that the results over different random seeds in Table 2 can correctly reflect the true performance of our approach. From Table 2, it is clear for the single cost limit, our approach is the *only one* that can satisfy the constraints across different benchmarks.
During the rebuttal phase, per the reviewer's request, we ran the algorithm with different cost limits following the exact format used in the Offline Safe RL Benchmark (OSRL) paper, where they report the average across performance with different cost limits. It is clear that our algorithm performs well, as no other algorithms are consistently safe, in terms of average performance. To further address the reviewer’s concern, we report individual results with different cost limits under our algorithm in the following table, where our algorithm achieves very low costs and high safety rates and is nearly safe for all environments. Note that due to time constraints in the rebuttal phase, we did not perform any parameter tuning, and we believe we can further improve the performance (both in terms of reward and safety) if we do so. Note that, we can't compare with other baselines since the OSRL paper doesn't have the results for different cost limits (they only have the average results). We also believe that although one of our main contributions is [theoretical](https://openreview.net/forum?id=82Ndsr4OS6¬eId=fBIu70VHUw), our approach with theoretical support is quite general and has the potential to be incorporated into other practical Safe-RL algorithms.
| | Reward ↑ | Cost ↓ | Reward ↑ | Cost ↓ | Reward ↑ | Cost ↓ |
|-------------|----------|--------|----------|--------|----------|--------|
| Cost Limit | 10 | | 20 | | 40 | |
| BallCircle | 0.71 | 0.10 | 0.76 | 1.17 | 0.75 | 0.27 |
| CarCircle | 0.60 | 0.07 | 0.67 | 0.99 | 0.68 | 0.59 |
| | Reward ↑ | Cost ↓ | Reward ↑ | Cost ↓ | Reward ↑ | Cost ↓ |
|-------------|----------|--------|----------|--------|----------|--------|
| Cost Limit | 20 | | 40 | | 80 | |
| PointButton | 0.01 | 0.47 | 0.13 | 0.67 | 0.18 | 0.51 |
| PointPush | 0.10 | 1.11 | 0.07 | 0.52 | 0.05 | 0.21 |
**Table 1: The normalized reward and cost of WSAC for different cost limits. Each value is averaged over 20 evaluation episodes, and 3 random seeds.**
> limited subset of environments
We focus on environments where most (if not all) baselines are unsafe (e.g., no baselines are safe in PointButton, and only BCQL is safe in PointPush). Yet, we show that our proposed approach can achieve safety while maintaining good reward which points towards its efficacy. We believe these environments are both challenging and representative, effectively justifying an algorithm's ability to guarantee safety.
We would like to emphasize that our main contribution in this paper is to address the Safe Robust Policy Iteration (SRPI) and policy coverage limitations in theoretical offline safe RL which are quite important in the theoretical safe-RL community (see Table 1). For example, none of the existing approaches (including the baselines) have a **safe robust policy improvement guarantee** using only a *single policy coverage assumption*. In particular, our approach provides a way to achieve a safe policy using only offline data with bare minimum richness (single policy coverability). Existing approaches that are based on primal-dual concept require more richness in data (all policy concentrability which is not possible to achieve in practice). Please see Table 1 and discussion in Introduction. Furthermore, the baselines do not provide any theoretical guarantees, since they aim to design practical algorithms. To demonstrate the empirical efficiency of our approach, we included four challenging environments in our paper. We agree that running the algorithm on all 38 environments in the baseline Safe RL paper would surely have values, and we will try to evaluate our approach on more baselines in the final version. However, we believe that the environments we selected are sufficient to demonstrate the core ideas of our paper and validate the theoretical insights. Even the state-of-the-art algorithms (without theoretical guarantees) only include a limited number of representative environments in their papers; for instance, CDT has 5, CPQ has 3, and COptiDICE has 4.
We sincerely hope that the reviewer will reevaluate the rating based on the novel contributions of our paper.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: After considering the positive feedback provided by other reviewers on the theoretical aspects, I will increase the score from 3 to 5. However, I still think that the main proof core and the concept of safe policy improvement primarily originate from ATAC. I suggest that other reviewers might want to further compare the theoretical aspects of ATAC with those presented in this paper.
Cheng, Ching-An, et al. "Adversarially trained actor critic for offline reinforcement learning." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2022.
Additionally, concerning the algorithm's performance on benchmarks and the selection of baselines, I think it would be prudent to include more advanced state-of-the-art approaches. After all, CPQ and Copitidice are articles from 2022, and bcql and bearl come from earlier offline RL algorithms. Regarding the recently well-performing algorithms like CDT and FISOR, it would be beneficial for the author to explore or discuss the feasibility of transitioning the WSAC theoretical framework to SOTA.
Regarding the issue of non-comparison due to different settings mentioned by the author, it's noteworthy that while CDT requires the introduction of additional information such as target reward and target cost, the baseline in the paper, including WSAC, also necessitates a human-defined cost limit. For FISOR, since safety is a key goal in safe RL research, it doesn't make sense to say that stricter safety constraints stop us from comparing safety between different algorithms.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: Thanks for increasing your score and engaging with us.
> Technical Differences with ATAC
ATAC is the first paper in the literature to investigate the property of RPI. While we certainly draw insights from their results, our work has the following significant differences.
- First, we focus on the **constrained Markov decision process (CMDP)** setup rather than an unconstrained setup. The CMDP setup is fundamentally different from the unconstrained one. For example, in CMDP, the optimal policy can be stochastic, unlike in the unconstrained MDP. In the constrained setup, it is essential to bound both the sub-optimality of the reward and the constraint violation, whereas, in the unconstrained setup, only the sub-optimality of the reward needs to be bounded. Naturally, the analytical results and algorithms differ significantly from those in the unconstrained ATAC setup.
- Furthermore, our approach to training the critics is different from that of ATAC. ATAC uses a squared Bellman error, while we utilize the average Bellman error to train the critic. Consequently, we achieve a $1/\sqrt{N}$ sample complexity error, while ATAC achieves a $1/N^{1/3}$ sample complexity error. The key difference is that we use an importance-weighted Bellman error to obtain an unbiased estimator of the critic for both the reward and cost, tuning the weight parameter to achieve a better rate, unlike ATAC.
- Moreover, while primal-dual-based methods exist for solving the offline CMDP, achieving robust safe policy improvement and relaxing the assumption of all-policy concentrability remained open challenges (Table 1 in our paper). We resolved this open question. Our approach guarantees robust policy improvement, so if a safe reference policy (e.g., a safe behavioral policy) is provided, our algorithm will yield a policy that remains safe without sacrificing reward. Such a guarantee was previously missing from the literature. As pointed out in the introduction, **all-policy** concentrability is difficult to satisfy in practice, especially in a safe setting where the dataset may not cover state-action pairs from an unsafe policy. Instead, we only require single-policy concentrability, making our theoretical results highly impactful for the safe RL community.
- We consider a policy improvement over **any reference policy** not only the behavior policy.
- It is worth noting that to provide such a guarantee, we developed a rectified penalty-based approach rather than a primal-dual-based one. As a result, our analysis differs from existing primal-dual approaches. In fact, the existing primal-dual-based approaches only guarantee all-policy concentrability, so our analytical insights and proposed approach open new avenues for finding a safe policy from an offline dataset.
> compare with the SOTA baselines
it is crucial to compare with the state-of-the-art (SOTA) baselines to demonstrate the strength of our proposed approach. Therefore, we compare our practical version with existing approaches on selected benchmarks. As requested by the reviewer, we have included results from CDT in our rebuttal. We apologize for not making this clearer earlier. Notably, ours is the only approach that achieves safety, underscoring the efficacy of our method. Additionally, CDT uses a transformer architecture, which naturally results in a longer computational time compared to our [approach](https://openreview.net/forum?id=82Ndsr4OS6¬eId=VR6S2gv84s).
Finally, we would like to mention that in safe RL, there are two types of constraints: soft constraints (in the long-term average sense) and hard constraints (step-wise). It is difficult to say which one is more important because, in the long-term average case, taking some risk is necessary; otherwise, the problem would be no different from an unconstrained problem. Moreover, the existing solutions in theoretical safe RL for addressing these two types of constraints are significantly different. We agree that the cost limits are chosen by humans, and we appreciate the reviewer pointing out that a fairer comparison should consider different sets of cost limits. We observe that there is a trend: the reward increases when the cost limit is higher. To understand the differences between two settings, we can also observe that as reported in the FISOR paper, some environments (e.g., SwimmerVel, CarButton1, CarGoal2) exhibit very low or even negative rewards because they aim to learn very safe policies. We will definitely add more discussion in the final revision.
We are also happy to learn more about the reviewer's opinion on selecting the cost limits. What we typically do is to make sure the problem itself is feasible and the optimal solution is stochastic in synthetic CMDPs and follow what people use (like OSRL and other baselines) in complicated environments.
**We hope that our response addresses the concerns of the reviewer and is open to further discussion. Thank you again for raising the score!** | Summary: For safe RL methods, a desired property is Safe Robust Policy Improvement(SRPI), which means the learned policy is always at least as good and safe as the baseline behavior policies. But it's not achieved yet.
Also, the traditional Actor-Critic framework may suffer from insufficient data coverage, which may fail to provide an accurate estimation of the policy for unseen states and actions. To address the issue, [45] and [11] use absolute pessimism or relative pessimism. However, his kind of approach fails to achieve the optimal statistical rate of $\sqrt{N}$. For addressing efficient policy improvement, the most commonly used approach for addressing safe RL problems is primal-dual optimization, but this method requires all policy concentrability, that is, the dataset must cover all possible strategies, which is impractical for the safe-related dataset.
In contrast, the authors propose an aggression-limited objective function, the high-level intuition behind it is that by appropriately selecting a 𝜆, all unsafe policies are penalized. As a result, the policy that maximizes the objective function is the optimal safe policy. This formulation is fundamentally different from the traditional primal-dual approach as it does not require dual-variable tuning, and thus, does not require all policy concentrability.
Beyond that, the proposed method also proved to achieve SRPI.
[45] Tengyang Xie, Ching-An Cheng, Nan Jiang, Paul Mineiro, and Alekh Agarwal. Bellman-consistent pessimism for offline reinforcement learning.
[11]Ching-An Cheng, Tengyang Xie, Nan Jiang, and Alekh Agarwal. Adversarially trained actor critic for offline reinforcement learning
Strengths: 1. The writing logic is clear and reasonable. This paper is written with solid insights and emphasizes research gaps and innovations.
2. The authors conducted wide-range experiments and comparisons with other methods. And in terms of safety, the proposed method achieved SOTA performance.
3. There are no obvious red flags or drawbacks in this paper.
Weaknesses: 1. In this paper's setting, safety is measured purely by cost, which is not always practical. e.g. in the real world, the cost function could be implicit or impossible to get.
2. The authors could try to combine the proposed method with other RL methods for a certain application to further justify its effectiveness.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: The paper looks good. And there is a suggestion for future directions.
Bridge the gap between theory and practice. Current RL methods have some bottlenecks like long-horizon tasks, safety, sample efficiency, etc.. Most of the methods to solve these bottlenecks come out of intuition instead of theory deduction. And some methods leverage external tools like foundation models(e.g. LLM), and control theories. It might be interesting to explain why these intuition or external tools work in view of theories.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors did not provide limitations.
A possible limitation may come from the experiment on PointPush, in which the simple BC's reward outperformance proposed method without sacrificing too much safety.
And as stated in weakness, safety is expressed purely by the cost function, which sometimes is hard to get in the real world.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We greatly appreciate the reviewers’ positive evaluation of the novelty of this paper. The current formulation can be applied to the case with $0-1$ cost, indicating whether a constraint is violated or not at each step. Nevertheless, if we only get feedback over the entire trajectory whether it is safe or not rather per step feedback, it is an indeed interesting future research direction on how to address such a scenario. In fact, even in the online setting such a scenario is yet to be resolved. We add a discussion.
We strongly agree with the reviewer on the gap between theories and practical algorithms in RL and safe RL. Our approach is motivated to take a step towards bridging the gap as we consider offline setup and we only need single policy coverability for the theoretical results. Regarding the comments on external tools like LLMs, one possible direction could be to consider the cost preference (like RLHF) instead of cost function observations and determine whether it is possible to design an algorithm with provable guarantees of safety.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the response! And it helps me keep a positive opinion of this work, so I would maintain my score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your acknowledgment and your positive feedback on our work! | Summary: This paper proposes weighted safe actor-critic, and provides corresponding theoretical analysis on its optimal statistical rate. Some interesting technical tools were introduced. The authors also implement a practical version of WSAC and evaluate it against SOTA offline safe RL baselines in continuous control tasks.
Strengths: (1) This paper addresses offline safe RL with adversarial trained weighted AC framework, showing its optimal statistical convergence rate.
(2) Under the perfect function approximation assumption, the authors show WSAC outperforms any reference policy while maintaining the same level of safety. Besides, the theoretical finding on safe robust policy improvements bring insight to the offline safe RL methods.
(3) Empirically, the authors provide a comparison to a set of baselines in OSRL benchmarks.
Weaknesses: See more discussion in the question parts.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: (1) **Clarification of "Adversarial"**: I'd like to have a clarification of the term "adversarial" in this offline safe RL problem. Do the authors mean "adversarial" in that the cost critic always update cost critic via optimism and reward critic via pessimism? Since there are other formats of adversarial robustness in other components of safe RL [1], I may be helpful if the authors could clarify it in the early stage of this paper.
(2) **Finite selection of W**: the current WSAC algorithm prototype only considers a discrete selection of $w$, can they be arbitrarily assigned for different offline datasets and environments? Intuitively if an arbitrary $w$ is close enough to its neighbor $w$ in set $\mathcal{W}$, we can still provide analytical bound of performance under slightly different $w$.
(3) **Lack of discussion of assumption gap in the pratical version**: the authors may describe how certain assumptions may not hold in practice, as they are some seemingly relatively strong assumptions in the theoretical analysis, like approximate realizability, though some of them have already got loosened. Also, some experiment details (e.g. the behavior policy or the oracle policy) can be discussed in the appendix to provide more contexts in how WSAC can help practically.
(4) **Capability under sparse-cost setting**: in many real-world applications, safety violations will occur only in long-tail events. Can the reweighting scheme also address such long-tail cases in the cost critic learning? Can the current WSAC framework can be extended for this kind of analysis based on the weighting technique?
(5) **Extension of the current framework to multi-constraint settings**: in real-world applications, there might be multiple objectives and constraints, can the WSAC framework adapt to similar settings?
(6) **Selection of weight W in the experiments**: Compared to algorithm 1, the practical implementation of WSAC seems to miss $\mathcal{W}$, how is this importance weight computed in practice?
> [1] Liu, Zuxin, et al. "On the robustness of safe reinforcement learning under observational perturbations." *arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14691* (2022).
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have clearly defined the scope and discussed the limitations of this paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your positive feedback on our paper! We appreciate your support and comments. Please find our point-by-point response to your questions below.
- **Response to clarification of "Adversarial":** The adversarial training in this paper is designed based on the concept of relative pessimism [11,4,53], which aims to optimize the worst-case relative performance over uncertainty. In particular, we adversarially train the critic to find weighted Bellman-consistent scenarios where the actor is inferior to the reference/behavior policy (Eq. (2) and Eq. (4)). Note that we consider an offline setup, hence, we cannot access any new data, rather whatever data is available, we have to find policy based on that. Without adversarial training, if some state-action pairs are not covered in the dataset, one can set (incorrectly) a very high $ Q$ value without affecting the training loss. The adversarially trained critic addresses this issue by setting the lowest possible $Q$-value avoiding setting a high value for our-of-distribution values. We will clarify and discuss the differences between our approach and the paper mentioned by the reviewer in the final version.
- **Response to finite selection of $W$:** The selection of $W$ is not arbitrary: it needs to be chosen by maximizing the importance-weighted average Bellman error (Eq. (2) and Eq. (4)). This is crucial in the formulation because maximization over $w$ in the importance-weighted average Bellman regularizer ensures that the Bellman error is small when averaged over measure $\mu \cdot w$ for any $w \in W$. This can control the suboptimality of the learned policy and guarantee the optimal statistical rate of $1/\sqrt{N}.$
- **Response to lack of discussion of assumption gap in the practical version:** For the assumptions made in our paper, as far as we know, we require minimal assumptions in offline RL (as shown in Table (1)), especially in safe offline RL. The single-policy coverage required by our approach is far milder than the all-policy coverage assumption as it is impractical to assume that the dataset would contain state-action pairs from unsafe policies. Thus, we achieve our result for a more practical and realistic set of assumptions (and it matches the same set of assumptions for the unconstrained case). For the practical purpose, we think the most concerning part is that approximate realizability in Section 3.2 may not hold in practice. However, in our experience, as we usually use neural networks to approximate the function class $F$, it is likely that the approximate realizability error is small as long as we have a sufficiently rich neural network. The behavior policy is easy to achieve, even if it is not given to us, since extracting the behavior policy from an offline dataset is not difficult with behavior cloning (BC). In particular, we can estimate the learned behavior policy $\hat{\pi}\_\mu$ as follows: $\forall s \in D, \hat{\pi}\_\mu(a \vert s) \leftarrow \frac{n(s,a)}{n(s)}$, and $\forall s \notin D, \hat{\pi}\_\mu(a \vert s) \leftarrow \frac{1}{\vert A \vert}$, where $n(s,a)$ is the number of times $(s,a)$ appears in the offline dataset $D$. Essentially, the estimated BC policy matches the empirical behavior policy on states in the offline dataset and takes uniform random actions outside the support of the dataset. It is easy to show that the gap between the learned policy $\hat{\pi}\_\mu$ and the behavior policy $\pi\_\mu$ is upper bounded by $\min\lbrace 1, \vert S \vert / N \rbrace$ [R1, R2]. We can have a very accurate estimate as long as the size of the dataset is large enough. We will add more details in the revision.
[R1]: Kumar, Aviral, Joey Hong, Anikait Singh, and Sergey Levine. "Should i run offline reinforcement learning or behavioral cloning?." In International Conference on Learning Representations. 2021.
[R2]: Rajaraman, Nived, Lin Yang, Jiantao Jiao, and Kannan Ramchandran. "Toward the fundamental limits of imitation learning." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020): 2914-2924.
- **Response to capability under sparse-cost setting:** Maximizing the importance-weighted average Bellman regularizer aims to control the Bellman error. We believe this can also be applied to the long-tail constraint case. Our results can be generalized to a high probability bound (might be loose) using Markov's inequality, and it is possible to show some results under the CVaR objective. Of course, rigorous proofs and experiments are needed. We will explore these interesting directions in the future.
- **Response to extension of the current framework to multi-constraint settings:** Yes, the current approach is readily to generate to the case with multiple constraints by simply considering multiple constraints in the objective function: $f_r^k(s,a) - \sum\_{i=1}^I \lambda\_i \lbrace f_{i,c}^k(s,a) - f_{i,c}^k(s.\pi_{ref}) \rbrace\_+,$ where $f\_{i,c}^k$ is the $i$th constraint. We only have to tune $\lambda_i$, and $\beta_{c,i}$ values corresponding to constraint $i$. We will add some discussions in the revision.
- **Response to the selection of weight W in the experiments:** In experiments, we take $\mathcal{W} = \{0, C_\infty\}$ for computation effectiveness. Then we can reduce $\epsilon \_{D}(\pi, f)$ (Eq. (4)) to $C\_{\infty}E\_{D}[(f(s,a)-r-\gamma f(s',\pi))^2]$. In the environment, we simply set $C_\infty$ to be 1 in the neural case and 5 in the tabular setting.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for their detailed response, especially their justification of the assumption. One clarification question on the statement: " The behavior policy is easy to achieve, even if it is not given to us, since extracting the behavior policy from an offline dataset is not difficult with behavior cloning (BC)." Since the example you provided is using pure tabular case, which is even weaker than your assumption (discrete action space + complex state space). How do you justify the difficulty of behavior policy extraction given the safety constraints in offline safe RL?
Another follow-up question about the gap between theoretical assumptions and their empirical practicability is that most OSRL baselines have continuous action and continuous state space, and the authors propose a practical version of WSAC in the appendix. I'm curious about whether the authors can provide some insights on how the current theoretical guarantees can be extended to the non-tabular cases, if applicable.
Besides the above two questions, most of the other questions are well-addressed by the author's response. I thank the authors again for their dedicated efforts and will determine my final score after this round of discussion.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: We greatly thank the reviewer for considering reevaluating our paper and for raising these two interesting questions.
>Extracting the Behavior Policy
In the standard offline RL setting, we assume that the dataset is generated by some behavior policy $\mu(s,a)$ and is i.i.d. Therefore, as long as the state-action space is finite, the method we provided guarantees that we can accurately estimate the behavior policy. This holds true whether we are considering safe RL or regular RL, as the only difference is the additional information regarding the cost function, while the process of generating the dataset remains the same.
For more complicated cases, such as when the state space is continuous, we can use a neural network to approximate the policy by minimizing the distance between the learned policy and the behavior policy. Alternatively, we could use DAgger (Dataset Aggregation) to achieve an even better policy. However, in such cases, the assumptions made in offline RL (not only in our paper but in the field generally) may no longer hold, particularly the data/policy coverage assumption. This is why we argue in our paper that single-policy coverage is crucial since it is much weaker than the full-policy coverage assumption.
>extended to the non-tabular cases
There seems to be some confusion. We consider the function approximation setting, not a tabular setting, and the theoretical results are independent of the size of the state and action space under the given assumptions. The practical version of our algorithm is designed to develop a deep neural network approach for more complex environments. In order to handle the continuous state and action spaces, we use an actor-critic approach to solve the optimization problem (2), which aligns with the objective in our theoretical version. Specifically, we can use the aggression-limited objective to train the actor-network, which is feasible by considering two Q-value neural networks (one for reward and one for cost). The method used in our practical version for the weighted Bellman regularizer is a very simplified version. However, we believe it is possible to approximate $w(s,a)$ with another neural network such that the weighted Bellman error is minimized when the critic network is fixed. We will add more discussions and possibly some results in the revision.
Please let us know if you have further questions and comments, we are glad to have more discussions.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for their extensive replies. Also, I read the discussion between the authors and reviewer HDvF. I think most of my questions have been well-addressed with the clarification of their theoretical contribution and the new empirical evidence. I will raise my score to 6 in favor of the acceptance.
---
Reply to Comment 2.1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much again for your great comments and for taking the time to engage with us. We sincerely appreciate your acknowledgment and positive feedback on our work! | Summary: This paper introduces a principled approach for safe offline reinforcement learning (RL), aimed at robustly optimizing policies beyond a given reference policy, particularly when constrained by the limited data coverage of offline datasets.
The traditional constrained actor-critic methods face challenges including (1) coping with insufficient data coverage, (2) ensuring robust policy improvement, and (3) facilitating computationally efficient actor optimization.
To address these limitations, this study presents the Weighted Safe Actor-Critic (WSAC) framework. WSAC incorporates (1) a pessimistic bias through a weighted average Bellman error, (2) theoretical assurances for robust policy improvement, and (3) an efficiency advantage over traditional primal-dual optimization methods.
WSAC employs an aggression-limited objective function, which discourages unsafe policies, relying on less stringent assumptions compared to prior methodologies. Furthermore, WSAC leverages the reference policy as a no-regret policy optimization oracle, allowing for safe policy training.
The efficacy of WSAC is demonstrated across four benchmark environments: BallCircle, CarCircle, PointButton, and PointPush. The results indicate that WSAC effectively optimizes policies to maximize cumulative rewards while maintaining cumulative costs below predefined thresholds.
Strengths: This work is well-grounded in rigorous theoretical principles that effectively support the proposed WSAC method.
The method's foundation on pessimistic value estimation and robust policy improvement is both mathematically sound and appropriate for the challenges of safe offline RL.
Furthermore, the integration of an adversarial training component within the actor-critic architecture introduces a novel strategy for mitigating common issues such as insufficient data coverage in offline RL.
This significantly bolsters the robustness of the resulting policies against shifts in data distribution, a crucial factor for applications in real-world scenarios.
By addressing the critical issue of safety in policy optimization with a computationally efficient approach, I believe that the paper makes a substantial contribution to moving the field towards practical, deployable reinforcement learning systems capable of addressing real-world challenges.
Weaknesses: The proposed Weighted Safe Actor-Critic (WSAC) method in this submission is contingent upon the availability of an explicit reference policy, such as a behavior policy derived from the offline dataset.
This requirement could make training difficult in scenarios where extracting a reliable reference policy from the offline data is challenging, particularly for algorithms aiming to be behavior-agnostic in offline RL settings.
Additionally, the authors claim in line 239 that "Our approach is very computationally efficient and tractable compared with existing approaches." However, the absence of empirical evidence, such as wall-clock time comparisons, to substantiate this claim weakens their argument.
Providing such comparative data would significantly strengthen their case for computational efficiency.
Moreover, the paper does not include ablation studies to elucidate the contributions of the three key components of WSAC: (1) weighted Bellman error, (2) aggression-limited objective, and (3) no-regret policy optimization using a single reference policy. Identifying which of these components is most critical to performance enhancement would provide clearer insights into the framework's effectiveness and areas for potential improvement.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Q1. Could you elaborate on the sensitivity of the hyperparameters such as $\beta_c$, $\beta_r$, $\lambda$? Understanding their influence on the model's performance and robustness would be beneficial, especially in varying training conditions.
(Minor Comments)
1. In obj 2, the Bellman error coefficients $\beta$ used in the reward and cost constraints appear to have different values, indicated by $\beta_c, \beta_r$. To avoid confusion, it would be prudent to denote these coefficients separately throughout the manuscript to reflect their distinct roles and values.
2. The typo in line 231 : "WSAC sovles" → "WSAC solves."
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors addressed their limitations in Section 4 and Conclusion and the broader societal impact in Checklist #10: Broader Impacts.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your positive feedback on our paper! We appreciate your support and comments. Please find our point-by-point response to your questions below.
- **Response to the reference policy:** We would like to mention that extracting the behavior policy from an offline dataset is not difficult with behavior cloning (BC). In particular, we can estimate the learned behavior policy $\hat{\pi}\_\mu$ as follows: $\forall s \in D, \hat{\pi}\_\mu(a \vert s) \leftarrow \frac{n(s,a)}{n(s)}$, and $ \forall s \notin D, \hat{\pi}\_\mu(a \vert s) \leftarrow \frac{1}{\vert A \vert} $, where $n(s,a)$ is the number of times $(s,a)$ appears in the offline dataset $D$. Essentially, the estimated BC policy matches the empirical behavior policy on states in the offline dataset and takes uniform random actions outside the support of the dataset. It is easy to show that the gap between the learned policy $\hat{\pi}\_\mu$ and the behavior policy $\pi_\mu$ is upper bounded by $ \min \lbrace1, \vert S \vert / N \rbrace$ ([R1, R2]). We can have a very accurate estimate as long as the size of the dataset is large enough. In addition, in many applications such as networking, scheduling, and control problems, there are existing good enough reference policies. In these cases, a safe robust policy improvement over these reference policies has practical value.
[R1]: Kumar, Aviral, Joey Hong, Anikait Singh, and Sergey Levine. "Should i run offline reinforcement learning or behavioral cloning?." In International Conference on Learning Representations. 2021.
[R2]: Rajaraman, Nived, Lin Yang, Jiantao Jiao, and Kannan Ramchandran. "Toward the fundamental limits of imitation learning." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020): 2914-2924.
- **Response to computationally efficient:** We thank the reviewer for pointing out our statements on computational efficiency compared to existing approaches. We claim our approach is *efficient* and *tractable* compared to [19, 26] mainly because: [26] requires two FQI inner loops for policy improvement and three additional inner loops for policy evaluations, while [19] also requires an inner loop for offline policy evaluation. However, our algorithm does not have any inner loop for extra OPE. To demonstrate the efficiency, in the following Table (Table 1), we report the training times of our method and other baselines for the Car Goal environment using one NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti. We observe that our practical version still has a faster training time, which is very time-efficient compared to others. We will make this clear in the revision.
| | BEARL | CPQ | CDT | COptiDICE | WSAC |
|:---------|:-------:|:-----:|:-----:|:------------:|:------:|
| Time | 121 | 118 | 465 | 117 | 115 |
**Table 1: Training Time (seconds) for 200 steps**
- **Response to ablation studies:** The weighted Bellman regularize, aggression-limited objective, and no-regret policy optimization together guarantee our theoretical results. We did an ablation study in the tabular setting and the results can be found in the following table (Table 2). The results of the ablation study indicate that the weighted Bellman regularization and no-regret policy optimization ensure the safety of the algorithm, while the aggression-limited objective ensures the algorithm to achieve higher rewards without compromising safety.
| Components | Cost | Reward |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|-------|--------|
| ALL | 0.016 | 0.766 |
| W/O no-regret policy optimization | 0.016 | 0.766 |
| W/O Aggression-limited objective | 0.016 | 0.765 |
| W/O Weighted Bellman regularize | 0.181 | 0.624 |
**Table 2: Ablation study under tabular case (cost limit = 0.1)**
- **Response to hyperparameter sensitivity of $\beta$ :** Note that our main result remains the same for SRPI as long as $\beta \geq 0$, indicating that our approach is highly robust across a wide range of $\beta$ values. We use different $\beta_r$ and $\beta_c$ in the practical version because it allows us to easily make a trade-off between rewards and costs, as different environments have varying sensitivities to rewards and costs. To address the reviewer's comments about hyperameter sensitivity, we provide the rewards and costs under different sets of $\beta_r=\beta_c\in \{1,0.5,0.05 \}$ and $\lambda\in\{[0,1],[0,2],[1,2]\}$ (since our $\lambda$ only increases, the closed interval here represents the initial value and the upper bound of $\lambda$) to demonstrate the robustness of our approach in the tabular setting in Figure 1 (Please see the uploaded file). We can observe that the performance is almost the same under different sets of parameters and different qualities of behavior policies. We will add more details in the revision.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for addressing my concerns. It would be beneficial if the authors could report the error bars (e.g., standard errors or confidence intervals) of the computational cost and results of the ablation study in the revision.
I still believe this paper makes sufficient contributions to the offline RL community, so I will be maintaining my rating.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: We thank the reviewer again for the positive evaluation of our paper. We provide the error bars in the following tables.
| | BEARL | CPQ | CDT | COptiDICE | WSAC |
|--------------------|--------|--------|--------|-----------|--------|
| **Time (seconds)** | 120.0 | 113.8 | 464.6 | 112.0 | 116.40 |
| **STD** | 1.41 | 2.13 | 1.62 | 5.05 | 1.85 |
| **Confidence Interval** | (116.07, 123.93) | (107.88, 119.37) | (460.09, 469.11) | (97.95, 126.05) | (111.25, 121.55) |
**Table 1:** Training Time (seconds) for 200 steps over 5 repeat experiments
| Components | Cost | Reward | Cost STD | Reward STD | Cost Interval | Reward Interval |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|--------|----------|------------|------------------|--------------------|
| **ALL** | 0.014 | 0.788 | 0.006 | 0.004 | (0.00, 0.03) | (0.78, 0.80) |
| **W/O no-regret policy optimization** | 0.014 | 0.788 | 0.006 | 0.004 | (0.000, 0.028) | (0.779, 0.798) |
| **W/O Aggression-limited objective** | 0.014 | 0.788 | 0.006 | 0.005 | (0.000, 0.028) | (0.778, 0.798) |
| **W/O Weighted Bellman regularizer** | 0.323 | 0.684 | 0.061 | 0.017 | (0.185, 0.462) | (0.645, 0.724) |
**Table 2:** Ablation study under tabular case (cost limit is 0.1) over 10 repeat experiments | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank all the reviewers for their thoughtful evaluations. In this global rebuttal, we point out our main contributions and address the common concerns of the reviewers. We respond to each individual reviewer in each individual rebuttal separately as well.
**Our Contributions**:
* We consider an offline constrained MDP (CMDP) problem. Unlike the unconstrained MDP, here, one needs to learn a policy that maximizes reward while simultaneously satisfying constraint using only offline data. We prove that our algorithm, which uses weighted Bellman error, enjoys an optimal statistical rate of $1/\sqrt{N}$ under partial data coverage assumption. Note that all the existing approaches for offline safe RL/CMDP (see Table 1) require **all**-policy concentrability which is not possible in practice. In particular, an offline database may not contain state-action pairs covered by every unsafe policy. We achieve our result using a more practical set of assumptions with only single policy concentrability. *This is the first work that achieves such a result using only single-policy $\ell_2$ concentrability.*
* We propose a novel offline safe RL algorithm, called Weighted Safe Actor-Critic (WSAC), which can robustly learn policies that improve upon any behavior policy with controlled relative pessimism. We prove that under standard function approximation assumptions, when the actor incorporates a no-regret policy optimization oracle, WSAC outputs a policy that never degrades the performance of a reference policy (including the behavior policy) for a range of hyperparameters. *This is the first work that provably demonstrates the property of SRPI in offline safe RL setting.*
* We point out that primal-dual-based approaches [19 ] must require all-policy concentrability assumption. Thus, unlike, the primal-dual-based approach, we propose a novel rectified penalty-based approach to obtain results using single-policy concentrability. *Thus, we need novel analysis techniques to prove results compared to existing approaches.*
* Furthermore, we provide a practical implementation of WSAC following a two-timescale actor-critic framework using adversarial frameworks similar to [11, 53 ], and test it on several continuous control environments in the offline safe RL benchmark [ 31 ]. WSAC outperforms all other state-of-the-art baselines, validating the property of a safe policy improvement. In particular, from Table 2 (in our paper), it is clear that across all the environments, WSAC is the **only** algorithm that achieves safety and yet has achieved a better or similar reward in most of the environments. Thus, our proposed approach has contributed significantly in both theoretical and practical fronts for safe offline RL.
**New Results**:
* We have now achieved new empirical results. In particular, we evaluate the sensitivity of the hyper-parameters $\lambda, \beta_r, \beta_c$ and observe that our algorithm's performance is robust under different sets of parameters (see the attached Figure).
* We have now conducted an empirical evaluation of the computational efficiency of our proposed approach and observed that it takes a smaller time compared to the state-of-the-art approaches (see Table 1 in the response [here](https://openreview.net/forum?id=82Ndsr4OS6¬eId=T2H496Awkn))
* We have now conducted Ablation studies (see Table 2 in the response [here](https://openreview.net/forum?id=82Ndsr4OS6¬eId=T2H496Awkn))
* We have now compared our approach with another baseline mentioned by the reviewers. We have outperformed the approach. (Please see Table 1 in the response [here](https://openreview.net/forum?id=82Ndsr4OS6¬eId=fBIu70VHUw))
Pdf: /pdf/ef147ea9e436e06175c7affbbde4bd3c05a7e1a3.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Identifiability Analysis of Linear ODE Systems with Hidden Confounders | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper provides the identifiability analysis of linear Ordinary Differential Equation (ODE) systems, particularly in scenarios where latent variables interact with the system. In detail, it investigates two specific cases. In the first scenario, latent confounders do not exhibit causal relationships, but their evolution follows specific functional forms, such as polynomial functions of time. The analysis is then extended to a second, more complex scenario, where hidden confounders have causal dependencies described by a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG). The authors perform a series of simulations to substantiate their theoretical results.
Strengths: This paper makes a significant contribution by extending the understanding of identifiability in linear ODE systems to include cases with latent variables, thereby enhancing the reliability of causal inferences in more complex systems. The simulated experimental results provide strong support for the theoretical findings, making this a robust and valuable study in the field.
Weaknesses: 1. The symbols $x'$ and $A'$ in the paper are not clearly defined. This may lead to confusion for readers when understanding the derivation process and the results. It is recommended to clearly define and explain these symbols in the paper.
2. The assumptions and theorems lack intuitive explanations. It would be better to provide some intuitive explanations or examples after each assumption and theorem to help readers better understand the essence of these theories and their roles in practical applications.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: How practical are the proposed assumptions in the paper? Can the authors discuss their validity and design experiments to test their validity for real datasets?
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: See the weaknesses above.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have addressed each of your comments as follows. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript in accordance with your suggestions, and we believe that the quality has been significantly enhanced as a result of your insightful input.
## Answers to weaknesses:
>**W1:** Explain the symbols $\boldsymbol{x}_0'$ and $A'$.
**A:** Thank you for pointing this out. The symbols $\boldsymbol{x}'_0$ and $A'$ are first introduced in our paper in Definition 2.1. To enhance clarity, we have included an explanation in the subsequent paragraph, which reads as ``We use $\boldsymbol{x}_0'$ and $A'$ to distinguish other system parameters from the true system parameters $\boldsymbol{x}_0$ and $A$; $\boldsymbol{x}_0'$ and $A'$ can represent any $d$-dimensional initial conditions and any $d\times d$ parameter matrices, respectively."
>**W2:** Provide intuitive explanations for the assumptions and theorems.
**A:** Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have provided intuitive explanations for each assumption as they are introduced. The added explanations are as follows (_please refer to **Table 1** in the uploaded PDF file for the summary of the proposed conditions_):
1. **For condition **A1** in Theorem 3.1 and condition **B1** in Theorem 4.1:** These conditions are the same as the one stated in Lemma 2.1 for the fully observable ODE system (1), but with a different initial condition $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ or $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$. We have added the intuitive explanation of this condition in the paragraph following Lemma 2.1, since it is where this condition was first introduced. The added explanation reads:
"From a geometric perspective, the set of vectors stated in Lemma 2.1 being linearly independent indicates that the initial condition $\boldsymbol{x}_0$ is not contained in an $A$-invariant proper subspace of $\mathbb{R}^d$. Intuitively, this means the trajectory of this system started from $\boldsymbol{x}_0$ spans the entire $d$-dimensional state space. That is, our observations cover information on all dimensions of the state space, thus rendering the identifiability of the system."
2. **For condition **C1** in Theorem 4.2:** The added explanation reads:
"Under the latent DAG assumption, we can transfer the ODE system (3), which includes hidden confounders, into a $(d+p)$-dimensional fully observable ODE system (1) through the augmented state $\boldsymbol{y}(t)$. Condition **C1** indicates that our observations span the entire $(d+p)$-dimensional state space, thus rendering the system identifiable."
3. **For conditions **B2, B3, B4** in Theorem 4.3:** Condition **B2** is the same as **B1**, for which the explanation has been added. Conditions **B3, B4** are straightforward and do not require additional intuitive explanations.
4. **For condition **C2** in Theorem 4.4:** This condition is the same as **C1**, for which the explanation has been added.
In addition, we have included a table to summarize all the notations (please refer to our comment to reviewer Te42) and another table to outline the proposed identifiability conditions (available in the uploaded PDF file). We believe these additions significantly enhance the clarity and readability of our manuscript, aiding readers in better understanding the essence of our proposed theories.
## Answer to question:
>**Q1:** Practical validity of the proposed theoretical results.
>
**A:** Thank you for your question. The primary assumption in our manuscript is the **latent DAG** assumption, which is standard in causality studies. For a detailed discussion on the practicality and reasonableness of this assumption, please refer to our response to W2 from Reviewer 1wF2.
In addition to the **latent DAG** assumption, the other assumptions are quite mild:
1. **Conditions in Theorem 3.1, 4.1, 4.2:** These conditions are both sufficient and **necessary** and cannot be relaxed further in our linear ODE setup. As we have mentioned conditions **A1** and **B1** align with the condition stated in Lemma 2.1, which is the set of vectors $\\{\boldsymbol{x}_0, A\boldsymbol{x}_0, \ldots, A^{d-1}\boldsymbol{x}_0\\}$ being linearly independent (denote it as condition **A0**). This condition is **generic** as noted in [40], meaning that the set of system parameters that violate this condition has Lebesgue measure zero. Intuitively, condition **A0** is satisfied for **almost all** combinations of $\boldsymbol{x}_0$ and $A$. Once condition **B1** is satisfied, then one can always find observations on the same trajectory satisfying condition **C1**, rendering condition **C1** also mild.
2. **Conditions in Theorem 4.3 and 4.4:** These conditions are sufficient but not necessary. Identifying parameter matrices $B$ and $G$ requires additional observations (trajectories) and assumptions. Condition **B2** and **C2** mirror the mild conditions **B1** and **C1**, respectively. Condition **B3** is experimentally controllable and trivially satisfied, while condition **B4**, similar to **A0**, is **generic**. Thus, all proposed conditions are practical and not restrictive.
Regarding real-world dataset experiments, we were unable to include them due to the unavailability of suitable data. However, we have added two real-world linear ODE examples (see the comment to Reviewer 1wF2) and additional higher-dimensional simulation cases to better support our theoretical results. The corresponding simulation results are presented in the uploaded PDF file. These simulations align with current studies on theoretical identifiability of linear ODE or SDE systems, which also **rely solely on simulations** (see [27, 33, 40, 41]).
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the responses. I will raise my score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Response to Reviewer LnTR
Comment: Dear Reviewer LnTR,
Thank you very much for raising your score. We greatly appreciate your recognition of our work and your valuable comments.
Sincerely,
The authors | Summary: This paper studies the problem of identifiability analysis of linear Ordinary Differential Equation (ODE) systems. It focuses mainly on the scenarios where some variables in the system remain latent to the learner. This paper aims to address this challenge by studying identifiability analysis in two classes of linear ODE systems with latent confounders. The first case considers latent confounders that are mutually independent, and the second case includes correlated latent confounders. The authors conduct detailed identifiability analyses for both systems and propose sufficient identification conditions. Simulation results support the theoretical findings.
Strengths: - The paper is well-written and clearly organized. The authors clearly stated all the necessary assumptions.
- Identifiability analysis is an important problem in causal inference and control theory. Most of the existing methods in causal inference literature focus on the acyclic systems without feedback loops. On the other hand, methods in control theory often assume there are no unobserved confounders in the system. This paper attempts to close this gap by studying causal identification in linear ODE systems with latent confounders. It could have a significant impact across disciplines, including AI, econometrics, and environmental science.
Weaknesses: - This paper is dense, and it could be difficult for readers unfamiliar with ODE analysis. It could be recommended that the authors could include an additional table summarizing the notations. Also, a table summarizing the identification conditions would also be helpful.
- Simulations are performed on relatively simple synthetic instances. It would be interesting to see how the result scale to a more complex system.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - How does the agent obtain the matrix $G$ from the latent DAG assumption? Could the author elaborate on this?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have adequately addressed the limitations of the paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have addressed each of your comments as follows. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript in accordance with your suggestions, and we believe that the quality has been significantly enhanced as a result of your insightful input.
## Answers to weaknesses:
>**W1:** Include tables that summarize the notations and identifiability conditions.
**A:** Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In accordance with your recommendation, we have included a table to summarize all the notations (please refer to the following comment) and another table to summarize all the proposed identifiability conditions (available in the uploaded PDF file). We believe that these additions significantly enhance the clarity and readability of our manuscript.
>**W2:** Scale the simulations to a more complex system.
**A:** Thank you for your comment. We would like to clarify that, theoretically, our proposed identifiability conditions are applicable to any finite dimensions $d \geqslant 1$ and $p \geqslant 1$. In practical scenarios, as the system dimensions increase, the complexity of the system also escalates. Consequently, larger sample sizes and more advanced parameter estimation methods may be required to achieve satisfactory parameter estimates.
In response to your suggestion, we have included additional simulation examples with increased complexity in our updated manuscript. For single trajectory identifiability validation (Theorems 4.1 and 4.2), we have added an example with $d=5, p=5$ (i.e., 5-dimensional observable variable and 5-dimensional latent variables, totalling 10 dimensions). For $p$ trajectory identifiability validation (Theorems 4.3 and 4.4), we have added an example with $d=10, p=5$ (i.e., 10-dimensional observable variables and 5-dimensional latent variables, totalling 15 dimensions). The results of these simulations are presented in the uploaded PDF file and provide empirical evidence supporting the validity of our proposed identifiability conditions in more complex systems.
## Answer to question:
>**Q1:** Elaborate on how the agent obtains matrix $G$.
**A:** Thank you for your question. As discussed in our manuscript, the identifiability of matrix $G$ is established under the conditions stated in Theorem 4.3 and Theorem 4.4. The proof of Theorem 4.3, detailed in Appendix B.4, provides a comprehensive derivation of how matrix $G$ can be obtained. Due to the complexity and extensive use of notations, it is challenging to fully elaborate on this proof in a few plain sentences.
To summarize, obtaining matrix $G$ requires not only the latent DAG assumption but also the assumptions B2, B3, and B4 outlined in Theorem 4.3. A crucial aspect of the latent DAG assumption is that it allows the matrix $G\in \mathbb{R}^{p\times p}$ to be permuted into a strictly upper triangular form, such that $G^k = 0$ for all $k \geqslant p$, where $p$ is the dimension of the latent variables. Consequently, the states of hidden variables can be expressed as polynomial functions of time $t$, from which the identifiability conditions are derived.
We hope this brief explanation provides some insight into the latent DAG assumption. For a detailed derivation of matrix $G$, we encourage you to refer to our proof in Appendix B.4.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Table for summarizing all the notations
Comment: Here, we provide the added table for summarizing all the notations.
| Notation | Description |
| ------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| $\boldsymbol{x/z}$ | observable/latent variables |
| $x_i/z_i$ | the $i$-th observable/latent variable |
| $t$ | time |
| $t_j$ | the j-th time point |
| $\boldsymbol{x}(t)/\boldsymbol{z}(t)$ | state of observable/latent variable at time $t$ |
| $\boldsymbol{x}_j$ | $\boldsymbol{x}(t_j)$, observable state at time $t_j$ |
| $\boldsymbol{x}_0/ \boldsymbol{z}_0$ | initial condition of observable/latent variable |
| $\dot{\boldsymbol{x}}(t)$ | first derivative of $\boldsymbol{x}(t)$ w.r.t. time $t$ |
| $d$ | dimension of observable variables |
| $p$ | dimension of latent variables |
| $A,B,G$ | constant parameter matrices defined in Eq.(2) and (3) |
| $\boldsymbol{f}(t)$ | Function of time $t$ defined in Eq.(2) |
| $\boldsymbol{v}_k$ | constant parameter vector defined in Eq. (4) |
| $\\{\boldsymbol{v}_k\\}_0^r$ | all the $\boldsymbol{v}_k$'s for $k=0,\ldots,r$ |
| $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ | $:= (\boldsymbol{x}_0, \boldsymbol{z}_0, A, B, \\{\boldsymbol{v}_k\\}_0^r)$, the system parameter of ODE system (2) |
| $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ | a vector defined in Thm.3.1 A1 |
| $\boldsymbol{y}(t)$ | augmented state |
| $\boldsymbol{y}_0$ | initial condition of augmented variable |
| $\boldsymbol{\eta}$ | $:= (\boldsymbol{x}_0, \boldsymbol{z}_0, A, B, G)$, the system parameter of ODE system (3) |
| $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ | a vector defined in Thm.4.1 B1 |
| $\boldsymbol{z}_0^{*}$ | given initial condition of latent variable |
| $\boldsymbol{z}_0^{*i}$ | the $i$-th given initial condition of latent variable |
| $\boldsymbol{\eta}_i$ | $:=(\boldsymbol{x}_0, \boldsymbol{z}_0^{*i}, A, B, G)$, the system parameter of ODE system (3) |
| $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i$ | a vector defined in Thm 4.3 B2 |
| $\boldsymbol{x}_{ij}$ | $:= \boldsymbol{x}(t_j;\boldsymbol{\eta}_i)$, observable state of ODE system (3) with system parameter $\boldsymbol{\eta}_i$ at time $t_j$ |
| $\boldsymbol{y}_{ij}$ | augmented state of $\boldsymbol{x}_{ij}$ at time $t_j$ |
| $A', \boldsymbol{x}_0', \ldots$ | the alternative counterpart corresponding to $A,\boldsymbol{x}_0, \ldots$ |
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Title: Thank you for the response
Comment: I appreciate the authors' detailed response. While the simulations could still be improved, this paper proposes novel theoretical identification results in challenging problem settings, i.e., dynamic systems with hidden confounders and feedback. I will raise my confidence score.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Response to comment from Reviewer Te42
Comment: Dear Reviewer Te42,
Thank you so much for raising your confidence score. Your recognition of our work means a great deal to us. In addition, regarding the simulations, we have added an additional simulation inspired by Reviewer 1wF2's comment. Specifically, we set different ground-truth parameter configurations by using different seeds. Due to time constraints, we have currently applied 10 different configurations to the single and multiple trajectory experiment with $d=3, p=3$. We will update these results to include 100 different configurations in our final manuscript, and we will also include higher-dimensional cases.
The simulation results are provided in the comment to Reviewer 1wF2. Through these additional simulations, we have increased the diversity of our ground-truth examples, providing more convincing empirical support that our proposed theoretical results are suitable for any system parameter configurations that meet the proposed identifiability conditions. We believe that our simulation has been greatly improved by adding this set of simulations.
Thank you again for increasing your confidence score and for your valuable comments.
Sincerely,
The Authors | Summary: The paper focuses on the (parameter) identifiability problem of linear ODE systems. The identifiability results of the existing work has been limited to fully-observable systems, i.e., with no latent variables. The paper analyzes the parameter identifiability of partially-observable linear ODEs with certain structure, that is $\dot{\mathbf{z}}(t) = \mathbf{0} \mathbf{x}(t) + G \mathbf{z}(t)$: (i) the observables don’t affect the time derivative of the latents, and (ii) the latent transition matrix $G$ is strictly upper-triangular (“DAG structure”). For this setup, they characterize the identifiability conditions for a single trajectory and multiple trajectories; in addition to the cases where these trajectories are observed in discrete-time steps. They evaluate the validity of the proposed identifiability conditions on a simulation study, by comparing the parameter estimation errors for identifiable and unidentifiable data generating processes.
Strengths: * The paper extends the identifiability conditions of the previous work from fully-observable systems to partially-observable systems, which have practical value in real-world scenarios.
* The paper is very well-written and easy-to-follow despite being a theoretically heavy.
Weaknesses: * The paper motivates the identifiability analysis with latent variables by its importance to practical scenarios in causal inference. Yet, the examples in the paper and its simulation setup are far away from being practical.
* In lines 142-143, the DAG assumption for the latent relationships is motivated as being common in causality studies. However, these studies only consider a static setup. From the provided references, it is not possible to see how feasible this assumption is for an ODE system.
* The simulation setup seems to be contrived, where the parameter means ($|x| \in {0,1,2}$) are chosen by hand with small uniform perturbations, $U(-0.1, 0.1)$ and $U(-0.3, 0.3)$. It is hard to say how much randomness this scenario creates. The simulation study would support the claim better if its setup shows more randomness.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: * To show the practical value of the paper, can you provide linear ODE examples having practical value in some fields, e.g., chemistry, etc? On these, the structural constraints could be assessed. Then, it could be checked if the identifiability conditions hold for the typical ranges of the real-world variables. In addition, these can be added to the simulation study where the identified parameters have real-world meaning, explaining certain intervention effects.
* Even though I understand what you mean by the "DAG structure", I think the graph considered here is not well defined. The variables do not affect each other as demonstrated in Figure 1, they affect each other's time derivatives. The nodes in the graphs in Figure 1 represent two things at the same time: the variable states and the time derivatives.
* What happens if you increase the system dimensionality in the simulation study? Currently, it is set to $d=3$.
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: * The main limitation seems to be the verification of the identifiability conditions in practical scenarios, as noted by the authors.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have addressed each of your comments as follows. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript in accordance with your suggestions, and we believe that the quality has been significantly enhanced as a result of your insightful input.
## Answers to weaknesses:
>**W1:** Provide practical examples.
**A:** Thank you for your comment. Since both this and your first question (Q1) address the practical value of our paper, we will respond to them together here.
In response to your suggestion, we have included two real-world linear ODE examples. Due to the 6000-character limit, detailed descriptions of these two models are provided in the following comment, and the corresponding causal graphs are presented in the uploaded PDF file. As illustrated by the graphs, the structure of these models aligns well with our structural constraints.
Regarding the applicability of the proposed identifiability condition and real-world dataset experiments, we kindly refer you to our detailed response to Q1 from Reviewer LnTR, which addresses this query comprehensively. Thank you for your understanding.
>**W2:** Feasibility of the latent DAG assumption.
**A:** Thank you for your comment. In response to your second question, we believe there may be some confusion regarding how the causal graph is defined within the context of an autonomous (time-invariant) ODE system. To address this, we will first clarify the causal graph in the context of an ODE system, which we hope will provide a clearer understanding of the feasibility of the latent DAG assumption.
To enhance understanding, consider a general fully observable time-invariant ODE system $\dot{\boldsymbol{x}}(t) = f(\boldsymbol{x}(t))$. In such systems, the derivatives of state variables $\dot{\boldsymbol{x}}(t)$ do not explicitly depend on time $t$. For an ODE system like this, we state there is a direct causal relationship from variable $x_j$ to variable $x_i$ if $\dot{x_i}$ is dependent on $x_j$, expressed as $\dot{x}_i(t)= f(x_j(t))$. As detailed in [24], the causal graph for such an ODE system is defined such that **each node represents a variable $x_i$, and there is a direct edge from $x_j$ to $x_i$ if and only if $\dot{x}_i$ depends on $x_j$**. This causal graph remains invariant over time in a time-invariant ODE system. Both ODE systems (2) and (3) in our manuscript are time-invariant, and the graphs in Figure 1 are well-defined within this context.
We assert that the latent DAG assumption is reasonable for several reasons:
1. Consider a particle of mass $m$ in a uniform gravitational field where the gravitational field exerts a constant force $F$ on the particle. The evolution of the particle's velocity (denoted as $v$) and position (denoted as $r$) can be described by a linear time-invariant ODE system:
$$ \dot{v}(t) = F/m, \dot{r}(t) = v. $$
The corresponding causal graph of this ODE system is $ v \rightarrow r$, which is a DAG. Hence, a DAG is a reasonable causal structure to describe ODE systems.
2. Since we focus on time-invariant ODE system analysis, the causal graph remains invariant with respect to time. Therefore, treating the causal graph as static and making a DAG assumption is a natural extension of traditional static causal studies.
3. Deriving identifiability conditions for causal models is a challenging problem. This is why the DAG assumption is adopted in static setups, even in fully observable cases. Similarly, deriving the identifiability conditions for linear ODE systems with hidden variables is difficult, and this field of study is still in its early stages. To our knowledge, our work is the first to systematically derive identifiability conditions for such ODE systems. Referring to well-established assumptions in traditional causal studies is a prudent starting point. Additionally, we allow for cycles and self-loops among observable variables and only assume that latent variables follow a DAG structure, which is relatively less restrictive compared to the classic DAG assumption in static setups. Without the latent DAG assumption, it is currently not feasible to derive identifiability conditions for linear ODE systems with hidden confounders.
>**W3:** Regarding randomness of the simulation study.
**A:** Thank you for your comment. Upon reviewing our uploaded codes in the supplementary material, you will see that all parameters in our simulation study are entirely randomly generated. Specifically, we used `randint(-2,3)` to generate the parameters for simplicity.
We chose to set the initial parameter values close to the true parameter values with uniform perturbations $U(-0.1,0.1)$ and $U(-0.3,0.3)$ because the Nonlinear Least Squares (NLE) loss function associated with our simulation is non-convex. Initializing the parameters close to the true values helps the NLE converge to the true global minimum. Introducing more randomness into the initial parameter values would necessitate using a computationally intensive and time-consuming global optimization technique or another parameter estimation method.
The primary objective of our simulation is to validate the proposed theoretical results rather than check or develop parameter estimation methods or techniques for ODEs. We believe that the current simulation results robustly support our theoretical claims. However, to address your concern and further substantiate our findings, we have included two additional higher-dimensional cases.
## Answers to questions:
>**Q1:** Provide practical examples.
**A:** Please refer to our response to W1.
>**Q2:** Explain causal graph for an ODE system.
**A:** Please refer to our response to W2.
>**Q3:** Increase dimension in simulations.
**A:** Thank you for your question. Due to the 6000-character limit, we kindly refer you to our response to W2 from Reviewer Te42, as it addresses the same query in detail. We appreciate your understanding.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Real-world linear ODE examples
Comment: ## Example 1: damped harmonic oscillators model
Consider a one dimensional system of $D$ point masses $m_i (i = 1, \ldots, D)$ with positions $Q_i(t) \in \mathbb{R}$ and momenta $P_i(t) \in \mathbb{R}$. These masses are coupled by springs characterized by spring constants $k_i$ and equilibrium lengths $l_i$, and are subject to friction with a coefficient $b_i$, all while the end positions are fixed.
The dynamics of this system are described by the following linear ODE system [24]:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\dot{P}_ i(t) &=k_i(Q_{i+1}(t)- Q_i(t) -l_i)-k_{i-1}(Q_i(t) -Q_{i-1}(t)-l_{i-1}) - b_i P_i(t)/m_i \\\\
\dot{Q}_i(t) &= P_i(t)/m_i
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $Q_0(t) = 0$ and $Q_{D+1}(t) = L$ represent the fixed boundary conditions. External forces $F_j(t)$ (e.g., wind force or a varying magnetic field) can influence the entire system of coupled harmonic oscillators. These external forces can be modelled as latent variables with a constant derivative. Consequently, the system can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\dot{P}_ i(t) &= k_i(Q_{i+1}(t) - Q_i(t) -l_i)-k_{i-1}(Q_i(t) -Q_{i-1}(t)-l_{i-1}) - b_i P_i(t)/m_i + \sum_{j}\alpha_{ij} F_j(t)\\\\
\dot{Q}_i(t) &= P_i(t)/m_i\\\\
\dot{F}_j(t) &= c_j
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_{ij}$ is a constant determining the effect of the external force $F_j(t)$ on the $i$-th mass, and $c_j$ is the constant rate of change of the external force $F_j(t)$. This model aligns well with our ODE system (2). An example causal graph illustrating this model is provided in the uploaded PDF file.
## Example 2: population model
The growth of a population $P$ can be described by a linear ODE:
\begin{equation*}
\dot{P}(t) = a P(t),
\end{equation*}
where $a$ is a constant representing the growth rate of the population. The system can also be influenced by latent variables $L_i$, such as environmental factors and food supply. Incorporating these latent influences, the system can be modelled as:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\dot{P}(t) &= a P(t) + b L_1(t) + c L_2 (t)\\\\
\dot{L}_1(t) &= l L_2(t)\\\\
\dot{L}_2(t) &= m
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $a, b, c, l$ and $m$ are constants. Here, $L_1(t)$ represents the food supply, influenced by the environmental factor $L_2(t)$. $L_2(t)$ corresponds to an environmental factor, such as temperature or pollution levels, which changes steadily over time. This model aligns well with our ODE system (3).
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Dear authors,
Thank you for your detailed response and your efforts to address my concerns. Your response is well-written and well-organized as your paper. However, I am still not convinced about my two main concerns.
**1) Contrived simulation setup.**
* From (i) lines 275-276 “The true underlying parameters of the systems are provided below”, and (ii) the equations between lines 278-279, it seems to me that **the simulations have only a single ground-truth parameter configuration $\eta_{sim} = (\mathbf{x}_0, \mathbf{z}_0 A, B, G)$ provided in Eqs bwn lines 278-279.** Can you please clarify whether (i) you sample a single ground-truth parameter configuration ($\eta_{sim}$) or (ii) multiple configurations ($( \eta_{sim}^{(k)} )_{k=1}^K$) with $K$ different seeds?
* I still think that setting the initial values close to the ground-truth values with perturbations of U(-0.1, 0.1) and U(-0.3, 0.3) may not be sufficient to create enough randomness. Since the paper motivates itself by its importance to practical scenarios in causal inference and we cannot know the ground-truth values in practice beforehand, the paper should at least show what happens when we initialize the values randomly (or further away).
* I appreciate the results for higher dimensions $d=5, p=5$ and $d=10,p=5$. What is the motivation behind choosing a different experimental setup for the higher dimensional case than the case with $d=3,p=3$, i.e., for why did you set different dimensionality values for single and multiple trajectories? Similar to above, can you please clarify whether (i) you sample a single set of ground-truth parameters or (ii) multiple parameter configurations with different seeds?
**2) Real-world examples and the latent DAG assumption.** I appreciate the effort for the examples, but I still do not see a real-world example where the main assumption, DAG structure of the unobserved variables, is satisfied. The population example has no citations. To me, a constant change in environmental factors does not sound realistic. Most likely, the present value of environmental factors would affect the change in the environmental factors. Oscillator example is a linear ODE example from [24] with no unobserved variables. I assume the unobserved variables are added by the authors. Similarly, to me, a constant change in wind (external force) does not sound realistic.
---
Reply to Comment 2.1.1:
Title: Response to comment from Reviewer 1wF2
Comment: Dear Reviewer 1wF2,
Thank you for your prompt response. We have addressed your concerns as follows.
**1) Contrived simulation setup.**
- True underlying parameters:
- The ground-truth parameters are **a single configuration** of $\boldsymbol{\eta}$ as shown in lines 278-279 and the equations below. The identifiable case refers to ground-truth parameters that satisfy our proposed identifiability conditions, while the unidentifiable case involves ground-truth parameters violate these conditions. This configuration of ground-truth parameters is generated randomly rather than being manually designed. In other words, our theoretical results are applicable to any system parameter configurations that meet the proposed identifiability conditions.
- We conduct $N=100$ replications of experiments for each ground-truth configuration (the identifiable one and the unidentifiable one, respectively) by setting **different initial parameter values through different seeds**. Our simulation aims to verify that, in the identifiable case, parameter estimates from all 100 experiments are consistently close to the ground-truth parameters, as evidenced by the reported results showing low MSE and variance. In the unidentifiable case, some experiments may fit the ground-truth parameters, while others may fit different configurations of system parameters that produce the same observations, leading to higher MSE and variance.
- Our simulation goal is to validate our proposed identifiability conditions. Given the current randomness in initial parameter values, the observed MSE and variance differences between the identifiable and unidentifiable cases strongly support our theoretical results. As previously mentioned, the Nonlinear Least Squares (NLS) loss function used in our simulation is non-convex. Initializing parameter values too far from the true parameters can increase estimation errors due to local minima. These errors stem from the non-global minimizer of the parameter estimation method, not from our theoretical results, which we would like to avoid. Our paper focuses on deriving identifiability condition theories rather than developing parameter estimation methods. The current simulation settings adequately support our theoretical findings.
- As we have mentioned in our rebuttal to this question, increasing system dimensions escalates system complexity. For instance, the single trajectory case with $d=3, p=3$ involves $d+p+d^2+d*p+p^2=33$ parameters, whereas the $d=5,p=5$ case involves $85$ parameters. Larger sample sizes and longer estimation times are required to achieve satisfactory parameter estimates in higher dimensions. Due to time constraints, we kept the parameter size moderate, choosing $d=5, p=5$. In the multiple trajectory case, observations from $p$ trajectories make parameter estimation easier, allowing us to attempt higher dimension such as $d=10, p=5$. As for the configuration, same as the 3-dimensional case, we used a single ground-truth parameter configuration and, due to time limit, conducted $N=10$ replications of experiments for both identifiable and unidentifiable cases.
**2) Real-world examples and the latent DAG assumption.**
Thank you for your comment. We have added a citation for the population example for your reference [1]. As you mentioned, these examples are originally fully observable cases, with unobserved variables added by us. Since these systems involve inaccessible variables, the ground-truth model structures are unknow. In such circumstances, researchers or practitioners typically design suitable model structures based on prior experience or relevant physical laws. This is how we incorporated latent variables in these examples.
- For the population example, we consider an environmental factor that changes at a constant rate, such as pollution levels from an industrial plant continuously releasing a fixed amount of pollutants or a wastewater treatment plant releasing a specific amount of treated wastewater into a river hourly.
- For the oscillator example, wind force can be modelled by a constant rate in regions with highly predictable wind patterns, such as during the onset or retreat of monsoon seasons, or in experimental settings where wind force is adjusted at a constant rate. This simple example illustrates that external forces can be modelled with constant derivatives. Additionally, constant forces, or forces with polynomial functions of time $t$, all fit our ODE system structure. For instance, a uniform magnetic field interacting with the system would exert a constant force. These are simple illustrations, and we believe there are many other latent factors that fit well within our ODE structure.
We hope this addresses your concerns. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask us.
Sincerely,
The authors
[1] Mira-Cristiana Anisiu. Lotka, volterra and their model. Did´actica mathematica, 32(01), 2014.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Response to comment from Reviewer 1wF2
Comment: Dear Reviewer 1wF2,
Thank you for your response. We appreciate your earnest and responsible approach to reviewing our paper.
However, we believe there may have been some misunderstanding regarding the setup of our simulations. Our simulation methodology follows a standard and widely accepted approach for verifying proposed theories like ours. Specifically, we set a single ground-truth parameter configuration. To ensure reliable and robust parameter estimation results, we then run multiple replications (100 in our simulation) of experiments with different initial parameter values and report the mean and variance of the metric of interest (MSE in our simulation).
We encourage you to take a few minutes to review the simulation settings in the recently accepted JMLR paper [41] and NeurIPS paper [40], which also study the identifiability analysis of linear ODEs and linear SDEs. These papers employ the same simulation setup as ours.
**To address your concerns, we have conducted additional simulations incorporating various ground-truth parameter configurations by utilizing different seeds.** The simulation results strongly affirm the validity of our proposed identifiability conditions. For further details, please refer to the following comment.
Thank you again for your consideration. If you have further questions or need additional clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
The Authors
---
Rebuttal 4:
Title: Response to comment from Reviewer 1wF2
Comment: Dear Reviewer 1wF2,
We would like to reiterate that our theoretical results are applicable to any system parameter configurations that meet the proposed identifiability conditions.
**To further address your concerns, we have added two additional simulations inspired by your comments. Specifically, we set different ground-truth parameter configurations by using different seeds.** Due to time constraints, we have currently applied 10 different configurations to the single and multiple trajectory experiment with $d=3, p=3$. We will update these results to include 100 different configurations in our final manuscript, and we will also include higher-dimensional cases.
The simulation results are provided in the following tables, and they offer strong empirical evidence supporting the validity of our proposed identifiability conditions. Through these additional simulations, we have increased the diversity of our ground-truth examples, providing more convincing empirical support that our proposed theoretical results are suitable for any system parameter configurations that meet the proposed identifiability conditions. We believe that our simulation has been greatly improved by adding this set of simulations.
Table1: MSEs of the $\boldsymbol{\eta}$ -(un)identifiable cases of the ODE (3) with $d=3, p=3$ and **different parameter configurations**
| | Identifiable | | | | Unidentifiable | | | |
| ---------------- | ------------ | ------------------- | -------------------- | ---------------------- | -------------- | -------------------- | ------------------- | ---------------------- |
| $\boldsymbol{n}$ | $A$ | $B\boldsymbol{z}_0$ | $BG\boldsymbol{z}_0$ | $BG^2\boldsymbol{z}_0$ | $A$ | $BG\boldsymbol{z}_0$ | $B\boldsymbol{z}_0$ | $BG^2\boldsymbol{z}_0$ |
| 20 | 0.0005 | 2.42E-05 | 0.0038 | 0.0028 | 0.1309 | 0.2064 | 1.4629 | 0.4528 |
| | (1.71E-06) | (3.14E-09) | (7.91E-05) | (1.81E-05) | (0.0276) | (0.1459) | (7.6680) | (1.0949) |
| 100 | 0.0001 | 1.36E-05 | 0.0019 | 0.0008 | 0.0868 | 0.1740 | 0.8929 | 0.1867 |
| | (3.63E-08) | (1.14E-09) | (2.83E-05) | (5.55E-06) | (0.0102) | (0.1019) | (3.1318) | (0.1362) |
| 500 | 0.0001 | 1.13E-05 | 0.0016 | 0.0005 | 0.1095 | 0.1788 | 0.7797 | 0.1726 |
| | (1.64E-08) | (1.02E-09) | (1.70E-05) | (8.33E-07) | (0.0203) | (0.1091) | (3.5265) | (0.1165) |
Table2: MSEs of the $\\{\boldsymbol{\eta}_i\\}_1^p$ -(un)identifiable cases of the ODE (3) with $d=3, p=3$ and **different parameter configurations**
| | Identifiable | | | Unidentifiable | | |
| ---------------- | ------------ | ---------- | ---------- | -------------- | -------- | -------- |
| $\boldsymbol{n}$ | $A$ | $B$ | $G$ | $A$ | $B$ | $G$ |
| 3 | 0.0671 | 0.0972 | 0.1044 | 0.1575 | 0.1019 | 0.1247 |
| | (0.0046) | (0.0149) | (0.0092) | (0.0744) | (0.0202) | (0.0213) |
| 10 | 2.53E-07 | 4.98E-09 | 2.06E-08 | 1.4720 | 0.2255 | 0.3048 |
| | (5.76E-13) | (2.24E-16) | (3.81E-15) | (6.2425) | (0.3125) | (0.8364) |
| 20 | 2.24E-08 | 4.42E-10 | 1.83E-09 | 0.7827 | 0.2099 | 1.93E-20 |
| | (4.53E-15) | (1.76E-18) | (3.00E-17) | (3.5399) | (0.3193) | (1.91E-39) |
Thank you again for your valuable comments. We hope this additional set of simulations addresses your concerns. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask us.
Sincerely,
The Authors
---
Rebuttal Comment 4.1:
Comment: Dear authors,
Thanks for the efforts to address my concerns on the simulation setup. I increase my score 4->5.
---
Reply to Comment 4.1.1:
Title: Response to comment from Reviewer 1wF2
Comment: Dear Reviewer 1wF2,
Thank you very much for raising our score. We greatly appreciate your recognition of our work and your valuable feedback.
Sincerely,
The authors | null | null | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to express our gratitude to all the reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Below, we summarize the modifications made to the manuscript based on your comments:
- To Reviewer 1wF2:
- We have added two real-world linear ODE examples that align well with our interested ODE (2) and (3).
- We have provided a clear defination of the causal graph in the context of autonomous (time-invariant) ODEs.
- We have included two higher-dimensional simulation examples.
- To Reviewer Te42
- We have included a table summarizing all the notations.
- We have added a table summarizing all the proposed identifiability conditions.
- We have included two higher-dimensional simulation examples.
- To Reviewer LnTR
- We have provided explanations for symbols $\boldsymbol{x}_0'$ and $A'$.
- We have included intuitive explanations for each of our assumptions as they are introduced.
- We have added two real-world linear ODE examples.
We deeply appreciate the reviewers' insights, which have been invaluable in refining our work.
Pdf: /pdf/c73b92b4719b9474d13f10055fbe824389f3d904.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Twin-Merging: Dynamic Integration of Modular Expertise in Model Merging | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper investigates a dynamic and compressive merging method for adapting large-scale models to multiple tasks. The authors claim that adjusting the ratio between shared knowledge and exclusive knowledge is crucial for high-performing model merging, and they devise an algorithm that learns proper coefficients to merge those two kinds of knowledge in a data-dependent manner. They further compress the task-specific exclusive knowledge via SVD to reduce memory storage during merging. They validate their method with language models on discriminative and generative tasks.
Strengths: - Remarkable performance improvement compared with baselines
- The proposed dynamic merging method can be memory-intensive during inference time because it requires all task-specific modules to be stored, but the author mitigates this somewhat via SVD compression. The combination of dynamic merging and compressive merging is very impressive, which induces better performance while considering practical usefulness
Weaknesses: - Lack of technical details on the most important part of the methodology
- The router module plays a crucial rule that produces input-dependent merging coefficients during inference time. However, the authors do not provide any technical details on the training of the router module (including appendix).
- Model architecture and training configurations should be provided.
- Moreover, a description of the validation set the authors to use for the router training should be provided. The authors only describe that dataset as '**_a small validation set_**'. Does the validation set consist of the integration of downstream tasks? or general text corpus? and how the construction of the validation set affects the final merged model performance.
- I believe details on the construction and amount of samples for the validation set should be presented.
- Limited scope of validation
- While they evaluate their method with fully fine-tuned models on discriminative tasks, they only validate it on the parameter-efficient fine-tuning regime for the generative tasks. As one of the proposed method's main contributions is parameter compression, it would be more effective when they show the applicability of their method on fully fine-tuned model merging with decoder-only LM or encoder-decoder LM.
- Concerns about scalability
- While the compressive merging reduces the requirements of memory storage during the inference phase, I speculate that the amount of computation for the merging operation is still a huge burden. The input-dependent dynamic merging requires computations for merging operation per every sample, and I wonder about the **runtime and computation cost during inference phase when the fully fine-tuned models are the target of validation** rather than the parameter-efficient fine-tuning regime in Table 7.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: - details on router network architecture and its training (refer to weakness section)
- details on the validation set construction (refer to weakness section)
---
If there is a misunderstanding from me, please don't hesitate to refute it. I would be happy to discuss this further.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Lack of scalability to larger models due to increasing inference cost of instance-dependent dynamic merging.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Response to Reviewer `LqLU`
> Q1. Lack of technical details on the router (Model architecture and training configurations ), validation set for router training. Does the validation set consist of the integration of downstream tasks? or general text corpus?
Thanks for your suggestion, we will revise our paper in the next version.
Our router is implemented as a three-layer linear network with Leaky ReLU activations and batch normalization.
We train the router on the validation dataset with a learning rate of 5e-4 for 10 epochs.
The validation set consists of the integration of in-domain downstream tasks, not the general text corpus. The validation set is taken from a split of the training set, and we use at most 1,000 items for router training for each task.
> Q2. how the construction of the validation set affects the final merged model performance.
As for how the construction of the validation set affects the final merged model performance, if the dataset is too small or imbalanced, it can affect the router's precision and degrade the merging performance. Therefore, we typically ensure the sample numbers from different tasks are the same. Practically, using 1,000 items (which is about 2% of the discriminative task test sets) is sufficient to achieve comparable performances.
> Q3. They only validate it on the parameter-efficient fine-tuning regime for the generative tasks. They should show the applicability of their method on fully fine-tuned model merging.
We primarily merge using LoRA for the Qwen-14B models because fully finetuning them to obtain task-specific experts would require a huge amount of resources and computation (finetuning the full 14B model requires at least 8 A100 GPUs).
However, to further demonstrate, we provide experiments on fully fine-tuned LLaMA 7B models for generative tasks (gsm8k and truthfulqa), where our approach still exhibits superior performance.
| Method | avg. normalized score | Inference Time (/1000 items)|
|-|-|-|
| Task-Arithmetic | 69.89 | 186s |
| Twin-Merging | 88.18 | 198s |
We have also verified the effectiveness of our method on fully fine-tuned RoBERTa (as shown in Table 2) and ViT-B/32 models (in the global rebuttal section).
> Q4. I speculate that the amount of computation for the merging operation is still a huge burden. The input-dependent dynamic merging requires computations for merging operation per every sample. I wonder about the runtime and computation cost during the inference phase when the fully fine-tuned models are the target of validation rather than the parameter-efficient fine-tuning regime in Table 7.
Please refer to the analysis in the "Inference Efficiency" section of the global rebuttal. Our approach introduces negligible cost in typical generation scenarios and can be easily optimized by group-wise merging.
As for runtime and computation costs for fully fine-tuned models, please refer to the LLaMA 7B time cost in the response to Q3 (186s->198s) and the ViT-B/32 results in the global rebuttal (47m22s vs 215m01s).
From these tables, we can see that our method introduces only an extra 0.01 seconds per sample for LLaMA7B and is faster than methods like AdaMerging and Surgery, which also improve performance through additional training and modules.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: I appreciate the authors' kind response! Some of my concerns are addressed.
* I still think that TwinMerging's inference time overhead compared with the vanilla task arithmetic in Table 2 of global response is significant (about two times), given that group-wise extension is not included in the reviewed manuscript.
* Moreover, as from your answer, TwinMerging requires labeled samples from ALL test domains in advance (even though it is validation splits), which is an optimistic assumption compared with AdaMerging, which only requires unlabeled test domain data.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: We thank the reviewer for the feedback. We will address the additional concerns below.
> Q1
Our original approach significantly outperforms both AdaMerging and Surgery in terms of speed and performance.
As evidenced by 1st table from the global rebuttal, our method completes in just 47m22s, compared to 185m35s / 215m01s for AdaMerging/Surgery.
Despite the substantial time savings, our approach also delivers superior performance, achieving a score of 95.33, versus 88.50 / 94.40 for AdaMerging / Surgery,
**the latter methods invest over 10 times the effort to marginally improve performance**.
Furthermore, our group-wise variant that matches the efficiency of Task-Arithmetic (5m14s vs 4m52s) still holds superior performance (92.02 vs 67.80). We will include this variant in the revised version of our paper.
> Q2
To clarify, AdaMerging requires **the actual test sets** (as confirmed in Section 3.2.2 of the original paper, or the code from `src/datasets/common.py` line 142 in the original codebase). This means that, for the example in Table 5, for the unseen domain dataset,
AdaMerging theoretically requires access to these unseen domain test sets to approximate the optimal model, though without true labels.
This poses a significant challenge for online deployment scenarios, where test inputs are unpredictable and streaming.
Even if we can access to the test set in in offline scenarios, scaling the test set to a large number, such as 1,000, makes the process highly inefficient.
Additionally, AdaMerging relies on entropy optimization for unsupervised training, making it **applicable only to classification tasks**.
Given the growing dominance of large **generative** foundation models like LLaMA, GPT-4, and diffusion models, AdaMerging’s focus on classification limits its scalability and applicability.
In contrast, our approach only requires in-domain validation data corresponding to each expert. For instance, in Table 5, we used 5 experts to handle 3 unseen datasets, necessitating only the validation sets corresponding 5 experts.
This is because the validation dataset is meant to enable the router to learn and identify specific exclusive knowledge in domain.
Please notice that this training process is **agnostic to the actual test distribution**. Whether the test distribution scales to 10, 100, or even 1000 tasks, we still only need those initial 5 validation datasets.
Our method, however, is versatile and can handle any type of task, including generative tasks with Qwen-14B in Table 2, and scales up to **72B** on generative tasks (Table 3), offering broader applicability and alignment with current AI trends.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: Thanks for your detailed rebuttal.
Authors' claims are convincing and I will raise my score 5 -> 6
---
Rebuttal Comment 3.1:
Comment: Sorry for my reverse (6 -> 5), but I would like to discuss my second worry with the authors further.
After reviewing the authors' responses, I still lean toward the negative side due to their reliance on the validation set.
While the method is agnostic to the test distribution, its effectiveness is unclear under severe distribution shifts in image domains (that AdaMerging focuses on) compared to distribution shifts in language domains. That is, I still doubt the performance sensitivity against distribution shifts and varying amounts of validation set.
Moreover, in the real-world deployment scenario, I think it is much harder to gather validation sets for each merging ingredient fine-tuned model from different institutions (due to commercial / privacy issues) compared with test-time unlabeled incoming samples.
Given that, my concerns about Twin-Merging's reliance on ID validation still seem to be weaknesses, even though it boosts performance significantly.
---
Reply to Comment 3.1.1:
Comment: Thanks for your feedback. We will address the concerns below.
> Q1: image domain distribution shift & varying amounts of validation set
We want to clarify that **our method addresses distribution shifts through dynamic merging, which adapts to test inputs**, as shown in our NLP results (Table 5) and Section 4.5, although the preprocessing stage (router training/knowledge modularization) is indeed agnostic to the test distribution.
To address your specific concern, we conduct additional experiments on image domain shifts using Gaussian noise corruption. The results demonstrate that Twin-Merging is robust against image domain distribution shift.
| Method | Avg. Before Corruption | Avg. After Corruption |
|-|-|-|
| Task-Arithmetic | 84.3 | 65.6 |
| AdaMering | 91.7 | 73.4 |
| **Twin-Merging** | **96.9** | **79.2** |
In terms of varying amounts of validation set, we actually have a related experiment in Figure 4, where the router validation set is varied from 2,000 to 7,000, and we can observe consistent superior performance.
To further demonstrate, We also add experiments with reducing the validation data number to 100 per task for generative tasks, which is 1/10 of the original size, and we observe that the performance does not change significantly:
| Method | val-1000 | val-100 |
|-|-|-|
| Twin-Merging | 102.38 | 101.23 |
> Q2: harder to gather validation sets for each merging ingredient fine-tuned model from different institutions (due to commercial / privacy issues)
Firstly, to clarify, **our approach does not strictly require the validation set to be taken from each in-domain dataset used by the experts**. For example, we can utilize the opensource Dolly dataset to represent the MMLU expert (L619-L620). Furthermore, **we do not need to gather validation datasets for all experts**. As illustrated in Table 5, our approach still works effectively without gathering specific validation datasets for QNLI, MNLI, RTE, and MMLU.
In practice, we can select a subset of accessible experts and gather representative validation data for them, which is typically not difficult.
This actually stems from the key assumption of our approach, that **in-domain knowledge contains complementary elements that can effectively address out-of-domain inputs when combined properly [1,2]**. By dynamically inferring optimal weights to combine this modularized knowledge based on the test input, our method offers better collective generalization against the unpredictable heterogeneous input.
In contrast, AdaMerging may limits in imprecise entropy approximation and the lack of supervised guidance.
To better demonstrate the advantage of our approach, we conducted additional generalization experiments using the same settings as in the AdaMerging paper:
| Method | EuroSAT | MNIST | Avg. Acc |
|-|-|-|-|
| AdaMering | 45.9 | 90.1 | 68.0 |
| **Twin-Mering** | **53.2** | **92.9** | **73.5** |
Secondly, we want to emphasize that our approach is primarily designed for **real-world LLM online serving**, where models are deployed with a continuous stream of inputs without gradient updates, aligning with trends in LLM deployment [3,4].
- **Unpredictable, Heterogeneous Data Streams**: The nature of these data streams means that traditional batch techniques are inefficient, and any single expert is insufficient. This is why we introduce our dynamic merging technique.
- **Latency and Storage Considerations**: To address critical concerns around latency and storage, we shift time-consuming router training and knowledge modularization to the preprocessing stage. Additionally, we employ SVD techniques to reduce storage requirements. A detailed analysis of the FLOPs for these serving scenarios is provided in the global rebuttal.
- **Broad Applicability**: Our method applies to both NLP and CV domains, spanning discriminative and generative tasks, making it highly adaptable for deploying and scaling AI models.
In contrast, the AdaMerging post-training technique incurs significant latency due to its reliance on test-time training, making it more suitable for offline evaluations rather than real-time LLM deployment.
[1] Fusing Models with Complementary Expertise [ICLR24]
[2] Knowledge Fusion of Large Language Models [ICLR24]
[3] Mooncake: Kimi's KVCache-centric Architecture for LLM Serving
[4] LLM Inference Serving: Survey of Recent Advances and Opportunities
---
Rebuttal 4:
Comment: I want to express my severe gratitude for the authors' kind response and my regret for my unprofessionalizm, such as the score-reversing behavior.
Thanks to the discussion with the authors, I could also extend my sight, not only gain a clearer understanding of the paper.
I will raise my rating accordingly.
---
Rebuttal Comment 4.1:
Title: Thank you
Comment: We appreciate the reviewer's recognition of our work's effectiveness and the score increase. We will revise our work to include clearer illustrations. Thank you for your time and valuable suggestions! | Summary: This paper attempts to resolve an issue of destructive interference with model merging techniques. It proposes to maintain a shared base model and separate task-specific knowledge structures that can dynamically be combined at test time.
The paper presents some a nice to buttress the drive home their methodology
Strengths: - Code provided
- Initial analyses of the existence of interference even when separate parameter sets are fine-tuned with LoRA is interesting though a bit obvious in hindsight be useful to empirically validate
- Initial experiments validate the hypotheses of interference and shared / exclusive knowledge
- Reasonably thorough experimentation
Weaknesses: 1. My primary issue with the paper is why this is a viable alternative to just keeping the base model back-bone and LoRA low-rank vectors of similar rank to the $v_t$s (Algo 1) (and instantiating the task specific model on the fly). Twin-Merge has memory overhead (v_t for T tasks) which brings it more into the realm of “saving task-wise adapters/LoRA” whose size grows as the number of tasks. It is unclear from the existing set of experiments why a practitioner would use this method over keeping separate task low-rank (small memory footprint) adapters and just using these at test time (either statically per task or dynamically — https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.14870 ) ?
1. I understand that the paper performs a primary comparison to other model merging methods like DARE and Task Arithmetic but these methods have zero extra memory overhead (after the model is merged) — they don’t enjoy the expressivity that test time adaptation + extra memory gives them.
2. Claims of generalization to unseen tasks might not be valid. Specifically, it is interesting to see that the boost in performance for Twin Merging in Table 2 is much more significant than for Table 5 with unseen generalization. This makes me wonder if the deltas in table 5 are actually significant.
I am open to raising my score if the authors can convince me of the utility of the method -- in light of [1] above.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: * How are the $v_t$s represented / stored (Algorithm 1) ?
* Are the v_ts stored as the low rank matrices that are later multiplied to obtain the appropriate matrix size ? As written, it seems like each $v_t$ is of size equal to the size of the full parameter space and so ends up as a memory burden.
* For Figure 4 (right), is the fine-tuned storage size much larger because you are doing full fine-tuning instead of LoRA fine-tuning ?
* If you are doing LoRA fine-tuning is the gap because the rank of the lora matrices are larger >> than the rank of the final $v_t$s above ?
* Maybe I missed this but where is the “(Best Storage)” option for Twin Merging in Table 2 described ?
* For Table 4, would it be possible to provide the results for Twin-Merging only before showing the additive results ? It’s hard to make out whether the other methods are contributing anything at all
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Broader impact statements and limitations are discussed in the paper
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Response to Reviewer `2gMR`
> Q1. Why this is a viable alternative to just keeping the base model and LoRA low-rank vectors? Why we would use this method over keeping separate task low-rank adapters and just using these at test time ?
Table 2 has proven that our knowledge modularization technique outperforms directly using task-specific LoRA at test time in generative tasks, exhibiting an average score of 102%.
Compared to several common strategies to utilize task-specific adapters, Twin Merging is still a promising method to improve performance:
- **Directly Route to Top-1 Expert**, which is equivalent to the fine-tuned baseline in Table 2: This is the simplest but highly impractical approach, as it relies heavily on the router. It has the worst expected performance for out-of-domain data when the router cannot properly predict. **Twin Merging outperforms this method (102.38 > 100.0) and has superior performance on unseen tasks (Table 5)**, as it can benefit from complementary knowledge from different exclusive sources. Additionally, routing to the top-1 expert requires storing all experts, which can be a large storage requirement when used with fully fine-tuned models.
- **Combining Multiple Experts**: Without the isolation of shared and exclusive knowledge, combining multiple experts suffers from interference problems, as the redundancy of shared knowledge may obscure the key knowledge required for tasks, and conflicts between the exclusive knowledge are also unavoidable (analyzed in Section 3.2).
- *Statically Combining*: This is equivalent to "Task Arithmetic" when using LoRA. **Twin Merging outperforms static combination (102.38 > 96.61)**.
- *Dynamically Combining*: This is equivalent to the method (A) in the following table. **Twin Merging(B) outperforms dynamic combination (102.38 > 97.03)**.
|Method|RoBERTa|Qwen|
|-|-|-|
|Pretrain+Dynamic Merging(A)|85.90|97.03|
|Shared+Dynamic Merging(TwinMerging,B)|96.14|102.38|
> Q2. Baselines like DARE and Task Arithmetic don’t enjoy the expressivity that test time adaptation + extra memory gives them.
We add baselines like AdaMerging and Representation-Surgery that have extra time cost and memory consumption in the "More Baseline" section of the global rebuttal.
**While consuming less time cost and memory consumption, our approach superior in performance (95.33 > 94.04 > 88.50)**.
As analyzed in the "Inference Efficiency" section of the global rebuttal, our method actually introduces neglectable cost compared to the total generation (0.039s per sample in Table 7), and can be further optimized by the group-wise merging.
> Q3. Twin Merging Performance in Table 2 is much more significant than in Table 5 with unseen generalization.
This is because we present **unnormalized scores** in Table 5. We cannot directly normalize them as we do not have the corresponding expert on unseen datasets to get upper-bound performances (as noted in line L242).
This leads to relatively lower scores due to the narrower score ranges for tasks like RTE (max 66.43 vs max 91.71 for QNLI) and MMLU (max 68.03).
If we use the maximum score from Table 2 as the upper bound for normalization,
we observe more significant improvement for Table 5, e.g. 91.16 -> 96.98 for MMLU (We present the "unstrictly-normalized" scores in parentheses):
|Method|QNLI+MNLI+RTE|MMLU|
|-|-|-|
|MTL|44.63(55.87)|63.74(93.69)|
|Task-Arithmetic|53.92(67.42)|62.02(91.16)|
|Twin-Merging|55.86(71.92)|65.98(96.98)|
The scores are lower than in Table 2 because the in-domain knowledge may be unrelated or even harmful to the test data, leading to a performance downgrade.
However, our approach helps mitigate this effect by dynamically adjusting the merging weight.
> Q4. How are the $v_t$ represented/stored? Are the $v_t$ stored as the low rank matrices? It seems size of $v_t$ is equal to the size of the full parameter space.
We do not directly store $v_t$ since it is the same size as the original parameter. As detailed in Appendix D5, we further compress $v_t$:
Given the size-$m$ decomposition $v_t = \mathbf{U}_t \mathbf{\Sigma}_t \mathbf{V}_t^T$, we select the top-$r$ singular values to form $\mathbf{U}_t(r) \mathbf{\Sigma}_t(r) \mathbf{V}_t(r)$. **We store only $\mathbf{U}_t(r)$, $\mathbf{\Sigma}_t(r)$, and $\mathbf{V}_t(r)$**.
During merging, we decompress these matrices by extending $\mathbf{U}_t(r)$, $\mathbf{\Sigma}_t(r)$, and $\mathbf{V}_t(r)$ to size-$m$ by filling with zeros, allowing us to recover $v_t$ via their product. This operation is only at the matrix level; once we obtain the merged matrix, we discard the decompressed matrices, ensuring efficient storage.
> Q5. For Figure 4, is the fine-tuned storage size much larger because you are doing full fine-tuning ? If you are doing LoRA fine-tuning is the gap because the rank of the lora matrices are larger than the rank of the final $v_t$ ?
Yes, we mainly show the full fine-tuning results for RoBERTa in Figure 4.
As analyzed in Appendix E, for LoRA fine-tuning, the typical rank is 32, but in our experiments, we can use a rank-1 for the best storage efficiency and still obtain good results (refer to Table 9), which is much smaller in storage.
> Q6. Where is the "Best Storage" option
The "Best Storage" option refers to the rank-1 compression via SVD, as illustrated in Table 8 and Table 9. The detailed storage analysis is provided in Appendix E.
> Q7. Showing the additive results for the Ablation Study
Thanks for your suggestion. We show the additive style ablation as follows:
|Method|RoBERTa|Qwen|
|-|-|-|
|Pretrain|41.69|91.06|
|Shared|67.80|96.61|
|Dynamic Merging|81.47|87.77|
|**Shared+Dynamic Merging(Twin Merging)**|**96.14**|**102.38**|
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response
Comment: Hi authors,
Thanks for your response. And including the additional baselines.
> Directly Route to Top-1 Expert
I'm wondering why you decided to do only Top-1 expert in this baselines instead of soft router weights like you do.
I think a better comparison would have been to have Top-K or even just a soft routing like you guys have in the paper. This would then be a better way of demonstrating that Twin merge is superior. As it stands I don't think there is sufficient evidence to say your method is better than the simple LoRA adapter router baseline -- esp given the relatively small delta (102.38 > 100.0) (how does this breakdown to individual task scores btw ?)
Based on the explanations and updated experiments. I'm raising my score -- but it would be great if the more extensive version of the experiment above (as I mentioned, is included in the paper)
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: We thank the reviewer for raising the score! We will address the additional comments below.
> Q1. why listed Top-1 expert as baseline in original paper, not the "soft merging" method
We choose the "Route to Top-1 Expert" as an **oracle** baseline to highlight the performance gap between common merging techniques and **the ideal scenario**.
Because this baseline typically performs the best [1], as shown in the table below (taken from the response to Q1):
| Method | RoBERTa | Qwen|
|-|-|-|
| Top-1 (oracle) | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| Pretrain+Dynamic Merging(A) | 85.90 | 97.03 |
| Shared+Dynamic Merging(TwinMerging,B) | 96.14 | 102.38 |
The "soft merging" (A) performs worse than the oracle, due to the interference between the different models, which is consistent with the findings in [1].
However,Twin-Merging mitigates it by modularizing shared and exclusive knowledge, leading to improved performance and, in some cases, even surpassing the oracle baseline (102.38 > 100.00).
We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to include the "soft merging" as a baseline for better clarity. We will incorporate this into our revised version of the paper.
> Q2. unsufficient evidence to say your method is better than the simple LoRA adapter router baseline -- esp given the relatively small delta (102.38 > 100.0) (how does this breakdown to individual task scores btw ?)
We’ve provided a detailed breakdown of the scores in Table 9, Appendix D7.
It’s important to note that the LoRA router baseline represents the **oracle performance**, which typically achieves the best results, as explained in the above.
Surpassing this baseline is extremely challenging.
However, our method achieves nearly identical performance ( 99.87 vs. 100 on MMLU) or even outperforms the oracle in some datasets (over a 14% improvement on CNN/DM).
Additionally, a key limitation of the simple LoRA router baseline is its difficulty in adapting to unseen tasks, as the router often struggles to predict the correct top-1 result.
In contrast, our approach demonstrates better performance on unseen tasks (as shown in Table 5), leveraging complementary knowledge from different exclusive sources to enhance collective intelligence.
[1] Exploring the Benefits of Training Expert Language Models over Instruction Tuning [ICML23] | Summary: `Twin-Merging` proposes a method for task merging which tackles two issues:
* Task interference: The proposed `Twin-Merging` explicitly model shared vs task-specific knowledge to potentially reduces redundancies across the task vectors, which may lead to subpar task merging results
* Dynamic merging: Usually, task merging weights are only task dependent and determined only once. In contrast, here, the weights are determined at the input level using a router akin to Mixture of Experts design.
Strengths: * Compressing the task vectors using SVD is beneficial for memory usage
* Performance improves over standard task merging approaches
* Experiments are also conducted on large scale models (72B)
Weaknesses: * **The per-input routing design seems highly impractical**. If I understood correctly, the task merging weights are compute on-the-fly for each individual input. This means that:
* The design does not support batching as we need a different merged model for each input in the batch
* Every time a new input comes, we need to first get the merging weights by executing the fuser, then uncompress the task vectors, build the merged model, and finally run the inputs through it. This does not seem very hardware friendly, even if the task vectors are low-rank compressed using SVD. In contrast, in standard task merging, we only ship one merged model.
* Because the fuser $\mathcal{R}$ takes as inputs the *last-layer token embeddings from the shared expert* (line 186), does it mean that every input require two forward passes (one through the fuser, then one through the merged model) ?
- The paper does not really convey the importance/novelty of **knowledge modularization** strongly enough. In essence, the basic task arithmetic (**A**) already performs some form of modularization where the pretrained model is the *shared knowledge* and task finetuned models (task vectors) are *task specific*. In contrast, knowledge modularization(**B**) **redefined the task vectors** relatively to the merged model (rather than the pretrained one) and compress them via SVD. In my opinion, comparing **A** and **B** would be a better ablation experiment than the one in Table 6 where the merged expert is replaced by a random specific one.
- **Baseline**: Since the proposed design uses additional validation data (to finetune the router), it would be fair to also compare to the more recent/stronger baseline `AdaMerging: # Adaptive Model Merging for Multi-Task Learning` (Yang et al), which also assumes extra data available.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: * I do not fully understand the conclusion of **Section 3.1**:
* the assumption of `Ties Merging` is that redundant parameters can be hard to merge. But they do not really make assumptions on whether these parameters were trained jointly/with overlap > therefore I'm not sure how the LoRA experiments contradicts this insight: Even if the LoRA modules are trained separately, they may still have redundant statistics at the end of training ?
* Similarly, the notion of *similar tasks* or *task interference* is hard to define in general. So it is not clear to me how significant the results of the XSUM/DailyMail experiment are.
* Based on the result of table 4.5 it looks like Twin Merging does not often behave as a model merging method ? It seems that most of the time the samples are routed to their respective task-specific experts. If that insight is true, it is not too surprising that `TwinMerging` performs on-par with the finetuned baseline.
* In Table 7: Shouldn't `Model Merging` and `Twin Merging` also integrates the cost of training the initial task vectors in **training cost** ? Otherwise it seems unfair to the MTL baseline.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The paper discusses limitations inherent to task merging in appendix F. However, as discussed in the Weaknesses section.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Response to Reviewer `Q3uE`
> Q1. The design does not support batching
While the router process supports batching, the dynamic merging process currently handles inputs sequentially. However, **it is straightforward to extend the merging process to support batching**. As detailed in the "Inference Efficiency" section of our global rebuttal, we can achieve this by clustering and rearranging data items based on the router logits into groups. This approach significantly reduces the number of merging operations required, with minimal impact on performance. By doing so, we maintain the benefits of our approach while efficiently processing inputs in batches.
> Q2. Does every input requires two forward passes (through the fuser and through the merged model) ?
For the fuser, yes, it requires one forward pass to induce the merging weights. However, the merging model typically requires hundreds of forward passes for generation (e.g., 300 tokens for summarization). Therefore, the additional cost is typically negligible, referring to analysis in the "Inference Efficiency" section of the global rebuttal.
> Q3. The basic task arithmetic (A) already performs some form of modularization where the pretrained model is the shared knowledge and task finetuned models are task-specific. Knowledge modularization(B) redefined the task vectors relative to the merged model and compressed them via SVD. Comparing A and B would be a better ablation experiment than the one in Table 6.
Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the ablation study table as shown below:
|Method|RoBERTa|Qwen|
|-|-|-|
|Pretrain+Dynamic Merging(A)|85.90|97.03|
|**Shared+Dynamic Merging(TwinMerging,B)**|**96.14**|**102.38**|
We observe that A performs worse than B (85.90 vs 96.14), which can be attributed to two main reasons:
- The pretrained model may contain relatively sparse shared knowledge that benefits the input tasks. In contrast, the shared expert, constructed by merging task-specific experts, contains more abundant and diverse shared knowledge.
- Modulizing knowledge by subtracting the pretrained model does not effectively mitigate interference, as it does not consider exclusive knowledge specific to each task. This explains the performance gap between the task vectors and the fine-tuned experts, as analyzed in Section 3.2.
> Q4. Compare to AdaMerging which assumes extra data is available.
Thank you for your suggestion.
We add AdaMerging which need extra validation data in the "More Baseline" Section of the global rebuttal.
Our approach still outperforms them with less time costs (95.33>88.50).
> Q5. They do not really make assumptions on whether these parameters were trained jointly/with overlap. therefore I'm not sure how the LoRA experiments contradicts this insight: Even if the LoRA modules are trained separately, they may still have redundant statistics at the end of training ?
To clarify, our study focuses on the "parameter interference" phenomenon as defined by the Ties-Merging paper[1]. This refers to the conflict of parameters **at the same position across task experts**, e.g., the sign disagreements of the up-projection layer in different task models, which is the main focus of the Ties-Merging method.
Our Section 3.1 experiment demonstrates that even when task-specific modules are trained without overlap thus merging without overlap, interference still occurs.
This indicates that Ties-Merging approach does not fully resolve parameter interference.
> Q6. The notion of similar tasks/task interference is hard to define in general. So it is not clear to me how significant the results of the XSUM/DailyMail experiment are.
We use "task interference" from MTL literature [2] to describe the distinct nature of different task types. For instance, summarization, math reasoning, and code generation each require different forms of responses. Conversely, XSUM and DailyMail are both summarization tasks, handled similarly by the model. Our experiments showed that even similar task types experience interference, prompting us to explore finer-grained relationships between tasks, such as the knowledge types (Sec 3.2).
> Q7. It seems that most of the time the samples are routed to respective task-specific experts. If that insight is true, it is not too surprising that TwinMerging performs on-par with the finetuned baseline.
To clarify, we **do not directly route samples to task-specific experts** (equivalent to the fine-tuned baseline in Table 2), which is highly impractical when facing unknown test distributions.
Instead, we combine shared and exclusive knowledge, which leads to **even better performance sometimes**, e.g., averaging 102% over the fine-tuned baseline on generative tasks (Table 2) and 101% on COLA (Table 8), and better unseen generalization (Table 5).
By isolating different types of knowledge and composing them dynamically, we avoid redundancy and leverage complementary information from both shared and exclusive sources, resulting in improved performance.
> Q8. Shouldn't Model Merging and Twin Merging also integrates the cost of training the initial task vectors in training cost ? Otherwise it seems unfair to the MTL baseline.
We did not include training time in Table 7 because merging methods can directly download task experts from Hugging Face/PyTorch Hub without post-training. However, to demonstrate, the training time and cost for custom fine-tuning from scratch are as follows:
|Method|TrainingTokens|TrainingCost|Performance|
|-|-|-|-|
|MTL|536.35M|10h32min|94.31|
|Task-Arithmetic|536.35M|10h32min|96.61|
|Twin-Merging|536.92M|10h35min|102.38|
Our approach shows an 8.5% performance improvement over MTL with only a 0.1% increase in training tokens and a 0.4% increase in training time.
[1] TIES-Merging: Resolving Interference When Merging Models [NIPS23]
[2] Mitigating Task Interference in Multi-Task Learning via Explicit Task Routing with Non-Learnable Primitives [CVPR23]
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Dear authors,
thanks for your response and clarifications:
* The new ablation on A vs B is more convincing in showing the benefit of explicitly building shared/specific task vectors
* The group-wise variant of Twin-Merging is interesting, and it's good to see that performance of the method does not drop significantly in that case. However I do wonder how it would perform
Since my main concerns have been addressed, I will raise my score to weak accept: Overall I think the paper is technically solid, and I appreciate the authors' effort in clearly portraying the efficiency/memory cost of the method. However, I also think that the paper introduces several new assumptions departing from traditional task merging (labeled data + extra parameters/router model + per-input dynamic behaviour requiring extra processing for batched inference), and the writing would further benefit from making these differences clearer for fair comparison (e.g. it would be more fair to make Adamerging the standard baseline in the experiments section since it also requires extra but unlabelled data in contrast to Ties-Merging).
**Note:** ~[NIPS23]~ -> [NeurIPS23]
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: We thank the reviewer for their feedback and for raising the score! We will address the additional comments below.
> Q1. I wonder how group-wise merging would perform
The insight is that the router logits indicate the relevance of different exclusive knowledge modules to specific input samples.
Inputs have similar router logits require similar knowledge, i.e., similar merging models.
To leverage this similarity, inputs can be grouped based on their router logits. Within these groups, the merging weights are expected to be similar and can be approximated by an averaged representation.
To begin, you can divide the inputs into bins based on the arg-max indices of the router logits, which represents the most relevant domain or knowledge module for each input.
To further refine into groups, apply K-means clustering within each bin directly on the router weights.
Once the clustering is done, average the router weights within each group. The model is then merged based on these averaged router weights, allowing the inference for the entire group to be performed using a single model.
> Q2. the paper introduces several new assumptions departing from traditional task merging (labeled data + extra parameters/router model + per-input dynamic behaviour requiring extra processing for batched inference)
To clarify, we want to highlight that these assumptions are not entirely new but build upon those in previous works such as FisherMerging (NeurIPS22), DARE (ICML24), and Surgery (ICML24). FisherMerging, for instance, utilizes a validation dataset to adjust merging weights. DARE introduces pre-merging techniques like Sparsify to enhance performance, while AdaMerging and Surgery focus more on post-merging techniques.
Specifically, AdaMerging assumes access to an offline test set and dynamically adapts to it by introducing additional coefficients at every layer, conducting unsupervised training across multiple iterations on the test set (without labels) to refine the model. Surgery goes even further by assuming that test data IDs are accessible during inference, allowing it to insert corresponding task-specific adapters to leverage task-specific knowledge.
In contrast, our key insight is that **in-domain knowledge, when combined appropriately, can effectively address out-of-domain inputs**, eliminating the need for offline test dataset access or test ID information.
To achieve this, we significantly reduce the additional parameters required, moving from several task-specific adapters across the entire model to highly sparsed exclusive knowledge representation and a single, simple MLP that infers optimal weights for combining modularized knowledge based on the test input. We train this MLP using a small validation dataset rather than an unlabeled test set, which is more suitable for LLM serving, a current trend in AI.
It is important to emphasize that, like previous methods, our approach only uses **a single merged model** to actually perform the task during the inference phase.
In summary, while our method introduces techniques across preprocessing, additional parameters, and post-merging stages—similar to previous methods—it is distinct in its approach and insight. This distinction is validated by our experimental results, which demonstrate superior performance with only 1/4 the effort of AdaMerging and 1/5 the effort of Surgery (47m22s vs. 185m35s/215m01s) and just 15.4% of the storage cost of Surgery (5.0GB vs. 32.4GB). We aim to further refine these assumptions in future work.
> Q3. the writing would further benefit from making these differences clearer for fair comparison
We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We will further elaborate on the differences between previous merging methods and incorporate the AdaMerging comparison into our revised version of the paper. | Summary: In this paper, the authors introduce the Twin-Merging to merge language models, aiming to close the performance gap between conventional model merging techniques and fine-tuned models, while improving adaptability to data heterogeneity. By modularizing and dynamically merging shared and task-specific knowledge, the authors show that Twin-Merging outperforms existing model-merging methods and approaches the performance of fine-tuned models across various settings and domains.
Strengths: + The paper is overall well written and easy to follow. The idea of dynamic merging to dynamically merge shared and exclusive knowledge based on the test inputs is interesting.
+ The experiments show clear superiority over prior methods.
Weaknesses: + The proposed method dynamically merges the models with the varying inputs, which can be extremely time-consuming in practice. It would be better if the authors propose some mechanisms to address this issue.
+ In figure 3, the authors compare 1-model merging with 8-model merging. Why here 8-model merging is used for comparisons? Why not 2-models merging is compared? More explanations should be provided here.
+ Some highly related works are missing in the related work section, such as MuDSC[1]. The differences between these works should be clarified.
[1] Training-Free Pretrained Model Merging, CVPR 2024
[2] REPAIR: REnormalizing Permuted Activations for Interpolation Repair, ICLR 2023.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Please see the Weaknesses
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: N/A
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Response to Reviewer `vkK5`
> Q1. The proposed method dynamically merges the models with the varying inputs, which can be extremely time-consuming in practice.
Please refer to the "Inference Efficiency" section of our global rebuttal. Our method achieves superior performance (95.33 vs 94.04) with less time and storage cost compared to AdaMerging and Surgery baselines (47m22s vs 215m01s, 5.0GB vs 32.4GB). As shown in Table 7, our approach adds only 0.039 seconds per sample while improving performance by 28.34% for discriminative tasks. Additionally, our method supports common inference speedup techniques and offers efficient group-wise merging variants.
> Q2. In Figure 3, Why 8-model merging is used for comparisons? Why not 2-models merging is compared?
We chose to highlight the 8-model merging scenario to illustrate the degradation gap that can occur in practical scenarios, as typically merging multiple models is more common.
We actually have demonstrated the performance for 2 to 8 model merging in the left figure of Figure 4.
> Q3. More works (MuDSC and REPAIR) in relative works
Thank you for your suggestion. MuDSC and REPAIR can be categorized as Linear Mode Connectivity (LMC) based methods, which we have discussed in the relative work section (L79-L82).
MuDSC addresses the issue of inconsistent similarity calculations in activation and weight spaces by designing a merging framework with dual-space constraints to ensure high similarity in both spaces between models.
REPAIR addresses the problem of collapsed variance in activations during interpolation by rescaling pre-activations, thereby mitigating performance degradation.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and concerns regarding the clarity of our descriptions.
We hope our response has effectively addressed all your concerns. Your insights are crucial for improving our work, and we are open to further discussion if you have any questions about our response.
With the effectiveness in merging performance (even outperforming the oracle at times), efficient storage, minimal time cost, and a reasonable assumption regarding the validation dataset—as recognized by Reviewer `2gMR` , `Q3uE` and `LqLU`—we believe that our approach will become increasingly practical and significant in the era of large language models. We hope that these insights and outcomes can contribute to the community. We appreciate your time and would be very grateful if you could re-evaluate the paper’s rating. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Global Rebuttal
Thank all four reviewers for their constructive feedback which has helped us to improve the clarity and contribution of our work.
The below contains a rebuttal for remarks that are common to most reviewers.
## 1. More Baseline (To `Q3uE`, `2gMR`)
To compare with baselines that require additional datasets and test-time adaptation, we add experiments on ViT-B-32 for 8 CV tasks merging (SUN397 Cars RESISC45 EuroSAT SVHN GTSRB MNIST DTD) following the AdaMerging paper [1] and Surgery [2].
| Method | Avg. Normalized Score | Additional Time Cost. | VRAM |
|-|-|-|-|
| **Pretrained**| 52.02 | 18m48s | 3.6GB |
| **Fine-tuned**| 100.00| 18m48s | 28.8GB |
| **Weight Averaging**| 72.30 | 18m50s | 3.6GB |
| **Task Arithmetic** | 76.50 | 21m34s | 3.6GB |
| **Ties-Merging** | 75.10 | 19m24s | 3.6GB |
| **AdaMerging**| 88.50 | 185m35s | 3.6GB |
| **Surgery**| 94.04 | 215m01s | 32.4GB |
| **Twin-Merging (Ours)**| **95.33** | 47m22s | 5.0GB |
We use the best version from AdaMerging and Surgery, and the 90% sparsity for our twin Merging.
AdaMerging introduces task-wise or layer-wise learnable parameters to improve the merging performance,
while Surgery adds post-merging task-specific modules to shift representation towards the input tasks.
They both need to be trained on the eight task val set for a long time.
Moreover, Surgery needs to know the task type before inference and requires eight finetuned models and the merged model forward during the merging process, thus exhibiting large VRAM.
**In contrast, our method can robustly handle heterogeneous test inputs and has very efficient storage, exhibiting minimal time cost.**
## 2. Inference Efficiency (To `vkK5`, `Q3uE`, `2gMR`, `LqLU`)
- Currently, our method supports batch inference for the routing process, while the dynamic merging process handles inputs sequentially. However, **it is straightforward to extend our approach to support merging in batches or groups**. We can achieve this by first obtaining router weights in batch, then grouping similar data items using the following strategy:
1. Divide into Bins Based on Argmax Indices: First, we divide the data into several bins according to the arg-max indices of the router logits.
2. Cluster Within Each Bin: Then, we cluster (by Kmeans) within each bin to group the logits (we set the group number to 20).
3. Average Weights Within Each Group: Within each group, the router weights are averaged to obtain a merged model. Each group corresponds to one merged process, and the group size is typically larger than the batch size, making it very efficient.
We have added a group-wise experiment on RoBERTa to illustrate this:
| Method| Avg. Normalized Score | Time |
|-|-|-|
| Task-Arithmetic | 67.80 | 4m52s |
| Twin-Merging | 96.14 | 9m31s |
| **Twin-Merging (group-wise)** | 92.02 | 5m14s |
- We acknowledge the extra time cost due to routing and dynamical merging. However, as the inference process typically involves hundreds of forward passes (e.g., 300 tokens for summarization tasks), the additional computing is usually neglectable. Assuming context length $s$, task number $T$, layer number $m$, the introduced FLOPs ( Multiply–accumulate operation ) can be computed as $m(24sh^2 + 4bs^2h)$ for routing, $Tm(12h^2 + 9h)$ for merging (excluding norm parameter), while generating $L$ tokens typically requires $ \sum_{l=s}^{L} 24m(lh^2 + 4 bl^2h)$ FLOPs. **Given that $n \ll L$ and $s$ are typically truncated, the additional consumption is neglectable**.
We demonstrate the actual time cost in Table 7, which adds only 0.039 seconds per sample while bringing significant performance improvements.
- Moreover, our approach offers significant performance improvements with these additional computing resources.
As shown in Table 2 and the "More Baseline" section, we achieve an absolute normalized improvement of 28.34% for RoBERTa, 18.83% on ViT-B-32 compared to Task Arithmetic, 9.71% compared to Twin-Merging on Qwen-14B.
Traditional model merging methods often overlook the heterogeneous nature of test inputs, leading to substantial performance gaps.
Advanced merging techniques like AdaMerging and Surgery typically require costly training and searching processes, as demonstrated in the "More Baseline" section.
**In contrast, our method achieves superior performance to fine-tuned models with minimal cost and storage requirements (47m22s vs 215m01s, 5.0GB vs 32.4GB) due to dynamic merging and SVD techniques.**
- Furthermore, after merging, inference uses a single model per batch. This allows us to leverage optimizations like KV cache, Group Query Attention, efficient FFN/attention, and model compression techniques. Our method is also compatible with inference engines like FlashDecoding, DeepSpeed, and vLLM.
[1] AdaMerging: Adaptive Model Merging for Multi-Task Learning [ICLR24]
[2] Representation Surgery for Multi-Task Model Merging [ICML24] | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
DMPlug: A Plug-in Method for Solving Inverse Problems with Diffusion Models | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper is devoted to the use of diffusion models to solve inverse problems, arguing for treating the inverse process in a diffusion model as a function and proposing a new plug-in approach called DMPlug. DMPlug addresses the issues of feasibility and measurement feasibility of manifolds in a principled manner, and shows great potential for robustness to unknown types and levels of noise.
Strengths: 1. The article is very comprehensive in its review of existing relevant technologies, which is more friendly to readers unfamiliar with the field.
2. The article describes the proposed method in a clearer and more detailed way, which is easy to understand.
3. The qualitative results on celeba and FFHQ datasets presented in the figures of the experimental sections look very effectual and better than the baseline method.
4. This paper provides a comprehensive exploration of the robustness of the proposed method under various noises.
Weaknesses: 1. *Contributing issues:* The proposed method is very similar to the existing work [1,2] in its approach to condition generation by optimizing the noisy latent variables of a diffusion model. The main difference in this paper (and why it works is also very surprising to me) is the empirical evidence that good results can be achieved with only 3 backward steps. It is well known that 3 backward steps usually fail to generate meaningful images for diffusion models. Although the authors do not provide a theoretical basis, they should also provide an intuitive insight into why it works.
2. *Experimental issues:* The experimental section states that their metrics are calculated primarily on 100 images, which is too few, and much of the existing work is 1000-image tests. In addition, the paper selects Celeba and FFHQ which have somewhat similar patterns despite being two datasets.
[1] D-Flow: Differentiating through Flows for Controlled Generation
[2] End-to-End Diffusion Latent Optimization Improves Classifier Guidance
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. Although the authors point out that the use of 3-step DDIM can significantly mitigate computational consumption, the memory required to save the computational graphs of 3-stepDDIM is still huge for some larger diffusions, as far as I know. Can the authors report a comparison with the time consumption and GPU memory used by other methods, such as DPS.
2. Can the author provide some intuition or explanation as to why the 3 steps work.
3. Can the author show some qualitative results of DMPlug in more difficult cases, such as inpainting of box masks or the imagenet dataset?
3. Can the proposed DMPlug method with 3 steps be used for other controllable generation tasks rather than just inverse problems such as, Classifier/Clip guidance in [2].
[2] End-to-End Diffusion Latent Optimization Improves Classifier Guidance
If the author can address my concerns, I am open to changing my score during the discussion phase.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors briefly discuss for the limitations of their approach.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank reviewer uJfQ for the detailed review and insightful comments!
### RE Weakness 1:
We appreciate this insightful comment! Indeed, the two papers have similar ideas to ours from a high level, and we will definitely add and discuss them in our revision. However, we still want to highlight several crucial differences between their methods and our method.
* [1] computes the gradient using the adjoint method and the gradient checkpointing trick to mitigate the memory issue, but the two techniques will further slow down the optimization process. In contrast, our method, with only a few steps, can achieve SOTA results.
* [1] only considers linear IPs, but our paper contains three nonlinear IPs and achieves much better results than the current SOTA methods (typically 3-6dB in terms of PSNR).
* Our paper observes the early-learning-then-overfitting and spectral bias phenomena when solving IPs. With the two phenomena, our method can achieve robustness to unknown types and levels of noise.
* [2] also uses the gradient checkpointing trick to mitigate the memory issue, slowing down the whole process.
* Although IPs can be considered as conditional generation problems, the condition is much stronger than the classifier/CLIP guidance. Please refer to GR1 for more information about IPs and conditional generation with the classifier/CLIP guidance.
>[1] D-Flow: Differentiating through Flows for Controlled Generation
>[2] End-to-End Diffusion Latent Optimization Improves Classifier Guidance
>[3] Scalable gradients for stochastic differential equations
>[4] https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/checkpoint.html
### RE Weakness 2:
We mainly follow the experiment setting of the recent work—Resample [5] (ICLR’24 Spotlight), which also uses 100 images for each task and dataset, but we totally understand this concern. Hence, we try to add more experiment results in the rebuttal period as you and other reviewers suggested (please check General Response). Besides the two datasets, we also try a more complex dataset—LSUN-bedroom, following [5]. Also, we add more qualitative results for ImageNet as you suggested in GR5.
>[5] Solving inverse problems with latent diffusion models via hard data consistency
### RE Question 1:
This is indeed a valid question! Please refer to GR2.
### RE Question 2:
We appreciate this insightful suggestion! Please refer to GR1.
### RE Question 3:
Sure, please refer to GR5.
### RE Question 4:
We appreciate this very interesting comment! Please refer to GR1.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Thanks for the Review
Comment: We thank reviewer uJfQ for the detailed review and insightful comments!
For the box inpainting task, please refer to GR8 for the blurriness analysis, and both qualitative and quantitative comparisons between our method and several strong baseline methods.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Thanks for the Review
Comment: We thank reviewer uJfQ for the detailed review and insightful comments!
During the rebuttal and discussion period, we incorporated six additional strong baseline methods in GR3, GR7, and GR9, as suggested by you and reviewer yL1C. These methods include FPS, DiffPIR, DDNM, PSLD, RED-diff, and ΠGDM. We hope these results can somehow address your concerns on this point. | Summary: This paper presents a plug-and-play method DMPlug for solving inverse problems with diffusion models. DMPlug utilizes a pre-trained diffusion model as a deterministic function that generates images from latent seeds and solves MAP problems by optimizing the seeds. Experiments show that their method beats current SOTA methods across different inverse problems and is robust against unknown perturbations.
Strengths: - The proposed algorithm DMPlug is concise and novel.
- The authors observe an intriguing early-learning-then-overfitting property of their algorithm. They integrate an early-stopping strategy in DMPlug to enhance the robustness of DMPlug against unknown data corruption, which is illustrative and useful.
- The experimental results shown in the paper look promising. The empirical robustness analysis is also interesting and informative.
Weaknesses: - The paper is missing many baseline methods on plug-and-play inverse problem solving with diffusion models, such as DDNM[1], DiffPIR[2], RED-Diff[3], FPS[4]. These methods are claimed to perform much better than DPS. The experimental result is less convincing without comparison with these recent results.
- Moreover, the major recent baseline considered in the paper, ReSample, uses pre-trained latent diffusion models, different from the pre-trained model used in this paper, so a direct comparison does not make sense. This weakness is partly mitigated by the ablation study in Table 5.
[1] Yinhuai Wang, Jiwen Yu, and Jian Zhang. Zero-shot image restoration using denoising diffusion null-space model. ICLR, 2023.
[2] Yuanzhi Zhu, Kai Zhang, Jingyun Liang, Jiezhang Cao, Bihan Wen, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. Denoising diffusion models for plug-and-play image restoration. CVPR, 2023.
[3] Morteza Mardani, Jiaming Song, Jan Kautz, and Arash Vahdat. A variational perspective on solving inverse problems with diffusion models. ICLR, 2024.
[4] Zehao Dou, Yang Song. Diffusion Posterior Sampling for Linear Inverse Problem Solving: A Filtering Perspective. ICLR, 2024.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: - DMPlug seems more space/time-consuming than existing methods since it requires gradient backpropagation through the diffusion model multiple times per step, while ReSample does not backpropagate through the diffusion model. Depending on the actual number of iterations used for DMPlug, the time cost for DMPlug might be prohibitively high. I am curious to see some discussion and comparison of DMPlug with existing methods in terms of time cost.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors address the limitations and provide possible future directions in their paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank reviewer y52g for the detailed review and insightful comments!
### RE Weakness 1:
Please refer to GR3.
### RE Weakness 2:
We totally understand this concern that using different DMs may lead to some unfairness concerns, but it is not clear which model the unfairness pertains to. Actually, even the Resample paper [1] compares their LDM-based methods with DM-based methods in most of their experiments. We are happy that our ablation study in Table 5 partially mitigated this concern, so we further add more LDM experiments this time. Please refer to GR4 for using our method with LDMs on inpainting and nonlinear deblurring tasks.
> [1] Solving inverse problems with latent diffusion models via hard data consistency
### RE Question 1:
This is indeed a valid question! Please refer to GR2.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for answering my questions and providing new baseline results during the short rebuttal period.
I have some further questions about the experiments. Judging from the tables in the general response, DMPlug performs well on the inpainting task with a random mask. However, the qualitative result for box inpainting shown in the pdf does look blurry for both masked and unmasked regions, which is not the case for many baselines such as DPS. Could the author explain more about the possible reasons for the blurry reconstructed images? Why have the quantitative results for box inpainting not been reported?
I also appreciate the authors' response on the time cost of DMPlug. However, the results do not completely resolve my previous concern as the time complexity for DMPlug is indeed several times more than most of the baselines. I would encourage the authors to discuss more carefully on this limitation in their paper.
Overall, my opinion on this work has not changed, so I will keep my original rating for now.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thanks for the Discussion
Comment: We thank reviewer y52g for the further discussion and insightful comments! We will follow your suggestions to revise the limitation part of this paper.
* We will update GR8 for the box inpainting task soon.
* Please refer to GR6 for the updated time and memory consumption of our method.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.2:
Title: Thanks for the Discussion
Comment: We thank reviewer y52g for the further discussion and insightful comments!
For the box inpainting task, please refer to GR8 for the blurriness analysis, and both qualitative and quantitative comparisons between our method and several strong baseline methods.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.3:
Title: Thanks for the Discussion
Comment: We thank reviewer y52g for the detailed review and insightful comments!
During the rebuttal and discussion period, we incorporated six additional strong baseline methods in GR3, GR7, and GR9, as suggested by reviewer uJfQ and reviewer yL1C. These methods include FPS, DiffPIR, DDNM, PSLD, RED-diff, and ΠGDM. We hope these results can somehow address your concerns on this point if you have. | Summary: This paper proposes an optimization-based method for optimize the initial noise for data consistency. This method is evaluated on a variety of linear inverse problems and non-linear inverse problems, and achieves SOTA results. The method also show robustness for unknown noise levels with a technique called ES-WMV.
Strengths: 1. The method looks novel and straightforward to implement.
2. The paper is well written and easy to understand
3. diffusion inverse solvers struggle in nonlinear problems since that restricts the usage of SVD or null space decomposition. This paper improves the SOTA on nonlinear inverse problems by a significant margin
4. The Early stopping/deep image prior phenomena reported in this paper is interesting.
Weaknesses: 1. the R(.) function looks quite long since it involves many reverse passes. Also the optimization may take up to 5000 iterations. Does that require additional memory and computing time? I cannot find the memory and time cost in this manuscript except in Fig.5
2. the results on LDMs are limited, it would be more desirable to include LDM results on more nonlinear problems and linear problems besides super-resolution.
3. the backbone model should be stated more clearly in the paper: what is the pretrained model? How is it trained? How many NFEs are used after optimizing the initial noise?
4. Authors could provide more intuitions on why 3 ddim reverse steps are sufficient since it is challenging to generate high-quality images with 3 steps and the measurement function A(.) is applied on the $E[x_0|x_t]$ and may not reflect the ground truth signal. I think deblur or superresolution works since 3 DDIM reverse steps give blurry images which is quite consistent to measurement, but have the authors experiment on more challenging forward models like CT operator (Radon Transform) or phase retrieval?
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See weaknesses.
1. memory and computing time
2. clearer description of the pretrained model
3. experimenting on more challenging forward models like CT operator or phase retrieval
4. more LDM results
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes, limitations are adequately addressed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank reviewer wUnV for the detailed review and insightful comments!
### RE Weakness 1 & Question 1:
Please refer to GR2.
### RE Weakness 2 & Question 4:
Please refer to GR4.
### RE Weakness 3 & Question 2:
This is a very good suggestion! We use the standard DDIM/DDPM and LDM models. The pre-trained DDIM models of CelebA, FFHQ are from [this link](https://github.com/jychoi118/ilvr_adm?tab=readme-ov-file); the pre-trained DDIM model of LSUN-bedroom is from [this link](https://github.com/openai/guided-diffusion); the pre-trained LDM model of CelebA is from [this link](https://github.com/CompVis/latent-diffusion). We recommend the original papers for the training details. After optimizing the initial noise, we apply the same number of NFEs in R(.) as the training stage, i.e., 3 in most of the experiments of this paper. We will add an appendix to include these details in the revision.
### RE Weakness 4 & Question 3:
Thanks for this great suggestion!
Please refer to GR1 for our discussion of the seemingly fundamental difference between inverse problems and conditional image generation.
In our paper, we have tried three challenging nonlinear IPs, including nonlinear deblur, BID and BID with turbulence, but we still want to try the tasks you suggested. For CT reconstruction, we follow the settings in [1] since they provide pre-trained DM for CT images. However, we are still waiting for the data access approval from TCIA on [this link](https://www.cancerimagingarchive.net/collection/ldct-and-projection-data/). In phase retrieval (PR), the goal is to recover a 2d or 3d image from the oversampled diffraction pattern (squared magnitude) of its Fourier transform. Although we can definitely test our method on PR, we have decided not to do it here, as the setting in the DPS paper [2] and follow-up work may be physically wrong, as Fourier PR never involves color images (Fourier involves only 2d or 3d single-channel images) [3,4,5,6]—in fact, their setting leads to a more difficult, yet unrealistic, problem; we leave this study as future work.
>[1] Improving diffusion models for inverse problems using manifold constraints
>[2] Diffusion posterior sampling for general noisy inverse problems
>[3] The numerics of phase retrieval
>[4] SiSPRNet: end-to-end learning for single-shot phase retrieval
>[5] Three-dimensional imaging of strain in a single ZnO nanorod
>[6] What is Wrong with End-to-End Learning for Phase Retrieval?
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thanks for the rebuttal
Comment: I appreciate authors for the effort of adding new experiments in a such short rebuttal period. The results are convincing, but I had some questions about the 3-step DDIM inverse. Looks like in the rebuttal pdf, CGwCG cannot generate meaningful content in 3 steps. I am guessing that DDIM sampler may lead to this issue. Some other solvers like DPM++ may be better? Also the box-inpainting images in the rebuttal pdf look slightly blurry compared to the original images, could authors explain this phenomena?
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thanks for the response
Comment: Thank you for your prompt response and valuable questions! We agree with the point that using faster samplers might support CGwCG with fewer reverse steps. In this study, we have retained the default sampler for CGwCG to (1) clearly illustrate the differences between IPs and CGwCG, and (2) address Question 4 raised by Reviewer uJfQ. For the blurs observed in the reconstructions during the box inpainting task, we repeated the experiments and saved the intermediate results in https://anonymous.4open.science/r/2024_NIPS_rebuttal-AAC3/box_process.png. Currently, we present the reconstructions with the highest PSNR. Our findings indicate that the PSNR peaks for the box inpainting task appear earlier compared to other tasks, as illustrated in Figure 6(2) of the manuscript. Combined with the spectral bias phenomenon reported in Figure 7, the reconstructions that stop at early stages may contain insufficient high-frequency information, leading to blurriness. If we continue the optimization for more iterations, more high-frequency information will be recovered, as shown in https://anonymous.4open.science/r/2024_NIPS_rebuttal-AAC3/box_process.png.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Thanks for the response.
Comment: The deep image prior phenomena appears in the link is also interesting. One suggestion from me would be presenting the one with the best LPIPS score since high PSNR may lead to blurriness. However, I still feel like the 3-step DDIM needs a better explanation or empirical support from more experiments on challenging tasks especially when the box-inpainting showing the reconstruction slightly blurry and different from original measurement. This casts doubt on whether the solution can keep data-fidelity to the measurement. Nevertheless, current results on super-resolution and deblurring are impressive. I believe the contribution is sufficient as an empirical method paper. So I keep my score as 6: weak accept.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Thanks for the Discussion
Comment: We thank reviewer wUnV for the further discussion and insightful comments!
For the box inpainting task, please refer to GR8 for the blurriness analysis, and both qualitative and quantitative comparisons between our method and several strong baseline methods.
---
Rebuttal Comment 3.1:
Comment: I think the authors have addressed most of my concerns, and I will keep my score as weak accept. | Summary: The authors propose a new framework, called DM-Plug, to solve inverse problems with pre-trained diffusion models. Most of the prior works on this topic propose approximations for the conditional score function. The authors propose an alternative approach that is closely related to techniques for solving inverse problems with GANs. Namely, the authors consider the latent space that emerges in diffusion models by projecting images through the deterministic sampler and perform the optimization in this latent space.
There are two challenges with this approach: 1) one needs to backpropagate through the whole sampling chain to perform this optimization, so this approach can be really computationally intensive, and 2) for every update of the latent, one needs to run the whole sampler, so this approach can become really slow. The authors mention that they can circumvent these two issues by only running 3 steps of the sampler and that this suffices for their considered inverse problems.
Strengths: 1) The topic of this research paper is interesting. There is a growing literature on approaches for solving inverse problems with diffusion models. This paper proposes a fresh idea in this space.
2) The experimental results are strong, providing evidence that this is a promising approach.
3) Since the approach here is very similar to solving inverse problems with GANs, there is a variety of ideas from this space that can be potentially leveraged to further improve the results of this approach.
Weaknesses: 1) The proposed method is a maximum-likelihood method and does not offer posterior samples. For certain inverse problems, being able to sample from the posterior is really important, for uncertainty quantification, diversity, etc.
2) The presentation of the paper could be improved. For example, one idea would be to directly optimize in the space of clean images, since diffusion models also offer the score there. This idea wouldn't work because the estimation of the score for $t=0$ is usually poor. The authors do not explain this properly in their manuscript.
3) The authors also mention that for conditional tasks, 3 steps are enough. However, this should truly depend on the level of corruption. At the limit of extreme corruption, it can't be true that $3$ sampling steps are enough since we know for a fact that diffusion models need more steps to achieve good generation results.
4) From Figure 6.1., it looks like the MSE is minimized at around 1000 iterations of the proposed algorithm. Given that each iteration requires 3 sampling steps, this is equivalent to 3000 sampling steps. Most methods for solving inverse problems with diffusion models work with much fewer sampling steps.
5) The authors could have used better baselines in their experimental evaluation, including ΠDGM, Red-diff and PSLD.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1) It seems to me that one of the main weaknesses of this work is the propagation over the sampling chain. Since all that is needed is the solution of the ODE, is it possible to use this method with Consistency Diffusion Models?
2) There are many techniques to solve inverse problems with GANs. One of these techniques is Intermediate Layer Optimization, where the optimization happens in some intermediate latent space. This idea seems directly relevant here and could lead to improvements in performance and cost. Namely, the authors could optimize in the latent space that corresponds to some time other than $t=T$. Could the authors ablate this?
3) I would like to see the number of required steps needed in the sampling chain as the difficulty of the diffusion problem increases. Namely, the authors could fix an inverse problem, let's say random inpainting, and ablate the number of required sampling steps for good performance as the corruption probability increases.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have addressed the limitations of their work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank reviewer yL1C for the detailed review and insightful comments!
### RE Weakness 1:
We agree that allowing posterior sampling for uncertainty quantification and other purposes would be great. This is, unfortunately, not what the MAP framework can offer. We follow most current DM-based methods for inverse problems, which do not provide posterior sampling or uncertainty quantification. We will acknowledge this as a limitation of the current work, and leave it for future research.
### RE Weakness 2:
We will definitely revise the manuscript thoroughly after the rebuttal to improve the presentation!
Optimizing in the space of the clean image directly reduces things to the typical MAP formulations without using the pretrained DM priors. Our consideration is not about whether the score functions are estimated accurately or not; ours is more geometric: we view the whole reverse process as a learned function that characterizes the image manifold. Then, the question here is really about how many steps we need in the pretrained DM model, so that approximate DM priors are incorporated. About this choice, we have tried to address it in Sec 3.1 as well as our GR1 above.
### RE Weakness 3 & Question 3:
We totally agree with the intuition, and our choice of 3 steps is a hyperparameter that works reasonably well in typical settings, but in no sense optimal.
We conduct the ablation study as you suggested. We test 40 cases from the CelebA dataset for random inpainting, and try different numbers of reverse steps with the increase of the mask ratio. The table below shows that our method with 7 steps performs slightly better than it with 3 and 11 steps, as you expected. We will add this ablation study in our future version and recommend users ablate the number of steps when facing challenging IPs.
| Inpainting (CelebA) PSNR | Mask ratio 90% | Mask ratio 94% | Mask ratio 98% |
|--------------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|
| 3 Steps | 25.96 | 25.68 | 24.87 |
| 7 Steps | **26.48** | **26.36** | **25.83** |
| 11 Steps | 25.84 | 25.67 | 25.31 |
### RE Weakness 4:
Please refer to GR2.
### RE Weakness 5:
Please refer to GR3.
### RE Question 1:
This is a very good idea! We noticed a recent paper [1] (after our submission) that successfully combines optimizing the input of diffusion models and consistency models. We will probably also incorporate this in our future version.
> [1] Inverse Problems with Diffusion Models: A MAP Estimation Perspective
### Question 2:
This is an interesting idea and definitely worth exploring! Using our 3-step method for super-resolution on 100 cases from CelebA, we experiment with different latent spaces to optimize when t=T, t=⅔ T, t=⅓ T, respectively. The results below show that optimizing the latent space when t<T can lead to unsatisfactory performance, which shows that it is essential to optimize the latent space when t=T to fully take advantage of the pre-trained prior information.
| SR (CelebA) | PSNR | SSIM | LPIPS |
|-------------|-------|-------|-------|
| t = T | **31.25** | **0.878** | **0.067** |
| t = ⅔ T | 26.35 | 0.587 | 0.237 |
| t = ⅓ T | 11.39 | 0.096 | 1.162 |
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Rebuttal acknowledgment
Comment: I read the rebuttal of the authors and I want to thank them for their efforts.
After reading the rebuttal and the comments from other Reviewers, some of my concerns remain: the method does not offer posterior samples, is very slow, and the number of reverse steps should be higher than 3 for challenging inverse problems (which makes sense).
I also found more limitations: i) the method seems to be working best with DMs and not LDMs and ii) by looking closely at the box-inpainting images, it seems that some of the results are more blurry than I expected.
The authors also did not compare with any of the methods that I proposed in my Review (ΠDGM, Red-diff, and PSLD). I think that a comparison with these baselines would strengthen the paper.
Finally, regarding Question 2, I am curious how the authors initialize the latent when they started the optimization at the intermediate noise level. I was proposing to do the optimization in an iterative way, starting from the solution obtained from the current implementation of the authors' algorithm (similar to ILO). Intuitively, optimizing in intermediate spaces should not hurt the performance, given that the algorithm is properly initialized.
For the reasons mentioned above, I am inclined to reduce my current rating. Since I appreciate the hard work of the authors during the rebuttal, I will wait for the author's reply and I will follow closely the discussion with the other Reviewers before finalizing my decision.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thanks for the Discussion
Comment: We thank reviewer yL1C for the further discussion and insightful comments!
## RE "After reading the rebuttal ... higher than 3 for challenging inverse problems (which makes sense).":
* Again, regarding the capability to offer posterior sampling and uncertainty quantification, we acknowledge it as a common limitation of our method and most competing methods. Extending our method might allow us to develop such capabilities, but it is outside the scope of the current manuscript.
* Regarding the slowness, please refer to our further discussion in GR6.
## RE "I also found more limitations ... more blurry than I expected.":
* For i), we acknowledge the slight performance difference between our method with DMs vs with LDMs, but we humbly disagree that this should be considered a limitation: (1) comparing the performance of our method (similarly, other competing methods) across different DM backbones directly may not make sense, as there can be intrinsic differences in priors captured by the various backbones. The purpose of the ablation studies in Table 5 is to showcase the flexibility of our method across different DMs; (2) while our method with LDM lags behind our method with DMs by approximately 1dB in terms of PSNR, it still delivers comparable or superior performance to other baseline methods, as demonstrated in GR4.
* For ii), we will update GR8 for the box inpainting task soon.
## RE "The authors also did not compare ... would strengthen the paper.":
We thank the suggestion of the reviewer. Please refer to GR7.
## RE "Finally, regarding Question 2 ... given that the algorithm is properly initialized.":
Thank you for suggesting this interesting idea! We agree that the iterative algorithm is very likely to further improve the performance. We are reviewing the details of the ILO paper and trying to figure this out by the end of the rebuttal period. We will share the results as soon as they are available.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Thanks for the Discussion
Comment: We thank reviewer yL1C for the further discussion and insightful comments!
For the box inpainting task, please refer to GR8 for the blurriness analysis, and both qualitative and quantitative comparisons between our method and several strong baseline methods. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank all the reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive comments about our manuscript!
### GR1: Difference between solving inverse problems and condition generation with the classifier guidance (CGwCG)
As suggested by Reviewer uJfQ and hinted by other reviewers, we ablate the number of reverse steps for [1], i.e., CGwCG, in the attached pdf file. It is clear that 3-step CGwCG cannot generate meaningful objects.
This suggests that CGwCG can be substantially more difficult than typical inverse problems. We suspect the reason is that in typical inverse problems, the measurement y provides much stronger “guidance”/information than the label/text guidance in conditional generation: the former, together with additional priors (say from pre-trained DMs), typically enables reliable estimation of the ground truth, whereas the latter can have numerous, or even infinite, solutions.
> [1] End-to-End Diffusion Latent Optimization Improves Classifier Guidance
### GR2: Time and memory consumption of our method
In response to the valuable suggestions from several reviewers, we have provided a comparison of our method with other competitors in terms of time consumption and memory usage below (we report the time to get the peak for ours). We acknowledge that currently, our method is often slower than other competing methods. But we also want to highlight the superior performance of our method for solving IPs, particularly nonlinear IPs (typically 3-6dB boost in terms of PSNR). The user has the flexibility to choose the right balance between recovery quality and computation cost, based on their own priorities and constraints. We will add this point into limitations and leave accelerating our method for future work.
| | ADMM-PnP | DMPS | DDRM | MCG | DPS | ReSample | FPS | DiffPIR | DDNM | Ours |
|-------------|----------|------|------|------|------|----------|-------|---------|------|------|
| Time (s) | 6 | 42 | 30 | 43 | 43 | 14 | 62 | 4 | 367 | 635 |
| Memory (GB) | 0.42 | 5.10 | 4.99 | 2.80 | 2.79 | 5.11 | 20.63 | 1.44 | 4.87 | 6.59 |
### GR3: Comparison with more SOTA methods
Although we have compared our method with the very recent work—Resample [2] (ICLR’24 Spotlight) for most of the experiments, we still would like to compare with more SOTA methods as reviewers suggested. We have tried our best to implement three methods in the short rebuttal period. We run super-resolution (SR) and inpainting for FPS, DiffPIR and DDNM on 100 cases of CelebA since they only consider linear IPs in their papers. Our method and DiffPIR lead other methods for SR, and our method can lead all competitors for inpainting.
> [2] Solving inverse problems with latent diffusion models via hard data consistency
| SR (CelebA) | PSNR | SSIM | LPIPS |
|-------------|-------|-------|-------|
| FPS | 29.12 | 0.858 | 0.149 |
| DiffPIR | **31.55** | 0.857 | 0.203 |
| DDNM | 29.21 | 0.836 | 0.193 |
| Ours | 31.25 | **0.878** | **0.067** |
| Inpainting (CelebA) | PSNR | SSIM | LPIPS |
|---------------------|-------|-------|-------|
| FPS | 32.06 | 0.924 | 0.064 |
| DiffPIR | 31.22 | 0.866 | 0.219 |
| DDNM | 27.89 | 0.799 | 0.224 |
| Ours | **34.03** | **0.936** | **0.039** |
### GR4: More comparison with methods based on latent-diffusion models (LDMs)
We thank Reviewer wUnV for the suggestion to include more LDM results. We have provided additional results of our method using LDM models, as shown below. These results exhibit a similar trend to the SR results in Table 5, indicating that our method performs slightly better with DMs compared to LDMs. Regardless of whether DMs or LDMs are used, our method consistently achieves comparable or superior results to SOTA methods for these tasks.
| Inpainting (CelebA) | PSNR | SSIM | LPIPS |
|---------------------|-------|-------|-------|
| Best competitor | 32.24 | 0.924 | **0.039** |
| Ours (DM) | **34.03** | **0.936** | **0.039** |
| Ours (LDM) | 33.10 | 0.923 | 0.048 |
| Nonlinear deblur (CelebA) | PSNR | SSIM | LPIPS |
|---------------------------|-------|-------|-------|
| Best competitor | 28.52 | 0.839 | 0.104 |
| Ours (DM) | **31.61** | **0.882** | **0.073** |
| Ours (LDM) | 30.64 | 0.861 | 0.108 |
### GR5: More complex settings for inpainting and super-resolution
We follow the valuable suggestion from Reviewer uJfQ to add more qualitative results for more complex settings. Please check the visual results of box inpainting on CelebA and super-resolution on ImageNet in the attached pdf file.
Pdf: /pdf/8ec5150e4c5eef12fed9d1bb8ed7ed302146e4e6.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
SwitchHead: Accelerating Transformers with Mixture-of-Experts Attention | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper introduces SwitchHead, a novel MoE architecture for the attention layer. Unlike the existing MoA approach, which computes the output of the attention layer as a weighted average of the top-k heads determined by a learnable routing mechanism, SwitchHead independently applies expert mixtures to the heads' key, value, and output projections. This design allows SwitchHead to achieve comparable or superior performance to MoA and dense Transformers while requiring less computational power. The reduced compute cost is achieved by performing fewer matrix multiplications: since fewer heads need to be instantiated, the attention matrix operations are performed less frequently (same number of params is ensured by setting d_head accordingly). Reduced memory cost is achieved by having to store less activations for the backward pass. The paper points out that only applying MoE to value and output projection in each head performs sufficiently well as compared to applying MoE to the key and query projections as well.
Strengths: Overall, this is a well-crafted paper that presents a straightforward yet effective method for efficiently integrating MoE layers into self-attention blocks.
Originality: good. The idea of implementing of transforming self-attention into an MoE is not new, yet the specific method presented and analyzed here is novel enough.
Quality: good. The claims are well supported by evidences. Experiments are well designed and seem to be sufficient overall.
Clarity: the paper is well organized. In terms of writing, some formulations require further clarifications (see weaknesses/questions)
Significance: good. The paper makes a moderate contribution to the field and can potentially impacting future research.
Weaknesses: I cannot identify any fundamental weaknesses with the paper beyond several confusing passages that might require further clarification, and a couple of potentially missing citations (see questions).
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - similar techniques for transforming attention heads into MoE have been proposed in the context of parameter efficient MoEs for the fine-tuning stage where experts are represented with LoRA adapters, authors can consider mentioning these works [2,3,4 inter alia]
- ll. 88 - 91: "Intuitively, the above method corresponds to choosing a subset of attention heads based on the destination side alone": given that routing vector s is calculated conditioned on the input x, I do not understand why is it the case that attention heads are selected based on the destination (queries and outputs) side alone. In my understanding the attention head selection is dependent on the input x.
- ll. 93 - 96 (related to above point) the explanation is somewhat confusing, why is it the case that in the worst case all possible source projections have to be computed?
- l. 439: does the 4 in the calculation of the total MACs for the projections already include the output projection?
- ll. 158 - 161: it might be worth noting that the idea of sharing key and value projection across heads has been introduced in earlier work on multi-query attention [1]. Additionally, to enhance the overall clarity, it could be useful to explicitly highlight how exactly MoA differs from the naive attention head mixing technique described in the first part of the Sec. 2.2.
- ll. 119 - 120: it would be helpful if authors could provide a brief discussion clarifying how and why exactly parameter-matched setting "better reflects the task of language modelling"?
- ll. 225 - 227: the visualization in Fig. 2 is only for 1 layer, and not for all layers as stated in the text
- ll. 282 - 287: does not exactly fit into the "Limitations" section, since, according to the authors (ll. 266-269) FlashAttention is orthogonal to SwitchHead
- how important is it to have MoE in the attention the the fully-connected block is already an MoE? Could authors add comparison to σ-MoE?
Overall solid paper, I am happy to revisit my score upon the rebuttal.
[1] Shazeer, Noam. "Fast transformer decoding: One write-head is all you need." arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.02150 (2019).
[2] Page-Caccia, Lucas, et al. "Multi-head adapter routing for cross-task generalization." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024).
[3] Zadouri, Ted, et al. "Pushing mixture of experts to the limit: Extremely parameter efficient moe for instruction tuning." arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05444 (2023).
[4] Ostapenko, Oleksiy, et al. "Towards modular llms by building and reusing a library of loras." arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11157 (2024).
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Limitations are addressed in section 6.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank the reviewer for their insightful review and for positive comments on the clarity and methodology of the paper. Please find our responses as follows:
> similar techniques for transforming attention heads into MoE have been proposed in … authors can consider mentioning these works [2,3,4 inter alia]
We would like to thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We will include the discussion of these papers in the final version.
> given that routing vector s is calculated conditioned on the input x, I do not understand why is it the case that attention heads are selected based on the destination (queries and outputs) side alone. …
We agree that at this spot, this description is not very clear (this becomes hopefully clearer later, in light of our description starting at L97 until Eq. 10, that introduces MoE everywhere, in both source and destination sides). The reviewer is right to point out that everything is a function of the input x, including the output of the routing functions. In self-attention, all of key, value, query vectors are indeed computed from the input x for each position. But once we have these vectors, from the viewpoint of attention computation, the current query defines the destination, and keys and values define the source. In the MoE version of attention, we allocate a routing function for each of key/value/query projection; these routing functions belong to the source or destination side accordingly. Now if we compare Eq 10 and Eq 6, one can notice that the routing function in Eq. 6 effectively corresponds to what we define as the destination-side routing in Eq 10. We will improve the clarity of this passage in the final version. Thank you for pointing this out.
> the explanation is somewhat confusing, why is it the case that in the worst case all possible source projections have to be computed?
Considering the ‘row’ of an attention matrix as ‘destination’ and ‘column’ as 'source’, routing on the “destination side” means that we only select/use K experts to compute a row. However, different rows can still decide to use different selections of these K experts. This means that in practice, there are more than K active experts per column. In the worst case, i.e., if all rows decide to use different K experts, this requires K times the number of row active experts, or simply the total number of experts (if such a product exceeds the total number of experts, which is typically the case as there are more rows than the number of experts). This requires all possible key and value projections to be computed even if only a subset is used in each row. Again, we agree with the reviewer that this is only implicit and confusing in the current description. We will improve this in the final version. Thank you very much for pointing this out.
> does the 4 in the calculation of the total MACs for the projections already include the output projection?
Yes, it does. We will clarify this in the final version.
> it might be worth noting that the idea of sharing key and value projection across heads has been introduced in earlier work on multi-query attention [1].
We would like to thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We will include a discussion of [1] in the final version.
> Additionally, to enhance the overall clarity, it could be useful to explicitly highlight how exactly MoA differs from the naive attention head mixing technique described in the first part of the Sec. 2.2.
We would like to thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The main difference is that MoA fixes the number of K and V projections to 1, thus the efficiency limitations we describe do not apply to it. However, this limits its expressibility. Despite having a single key and value projections, it computes K different attention maps.
> it would be helpful if authors could provide a brief discussion clarifying how and why exactly parameter-matched setting "better reflects the task of language modelling"?
The parameter-matched setting is crucial to evaluate the model’s *expressiveness* in the LLM tasks where the number of parameters has a high impact on the model performance. We consider this setting to be particularly important to evaluate the true expressiveness of MoEs compared to their dense counterparts.
Please note that we also provide additional results in a MAC-matched setting in Tab 4.
> does not exactly fit into the "Limitations" section, since, according to the authors (ll. 266-269) FlashAttention is orthogonal to SwitchHead
We agree with the reviewer that this paragraph does not fit here. We’ll move this to Appendix A. Thank you for pointing this out.
> the visualization in Fig. 2 is only for 1 layer, and not for all layers as stated in the text
We would like to thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We will fix this in the final version.
> how important is it to have MoE in the attention the the fully-connected block is already an MoE? Could authors add comparison to σ-MoE?
The effects of σ-MoE and SwitchHead are orthogonal to each other, as they affect independent parts of the network. In the experimental setting of the paper, they are both set up to result in the most significant speedup with a marginal perplexity gain. Thus, by construction, combining them would never result in an increased perplexity. Speed-wise, with the current implementation, σ-MoE does not provide wall-clock gains on this model scale, in contrast to SwitchHead which provides a significant wall-clock speedup (see Tab 5). It saves, however, around 1.5Gb of additional memory compared to SwitchHead alone in the 262M param setting of Tab 5. With a higher d_model, the savings are significantly more substantial.
We believe our response above resolves all the concerns that the reviewer has raised.
These questions are extremely valuable for us and will enable us to improve our paper.
If the reviewer finds our response useful, please consider increasing the score. Thank you very much.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I would like to thank the authors for their responses. Upon clarification, I now understand a bit better what the authors mean in ll. 84-96. It would help future readers if authors could incorporate the clarifications regarding these lines in the future paper version.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your response! We are glad to hear that the reviewer found our response useful! Yes, we will make sure to include these clarifications in the next version. Thank you again for this valuable feedback! | Summary: This paper introduces SwitchHead, a Mixture of Experts (MoE) method for improving the efficiency of the self-attention layer in Transformers. Unlike traditional MoE methods focused mainly on feedforward layers, SwitchHead effectively reduces both compute and memory requirements, achieving significant wall-clock speed improvements without compromising language modeling performance. This is accomplished by reducing the number of attention matrices needed, offering substantial savings in computational resources, which is validated through extensive experiments across multiple datasets and model sizes.
Strengths: The paper is well-written and easy to follow. The proposed method demonstrates substantial improvements in computational efficiency by reducing the number of attention matrices needed, which leads to lower compute and memory usage compared to standard Transformers.
Weaknesses: The proposed SwitchHead method shares similarities with the Mixture of Attention Heads (MoA), but a key distinction lies in its use of a non-competitive activation function (sigmoid) instead of SoftMax. This design choice is important to understand, and I would appreciate an explanation for opting for the sigmoid activation function over SoftMax in this context.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. The authors mention employing a parameter-matched setting to better reflect the task of language modeling. However, the paper lacks explicit justification for why this setting is more representative of language modeling tasks. Additionally, the description of parameters in Table 1 is ambiguous—it should be clarified whether the numbers represent total parameters or only those that are actively used during inference.
2. The paper occasionally uses notations without adequate explanations, which can lead to confusion. For instance, the term “Shared selection” used in Table 4 is not clearly defined.
3. In Table 5, the authors present the training times for the baseline Transformer and SwitchHead models, but the training time for the MoA model is not included. To provide a comprehensive comparison and better evaluate the efficiency of SwitchHead relative to other models, it would be beneficial if the authors could also include the training time data for the MoA model.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have discussed the limitations of their study.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank the reviewer for their insightful review and for positive comments on the clarity of the paper. Please find our responses as follows:
> A key distinction lies in its use of a non-competitive activation function (sigmoid) instead of SoftMax. This design choice is important to understand, and I would appreciate an explanation for opting for the sigmoid activation function over SoftMax in this context.
We would like to emphasize that the differences between MoA and SwitcHead are more than just the activation function. SwitchHead also uses multiple heads, while MoA uses a single Q and K projection. Moreover, MoA does the weighted average after the attention matrix computation, which makes it slower. Section 3.2 lists all these differences.
The use of sigmoid activation function in MoE was introduced by σ-MoE [1] and intuitively motivated by similarity to an approximate feedforward layer. Moreover, the authors of [2] provide a detailed theoretical analysis of the sigmoid activation function for MoEs, and they show that it converges faster.
> The authors mention employing a parameter-matched setting to better reflect the task of language modeling. However, the paper lacks explicit justification for why this setting is more representative of language modeling tasks.
The parameter-matched setting is crucial to evaluate the model’s *expressiveness* in the LLM tasks where the number of parameters has a high impact on the model performance. We consider this setting to be particularly important to evaluate the true expressiveness of MoEs compared to their dense counterparts.
While the compute-matched setup has values when considering certain practical settings, it gives an “unfair” advantage to MoEs in terms of comparison, as we can easily add extra parameters to an MoE without significantly increasing compute requirements. Here we wanted to show that our SwitchHead is capable, even without considering such an advantage, by evaluating its pure expressiveness in the more challenging parameter-matched setting.
Please note that we also provide additional results in a MAC-matched setting in Tab 4.
> Additionally, the description of parameters in Table 1 is ambiguous—it should be clarified whether the numbers represent total parameters or only those that are actively used during inference.
We would thank the reviewer for pointing this out. It is the total number of parameters. We will clarify this in the final version.
> The paper occasionally uses notations without adequate explanations, which can lead to confusion. For instance, the term “Shared selection” used in Table 4 is not clearly defined.
Thank you very much for pointing this out. Shared selection refers to the case where we tie the V and O projections' selections to be identical. This marginally reduces compute and memory requirements at a slight performance cost. We agree this was confusing, we will provide the details in the final version.
> In Table 5, the authors present the training times for the baseline Transformer and SwitchHead models, but the training time for the MoA model is not included. To provide a comprehensive comparison and better evaluate the efficiency of SwitchHead relative to other models, it would be beneficial if the authors could also include the training time data for the MoA model.
This is an excellent suggestion. Thank you for pointing it out. For measuring the resource usage of MoA, we chose the fastest MoA model that can match the performance of the dense baseline, or simply the best MoA model when no MoA model can match the baseline performance. This resulted in choosing MoA with H=4 for the 47M model and MoA with H=8 for the 262M parameter model. Please find the updated Table 5 below. It can be seen that SwitchHead outperforms MoA in both memory usage and runtime in both cases.
| Size | Model | ms/iteration | Rel. iter. time | RAM/GPU | Rel. Mem. | #GPUs | GPU type |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 47M | Transformer | 473ms/iter | 1.0 | 20.5G | 1.0 | 1 | RTX 3090 |
| | SwitchHead | 342ms/iter | 0.72 | 13.5G | 0.65 | | |
| | MoA | 412ms/iter | 0.87 | 15.3G | 0.75 | ||
262M | Transformer| 670ms/iter | 1.0 | 20.5G | 1.0 | 8 | V100|
| | SwitchHead | 442ms/iter | 0.65 | 12.5G | 0.61 | | |
| | MoA | 851ms/iter | 1.27 | 16.4G | 0.80 | | |
We believe our response above resolves all the concerns that the reviewer has raised. If the reviewer finds our response useful, please consider increasing the score. Thank you very much.
[1] Csordás et al. EMNLP 2023 (Findings). Approximating Two-Layer Feedforward Networks for Efficient Transformers.
[2] Nguyen et al. Arxiv 2024. Sigmoid Gating is More Sample Efficient than Softmax Gating in Mixture of Experts.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Official Comment by Reviewer YarL
Comment: Thank you to the authors for their comprehensive response to the review comments. The efforts made to address the concerns and clarify the points discussed are highly appreciated. Given these responses, I am inclined to increase my score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for the increased score! We are glad to hear that the reviewer found our response useful! Thank you again for your valuable feedback! | Summary: This paper presents SwitchHead, a Mixture of Experts (MoE) method applied to the self-attention layer in transformer blocks. By applying MoE to the self-attention layer, SwitchHead reduces computational and memory costs while maintaining language modeling performance comparable to traditional dense models. It can be combined with existing MoE methods for feedforward layers, resulting in a fully MoE-based transformer, SwitchAll transformers. Tests on various language modeling datasets (C4, Enwik8, peS2o) show that SwitchHead performs well compared to models with parameter-matched settings.
Strengths: - The proposed MoE method applied to self-attention layer reduces computational and memory requirements while preserving language modeling performance of dense baselines.
- The authors make effort to provide a fair comparison between the baselines and the proposed model in parameter-matched settings. They also include both the MAC and wall-clock speedup comparisons, clearly demonstrating the efficiency of the proposed method.
- The author performs extensive ablation studies to show that the proposed method performs well with different types of models and datasets. They also provide the hyperparameters used for each experiment, which helps in reproducing the benchmark results.
Weaknesses: - The paper only evaluates the proposed method on language modeling datasets, lacking demonstration of its effectiveness on other important NLP tasks such as document summarization or open-domain question answering.
- While the authors claim similarity between SwitchHead and dense baseline attention maps, the provided figures suggest simplification in SwitchHead's maps. The lack of quantitative analysis (e.g., entropy measurements) weakens this claim.
- There's a concern that the simplified attention maps produced by SwitchHead could lead to performance degradation when SwitchHead used in encoder-based models due to information bottleneck, which isn't addressed in the current evaluation.
- The paper doesn't clearly explain why regularization methods used in σ-MoE (e.g., entropy maximization, expert dropout) are unnecessary for SwitchHead, potentially leaving gaps in the method's theoretical foundation.
- The paper suggests that Top-K selection can be treated as a hyperparameter, but doesn't provide a clear analysis of the method's sensitivity to different K values, leaving questions about the necessity of hyperparameter search.
- The paper mentions "preliminary experiments" multiple times without proper citation or section indicators, which may confuse readers and reduce the reproducibility of the work.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - While the paper demonstrates strong performance on language modeling tasks, it would be beneficial to see results on a broader range of NLP tasks. How does SwitchHead perform on tasks such as document summarization[1] or open-domain question answering[2]? This would help demonstrate the method's versatility and potential impact beyond language modeling.
- The paper claims that attention maps from SwitchHead and dense baseline models (Transformer XL) are qualitatively similar. However, Figures 2 and 6 suggest that SwitchHead produces simplified attention maps. Could you provide quantitative analysis (e.g., entropy measurements) to more rigorously demonstrate the complexity and quality of SwitchHead's attention maps compared to the dense baseline?
- If SwitchHead indeed produces simplified attention maps, there's a concern about potential information bottleneck in encoder-based models. Have you considered evaluating SwitchHead's performance when applied to the query encoder in a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) setup for open-domain QA tasks[2]? This could help address concerns about information loss in more complex, multi-step tasks.
- The paper mentions that SwitchHead doesn't require the extra regularization techniques used in σ-MoE, such as entropy maximization for load balancing or expert dropout. Could you clarify what specific differences between σ-MoE and SwitchHead make these extra tricks unnecessary? A more detailed explanation of this point would strengthen the theoretical foundation of your approach.
- You demonstrate that K in Top-K selection can be treated as a hyperparameter in the proposed method. How sensitive is the model's performance to different K values? If the sensitivity is low, is extensive hyperparameter searching always necessary, or could a default value be recommended for most use cases?
- The paper mentions "Our preliminary experiments" several times (e.g., lines 91, 473) without providing citations or section indicators. Could you clarify these references to improve the paper's clarity and reproducibility? Consider either expanding on these preliminary experiments in the main text or including them in an appendix.
[1] Nallapati, Ramesh, et al. "Abstractive text summarization using sequence-to-sequence rnns and beyond." arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.06023 (2016).
[2] Kwiatkowski, Tom, et al. "Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research." Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 7 (2019): 453-466.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: - In section 6 and appendix A.1, the authors appropriately present the limitations and societal impacts of their work. This acknowledgment of their model framework's constraints effectively strengthens the motivation for additional research topics in future work. The authors' awareness of these limitations demonstrates a commendable level of scientific rigor and transparency. However, the claim that performance can potentially reach 80-90% raises some questions. While this projection is intriguing, it would be more convincing if supported by more robust quantitative assessments. The addition of more detailed quantitative evaluations could provide valuable insights and significantly aid future research efforts. For instance, a breakdown of current performance bottlenecks and a roadmap for potential optimizations would offer clearer guidance for researchers looking to build upon this work. Furthermore, a more granular analysis of the trade-offs between model size, computational resources, and performance could enhance the paper's contribution to the field. Overall, while the authors have done a commendable job in addressing limitations and societal impacts, the inclusion of more quantitative metrics and projections would further solidify the paper's value as a foundation for future research in this area.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank the reviewer for their insightful review. Please find our responses as follows:
> … it would be beneficial to see results on a broader range of NLP tasks. How does SwitchHead perform on tasks such as document summarization[1] or open-domain question answering[2]?
> Have you considered evaluating SwitchHead's performance when applied to the query encoder in a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) setup for open-domain QA tasks[2]?
We agree with the reviewers that naturally, more experiments on other tasks will strengthen our work. That said, with our modest compute resources, it would be hard for us to perform all of these experiments. We restricted ourselves to LM tasks since they are of central importance today, and many of the other tasks, such as QA, can be casted as LM. We would like to note that we already conducted experiments on a list of LM tasks (enwik8, WT 103, C4, peS2o) on two different scales (47M, 262M) with two different positional encodings (Transformer, RoPE) and evaluated them zero-shot on Lambada, CBT, and BLiMP. Currently, we are not advocating using our method for tasks other than self-attention in LM, although we believe it would have similar properties on those as well.
> While the authors claim similarity between SwitchHead and dense baseline attention maps, the provided figures suggest simplification in SwitchHead's maps. The lack of quantitative analysis (e.g., entropy measurements) weakens this claim.
> Could you provide quantitative analysis (e.g., entropy measurements) to more rigorously demonstrate the complexity and quality of SwitchHead's attention maps compared to the dense baseline?
While we agree with the reviewer that comparing attention maps is an interesting topic, we are unaware of any quantitative analysis that can be indicative of a “quality of an attention map”, except the downstream performance of the model, which we measure on a wide variety of tasks and datasets. For example, it is hard to draw conclusions from raw entropy measurements as we could argue on both sides: high entropy attention maps integrate more information and distribute gradients to more tokens, potentially providing a better learning signal. On the contrary, they also “blur together” too much information, making it hard to filter out irrelevant tokens and sharply focus on the relevant ones. High entropy attention maps might be a mere byproduct of some heads being unused by the model (by setting its contribution low through V and O projections, which do not show up in the attention maps).
We would also like to note that on algorithmic tasks, such as ListOps shown in Fig. 2, typically low-entropy, sharp, and simple attention maps work better, as these require exact focus on specific numbers and operations. Therefore, our current conclusion is to rely on the downstream performance of the model, assuming that models, including their attention maps, have to have good behavior to achieve good performance.
> The paper mentions that SwitchHead doesn't require the extra regularization techniques used in σ-MoE, such as entropy maximization for load balancing or expert dropout. Could you clarify what specific differences between σ-MoE and SwitchHead make these extra tricks unnecessary?
This is a very interesting open question. As this is an empirical observation in our experiments, we have no theoretical explanations. In fact, the situation is the same for the general theoretical studies on MoE; the current literature lacks clear explanations on when exactly regularization is necessary in MoE models. Also, the direct comparison between sigma-MoE and Switchhead is not straightforward as one is selecting slices of two layers in an MLP simultaneously, and the other one selecting individual projections in the attention.
> ... How sensitive is the model's performance to different K values? If the sensitivity is low, is extensive hyperparameter searching always necessary, or could a default value be recommended for most use cases?
> … a more granular analysis of the trade-offs between model size, computational resources, and performance could enhance the paper's contribution to the field.
In paragraph 2 of Sec 3 (L124-131), we provide the details of our algorithm for selecting K. K=2 usually works well enough. Generally, increasing K always helps, but it makes the model slower and uses more memory since more projections have to be computed. Thus, the choice of K is a tradeoff. We chose the minimal K that matches or slightly outperforms the equivalent dense model. Increasing d_head and the number of heads have a similar effect.
Generally, we do agree with the reviewer that a more extensive hyperparameter analysis would strengthen the paper, but our compute resources are modest. We focused on the ablation studies that are maximally informative about our new model, such as verifying which of the projections are necessary to use (see Tab. 6 in the Appendix).
> The paper mentions "Our preliminary experiments" several times (e.g., lines 91, 473) without providing citations or section indicators. Could you clarify these references to improve the paper's clarity and reproducibility?
We refer to “preliminary experiments” as experiments not included in the paper, but done before the final experimental protocol is decided (to the best of our knowledge, this is a rather common terminology). They are typically conducted in order to determine the final model/protocol to be studied and presented in the paper, i.e., the final setting on which we spend our compute resources. These are not necessarily done in the exact same setting as the experiments reported in the paper and, thus, are not directly comparable. As we mention in L512-513 of the appendix, we have done an order of magnitude more of these experiments than the ones included in the paper.
We hope our response above brings clarifications to all the concerns that the reviewer has raised. Thank you very much.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: The review committee extends its sincere appreciation to the authors for their comprehensive and insightful responses to the critiques provided. The diligence demonstrated in addressing the concerns raised and elucidating various aspects of the research is highly commendable. In light of these thorough explanations, the committee is inclined to view the manuscript more favorably.
While substantial progress has been made in addressing the initial reservations, there remains one salient point that warrants further deliberation:
Regarding the quantitative analysis of attention maps:
- I appreciate the authors' insight that it's challenging to draw definitive conclusions from raw entropy measurements of attention maps. The perspective that downstream task performance is ultimately the most meaningful metric for assessing the adequacy of attention maps is well-taken. However, the paper's current statements about attention maps being "qualitatively similar" (Lines 227, 236) could potentially be expanded upon to provide more valuable insights. Perhaps the authors could consider alternative methods or metrics that could provide more meaningful insights into the relationship between attention map characteristics and model performance.
- There seems to be an underlying assumption that similar attention maps between the baseline model and the MoE model could explain why the MoE model performs well. If this is indeed a key point, it might be beneficial to explore this assumption further. For instance, is there a way to investigate any potential correlation between the similarity of attention maps and downstream task performance?
By addressing these points, the paper could potentially offer deeper insights into the workings of the SwitchHead model and strengthen its contributions to the field.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your response! We are glad to hear that the reviewer found our response useful!
Regarding the first point:
> Perhaps the authors could consider alternative methods or metrics that could provide more meaningful insights into the relationship between attention map characteristics and model performance
We agree with the reviewer that going beyond this qualitative findings would be valuable. However, currently, we do not have any convincingly good metrics for this purpose.
Regarding the second point:
> There seems to be an underlying assumption that similar attention maps between the baseline model and the MoE model could explain why the MoE model performs well. If this is indeed a key point, …
We think there is a misunderstanding here. We did not intend to make such an assumption. The sole goal of our attention map analysis is to qualitatively examine how the reduced number of heads (a characteristic of Switchhead) affects the global attention patterns. Here for ListOps, we observe that a high-level pattern is similar to the baseline. This is a purely behavioral comparison between our model and the baseline; we do not use this observation to justify the performance of our model. We will clarify this in the future version of the paper.
We hope this response provides further clarifications about the purpose of our attention map analysis. | Summary: This work proposes a novel Multi-Head-Attention (MHA) mechanism which is more efficient than the standard MHA used in most transformers. The method---called SwitchHead---is relying on Mixture-of-Experts (MoEs) to save computation while retaining the same model capacity and performance. To achieve this, instead of naively selecting which head should be computed for each token, a small number of heads are **always** computed, and MoEs are used to modulate the value and output projections for each head. Using multiple transformer variants and datasets, they empirically show how SwichHead transformers reach a similar perplexity as the baseline, for the same number of parameters, while requiring fewer operations and memory. They also show how their approach can yield a significant speedup during training.
Strengths: The paper is well written and well motivated.
While the components of the proposed method are not particularly novel, they are combined in a simple yet novel way.
I find the experiments convincing. Matching the parameters and perplexity allows to clearly appreciate the gains in memory and MACs. The results of the MAC-matched experiments and the time comparisons further reinforce the potential impact of the proposed method.
Weaknesses: - As mentioned in the limitations section, the models are relatively small.
- I could not find the sequence length used in your experiments, which prevents me from computing the number of tokens used during training.
- I find it odd that dropout is used for the baseline but not for the switchAll models, on C4 I'm expecting dropout to slow down learning.
- What is explaining the differences in the transformers' PPLs in table 4 compared to the PPLs in table 2?
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See above.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Limitations have been discussed adequately.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank the reviewer for their insightful review and for positive comments on the clarity and methodology of the paper. Please find our responses as follows:
> I could not find the sequence length used in your experiments, which prevents me from computing the number of tokens used during training.
The sequence length is T in Tab. 6 in the appendix.
> I find it odd that dropout is used for the baseline but not for the switchAll models, on C4 I'm expecting dropout to slow down learning.
The dropout is used in the switchAll models but only in the feedforward blocks. We do not use dropout in the attention components. In some sense, a dropout-like behavior is naturally provided by the expert selection mechanism: in the early stages of the training, the expert selection is “random” (not trained yet), and in all stages, only a small percentage of the total number of experts is selected (the others can be considered as "dropped out"). Moreover, the baseline only uses dropout on the projections, and neither model uses dropout on the attention scores.
> What is explaining the differences in the transformers' PPLs in table 4 compared to the PPLs in table 2?
They correspond to runs with different seeds, for historical reasons. We will update Tab. 2 in the next version to avoid this confusion.
We believe our response above resolves the concerns that the reviewer has raised. Thank you very much.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for these clarifications. | null | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Sub-optimal Experts mitigate Ambiguity in Inverse Reinforcement Learning | Accept (poster) | Summary: The authors introduce the IRL-SE problem, which which uses multiple experts, including sub-optimal ones, to enhance reward function learning. Given a bounded performance gap between experts, the authors provide a theoretical analysis on shrinking the feasible set of compatible reward functions. Using a PAC framework, the authors provide a lower bound on the sample complexity for estimating the feasible reward set
The authors propose a uniform sampling algorithm with theoretical guarantees, demonstrating its minimax optimality under certain conditions.
Strengths: The authors provide interesting novel insights in a more general sitaution compared to previously cited work
The submission is technically sound and well supported by extremely detailed theoretical analysis. The work is complete and the authors evaluate their strenghts and provide future research avenues. The techincal notation is dense and can be difficult to follow, but the authors did well in writing precisely.
I think the overall proposal in this paper is quite applicable in many RL settings, so this is a strong submission with many potential use cases.
Weaknesses: The submission could be written more clearly. Some results could be expanded instead of just staing the results. Particularly, the use of "it's easy to see" should be removed and expanded upon for ease to the reader. In some cases it may also aid readability to expand out expression instead of writing it in the most concise way possible.
The paper has a strong theoretical focus, which is strong and necessary. However, it would be powerful to see it actually employed in a case study to see how such a technique would be used. Even outside of empirical evidence, it would aid in readability of the paper to see how the notations used in the theoretical sections are actually used in practice. To that end, even a case study with a toy example would go a long way. The authors do a good job in providing technical examples through the paper, but these could be be futher enhanced by connecting them to a toy example of some kind. For a such a dense technical paper, it would make a world of difference in readability.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Examples 3.1,3.2,3.3. Maybe it's "easy to show", but can you please show where these come from?
Suggestion: The word "Indeed" is used too many times. It is quite repetitive.
Suggestion: For line 109, can you explain why the infinite norm is limited to the particular range?
Operators: $\pi$ is overloaded to be both an operator and a policy
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Future research directions are provided, but a dicussion on technical limitations would be also be good to have. No discussion on potential negative societal impact.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: > ### It would be powerful to see it actually employed in a case study to see how such a technique would be used. Even outside of empirical evidence, it would aid in readability of the paper to see how the notations used in the theoretical sections are actually used in practice. To that end, even a case study with a toy example would go a long way.
We thank the Reviewer for raising this point. We have added an experiment to show how the presence of sub-optimal experts limit the feasible reward set in a tabular domain. We refer the reviewer to our reply to Reviewer 6BJu.
Finally, we agree with the Reviewer that an intuitive example can benefit the reader. Given the page limit, however, we preferred to give more space to an appropriate formalism to model the problem. We will make use of the additional page to insert an intuitive example on a 2D goal-based grid-world that shows how the presence of the sub-optimal experts shrinks the feasible reward set.
> ### Examples 3.1,3.2,3.3. Maybe it's "easy to show", but can you please show where these come from?
We thank the reviewer for pointing this out, and we are sorry about this. We agree that the presentation would benefit from formal justifications. Below, the Reviewer can find proofs about these examples. We integrated them in the appendix in a revised version of the paper.
**Proof of Example 3.1**
Consider two MDPs \ R $\mathcal{M}\_1$ and $\mathcal{M}\_2$ that differs only in the transition function, namely $p_1$ and $p_2$. Suppose that $\pi\_{E\_1}$ and $\pi\_{E\_2}$ are optimal for $\mathcal{M}\_1$ and $\mathcal{M}\_2$ respectively. We are interested in upper-bounding $V\_{\mathcal{M}\_1 \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_1}}(s) - V\_{\mathcal{M}\_1 \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_2}}(s)$. Then, for any state $s$, we have that:
$$
V\_{\mathcal{M}\_1 \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_1}}(s) - V\_{\mathcal{M}\_1 \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_2}}(s) \le V\_{\mathcal{M}\_1 \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_1}}(s) - V\_{\mathcal{M}\_2 \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_1}}(s) + V\_{\mathcal{M}\_2 \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_2}}(s) - V\_{\mathcal{M}\_1 \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_2}}(s)
$$
(we have added and subtracted $V^{\pi\_{E\_1}}\_{\mathcal{M}\_2 \cup r}$, and then we have used $V^{\pi\_{E\_1}}\_{\mathcal{M}\_1 \cup r} \le V^{\pi\_{E\_2}}\_{\mathcal{M}\_2 \cup r}$ due to the optimality of $\pi\_{E\_2}$ in $\mathcal{M}\_2$). Then, focus on $V\_{\mathcal{M}\_1 \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_1}}(s) - V\_{\mathcal{M}\_2 \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_1}}(s)$ (an identical reasoning can be applied for the second difference). This can we written as $$ \gamma \sum\_a \pi\_{E\_1}(a|s) \sum\_{s'} p\_1(s'|s,a) (V^{\pi\_{E\_1}}_{\mathcal{M}\_1}(s') - V^{\pi\_{E\_1}}\_{\mathcal{M}\_2}(s')) + (p\_1(s'|s,a) - p\_2(s'|s,a))V^{\pi\_{E\_1}}\_{\mathcal{M}_2}(s')$$
which, in turn, can be further bounded by:
$$\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma} ||p\_1 - p\_2 ||\_1 + \gamma \sum\_a \pi\_{E\_1}(a|s) \sum\_{s'} p\_1(s'|s,a) (V^{\pi\_{E\_1}}\_{\mathcal{M}\_1}(s') - V^{\pi\_{E\_1}}\_{\mathcal{M}\_2}(s'))$$
Unrolling the summation to iterate the aforementioned argument, and using the fact that $\sum\_{t=0}^{+\infty} \gamma^t = \frac{1}{1-\gamma}$ concludes the proof.
**Proof of Example 3.2**
In this proof, we explicit the relationship of the value function $V$ with the discount factor $\gamma$ by writing $V^{\pi, \gamma}\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}$. Then, we have that
$$V\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_1}, \gamma}(s) - V\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_2}, \gamma}(s) \le V\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_1}, \gamma}(s) - V\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_1}, \gamma'}(s) + V\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_2}, \gamma'}(s) - V\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_2}, \gamma}(s)$$
(we have added and subtracted $V\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_1}, \gamma'}(s)$, and then we have used $V\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_1}, \gamma'}(s) \le V\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_2}, \gamma'}(s)$ due to the optimality of $\pi\_{E\_2}$ for the discount factor $\gamma'$).
At this point, focus on $V\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_1}, \gamma}(s) - V\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_1}, \gamma'}(s)$. Using the definition of the value function, together with the fact that rewards are bounded in $[0,1]$, we can rewrite this difference as $\mathbb{E}[\sum\_{t=0}^{+\infty} (\gamma^t - {\gamma'}^{t}) r(s\_t, a\_t)] \le \sum\_{t=0}^{+\infty} \gamma^t - {\gamma'}^{t} = \frac{\gamma - \gamma'}{(1-\gamma)(1-\gamma')}$. An identical argument holds for the second difference, thus concluding the proof.
**Proof of Example 3.3**
By using the definition of value function, we can rewrite $V\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_1}}(s) - V\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_2}}(s)$ as
$\sum\_{a} (\pi\_{E\_1}(a|s) - \pi\_{E\_2}(a|s) )r(s,a) + \gamma \sum\_{s'} p(s'|s,a) (V\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_1}}(s') - V\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_2}}(s')))$.
At this point, since rewards are bounded in $[0,1]$ and by the policy similarity assumption, we have that the difference in value functions can be upper bounded by $\epsilon + \gamma \sum\_{s'} p(s'|s,a) (V\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_1}}(s') - V\_{\mathcal{M} \cup r}^{\pi\_{E\_2}}(s'))$. Unrolling the summation to iterate the aforementioned argument, and using the fact that $\sum\_{t=0}^{+\infty} \gamma^t = \frac{1}{1-\gamma}$ concludes the proof.
> ### Writing suggestions
We thank the Reviewer for the suggestions. In a revised version, we limit the use of word "Indeed" and we removed the use of "it's easy to see" and we replaced with formal justifications (see point above).
On the use of the symbol $\pi$, we replaced the operator $\pi$ with $\bar{\pi}$ to distinguish it from the policy symbol $\pi$.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for your response! I will keep my score as is | Summary: This paper aims to mitigate the intrinsic reward ambiguity in IRL problems. The authors propose that incorporating sub-optimal expert demonstrations can lead to a more accurate estimate of the feasible reward set. Initially, they formulate the IRL with Sub-Optimal Experts (IRL-SE) problem and explore the theoretical properties of the resulting feasible reward set, offering both implicit and explicit descriptions. Additionally, they establish the lower bound of the statistical complexity for IRL-SE problems within the Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) framework. Finally, the authors introduce a uniform sampling algorithm that achieves minimax optimality for IRL-SE.
Strengths: - This paper is well-written and easy to follow. The examples provided in the paper effectively illustrate the role of sub-optimal experts.
- This paper provides a clear and comprehensive theoretical analysis of the IRL-SE problem. The approach of identifying, modeling, evaluating, and solving the problem is highly commendable and worth emulating. First, the authors formalize the problem and demonstrate the theoretical feasibility of resolving reward ambiguity. Then, they determine the difficulty of the problem by analyzing the lower bound of statistical complexity within the PAC framework. Finally, the authors propose an algorithm that achieves minimax optimality to solve the IRL-SE problem.
Weaknesses: - The paper does not provide a method for determining a suitable performance gap $\zeta$ for sub-optimal experts. Additionally, in examples such as 3.1 and 3.3, when $\gamma=0.99$ (a commonly used value), the estimated performance gap $\zeta$ tends to be quite large. This may limit the effectiveness of sub-optimal experts in resolving ambiguity in reward sets, which could be a significant obstacle for algorithm deployment.
- The paper lacks experimental results to validate the role of sub-optimal experts in resolving reward ambiguity.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: Based on the weaknesses, my questions are as follows.
- How can we utilize the feasible reward set in a real-world scenario? I understand that IRL enables learning of reward models from expert demonstrations, which can then optimize policies through RL. However, if we obtain a reward set instead, how should we make use of it?
- Can you provide more insights into determining the performance gap of sub-optimal policies?
- Can you experimentally verify if sub-optimal experts can mitigate reward ambiguity? For example, in certain MDPs, as more sub-optimal experts are provided, the cardinality of the feasible reward set tends to decrease.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: This paper does not discuss the limitations of the work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: > ### How can we utilize the feasible reward set in a real-world scenario?
We thank the Reviewer for raising this point. How to make the best use of the feasible reward set to learn a policy in RL is currently an open problem, even for the single-agent IRL formulation of the feasible reward set (see Section 8 in Metelli et al., ICML 2023).
Nevertheless, suppose that the algorithm has terminated, and, consequently, the estimated policies $\\{ \hat{\pi}\_{E\_i} \\}\_{i=1}^{n+1}$ and the empirical model $\hat{P}$ are available to the agent. At this point, given any $V$ and $\zeta$ that satisfies Eq. (4) and (5) for $\\{ \hat{\pi}\_{E\_i} \\}\_{i=1}^{n+1}$ and $\hat{P}$, let us write $\hat{r}\_{v,\zeta}$ for its corresponding reward function.
Now, suppose we are given a function $f: \mathcal{S} \times \mathcal{A} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that evaluates the quality of a compatible reward function $\hat{r}\_{V, \zeta}$, i.e., $f(\hat{r}\_{V, \zeta})$, so that we are interested in learning a policy for the reward function that maximizes $f$. Then, we can search over the feasible reward set for the function that maximizes $f$. This problem is simply a constrained optimization problem, where the constraints are the ones on $V$ and $\zeta$ specified by the empirical versions Eq. (5) and (6) (i.e., $P$ is replaced with $\hat{P}$ and $\pi_{E_i}$ is replaced with $\hat{\pi}_{E_i}$). Since all these constraints are linear in $V$ and $\zeta$, the complexity of the optimization is entirely dominated by the complexity of evaluating the objective function $f$. If evaluating $f$ is computationally efficient, then, searching for a reward function that maximizes $f$ is computationally efficient.
Once the reward function that maximizes $f$ (or an approximation) is available, we can use it to train the RL agent. Notice that, in this sense, we can appreciate that this approach does not force us to select a criterion $f$ beforehand, and therefore, we might adopt the aforementioned strategy for several criteria (e.g., the max-margin approach of "Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning", Ng and Russel, ICML 2000) and train several RL agents.
Finally, it has to be remarked that learning a policy in RL is not the only purpose of IRL. Another typical application is the interpretability of the behavior of the expert. In this sense, the feasible reward set approach offers broader perspectives w.r.t. standard IRL methods that adopt specific criteria to select a single reward function.
> ### Can you provide more insights into determining the performance gap of sub-optimal policies?
Determining the performance gap $\xi_i$ for sub-optimal experts is a relevant issue. First of all, in the paper we have provided three scenarios (Examples 3.1-3.3) in which the values of $\xi_i$ can be computed, with no assumption of no knowledge of the (possible) reward function optimized by the expert policy. We remark that $\xi_i$ is to be intended as an upper bound of the degree of sub-optimality of expert $i$ and, for this reason, even a rought estimate (provided that it is an overestimate) is acceptable. Furthermore, the presence of a human domain expert is able to evaluate the sub-optimality of several agents, providing estimates of $\xi_i$, is a more realistic scenario than requesting the human expert to explicitly design a reward function.
> ### Can you experimentally verify if sub-optimal experts can mitigate reward ambiguity?
We thank the Reviewer for raising this point. We have designed an experiment that aims at visualizing the reduction of the feasible reward set. We have considered as environment the forest management scenarios with $10$ states and $2$ actions that is available in the "pymdptoolbox" library. We considered a discount factor $\gamma = 0.9$. We have run policy iteration on this domain to recover a set of expert policies, and we have considered as $\xi_i$ the infinite norm between the value functions of the optimal policy and the sub-optimal ones computed using the true reward function.
To appreciate the reduction in the feasible set that is introduced by the sub-optimal experts, we have plotted the maximum value that $\zeta(s,a)$ can achieve according to the theoretical bound of Eq. (7) (notice, indeed, that this is way easier to visualize rather than an entire set of reward functions). For the sake of visualization, we have flattened the matrix that contained upper bounds on $\zeta$, and the reviewer can find the result in the right figure in the pdf that we attached to the general answer. As the Reviewer can notice, the presence of the sub-optimal experts can significantly limit the value of the advantage function in many state-action pairs (notice that the maximum value for $\zeta$ is given by $1 / (1-\gamma) \approx 10$; this theoretical threshold represents the upper-bound on $\zeta$ that was derived in Metelli et al., 2021 for the single-agent problem).
We have then run our algorithm for $20$ times using $\epsilon = 0.1$ and $\delta = 0.1$, and computed the again the theoretical upper bound on $\zeta(s,a)$. The reviewer can find the empirical value of the upper bounds on $\zeta$ in the left figure. We have reported only the empirical mean, as the $95\%$ confidence intervals are in the order of $1^{-5}$. As one can verify, the results are almost identical to the exact case.
We integrated this result in the appendix in a revised version of our manuscript.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your detailed response. I appreciate the contributions of this work and will remain my positive score. | Summary: This paper studies unregularized IRL involving one optimal expert and $n$ suboptimal experts. The authors show that the additional suboptimal experts can help mitigate the reward ambiguity in IRL that arises due to the unknown suboptimality of unvisited state-action pairs. They present an analytical expression for the feasible reward set in this setting and demonstrate that the reward ambiguity can be reduced when learning from not-too-suboptimal experts yet playing differently from the optimal expert. Furthermore, assuming a generative model and sample-based access to experts' policies, the authors provide a PAC lower bound for the sample complexity of IRL and propose an algorithm that is minimax optimal for small suboptimalities of the experts.
Strengths: 1. The paper makes a notable contribution to IRL by showing that leveraging suboptimal experts can effectively reduce reward ambiguity.
2. Theorems 4.1 and 4.2, presenting lower and upper bounds, are particularly appreciated.
3. The mathematical notation is clearly introduced, and full proofs are available in the appendix.
Weaknesses: 1. The paper assumes access to a generative model of the experts' policies. However, in practical IRL a finite data set of precollected expert demonstrations is the norm. This makes Algorithm 1 difficult to implement in practice.
2. Minor points: a) In my opinion the claims made in line 109 and in Examples 3.1-3.3 need a reference or a brief proof. b) I believe there is a typo in Eq. (5): Since we are taking the expectation with respect to the state-action occupancy measure, we don't need the right-hand side should be a scalar, right? Moreover, in Eq. (10), I assume it should be $\min$ instead of $\max$.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. As pointed out, we would generally like the suboptimalities $\xi_i$ to be small and the $\pi_{\min}$ to be large. However, these may be conflicting goals, given that we also want the suboptimal experts to deviate from $\pi_{E_1}$. Could this problem be mitigated by having experts that are more suboptimal (e.g. a completely uniform expert) but with lower and upper bounds on their suboptimality?
2. What if we were to drop the optimal expert $\pi_{E_1}$? Can we say anything about the feasible reward set in that setting?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Some limitations are discussed in the conclusion section. However, it would be good to be more clear about the practical limitations of the provided results.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: > ### The paper assumes access to a generative model of the experts' policies. However, in practical IRL a finite data set of precollected expert demonstrations is the norm
We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We agree with the reviewer that the generative model represents a limitation. Extending this work to remove the assumption on the generative model and working directly on a dataset of demonstrations is an intriguing avenue for future research. In this sense, one could draw inspiration from the recent paper "Offline Inverse RL: New Solution Concepts and Provably Efficient Algorithms", Lazzati et al., 2024, where the authors analyze solution concepts and algorithms for recovering the feasible reward set in the single-agent IRL setting.
> ### Minor points
We thank the Reviewer for these notes.
We have inserted proofs for Example 3.1-3.3 in a revised version of the manuscript and also in this Rebuttal (see reply to Reviewer KsdM).
On Equation (5). Having fixed a sub-optimal expert $i$, Equation (5) represents a set of $S$ inequalities. This is visible in Equation (6) that makes explicit *one* of such inequalities having fixed $s'$ (the initial state of the occupancy measure). By varying $s'\in \mathcal{S}$, we obstain $S$ inequalities, and for this reason, the right hand side of Equation (5) is an $S$-dimensional vector.
On Equation (10). Yes, thanks for the typo. Equation (10) should be changed to a $\min_{i \in \{2, \dots n \}} \min_{(s,a): \pi_{E_i} > 0} \pi_{E_i}(s,a)$.
> ### As pointed out, we would generally like the suboptimalities to be small and the $\xi$ to be large. However, these may be conflicting goals, given that we also want the suboptimal experts to deviate from $\pi_{E_1}$. Could this problem be mitigated by having experts that are more suboptimal (e.g. a completely uniform expert) but with lower and upper bounds on their suboptimality?
We thank the Reviewer for the interesting question. We agree that these may be conflicting goals, at least when no additional structure is enforced (consider, for example, a kernelized and continuous state-action space which has been discretized; here, taking similar but distinct actions leads to similar effects on the underlying MDP; in this case, the goals are not necessarly conflicting).
Nevertheless, as the Reviewer suggests, we agree that one way to mitigate this problem would be having experts with lower and upper bounds on their sub-optimality. In this case, the lower and upper bounds will delimit the set of reward functions with potentially more information, thus avoiding the "need" for "precise" experts with small sub-optimality gaps.
> ### What if we were to drop the optimal expert ? Can we say anything about the feasible reward set in that setting?
We thank the Reviewer for raising the interesting question. If we drop the optimal expert, we are still be able to make use of this knowledge to reduce the feasible reward set. Consider a set of experts for which we know that $0 \le V^{E_1} - V^{E_i} \le \xi_i$ holds. Then, for each pair $(i,j) \in \{2, \dots, n+1 \}$, simple algebraic manipulations leads to the following inequalities: $V^{E_j} - V^{E_i} \le \xi_i$, which does not depend on the optimal policy $\pi_{E_1}$. As a remark, we note that, by considering only these inequalities (i.e., by neglecting the presence of $\pi_{E_1}$), one can still obtain sufficient conditions for describing the feasible reward set.
As an illustrative example, consider a simple bandit with two sub-optimal experts $i$ and $j$. Then, suppose that $\pi_{E_i}(a_i) = 1$ and $\pi_{E_j}(a_j) = 1$ for some actions $a_i, a_j$ such that $a_i \ne a_j$. Then, the previous set of equations leads to $r(a_j) - r(a_i) \le \xi_i$ and $r(a_i) - r(a_j) \le \xi_j$, thus introducing constraints on the values that the reward functions can assume in these actions.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the thorough response to my concerns and questions. I appreciate the paper's contributions and will keep my positive score. | Summary: The paper develops a theory to address inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) from sub-optimal expert demonstrations. The authors assume a set of experts with known degrees of sub-optimality. Rather than learning a single reward model, as is often done in standard IRL, they provide an explicit characterization of all plausible reward models compatible with the experts. Moreover, they give lower bounds on the number of generated samples from the experts for a PAC guarantee on the set of reward models. Finally, they propose a uniform sampling procedure that can result in near-optimal estimation of the reward models in terms of sample complexity.
Strengths: 1. Although this is not the first work for IRL from sub-optimal experts, I haven't seen characterizing all plausible reward models for such a setting, so I would call the work original in this sense.
2. The authors provide good intuition on why having more sub-optimal experts can shrink the set of feasible reward models in Figures 1 and 2.
3. I haven't fully validated the proofs for the theory. But it seems both Theorem 4.1 (the lower bound on the required sample size for the $(\epsilon,\delta)$-correct identification of the reward set) and Theorem 4.2 (the upper bound for the uniform sampling algorithm) are mainly based on the theoretical results in Metelli et al., 2023. Moreover, the characterization of plausible reward models in Theorem 3.3 is mainly developed by Metelli et al., 2021 (especially the eq. (5), which characterizes the feasible rewards for the case of optimal experts). In that sense, the novelty of this work is introducing more constraints based on the sub-optimality index of additional demonstrators, which is characterized in eq. (3) and point (iii) in line 162 of page 3. Having said that, those extensions based on the extra constraints seem non-trivial. So, I'd call the theoretical contribution novel.
Weaknesses: The main weakness of the setting is that it assumes having access to a generative model for the optimal and sub-optimal experts during sampling and that there is a performance gap between the sub-optimal and optimal experts. However, given that the main contribution of the paper is theoretical, I still vote for acceptance.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: N/A
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: N/A
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: > ### The main weakness of the setting is that it assumes having access to a generative model for the optimal and sub-optimal experts during sampling and that there is a performance gap between the sub-optimal and optimal experts
We thank the Reviewer for raising this point. Extending this work to remove the assumption on the generative model and working directly on a dataset of demonstrations is an intriguing avenue for future research. In this sense, one could draw inspiration from the recent paper "Offline Inverse RL: New Solution Concepts and Provably Efficient Algorithms", Lazzati et al., 2024, where the authors analyze solution concepts and algorithms for recovering the feasible reward set in the single-agent IRL setting. Concerning the assumption of the performance gap, we take the chance to note that our formulation still generalizes existing theoretical works on IRL, which usually assume to have access to possibly multiple **optimal** experts (see, e.g., "Identifiability and generalizability from multiple experts in inverse reinforcement learning.", Rolland et al., NeurIPS 2022, or additional works that we discuss in Section 5).
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response! I'll keep my score as it is. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewers for the time they spent reviewing our paper. Specifically, we are happy that the reviewers considered our work "original" and with "novel technical contribution" (Reviewer Euvz), with "notable contribution to IRL" (Reviewer zNGu), and a "clear and comprehensive theoretical analysis of the IRL-SE problem" (Reviewer 6BJu), and that it models "more general situation compared to previously cited work" (Reviewer KsdM).
In the following, we answer the remaining questions. We are also attaching a PDF that contains figures on an experiment that was asked by reviewers 6BJu and KsdM.
Pdf: /pdf/abe696760c4db98678487e2dff05f5117da5fbd1.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Your Absorbing Discrete Diffusion Secretly Models the Conditional Distributions of Clean Data | Reject | Summary: This paper proves that the probability ratio that appears when computing the time reverse rate matrix for an absorbing state diffusion model has a simple form composed of the conditional distributions of clean data given partial masking scaled by an analytic time dependent weighting. They exploit this form to simplify the parametrization of absorbing state diffusion models and show this improves performance and sampling speed on text datasets.
Strengths: This work is clearly written and I think theorem 1 will be genuinely useful for future work in absorbing state diffusion models. The fact that the time reversal of the rate matrix has a simple relation to the conditional distributions of clean data that is independent of time makes the target of optimization much clearer. This removes needless complexity when trying to condition models on time, even though the relationship with time is known analytically. This also helps model convergence since the scale factor of the target is known allowing the network to be targeting normalized quantities which is highly desirable for neural net training.
The removal of the time conditioning also has a significant benefit with respect to model speed ups. It is quite surprising that the absorbing state literature does not use this trick where at most L neural network evaluations are required for L length data. This paper should significantly help existing implementations in this regard by removing needless calls to the network.
Weaknesses: Theorem 2 is wrong. Line C.14 in the proof is incorrect, it's not an equality but a lower bound. The correct version should read
$q\_\theta(x\_0) = \sum\_{\pi} U(\pi) q\_\theta(x\_0 | \pi)$
$q\_\theta(x_0) = \sum\_{\pi} U(\pi) \prod\_{l=1}^d q\_\theta(x\_0^{\pi(l)} | x\_0^{\pi( <l )} )$
$q\_\theta(x_0) = \mathbb{E}\_{\pi \sim U(S\_d) } [ \prod\_{l=1}^d q\_\theta (x\_0^{\pi(l)} | x\_0^{\pi (<l)}) ] $
$ \log q\_\theta(x\_0) = \log ( \mathbb{E}\_{\pi \sim U(S\_d)} [ \prod\_{l=1}^d q\_\theta(x\_0^{\pi(l)} | x\_0^{\pi(<l)}) ] )$
$ \log q\_\theta(x\_0) \geq \mathbb{E}\_{\pi \sim U(S\_d)} [ \sum\_{l=1}^d \log q\_\theta (x\_0^{\pi(l)} | x\_0^{\pi(<l)} ) ]$
When your generative model is a mixture of different generation paths (which an absorbing state diffusion model is), then you need to apply Jensen's inequality. See https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.02037 equation (2).
Therefore, the authors should remove Section 3.3. I think this section should be replaced with discussion of Autoregressive Diffusion Models https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.02037 which the author's model has basically reduced to. Autoregressive diffusion models randomly sample a generation order and gradually infill tokens with no dependence on time. The link between Autoregressive Diffusion Models and absorbing state diffusion should be clearly discussed in this paper and this reference is glaringly missing.
The authors should also remove line SEDD-S* in Table 2 since it is based on Theorem 2. Your models are then really not doing favourably compared to standard SEDD. What is your explanation for this and new narrative for Table 2?
In the paper's current state I cannot recommend acceptance since a large part of the narrative is based around Theorem 2. However, I believe the contributions surrounding Theorem 1 with regards to making models simpler and achieve good speed up stand alone as a worthy contribution. Therefore, if the authors clearly describe how they will adjust the narrative under this new information I will be happy to raise my score.
I think it would also be good to include a baseline against autoregressive diffusion models since they propose additional tricks relating to picking how many tokens to reveal. However, I appreciate this would be difficult in the limited time of the rebuttal period and is not required for an increase in score.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: In Figure 2, why is RADD with cache able to achieve such lower perplexity compared to no cache? In the limit of many steps, shouldn't these methods be performing the same? It is then a bit suspicious that with the cache is performing so much better. I think this could have something to do with the fact that generative perplexity should also be given with entropy measurements of the samples e.g. Table 1 in https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.15089. This is because some models can have low entropy and 'good' generative perplexity which could be happening with your model.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors adequately discuss the limitations in Section 6.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Response to Reviewer vbN2
Thank you for your extremely thorough review and constructive feedback on our paper. Below, we address your concerns and suggestions.
### Correction of Theorem 2 and Corresponding Experiments
- **Modification on Section 3.3**: We acknowledge the error in Theorem 2. Eq.(C.14) in the proof is indeed a lower bound, as you correctly pointed out. To address this, we will remove the current Section 3.3 and replace it with a discussion on any-order auto-regressive models (AO-ARM) [1*,2*,3*] as suggested. Specifically, the revised section will discuss the equivalence between the absorbing discrete diffusion objective of DCE loss and any-order autoregressive training objective.
#### Revised Proof Structure
- **Appendix C.1 and C.2**: We will retain the first two steps corresponding to Appendix C.1 and C.2, which prove the equivalence between the DCE loss and Eq.(C.13):
$$d \mathbb{E}_ {k \sim U(\{1, \cdots, d\})} \frac{1}{k} \mathbb{E}_ {\tilde{\boldsymbol{x}} \sim U\left(\tilde{\mathcal{X}}_ k\right)}\sum_ {\tilde{x}^i=[\mathbf{M}]}-\log q_\theta\left(x_0^i | \tilde{\boldsymbol{x}}^{\mathrm{UM}}\right).$$
- **Appendix C.3**: In the last step in Appendix C.3, we will remove the unnecessary parts and directly reduce Eq.(C.13) to Eq.(C.19), which is the training objective of any-order autoregressive models:
$$d \mathbb{E}_ {k \sim U(\{1, \cdots, d\})} \frac{1}{k} \mathbb{E}_ {\pi \sim U\left(S_d\right)} \sum_{r=d-k+1}^d \log q_\theta\left(x_0^{\pi(r)} \mid x_0^{\pi(<d-k+1)}\right).$$
- **Modification of Table 2**: We will make the corrections to Table 2 as suggested. Specifically:
- We will remove the SEDD-S* line from Table 2, as it is based on the incorrect Theorem 2.
- After fixing the bug mentioned in our overall response, we will update the DSE and DCE results for RADD-small and RADD-medium in Table 2, which show that RADD models outperform SEDD models.
- We will also add baseline results of any-order autoregressive models (AO-ARM) trained on Eq.(C.19).
The complete revised table will be as follows:
**Table B**
| Method | LAMBADA | WikiText2 | PTB | WikiText103 | 1BW |
| ------------------ | --------- | --------- | ---------- | ----------- | --------- |
| SEDD-small Absorb | 50.92 | 41.84 | 114.24 | 40.62 | 79.29 |
| RADD-small DSE | **49.57** | 38.83 | 111.74 | 37.46 | **72.35** |
| RADD-small DCE | 50.56 | 39.02 | **109.03** | 36.38 | 72.60 |
| AO-ARM-small | 50.27 | **38.26** | 110.38 | **35.90** | 74.28 |
| SEDD-medium Absorb | 42.77 | 31.04 | 87.12 | 29.98 | 61.19 |
| RADD-medium DSE | 42.30 | **29.17** | **75.16** | **28.03** | 57.45 |
| RADD-medium DCE | 43.24 | 30.19 | 78.77 | 29.36 | 57.95 |
| AO-ARM-medium | **41.96** | 29.96 | 79.06 | 28.51 | **57.07**|
### Clarification on Figure 2 Perplexity with and without Cache
We appreciate your insightful analysis and the questions raised regarding the performance discrepancy between the RADD model with and without cache in Figure 2. Based on your suggestion, we have conducted additional entropy measurements for both SEDD and RADD models. We replicate the sampling 1024 times independently and compute the mean/std of the unigram entropy. The results are as follows:
**Table C**
Unigram Entropy for SEDD-small model
| Steps | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 | 512 | 1024 | 2048 | 4096 |
| -------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- |
| Euler | 8.19 ± 0.13 | 8.07 ± 0.16 | 7.97 ± 0.20 | 7.86 ± 0.23 | 7.73 ± 0.27 | 7.59 ± 0.33 | 7.44 ± 0.34 | 7.25 ± 0.38 |
| T-$\tau$ | 8.17 ± 0.13 | 8.06 ± 0.16 | 7.96 ± 0.20 | 7.86 ± 0.20 | 7.74 ± 0.24 | 7.57 ± 0.31 | 7.42 ± 0.32 | 7.22 ± 0.43 |
**Table D**
Unigram Entropy for RADD-small-dce model
| Steps | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 | 512 | 1024 | 2048 | 4096 | 8192 | 16384 | 32768 | 65536 |
| ----- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- |
| E-NFE | 32 | 64 | 127.96 | 251.35 | 442.84 | 647.48 | 805.98 | 906.13 | 962.64 | 992.69 | 1008.18 | 1016.05 |
| Euler | 8.20 ± 0.13 | 8.11 ± 0.15 | 8.00 ± 0.17 | 7.90 ± 0.21 | 7.78 ± 0.23 | 7.64 ± 0.31 | 7.49 ± 0.31 | 7.30 ± 0.33 | 7.10 ± 0.39 | 6.90 ± 0.31 | 6.68 ± 0.47 | 6.35 ± 0.71 |
It shows that your analysis is correct. Both the SEDD-small and RADD-small-dce models exhibit a decrease in unigram entropy as the number of sampling steps increases. This decrease suggests that the models generate simpler sentences with more sampling steps, which corresponds to the observed lower perplexity scores. Therefore, the perplexity doesn't converge in the limit of many steps.
The underlying cause of this phenomenon remains unclear and seems to be a common issue for masked language models. We will add the experiment and discussion in the revision. If you have further suggestions, we welcome your feedback.
[1*] Benigno Uria, Iain Murray, and Hugo Larochelle. A deep and tractable density estimator. ICML, 2014
[2*] Emiel Hoogeboom, Alexey A. Gritsenko, Jasmijn Bastings, Ben Poole, Rianne van den Berg, and Tim Salimans. Autoregressive diffusion models. ICLR, 2022.
[3*] Andy Shih, Dorsa Sadigh, and Stefano Ermon. Training and inference on any-order autoregressive models the right way. ICML, 2022.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response to Authors
Comment: Thank you for the response, I appreciate the new narrative and removing Theorem 2. The new results with the fixed bug look good and is reassuring to see.
I still have a question regarding Figure 2. I appreciate the investigation into the entropy and it would be good to include this analysis in the paper. But regarding the difference between RADD small (cache) and RADD small (no cache) in Figure 2, I'm still unsure why there is a difference. Have you tried sampling RADD small (no cache) with say 65k steps and does it align with RADD small (cache) at 1024?
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Further Discussion
Comment: Thank you for your follow-up and for appreciating the changes. To directly address your concern: the perplexity (PPL) of RADD small (no cache) at NFE = 65536 steps is equivalent to that of RADD small (cache) at E-NFE = 1016.05 steps. It seems that the confusion regarding Figure 2 may have arisen from a lack of clarity in our experimental setup. Let me clarify a few key points:
Firstly, there are three closely related concepts: the Expected Number of Function Evaluations (E-NFE), the Number of Function Evaluations (NFE), and the the number of sampling steps. When no caching is used, these three concepts are equivalent. However, when caching is enabled, NFE becomes a random variable, and E-NFE is used to represent the time cost in practice. Due to caching, E-NFE is less than the number of sampling steps.
Secondly, regardless of whether caching is used, the perplexity at the same number of sampling steps remains identical, similar to how KV cache works. As a result, We only conducted one set of experiments with caching, varying the number of sampling steps, and plotted the green line using E-NFE on the x-axis. For the yellow line representing the no-cache scenario, We plotted NFE directly as the x-axis.
Regarding your specific question about running a 65k-step sampling evaluation without caching, it would indeed take several days to complete. However, since the perplexity remains the same with or without caching at the same number of sampling steps, we can compare results directly using the green line (with cache) to infer the expected performance at higher steps. According to the relationship between steps and E-NFE shown in Table D, the perplexity of RADD small (no cache) at NFE = 65536 steps is equivalent to that of RADD small (cache) at E-NFE = 1016.05 steps.
We hope this explanation clarifies the rationale behind the plots. Reviewer 9MAq also raised similar concerns, so you may refer to our response to them for additional context. We ensure to clarify these points in the revised manuscript. Please let us know if further details are needed or if you have any other concerns. | Summary: This paper proposes a simplified discrete diffusion model to improve upon prior language diffusion models.
Strengths: * The method is simple and scalable. It is overall a nice insight, and the authors do a good job in extracting the relevant and impactful applications of this.
* The method seems to improve upon previous results, in particular resulting in better/faster sample quality.
* The presentation is pretty clear and direct.
Weaknesses: * Although the method speeds up sampling, especially in the large sample step regime, this is a bit misleading/irrelevant. In particular, under more standard sampling practices, the gain is naturally not as big, so the claim of 3.5x improvement is a bit misleading. Furthermore, this does not really improve the sample quality at a smaller number of steps, which is the critical question. As a comparison, this would be like sampling from a standard diffusion model with 4096 timesteps, showing that you can speed it up in that regime, and then claiming a general improvement.
* The results are ultimately a bit marginal. The improvements on sample quality are nice, but I think there is a mistranslation between figure 2 and table 1 (there is no 15 generative perplexity for RADD in that table). Until this is clarified, I'm trusting the results of table 1 more. Table 2 also shows a slight improvement.
* The exact likelihood computation is never applied. I want table 2 to showcase this exact likelihood instead of just a bound.
* The model size is only small. I want to see a similar improvement for the medium quality.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: N/A
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Response to Reviewer 9MAq
Thank you for the detailed review and acknowledgment of our contributions. Below we address specific questions.
- **Q1: Misleading speeds up declaration.**
- A1: We apologize for any confusion caused by the initial claim of our speed-up results. We will revise our statement to emphasize that the speed-up is significant mainly in large steps (e.g., 4096), and the 3.5x speed-up does not generalize to all steps.
- **Q2: Mistranslation between Figure 2 and Table 1**
- A2: Sorry for the confusion regarding the discrepancy between Figure 2 and Table 1. The yellow line and the green line in Figure 2 represent the same perplexity results but with different x-axis.
Specifically:
- **RADD Small without cache (yellow line)**, the x-axis represents **NFE**, equivalent to sampling steps in this context.
- **RADD Small with cache (green line)**, the x-axis represents **E-NFE**, which is less than the actual sampling steps due to the efficiency introduced by caching.
For space constraints in the figure, we presented 8 data points for RADD Small without cache and 11 data points for RADD Small with cache. However, only 8 data points are shown in Table 1 to for consistency in the comparison. In the revised version, we will update the x-axis label in Figure 2 to 'NFE/E-NFE' and provide more detailed clarifications.
- **Q3:The exact likelihood computation is never applied. I want table 2 to showcase this exact likelihood instead of just a bound.**
- A3: We appreciate your feedback on the exact likelihood computation. Another reviewer pointed out an error in our proof in Theorem 2, which impacts the exact likelihood computation. As part of our response to Reviewer vbN2, we have acknowledged the error in Theorem 2 and committed to revising. Please refer to the first section of our response to Reviewer vbN2 for detailed corrections and updated experimental results.
- **Q4: The improvements are marginal. The model size is only small. I want to see a similar improvement for the medium quality.**
- A4: We have updated our results to demonstrate the effectiveness of RADD for both small and medium models. Please see the overall response section for updated results. It shows that our methods also apply to medium-sized models with consistent improvements over SEDD in all zero-shot tasks. | Summary: This work derives a new interesting connection between the concrete score and conditional target densities in absorbing diffusion models, which decomposes the time-dependent ratio between marginal probabilities (of two transitive states) as a conditional distribution on clean data scaled by an analytic time-dependent scalar, and hence inspires the commonly-used scaling trick and new re-parameterizations. In addition, it also simplifies the original complicated loss objective (denoising score entropy; DSE) as a more straightforward denoising cross-entropy loss (DCE) that enables the exact log-likelihood computation.
Strengths: 1. This paper is generally well-written and easy to follow.
2. This work proposes valuable insights of decoupled model parameterizations and simplified learning objectives, whose effectivenesses are theoretically grounded.
3. The proposed methods are also numerically verified, which advances the development of (absorbing) discrete diffusion models.
Weaknesses: 1. Despite that the overall presentation is good, it can be further improved by interpreting or illustrating more about the problem formulation. For example, what is the intuition behind the absorbing matrix $Q^{\text{absorb}}$ (eq. (2.4))? Why do we require a more complicated DSE loss instead of usual score-matching objectives (e.g. MSE)? Note that in eq. (2.6), the score network must be *additionally* positive.
2. Although the proposed method (RADD) is reported to be superior for efficient sampling, the performance of RADD need further verifications on language modeling tasks (Table 2). The hyper-parameters should be fine-tuned to better demonstrate the capability of RADD.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Please provide more details of questions raised in the weaknesses section above.
2. Detail 1: Why does Kolmogorov’s forward equation (eq. (2.3)) hold in this time-dependent setting? Note that the studied continuous-time Markov chain with discrete states ($Q$-process) is time-inhomogenous, since the transition rate matrix $Q_t$ is dependent of $t$.
- When the Markov chain is time-homogenous, $Q_t\equiv Q$, and Kolmogorov’s forward equation follows from Chapman–Kolmogorov
equation (whose derivation requires the time-homogeneity).
3. Detail 2: What is the intuition to connect the form of $Q^{\text{absorb}}$ (eq. (2.4)) with the absorbing process? Are there any other forms that also work in practice?
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: As is stated by authors, future explorations include flexible variable-length texts generation and applications to models with larger scales.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Response to Reviewer 7sHz
Thank you for acknowledging our contributions. We have tailored our rebuttal to address the points you raised.
### Weaknesses:
1. **Problem Formulation:**
We will add more intuitive explanations and illustrations regarding the problem formulation. Below are the clarifications:
- **Intuition Behind the Absorbing Matrix $\mathbf{Q}^{\text{absorb}}$ (eq. (2.4)):**
In continuous-time Markov chains, the transition rate matrix $\mathbf{Q}_t = \sigma(t)\mathbf{Q}$ indicates the probabilities of moving from one state to another over an infinitesimally small time interval. For $\mathbf{Q} =\mathbf{Q}^{\text{absorb}}$, each state $i$ has a transition rate of 1 to the absorbing state (last state) and a rate of -1 on the diagonal representing leaving the original state. This ensures that once the system reaches the absorbing state, it remains there permanently.
- **Reason for DSE Loss Instead of Usual Score-Matching Objectives (e.g., MSE):** MSE loss is derived under the assumption of Gaussian noise, which is not suitable for discrete data. It cannot guarantee that the concrete score remains positive, leading to poor performance. For more details, you can refer to Sections 2.2 and 3.1 in SEDD[1*].
2. **Performance Verification of RADD:**
- We have updated the Table 2 to better demonstrate the effectiveness of RADD. See Table A in the overall response section for the updated results. After fixing the bug regarding to the ignored layernorm bias and hyperparameter tuning, it shows that two RADD models consistently outperform SEDD in all zero shot tasks for both model size.
### Questions:
1. **Kolmogorov's Forward Equation in Time-Dependent Settings:**
- Kolmogorov's forward equation holds generally for time-dependent settings. Its derivation is based on the Total Probability Theorem, making it applicable to both time-homogeneous and time-inhomogeneous Markov processes. For a detailed explanation, please refer to Section 4 in Feller [2*].
2. **Intuition and alternative forms of $\mathbf{Q}$ :**
- The form of $Q^{\text{absorb}}$ is chosen to model states that transition into absorbing states where no further transitions occur. To the best of our knowledge, only the absorbing form and uniform form have been used in practice, with the absorbing form performing the best. Other forms may be inefficient in terms of computation and memory, as discussed in Section 3.3 of SEDD[1*].
[1*] Aaron Lou, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Discrete diffusion modeling by estimating the ratios of the data distribution, 2024
[2*] W Feller. On the theory of stochastic processes, with particular reference to applications. In Proceedings of the [First] Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. The Regents of the University of California, 1949.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the reply! I have no further questions and will raise my score to 6.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your positive feedback. We will make the necessary revisions in the final version as promised. | null | null | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Overall Response
We would like to thank all the reviewers for taking their time to review our paper and provide high quality feedback. We have updated the results of RADD to better demonstrate the effectiveness of RADD, addressing the common concerns from Reviewer 7sHz,9MAq, and vbN2.
## Updated Zero-Shot Language Modeling Perplexity Results
In the initial version of the RADD model, we removed the time-dependent adaptive layer normalization but forgot to add a bias term to the time-independent layer normalization. After correcting this bug, we retrained the RADD model and updated the results for both the small and medium RADD models, as shown in the table below. The best results for each model size are highlighted in bold.
**Table A**
| Method | LAMBADA | WikiText2 | PTB | WikiText103 | 1BW |
| ------------------ | --------- | --------- | ---------- | ----------- | --------- |
| SEDD-small Absorb | 50.92 | 41.84 | 114.24 | 40.62 | 79.29 |
| RADD-small DSE | **49.57** | **38.83** | 111.74 | 37.46 | **72.35** |
| RADD-small DCE | 50.56 | 39.02 | **109.03** | **36.38** | 72.60 |
| SEDD-medium Absorb | 42.77 | 31.04 | 87.12 | 29.98 | 61.19 |
| RADD-medium DSE | **42.30** | **29.17** | **75.16** | **28.03** | **57.45** |
| RADD-medium DCE | 43.24 | 30.19 | 78.77 | 29.36 | 57.95 |
Here, the SEDD Absorb models represent the strongest baseline models, trained using the scaling trick on DSE loss. For all RADD models, we set the dropout rate to 0.02 and the weight decay to 0.03, while keeping all other hyperparameters unchanged from the SEDD settings. | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
QUEEN: QUantized Efficient ENcoding of Dynamic Gaussians for Streaming Free-viewpoint Videos | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper introduces a novel technique, Quantized Efficient Encoding (QUEEN), to achieve streamable free-viewpoint videos. Unlike methods that directly optimize per-frame 3D-GS given multi-view videos, QUEEN learns the residuals of Gaussian attributes between continuous frames by decoding learnable latent embeddings for each 3D Gaussian. Additionally, a quantized decoder technique has been adopted to significantly reduce the size of latent embeddings (except for the embedding of 3D positions), with only a slight or no decrease in rendering performance. As the authors observe that position residuals are sensitive to compression, they introduce a differentiable L0 sparsity penalty (hard concrete gate with learnable parameters) instead of quantizing the position embeddings. Finally, to improve training efficiency and reduce storage requirements, the values of the gates for each frame are initialized using the 2D viewspace Gaussian gradient difference between neighboring frames. Extensive experiments have shown that QUEEN achieves the best training time, model size, and rendering performance compared to state-of-the-art online free-viewpoint video methods.
Strengths: The paper introduces a novel framework, Quantized and Efficient Encoding (QUEEN), which leverages 3D Gaussian Splatting (3D-GS) for streamable free-viewpoint video (FVV). The combination of 3D Gaussian and the quantized optimization is both novel and original. A comprehensive performance analysis of quantization and the sparsity loss has been conducted to validate this technique's design choices and effectiveness. This work provides several key insights for compressing a sequence of 3D Gaussians, achieving the best trade-off between quality, storage, and speed through quantization and sparsification. Compared to state-of-the-art offline and online methods, QUEEN significantly outperforms in training speed, storage efficiency, and rendering speed, while its rendering quality remains comparable to offline methods.
Weaknesses: 1. Section 3.2 is difficult to follow due to the absence of preliminary information. There is a lack of detail regarding the quantization process. Specifically, the exact implementation of the quantization that results in more than a 10x size reduction is not provided. A detailed ablation study of the quantization type and the length of latent embeddings would be beneficial. Additionally, since the authors do not claim they will release the code for QUEEN, it is challenging for other researchers to evaluate and validate QUEEN's performance.
2. The ablation results presented in Table 2 are confusing and lack crucial analysis. For instance, it is unclear why the baseline achieves the highest rendering FPS without attribute quantization on the Immersive Dataset, while the same quantization improves the rendering FPS on the N3DV dataset, which appears contradictory. Furthermore, there is no clear explanation for why quantization improves rendering PSNR but results in slower training speeds. Additional analysis is needed to clarify these observations.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Please clarify and add more details about the residual quantization in Section 3.2 to make it easier to follow. It would be beneficial to include an ablation study comparing different quantization methods. Additionally, highlighting any specific technical contributions of this work compared to other quantization approaches would improve the readability and comprehension of this section, or this is just a novel application of quantization technique?
2. Please provide a more detailed analysis of the ablation study results to better understand the key design choices in QUEEN’s framework. This additional analysis will help elucidate how these design choices contribute to the performance and effectiveness of the proposed method.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have addressed the limitations of QUEEN as well as the societal impacts in their supplementary material.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. Please refer to our shared rebuttal (texts and PDF) for additional discussion and results. We address the specific questions below.
***
## Q: Details and ablation studies regarding the quantization process.
Thank you for the suggestion. We will add a detailed explanation on the quantization process in the revision as preliminary.
- (a) We provide a more detailed explanation on entropy coding (under “Q: No information on how the entropy coding works” for Reviewer dVjq). We answer questions about the quantization approach (under “Q: Experimental settings” for Reviewer jnXV). Please refer to corresponding sections for the details. We will clarify in the revision.
- (b) We provide further explanation and ablations analyzing the accuracy-memory tradeoffs. In the PDF, we show results varying loss coefficients for the quantization and sparsity modules in Fig. R1. We also ablate the effect of varying latent dimension in Tab. R1. We discuss these results in the shared responses (under “Q: Accuracy-memory trade-off and ablation study on quantization setup”).
***
## Q: Highlighting specific technical contributions.
We agree that the ideas behind the individual modules for quantization and sparsity have been used for other applications such as static scene reconstruction and deep network compression. Our contribution is that we propose an approach for modeling dynamic Gaussians as residuals combined with the optimization of their storage size via our quantization-sparsity framework. This has not been explored previously. We will clarify our contribution in the revision.
***
## Q: Code release.
Yes, we will release the code for research purposes upon acceptance.
***
## Q: The ablation results presented in Tab. 2 are confusing and lack crucial analysis.
Thank you for pointing it out. We will address this further in the paper. Please refer to the shared responses for all reviewers (under "Q: Evaluation analysis and confusing Tab. 2").
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the detailed reply. Most of my concerns have been addressed. However, I remain unclear about the significant decrease in FPS on the Immersive dataset, as shown in Table 2. Could the authors please clarify why a more aggressive Gaussian densification has a different impact on the baseline compared to the baseline with attribute quantization? I would appreciate further elaboration on this point.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thank you for initiating discussions, reviewers and AC. Thank you for the insightful comment. Rendering speed for the Gaussian splatting depends on a wide variety of factors involving total number of Gaussians, their characteristics in terms of position, rotation, scale, and opacity as the rasterization for each tile varies depending on these attributes. Hardware configurations (I/O, OS scheduling, GPU clock fluctuation) can also cause a difference. For a similar number of Gaussians, it is possible for FPS to vary drastically with different attribute distributions which is indeed what we observe for N3DV (Table E-1(b)) based on the different scaling attribute distribution (Figure R2).
**Table E-1**: Further analysis on rendering speed. We provide more comparison between the baseline and QUEEN (+Attribute Quantization) on (a) one sequence “flame” from the google immersive datasets and (b) the N3DV datasets. All time measures are in the unit of milliseconds. Storage size in MegaBytes (MB).
(a) Sequence “flame” from the google immersive datasets
| Config | PSNR (dB) | Storage Size (MB)| Rendering time (ms) / FPS | Decoding Time (ms) / FPS | Num. Gauss. |
| ------------------------- | --------- | ----------- | --------------------- | -------------------- | ----------- |
| Baseline | 28.14 | 16434 | **4.13 / 242** | N/A | **217K** |
| \+ Attribute Quantization | **30.76** | **1030** | 4.47 / 223.9 | 0.43 / 2293 | 240K |
| Relative Increase | +9.3% | \-93.7% | +8.1% | N/A | +10.6% |
(b) N3DV datasets
| Config | PSNR (dB) | StorageSize (MB)| Rendering time (ms) / FPS | Decoding Time (ms) / FPS | Num. Gauss. |
| ------------------------- | --------- | ---------- | --------------- | ------------ | ---------- |
| Baseline | 31.66 | 13308 | 4.67 / 214 | N/A | **311K** |
| \+ Attribute Quantization | **32.04** | **1255** | **3.51 / 285** | 0.43 / 2337 | 311K |
| Relative Increase | +1.2% | \-90.8% | \-24.8% | N/A | +0% |
Table E-1 shows a more extensive analysis on rendering efficiency and other performance metrics of the baseline and with attribute quantization, for the sequence “flames” in Immersive as well as on the N3DV dataset. On the sequence “flames” of the immersive datasets, we obtain 10.6% more Gaussians (+23k) with the densification process compared to the baseline. This leads to higher rendering time (or lower FPS) (+8.1%) which is increased further due to the additional decoding time (0.43 ms).
Our attribute quantization of the Gaussians during training affects the distribution of the attributes, leading to different cloning and splitting during densification (based on viewspace gradients and Gaussian scale attribute) compared to the baseline. This also varies with different scenes depending on the scene changes (e.g., motion and appearance/disappearance of objects).
We highlight that the main goal of our paper is to reduce the storage and training time of online free-viewpoint videos (FVVs) while maintaining the reconstruction quality and the efficient real-time rendering speeds brought by Gaussian splatting. Although it is interesting to pursue higher rendering efficiency or controllability, those are not our goal. Our approach does not explicitly control the distribution of the Gaussian attributes or the number of Gaussians, which are the main factors behind rendering speeds. We believe this can be an interesting direction for future work to pursue and we will add discussion in the revision.
Furthermore, our method addresses a joint problem of reconstruction and quantization for online FVV, in contrast to a two-step formulation of first reconstruction and then quantization. In the latter case, it is more likely for the system to pay for additional computational cost and some loss of quality. In our case (the former case), a joint formulation shows more potential to achieve a better tradeoff between quality and efficiency, as shown in Tab. D1 as well as recent methods such as [84]. We will add discussion in the revision to better explain our contributions.
We appreciate the discussion and we will include it in the revision for future audiences. Furthermore, we will release the codebase to the community to experiment with various types of scenes and discover new insights into the effect of quantization on rendering speeds.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thanks for authors' thorough analysis of the trade-offs between rendering speed, quality, and quantization. Since my concerns have been fully addressed, I would like to raise my rating to a 7. | Summary: This paper presents a novel method for free-viewpoint video learning and streaming based on 3D Gaussian splatting (3DGS). The proposed method learns the attribute residuals of the raw Gaussian points in a frame-by-frame fashion, and the learning process is incorporated with both latent quantization and sparsity regularization. In addition, dynamic contents are identified and separated through Gaussian viewspace gradient difference in order to further accelerate computation. Compared to existing works, the proposed method is able to reduce the memory cost of FVV by a large margin, while preserving high-quality representation capability.
Strengths: * This paper is overall a solid submission. It addresses the challenging problem of FVV encoding and compression. The proposed method is able to a high compression rate while ensuring reconstruction quality.
* The authors conduct comprehensive comparisons against state-of-the-art methods. The experiments are convincing.
* The paper is overall well-written and easy to follow.
Weaknesses: * The idea of exploiting temporal redundancy via encoding attribute residuals is not new. Although it has not been explored in the context of 3DGS, similar ideas have already been studied in NeRF-based representation, such as [75].
* The proposed method appears to be highly sensitive to hyperparameter tuning, as indicated in Section B, Tables 9 and 10. The authors find it necessary to adjust hyperparameters for different datasets. For instance, the learning rate for position residual learning in Immersive (0.0005) is approximately twice as high as that in N3DV (0.00016). Other hyperparameters, such as gating and quantization parameters, also exhibit significant differences across these datasets.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: None
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have discussed the limitation and potential social impact Sec.C and Sec.D of the supplemental document, respecitively.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. Please refer to our shared rebuttal (texts and PDF) for additional discussion and results. We address the specific questions below.
***
## Q: The idea of exploiting temporal redundancy via encoding attribute residuals is not new.
Thank you for confirming the value of our exploration on temporal redundancy with 3DGS. While we agree that the idea of residual training has been explored in some way for NeRFs in [75], it is not trivial to adopt residual modeling on 3DGS due to its explicit nature and lack of overall structure. Furthermore, a key contribution of ours comes from not just modeling dynamic Gaussians as residuals but combining it with the optimization of their storage size via our quantization-sparsity framework (as also mentioned by Reviewer 9x86).
***
## Q: The proposed method appears to be highly sensitive to hyperparameter tuning.
**Tab. D3**: Sensitivity to hyperparameters.
| Method | PSNR | Size (MB) |
| :---------------------------- | -------: | --------: |
| Ours (orig N3DV hyperparam.) | 32.14 | 0.60 |
| Ours (Immersive hyperparam.) | 32.06 | 1.49 |
| 3DGStream | 31.58 | 7.80 |
- (a) To test the sensitivity of reconstruction quality to hyperparameters, we train our method on the N3DV dataset with two sets of hyperparameters. The first configuration uses the original set of hyperparameters while the second utilizes the hyper parameters corresponding to Immersive in Tab. 9 and 10 while also matching the learning rate for the position residuals (0.0005). We show results on N3DV datasets in Tab. D3. We see that the Immersive hyper parameter configuration still achieves similar PSNR as the original set for N3DV. While the model size is higher (1.49 MB) with the Immersive configuration compared to the original configuration (0.60 MB), it is still much lower than the prior state-of-the-art 3DGStream (7.8 MB) while maintaining higher reconstruction quality in terms of PSNR.
- (b) Most of the hyperparameter difference stems from the widely varying amount of scene motion between N3DV and Immersive datasets. The Immersive dataset contains larger and more complex scene motions (e.g., a person entering and leaving the scene) while N3DV contains relatively minor motions. We found that a higher learning rate for the position residuals allows Gaussians to adapt to the highly dynamic scenes.
- (c) The gating hyperparameters in Tab. 9 for N3DV are set to utilize this prior information about the dataset where the stretch hyperparameters $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_1$ are set closer to 0 to enforce more sparsity in the position residuals.
- (d) Additionally, the Immersive dataset itself consists of a wide variety of indoor/outdoor scenes at varying scales/scene motion/illumination. We use the same set of hyperparameters for each scene achieving good reconstruction quality for every scene (Tab. 7) showing its generalization capability.
- (e) Furthermore, we will release the code for the community to experiment. | Summary: This paper proposes a framework called QUEEN, based on Gaussian splatting, for compact free-viewpoint videos. The data size is reduced to around 0.7MB per frame while achieving fast training speeds. QUEEN encodes the Gaussian attribute changes between consecutive frames. Specifically, it uses latent codes to embed the attribute residuals and employs a learnable gating scheme to update only the Gaussians that exhibit movement. The authors also introduce methods such as gate initialization and point cloud initialization for improved performance. The results are promising.
Strengths: QUEEN updates all Gaussian attributes and achieves better performance than those that do not. The position residual gating is introduced to reduce the computational complexity caused by full updating, which is efficient.
The entire framework is sound. The authors also provide comprehensive experiments to demonstrate its effectiveness and justify the choice of the combination.
Weaknesses: This experiment was conducted on Neural 3D Videos and Immersive Videos datasets, which feature forward-facing scenes with limited viewing angles. When we talk about free-viewpoint videos, we also expect large freedom for the novel viewpoints. However, this paper does not demonstrate such scenarios, such as 360-degree rendering for dynamic objects. The authors claim that QUEEN is intended for streaming FVVs, but the experiments do not evaluate or demonstrate the "streaming" feature.
There is not information that introduces how does the entropy coding work on the quantized integer latents.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: The reviewer suggests that the authors make their claims more accurate, as mentioned in the weaknesses section.
Some notations are confusing. \mathbf{l}_i denotes the quantized integer latents, while \mathbf{l}_{p_i} is the learnable pre-gated residual. In line 223, \alpha is learnable parameter. what is the relationship between \alpha and g_i ?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: In the limitations section, the authors mention that per-frame training faces challenges in reconstruction capability. It would be helpful if the authors could provide a more detailed explanation.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. Please refer to our shared rebuttal (texts and PDF) for additional discussion and results. We address the specific questions below.
***
## Q: 360-degree rendering.
We evaluate on N3DV and Immersive datasets as they are widely-adopted standard benchmarks for various prior works [6,7,8,10,11,12,16] on free-viewpoint videos.
While these two datasets indeed contain forward-facing scenes, there are limited 360-degree datasets in the research community. Most of the 360-degree datasets focus on human characters or single objects (e.g., D-NeRF, Ava-256), which is a different focus from our goal to capture scene-level dynamics. To the best of our knowledge, N3DV and immersive datasets are among the best benchmarks for real-world scene details and dynamics.
Note that our approach makes no assumptions on a forward-facing setup and can directly be applied to 360-degree scenes. In the revision, we will evaluate our method on the CMU Panoptic studio datasets (http://domedb.perception.cs.cmu.edu/), which covers 360-degree and contains some dynamics beyond a single human character.
***
## Q: No evaluation or demonstration of the "streaming" feature.
The streaming feature is inherently built into our method. Due to the per-frame reconstruction and encoding, at each time-step, we only need to transmit the corresponding residuals with no dependence on future frames. Furthermore the high compression rate and high training/rendering efficiency are essential features for streaming.
***
## Q: No information on how does the entropy coding work.
Our entropy coding approach flattens our integer latent matrix for each attribute before encoding. For example, for L-dimensional latent attributes for N gaussians, we flatten the matrix to obtain a vector with L*N elements. This integer vector is then encoded using standard entropy coding approaches such as arithmetic coding [C]. These standard entropy coding approaches have been used in a large number of works [79, 81]. We will clarify and add an explanation in the revision.
[C] Langdon, Glen G. "An introduction to arithmetic coding." IBM Journal of Research and Development 28.2 (1984): 135-149.
***
## Q: Confusing notations.
`$\mathbf{l}_i$` is a generic symbol for the quantized integer latent for any of the four categories: rotation, scale, opacity and color.
`$\mathbf{l}_{p_i}$` is the pre-gated residual for position attributes. $\alpha$ (without subscript, in bold font) is the set for all per-Gaussian alphas ($\alpha_i$). Each $\alpha_i$ corresponds to a $g_i$. We will improve our notation and add clarifications.
Note: some symbols are not rendered correctly in the open review system, so we wrote it as plain code.
***
## Q: More detailed explanation on the challenges of per-frame training.
Unlike offline reconstruction, per-frame training does not have access to future-frame information. This setup limits the capability to effectively reason about large scene changes (topological changes and highly varying appearance) [D]. Suppose an object suddenly appears or disappears, it is more difficult to (de-)allocate and update scene parameters to capture such changes. In the context of Gaussian splatting, it would be tricky to schedule densification and pruning of the Gaussians. We will add a more detailed explanation in the revision.
[D] Richard A. Newcombe, Dense Visual SLAM, PhD Dissertation, 2012 | Summary: This paper introduces QUEEN, a framework designed to enable fast encoding (training) and decoding (rendering) for online free-viewpoint video (FVV) streaming using 3D-GS. Achieving high frame generation quality alongside real-time seamless streaming and rendering is challenging due to the intensive computation and large data volumes involved in this process. Towards this, QUEEN first proposes to apply all attribute residuals, unlike the state-of-the-art works that only use a subset, thereby maintaining high video quality. QUEEN also incorporates several components such as attribute residual quantization and position residual sparsity to accelerate the encoding and rendering process and reduce model size. Additionally, QUEEN leverages inter-frame redundancy, an important feature missed by previous works, to further enhance FVV generation efficiency. The evaluation demonstrates that QUEEN can reduce training time to only 5 seconds and achieve a rendering speed of around 350 FPS with a model size of merely 0.7 MB, all while maintaining near-optimal video quality.
Strengths: + The paper clearly discusses existing challenges in FVV, presents the proposed solutions logically, and details the evaluation results clearly.
+ The methodology is robust and the proposed components are thoroughly evaluated. The evaluation results demonstrate substantial improvements in model size and performance.
Weaknesses: - Experimental Settings: The paper lacks details on some crucial experimental settings. For example, the number of bits used for attribute residual quantization is not specified. Similarly, for sparse position residuals, the precision is mentioned as full precision, does that mean fp32? For such case, could using bfloat16 (which reduces model size by half) solve the memory footprint issue without necessarily employing sparsity techniques?
- Evaluation Analysis: The analysis of evaluation results is insufficient. For instance, Table 2 (which is not referenced in the text), shows that introducing quantization and sparsity increases the quality (PSNR). Intuitively, these techniques should reduce quality, so an explanation is needed. Additionally, despite introducing extra processing steps (such as quantization, entropy encoding, etc.), training and rendering times do not increase. Detailed analysis/explanation on these evaluation results would be very beneficial.
- Perception of Quality: While numerical metrics like PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS quantify the video quality, they may not fully reflect user perception of quality. A user study, though challenging, would significantly strengthen the paper.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: - Can you provide more details on the experimental settings for attribute residual quantization and sparse position residuals? Specifically, what number of bits is used for quantization, and is fp32 used for sparse position residuals?
- Can you explain why introducing quantization and sparsity improves quality (PSNR) and why the training and rendering times do not increase despite the additional processing steps?
- Is the receiver/rendering device the same as the encoding device? If the encoded frames/videos are sent to the client side (a different device), shouldn't the rendering be evaluated on a more reasonable device instead of the A100, which is server-level and too powerful for a typical client device?
- Can you discuss/study the accuracy-memory trade-off achieved by the quantization and sparsity techniques?
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors acknowledge the limitation of exploiting inter-frame redundancy for very dynamic videos, which is reasonable. However, the paper evaluates video quality solely using metrics like PSNR and SSIM, which may not fully capture the viewing experience. Including a user experience study would provide a more comprehensive evaluation and strengthen the paper's conclusions. Also, including the accuracy-memory trade-off study with quantization and sparsity would be beneficial.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. Please refer to our shared rebuttal (texts and PDF) for additional discussion and results. We address the specific questions below.
***
## Q: Experimental settings.
- (a) The number of bits is dependent on the scene content as it relies on the amount of motion. This number can be fractional, on average, which is the standard for any entropy coding algorithm like arithmetic coding/Huffman coding. For example, for the Sear Steak scene in the N3VS datasets, on average, we require 0.68 bits for all the quantized attributes (corresponding to 0.5MB/frame). This depends on the entropy of the latents itself, which varies with each scene (Figure 7).
- (b) For sparse position residuals, we use fp32 as full precision.
- (c) For position residuals, we utilize sparsity as it has better compression ratios than fixed quantization like bfloat16, fp8/int8 and so on while still maintaining reconstruction quality (Table 2). As seen in Figure 5, only ~2% of gates are active, which corresponds to 98% sparsity and ~15x compression factor, (with additional storage costs for index locations) for the position residuals. In contrast bfloat16 would lead to only 2x reduction while still reducing the residual precision which is important for high reconstruction quality.
***
## Q: Evaluation analysis.
Please see the detail discussion in the shared responses for all reviewers.
***
## Q: Perception of quality.
We conduct an extensive A/B user study. For each vote, we show a pair of randomly chosen rendering results (from a test view that is not used in training) by our method and one of the baseline methods (3DStream and TeTriRF). We also show the ground truth video as a reference for the participants to make the decision. We ask the participant to choose the method that more faithfully matches the reference video. In total, we collected 285 responses from 15 participants within the timeline of the rebuttal. Tab. D2 summarizes the preference percentage of our method over the baseline methods. On both the N3DV and Google immersive datasets, the participants strongly prefer our results in comparison to the baseline methods.
**Tab. D2**: User preference on visual results.
| Baseline | Preference to Our Method (%) |
| :---------------------- | :-----------------------------: |
| 3DGStream (N3DV) | 76.67 |
| 3DGStream (Immersive) | 97.14 |
| TeTriRF (N3DV) | 96.67 |
***
## Q: Performance evaluation on a more reasonable client device.
For fair comparison, we use the same A100 GPU for a consistent benchmark for measuring our rendering speeds (and training times) for our method as well as prior works such as 3DGStream [16]. Our rendering process is similar to the original work of 3D-GS [9]. The original paper of 3DGS and many recent follow-up work (e.g. [B]) demonstrate that Gaussian splatting rendering can work efficiently on a consumer-grade device (e.g., A6000 or RTX 2080). Due to the similarity of the rendering implementation, we believe our rendering speed performance would be at a similar level to what was shown in these 3DGS papers.
[B] Xu et al. "Splatfacto-W: A Nerfstudio Implementation of Gaussian Splatting for Unconstrained Photo Collections." arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12306 (2024).
***
## Q: Accuracy-memory trade-off.
Please see the shared rebuttal response. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewers for the insightful comments and for acknowledging the novelty of our design (jnXV, 9x86), a “solid submission” (L5E8), superior performance (all 4 reviewers) and
extensive evaluations (all 4 reviewers). We address the common issues in this **shared response** and we will address **individual questions** to each reviewer. We also submitted **a PDF** that contains further quantitative results (Fig. R1, Fig. R2, and Tab. R1).
***
## Q: Evaluation analysis and confusing Tab. 2 (jnXV and 9x86).
We thank the reviewers for pointing it out and we will address this further in the revision.
- (a) We found that quantizing the scaling attribute leads to stable optimization and better-behaving Gaussians. Fig. R2 visualizes the histogram of the scale attributes (on log scale) with and without quantization at different frame instances for an N3DV scene. We see that quantizing the scale attribute leads to stable histograms without a continuous increase in the size of the Gaussians (note that size here refers to the actual size of the Gaussians measured by the scaling attribute and not the storage size post-training). In contrast, the baseline training at full-precision leads to growing Gaussian sizes (red box) which leads to unstable optimization (A similar result for the opacity attribute is observed in [84] where quantization acts as a regularizer leading to better optimization with fewer outlier gradients). Larger Gaussians also lead to slower rendering speeds along with slow training times. This is because rasterizing large Gaussians across multiple tiles can lead to more GPU memory transfers from DRAM to SRAM which can slow down the rendering speeds.
- (b) Thus, while the quantization and sparsity frameworks introduce overhead in training times and rendering speed, quantizing the scaling attribute has the opposite effect of improving training times due to faster rendering. To support this, we show quantitative results in Tab. D1 with and without scaling quantization (SQ) while compressing other attributes on the N3DV dataset. Quantizing scaling attributes improves reconstruction quality while still reducing memory and training time. This largely fits what we observe in Tab. 2.
**Tab. D1**: scaling quantization (SQ) improves quality, compression rate and training time.
| Config. | PSNR | Size (MB) | Training Time (sec) |
| :------------------- | :-------: | :----: | :----: |
| w/o SQ | 31.69 | 4.39| 11.01 |
| w/ SQ. | **32.08** | **0.69** | **7.07** |
- (c) Different trends of training/rendering speeds between N3DV and Immersive datasets: the Immersive dataset contains more challenging scene dynamics (e.g., a person entering and leaving the scene). To capture this highly dynamic content, we schedule a more aggressive Gaussian densification on the Immersive dataset than the N3DV dataset. This strategy leads to a higher increase in the number of Gaussians. We think these differences lead to the different trends in training/rendering speeds.
***
## Q: Accuracy-memory trade-off and ablation study on quantization setup (Reviewer jnXV and 9x86).
- (a) We show the PSNR-size and PSNR-training-time tradeoffs in Fig. 6 (Appendix A) by varying the number of training iterations for both quantization and sparsity techniques on position attributes. More iterations correspond to longer training times, which result in higher storage size due to more non-zero residuals and higher entropy. However we observe the quality (PSNR) reaches a plateau after certain iterations.
- (b) A knob for controlling sparsity (and thereby memory costs) is the $\lambda_{reg}$ loss coefficient (Eq. 11) which allows for increasing/decreasing amount of sparsity based on the strength of the regularization. We visualize this in Fig. R1 (b) where increasing the lambda_reg coefficient leads to higher sparsity/lower memory and lower reconstruction quality.
- (c) While $\lambda_{reg}$ controls the sparsity of the position residuals to obtain accuracy-memory tradeoffs, we further experiment with a different knob for controlling the tradeoffs pertaining to the quantization framework. We experiment with a regularization loss to reduce the entropy of the latents as lower entropy corresponds to lower memory (but also lower reconstruction quality). While this can be done via learnable probability models as in [81], it leads to higher training costs in terms of time and memory. We instead observe that the probability distribution of the various attribute residuals at each time-step is unimodal and is close to a laplacian/Gaussian distribution. As a unimodal distribution has entropy proportional to the variance [A], we enforce a loss on the standard deviation of the latents with a tradeoff parameter $\lambda_{std}$ controlling the effect of this regularization loss. Fig. R1 (a) in the rebuttal shows results on the N3DV dataset by varying $\lambda_{std}$. We observe that increasing the parameter reduces the entropy costs leading to lower memory costs, but lower reconstruction quality, and vice versa.
- (d) Effect of latent dimension: We provide additional analysis on the effect of latent dimension for the various attributes in Table R1 (rebuttal PDF). In general, latent dimension does not have a significant effect on reconstruction quality or model size. The vector quantization is a flexible scheme to decrease the per-dimension entropy. After the end-to-end training, we apply entropy encoding. This will further exploit the redundancy and reduce the impact of latent dimension. A better variable/knob to achieve the tradeoff between quality-memory or quality-time in our framework is the entropy loss/variance coefficient or the total number of iterations as mentioned above.
[A] Chung et al. "Bounds on variance for unimodal distributions." IEEE Trans. on Information Theory 63.11 (2017): 6936-6949.
Pdf: /pdf/23bc6b3706a7e93d7ba499d6e76f8e475a26c257.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
All-in-One Image Coding for Joint Human-Machine Vision with Multi-Path Aggregation | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper proposed a unified image compression method with multi-path aggregation for joint human-machine vision tasks. The authors utilized a lightweight predictor to generate masks to allocate features into main and side paths. By leveraging the pre-trained main path module, shared features can be reused to support varied tasks by finetuning a relatively low amount of parameters.
Strengths: 1. The authors provide an innovative unified image compression method with multiple path aggregation that can support multiple human-machine vision tasks with shared features.
2. Experimental results show that the proposed method achieves the SOTA performance.
3. The paper is easy to understand and the experimental results are well presented.
Weaknesses: 1. For experimental results, the author compared several SOTA methods without the basic TinyLIC model. Besides, I think it is necessary to compare with SOTA baselines of unified models in terms of parameter amounts, time complexity, and computational complexity.
2. The effectiveness of the predictor remained to be verified. According to Table 3, the proposed Predictor provided a tiny improvement in performance with only 0.19% bitrate reduction.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Can the author provide more sufficient experiments to verify the effectiveness of the predictor module？
As for the base model, is it possible to apply the proposed MPA to other more recently published learned image models?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: From my point of view, the proposed unified model needs to fine-tune as many sub-modules as the task amounts, and there are multiple training stages to adjust according to the specific tasks. The proposed framework still needs to accommodate different models adapted to the specific tasks, rather than an all-in-one image compression method.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for recognizing and acknowledging the strengths of the proposed approach. We will address the raised concerns below:
# Response to the Weaknesses
1. **Comparisons to TinyLIC and other SOTA baselines.**
**[Reply]**
We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion. It is indeed necessary to provide a more comprehensive evaluation by comparing TinyLIC as a baseline and comparing the complexity with other SOTA methods. To address this, we have added the relevant comparisons, as shown in Figure 1 and Table 3 of the global response attachment. TinyLIC baseline is a variable-rate version optimized for MSE, while the perception-optimized version is equivalent to MPA (α=0). Since CRDR is also a modification based on MRIC, we include MRIC as a baseline for complexity comparison. As shown, our implementation has lower parameter and computational complexity compared to MRIC, while maintaining similar latency. This similarity in latency is because MRIC, being composed solely of convolutions, is more GPU-friendly than TinyLIC, which consists of transformer structures that are not yet well optimized for GPU. We promise that these modifications will be presented in the final version.
2. **Effectiveness of the predictor.**
**[Reply]**
We understand the reviewer's concerns regarding the effectiveness of the predictor. In fact, Table 3 in our submission only evaluates the encoder, primarily to verify the enhancement of coding efficiency by MPA. However, this table shows only a small part of the effectiveness of the predictor, and the predictor's role in the decoder is even more important which cannot be overlooked, as it enables the base model to achieve coding for multi-task. Our experiments in the submission have already demonstrated its effectiveness. As shown in Figure 3 of our submission, our approach achieves comparable performance to methods like MRIC and CRDR, which are optimized solely for distortion and realism, and matches the vision task performance of fully fine-tuned models, all within a unified model. The key to achieving this performance is that the predictor decouples features across different tasks by predicting their importance for each task, thereby making side paths always focus on the features that are most important for task optimization at any ratio, and easing the complexity of optimizing coding for multi-task. Figures 4, 5, and Appx. E.2 in the submission show that the predictors assign different importance scores for different tasks, demonstrating that the predictor enables the additional side paths to capture the most critical features for each task. Related explanations have been given in Section 5.3 of the submission.
# Response to the Questions
1. **Effectiveness of the predictor.**
**[Reply]**
Yes. To address the concerns and the question, we have explained the effectiveness of the predictor module in our response to Weakness #2.
2. **Applying to other base models.**
**[Reply]**
Yes. In recent years, similar MetaFormer structures [1] (including Swin Transformer [2] and ConvNeXt [3] which have channel MLPs) have been widely applied as general backbones in the latest learned image coding research [4-8], demonstrating their effectiveness and generalization. Our MPA is an innovation based on the channel MLPs within such MetaFormer structures, enabling learned image coding models to support coding for multi-task in a natural way. Therefore, the proposed MPA can be applied to any model using a MetaFormer backbone.
# Response to the Limitations
1. **Not all-in-one.**
**[Reply]**
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the insightful feedback. We respectfully acknowledge that our method needs to fine-tune some of the parameters as the reviewer mentioned which is indeed a common practice to optimize coding for multi-task. We would like to clarify that our understanding of an all-in-one model is in the context of practical applications. As the reviewer mentioned, even a unified model still requires fine-tuning for specific tasks. But during the actual deployment phase, it is sufficient for the optimized unified model to handle all required tasks using a single encoder and decoder pair. Our MPA can achieve this by performing one encoding and user-controllable decoding, allowing a unified model to reconstruct an image for the target we want. This is what we mean by "all-in-one" coding. We appreciate the reviewer's understanding, and if the reviewer still finds this term unsuitable, we are open to adjusting the wording in the final version.
# References
[1] W. Yu, et al. MetaFormer Is Actually What You Need for Vision. In CVPR 2022.
[2] Z. Liu, et al. Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer Using Shifted Windows. In ICCV 2021.
[3] Z. Liu, et al. A ConvNet for the 2020s. In CVPR 2022.
[4] Y. Zhu, et al. Transformer-based Transform Coding. In ICLR 2022.
[5] R. Zou, et al. The Devil Is in the Details: Window-based Attention for Image Compression. In CVPR 2022.
[6] J, Liu, et al. Learned Image Compression With Mixed Transformer-CNN Architectures. In CVPR 2023.
[7] Z. Duan, et al. Lossy Image Compression With Quantized Hierarchical VAEs. In WACV 2023.
[8] H. Li, et al. Frequency-Aware Transformer for Learned Image Compression. In ICLR 2024. | Summary: This paper explores image coding for multi-task applications and introduces Multi-Path Aggregation (MPA), integrated into existing models to facilitate joint human-machine vision through a unified architecture. The MPA employs a predictor to distribute latent features among task-specific paths according to their importance, thus maximizing the utility of shared features and preserving task-specific features for further refinement. Additionally, a two-stage optimization strategy is proposed to mitigate multi-task performance degradation. Experimental results show that MPA achieves performance comparable to state-of-the-art methods in both task-specific and multi-objective optimization across human viewing and machine analysis tasks.
Strengths: 1) This paper explores image coding for multi-task applications and introduces Multi-Path Aggregation, integrated into existing models to facilitate joint human-machine vision through a unified architecture.
2) Experimental results show that MPA achieves performance comparable to state-of-the-art methods in both task-specific and multi-objective optimization across human viewing and machine analysis tasks.
3) The paper is exceptionally well-written and has clearly articulated the problem, proposed method, and the significance of their contributions.
Weaknesses: I'm sorry that this paper is quite different from my research field, and I cannot make an accurate judgment on this paper. However, I think that this paper is exceptionally well written and has clearly articulated the problem, proposed method, and significance of their contributions. Therefore, I have no issues with it and am willing to defer to the opinions of other reviewers before making a final decision.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: Please check the weakness.
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: The authors have discussed the limitations of the work in Sec. 5.4 and Appx. A.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you for the considerate feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the clarity and quality of our paper, particularly in articulating the problem, proposed method, and significance of our contributions.
We want to affirm that your understanding of the advantages of our proposed method aligns well with the insights provided by other reviewers. Your perspective is valuable and contributes to a well-rounded evaluation of our work.
To further assist you in understanding the contributions and significance of our work, we encourage you to review our responses to the other reviewers' comments. These responses provide additional context and detailed explanations that might help in appreciating the strengths and innovations of our approach.
Thank you again for your supportive comments and for taking the time to review our work. We hope this information enhances your confidence in your initial assessment.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the author's response that addressed my concerns. Overall, I think the motivation is clear, and the writting is satifactory. However, considering the scores of other reviewers, I decide to maintain my score unchanged.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response and for your recognition of our work. | Summary: The paper introduces a Multi-Path Aggregation (MPA) architecture designed to unify image coding for both human perception and machine vision tasks. By integrating the side path, the authors aim to optimize performance across various tasks while maintaining efficiency in terms of parameter and bitrate usage. This approach promises seamless transitions between tasks and improved performance.
Strengths: 1. This paper is presented very well, including but not limited to its readability and the rational presentation of experiments.
2. Each part is highly motivated. For example, in the MPA module, a learnable mask is first trained to decouple the features into task-shared features and task-specific features. By optimizing the side path, it adapts to various downstream tasks. Techniques such as Gumbel-Sigmoid are used to handle non-differentiable problems. By introducing the MPA, this paper unifies the encoder and decoder models. These techniques can be referenced and adopted by the corresponding fields. Additionally, the experiments are conducted very thoroughly.
Weaknesses: 1. If we do not consider the issue of feature decoupling, introducing and fine-tuning the side path to adapt to downstream tasks is not a novel idea. For instance, in [1], a similar bypass fine-tuning method was introduced.
2. The proposed two-stage training strategy is somewhat complex, and it introduces a large number of training losses and hyperparameters, which may pose some inconvenience for its generalization and use.
[1] Y. Guo, H. Shi, A. Kumar, K. Grauman, T. Rosing, R. Feris. SpotTune: Transfer Learning through Adaptive Fine-tuning. In CVPR 2019.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. In the paper, MPA is used for classification and segmentation tasks, achieving good results. Can MPA be applied to other fundamental vision tasks, such as object detection? Alternatively, can MPA be used for knowledge transfer in cross-domain tasks, such as shifting from learning "task-specific" features to learning "domain-specific" features?
2. If possible, I would like to know whether this method is sensitive to changes in hyperparameters (such as those mentioned in Section 4) and how these hyperparameters affect the experimental results.
3. In terms of LPIPS and FID (from Bitrate 0.3 to 0.7), it seems that CRDR performs better. I completely accept that such a situation can occur, but I am curious about why this happens.
4. Can MPA be compared with parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods such as LoRA? Is it possible to conduct a simple performance comparison between them?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Please refer to the Weakness and Question sections. During the rebuttal process, I am willing to actively and promptly discuss with the authors and other reviewers. If the authors can adequately address my main concerns, I am willing to increase my score.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: First of all, we really appreciate the reviewer's careful comments. We offer the following response to the reviewer's concerns:
# Response to the Weaknesses
1. **Comparison to SpotTune.**
**[Reply]**
We appreciate the reviewer's attention to the differences between MPA and SpotTune. It is essential to emphasize that feature decoupling is central to MPA's effectiveness, an aspect that should not be overlooked, especially crucial for coding for multi-task scenarios. By considering feature decoupling, MPA supports smooth transitions between tasks, allowing for controllable and flexible reconstruction orientations, catering to diverse coding applications. In the encoding phase, feature decoupling enhances compression efficiency. In the decoding phase, it enables controllable reconstruction, which is vital for task-controllable image coding. In contrast, SpotTune only considers the impact of fine-tuning across different layers, applying indiscriminate routing to all features, which restricts its utility in task-controllable image coding.
2. **Complexity of training strategy.**
**[Reply]**
We thank the reviewer for the concerns regarding the generalization and usability of MPA. In fact, our proposed strategy originates from the widely-used multi-stage training strategy for generative image compression [2], which has been broadly validated for its stability and generalization, while not being overly complex. Here, we provide a further explanation. First, the initial stage involves training a general basic model. In this stage, the losses and hyperparameters we use strictly follow MRIC, with the only difference being that we fix MRIC's β at 2.56 (cf. Eq. (4) in [3]) and add a ratio loss to optimize the predictor in the encoder. Second, the subsequent stage of training only optimizes the side path and predictor in the decoder. When optimizing for MSE, the loss we use is the MRIC loss with β fixed at 0 (cf. Eq. (4) in [3]), plus the ratio loss. For vision task optimization, the loss we use removes the GAN loss from the first stage and adds a vision task-specific loss. Therefore, our proposed method ensures the generalizability and usability.
# Response to the Questions
1. **Applications for other fundamental tasks and cross-domain tasks.**
**[Reply]**
We thank the reviewer for the insightful question regarding the application of MPA to other tasks. As we mentioned in our response to Weakness #2, our method demonstrates the generalizability and can adapt to various application scenarios. Here, we conducted additional tests on MPA's performance in object detection shown in Figure 1 of the global response attachment, using the same object detection model and task loss as TransTIC [4]. Regarding knowledge transfer in cross-domain tasks, our exploration mainly focuses on task-specific optimization and has not yet extended to domain-specific features. This is a promising direction for future research, and we will continue to follow up on this.
2. **Hyperparameters and loss terms.**
**[Reply]**
We thank the reviewer for the insightful question. Regarding the hyperparameters, we use the same settings as in [3] which have been thoroughly evaluated by the authors (cf. Section 5.2 in [3]). It's hard to reproduce the ablations on hyperparameters in such a limited period of rebuttal phase, so we respectfully suggest you refer to [3] for details. As for the loss terms, we provide detailed ablation studies in Table 1 of the global response attachment to demonstrate that our current combination can achieve a competitive trade-off. Regarding the role of each term, LPIPS enriches the semantic information of the reconstructed images, improving generalization, MSE constrains the pixel value consistency between the reconstructed and original images, and the task loss directly optimizes accuracy. The rate is determined by the encoder and entropy model, which are frozen and do not affect the second-stage optimization. We hope our ablations on the loss terms should help you more directly understand the role of each loss and the potential results of adjusting hyperparameters.
3. **Performance gap.**
**[Reply]**
There are two main reasons for the observed performance differences. First, the model size limits the performance especially at relatively higher bitrates. As shown in Table 3 of the global response attachment, TinyLIC, the base model we use to implement MPA, is much smaller than MRIC which is the base model of CRDR. Second, as a common sense in the community of image coding, optimizing with a relatively narrower bitrate coverage range can facilitate the coding performance for variable-rate models. As shown in Figure 3 of our submission, the bitrate coverage range of CRDR (0.08\~0.72bpp) is much smaller than that of our implementation (0.07\~1.20bpp). Thus the performance gap is reasonable and acceptable.
4. **Comparison to LoRA.**
**[Reply]**
We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion regarding LoRA. Our experiments recognize the effectiveness of LoRA in Table 2 of the global response attachment. Although MPA involves more fine-tuning parameters, it also achieves better performance. Moreover, our work has distinct features. We utilize predictors to support coding for multitask and smooth transitions between tasks within an all-in-one framework. The low-rank structure design of LoRA inspires us to consider improvements for the side path in our future work.
# References
[1] Y. Guo, et al. SpotTune: Transfer Learning through Adaptive Fine-tuning. In CVPR 2019.
[2] F. Mentzer, et al. High-Fidelity Generative Image Compression. In NeurIPS 2020.
[3] E. Agustsson, et al. Multi-Realism Image Compression with a Conditional Generator. In CVPR 2023.
[4] Y. Chen, et al. TransTIC: Transferring Transformer-based Image Compression from Human Perception to Machine Perception. In ICCV 2023. | null | null | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate all reviewers for their recognition of the strengths of MPA, as well as their insightful feedback and constructive suggestions. We have identified several common themes in the comments and would like to address them comprehensively in this global response.
# Advantages of MPA and Comparisons to Other Methods
The reviewers have shown interest in the advantages of MPA. MPA's core lies in its feature decoupling capability, enabling smooth task transitions. A significant advantage of MPA is its all-in-one coding approach, where all tasks can be achieved through extended paths within a single model, eliminating the need to train multiple models for different tasks. Compared to other methods catering to fine-tuning like SpotTune [3] and LoRA [4], MPA leverages different importance of features for different tasks to enable coding for multi-task and task transitions. Compared to other unified models like MRIC [1] and CRDR [2], MPA can achieve comparable performance and easily support more tasks with lower complexity. To address the reviewers' concerns, we have added the comparisons to the TinyLIC's performance and MRIC's complexity as Figure 1 and Table 3 in the attachment, and will be presented in the final version.
# Effectiveness of the Predictor
The reviewers have raised concerns regarding the predictor's effectiveness. As shown in Figure 3 of our submission, our approach achieves comparable performance to methods like MRIC and CRDR optimized solely for distortion and realism, and matches the vision task performance of fully fine-tuned models, all within a unified model. The key to achieving this performance is that the predictor decouples features across different tasks by predicting their importance for each task, thereby making side paths always focus on the features that are most important for task optimization at any ratio, and easing the complexity of optimizing coding for multi-task. Figures 4, 5, and Appx. E.2 in the submission show that the predictors assign different importance scores for different tasks, demonstrating that the predictor enables the additional side paths to capture the most critical features for each task. Related explanations have been given in Section 5.3 of the submission.
# Training Strategy
Regarding the training strategy, the reviewers have highlighted the importance of discussing complexity, loss terms and hyperparameters. Here we give a further explanation:
1. **First Stage:** Training a generalized basic model. During this stage, the loss terms and hyperparameters strictly follow those used in MRIC, with the addition of a ratio loss to optimize the predictor in the encoder. The primary difference is that we fix MRIC's β at 2.56 (cf. Eq. (4) in [2]) since we do not consider task transitions in this stage.
2. **Second Stage:** Optimizing the side path and predictor in the decoder. The transitions between tasks are only controlled by the predictor, which is optimized by minimizing a separate ratio loss. Thus for MSE optimization, we can use the MRIC loss with β fixed at 0 (cf. Eq. (4) in [2]), along with the ratio loss. For vision task optimization, we remove the GAN loss since GAN is not used now, and add a vision task-specific loss.
The strategy ensure that our method remains aligned with established practices to achieve stable training. We used the same hyperparameters as in the MRIC paper, which have been thoroughly evaluated for their influences. To address the reviewers' concerns, we have conducted a detailed ablation study (cf. Table 1 in the attachment) to showcase the necessity of each loss term. The results will be included in the final version. Note that the rate term do not affect the task performance theoretically since it is determined by the encoder and the entropy model which are frozen in the second stage.
# Generalizability and Applicability
The reviewers have raised concerns regarding the generalizability and applicability of MPA to various tasks and base models. Our additional experiments and the detailed results in the attachment's Figure 1, the main paper's Figures 4, 5 and Appx. E.2 demonstrate that MPA adapts well to different application scenarios including object detection. The generalizability is guaranteed by our proposed training strategy, which is inherited and developed from the widely used optimization methods, as we discussed in the previous section. Furthermore, MPA can be integrated into any model using MetaFormer [5] backbones with channel MLPs (like Swin Transformer [6] and ConvNeXt [7]) which has been widely used by the learned image coding community [8-12], ensuring the versatility and practical applicability of the proposed MPA. For the application of MPA in cross-domain tasks, we think this is a promising direction for exploration and will continue to follow up.
# References
[1] E. Agustsson, et al. Multi-Realism Image Compression with a Conditional Generator. In CVPR 2023.
[2] S. Iwai, et al. Controlling Rate, Distortion, and Realism: Towards a Single Comprehensive Neural Image Compression Model. In WACV 2024.
[3] Y. Guo, et al. SpotTune: Transfer Learning through Adaptive Fine-tuning. In CVPR 2019.
[4] E. Hu, et al. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models. In ICLR 2022.
[5] W. Yu, et al. MetaFormer Is Actually What You Need for Vision. In CVPR 2022.
[6] Z. Liu, et al. Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer Using Shifted Windows. In ICCV 2021.
[7] Z. Liu, et al. A ConvNet for the 2020s. In CVPR 2022.
[8] Y. Zhu, et al. Transformer-based Transform Coding. In ICLR 2022.
[9] R. Zou, et al. The Devil Is in the Details: Window-based Attention for Image Compression. In CVPR 2022.
[10] J, Liu, et al. Learned Image Compression With Mixed Transformer-CNN Architectures. In CVPR 2023.
[11] Z. Duan, et al. Lossy Image Compression With Quantized Hierarchical VAEs. In WACV 2023.
[12] H. Li, et al. Frequency-Aware Transformer for Learned Image Compression. In ICLR 2024.
Pdf: /pdf/99f5c182ededa121d457102324ef4b969684a655.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Self-Guided Masked Autoencoder | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper aims to enhance the Masked Autoencoder (MAE) approach for self-supervised learning in computer vision. The authors discovered that MAE intrinsically learns pattern-based patch-level clustering from the early stages of pre-training. This finding led them to propose a self-guided masked autoencoder, which internally generates informed masks based on the learned patch clustering, rather than relying on random masking. This method improves the learning efficiency without the need for external models or supplementary information, maintaining the self-supervised nature of MAE. Their approach involves generating informed masks that cover the main objects in an image more effectively than random masks. These masks are derived from the early-stage patch clustering learned by MAE, accelerating the training process and leading to clearer and more refined feature embeddings. The self-guided masked autoencoder leverages the inherent pattern-based clustering learned by MAE to produce more effective masks, enhancing the training efficiency and performance of the model on various computer vision tasks.
Strengths: 1. The self-guided masked autoencoder is innovative, as it generates informed masks internally based on the model’s own learning progress. This method is also backed with sound motivations.
2. The paper provides an in-depth analysis of the MAE’s learning process, revealing that pattern-based patch-level clustering occurs from the early stages of pre-training. This understanding contributes insights into the workings of MAE and can inform future research.
3. This paper also presents comprehensive analysis on learned feature space, providing multiple views of understanding of this method.
Weaknesses: 1. The success of the self-guided masked autoencoder hinges on the accuracy of the initial patch clustering. If the initial clusters are not well-formed, the informed masks generated could be suboptimal, leading to less effective learning and reduced performance gains.
2. The process of bi-partitioning and generating informed masks adds significant computational overhead. This extra complexity can increase the overall training time and resource consumption. It would be better if the author could include the training time or FLOPS for their method.
3. Lack of baselines. The author has mentioned multiple informed masking strategies, and they should be included to this paper for comparisons (CL-MAE, ADIOS). Currently, only MAE and AMT served as baseline method.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. Does this work perform the best under the default mask ratio (0.75) similar to other works?
2. Have you considered using stochastic $S_i$ (weighted sampling) in the hinted method? In addition, I think sampling hint patches from different clusters might be useful.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The author has addressed the limitation in this paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate the reviewers' positive comments and constructive feedback. We have made efforts to address each of the concerns raised.
__[W1] Quality of informed masks__
We acknowledge the concern that initial clusters may not be well-formed for some images. Although we have shown that MAE properly clusters patches through the observations in Sec. 3, it is true that the clustering quality may sometimes be suboptimal. To address this issue, we proposed a 'relevance score' that measures the relationship of the entire token set to the bi-partitioned cluster and then generates masks based on this score (Sec. 4 L222). As a result, our approach yields robust informed mask even in the case when the clustering and bi-partitioning is imperfect, illustrated in Fig. II in Appendix A.
__[W2] Training cost__
Our method only requires only one more step to generate masks, which empirically increases the pre-training time about 0.25% (for 400 epochs pre-training). We will make this clearer in camera-ready.
__[W3] Additional baselines__
We thank this consturctive feedback. As AMT is the only model soley relying on MAE archietcture itself, we chose it as baseline. We exclude CL-MAE [1] and ADIOS [2] from our baselines since both of them utilize additional module such as curriculum masking module or occlusion module which are parameterized and need to be trained in addition to MAE. The reported figures in their original papers are not comparable, since CL-MAE experimented only on a subset (20%, randomly selected 200 classes) of ImageNet-1K (IN1K), which does not align with our main purpose of self-supervision on large datasets. Also, as it takes about 6x training time for CL-MAE empirically, we will add CL-MAE in camera-ready due to the short rebuttal period. ADIOS was also experimented in its original paper with a downsized version (224->96) of a subset (10%, ImageNet-100) of IN1K and is not applied to the MAE architecture. Admitting their relevance, we will introduce CL-MAE and ADIOS in the related work section.
Reflecting the reviewer's point, we compare with two other models (SemMAE [3] and HPM [4]) using additional module or external model in Table B of the rebuttal PDF. Since these baselines incorporate additional parameters (external models or extra modules attached to MAE), they slightly outperform ours. However, these models incur significantly larger training cost for the additional parameters, while our method requires only a constant additional time (about 0.25% of the training cost of MAE) for mask generation relying solely on MAE itself without introduction of any additional resources.
__[Q1] Ablation on masking ratio__
We provide an ablation study on masking ratio in Table C in the rebuttal PDF. A masking ratio of 0.6 shows slightly better performance (+0.1%), while a masking ratio of 0.9 shows degraded performance, which shows similar trend to the results in [5]. We had to conduct this experiment with 200 pre-training epochs due to the short rebuttal period, but will add a similar table with regular 400 epochs of pre-training in camera-ready.
__[Q2] Hinting strategy__
Both ideas are very interesting, and we explored them in an ablation study. Consideration of using $S_i$-based sampling is shown in the ablation studies (Ln 273-277, Table 3) in main paper, where it exhibited slightly degraded performance. Sampling hint tokens from different clusters is presented in Table I in the supplementary material. We sampled hint tokens from two major clusters alternately throughout the training epochs, which also resulted in slightly lower performance compared to our default setting.
[1] Madan, Neelu, et al. "CL-MAE: Curriculum-Learned Masked Autoencoders." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision. 2024.
[2] Shi, Yuge, et al. "Adversarial masking for self-supervised learning." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2022.
[3] Li, Gang, et al. "Semmae: Semantic-guided masking for learning masked autoencoders." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022): 14290-14302.
[4] Wang, Haochen, et al. "Hard patches mining for masked image modeling." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2023.
[5] He, Kaiming, et al. "Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2022.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I appreciate the authors' detailed response. I encourage the authors to explicitly include these additional results in the next version of the paper. Additionally, I suggest that the authors explore the potential benefits of increasing the masking ratio in both linear probing and fine-tuning, as this may improve the efficiency of the approach. After considering the response, I will maintain my original score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: We appreciate the reviewer for reply.
As the reviewer recommended, we will definitely include Table B (comparison with additional baselines) and Table C (ablation study on masking ratio) from the rebuttal PDF to the main paper. Additionally, we have included the results of fine-tuning with various masking ratios (0.6, 0.75, 0.9) in the table below.
| | | **Masking Ratio** | |
|-------------------|--------|:-----------------:|--------|
| | **0.6** | **0.75** | **0.9** |
| **Linear Probing**| 54.5 | 54.4 | 53.2 |
| **Fine-Tuning** | 83.3 | 83.2 | 82.5 |
Our method _accelerates MAE training_ leveraging its intrinsic property, i.e., patch clustering, without relying on external information. Consequently, our method mirrors the behavior of MAE regarding the masking ratio, showing that a 0.75 masking ratio is optimal for both MAE and our method in terms of both efficiency and performance. Please note that the ablation study presented below was conducted with 200 epochs due to the limited time available during the rebuttal period. These results will be updated to 400 epochs in the final version.
If there are any further questions or points of clarification needed, we would be grateful for the opportunity to provide additional information. Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and consideration. | Summary: This paper proposes a novel masking strategy, Self-Guided Informed Masking for pre-training MAE. The authors found that MAE learns patch-level clustering of visual patterns at the early stages of training, which is demonstrated through an in-depth analysis. Based on this insight, the authors suggest bi-partitioning the image to identify and mask entire objects and then reconstruct them using a small number of hint tokens. Comprehensive experiments across various downstream tasks validate that the proposed strategy consistently improves the performance of MAE.
Strengths: **[S1]** The paper provides a novel and interesting observation to understand the learning mechanism of MAE, along with a comprehensive analysis to justify the observation.
**[S2]** The paper shows that the proposed approach consistently and significantly improves MAE’s performance on various downstream tasks.
**[S3]** The overall writing is smooth and easy to follow.
Weaknesses: **[W1]** Lack of baselines. \
**[W1-1]** Though they chose only MAE and AMT to show the effectiveness of the approach, it is too limited to fully demonstrate their claim. Specifically, guiding the mask with a pre-trained network should also be considered a baseline if it is not trained in a supervised manner, e.g., AttMask [1]. \
**[W1-2]** In addition, HPM [2] should be included as a baseline, since it also proposes an automatic masking strategy that does not use any external data or pre-trained model.
**[W2]** Scalability. \
Even though other MIMs [3-4] already have become SOTA in the image domain, I believe the core advantage of MAE is scalability [5] compared to other SSLs, e.g., it performs significantly better with more pre-training epochs, larger models, or more data. The authors should demonstrate the scalability, e.g., by providing the accuracy curve and results on ViT-L/16.
[1] Kakogeorgiou, Ioannis, et al. "What to hide from your students: Attention-guided masked image modeling." European Conference on Computer Vision. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022. \
[2] Wang, Haochen, et al. "Hard patches mining for masked image modeling." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2023. \
[3] Assran, Mahmoud, et al. "Self-supervised learning from images with a joint-embedding predictive architecture." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2023. \
[4] Wang, Haochen, et al. "Droppos: Pre-training vision transformers by reconstructing dropped positions." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024). \
[5] Singh, Mannat, et al. "The effectiveness of MAE pre-pretraining for billion-scale pretraining." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2023.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: [Q1] Can this approach be applied to other domains or modalities too? It would be more impactful if it could treat other domains since MAE is shown to be the modality-agnostic self-supervised learning [1-2].
[1] Jang, Huiwon, et al. "Modality-agnostic self-supervised learning with meta-learned masked auto-encoder." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024). \
[2] Xie, Johnathan, et al. "Self-Guided Masked Autoencoders for Domain-Agnostic Self-Supervised Learning." arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14789 (2024).
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 2
Limitations: They addressed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have tried to alleviate all the concerns raised.
__[W1] Additional baselines__
We agree that it would be valuable to compare our method with others that rely on external pre-trained models or additional modules, as long as the comparison is fair. We included a table comparing our method to these models, including HPM [1] in rebuttal PDF. (We will update the table with unified 400 pre-training epochs in camera-ready.)
Upon thorough understanding of AttnMask [2], the model suggested by the reviewer, we conclude that this approach DOES supervise the model with labels, making it no longer comparable with our self-supervised method. For this reason, we confirm to exclude this for fair comparison. We highlight that our main contribution is achieving complete independence from any extra resources while successfully expediting the learning process of MAE, as demonstrated in our analysis.
__[W2] Scalability__
We thank the reviewer for the feedback on scalability. Scalability on pre-training epochs can be found in the supplementary materials (~1600 epochs). Although we would like to include what the reviewer suggested now, it is challenging to conduct experiments on larger model sizes and datasets during this short rebuttal period. We will add the experiments on ViT-L/16 with 400 pre-training epochs compared to MAE in camera-ready.
__[Q1] Applicability across various domains and modalities__
Since our method accelerates the training process of MAE without altering MAE's inherent learning (i.e., patch clustering), we believe it is applicable to any domain or modality where MAE itself is suitable.
[1] Wang, Haochen, et al. "Hard patches mining for masked image modeling." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2023.
[2] Kakogeorgiou, Ioannis, et al. "What to hide from your students: Attention-guided masked image modeling." European Conference on Computer Vision. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response. Please add scalability experiments in the final draft.
Nevertheless, while I again appreciate the in-depth analysis of MAE, my concern from [W1] and [Q1] is about the contribution of the masking strategy. Practically, we can use other strategies of utilizing additional architecture or a pre-trained network in an unsupervised manner (Furthermore, they can perform better with the better pre-trained network), and the proposed approach seems to perform worse than SemMAE or HPM.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the reply.
Although SemMAE and HPM demonstrate superior performance compared to our method, we respectfully request that the training time be taken into consideration. As detailed in our rebuttal PDF, SemMAE and HPM incur 3.15x and 1.5x more training costs, respectively, while our approach requires only a marginal increase of 1.0025x compared to the vanilla MAE. For fair comparison, SemMAE / HPM / ours should be pre-trained for 400 / 800 / 1200 epochs respectively.
We fully recognize that enhancing the performance of MAE with additional resources is an important area of research. However, we kindly ask the reviewer to consider our work from a different perspective. Our research is centered on understanding the internal mechanisms of MAE and autonomously improving its performance while maintaining its intrinsic property of patch clustering.For instance, given that SemMAE could benefit from a better pre-trained network, our self-guided MAE could be utilized as an external pre-trained model to further enhance SemMAE's performance. This indicates that SemMAE and our approach may serve different purposes and could potentially work synergistically. As a result, SemMAE and our approach may serve different purposes and, therefore, should be evaluated accordingly, recognizing their distinct contributions.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thanks for your rebuttal for addressing my questions! I have raised the rating to 6.
I would like to note that clarifications about the comparisons with other works should be included in the final manuscript to improve the clarity of the work.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and for recognizing the contributions of our work.
We will make sure to incorporate these comparisons in the final manuscript to provide a clearer understanding of our contributions relative to existing methods. | Summary: This paper demonstrates that Masked Autoencoders (MAEs) learn pattern-based, patch-level clustering and that they obtain this ability in the early stages of pre-training. Based on this finding, it proposes a self-guided Masked Autoencoder method, which utilizes self-attention map information to mask out meaningful foreground information. The experiments show that the proposed method outperforms the vanilla method as well as AMT, another self-attention guided MAE method.
Strengths: - I enjoyed reading this paper, as it begins by analyzing the properties of MAEs to identify the drawbacks of the methods and then proposes a novel method based on these analyses. I believe such an attempt to motivate the method via empirical analyses should be encouraged. Additionally, this paper includes post-hoc analyses of the proposed method, which are helpful in understanding the method.
- The direction of introducing a novel masking strategy in this study seems promising and could potentially lead to significant advancements in the field.
- The proposed method outperforms both the vanilla MAE and AMT, not only in image classification tasks but also in dense prediction tasks.
Weaknesses: I believe the main weaknesses of this paper are two-fold: soundness and novelty.
- **Soundness:** I am not fully convinced by the claims in this paper. The following are examples, though not exhaustive.
- In L99, dissimilarities between the main objects and the mean values of tokens might not directly imply “the MAE encoder has learned patch clustering basded on visual patterns,” and it is insufficient to conclude that MAE can clearly distinguish between backgrounds and the object based on the results in Fig 2b. Alternatively, it might be possible to simplify or even skip Section 3.2, as [40] addresses a similar claim.
- Since MAE does not train a CLS token, I am not convinced that the results of Fig 2c lead to meaningful findings.
- In L126, even if it is true that “the decoder learns a similar but les clearer pattern than the encoder,” the main objective of MAE is training the encoder, not the decoder. Therefore, the implications of this statement are not clear.
- In L195, the drawbacks of random masking appear somewhat suddenly. I couldn’t find direct links between the analyses in Section 3 and the inefficiency of the random masking strategy.
- **Novelty:** The core takeaways from the analyses and the proposed method are not groundbreaking.
- L33: Even though Figure III in the appendix elegantly shows the token-wise clustering properties of MAE, the claim regarding the "MAE’s property that learns pattern-based patch-level clustering" is already demonstrated in [40]. Furthermore, according to [40], this property is not unique to MAE but is general to MIM methods. Additionally, it might be an interesting finding that this property emerges in the *extremely early stages of training*, but I wouldn’t say the 40th or 100th epochs constitute an *extremely early stage*. It might not be an apples-to-apples comparison, but [22] demonstrates that 100 epochs are a sufficient setting to achieve reasonable performance.
- L37: As this paper also cited, the proposed method is not the only method that utilizes a self-attention mask to introduce an efficient masking strategy. Similarly, prior works, such as AttnMask [28], offer comparable insights.
- **Writing:** Although the writing and organization are not the major weaknesses of this paper, as I understand it, there is room for improvement.
- This paper occasionally refers to figures from later sections at the beginning, causing me to go back and forth to understand the context fully.
- Should the paper introduce the (accumulated) exploitation rate instead of using NMI or self-attention distance?
- Although the proposed method is straightforward and easy to understand, including a diagram to overview the method would enhance its readability.
- I sometimes struggled to find the definitions of symbols and hyperparameters, which could be more clearly indexed or referenced.
- In Section 5.4, explicitly stating the implications of the experimental results would significantly improve the paper.
- **Method:** Likewise, I believe there is room for improvement in the proposed method.
- In L218, this method utilizes bi-partitioning and assumes that the dominant tokens represent background parts. However, its effectiveness might depend on the ImageNet dataset. Images with many objects or those containing large objects could be considered; in such cases, this assumption might no longer hold.
- In L238, he method employs the second-to-last encoder layer to utilize the self-attention map. However, it would also make sense to use the last self-attention layer for the sake of simplicity, since I assume that there would only be minor performance degradation.
- For a fair comparison, the experiments neglect methods that utilize external information or models, but it would be great if this paper could compare the method and emphasize the pros and cons alongside those methods.
Overall, I am on the fence but lean towards acceptance since the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. However, I believe there is room for improvement, and a major revision could significantly strengthen this paper.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Please refer to the weaknesses section.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: I don't find any ethical issues. Please refer to the weaknesses section.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your thorough review and constructive feedback; we have carefully considered your comments and made efforts to address each of the concerns raised. Due to length limitations, we have had to use references from the main paper. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
__[W1] Does Fig. 2 indicate that MAE clusters patches based on visual patterns?__
We understand that Fig. 2 may not be sufficient to claim visual pattern-based patch clustering. To support this, we refer to Figure III in Appendix, which qualitatively shows token clustering based on their visual pattern. Following your suggestion, we will refer to [40], which demonstrates that 1) MIM models can distinguish tokens and 2) MIM models focus on high-frequency information.
__[W2] Attention map with CLS token__
Correct. Since the CLS token is not updated during training, it does not contain particularly meaningful information. The main point of Fig. 2c is that if patch vectors are well clustered, they can be distinguished by _any random vector_. We will clarify Fig. 2c in camera-ready.
__[W3] Unclear statement (L126)__
We agree that MAE mainly aims to obtain a well-trained encoder. However, we discuss both encoder and decoder to show that the entire architecture of MAE aims to learn patch clustering, as our analysis targets the whole MAE. Also, we apologize for the misuse of the term 'pattern' in L126, which was confusing with 'visual pattern'. It would be better to be replaced with 'trend'.
__[W4] Drawbacks of random masking (L195)__
Thanks for this clarifying question. In Sec. 3, we discover that _MAE is already well-trained to separate the image into major feature clusters in early epochs_. After the initial $T$ epochs, MAE becomes sufficiently trained to distinguish tokens into major clusters. Random masking, however, keeps producing easily separable training examples, without taking advantage of its learned knowledge so far. We propose a method to exploit this to expedite the learning process in Sec. 4. In this context, we describe it as 'delaying the learning of patch clustering' and identified this as a drawback of random masking. We will clarify this in the paper.
__[W5-1] Difference from [40] (L33)__
To clarify, the demonstration in [40] about MIM models is confined to 'token distinguishment', distinct from our observation of 'pattern-based patch clustering'. We claim that merely distinguishing tokens is _not sufficient_ to establish our method, as it does not indicate that MAE can generate meaningful patch clusters for informed masking.
__[W5-2] $T=40$ epochs is not early__
It may be subjective whether 40 epochs are extremely early or not, but our contribution lies in the discovery that MAE trained for less than $T$ epochs is insufficiently trained and would be inadequate for downstream tasks. As this is the empirical minimum, any pre-training method with $T$ or longer epochs will benefit from our method, and in this context we argue $T$ epochs to be an 'early' stage.
__[W6] Difference from prior works (L37)__
While our masking strategy shares some common aspects with them, the fundamental difference is that ours relies solely on MAE itself, established through our original analysis of MAE's internal operations. AttnMask [28] relies on supervised training with external labels, unlike our complete self-supervision. We highlight that our main contribution is achieving complete independence from any extra resources while successfully expediting the learning process of MAE.
__[W7,9,10,11] Suggestions for writing quality__
We thank for the suggestions to improve our manuscript. We will reflect them (overview diagram, notation summary, and summary of experimental implications) in camera-ready.
__[W8] Why do we need exploitation rate?__
Employing NMI or attention distance might look feasible to decide if the MAE is sufficiently trained to provide informed masks, but they pose the challenge of setting a proper threshold, since they are unbounded. Our exploitation rate quantifies the shared information within the mask tokens compared to the visible tokens, providing a bounded score and thereby easing the thresholding.
__[W12] Effectiveness of bi-partitioning in diverse image contexts__
We acknowledge the concern regarding images with large objects or multiple objects.
For an image with a large object, only their sub-parts will be masked because the object occupies more than the masking ratio. This scenario still benefits from our method, as intensive masking on the main object still leads to better representation (see Fig. II in Appendix).
As you pointed out, images with many objects might present a challenge for applying informed masking effectively. As there will be many small clusters, masking specific clusters with informed masking may yield similar masks to random masking. However, we emphasize that this limitation is not unique to our method but is a common issue across various informed masking strategies. We will explicitly note this limitation in the paper to provide a clearer understanding of the scope and applicability of our method.
__[W13] Using the last encoder layer for informed masking (L238)__
We agree with your insight. We simply follow the analysis results and employ the second-last layer, but as pointed out, using the last layer has a minor impact on performance. We will note this in camera-ready.
__[W14] Additional baselines__
We provide Table B in rebuttal PDF to compare with other methods that use external pre-trained models or additional parameterized modules. Thanks to the external pre-trained models or additional parameterized modules, they slightly outperform our method. However, we emphasize that our method is entirely independent of any extra resources, almost maintaining the original cost of MAE (+0.25% of additional cost), in contrast to other models which require extra cost for training external models and incorporating additional parameters into MAE.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Official Comment of Submission5912 by Reviewer BsNN
Comment: Thank you, authors, for the clarifications. In particular, I believe the claims from W1 to W5-1 address my concerns. I encourage the authors to include such points more explicitly in the text. Although I am still not fully convinced of the strong links between the analysis and the method proposal sections, I understand it might be challenging to articulate such claims. Regarding W5-2, describing T=40 as "extremely early stages of training" seems somewhat overstated.
Overall, I still believe there are useful takeaways from this paper, and I would like to maintain my original score. If the writing is improved and stronger links are established between the analysis and the method sections, I could consider rating this paper as a solid 6.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thanks for your positive reply. We are pleased that our rebuttal has addressed most of your concerns. Our responses to your new comments are as follows:
__1. Links between the analysis in Sec. 3 and our method in Sec. 4__
In Sec. 3.2 we first show that the MAE encoder learns patch clustering _after training_ through qualitative and quantitative analyses comparing MAE to MoCo and ViT. Then in Sec. 3.3, we show that the MAE encoder learns patch clustering _from an early stage_ through bi-partitioning and KL divergence analyses. Bi-partitioning is sufficient to distinguish tokens into two major token clusters and construct informed masks by masking out one of them. This result indicates that we can generate informed masks with MAE itself relatively early in the pre-training phase and use these informed masks for the remainder of the training.
Then, the next question is _when exactly the MAE can properly cluster the patches_. In other words, when exactly can MAE generate informed masks by itself and start to employ them? We answer this in Sec. 3.4 via exploitation rate analysis following the reasoning below.
Once the encoder has effectively learned to cluster patches, its outputs embody this information. These outputs are then used to constitute mask tokens within the decoder. As a result, the mask tokens carry the patch clustering information and become heavily utilized in reconstructing the masked-out patches. By reversing this process, a high exploitation rate of mask tokens in the decoder suggests that they have successfully inherited proper patch clustering information from the encoder, indicating the encoder's proficiency in clustering patches. We validate this through exploitation rate analysis, which demonstrates that mask tokens begin to be exploited as extensively as visible tokens from an early epoch, i.e., exactly from an epoch $T$.
In summary, 1) we conduct bi-partitioning and KL divergence analyses to show that MAE learns patch clustering from early stage and 2) we suggest "exploitation rate" method to determine the precise point at which MAE can independently generate an informed mask. This finding allows us to confidently generate informed masks at epoch $T$, ultimately leading to the design of our method.
As suggested, we will clarify the links between analysis section and our method in the main paper as above.
We have made every effort to clarify the explanation. However, if any aspects remain unclear or if there are additional questions, we would appreciate the reviewer reaching out for further clarification.
__2. $T=40$ epochs is not "extremely early stage"__
Considering that training for 100 epochs shows sufficient performance in [22], we agree with the point that expression "extremely early" is somewhat overstated thus needs to be tone downed. We will revise it to "relatively early phase of training".
If you still find this expression strong or have any other suggestions, please let us know.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.2:
Comment: To provide further clarity and detail on our work, we have included additional comments.
First, let us explain why informed masking has led to performance gains in prior works—a point that, to the best of our knowledge, has not been clearly articulated before our study. Traditional random masking involves masking patches across the entire image randomly. According to our analysis in Sec. 3.2, this approach leads the MAE to learn a broad and less focused patch clustering across the whole image. In contrast, informed masking focuses the masking on object-centric regions, which helps the MAE to learn stronger and more meaningful patch clustering specifically within the object-related areas. By narrowing the masking focus, we can guide MAE to concentrate on learning patch clustering within the object regions, i.e., loss affects only the object-related parts, thereby accelerating the process of learning patch clustering in object region.
In previous works, informed masks were generated introducing extra costs, which is a straightforward approach. However, our goal is to develop a method that is independent of external models or additional parameters. We specifically aimed to explore whether MAE can autonomously perform informed masking without relying on such external aids.
To achieve this, we conduct an in-depth analysis of MAE’s intrinsic learning properties to understand how it naturally clusters patches. Our analyses include:
1. Section 3.2: We demonstrate that MAE learns patch clustering after training through qualitative and quantitative comparisons with MoCo and ViT.
2. Section 3.3: We show that MAE begins to learn patch clustering from an early stage using bi-partitioning and KL divergence analyses. These findings indicate that MAE is capable of generating informed masks by itself at an early phase of training.
3. Section 3.4: To determine when MAE can effectively cluster patches and generate informed masks, we introduce the "exploitation rate" analysis. This analysis reveals that once the encoder has learned to cluster patches, this information is passed to the mask tokens in the decoder. A high exploitation rate of these tokens indicates successful patch clustering, and we identify a specific epoch, $T$, when MAE is ready to generate informed masks independently.
By confirming that MAE can autonomously perform informed masking, we avoid the need for external models and additional parameters. Based on these analyses, we propose using object-centric informed masking to enhance MAE’s performance. Instead of randomly masking the entire image, we concentrate the masking on object-related regions, allowing the MAE to learn stronger patch clustering in these areas, thereby improving its overall efficiency and effectiveness.
Based on this elaboration, we will revise our paper as follows:
1. At the beginning of Section 3, we will explicitly state our motivation for the analyses in Sections 3.2 and 3.3.
* To achieve independence from external models and additional parameters, we first need to uncover the learning properties of MAE.
2. At the start of Section 3.4, we will explain the reason behind the exploitation rate analysis.
* In brief: When the encoder begins clustering patches, this information is transferred to the mask tokens in the decoder, leading to higher exploitation of these tokens by the decoder. By reversing this logic, we infer that a high exploitation rate of mask tokens indicates that the encoder can effectively cluster patches. This allows us to determine the exact point when the encoder can generate informed masks. To validate this, we propose the exploitation rate analysis.
3. We will add an explanation on informed masking in the object-centric masking part of Section 4.
* In brief: By narrowing the masking focus from the entire image to the object-related region (where loss affects only this specific part) we can build stronger patch clustering within the object-related region. | Summary: Masked autoencoding (MAE) based pre-training has been widely adopted recently. However, it is not fully uncovered what and how MAE exactly learns. In this paper, the authors provide an in-depth analysis of MAE and discover that it learns pattern-based patch-level clustering from early stages of pre-training. Upon this finding, the authors propose a self-guided masking strategy which generates informed masks in an unsupervised manner without relying on external models or labels. The experiments on various downstream tasks shows the effectivness of the masking strategy in MAE pre-training.
Strengths: - The paper provides an in-depth analysis of what and how MAE learns during pre-training.
- The authors use attention score and cosine similarity score to analyze the pairwise relationship of tokens using the last layer of the ViT-B encoder and the decoder. MAE based qualitative analysis shows that patches are clearly clustered as compared to MoCo and ViT. Quantitatively, the feature variance and similarity variance is high for MAE encoder and decoder which show it clusters patches based on their patterns. The analysis provide another insight about MAE regarding when they start to learn patch clustering.
- The exploitation rate of mask tokens and visible tokens show that every decoder hold substantial amount of shared information estimated by the encoder which means MAE is trained to efficiently cluster the patches.
- Based on the findings, the authors propose a new called self-guided informed masking.
- Experiments on various datasets (IN1k, COCO, iNat19 etc) shows the effectiveness of proposed masking strategy.
Weaknesses: - Although the author shows the performance of masking strategy with 1600 epochs, is there any reason to use a model trained for 400 epochs for analysis? What is the motivation behind it? Did the authors only use 10% of training data during pre-training for analysis?
- Given this patch clustering and estimated shared information, does it mean we need only few tokens for downstream tasks? Any analysis with linear layer fine-tuning and fewer visible tokens would be interesting?
- It is still not clear if the authors pre-train the model in two stages? Did they pre-train the model with random masking for T epochs and then continue pre-training it with informed masking? Any remarks on that would be helpful.
- Given the decoder has enough shared information to reconstruct the masked patches and ablation table shows the performance boost, can we directly use the features extracted from the decoder for downstream tasks ?
- Can the authors shed light on the computation and the memory and compared the approach with random masking? Given the embeddings are extracted from either encoder or decoder for informed masked with bi-partition, would that increase the total pre-training time?
- Any ablation on the masking ratio? how much hint is added in the informed mask?
- Any learning comparison in terms of reconstruction loss, with hint or without hint. If the reconstruction task becomes harder and we know that the generalization of pre-training can be effected if the proxy task is too challenging.
- The masking strategy looks a combination of normalized cut, [1] and [2]. Can the authors please give a remark on the differences of self-guided masking and these methods?
[1] Self-supervised transformers for unsupervised object discovery using normalized cut.
[2] SemMAE: Semantic-guided masking for learning masked autoencoders.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Please look at the weakness section for the questions and suggestions.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes, the authors has adequately addressed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate the reviewer for positive comments and constructive feedbacks. We have tried to address each of the concerns raised.
__[W1] Reason for the analyzing MAE with 400 pre-training epochs__
To use a 1600-epoch pre-trained MAE for analysis, we would need to train MAE, MoCo, and ViT for 1600 epochs for a fair comparison. Due to the excessive time and resources required for this setting, we set the training time to 400 epochs following the literature, MAE [1], MoCo [2], and ViT [3]. These seminal works have analyzed with 400 or less epochs, reflecting the fact that 400 epochs is sufficient to obtain a well-trained embedding space for comparison. Nevertheless, we have shown the results with 1600 epochs to demonstrate scalability and effectiveness of our method.
Also, all the anlayses have been conducted with models trained on the __whole IN1K training set__.
__[W2] Using fewer tokens for downstream tasks__
We think this is an interesting idea. Because MAE distinguishes features solely based on their visual patterns, if we can extract specific clusters of tokens tailored to a given downstream task, it would be feasible to use only these subsets of tokens for those tasks. Although this is beyond the scope of this paper, it would be a great future research topic.
__[W3] Training process of our method__
The model is trained in a single stage; at epoch $T$, we begin generating informed masks and continue the training process without interruption. We will state this point more clearly in the revised paper.
__[W4] Using decoder features for downstream tasks__
It is an interesting suggestion to use the decoder layers for downstream tasks, if the MAE is sufficiently trained. Using decoder features might have slight benefit for the tasks requiring pixel-level details, considering the fact that decoder features are closer to the pixel-level space. However, using decoder layers would be less efficient since it requires additional inference time. This would be an interesting future direction for this line of research.
__[W5] Training cost__
Our method only requires only one more step to generate masks, which empirically increases the pre-training time about 0.25% (for 400 epochs pre-training). We will make this clearer in camera-ready.
__[W6] Ablation on masking ratio__
We provide an ablation study on masking ratio in Table C in the rebuttal PDF. A masking ratio of 0.6 shows slightly better performance (+0.1%), while a masking ratio of 0.9 shows degraded performance, which shows similar trend to the results in [1]. We had to conduct this experiment with 200 pre-training epochs due to the short rebuttal period, but will add a similar table with regular 400 epochs of pre-training in camera-ready.
For hint tokens, we start by providing 10% of the masked tokens and gradually decrease the ratio to 5% by the end. We will include this information as well.
__[W7] Reconstruction loss with and without hints__
As shown in the ablation studies in Table 3 in main paper, the learning process can become too challenging with informed masking, making the reconstruction task difficult and ultimately resulting in degraded performance. The reconstruction losses (MSE) after 400 epochs of training for vanialla MAE, ours (with hint) and ours (without hint) are 0.41, 0.56, and 0.64 respectively as shown in Table D in rebuttal pdf.
Although the model can fail to learn generalized feature with a too difficult task, we successfully addressed this issue by providing hint tokens and consistent performance improvements in various downstream tasks verify our claim.
__[W8] Difference from SemMAE [4]__
Both masking strategies aim to mask out important regions of the image. However, the fundamental difference between SemMAE and ours is that SemMAE is 'supervised' by an external pre-trained model which requires extra training cost for pre-training this model, while ours is completely 'self-supervised'. As SemMAE is supervised by external model, it is not guaranteed that SemMAE still learns what MAE actually learns, i.e., pattern-based patch clustering. The training process of SemMAE can be interpreted as indirect feature distillation via reconstruction task, since it heavily depends on the quality of the features extracted from the external model, e.g., iBoT [5] features containing semantic segmentation information. On the other hand, our work identifies the property of MAE (i.e., patch clustering) emerging during the training process and utilizes this observation to accelerate MAE's learning of this property. In this context, we refer to our method as providing 'acceleration' rather than 'performance improvement' because it speeds up MAE's ability to learn its inherent features, rather than enhancing its feature space with external resources. Since our method relies solely on MAE itself, it is completely free from relying on the attributes of feature representation from external models, and this is the key difference between our method and SemMAE.
[1] He, Kaiming, et al. "Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2022.
[2] He, Kaiming, et al. "Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2020.
[3] Dosovitskiy, Alexey, et al. "An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale." arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020).
[4] Li, Gang, et al. "Semmae: Semantic-guided masking for learning masked autoencoders." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022): 14290-14302.
[5] Zhou, Jinghao, et al. "ibot: Image bert pre-training with online tokenizer." arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.07832 (2021).
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response to the authors
Comment: I thank the authors for the clarifications.
After reading my fellow reviewers reviews and the authors rebuttal, I still have some concerns which are given below:
* I'm still not convinced on using 400 epochs for analysis. I still believe at least 800 epochs would be used for in-depth analysis.
* Most of the comparison is done with MAE vanilla, can the authors please compare the performance with SemMAE? I believe SemMAE achieves 68.7 in linear probing on IN1k, while this approach achieves 65.9 with 800 epochs of pre-training. When the model is pre-trained using 1600 epochs, it then achieves 68.7.
* The authors did not clearly state the training time overhead compared to vanilla MAE for 800 and 1600 epochs. Providing the numbers in terms of hours or days would be greatly appreciated. Furthermore, given the results of SemMAE and the need for an additional 800 epochs to achieve comparable performance, it would be helpful to include in the manuscript the amount of additional training time required.
* I think the experiments related to using fewer tokens and decoder features for downstream tasks should be included in the manuscript. For fewer tokens, a simple experiment would be to sample let's say 75-90% of the high-quality informed tokens and do linear probing experiments.
* The authors mentioned "On the other hand, our work identifies the property of MAE (i.e., patch clustering) emerging during the training process and utilizes this observation to accelerate MAE's learning of this property. In this context, we refer to our method as providing 'acceleration' rather than 'performance improvement' because it speeds up MAE's ability to learn its inherent features, rather than enhancing its feature space with external resources". I think these are overstated. What does acceleration really means here? Is it accelerating the pre-training? or is it accelerating the learning? Given the bi-partitioning graph, it actually increases the pre-training overhead. If the learning is accelerated, does it mean the downstream tasks performance can be significantly improved with lesser pre-training epochs?
Overall, I still believe there are useful points to takeaway from this paper, but given my above comments, I will maintain my original score of 5.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the reply. Our responses for the additional concerns are as follows:
__1. Anlysis with 400 epochs__
We appreciate the suggestion of using 800 epochs for analysis and fully understand its importance. However, we kindly ask the reviewer to consider that 400 epochs is a reasonable and sufficient duration for the following reasons:
MAE consistently exhibits properties related to patch clustering by measuring feature variance and similarity variance of MAE encoder over the course of training, as shown in the table below. MAE shows a steady increase in variances, indicating that it effectively learns patch clustering from the early epochs and maintains this trend throughout the training. Our analyses in Sec. 3.3, including bi-partitioning and KL divergence, as well as the observation that the exploitation rate of mask tokens at 400 epochs closely mirrors that at 800 epochs (Fig. 4 in Sec. 3.4), further support that MAE with 400 epochs reflects the same properties as MAE with 800 epochs.
Also, for MoCo and ViT in detail, MoCo was trained for 200 epochs and ViT for 300 epochs on ImageNet-1K in their respective works, demonstrating that strong performance can be achieved within this range. We belive this is why neither MoCo nor ViT has experimented beyond 300 epochs; as it is sufficient to analyze the performance gain and limitations. Additionally, MAE itself shows considerable performance at 400 epochs as well. We believe it is important to maintain consistency throughout the paper, ensuring that the training epochs in the analysis (Sec. 3), experiments (Sec. 4), and further analysis (Sec. 5) align.
With 8 A6000 GPUs, training for 400 epochs takes 2.5 days. It is prohibitively time-consuming to rerun all experiments with 800 epochs pre-training. We plan to report 800 epochs results in camera-ready, but this is beyond something that we can do within a week of discussion period since we need to train MoCo and ViT for 800 epochs each.
We hope this clarification helps the reviewer understand that MAE demonstrates consistent patch clustering characteristics across these training durations, and the rationale and validity behind choosing 400 epochs for our analysis.
| **Epoch** | **1** | **200** | **400** | **800** |
|--------------|-------|-------------------------|-------|-------|
| **Feature variance** | 0.031 | 0.068 | 0.074 | 0.082 |
| **Similarity variance** | 0.047 | 0.057 | 0.068 | 0.075 |
__2. Comparison with SemMAE__
As presented in Table B of the rebuttal PDF, SemMAE requires approximately 3.15x training time compared to original MAE, while ours requires only 1.0025x. To ensure a fair comparison, SemMAE would have been pre-trained only for 133 epochs, to match the computational cost for training our method for 400 epochs. Considering that training MAE for 200 epochs yields a 53.9% accuracy in linear probing, and assuming SemMAE maintains its 4.9% performance gap over MAE (800 epochs, which is reported as their setting) with only 200 epochs, SemMAE would achieve at most 58.8% accuracy at 200 epochs. This means that even under this optimistic assumption that SemMAE is trained for 200 epochs not 133 epochs, our approach (62.9%) would still surpass SemMAE when comparing with the _same_ training cost.
Throughout this discussion, we recognize that enhancing MAE's performance with additional resources, such as those used in SemMAE, is an important and valuable line of research. However, we respectfully request the reviewer to view our work from an alternative perspective. Our study is centered on __understanding the internal mechanisms of MAE__ and improving its performance __independently from any other additional resources__, while maintaining its fundamental feature of patch clustering.
__3. Training time__
Training our model takes almost the same time (1.0025x) compared to training the vanilla MAE. Training our method using 8 NVidia A6000 GPUs (48GB) roughly takes 2.5 days for 400 epochs, 5 days for 800 epochs, and 10 days for 1600 epochs.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.2:
Comment: (cont'd)
__4. Using fewer tokens for downstream tasks__
Following your advice, we performed linear probing on ImageNet-1K using MAE and our method, both pre-trained for 400 epochs. We selected the top 75% of tokens based on their scores (as defined in our manuscript, section 222L), which indicate their relevance to the object, and used only these tokens for global average pooling. The results are presented in the table below. Both MAE and our method show slightly degraded performance compared to those obtained using all tokens, while ours still shows superior performance.
| | **Entire tokens** | **Top 75% tokens** |
|-|-|-|
| **MAE** | 61.4% | 59.2% |
| **Ours** | __62.9%__ | __60.6%__ |
While it is clear that using fewer tokens selected according to our method yields less favorable results, we agree that _properly_ selected tokens could potentially lead to similar or even better performance with greater efficiency. To be specific, since our method focuses on robustly selecting tokens to be masked out, the selection process can be relatively simpler rather than strictly optimized, e.g., precise importance ranking of tokens. If we were to accurately select the most important tokens, we believe that your idea could indeed be validated. Additionally, we will include this result in camera-ready for further insight as we agree with the reviewer that this result can provide valuable support for our masking method. In detail, slight degradation in performance suggests that our method effectively masks object-centric tokens, as linear probing focuses on recognizing the main object. However, we kindly ask the reviewer to consider that further boosting in downstream task or performance improvement via token selection extend beyond the scope of our current work. We appreciate again the reviewer for this insight.
__5. Definition of "acceleration" used in our work__
We would like to clarify that when we refer to "accelerated pre-training" as our main contribution, we mean shortening the pre-training time required to achieve the same quality of feature representation. In this context, the improvement in downstream tasks with same pre-training epochs compared to MAE serves as evidence of the accelerated pre-training process.
Furthermore, to demonstrate that our method indeed enhances patch clustering—thereby directly accelerating MAE’s learning process—we conducted a thorough investigation of the embedding space of MAE and our method using various analysis tools, as detailed in Sec. 5.4. In summary, our approach significantly increases the exploitation of pattern information and produces more diverse features. Also, as shown in Table A of the rebuttal PDF, our method results in higher feature variance, which suggests finer patch clustering. We would also like to highlight that the additional cost of our method is only +0.25% (1.0025x) compared to the original MAE.
We sincerely appreciate again the reviewer's time and constructive feedback to improve our paper. We hope our responses address the reviewer's concerns and highlight the key contributions of our work effectively. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear all reviewers,
Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our paper. We have carefully addressed all the concerns raised and incorporated the valuable suggestions. We kindly request that you re-evaluate our paper in light of these rebuttals.
Pdf: /pdf/d45d067320c599db8a3b5e92af4d00745e3b8afb.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | Summary: This paper investigates the properties of MAE and introduces a better masking strategy for MAE. Analyses using similarity scores and attention show that MAE learns to cluster the patches at the early epochs. On the other hand, analyzing exploitation rates of various layers implies that the encoder is trained sufficiently to cluster the patches after the early training. Based on the observation, Self-guided Informed Masking is introduced to accelerate MAE, which searches for the foreground tokens and masks them except a few tokens as a hint. Quantitative comparison in the experiments section verifies its effectiveness on MAE.
Strengths: * The paper provides various analyses
* The proposed Self-guided Informed Masking improves the baseline
Weaknesses: * There is a missing link or jump between the analyses in Section 3 and the proposed method in Section 4.
* If the proposed Self-guided Informed Masking is based on the observations in Section 3, then the authors should verify whether the metrics reported in Section 3 are modified through the proposed masking strategy. However, the impacts of the proposed method are not investigated through the analyzing tools in Section 3.
* What is the connection between the exploitation rate analysis and the design choices made in Self-guided Informed Masking?
* Similar work to Self-guided Informed masking
* SemMAE [1] also masks foreground tokens of the given image while leaving a few of them as cues for autoencoding. The authors should clarify how Self-guided Informed Masking differs from and improves upon SemMAE's approach
* Lack of explanation
* Key terms are not defined early enough in the paper. This paper considers visual patterns as a key aspect of the MAE pre-training. However, I cannot find any definition or explanation of the term 'pattern' until page 4 (line 116), which hinders understanding the main arguments in the early sections.
* The term 'Hint strategy' should be explained in or near the caption of Table 3.
* Inconsistent notation
* \textit{M} is used to denote both the set of mask tokens in Section 3 and the cluster containing the main object in Section 4. If there's no specific link between these definitions, such duplicate notation may confuse readers.
* Performance improvements are marginal in some benchmarks (e.g., ADE20K segmentation, COCO detection, iNat2019)
[1] Li et al., "SemMAE: Semantic-Guided Masking for Learning Masked Autoencoders," NeurIPS, 2022.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Please refer to the weaknesses part above
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors provide a limitation at the end of the paper, but it does not seem like their limitation but the shortage of MAE.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate the detailed feedback and valuable insights provided by the reviewer, and we have tried to address all concerns and suggestions.
__[W1-2] Connection between the explotation rate analysis in Sec. 3 and our method__
We thank the reviewer for this constructive feedback. This will be explicitly stated at the beginning of Sec. 4 in the main paper as detailed below.
In Sec. 3, we show that the MAE encoder learns patch clustering from an early stage through bi-partitioning and KL divergence analyses. As bi-partitioning is sufficient to distinguish tokens into two major token clusters, we can bi-partition the image and mask out one of them. This result indicates that we can generate informed masks with MAE itself early in the pre-training phase and use these informed masks for the remainder of the training.
Then, the next question is _when exactly the MAE can properly cluster the patches_. When the encoder is sufficiently trained to cluster patches, the encoder outputs reflect this information. Then, they are utilized to constitute mask tokens in the decoder. This means the mask tokens possess this patch clustering information and start to be highly exploited for reconstructing masked-out patches. By reversing this order, it can be inferred that a high exploitation rate of mask tokens in the decoder indicates that mask tokens have proper patch clustering information conveyed from the encoder, implying that the encoder can cluster the patches. We verified this via exploitation rate analysis, showing that mask tokens start to be exploited as much as visible tokens from an early epoch ($T$ epoch). This finding allows us to confidently generate informed masks at epoch $T$, ultimately leading to the design of our method.
__[W1-1] Analyzing tool in Sec. 3__
Following your suggestion, we verify our method using the analysis tools in Sec. 3 in Table A in the rebuttal PDF. The results indicate that our method shows more diversified feature space via higher feature variance and similarity variance, aligned well with the analysis in Sec. 5.
__[W2] Difference between SemMAE [1] and our method__
Both masking strategies aim to mask out important regions of the image. However, the fundamental difference between SemMAE and ours is that SemMAE is 'supervised' by an external pre-trained model which requires extra training cost for pre-training this model, while ours is completely 'self-supervised'. As SemMAE is supervised by external model, it is not guaranteed that SemMAE still learns what MAE actually learns, i.e., pattern-based patch clustering. The training process of SemMAE can be interpreted as indirect feature distillation via reconstruction task, since it heavily depends on the quality of the features extracted from the external model, e.g., iBoT [2] features containing semantic segmentation information. On the other hand, our work identifies the property of MAE (i.e., patch clustering) emerging during the training process and utilizes this observation to accelerate MAE's learning of this property. In this context, we refer to our method as providing 'acceleration' rather than 'performance improvement' because it speeds up MAE's ability to learn its inherent features, rather than enhancing its feature space with external resources. Since our method relies solely on MAE itself, it is completely free from relying on the attributes of feature representation from external models, and this is the key difference between our method and SemMAE.
__[W3, W4] Lack of explanation and inconsistent notation__
Thanks for your thorough review. As suggested, we will define the term 'visual pattern' earlier in the paper and explain the hint strategy in the section pertaining to Table 3. Also, the notation $\textit{M}$ in Sec. 4 will be replaced with an alternative notation.
__[W5] Performance improvements__
We admit that the degree of improvement varies across various tasks, as the reviewer pointed out. We emphasize, however, that our method consistently improves performance across various tasks with different nature, e.g., requiring global understanding (classification) and pixel-level details (segmentation).
__Additional comment on limitations__
Our method may show less significant improvement when training with excessively fragmented images, especially for the segmentation task. In detail, since there would be numerous clusters within each image, masking specific clusters with informed masking may yield similar masks to random masking. We will note this as a limitation in the paper.
[1] Li, Gang, et al. "Semmae: Semantic-guided masking for learning masked autoencoders." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022): 14290-14302.
[2] Zhou, Jinghao, et al. "ibot: Image bert pre-training with online tokenizer." arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.07832 (2021).
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: I appreciate the author's clarification. The author's response partially addressed my concerns (W3, W4, and partial aspects of other questions). I hope the authors resolve the lack of explanation, inconsistent notation, and limitations of their approach during the revision.
**[W1-1] Analyzing tool in Sec. 3**
The additional experiments demonstrated the proposed method's improvements in both feature variance and similarity. If possible, during the revision, I hope the authors also show the relation between "the feature variance and similarity" and some quantitative performances, so that enhancing the metrics leads to better performance in downstream tasks
**[W2] Difference between SemMAE and our method**
I understand the design difference between SemMAE and the proposed method. However, the comparison between them raises questions about whether the proposed method outperforms the masks generated by SemMAE in enhancing MAE's ability to learn its inherent features. It would be valuable to explain how the masks generated by each method differently impact MAE pre-training and to determine which approach is more effective.
**[W1-2] Connection between the exploitation rate analysis in Sec. 3 and our method**
Thanks to the detailed explanation, which has clarified the background of the proposed method. However, it seems that all the analyses in Section 3 only explain 'what and how MAE exactly learns' and 'when the clustering is sufficiently done'. The justification for "masking the cluster containing the main object" should be provided to bridge the gap between the background in Section 3 and the design choice of the proposed method. Could the authors provide more insight into this?
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thank you for your feedback. We provide our responses to the additional questions below.
__[W1-1] Relation between "feature variance and similarity variance" and performance__
To demonstrate the relationship between our analysis metrics and the quantitative performance, we measure these metrics across the training epochs and present along with the performance of MAE and our method. As shown in the table below, both MAE and our approach exhibit increasing feature variance and similarity variance over time, which directly indicates that patch clusters become finer during training, aligning with performance improvements. (1epoch is omitted with our method as our method starts informed masking from $T$ >> 0 epoch). We would also like to highlight that our method consistently shows higher values, corresponding to the consistent performance improvements across the epochs, as detailed in Table II in the Appendix.
| | | **Feature variance** | | |
| **Epoch** | **1** | **200** | **400** | **800** |
|--------------|-------|:--------------------------:|-------|-------|
| **MAE** | 0.031 | 0.068 | 0.074 | 0.082 |
| **Ours** | - | 0.070 | 0.083 | 0.096 |
| | | **Similarity variance** | | |
| **Epoch** | **1** | **200** | **400** | **800** |
|--------------|-------|:---------------------------:|-------|-------|
| **MAE** | 0.047 | 0.057 | 0.068 | 0.075 |
| **Ours** | - | 0.058 | 0.071 | 0.079 |
__[W2-1] Does our method actually enhance MAE's ability to learn patch clustering?__
To verify that our method effectively accelerates the learning of patch clustering, we conducted a detailed investigation of the embedding space using various metrics, including attention distance, Fourier analysis, and mask token variance, as outlined in Sec. 5.4. In summary, the higher exploitation of pattern information and increased mask token variance directly indicate that patch clusters are indeed more diversified. Furthermore, as shown in the table above in our response to [W1-1], our method demonstrates higher feature variance and similarity variance throughout the training epochs compared to the original MAE, which aligns with the development of finer patch clustering. Accelerated patch clustering can also be visually confirmed through qualitative analysis, as shown by the finer patch clusters in Figure VII in the Appendix.
__[W2-2] Comparison to SemMAE regarding the generated masks__
SemMAE leverages the semantic segmentation knowledge from a pre-trained iBoT to segment the image and explicitly masks out those segmented parts to guide MAE in learning semantic segmentation. Thus, SemMAE compares the segmentation of image features to those of iBoT rather than directly to MAE. In contrast, our method generates masks based on pattern-based patch clusters, aiming to accelerate MAE's learning of patch clustering—something MAE naturally does. Broadly speaking, the semantic segmentation (as learned by SemMAE) and pattern-based patch clustering (as learned by our method and MAE) may learn mostly similar but different patterns in the detail, and we believe they will compensate each other due to this difference in detail. We emphasize again that ours purely leverage MAE's intrinsic property in that our method guanrantees to maintain its original property without external intervention.
We fully acknowledge that using additional resources to enhance MAE's performance is valuable. However, we kindly ask the reviewer to consider our work from the perspective of understanding and accelerating MAE's internal operations while preserving its inherent properties. We believe our method can be easily applied across various domains and modalities beyond images, with limited training data. This is because it ensures that the features consistently retain the inherent properties of the original MAE, without the risk of incorporating external properties that might compromise the original characteristics of MAE.
__[W1-2] Connection between Sec.3 analysis and "object-centric masking" in Sec.4__
We appreciate for this clarifying question. Our approach stems from the observation that masking the entire image leads to learn patch clustering across the entire image, i.e., loss affects the whole image. To refine this process, we restrict the masking to object-centric regions. By narrowing the masking focus, we can guide MAE to concentrate on learning patch clustering within the object regions, i.e., loss affects only the object-related parts, thereby accelerating the process of learning patch clustering in object region.
We appreciate the reviewer’s insights and will explicitly address this point in the main paper as suggested. We hope our responses address the reviewer’s concerns and provide clarity on our contributions.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: Thank you for your positive feedback. We are pleased that our responses have addressed most of your concerns. We would also like to address your last concern regarding the effectiveness of our method compared to SemMAE.
As shown in Table B, SemMAE requires about 3.15x the training time due to the additional cost of the external model, whereas our approach requires approximately 1.0025x the training time. In this context, we respectfully suggest that for a fair comparison, SemMAE should be evaluated after 133 epochs, while our method would be evaluated after 400 epochs. Even if we optimistically assume that SemMAE maintains the 4.9% performance gap (as reported at 800 epochs) compared to the original MAE at 200 epochs, it may achieve at most around 58.8% accuracy in linear probing at 200 epochs. This indicates that even under this optimistic assumption, where SemMAE is trained for 200 epochs instead of 133, our approach (which achieves 62.9%) would still outperform SemMAE when comparing under the same training cost.
As suggested, to clearly convey the effectiveness of our method especially compared to SemMAE, we will update the performance comparison with SemMAE in Table B to reflect a unified training time in camera-ready.
Regarding the overall presentation, we will clearly explain the connection between the analysis in Section 3 and our method, addressing the initial concerns raised. Additionally, we will include the evaluation of our method using the analysis tools discussed in Section 3 in Section 5.4 for further verification of our method. We will also ensure that the comparison of our contributions relative to SemMAE is explicitly stated in the revised manuscript.
Again, we sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful feedback and the effort invested in improving our paper. | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Learning Diffusion Priors from Observations by Expectation Maximization | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper tackles the problem of learning a diffusion model from incomplete and noisy observations. The problem is modelled as follows; the distribution of the noised and incomplete data is assumed to be $p(y) = \int p(y|x) q(x) dx$. The authors introduce a parametric version of it $p^\theta(y) = \int p(y|x) q^\theta(x) dx$ and then seek to learn $p^\theta$ by minimizing the KL divergence $KL(p||p^\theta)$. As $p^\theta$ is a latent variable model, a natural way to learn it is via the Expectation-Maximization algorithm. The resulting algorithm is iterative and at each step, a diffusion model learned. Also, within each step, the E-step of EM requires sampling from the posterior diffusion $q^\theta(x|y)$ which is intractable in practice. The authors resort to approximate inference and rely on recent advances in posterior sampling of Diffusion models. More specifically, to sample from $q^\theta(x|y)$ it is required to be able to estimate the conditional score within the Diffusion. This conditional score involves computing the gradient log of the conditional distribution $p(y|x_t) = \int p(y|x_0) q^\theta _{0|t}(x_0 | x_t) dx_0$, where the time here referes to the Diffusion steps. The authors propose to replace $q^\theta _{0|t}(x_0 | x_t)$ with its moment projection, which closely follows the work of Boys et al. 2023, and then integrating $p(y|x_0)$ against it. This step however requires an expensive matrix inversion, which the authors propose to approximate via conjugate gradient methods.
Strengths: This paper is well written and presents a natural, original and interesting methodology. The originality stems from the use of the EM algorithm which allows (1) learning at each step a Diffusion model until convergence, (2) using the said Diffusion model for posterior sampling to estimate the expectation. Learning the model until convergence allows using the recent posterior sampling algorithms, which have shown great promise. The experimental setting is also nice and quite diversified; the toy example is welcomed!
Weaknesses: I see a few weaknesses;
- *experiments*: for the posterior sampling algorithm, the authors compare to a narrow set of methods (actually only one method but with different covariance matrices). For example, why is there no comparison with DPS, DDRM or even CoPaint [1], which has been shown to exhibit very good performance (and can easily be extended to noisy inverse problems)? Also, are Figure 1 and 2 obtained using the true covariance matrix? Isn't this a misleading comparison? These figures should be compiled using the proposed method and not the ground-truth covariance. Overall, I think that there isn't enough evidence that the proposed posterior sampler is superior to what is proposed in the literature, given its large memory and time complexity. Especially since the current method requires drawing batches of samples during training, which may hardly fit in a modest GPU due to the computation of the Jacobian.
- *identifiability*: doesn't the proposed framework suffers from an identifiability problem, meaning that the learned model may not actually learn clean data but something else? For example, let's assume that $A$ is the half mask matrix, $x$ is a distribution $q$ over images and $p(y|x,A)$ is a dirac delta at Ax. Then the optimal model can be either $q$ or the law of $A^\dagger X$ with $X \sim q$, where $A^\dagger$ is the pseudo-inverse of $A$. Meaning that the model may as well learn images with missing half. Of course in practice the architecture has inductive biases that help avoid this but surely a UNet cannot simply guess the other half of the images while never seeing these during training. I believe that this is a significant drawback that should be addressed.
[1] Zhang, Guanhua, et al. "Towards coherent image inpainting using denoising diffusion implicit models." (2023).
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: N/A
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: see above
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your review and the legitimiate concerns you have raised.
* **W1** (Experiments) We follow your suggestion and benchmark MMPS against previous methods (DPS and $\Pi$GDM). We invite you to consult the global rebuttal regarding these additional experiments.
Concerning Figures 1 and 2, we use Eq. (20) to compute the covariance $\mathbb{V}[x \mid x_t]$, which is tractable in this toy experiment. We do not see how this would be misleading.
We also note that we never materialize the Jacobian in the experiments of Section 5. Instead, we leverage the CG method to solve the linear system in Eq. (22), which only requires a cheap vector-Jacobian product per iteration.
* **W2** (Identifiability) Indeed, we forgot to explain how our method would behave when $p(x)$ cannot be uniquely identified from the observations. We propose to replace lines 298-300 with the following paragraph
> Finally, as mentioned in Section 6, empirical Bayes is an ill-posed problem in that distinct prior distributions may result in the same distribution over observations. In other words, it is generally impossible to identify "the" ground-truth distribution $p(x)$ given an empirical distribution of observations $p(y)$. Instead, for a sufficiently expressive diffusion model, our EM method will eventually converge to a prior $q_\theta(x)$ that is consistent with $p(y)$, but generally different from $p(x)$. In future work, we would like to follow the maximum entropy principle, as advocated by Vetter et al. [36], so as not to reject any possible hypothesis.
We emphasize that this identifiability issue is a limitation of the problem itself, and not of our method.
We believe that this rebuttal addresses most of your concerns and, therefore, kindly ask you to reconsider your score.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response and for running the additional experiments.
Regarding Figures 1 and 2 I do not see what is their point since you use the true covariance matrix. A more convincing should include the approximation obtained using the Jacobian of the denoiser and then showing that with this approximation one can get decent results, comparable to what you obtain using the true covariance matrix. The current plots tell us nothing about how the approximation< error impacts the final result.
This is only a minor weakness however. I leave my score unchanged.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thank you for your answer.
> Regarding Figures 1 and 2 I do not see what is their point since you use the true covariance matrix. A more convincing should include the approximation obtained using the Jacobian of the denoiser and then showing that with this approximation one can get decent results, comparable to what you obtain using the true covariance matrix.
Thank you for clarifying your concern here. When the denoiser is trained optimally, that is when $d_\theta(x_t, t) = \mathbb{E}[x \mid x_t]$, there is no approximation in Eq. (21). Tweedie's formula using the Jacobian of the denoiser gives the covariance matrix exactly. Instead of training a denoiser for this toy problem, we assume an optimal denoiser, which ensures that the results are not biased by a choice of parameterization.
> This is only a minor weakness however. I leave my score unchanged.
Given that we have addressed your concerns, we are genuinely surprised by your decision to keep your rating unchanged (weak accept). We would greatly appreciate it if you could describe how to improve our submission.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: You raised two key weaknesses in your review and the authors addressed both in their rebuttal. Can you provide more detail about how their rebuttal affected your opinion about the paper? The authors asked what more you would have wanted to see to change your score; please respond to this.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.2:
Comment: Thank you for your response. I understand that when the denoiser is learned optimally, the covariance is also obtained exactly. My point is still that your approximation relies on taking the jacobian of the denoiser, which is not necessarily a good approximation of the true jacobian of the denoiser (a good parametric $f_\theta$ approximation of a function $f$ does not guarantee that $\nabla_x f_\theta$ is a good parametric approximation of $\nabla_x f$). It would be better to compare with the covariance approximation against the results obtained with the perfect Gaussian approximation.
The paper has two contributions; the first one is the EM based algorithm for training a DM with incomplete data and the second contribution is the novel posterior sampler. While the benchmarks for the EM based algorithm are good in my opinion, the ones for the new posterior sampler are rather weak, even though the authors have compared with DPS and PGDM in the rebuttal. Still, this is not enough in my opinion since the comparisons provided are entirely qualitative and are not very convincing. More quantitative benchmarks are required, with comparisons against recent methods that use/do not use the Jacobian of the denoiser. Example: Diffpir [1] or DDNM [2].
I have increased my score 7 and I hope that the authors will do their best to strengthen the arguments about their posterior sampler.
[1]Zhu, Yuanzhi, Kai Zhang, Jingyun Liang, Jiezhang Cao, Bihan Wen, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. "Denoising diffusion models for plug-and-play image restoration." In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1219-1229. 2023.
[2] Wang, Yinhuai, Jiwen Yu, and Jian Zhang. "Zero-shot image restoration using denoising diffusion null-space model." arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.00490 (2022).
---
Reply to Comment 2.2.1:
Comment: Thank you for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript. Your constructive feedback is deeply appreciated. We will make sure to evaluate MMPS quantitatively and qualitatively against more posterior sampling methods in the camera-ready version. | Summary: This paper focuses on training diffusion models using incomplete or noisy data only, which is obtained through a linear measurement operator $A$. While prior works assume full rank of $E[A^TA]$ or $E[A^+A]$ and change the denoising score matching objective while training diffusion models, this paper uses a moment matching posterior sampling approach that does not modify the training objective. Yet, the authors demonstrate superior results both quantitatively and qualitatively on (i) a toy dataset (ii) corrupted CIFAR10 and (iii) accelerated MRI.
Strengths: 1. One major strength of the proposed method is that unlike prior works it does not modify the denoising score matching objective, which guarantees a proper diffusion model at every iteration.
2. The experimental results in the toy setting clearly depicts the advantages of using higher order moments in pruning inconsistent regions.
3. The paper is nicely written and the main contributions are clearly stated.
Weaknesses: 1. The core idea of moment matching posterior sampling (Section 4.2) has previously appeared in prior works STSL [1] and TMPD [25], where its benefits are clearly demonstrated in large-scale applications.
2. The approximation used in Equation (21) computes gradient of the first order score which is already an approximation. This results in high time and memory complexity, which is precisely the reason why prior works [1,2,25, 65] seek alternatives.
3. What is the typical range of $\sigma_t$ in Fig. 2? It seems like the results are comparable in low noise regime. How does this observation translate into variance preserving SDE, which is the most commonly used form of SDEs for posterior sampling?
4. Does Equation (22) hold for any vector $v$ as the equation suggests?
5. Section 5: Taking gradients of the score becomes an issue especially in high dimensional setting. It is important to understand the time and memory complexity of the proposed algorithm in commonly used benchmarks such as FFHQ or ImageNet ( 256x256 or 512x512).
6. Missing discussion and comparison with other baselines (e.g. [82]) highlighted in the related works Section 6.
7. Theorem 1 in Appendix B is a well known result [63]. It'd be better to cite the original work and provide the key steps only for completeness. Or, the authors should highlight the key distinctions from the prior work.
Missing Related Works
[1] [Beyond First-Order Tweedie: Solving Inverse Problems using Latent Diffusion](https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/CVPR2024/papers/Rout_Beyond_First-Order_Tweedie_Solving_Inverse_Problems_using_Latent_Diffusion_CVPR_2024_paper.pdf)
[2] [Improving Diffusion Models for Inverse Problems
Using Optimal Posterior Covariance](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.02149)
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Please refer to the weaknesses above.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes, the authors have adequately addressed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your review and the legitimate concerns you have raised.
* **W1** Indeed, we are not the first to use the covariance $\mathbb{V}[x \mid x_t]$ to improve the approximation of the likelihood score. We believe that Finzi et al. [24] were the first to propose it, shortly followed by Boys et al. [25]. As explained in section 6, the difference of our approach resides in the use of the entire covariance matrix, without the need to materialize it (which is intractable) thanks to the conjugate gradient method. Instead, Boys et al. [25] use a row-sum approximation of the covariance's diagonal, which voids some of the benefits of using the covariance as illustrated in Figure 1 an 2. In addition, when the covariance is not diagonal, the row-sum approximation may result in null or negative values, which leads to total failures (NaNs) in our experiments.
We thank you for bringing STSL [1] to our attention. Are we correct in understanding that STSL uses the trace of the covariance/Hessian to guide the sampling, but does not justify it with a Gaussian approximation of $p(x \mid x_t)$? If so, we are not sure how STSL is similar to the idea of TMPD [25] and/or MMPS.
In the manuscript we refer a few times to MMPS as a "new" posterior sampling scheme. We propose to replace these occurences with the word "improved". Would this be satisfactory?
* **W2** Materializing the Jacobian $\nabla_{x_t}^\top d_\theta(x_t, t)$ would indeed result in high time and memory complexity, as mentioned at lines 142-144. However, we never do. Instead, we leverage the CG method to solve the linear system in Eq. (22), which only requires a cheap vector-Jacobian product per iteration.
* **W3** In our experiments, $\sigma_t$ ranges between $10^{-3}$ and $10^2$. This figure can be easily translated to the VP SDE with the relation $\bar{\alpha}_t = \frac{1}{1 + \sigma_t^2}$. The divergence should also be scaled accordingly. We note that using the covariance $\mathbb{V}[x | x_t]$ is orders of magnitude better than heuristics, especially in low noise regimes.
* **W4** Yes, this equation simply rewrites $v = (\Sigma_y + A \mathbb{V}[x \mid x_t] A^\top)^{-1} (y - A \mathbb{E}[x \mid x_t])$ and has a solution as long as $\Sigma_y + A \mathbb{V}[x \mid x_t] A^\top$ is invertible, which is the case if $\Sigma_y$ is SPD.
* **W5** We follow your suggestion and benchmark MMPS against previous methods. We invite you to consult the global rebuttal regarding these additional experiments.
* **W6** This is not true. Section 5.3 is dedicated to a comparison with GSURE-Diffusion [82] on the accelerated MRI experiment. We note that Kawar et al. [82] do not provide the identifiers of the scans they use for evaluation in their manuscript or code.
* **W7** Indeed we provide these proofs only for completeness. We propose to add the following sentence in Appendix B for clarity
> We provide proofs of Theorem 1 for completeness, even though it is a well known result [62-65].
We believe that this rebuttal addresses most of your concerns and, therefore, kindly ask you to reconsider your score. | Summary: This paper proposes a method to learn generative models from noisy and incomplete data. As opposed to general recent methodologies which require a clean unconditional dataset to solve inverse problems, the paper aims at providing a method to learn the prior from noisy data.
Strengths: The paper is on an interesting and timely topic; this is a much needed class of methods.
Weaknesses: The paper is poorly written, the method is not clear, derivations are incomplete. See my detailed review in the questions part.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: The paper is on an interesting topic as I mentioned however many things are unclear and the algorithm/pipeline needs to be written in a much more clear way before this can be published.
1) The algorithm does not appear at all in the main body of the paper. Please provide a clear and step-by-step demonstration of the training method in the main body of the paper.
2) The authors put a prior on the matrix $A$. What is this prior?
3) It seems that the main difference between the EM and this method is the parameterization of the prior (which is via a score network) described briefly in 4.1. The authors then briefly talk about how to estimate this parameter but then somehow the parameter disappears in the later sections. For example, in eq. (15), the authors say it is easy to estimate the prior score $\nabla_x \log p_t(x)$ but this would require unconditional (and clean!) samples. It is not clear how it is suggested that this quantity is easy to obtain?
4) Section 4.2 describes the standard inverse problem solvers (or a very similar idea). However, as I said in the point above, this requires a pre-trained, clean sampler. This way of writing it is very unclear for readers.
5) Algorithm 1 is the intended "full pipeline" yet the steps are not described clearly. I suggest authors to both move this into the main text as well as extend the discussion of the steps of this pipeline. Some questions are below.
6) In Algorithm 1, is the posterior sampling done by a pretrained diffusion model? If so, this invalidates the main point of the paper. If not, then it means that $q_k$ using the score vector $d_{\theta_k}$, is that a correct conclusion?
7) In Algorithm 1, after sampling $x_i$ for $i = 1,\ldots,S$, does one train the score network with this? In what sense is this an EM algorithm if score matching is done rather than maximum likelihood?
I strongly suggest authors to clarify the pipeline clearly and precisely.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused by the writing of our manuscript. We believe that most of your questions stem from the lack of clarity of Section 4.2, where we fail to state that MMPS is not bound to the EM context and can be applied to any diffusion prior. We propose to clarify this matter by replacing lines 108-112 in Section 4.2 with the following
> To sample from the posterior distribution $q_\theta(x \mid y) \propto q_\theta(x) \, p(y \mid x)$ of our diffusion prior $q_\theta(x)$, we have to estimate the posterior score $\nabla_{x_t} \log q_\theta(x_t \mid y)$ and plug it into the reverse SDE. In this section, we propose and motivate a new approximation for the posterior score. As this contribution is not bound to the context of EM, we temporarily switch back to the notations of Section 2 where our prior is denoted $p(x)$ instead of $q_\theta(x)$.
>
> **Diffusion posterior sampling** Thanks to Bayes' rule, the posterior score $\nabla_{x_t} \log p(x_t \mid y)$ can be decomposed into two terms [17, 18, 21-25, 53]
>
> $$ \nabla_{x_t} \log p(x_t \mid y) = \nabla_{x_t} \log p(x_t) + \nabla_{x_t} \log p(y \mid x_t) \, . $$
>
> As an estimate of the prior score $\nabla_{x_t} \log p(x_t)$ is already available via the denoiser $d_\theta(x_t, t)$, the remaining task is to estimate the likelihood score $\nabla_{x_t} \log p(y \mid x_t)$.
We now answer your questions, in light of this clarification.
* **Q1** We describe the pipeline in plain text in Section 4.1 and as an algorithm in Appendix A.
* **Q2** The measurement matrix $A$ is defined by the specific instruments that are used to gather the observations. If the configuration or environment of the instruments changes, the measurement matrix $A$ may also change. The prior $p(A)$ is therefore the empirical distribution of $A$ for the observations $y$ we have access to. To paraphrase, we do not specify $p(y, A)$, it is imposed upon us by the task at hand.
We propose to clarify this matter in the manuscript with the following sentence at line 82
> For example, if the position or environment of a sensor changes, the measurement matrix $A$ may also change, which leads to an empirical distribution of pairs $(y, A) \sim p(y, A)$.
* **Q3** You are right. The main difference is the parameterization of the prior with a diffusion model. At each step we use the current diffusion prior $q_\theta(x)$ to generate samples from the posterior(s) $q_\theta(x \mid y)$ via the proposed MMPS method.
* **Q4** Indeed, MMPS can be used to solve any linear inverse problem with a diffusion prior. However, this prior does not need to be the distribution of clean data. It can be any prior, including our intermediate priors $q_{\theta_k}(x)$.
* **Q5** We describe the pipeline in plain text in Section 4.1. We unfortunately do not have the space to move Algorithm 1 into the main text.
* **Q6** We do not use a pre-trained diffusion model. As you correctly concluded, $q_k(x) := q_{\theta_k}(x)$ is the current diffusion prior parameterized by the current denoiser $d_{\theta_k}(x_t, t)$.
* **Q7** We show in Section 4 that in the context of EB, the EM step is equivalent to minimizing the KL bewteen $\pi_k(x)$ and $q_{\theta_{k+1}}(x)$. For diffusion models, this KL minimization is generally conducted by denoising score matching or equivalent formulations (e.g. ELBO) using samples from $\pi_k(x)$.
We believe that this rebuttal addresses most of your concerns and, therefore, kindly ask you to reconsider your score.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: The authors believe their rebuttal addresses most of your concerns; is that true? If not, please say what aspects of their rebuttal are insufficient. | Summary: This paper proposes a novel solution to a specific class of Empirical Bayes problems. The method is especially useful when the latent variable and the observations are closely related, such as in cases where the observations are incomplete or noisy latent variables. The major technical obstacle is modeling the posterior distribution for sampling and training, which is addressed through several approximations under Gaussianity.
Strengths: 1. **Originality-Middle:** A novel combination of the Bayesian Inverse Problem and Diffusion Model under Gaussianity assumptions.
2. **Quality-Middle:** Well-organized overall, but lacking sufficient details.
3. **Clarity-Middle:** Clear intuitively and qualitatively, but requires more quantitative analysis.
4. **Significance-Middle:** Impressive idea and experimental results, though applications are restricted.
Weaknesses: 1. There are not sufficient benchmark experiments, especially those involving other Empirical Bayes methods. A toy example with 3-4 benchmarks, focusing specifically on the trade-off between time consumption and model performance, would help justify the soundness of the model.
2. The validity of the approximation needs to be shown theoretically. See the "Questions" section below.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. To what extent does Tweedie's formula violate the assumption that $\mathbb{V}(x|x_t)$ is independent of $x_t$? Are there any bounds or asymptotic results?
2. What is the role of $\Sigma_y$? To what extent does it influence overall performance? What if $\Sigma_y$ is anisotropic or non-diagonal? What if the Gaussian noise is not as small as it is in the experiments?
3. How does the linearity assumption restrict performance? How are the priors over $A$ specified? A real-life example with explicit expressions of $A$ and $\Sigma_y$ would be helpful.
4. Are there any experiments on the improvement per iteration of the Conjugate Gradient method?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes, the authors adequately addressed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your review and the pertinent questions you have asked.
* **W1** Although we agree that a benchmark with previous empirical Bayes methods would be valuable for the statistical inference community, we don't think it would be relevant to justify our work. First, our method is based on the established EM algorithm, which has stood the test of time. Second, our goal is to train diffusion models from observations as they are best-in-class for modeling high-dimensional distributions and proved to be remarkable priors for Bayesian inference. However, as explained in Section 1 and 6, previous empirical Bayes methods are not applicable to diffusion models. These methods are also typically bound to low-dimensional latent spaces. For these reasons, it is challenging to design a benchmark between our work and these previous EB methods that would be both fair and informative. Instead, we choose to benchmark our work against similar methods in the diffusion model literature.
* **Q1** This assumption is actually the same as the Gaussian approximation of Eq. (17). Indeed, assuming that $p(x \mid x_t)$ is Gaussian, we have (Bishop [67])
$$ \mathbb{E}[x \mid x_t, y] = \mathbb{E}[x \mid x_t] + \mathbb{V}[x \mid x_t] A^\top (\Sigma_y + A \mathbb{V}[x \mid x_t] A^\top)^{-1} (y - A \mathbb{E}[x \mid x_t]) $$
but Tweedie's formulae also gives
$$ \mathbb{E}[x \mid x_t, y] = x_t + \Sigma_t \nabla_{x_t} \log p(x_t \mid y) = \mathbb{E}[x \mid x_t] + \Sigma_t \nabla_{x_t} \log p(y \mid x_t) $$
Therefore, we have
$$ \Sigma_t \nabla_{x_t} \log p(y \mid x_t) = \mathbb{V}[x \mid x_t] A^\top (\Sigma_y + A \mathbb{V}[x \mid x_t] A^\top)^{-1} (y - A \mathbb{E}[x \mid x_t]) $$
which is equivalent to Eq. (20) since $\mathbb{V}[x \mid x_t] = \Sigma_t \nabla_{x_t} \mathbb{E}[x \mid x_t]^\top$.
Finzi et al. [24] provide a detailed analysis of the Gaussian approximation of Eq. (17) and prove (Theorem 2) that moments of order $n > 2$ converge to 0 at a rate of $\sigma_t^n$.
* **Q2** Our method does not make any assumptions on the covariance $\Sigma_y$. It can be anisotropic and/or non-diagonal. In fact, it is always possible to rewrite the likelihood $\mathcal{N}(y \mid Ax, \Sigma_y)$ as $\mathcal{N}(\Sigma_y^{-1/2} y \mid \Sigma_y^{-1/2} A x, I)$. However, you are right that the signal-to-noise ratio has an impact on our method. We expect larger noise levels to slow down the convergence of the EM algorithm, but lead to an equivalent stationary distribution, under the assumption of infinite data. The rationale is that it is possible to identify all the moments of $p(Ax)$ given $p(y)$ regardless of $\Sigma_y$.
* **Q3** The assumption of a linear Gaussian forward process $p(y \mid x)$ does not "restrict the performance" of our method but limits its applicability. However, many real-life and scientific problems can be formalized with linear Gaussian forward processes. The accelerated MRI experiment is a good example. The measurement matrix $A$ and covariance $\Sigma_y$ are defined by the specific instruments that are used to gather MRI scans. If the configuration or environment of the instruments changes, the measurement matrix $A$ and covariance $\Sigma_y$ may also change. The prior $p(A)$ is therefore the empirical distribution of $A$ for the observations $y$ we have access to. To paraphrase, we do not specify $p(y, A)$, it is imposed upon us by the task at hand.
We propose to clarify this matter in the manuscript with the following sentence at line 82
> For example, if the position or environment of a sensor changes, the measurement matrix $A$ may also change, which leads to an empirical distribution of pairs $(y, A) \sim p(y, A)$.
* **Q4** There are no experiments on the improvement per iteration of the CG method currently, but we have conducted additional experiments to benchmark MMPS for this rebuttal and find that increasing the number of CG iterations improves image quality/sharpness, but only marginally and with rapidly diminishing returns. We invite you to consult the global rebuttal regarding these additional experiments.
We believe that this rebuttal addresses most of your concerns and, therefore, kindly ask you to reconsider your score.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: The authors have provided a detailed response to your questions. How has it affected your opinion about the paper? The authors believe their rebuttal addresses most of your concerns; is that true? | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank the reviewers for the quality and pertinence of their reviews. We are glad that all reviewers found the topic of our work interesting and timely.
Reviewers **3yec**, **XeV5**, **mKff** and **tnYw** found the method sound and well presented. Theirs concerns mainly regard the extent of the experiments. Notably, reviewers **3yec**, **mKff** and **tnYw** rightfully comment that the proposed Moment Matching Posterior Sampling (MMPS) method should be benchmarked independently from the context of learning from observations. We propose to address these concerns with additional experiments which we describe below.
Reviewer **s8XN** found the presentation of the method and its pipeline unclear, which prevented them from judging the contribution and results. We thank the reviewer for this opportunity to clarify our manuscript. We describe the relevant changes to the manuscript in reviewer **s8XN**'s rebuttal.
We would also like to emphasize that our work includes two contributions: a novel method to learn diffusion models from observations **and** an improved posterior sampling scheme. Many articles focusing on only one of these contributions have been published in major venues.
**Additional experiments**
* We **repeat the corrupted CIFAR-10 experiment at more corruption levels** (0.25, 0.50 and 0.75). We take the opportunity to refine the exponential moving average (EMA) decay rate of our training step to further improve the results of our method, which we present in Table 1 in the attached PDF. As expected, reducing the corruption level leads to even better final diffusion models. The EM algorithm also converges faster, which is expected as each observation $y$ conveys more information about its latent $x$. We propose to present and discuss these results in the main text.
* We **benchmark MMPS against SOTA posterior sampling methods**, namely DPS [21] and $\Pi$GDM [22], for several linear inverse problems on the FFHQ dataset. For a fair comparison, we adapt the official code published by Chung et al. [21] and use the provided pre-trained diffusion model as diffusion prior. We present premilinary results in the attached PDF. We consider 4 linear inverse problems:
- Box inpainting with high noise ($\sigma_y = 1$)
- Random inpainting with low noise ($\sigma_y = 10^{-2}$)
- Motion deblur with moderate noise ($\sigma_y = 10^{-1}$)
- Super resolution (4x) with moderate noise ($\sigma_y = 10^{-1}$)
We find that MMPS requires very few sampling steps to generate qualitative samples and remains remarkably stable for challenging inverse problems (non-diagonal measurement and/or high noise). Conversely, DPS requires many steps to converge and $\Pi$GDM fails for moderate-to-high noise levels. We also find that increasing the number of CG iterations improves image quality/sharpness, but only marginally and with rapidly diminishing returns. Finally, our analysis (see Table 2) shows that an MMPS step is moderately slower (+16ms per CG iteration) than a DPS or $\Pi$GDM step, while only using 10% more memory. This hopefully addresses the concerns of high time and memory complexities raised by reviewers **tnYw** and **mKff**. We propose to present and discuss an extended version of these results in a new appendix section. We will also rewrite lines 291-297 in the discussion to better reflect these results.
Pdf: /pdf/dd83ae6ce0212c45d65bf481045aa7f46a03ccf2.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | Summary: The authors propose a new framework for training diffusion models from corrupted data, based on the Expectation-Maximization algorithm. Before this work, there were two approaches to the problem of learning from corrupted data: Ambient Diffusion and SURE. Ambient Diffusion was designed for linear inverse problems and SURE for denoising. The proposed method provides a different, unified methodology for training diffusion models from corrupted data. The authors show experimentally that their method outperforms the Ambient Diffusion baseline in the same corruption setting.
Strengths: 1) The topic of learning diffusion models from corrupted data is very important and very interesting. The submission is timely and relevant as the interest in this research topic is growing.
2) The authors propose a fresh idea in the space of learning diffusion models from corrupted data. The proposed idea has several nice properties: i) it provides a unified treatment for different corruptions, ii) it is simple to implement, and iii) it has strong experimental performance.
3) The presentation of the paper is really good. The authors motivate the problem, present a new principled method to solve this, and show experimental results.
4) A byproduct of this work is a new method for solving inverse problems with diffusion models. While still approximate, this new method seems to be more principled compared to previous approaches.
Overall, this is a strong submission that offers new insights into the problem of learning from corrupted data.
Weaknesses: The paper has also several weaknesses.
1) The proposed framework introduces significant computational and engineering overhead. Even for local convergence, EM typically requires many steps. In this setting, each step is a new training of a diffusion model.
2) The proposed algorithm is still approximate. The authors currently mention that their work is the first one that leads to "proper" denoisers. Yet, there is an approximation happening when the authors use diffusion models to perform posterior sampling. In fact, the authors had to develop a whole new method for solving inverse problems with diffusion models to get good results. The authors should emphasize this limitation more.
3) There is a very large field of prior works in solving inverse problems with diffusion models. This paper proposes a new method to achieve that goal. This method should be independently tested and benchmarked, decoupled by the context of learning with corrupted data. If the method is truly superior to prior works, this would be a very interesting byproduct of this paper and it's worth understanding this. If not, there is still value in the proposed method for the context of learning from corrupted data, but there is more to understand regarding why it works so well in this particular setting.
4) The authors currently provide comparisons with Ambient Diffusion only at the setting of $p=0.75$. It would be nice to see how their method scales for different corruption levels. It would also be helpful to provide comparisons in other datasets apart from CIFAR-10.
5) Since this method can be in principle used to train diffusion models from various inverse problems, it would be nice to see results for learning from other corruption types, e.g. blurry data.
6) Ambient Diffusion has been used to solve MRI inverse problems in the paper: "Ambient Diffusion Posterior Sampling: Solving Inverse Problems with Diffusion Models trained on Corrupted Data". It would be useful to provide comparisons with this work.
7) The authors do not provide comparisons for the additive Gaussian noise case. A natural baseline would be the SURE method. I would also like to bring the paper: "Consistent Diffusion Meets Tweedie" to the attention of the authors.
8) For some corruption types, it is impossible to ever reconstruct the true distribution from noisy observations. The authors do not discuss how the proposed algorithm would work in such cases.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: See weaknesses above. I would be happy to further increase my score if my concerns are properly addressed.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have adequately addressed the limitations of their method.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your in-depth review and the legitimate concerns you have raised.
* **W1** Indeed, this is one of the limitation of our method, which we mention in Section 3. However, we would like to mention that in our pipeline we start each training step with the previous parameters, which reduces the cost of each training step. Overall, the entire EM procedure for the corrupted CIFAR-10 experiment takes around 4 days for 32 EM iterations on 4 A100 GPUs (see Appendix C), which is similar to the training of AmbientDiffusion [77].
* **W2** Our EM method is indeed sensitive to the quality of posterior samples, as mentioned in Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 7. We propose to add the following sentence at line 291.
> [...] sensitive to the quality of posterior samples. In fact, we find that previous posterior sampling methods [21, 22] lead to disappointing results, which motivates us to develop a better one.
* **W3** We appreciate that you recognize MMPS as a valuable contribution in its own right. We follow your suggestion and benchmark MMPS against previous methods (DPS and $\Pi$GDM). We invite you to consult the global rebuttal regarding these additional experiments.
* **W4** We follow your suggestion and repeat the corrupted CIFAR-10 experiment at more corruption levels (0.25, 0.50 and 0.75). We invite you to consult the global rebuttal regarding these additional experiments.
We note that the other experiments of AmbientDiffusion [77] also use a diagonal measurement $A$ (a mask), which is why we conduct the accelerted MRI experiment, where the measurement is a more challenging undersampled Fourier transform.
* **W5** Indeed, a strengh of our method is that it can handle a wide variety of measurement types, or even learning from several sources with different measurement types. Our three experiments present different measurement types: a linear projection $A \in \mathbb{R}^{5 \times 2}$, a random binary masking, and an undersampled Fourier transform. We note that Gaussian blur, as you suggest, is equivalent to masking the high frequencies of an image, which is similar to the undersampled Fourier transform in the accelerated MRI experiment.
* Concerning **W6** and **W7**, we thank you for bringing these concurrent works to our attention. We will discuss them in our related work section. Are we correct in understanding that in "Consistent Diffusion Meets Tweedie" the goal is to fine-tune a pre-trained diffusion model using data corrupted by isotropic Gaussian noise?
* **W8** Indeed, we forgot to explain how our method would behave when $p(x)$ cannot be uniquely identified from the observations. We propose to replace lines 298-300 with the following paragraph
> Finally, as mentioned in Section 6, empirical Bayes is an ill-posed problem in that distinct prior distributions may result in the same distribution over observations. In other words, it is generally impossible to identify "the" ground-truth distribution $p(x)$ given an empirical distribution of observations $p(y)$. Instead, for a sufficiently expressive diffusion model, our EM method will eventually converge to a prior $q_\theta(x)$ that is consistent with $p(y)$, but generally different from $p(x)$. In future work, we would like to follow the maximum entropy principle, as advocated by Vetter et al. [36], so as not to reject any possible hypothesis.
We emphasize that this identifiability issue is a limitation of the problem itself, and not of our method.
We believe that this rebuttal addresses most of your concerns and, therefore, kindly ask you to reconsider your score.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Rebuttal acknowledgement
Comment: I would like to thank the authors for their efforts in the rebuttal. Indeed, most of my concerns are addressed. I highly encourage the authors to include this discussion and the additional experiments in the camera-ready version of their work.
Regarding W4, please also include corruption levels above 0.75 in your camera-ready version and experiments on other datasets beyond CIFAR-10. It is crucial to have a holistic evaluation of the method in the same setting as prior work so that we can make progress and set up a nice benchmarking environment for future works. I believe this is very important for the field and I highly encourage the authors to include these additional experiments.
Also regarding W4, for the MRI, I was not pointing to the Ambient Diffusion paper, but to the paper [Ambient Diffusion Posterior Sampling: Solving Inverse Problems with Diffusion Models Trained on Corrupted Data](https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08728). This paper looks at exactly the same setting as yours and hence it should be cited and benchmarked.
Regarding W6, Consistent Diffusion Meets Tweedie provides a general algorithm to train diffusion models from noisy data. In the context of the paper, it seems that this method is evaluated for fine-tuning a pre-trained model to a different dataset, but in principle, it should be doable to use it to train from scratch.
I am increasing my score to 8. I hope that the authors will include the additional discussion and the experiments in their camera-ready and I am looking forward to reading this version.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you again for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript. Your constructive feedback and recognition of our work are deeply appreciated. We will make sure to include the additional discussion and experiments in the camera-ready version. | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Online Posterior Sampling with a Diffusion Prior | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper studies online learning and proposes to approximate the updating prior with a diffusion model, rather than the more simple, less expressive Gaussian approximation. The main application is contextual bandits with a linear or GLM model. For the latter case, the authors derive a version of the IRLS algorithm (based on a Laplace approximation) that works with the diffusion prior. The authors also demonstrate the consistency of their approximating algorithm. The paper examines a variety of examples, and compares the proposed model to existing methods for contextual bandit.
Strengths: The idea to extend the IRLS algorithm used for an updating Gaussian prior to a more sophisticated prior is well motivated and seems useful. The paper presents an actionable algorithm and the theoretical results are convincing. There are also some empirical results---both on toy examples and a benchmark data set---, which demonstrate the utility of the diffusion prior.
I also found the paper to be well written: it provides extensive context for existing approaches, notably the Laplace approximation and the IRLS algorithm. The proposed DiffTS then seems like a natural next step.
Weaknesses: I picked up a few points, but I believe most of them can be addressed in the rebuttal.
I'm not entirely comfortable with the statements of Theorem 2 and 4, because they involve "$\approx$", which is not formally defined. For instance, a reader might wonder if the approximation in (6) is "as good" as the one on line 148... I understand what the authors mean, but formal statements need to be more precise. I recommend, as a fix, writing "Suppose that" and then equation (6) with an equality sign. The authors can then replace all the "$\approx$" with an "=", and state that the initial assumption does not hold in general; assuming it does is where the approximation comes into play.
In the experiments, the authors report the regret against round $n$. One thing that's not accounted for is that DiffTS requires more computation than its benchmarks. How much of a concern is this in practice? Does the added computation slow down model training or is the wait time dominated by generating a new round? Some discussion around this, potentially with an additional figure that reports regret vs time, could be helpful.
It was also not clear to me what where the tuning parameters of DiffTS. The authors claim it inherits the simplicity and efficiency of the Gaussian prior, however, determining T and picking a neural network architecture strike me as complications that limit the off-the-shelf use of the algorithms. I believe the authors could be more upfront about this; the paper would also be stronger with examination of those tuning choices across examples.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: If I understand correctly, computing the regret requires knowing the optimal $a_*$ and $\theta_*$. Are there evaluations which can be performed without oracle knowledge? What about diagnostics to assess the quality of the underlying Laplace approximation?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors address some of the limitations. See my comments above for additional limitations that should be addressed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank the reviewer for positive feedback, which recognizes multiple contributions of our work. Our rebuttal is below. If you have any additional concerns, please reach out to us to discuss them.
**Avoid $\approx$ in Theorems 2 and 4**
A great comment. We agree that it is cleaner to state (6) as an assumption and then replace all $\approx$ with $=$.
**Computation time and regret trade-offs of DiffTS**
In our experiments, posterior sampling in DiffTS with $T$ stages is about $T$ times more computationally costly than posterior sampling with a Gaussian prior. We discuss this in lines 267-272 (Section 6.2). We plot the regret and sampling time as a function of $T$ in Figures 6b and 6c (Appendix C.3), respectively.
**Diffusion model tuning**
We have not done much tuning. In all experiments, the number of diffusion stages is $T = 100$ and the diffusion rate is set such that most of the signal diffuses. The regressor is a $2$-layer neural network and we learn it from $10000$ samples from the prior. These settings resulted in stable performance across all experiments. We plot the regret as a function of the number of training samples and $T$ in Figures 6a and 6b (Appendix C.3), respectively. When $T$ or the number of training samples is small, DiffTS performs similarly to posterior sampling with a Gaussian prior.
**Non-bandit evaluation**
We conduct an empirical evaluation in the non-bandit setting in the pdf attached to the **common rebuttal**. Please see it for more details.
**Limitations of our method**
Please see the **common rebuttal**.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response to authors' rebuttals
Comment: I've read the authors' rebuttals.
The authors have addressed my comments and I'm happy to maintain my good score. | Summary: This paper introduces novel posterior sampling approximations tailored for diffusion model priors, specifically designed for use in contextual bandits and applicable to a broader range of online learning problems. The methods are developed for linear models and generalized linear models (GLMs), emphasizing enhanced stability and efficiency in environments where previous algorithms may exhibit instability and divergence. The paper provides the asymptotic consistency of these approximations. Empirically, the performance of these approximations is evaluated on contextual bandit problems, showcasing their capability to manage uncertainties inherent in these settings effectively.
Strengths: This paper proposes approximate posterior sampling algorithms for contextual bandits with a diffusion model prior. Unlike previous research using a Gaussian prior, it addresses the instability and divergence issues. This paper has a well-structured presentation and elucidates background knowledge such as linear models, GLM, and diffusion models. Claims are supported by either theoretical proofs and numerical studies. The proofs are technically sound based on the reviewer's examination.
Weaknesses: It seems to the reviewer the key idea in this paper is to use the diffusion model instead of a Gaussian distribution as a prior. The proofs seem to be standard and similar to those based on a Gaussian prior. The main weaknesses of the paper are its lack of novelty and the absence of significant technical challenges.
Some format issues: p2 l49, p4 Fig. 1, l121, and l118.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: Can the author explain why the diffusion model prior solves the instability and divergence issues?
What other benefits could the diffusion model prior bring?
What other approaches could be employed beyond Laplace approximation?
What are the technical difficulties in the paper, especially the analysis?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Discussion on limitations seems to be missing or need to be more explicit.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank the reviewer for valuable feedback and praising our execution. Our rebuttal is below. If you have any additional concerns, please reach out to us to discuss them.
**Q1: Score issue in posterior sampling**
There may be a misunderstanding. The diffusion prior does not solve any instability. We address previous issues with posterior sampling and a diffusion model prior.
Prior works on posterior sampling in diffusion models sampled using the score of the posterior probability (Section 7). The score depends on the gradient of the log-likelihood $\nabla \log p(h | \theta)$, which grows linearly with the number of observations $N$ and causes instability. We combine $p(h | \theta)$ with the conditional prior, in each stage of the diffusion model, using the Laplace approximation. The resulting conditional posterior concentrates at a single point as $N \to \infty$ and is easy to sample from, although its gradient goes to infinity. Our main technical contribution is an efficient and asymptotically consistent implementation of this solution, using a stage-wise Laplace approximation with diffused evidence.
**Q2: Benefit of diffusion model priors**
The main benefit of diffusion models is that they can learn complex prior distributions from data. These distributions then serve as representations of prior knowledge.
**Q3: Other approaches to posterior sampling**
The most popular approach is DPS of Chung et al. (2023). The key idea in DPS is to sample from a diffusion model posterior by adding the score of the likelihood of observations to the diffusion model prior. We describe this approach in Appendix D and compare to it empirically in Section 6. We also mention several other approaches in Section 7. All of them rely on the score of the likelihood $\nabla \log p(h \mid \theta)$ and thus become unstable as the number of observations $N$ increases.
**Q4: Technical challenges**
We do not just replace a Gaussian prior with a diffusion model prior in classic posterior sampling. We propose posterior sampling with a diffusion model prior that can be implemented efficiently and asymptotically consistently using a stage-wise Laplace approximation with diffused evidence. Please see the **common rebuttal** for more details on technical challenges.
**Limitations of our method**
Please see the **common rebuttal**.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Reply to authors
Comment: Thanks for the authors' responses. I'll keep my score. | Summary: The paper presents approximate posterior sampling methods for contextual bandits with a diffusion prior. A key weakness of existing methods designed to work on noisy data is that rely on using the score function is that it becomes unstable as the number of observations grows. Instead, the authors propose to use closed-form analytic updates to merge prior and evidence distributions in the diffusion chain. This works for linear models and can be extended to generalized linear models with the Laplace approximation. This framework is applied in the context of contextual bandits for synthetic and real datasets and performs better than other diffusion model alternatives.
Strengths: The problem of Thompson sampling with complex multi-modal distribution is a significant one with a lot of impact. The use of identifying (or approximating with) Gaussians to enable closed-form updating in a diffusion setting is very compelling and results in a simple solution that seems to work well in contextual bandits. The Laplace approximation is a natural choice to move beyond simple linear model settings. The writing and development of the method and theorems was mostly well executed.
Weaknesses: A few notes about correctness/presentation:
(1) it is not true that the posterior of \theta_* is a product of two multivariate Gaussians (as stated below Eq 3) it is instead proportional to that product.
(2) there seems to be a non-sequitur on L82-83 when Laplace approximation is introduced: Laplace does not require the prior to Gaussian, it approximates the posterior as a Gaussian.
The introduction of IRLS with corresponding algorithm in Sec 2.2. seemed a bit out of place and I wonder if it could not be delayed until a little bit later in the method section (in part because it is not explained why one couldn't just use autodiff to find the MAP solution as is now standard).
It was not clear which of the proofs are standard results and which are novel (e.g. Lemma 1 looks like Bayes theorem).
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: In Algorithm 2, the mean and covariance functions for all S_{0:T} are functions of the history which can be of variable size, how does the network take this aspect into account?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The idea seems quite general but was only considered in a contextual bandits setting, is there a reason why you couldn't compare the samples in a non-bandit setting to other methods e.g. VI, SMC, MCMC?
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank the reviewer for detailed feedback, and praising our contributions and execution. Our rebuttal is below. If you have any additional concerns, please reach out to us to discuss them.
**Some claims are imprecise**
The reviewer is right that the posterior in (3) is only proportional to the product of the prior and likelihood. They are also right that the Laplace approximation does not require a Gaussian prior, although this is a very common setting.
**Novelty in proofs**
Please see the **common rebuttal**.
**How do the mean and covariance in Algorithm 2 change with history?**
They are weighted sums of the prior quantities, which are represented by a neural network and independent of history $h$, and empirical quantities. As an example, $\hat{\Sigma}_t(h)$ in line 3 is computed in (8) in Theorem 2. It is the inverse of a weighted sum of the prior $\Sigma_t^{-1}$ and empirical $\bar{\Sigma}^{-1}$ precisions. The latter is defined right after (3) in Section 2.1.
**Non-bandit evaluation**
We conduct an empirical evaluation in the non-bandit setting in the pdf attached to the **common rebuttal**. Please see it for more details.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: thank you
Comment: Thank you for the rebuttal including the common responses. I maintain my current score of weak accept. | Summary: The authors propose an algorithm for sampling from a generalised linear model posterior where the prior is defined through a diffusion model. This is achieved by utilizing the Laplace approximation, and is shown to be asymptotically consistent. This model and inference scheme is then applied to contextual bandits, where their performance is demonstrated on a variety of synthetic and real world applications.
Strengths: I am not familiar with Bandits or Diffusion models but the paper is interesting and the experiments in the context of contextual bandits seem convincing.
Weaknesses: 1) This paper reads like a paper of two halfs. The first half is proposing a new sampling algorithm, and the second is applying this to contextual bandits. I would have like to have seen more evidence / discussion on how well this algorithm works in general for diffusion models. For example, do you know how well your method works on the experimental setup of Chung et al [12] ?
2) The math at times can be a bit difficult to parse (however this could be due to not being familiar with this field). Minor things like using bold symbols for vectors/matrices may help here.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1) In Thm 2 equation 6 reads $p(h | s_t) = E_{p(s_0 | s_t}[p(h|s_0)] \approx p(h | s_t / sqrt(\alpha_t))$. Which seems like the assumption is $s_t \approx s_t / sqrt(\alpha_t)$, why do you want to make this assumption and why is justified?
2) Why does $\nabla log p(h|\theta)$ grow linearly in N?
3) Does relying on the score of likelihood only impact the application for contextual bandits or does this also impact these methods generally?
4) Is there any error caused/limitation in using the Laplace approximation?
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: They discuss that they have performed regret analysis. However they do discuss limitations of the proposed sampling algorithm.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank the reviewer for valuable feedback. Our rebuttal is below. If you have any additional concerns, please reach out to us to discuss them.
**Experimental setup of Chung et al. (2023)**
Chung et al. (2023) experiment with computer vision problems. Their algorithm is unstable in these problems without tuning, and they discuss it in their Appendices C.2 and D.1. We focused on online learning as the first step because a suboptimal model of uncertainty, even after tuning, is unlikely to perform well. See the performance of DPS in Figures 2 and 4, and our discussion in Appendix D. We plan to experiment with vision and video models in our future work.
**Q1: Approximation (6) in Theorem 2**
We assume that $s_0 = s_t / \sqrt{\bar{\alpha}_t}$, where $s_0$ is a clean sample and $s_t$ is the corresponding diffused sample in stage $t$. This approximation is motivated by the observation that under the forward process, $s_t = \sqrt{\bar{\alpha}_t} s_0 + \sqrt{1 - \bar{\alpha}_t} \tilde{\varepsilon}_t$ for any $s_0$, where $\tilde{\varepsilon}_t \sim \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{0}_d, I_d)$ is a standard Gaussian noise. See lines 166-170 in Section 4.3. The result of our approximation is that the likelihood becomes a function of scaled $s_t$, and can be easily combined with the conditional prior distribution, which is also a function of $s_t$.
**Q2: Why does $\nabla \log p(h | \theta)$ grow linearly in $N$?**
Because the history $h$ involves $N$ observations. As an example, in Assumption 1, the likelihood is $p(h \mid \theta) \propto \exp[- \sigma^{-2} \sum_{\ell = 1}^N (y_\ell - \phi_\ell^T \theta)^2]$.
**Q3: Is the score issue general?**
Yes. This is a general issue of relying on $\nabla \log p(h | \theta)$ when $N$ is large. Chung et al. (2023) tune their gradient step to mitigate this. See our Appendix D for more details.
**Q4: Does the Laplace approximation have an error?**
Yes. We discuss this in lines 166-175 (Section 4.3). The good news is that the error vanishes as the number of observations increases. This is what we prove in Theorem 3.
**Limitations of our method**
Please see the **common rebuttal**.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response. I will maintain my already positive score. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We wanted to thank all reviewers for positive reviews and recognizing our contributions. There were three common comments that we want to address jointly: limitations of the work, technical challenges, and a non-bandit evaluation.
**Limitations of our method**
We point out limitations of our work throughout the paper. However, the reviewers could not always find them. To address this issue, we plan to have a dedicated paragraph for limitations in Conclusions. The main limitations of our approach are:
* **Computational cost:** Posterior sampling in DiffTS with $T$ stages is about $T$ times more computationally costly than posterior sampling with a Gaussian prior. We say this in lines 162-164 (Section 4.2) and validate it experimentally in lines 267-272 (Section 6.2). We plot the sampling time as a function of $T$ in Figure 6c (Appendix C.3).
* **Diffusion model prior tuning**: In all experiments, the number of diffusion stages is $T = 100$ and the diffusion rate is set such that most of the signal diffuses. The regressor is a $2$-layer neural network and we learn it from $10000$ samples from the prior. These settings resulted in stable performance across all experiments without tuning. We plot the regret as a function of the number of training samples and $T$ in Figures 6a and 6b (Appendix C.3), respectively. When $T$ or the number of training samples is small, DiffTS performs similarly to posterior sampling with a Gaussian prior.
**Technical challenges**
Prior works on posterior sampling in diffusion models sampled using the score of the posterior probability (Section 7). The score depends on the gradient of the log-likelihood $\nabla \log p(h | \theta)$, which grows linearly with the number of observations $N$ and causes instability. We combine $p(h | \theta)$ with the conditional prior, in each stage of the diffusion model, using the Laplace approximation. The resulting conditional posterior concentrates at a single point as $N \to \infty$ and is easy to sample from, although its gradient goes to infinity. Our main technical contribution is an efficient and asymptotically consistent implementation of this solution, using a stage-wise Laplace approximation with diffused evidence.
Lemma 1 can be derived using basic rules of probability and we state it in Appendix A.1. All other claims, including efficient posterior derivations (Theorems 2 and 4) and asymptotic consistency (Theorem 3), rely on our proposed approximation of clean samples by scaled diffused samples. The most challening part of the analysis is Theorem 3, which analyzes an asymptotic behavior of a chain of $T$ random vectors, which depend on each other.
**Non-bandit evaluation**
We use Gaussian mixture variants of the synthetic problems in Figure 2 for our non-bandit evaluation. The action in round $k$ is chosen uniformly at random (not adaptively). Since the priors are Gaussian mixtures, the true posterior distribution can be computed in a closed form using MixTS and we can measure the distance of posterior approximations from it. We use the *earth mover's distance (EMD)* between posterior samples from the true posterior and its approximation. We also considered KL divergence, but this one required analytical forms of posterior approximations, which are not available in DiffTS and DPS.
We compare all methods from Figure 2. In addition, we implemented a sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) sampler. The initial particles are chosen uniformly at random from the prior. At each next round, the particles are perturbed by a Gaussian noise. The standard deviation of the noise is initialized as a fraction of the observation noise and decays over time, as the posterior concentrates. The particles are weighted according to the likelihood of the observation in the round. Finally, normalized likelihood weights are used to resample the particles. We tune SMC to get the best approximations. We use $3000$ particles. For this setting, the posterior sampling times of SMC and DiffTS are comparable.
Results of our experiments are reported in Figure 7 in the attached pdf. We observe that the quality of DiffTS approximations is similar to MixTS, which has an exact posterior in this setting. The second best performing method is SMC. The quality of its approximations worsens as the sample size $n$ increases. The quality of DPS approximations also worsens as $n$ increases, which caused instability in Figure 2.
Pdf: /pdf/9d09479191441a2d0577ec2a1039f2dfdc1062fe.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | Summary: The paper introduces new posterior sampling approximations for contextual bandits with diffusion model priors, allowing the capability to handle complex distributions beyond traditional Gaussian priors. It contributes by developing efficient sampling algorithms, proving their asymptotic consistency, and validating their effectiveness on synthetic and empirical contextual bandit problems.
Strengths: The paper is overall well-written, providing a clear background and enhancing accessibility for a broad audience. It advances prior work by extending Thompson sampling with a diffusion model prior from K-armed bandits to a more general setting of contextual bandits, which broadens the application scope. The theoretical claims, such as asymptotic consistency, are supported by sound arguments. The experiment are also comprehensive. Furthermore, the authors also mentioned the potential in extensions beyond GLM, suggesting broader applications.
Weaknesses: The paper briefly mentions extending the work of Hsieh et al. [22], who proposed Thompson sampling with a diffusion model prior for K-armed bandits, to contextual bandits. However, the discussion lacks depth and specificity. A more detailed comparison is needed to highlight the unique contributions of this paper. For example, the difference between the posterior sampling approximations, and the difference between the theoretical analysis.
The experiment sections (Figures 4 and 5) lack explanations on the metrics, which are crucial for understanding the variability and reliability of the results. It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: As mentioned in the "Weakness" section, a somewhat detailed summary that clarifies the differences between this work and related works, particularly the work of Hsieh et al. [22], would help understand the unique contributions of this paper.
Clarity would be enhanced by more explanations on the roles of the reverse process and forward process in posterior sampling.
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: I recommend that the authors include a more detailed discussion of the limitations of this work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank the reviewer for detailed and positive feedback. Our rebuttal is below. If you have any additional concerns, please reach out to us to discuss them.
**Differences from Hsieh et al. (2023)**
There are multiple differences:
* The posterior approximation in Hsieh et al. (2023) is for scalars (individual arms). Our approximation is for vectors (model parameters).
* The approximations are different. In stage $t$, Hsieh et al. (2023) sample from the conditional prior and the diffused empirical mean distribution in stage $t$. Then they take a weighted average of the samples. We sample only once, from the posterior distribution obtained by combining the conditional prior in stage $t$ and likelihood. Based on this, Hsieh et al. (2023) can be viewed as a non-contextual variant of our method, where posterior sampling is done by weighting samples from the prior and empirical distributions.
* Hsieh et al. (2023) do not analyze their approximation.
**Metrics in Figures 4 and 5**
The regret is defined as in Figures 2 and 3 (Section 6). The mathematical definition is given in line 213 (Section 5). All error bars are standard errors.
**Limitations of our method**
Please see the **common rebuttal**.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the authors' responses. The discussions on the limitations and the prior work now look more comprehensive to me. I'm happy to keep my positive score. | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Not All Diffusion Model Activations Have Been Evaluated as Discriminative Features | Accept (spotlight) | Summary: The paper addresses the critical task of enhancing feature selection in diffusion models to improve performance in discriminative tasks such as semantic correspondence, semantic segmentation, and label-scarce segmentation. Previous methods often overlooked many potential activations within diffusion models, leading to suboptimal performance and limitations due to ignoring high-resolution activations and not effectively handling diffusion noises. The authors propose a comprehensive feature selection solution that leverages distinctive properties of diffusion U-Nets, including diffusion noises, in-resolution granularity changes, and locality without positional embeddings, to filter and select the most relevant features. Experimental results demonstrate that their method outperforms state-of-the-art techniques, achieving significant improvements in various metrics across multiple datasets.
Strengths: - This paper introduces a novel approach to feature selection in diffusion models, focusing on qualitative analysis to filter out suboptimal activations before performing quantitative comparisons. This methodology shifts from the traditional full-scale quantitative comparison, making the process more efficient and potentially more accurate.
- The authors identify three distinct properties of diffusion U-Nets that are leveraged for feature selection:
1. **Asymmetric Diffusion Noises**: The diffusion process introduces unique noises affecting both low- and high-frequency signals.
2. **In-Resolution Granularity Changes**: Modern diffusion U-Nets exhibit significant granularity changes within a single resolution due to fewer but larger resolutions.
3. **Locality without Positional Embeddings**: Self-attention modules in diffusion U-Nets show a new type of locality that enhances activation quality without traditional positional embeddings.
- The discovered properties means that the findings can be generalized to various diffusion models, providing valuable insights and a solid foundation for future research. This can guide the development of more effective and efficient discriminative models and applications in other fields.
- The proposed method achieves SOTA performance across multiple discriminative tasks, including semantic correspondence, semantic segmentation, and label-scarce segmentation.
Weaknesses: - Some more comparisons are recommended. While the authors claim to find unique properties in diffusion U-Nets, it lacks a detailed comparison with traditional U-Nets. A more comprehensive analysis of how these properties differ would provide better context.
- Some visualizations, such as Figure 3(c) showing positional information in self-attention activations, could be clearer and better explained to enhance understanding of the findings.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See the weakness.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for your constructive comments, and we would like to make the following response.
> **Weakness 1:**
Some more comparisons are recommended. While the authors claim to find unique properties in diffusion U-Nets, it lacks a detailed comparison with traditional U-Nets. A more comprehensive analysis of how these properties differ would provide better context.
**Response:**
We will add more comparisons against traditional U-Nets during refinement, and here we provide some details.
- Diffusion noises are a special noise type induced by the diffusion process, which inputs partially noisy images to diffusion U-Nets and expects the outputs to be noises. In traditional U-Nets without diffusion process, such as a U-Net for semantic segmentation, the input is image and the output is semantic masks. Therefore, there are no special diffusion noises in the activations of a traditional U-Net.
- In-resolution granularity change, in theory, also exists in traditional U-Nets. However, in most traditional U-Nets, one resolution only has much fewer network components. In this way, in-resolution granularity change can hardly be observed.
- Locality without positional embeddings is in fact a unique property compared to typical ViTs instead of traditional U-Nets. Traditional U-Nets are typically comprised of convolutional layers rather than attention layers, so neither locality nor positional information can be seen in traditional U-Nets.
Additionally, we provide activation visualization from a traditional U-Net for semantic segmentation in the PDF attached to the global rebuttal.
> **Weakness 2:**
Some visualizations, such as Figure 3(c) showing positional information in self-attention activations, could be clearer and better explained to enhance understanding of the findings.
**Response:**
We will pay attention to this advice during refinement, and here are some changes we can make.
The visualization provided throughout the paper is obtained using PCA analysis, reducing the dimension of activations down to 3 and regarding the three dimensions as RGB. Hence, the color of a latent pixel in the visualization can reflect the original information in the activation to some extent. Observe the visualization with an orange circle mark in Figure 3(c), and we can see that the latent pixel on the horse's neck is a light blue color, similar to the pixels to its left that actually represent the background. In contrast, the pixels above the circle are in purple color, though they also represent the horse's neck. Such comparison shows that a latent pixel is more similar to other pixels that are spatially near it than those semantically closer to it, which is the meaning of positional information and locality. | Summary: This paper highlights the importance of considering a broader range of activations within diffusion models. The authors propose three universal properties of diffusion U-Nets that aid in qualitatively filtering out activations that are clearly sub-optimal. On top of this, the authors can improve the efficiency of feature selection. By leveraging these properties, the proposed method demonstrates superior performance across multiple discriminative tasks, such as semantic correspondence and segmentations. This comprehensive approach to activation selection addresses a fundamental issue in diffusion models, enhancing their applicability and performance in various tasks.
Strengths: 1) The authors propose an efficient method for selecting high-quality activations. With the help of qualitatively filtering out sub-optimal activations before quantitative comparison, the computational costs can be significantly reduced, compared with the prior arts.
2) The authors present their observations in a clear and organized manner, making it easy for readers to understand the complex concepts and follow the research process. Besides, the main content and the appendix include numerous visual samples and activation visualizations, which help illustrate the properties and effectiveness of the proposed activation selection method.
3) Extensive experimental results across multiple discriminative tasks validate the superiority of the proposed method over the competitors.
Weaknesses: W1: This paper could benefit from introducing more notations to clearly define and differentiate between various activations and components within the diffusion models, which would further enhance the clarity of the descriptions.
W2: While the empirical results are robust, the paper could include more theoretical analysis to provide deeper insights.
W3: Some more latest related work are commended to be cited:
[1] Diffusion 3D Features (Diff3F): Decorating Untextured Shapes with Distilled Semantic Features, CVPR 2024. [2] DiffSeg: Towards Detecting Diffusion-Based Inpainting Attacks Using Multi-Feature Segmentation, CVPR 2024.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: I have no more questions.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for your constructive comments, and we would like to make the following response.
> **W1:**
This paper could benefit from introducing more notations to clearly define and differentiate between various activations and components within the diffusion models, which would further enhance the clarity of the descriptions.
**Response:**
Thanks for this good advice. We do use some notations in our codes, but we wanted to make the manuscript look more formal, so the notations were not used in the paper's main body. During refinement, we will try to add these notations back. For example, we use "up-resolution0-vit0-block1-cross-q" to represent the activation at cross-attention query, the second basic block, the first ViT, the first resolution, up-stage.
> **W2:**
While the empirical results are robust, the paper could include more theoretical analysis to provide deeper insights.
**Response:**
Thanks for your advice! We follow the fellow studies in this direction to take a utilitarian approach and leave more theoretical analysis to future work.
For more details, please refer to the **global response Question 2**.
> **W3:**
Some more latest related work are commended to be cited.
**Response:**
Thanks for the advice. These studies will be added to the refined manuscript.
- [1] is an application of diffusion features, which generates images conditioned on sampled views of 3D models, extracts diffusion features during generation, and unprojects features back to the 3D surface. This work demonstrates that even though features from different views can be inconsistent, the associated features are robust.
- [2] detects the areas having been inpainted in an image based on segmentation using multiple features, including RGB-based, frequency-based, and noise-based features. | Summary: Diffusion models have achieved significant success in image generation and show great potential for various discriminative tasks. The authors rethink the foundational problem of feature selection within these models. To this end, they analyze the properties of diffusion models, including asymmetric diffusion noises, in-resolution granularity changes, and locality without positional embeddings, to filter out suboptimal activations. The results demonstrate that their proposed feature selection method outperforms state-of-the-art techniques across multiple discriminative tasks, achieving superior performances.
Strengths: - This paper points out three unique properties of diffusion models—asymmetric diffusion noises, in-resolution granularity changes, and locality without positional embeddings—that provide valuable insights into improving discriminative tasks.
- The authors propose an off-the-shelf solution for feature selection. Besides, the findings and methodologies presented are not limited to the specific models studied (SDv1.5 and SDXL).
- The paper conducts extensive experiments across multiple discriminative tasks, including semantic correspondence, semantic segmentation, and label-scarce segmentation. The results, as well as the visual illustration, validate the effectiveness of the proposed feature selection method, demonstrating significant improvements over state-of-the-art techniques.
Weaknesses: - The authors acknowledge the uncertainty about whether the findings can generalize to newer models like DiT (Diffusion Transformer) due to architectural differences.
- The qualitative filtering approach proposed is novel, but its scalability and efficiency in very large-scale settings are not fully demonstrated. How do the authors alleviate this problem?
- The paper focuses on empirical results and qualitative analysis. There is a lack of rigorous theoretical foundation or mathematical proofs to support the proposed feature selection methodology and the identified properties of diffusion U-Nets. A more robust theoretical framework would strengthen the claims made.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Besides those in weakness, I wonder can we combine multiple features during the qualitative analysis to further improve the performance? And how many features do you select for each image?
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 4
Limitations: Yes, as stated in Sec.7.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for your constructive comments, and we would like to make the following response.
> **Weakness 1:**
The authors acknowledge the uncertainty about whether the findings can generalize to newer models like DiT (Diffusion Transformer) due to architectural differences.
**Response:**
Thanks for this valuable suggestion! There are currently still many researchers and casual users using U-Net-based diffusion models. We will leave the study on DiT models to future work.
For more details, please refer to the **global response Question 1**.
> **Weakness 2:**
The qualitative filtering approach proposed is novel, but its scalability and efficiency in very large-scale settings are not fully demonstrated. How do the authors alleviate this problem?
**Response:**
The qualitative filtering is mainly conducted through feature visualization. With the prior knowledge of humans, it is relatively easy to do sampling, i.e., only visualizing some activations, for better efficiency. Furthermore, the three discovered properties can help this process be more efficient. More practically, SDXL is one of the current largest diffusion models, and the qualitative filtering for it has been carried out successfully.
> **Weakness 3:**
The paper focuses on empirical results and qualitative analysis. There is a lack of rigorous theoretical foundation or mathematical proofs to support the proposed feature selection methodology and the identified properties of diffusion U-Nets. A more robust theoretical framework would strengthen the claims made.
**Response:**
We follow the utilitarian trend of fellow studies and leave more rigorous theoretical analysis to future work.
For more details, please refer to the **global response Question 2**.
> **Question 1:**
I wonder can we combine multiple features during the qualitative analysis to further improve the performance?
**Response:**
The major benefit of combining multiple features is that different features might contain complementary information. Therefore, it is better to combine features that are more distinct. If we aim to do this via qualitative analysis, one possible way is to select activations with as distinct color patterns as possible. Note that the colors we can see in the visualization are calculated using PCA analysis with the target dimension as 3, so the colors can reflect the information contained by activations to some extent.
> **Question 2:**
And how many features do you select for each image?
**Response:**
Except for the Ours-XL-t solution, we select four features per image. This is to ensure the total dimension of features is almost the same as the conventional features [2, 41]. To be specific, the conventional features in our experiment have 3520 dimensions, Ours-v1.5 features have 3520 dimensions, and Ours-XL features have 3840 dimensions. Ours-XL-t does select more features to match the feature amalgamation technique, where 10 or 8 features in total are selected based on the task. | Summary: This paper proposes a new feature selection method for diffusion models by evaluating a broader range of activations, particularly those in embedded Vision Transformers (ViTs). The authors identify the limitations of current approaches that consider only a narrow range of activations and introduce a qualitative analysis to filter out low-quality activations in diffusion U-Nets. They develop specific feature selection solutions for popular diffusion models SDv1.5 and SDXL. Experiments demonstrate that this method outperforms state-of-the-art techniques in tasks like semantic correspondence, semantic segmentation, and label-scarce segmentation, showcasing its effectiveness and generalizability.
Strengths: - This paper extends the evaluation to a wider range of activations within diffusion models, especially those in embedded ViT modules, which were previously overlooked. Since feature selection is a basic problem for diffusion features, this paper can boost future work in this direction.
- The authors introduce a qualitative analysis to effectively filter out low-quality activations, simplifying the subsequent quantitative comparison and improving feature selection efficiency. What’s more, the observed properties are not limited to the discussed models, which can also inspire future work.
- Extensive experiments demonstrate that the proposed feature selection method significantly outperforms state-of-the-art techniques in various discriminative tasks, validating its effectiveness and generalizability.
Weaknesses: - As pointed out by the authors, the observations and methods proposed do not necessarily generalize well to recently developed DiT models since their architecture is markedly different from diffusion U-Nets .
- Some details can be more clarified. For example, in Appenidx C.3, the authors state that “this is also the setting for the quantitative comparison”. In other words, quantitative comparison is conducted on Label-Scarce Segmentation, and the experiments on the other tasks follow this setting. Is this understanding correct? If so, I wonder why the authors select this setting to conduct quantitative comparison.
- Besides, there are some typos. For example, in the introduction, “a fundamental problem to select” should be “a fundamental problem in selecting”. In the caption of Figure 3, “existing knowledge of other models” should be “existing knowledge about other models”.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Please refer to the weakness.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes, the authors have clarified the limitations in Section 7.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for your constructive comments, and we would like to make the following response.
> **Weakness 1**:
As pointed out by the authors, the observations and methods proposed do not necessarily generalize well to recently developed DiT models since their architecture is markedly different from diffusion U-Nets.
**Response:**
Thanks for this valuable suggestion! Despite this limitation, U-Net-based diffusion models are still being vastly used, so our study can have a broad impact.
For more details, please refer to the **global response Question 1**.
> **Weakness 2:**
Some details can be more clarified. For example, in Appendix C.3, the authors state that “this is also the setting for the quantitative comparison”. In other words, quantitative comparison is conducted on Label-Scarce Segmentation, and the experiments on the other tasks follow this setting. Is this understanding correct? If so, I wonder why the authors select this setting to conduct quantitative comparison.
**Response:**
Thanks for the advice. We will try to better clarify details in the refined manuscript. As for the specific question, the reviewer's understanding is correct. We choose to conduct the quantitative comparison on label-scarce segmentation because (i) Experiments on this task take a relatively short time. (ii) This task provides several datasets for scenes of different complexity, allowing us to compare the capability of activations in different scenarios.
> **Weakness 3:**
Besides, there are some typos.
**Response:**
Thanks for the advice. We will pay attention to such typos and fix them in the revised manuscript. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear SAC, AC, and reviewers,
Thank you for your invaluable feedback. Based on your comments, we have revised the details and now offer a global response to some common questions.
> **Question 1:**
As we have admitted, the conclusion of this study can fail to extend to DiT models. Can this be an important weakness?
**Response:**
Despite the advancements in DiT models, the more conventional U-Net-based diffusion models are still being vastly used by both casual users and researchers. Hence, our study can still benefit many fellow studies.
Moreover, the study on DiT features may require a dedicated study, so we narrow the scope of this paper to more concentrated research.
> **Question 2:**
This study takes a more empirical and qualitative approach, without rigorous theoretical foundation or mathematical proofs.
**Response:**
Theoretical analysis can indeed bring more insights, and we will set this as our future plan. Nevertheless, most fellow studies in this direction take a rather utilitarian approach, placing enhancing the actual performance in the first place. We also follow this trend and argue that the current manuscript has achieved this goal.
---
Please refer to the specific responses below for more information. We will update all these improvements in the next version.
Pdf: /pdf/1b16ec3f2c19f5d58b485791504401094ccf9b64.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
A Learning-based Capacitated Arc Routing Problem Solver Comparable to Metaheuristics While with Far Less Runtimes | Reject | Summary: The paper introduces a learning-based method to address the Capacitated Arc Routing Problem (CARP). It involves breaking undirected edges into directed arcs and utilizing a graph attention network to build a Direction-aware Attention Model. In the training process, supervised learning is used to create the initial policy, followed by reinforcement learning based on policy gradients using Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) to refine strategies. Lastly, dynamic programming is applied to optimize depot placements for path enhancement. Experimental outcomes show notable benefits of this algorithm in evaluation criteria.
Strengths: In general, the paper exhibits a well-organized structure with detailed experimental outcomes showcase through graphs and tables, facilitating readers in comprehending and visualizing the results effortlessly. The dataset employed comprises real-world scenarios, thereby boosting its practical relevance.
Weaknesses: Converting the graph G from arcs to nodes represents a common approach in many heuristics for addressing CARP. This process adds complexity to the problem and increases its scale. The proposed method appears to lack enough novelty, with most components bearing resemblance to neural models designed for CVRP.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: In the experimental section, it is highlighted that supervised learning was employed for generating the initial policy using MAENS to produce real labels. Nonetheless, supervised learning may face challenges with large-scale datasets. Is supervised learning indispensable for this aspect? Would the final model's performance be affected if the initial policy was randomly generated instead?
Is path optimization applied during both the training and inference/testing phases, or is it specifically used for the inference phase only? Moreover, the time specified in Figure 2 likely pertains to the inference time for sample testing. I am also curious about the model's training time—approximately how long does it typically take?
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: It appears that the paper focuses on an unlimited number of vehicles. How would the approach adapt to a specific set of vehicles?
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 3
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ***Q1: Converting the graph G from arcs to nodes represents a common approach in many heuristics for addressing CARP. This process adds complexity to the problem and increases its scale. The proposed method appears to lack enough novelty, with most components bearing resemblance to neural models designed for CVRP.***
>**A1**: Thanks for your insightful question. However, our method actually differs from previous studies. Most earlier methods employed **a common technique known as line graph conversion from edges to nodes**, which completely **ignores the directionality of edge traversal**, hindering the application of learning-based CARP solvers. Our work specifically addresses this issue, aiming to eliminate barriers for learning-based CARP solvers. Additionally, we have **combined supervised learning and reinforcement learning** to jointly optimize a single strategy, achieving better results than using either approach independently.
***Q2: In the experimental section, it is highlighted that supervised learning was employed for generating the initial policy using MAENS to produce real labels. Nonetheless, supervised learning may face challenges with large-scale datasets. Is supervised learning indispensable for this aspect? Would the final model's performance be affected if the initial policy was randomly generated instead?***
>**A2**: Thanks for the valuable comments. The main purpose of using supervised learning is to **accelerate the convergence** of reinforcement learning algorithms. While reinforcement learning algorithms can be initialized with random strategies, they often require more training time to converge or even cannot converge. Therefore, supervised learning is **indispensable**.
To validate the effects of random strategy initialization, we conducted experiments, as shown in Table R2. As seen, Task 20 can converge in about 2.5 hours, but for other task sizes, we spent a significant amount of time training with difficulty in achieving convergence. Additionally, for the converging Task 20, the cost of training with random initialization was approximately 15% higher than that with the combined SL+RL approach. In fact, since supervised learning is only performed on Task20, the SL pre-training does not take a lot of time.
>Table R2. Training comparison between supervised pre-training and random initialization.
>| Task20 | | Task40 | | Task60 | | Task80 | |
|:---------|:-------------|:---------|:-------------|:---------|:-------------|:---------|:-------------|
| SL+RL | Random | SL+RL | Random | SL+RL | Random | SL+RL | Random |
|0.6h | 2.5h | 0.8h | 8h+ | 1.5h | 15h+ | 2h | 20h+ |
***Q3: Is path optimization applied during both the training and inference/testing phases, or is it specifically used for the inference phase only? Moreover, the time specified in Figure 2 likely pertains to the inference time for sample testing. I am also curious about the model's training time—approximately how long does it typically take?***
>**A3**: Thanks for the insightful comment. PO is only utilized in the stage of inference, and the training times of DaAM models are are given in the **General Response A2**.
***Q4: It appears that the paper focuses on an unlimited number of vehicles. How would the approach adapt to a specific set of vehicles?***
>**A4**: Thanks for the thought-provoking question. The solution to the CARP includes multiple routes, each of which must adhere to vehicle limits (not exceeding the vehicle capacity). The number of vehicles does not affect the total travel cost but does impacts the overall execution time of the task. The more vehicles available, the more routes can be traversed simultaneously. Therefore, considering and restricting the number of vehicles during CARP solving process should extend the overall task execution time. | Summary: The authors skillfully address challenges posed by non-Euclidean graphs, traversal direction, and capacity constraints with their novel NN-based solver in solving capacitated arc routing problem. The introduction of the direction-aware attention model and a supervised reinforcement learning scheme is particularly commendable. These innovations significantly narrow the gap with advanced metaheuristics, achieving superior efficiency and competitive decision quality.
Strengths: 1. The manuscript employs numerous innovative methods to solve the capacitated arc routing problem, achieving impressive results.
2. It also shows promising performance in generalizing to larger problem instances.
3. The combination of supervised and reinforcement learning is quite interesting. Using supervised learning for pre-training followed by fine-tuning with reinforcement learning is a noteworthy approach.
4. The qualitative comparisons in real street scenes presented in Figure 4 are particularly interesting.
Weaknesses: 1. It's better to redraw the first part of Figure 1 to enhance its aesthetic quality.
2. The baseline is not very recent. After S2V-DQN and S2V-DQN, there are still some excellent works that can be used to address the CARP problem.
3. Some writing errors have been identified, such as in line 2 of Algorithm 1. Please review the entire manuscript to check.
4. The completeness of the manuscript still requires supplementation and refinement.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: The method proposed by the authors is innovative and interesting, but I still have some questions that I hope the authors can address:
1. In the manuscript, what is the significance of transforming the initial undirected edges into fully connected directed edges at the beginning? If edges' directions are required, why not just convert them into bidirectional directed edges?
2. In section 4.2, how is ϵ selected?
3. In section 4.3, the authors remove all the depot arcs initially and then add them back. What is the purpose of these steps? Why does this not affect the calculation of vehicle capacity?
4. In the Solution Visualization section, the authors have visualized the streets of Beijing. How does the model handle the non-Euclidean space in real-world scenarios?
5. The detailed structure of the proposed model and algorithm should be further completed and upplemented in the appendix.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The approach of decomposing undirected edges into directed ones introduces additional decision elements, which complicates the problem. It's better that the authors can find a more efficient graph processing method.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ***Q1: It's better to redraw the first part of Figure 1 to enhance its aesthetic quality.***
>**A1**: Thank you for the great suggestion, we will carefully redraw the paper if it is accepted. We would like to see if you have any concise suggestions for improving the aesthetic quality.
***Q2: The baseline is not very recent. After S2V-DQN and S2V-DQN, there are still some excellent works that can be used to address the CARP problem.***
>**A2**: Thanks for the insightful suggestion! The comparison with more methods are given in the **Genreal Response A1**. As far as we know, there are indeed many excellent works that can solve the CARP-like problem recently. However, we found that most of them focus on variants of CARP, such as uncertain CARP or time CARP, while PS-Efficiency is still the advanced algorithm among constructive heuristics to solve CARP.
***Q3: Some writing errors have been identified, such as in line 2 of Algorithm 1. Please review the entire manuscript to check.***
>**A3**: Thanks for the valuable suggestion. This writing errors does confuse readers when they are trying to understand. We promise to correct all the writting errors in the final version.
***Q4: The completeness of the manuscript still requires supplementation and refinement.***
>**A4**: Thanks for the valuable suggestion. We have realized that the lack of some content indeed leads to incompleteness, such as more recent methods, experiments on public datasets, details of training time, parameters of PS variants, etc. We will add all these details in the final version.
***Q5: In the manuscript, what is the significance of transforming the initial undirected edges into fully connected directed edges at the beginning? If edges' directions are required, why not just convert them into bidirectional directed edges?***
>**A5**: Thanks for the insightful comment. In our method, by splitting the undirected edge into two directed edges, DaAM can calculate the embeddings for the two edges with opposite directions separately and explicitly choose one directed edge at each decision. If using bidirectional edges, the directionality contained in each bidirectional edge cannot be determined after computing the embedding.
***Q6: In section 4.2, how is ϵ selected?***
>**A6**: Thanks for the comment. This parameter is obtained by searching. Based on the experience of previous related papers, we set his search range to (0, 0.2], with a step size of 0.05. We use values of 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, and 0.2 as training parameters and select the optimal value by comparing the final training loss.
***Q7: In section 4.3, the authors remove all the depot arcs initially and then add them back. What is the purpose of these steps? Why does this not affect the calculation of vehicle capacity?***
>**A7**: Thanks for the insightful comment. PO aims to optimize the depot arcs' position in the result sequence, i.e., determining when to return. Therefore, all depot arcs need to be removed initially, which temporarily disrupts capacity constraints. Then the capacity constraints is restored by re-inserting the deport arcs' back into suitable positions within the result sequence. This process can be understood as a "Route First, Cluster Second" mechanism, as mentioned in answer to question 7 of Reviewer h6eF.
***Q8: In the Solution Visualization section, the authors have visualized the streets of Beijing. How does the model handle the non-Euclidean space in real-world scenarios?***
>**A8**: Thanks for the valuable comment. In our experiments, we first obtain road network data from map SDKs such as OpenStreetMap, then extract the topology to create a non-Euclidean graph. The core steps are already provided by the map SDKs.
***Q9: The detailed structure of the proposed model and algorithm should be further completed and supplemented in the appendix.***
>**A9**: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Considering that the details of the network structures such as GAT and AM are not shown in detail in this paper, it indeed have a certain impact on understanding. If the paper is accepted, we are willing to describe all the model structure in the supplementary materials to help readers fully understand every detail of our algorithm.
***Q10: The approach of decomposing undirected edges into directed ones introduces additional decision elements, which complicates the problem. It's better that the authors can find a more efficient graph processing method.***
>**A10**: Thanks for the insightful comment. In previous learning-based solvers, decisions were made directly on undirected edges. Actually, since decisions are made continuously, the directionality of the edges is also determined at the same time. Thus, these methods implicitly encoded the directionality of edges. In contrast, our approach explicitly encodes the direction of the edges, reducing the difficulty for the model in learning edge directionality. Although our transformation process indeed creates redundant edges and increases the amount of input data, we can further reduce the complexity through graph pruning. | Summary: The paper proposes a new learning-based constructive heuristic for capacitated arc routing problems. In contrast to node routing problems such as the TSP and VRP, arc routing problems received comparably little attentition. To address the specific
challenges in the capacitated arc routing problems, the authors propose a Neural Network-based approach that uses a graph attention
model considering arc directionality, a reinforcement learning approach with supervised pre-training and PPO-based fine-tuning. In
order to improve solutions obtained by an RL-based construction approach, they propose a beam search approach for path optimization which, after turning the set of routes into a giant tour, splits the tour into routes by adding returns to the depot. A set of experiments
shows that the proposed approach consistently yields better results than traditional hand-crafted constructive heuristics, and that their solutions almost match the quality of a time-consuming memetic algorithm that is only capable of solving small instance in a reaonable amount of time.
Strengths: The authors propose one of the first learning-based approaches for the capacitated arc routing problem (CARP). Their approach, in particular their graph embedding, explicitly addresses one of the challenges of learning-based construction algorithms for this problem by explicitly replacing the undirected edges by directed arcs. This idea is original and turns out to be helpful to create a well-performing heuristic.
The online performance of the approach surpasses hand-crafted constructive heuristics both in terms of runtime and efficiency. While for small instances, other metaheuristic approaches are better, it can be assumed that for large-scale instances, the proposed approach surpasses the state-of-the art of heuristic approaches. This is a significant result, since for node routing problems such as the CVRP, researcher have been struggling for years to design learning-based heuristics that achieve a performace that is comparable to hand-crafted heuristics. It should be mentioned, though, that in general, arc routing problems receive much less attention than node routing problems in the literature.
The paper comprises several insightful and, as far as I can tell, reasonably designed experiments, in particular showing the generalization capability to larger instances.
The paper provides both code and instances.
Weaknesses: The presentation of the CARP routing problem, the solutions approaches and related work lacks clarity in many places.
As an example, in the abstract, we find that the CARP consists in finding "the minimum-cost tour"hat covers all required edges on a graph, while within capacity constraints". This is a a bit misleading description since we look for a set of routes instead of a tour.
The paper distinguishes "heuristics" and "metaheuristics", while clearly metaheuristics are a type of heuristics. Actually, what the authors appear to have in mind is "constructive heuristics" which sequentially construct a solution by adding edges to form routes. I suggest to formulate more precisely here.
Similarly, it would enhance the understanding of the paper to introduce the notion of "route-first, cluster second" and the related
notion of a "giant tour" which is commonplace in routing applications, to characterize respective existing work. It would even facilitate the
presented path optimization which actually turns the presented approach into a route-first, cluster second approach.
The computational results are convincing, but the discussion should emphasize that a fair comparison can only be made between their
approach wihout path optimization and the other constructive heuristics. It would indeed be interesting to see how the far the path
optimization is able to improve the results of the other constructive heuristics.
The claims "NN-based approaches tend to lag behind advanced metaheuristics" (abstract) and "NN-based methods usually lags far
behind the traditional ones in solving CARP", "they still lag significantly behind traditional methods" are not valid. Actually, (Rahmamoorty et. al 2024) (reference 20) report that on average, they improve upon the memetic algorithm by 11% on average.
When it comes to the evaluation of the path scanning approaches in the experiments, it is unclear how they are parameterized. From reading the paper (Aarakaki 2019) one sees that the parameter alpha and the number of iteration have a considerable impact both on solution time and solution quality, and (albeit on different instances), the average gaps for the path scanning approaches to the optimal (and to the memetic algrithm) reported in (Aarakaki 2019) are smaller than those found in the submission.
The description of the path improvement is not very clear; in particular the definition of the state used in the Dynamic Programming
algorithm. Is it a path? Is it the length of a path? Also, the statement "f(*) denotes a state featuring dynamic programming" is hard
to decipher.
Training time is not discussed at all.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Please address the weaknesses mentioned above. Also:
- How long does the training take?
- Where does the implementation of the memetic algorithm come from?
- How were the PS approaches parameterized?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Limitations are mostly addressed in a reasonable way. I suggest to add the following aspects:
I think that for small instances, the approach by (Rahmamoorty et. al 2024) may surpass the results reported here, which should be mentioned.
Also, you should at least briefly mention the training time, since this makes it easier to assess the trade-off between offline effort and online performace.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ***Q1(abbreviation): The abstract inaccurately describes the CARP as finding a "minimum-cost tour" rather than finding a set of routes.***
>**A1**: Thanks for the valuable suggestion. This vague description does confuse readers when they are trying to understand. We promise to correct all ambiguities in the representation of the final version.
***Q2(abbreviation): The paper incorrectly separates "heuristics" and "metaheuristics".***
>**A2**: Thanks for the valuable suggestion. The "heuristic" in the paper is indeed "constructive heuristics" as you said. We will adopt this expression in the final version and give a specific definition.
***Q3(abbreviation): Introducing the "route-first, cluster-second" strategy and "giant tour" concept could clarify and improve the paper's approach to path optimization.***
>**A3**: Excellent suggestion! It is very useful for us to enhance the representation. These two concepts are indeed closely related to the proposed method. The core idea of “Route-first, cluster second” is to construct a continuous tour (i.e., “giant tour”) including all the edges that need to be served, and then split it into multiple feasible sub-routes. We will re-construct the section of "path optimization" by using the two concepts to explain the mechanisms.
***Q4(abbreviation): The paper should clarify that fair comparisons are between their basic approach and other constructive heuristics, and assess the impact of path optimization on the other constructive heuristics.***
>**A4**: Thanks for the interesting suggestions. Firstly, we mainly compare the constructive heuristics and DaAM without PO. As shown in Tables 3 and 4 of the original paper, DaAM exceeds them on problem instances of Task300 and smaller ones, except for Task40. Especially, although DaAM is trained on Task100, it still surpass them on larger problem instances, Task200 and Task300. On Task400, Task500 and Task600, although DaAM did not lead due to lack of effective training, its gap with PS variants is very small.
Secondly, we further leverage PO to optimize all constructive heuristics, as shown in Table 4 of the submitted PDF. Overall, PO consistently enhances the routes obtained by PS across all scales. On Task 20 and Task 60, PO achieves a gap reduction of 2%-5%, while the decrease in the gap is more modest on other scales.
***Q5(abbreviation): The paper’s claims that NN-based methods lag in CARP are refuted by Rahmamoorty et al. (2024), who report an 11% improvement over memetic algorithms.***
>**A5**: Thanks for the insightful comment. The paper (Rahmamoorty et. al [1]) does not provide its implementation code publicly, nor does it outline the data partitioning scheme. Therefore, we are unable to reproduce its results or conduct a fair comparison. However, we will thoroughly describe its method and rectify any discrepancies in the final version of the paper.
>[1] Ramamoorthy M, Syrotiuk V R. Learning heuristics for arc routing problems[J]. Intelligent Systems with Applications, 2024, 21: 200300.
***Q6&Q11(abbreviation): How were the PS approaches parameterized?***
>**A6&A11**: Thanks for the insightful comment. In this paper, we apply the official setting for the parameter: $\alpha$ of these PS variants. To be specific, PS-Ellipse's $\alpha$ is 1.5, PS-Efficiency's $\alpha$ is 3.0, PS-Alt1's $\alpha$ is 3.0, PS-Alt2's $\alpha$ is 1.0.
In terms of iteration number, the paper [2] stated that "*For all sets of instances, the average deviations obtained by PS-Efficiency and PS-Ellipse with k = 1000 are better than those obtained by PS-RC and PS-RE with k = 20000.*" Based on this, we employ 1000 iterations for smaller problem instances from Task20 to Task100. Therefore, on smaller-scale data, the parameters we adopted for PS variants are exactly the same as those in the paper [2]. For larger problem instances from Task200 to Task600, we adjust the iterations to 100 to balance running time and solution quality.
>[2] Rafael Kendy Arakaki and Fabio Luiz Usberti. An efficiency-based path-scanning heuristic for the capacitated arc routing problem. Computers & Operations Research (COR) , 103:288–295, 2019.
***Q7(abbreviation): The description of path improvement and the state definition in the Dynamic Programming algorithm are unclear, particularly what "f(*)" denotes.***
>**A7**: Thanks for the valuable comments. The overall mechanism of path optimization can be understood as a "Route First, Cluster Second" mechanism. In the path optimization, we initially disregard capacity constraints and remove all depots from the original path sequence to obtain path $ P $. Subsequently, depots are replanned through dynamic programming to ensure the result meets capacity constraints. In dynamic programming, the state $ f(P) $ represents the maximum cost saving that can be achieved by replanning the depots' positions within the path sequence $ P $ (in terms of travel cost). The value of $ f(P) $ is derived from the optimized results of its various subpaths, denoted as $ f(P') $. We will clearly describe for this point in the final version.
***Q8&Q9&Q13(abbreviation): Training time is not discussed at all.***
>**A8&A9&A13**: Thanks for the insightful suggestion! The training times and related discussion are given in the Genreal Response (Genreal A2).
***Q10: Where does the implementation of the memetic algorithm come from?***
>**A10**: For MAENS, we use the code released by the original author of the paper on Github last year: https://github.com/meiyi1986/MAENS.
***Q12: I think that for small instances, the approach by (Rahmamoorty et. al 2024) may surpass the results reported here, which should be mentioned.***
>**A12**: As mentioned in A5 above, the absence of a data partitioning scheme makes it difficult to make a fair comparison. Looking ahead, we aim to develop a learning-based solver inspired by Rahmamoorty et al.'s method, which we hope will outperform MA on small-scale CARP instances. | Summary: This paper presents a novel neural network-based CARP solver that uses a direction-aware attention model to incorporate directionality into the embedding process. It then applies supervised reinforcement learning for subsequent fine-tuning.
Strengths: 1. A learning-based CARP solver is proposed.
2. The performance of the proposed solver on large-scale data is discussed.
Weaknesses: 1. The comparison algorithms were published five years ago, and there is no discussion of existing methods aimed at big data.
2. The experiments only tested the self-constructed dataset and did not evaluate on public datasets.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1.How is the runtime for different algorithms defined in this paper? Does the training time for the learning-based algorithms take into account?
2.How can one assess the effectiveness of the arc features used in this paper in a more intuitive way?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The amount of data required for algorithm training needs to be discussed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ***Q1: The comparison algorithms were published five years ago, and there is no discussion of existing methods aimed at big data.***
***Q2: The experiments only tested the self-constructed dataset and did not evaluate on public datasets.***
>**A1&A2**: The suggestions are greatly appreciated! The experimental results and discussions of more comparison method and public dataset are given in the **Genreal Response A1**.
***Q3-1: How is the runtime for different algorithms defined in this paper?***
>**A3-1**: Thanks for the insightful comment. The mean runtimes per CARP instance for MAENS and PS variants have already been displayed in Fig 2 of the original paper. Additionally, we have tested the runtimes of S2V-DQN and VRP-DL implemented in our experimental section, as shown in Table R1.
>Firstly, on smaller scale problem instances (Task 100 and smaller scales), DaAM (blue line) only cost less than 10% of the computation time of the advanced PS variants and VRP-DL. On larger scale problem instances (Task 200 and larger scales), DaAM's computation time still remains large advantage compared to them. While the time consumed by S2V-DQN is much higher than these methods. It should be noted that S2V-DQN and VRP-DL did not originally support this task, so we modified them to be compatible with CARP. Thus, the low efficiency may be due to the improper implementation. When using the CPU-dependent PO, the advantage in computation time relative to the PS variants is reduced, but it still maintains a computational time advantage on problem instances above Task 60.
>To prove fairness, we will release all the data and source codes of the mentioned comparisons.
>Table R1. Runtime (second) of different methods on our dataset
>| Instance | MAENS | PS | PS-Ellipse | PS-Efficiency | PS-Alt1 | PS-Alt2 | VRP-DL* | S2V-DQN* | DaAM | DaAM+PO |
|:-------------|--------:|-----:|-------------:|----------------:|----------:|----------:|----------:|-----------:|-------:|----------:|
| Task20 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 113 | 1 | 2 |
| Task40 | 775 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 221 | 1 | 5 |
| Task60 | 2671 | 1 | 7 | 12 | 8 | 7 | 13 | 310 | 1 | 7 |
| Task80 | 5021 | 1 | 16 | 22 | 19 | 17 | 20 | 588 | 2 | 12 |
| Task100 | 8587 | 1 | 25 | 35 | 30 | 26 | 28 | 721 | 3 | 19 |
***Q3-2: Does the training time for the learning-based algorithms take into account?***
>**A3-2**: Thank you for the insightful comment! Indeed, the performance of learning-based solvers like DaAM, VRP-DL and S2V-DQN heavily depends on the training time, which ensures whether the model is adequately trained.
>In terms of training time, the **General Response A2** provides the training times of DaAM models. For the training time of other learning based solvers, we first ensure that all the models are trained until convergence, so that they are adequately trained for fairness. As a result, the training time of S2V-DQN on different instance sizes is 0.5h, 1.5h, 2.5h, 3.5h, and 6h respectively, and The training times of VRP-DL on different instance scales are 1 to 2 hours. In terms of technique, we carefully considered ways to reduce training time in the design of DaAM. As mentioned in the **General Response A2**, we take the idea of curriculum learning to reduce the training time of each training scale so that DaAM can be trained sufficiently in an afforable time cost.
***Q4: How can one assess the effectiveness of the arc features used in this paper in a more intuitive way?***
>**A4**: Thanks for the insightful comment. The efficacy of our arc feature design can be demonstrated through ablation studies.
Our arc feature is bifurcated into two components. The first encompasses essential information pertinent to CARP tasks, as detailed in the referenced literature:
> - $ {is\\_depot}_i $: Indicates whether $ arc_i $ is the depot.
>- $ {cost}_i $: Cost associated with $ arc_i $.
>- $ demand_i $: Demand of $ arc_i $.
>- $ |e_{x_{t-1} i}| $: Edge weight from $ arc_{x_{t-1}} $ to $ arc_i $.
>- $ {allow\\_serve}_t^{(i)} $: Service eligibility of $ arc_i $ at time t.
>The second component involves using MDS to enhance low-dimensional information. The effectiveness of arc feature can be verified by Table 5 and Figure 3. The lack of MDS or other CARP descriptions will lead to slower model convergence, poor performance, and large solution quality fluctuations.
***Q5: The amount of data required for algorithm training needs to be discussed.***
>**A5**: Thanks for the valuable comment. Due to the nature of deep learning, which requires extracting decision-making knowledge from data, the amount of training data is crucial for learning-based methods. In our implementation, all training data must be loaded into the GPU memory before training. As the problem scale increases, we have been compelled to reduce the number of instances used for training.
>In our experiments, for problem instances of Task 20, Task 40, and Task 60, we trained the DaAM model using 5,000 to 10,000 instances. For Task 80 and Task 100, we used approximately 2,000 to 4,000 instances for training. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ***General Response***:
Great thanks to all the reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing this paper. In this review, most reviewers wanted to see the experiments on this method with more comparison algorithms (from Reviewers **NUZV**, **DrmY**) and on more public datasets (from Reviewer **NUZV**), and also raised questions about the training time (from Reviewers **NUZV**, **h6eF**, **UWHC**) of the proposed method. Therefore, below, we answered these common questions one-by-one. Please do not hesitate to let us know if you have any further questions. We are willing to solve them in time.
***General Q1: More comparison algorithms and more public datasets in the experiments.***
>**General A1**: Thanks for all the valuable comments! To more comprehensively demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, we have searched more recent works. However, we find that PS-Efficiency still exhibits benchmark performance in constructive heuristic algorithms, while MAENS remains competitive in meta-heuristic algorithms. Most of the work in this area involves meta-heuristic algorithms and, unfortunately, **either no code** is made available, or **only partial code** is released, **preventing us from testing** these methods on our own datasets. Therefore, we employed publicly available datasets, specifically BCCM [1], and EGL [2] datasets. Note that **due to the lack of a distinction** between training and test sets in the public datasets, we were only able to use the best model trained from Task20 to Task100 to handle the EGL and BCCM datasets.
>The experiment on BCCM dataset is shown in **Table 1** of the submitted PDF. It is evident that **our method performs comparably to both PS-Efficiency and PS-Ellipse**, performing better on some instances and worse on others. On the BCCM dataset, the larger the instance number, the larger the scale of the scenario. Our method demonstrates **a clear advantage in larger-scale instances** (9A and larger scenarios) but performs slightly weaker than PS-Efficiency in smaller-scale instances (8C and smaller scenarios). This is primarily because **small-scale data is often too sparse to allow the model to capture important features** in the test scenarios, and it is more susceptible to randomness. Conversely, large-scale data is denser, which dilutes the impact of randomness, allowing the learning-based solver to perform more stably. We conducted comparisons on the EGL dataset with more methods and larger-scale instances, as shown in Table 2 of the submitted PDF . The results show that our method, PS-Ellipse, and PS-Efficiency each have their strengths and weaknesses. However, their performance is significantly lower than that of meta-heuristic algorithms that require more optimization operations, such as MAENS, QICA[3], MANSP[4], CARPET[5], LMA[6], MA-ABC[7], and HMA.
>These experiments illustrates that **learning-based solvers could gain advantages from larger-scale and more diverse data**. Therefore, in future works, we will attempt to enlarge the training set to include multiple cities, synthetic and real data, and multi-scale data, which might futher improve the generalization of using one model to handle all CARP instances.
>[1] Benavent E, Campos V, Corberan A, Mota E. The capacitated arc routing problem: lower bounds. Networks 1992;22:669–90.
>[2] R.W. Eglese, Routeing winter gritting vehicles, Discrete Appl. Math. 48 (3) (1994) 231–244.
>[3] R. Shang, B. Du, K. Dai, L. Jiao, A.M.G. Esfahani, R. Stolkin, Quantum-inspired immune clonal algorithm for solving large-scale capacitated arc routing problems, Memetic Comput. 10 (1) (2018) 81–102.
>[4] Li, Rui, et al. "Memetic algorithm with non-smooth penalty for capacitated arc routing problem." Knowledge-Based Systems 220 (2021): 106957.
>[5] A. Hertz, G. Laporte, M. Mittaz, A tabu search heuristic for the capacitated arc routing problem, Oper. Res. 48 (1) (2000) 129–135.
>[6] P. Lacomme, C. Prins, W. Ramdane-Cherif, Competitive memetic algorithms for arc routing problems, Ann. Oper. Res. 131 (1–4) (2004) 159–185.
>[7] Ramamoorthy, Muhilan, Stephanie Forrest, and Violet R. Syrotiuk. "MA-ABC: a memetic algorithm optimizing attractiveness, balance, and cost for capacitated Arc routing problems." Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. 2021.
***General Q2: How long is the training time of the proposed method?***
>**General A2**: Thanks for all the valuable suggestions! To more clearly explain the training duration of the DaAM model, it is essential to clarify its training method. As mentioned in lines 260-261 of the paper: "*We utilize the training results obtained from the preceding smaller-scale dataset to initialize the model.*" This approach is a type of curriculum learning, where the model first learns from simpler instances (small-scale) before progressively tackling more challenging ones (large-scale). For example, the DaAM model for Task 20 is trained on Task 20's training data using SL+RL (Supervised Learning + Reinforcement Learning), whereas the model for Task 40 is trained using reinforcement learning on the already trained Task 20 model. In the same way, the model for Task 100 is trained on the Task 80 model using reinforcement learning.
>Under this training strategy, **the training time for DaAM is shown in Table 3** in the submitted PDF. The '+' symbol indicates the additional training time required at each stage, building upon the previous model. It is evident that **as the scale of instances increases**, the training duration for the current stage also increases. However, **this remains within an acceptable range** and is **significantly less than the training times observed in other tasks.** It only takes 0.5h to train a DaAM for Task 20, while it takes 7.8h totally to train a DaAM for Task 100.
Pdf: /pdf/442192253f4a93f583b5071e71b9d05c5541110b.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
HENASY: Learning to Assemble Scene-Entities for Interpretable Egocentric Video-Language Model | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper proposed HENASY, a novel framework for learning egocentric video-language models where texts are grounded to visual scene entities. Its main idea is to use both global and local visual encoder to encode video features so that nouns and verb phrases in the paired text could be matched individually. The overall framework is optimized through contrastive losses while a projection loss is further introduced to improve the grounding quality. Experiments show that the proposed the method could achieve good performance on a wide range of egocentric video tasks including video/text retrieval, action recognition, multi-choice query, natural language query, and moments query.
Strengths: 1. This paper is overall well-written and easy to follow.
2. The problem addressed by this paper is important to the field. Learning grounded and interpretable egocentric video-language models has been seldomly studied in previous works, which might raise new research interests in this field.
3. The experiments are extensive where the proposed method has been evaluated on a wide range of egocentric video-text tasks through zero-shot transfer or learned video-text representations.
Weaknesses: 1. The performance improvement of the proposed method on most tasks are very marginal, compared to HelpingHands, which is the most related work to the paper. Given the fact that the design of HelpingHands is much simpler than the proposed methods, I have concern on whether the complex components introduced in this paper is efficient.
2. Given the huge complexity of the proposed method, some important studies on the proposed design choices are missing. E.g., (1) the authors mentioned that using GroupViT to directly process input video patch tokens will diminishe performance but the results are not reported in the paper; (2) rather than using [5] to initialize the global encoder, have the authors tried other options, and what are the results? These help the reader to gain a better understanding of the robustness of the proposed method.
3. What about the scaling properties of the proposed method? Does it scale well with larger model sizes or more training data?
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Please refer to the Weakness section.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors have widely discussed the limitation of the proposed work and also its challenges in modeling the interactions between complex scene entities.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate your acknowledgment of our well-written paper, the importance and novelty of our approach, and the extensive experiments.
## **1: Comparison with HelpingHands**
We recap the key improvements of our work over HelpingHands as below
| Property | Our Work | HelpingHands |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Method | Explicitly models video as dynamic entities (object-centric), capturing their interactions (action-centric) to form spatiotemporal interpretable, object/action-aware video representation | Implicitly induces object occurrence (nouns) on top of pre-extracted feature map via auxiliary task-specific (detection) head to form an object-aware video representation |
| Fine-grained alignment | Spatiotemporal fine-grained alignments. Object appearance: Noun-entity alignment. Activity motion: verb-entities alignments | No alignment at granular level |
| Interpretability | Strong, both spatial and temporal dimensions with object-centric and action-centric via dynamic entity assembly mechanism | None. |
| Visual grounding | Strong, with spatiotemporal saliency maps of scene entities and relationships | Weak, only provide predicted bounding boxes |
| Efficiency | faster than HelpingHands x3 times in inference | slower x3 times in inference due to autoregressive decoder |
This discussion is included in Section 2, lines 87-93 of the submission.
We highlight our improvements over HelpingHands across various metrics as below (Tables 1 and 2 in the paper):
| Benchmark | Metric | HelpingHands | Our Method | Improvement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EgoMCQ | Inter Acc | 93.2 | 94.1 | +0.9 |
| EgoMCQ | Intra Acc | 58.8 | 61.3 | +2.5 |
| EGTEA | Top-1 Acc | 35.3 | 35.9 | +0.6 |
| EgoNLQ | mIoU @0.3 R5 | 20.4 | 21.5 | +1.1 |
| EgoMQ | mAP | 11.7 | 12.4 | +0.7 |
**Discussion:** Our primary objective extends beyond achieving high benchmark scores to advancing interpretability within video-language models. Our model significantly diverges from HelpingHands by emphasizing compositional video understanding. Additionally, it improves upon HelpingHands by focusing on interpretable representations. This shift towards interpretability represents a strategic choice aimed at impacting areas where understanding model decisions is critical.
## **2: Ablation studies**
In Lines 159-161, we identified 3 major limitations in slot-attention (GroupViT) if we merely employ it:
(i) direct process of video patch tokens from scratch, which neglects powerful video representations already learned by pre-trained models.
(ii) originally proposed in image domain, making it unable to model dynamic entities with temporal information in videos.
(iii) unable to model object-environment interactions, which is essential to capture spatiotemporal dynamics of the videos.
We address these limitations through:
(i) A novel bootstrapping stage: This aims to leverage the powerful pre-trained model for video patches encoding. The corresponding ablation study was in Table 3, row 3.
(ii) Temporal-aware grouping (TAG): This targets preserving temporal dimensions, crucial for our hierarchical dynamic entity assembly approach. Given the foundational role of TAG in our model, we did not conduct a separate ablation study for it, as removing it would undermine the model’s functionality.
(iii) Entity-aware decoder: This decoder plays a crucial role in ****modeling entities-environment interactions**,** enhancing our model’s overall performance. It propagates entity-level features from local entity encoder to enrich video-level embeddings from global encoder. It significantly contributes for the effective performance of our model. If we excluded this decoder, the model would rely solely on entity features from our slot-based local entity encoder and would end up with a substantial performance drop (Table 3, rows 1-2).
## **3: Initialization with other pre-trained models**
Due to time constraint of the rebuttal period, we were able to conduct experiments on an additional pre-trained model, EgoVLP, besides the pre-trained model LaViLa reported in the submission. Below is a performance comparison when initializing our model with different pre-trained models, against the baseline results from LaViLa and EgoVLP:
| Benchmark | Metric | LaViLa | Ours (initialized with LaViLa) | EgoVLP | Ours (initialized with EgoVLP) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EgoMCQ | Intra Acc | 59.9 | 61.3 | 57.2 | 59.7 |
| EK100-MIR | Avg mAP | 30.9 | 31.3 | 23.3 | 30.9 |
| EGTEA | Top-1 Acc | 35.5 | 35.9 | 17.6 | 34.0 |
This table demonstrates that our model, when initialized with EgoVLP, not only performs competitively with its initialization using LaViLa, but also consistently outperforms the original EgoVLP across various benchmarks. This highlights the versatility and robustness of our model. We will add this result in our final version with an extra page.
## **4: Scalability**
In our submission, we primarily used TSF-B as the backbone. As suggested by the reviewer, we have trained with a larger version, TSF-L, to further investigate the scalability. Due to time constraints, this model has not finished its training process. Nevertheless, we are pleased to report the current best results and comparison as below:
|Benchmark|EK100-MIR|EK100-CLS| EGTEA | EgoMCQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metric | Avg mAP | Top-1 Acc | Top-1 Acc | Intra Acc |
| LaViLa w/ TSF-B | 30.9 | 16.4 | 35.5 | 59.9 |
| LaViLa w/ TSF-L | +5.2 | +4.5 | +4.6 | +3.2 |
| Our w/ TSF-B | 31.3 | 19.5 | 35.9 | 61.3 |
| Ours w/ TSF-L | +5.1 | +5.3 | +5.3 | +2.7 |
This table illustrates the performance improvements of TSF-L over TSF-B for both LaViLa and our method. The results demonstrate that our model scales effectively with the larger backbone, showing consistent or greater gains across all benchmarks compared to LaViLa. These evidences underscore the scalability of our approach when equipped with more powerful backbones. We will add our final result to camera-ready version.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Follow Up Our Rebuttal
Comment: Dear Reviewer 4RbK
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to providing feedback on our work. Your insights are invaluable in helping us improve its clarity and overall quality. We want to follow up to check if our response fully addressed your concerns/questions before ending the discussion period.
Thank you once again, and we look forward to your feedback. | Summary: The paper introduces a novel framework for improving interpretability and performance in video-language models, specifically for egocentric videos. The framework, Hierarchical ENtities ASsemblY, employs a spatiotemporal token grouping mechanism that assembles and models relationships between dynamically evolving scene entities. This method aims to mimic human perceptual abilities by focusing on a compositional understanding of scene dynamics. The training of HENASY incorporates multi-grained contrastive losses, enhancing the model's ability to produce robust entity-level and video-level representations. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that HENASY significantly outperforms existing benchmarks on a range of egocentric video tasks.
Strengths: 1. HENASY introduces a groundbreaking approach to VLMs by focusing on dynamic scene entity assembly, which significantly diverges from traditional methods that generally emphasize static frame analysis.
2. The paper provides comprehensive experimental evidence showing that HENASY achieves superior performance on multiple egocentric video benchmarks, validating the effectiveness of its novel methodologies.
3. By leveraging visual grounding with free-form text queries, HENASY enhances the interpretability of VLMs, which is critical for applications requiring transparent decision-making processes.
4. The use of multi-grained contrastive losses to optimize the model at both the entity and video levels is a well-defined objective that contributes to the model's strong performance.
Weaknesses: 1. The paper lacks a detailed discussion on the scalability and computational demands of HENASY, which are crucial for its application in real-world settings, especially on resource-constrained devices.
2. While HENASY shows impressive results in controlled experiments, its ability to generalize across diverse real-world scenarios and different video domains remains underexplored.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Could the authors provide insights into HENASY's performance on diverse real-world datasets and its computational efficiency and scalability compared to existing methods?
2. Can the authors elaborate on the spatiotemporal token grouping mechanism’s impact on training dynamics and model convergence, and provide a comparative analysis of interpretability with other state-of-the-art methods?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The paper should explicitly address potential limitations related to the scalability of HENASY and its performance on varied real-world datasets. Additionally, the authors should discuss any potential negative societal impacts, such as privacy concerns in the context of egocentric video analysis, and suggest possible mitigation strategies for such issues to ensure ethical deployment.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate the reviewer of their acknowledgment that our approach is groundbreaking with strong interpretability, comprehensive experiments. We would like to address concerns and questions raised by the reviewer as follows:
## **1: Scalability and computation**
**Scalability**: In our submission, we primarily reported results using TSF-B architecture as the backbone. As suggested by the reviewer, we have initiated training with a larger version of the backbone, TSF-L, to further investigate the scalability of our method. However, due to the constrained time frame of the rebuttal period, this model has not finished its training process. Nevertheless, we are pleased to report the current best results and comparison with a baseline (LaViLa) using similar backbones:
| Benchmark | EK100-MIR | EK100-CLS | EGTEA | EgoMCQ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Metric | Avg mAP | Top-1 Acc | Top-1 Acc | Intra Acc |
| LaViLa w/ TSF-B | 30.9% | 16.4% | 35.5% | 59.9% |
| LaViLa w/ TSF-L | +5.2% | +4.5% | +4.6% | +3.2% |
| Our w/ TSF-B | 31.3% | 19.5% | 35.9% | 61.3% |
| Ours w/ TSF-L | +5.1% | +5.3% | +5.3% | +2.7% |
This table illustrates the performance improvements of TSF-L over TSF-B for both LaViLa and our method. The results demonstrate that our model scales effectively with the larger backbone, showing consistent or greater gains across all benchmarks compared to LaViLa. These evidences underscore the scalability of our approach when equipped with more powerful backbones. We will add our final result to camera-ready version.
**Computation**: We have conducted a study to evaluate the computational cost (Table 5, Page 9 of the submission). In this study, we also compared with the SOTA HelpingHands. It is summarized as follows.
| | HelpingHands | Ours |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Autoregressive | YES | NO |
| GFLOPs (per clip) | 530M | 599M |
| Number of Parameters | 216M | 291M |
| GPU Memory (train) | 38GB | 42GB |
| GPU Memory (inference) | 4.4GB | 4.8GB |
| Inference Time (seconds) | 2.87 | 1.02 |
## **2: Resource-constrained devices**
In real-world applications, computational resource constraints can vary significantly, leading us to categorize environments into two primary types: cloud computation and standalone systems. For cloud computation, HENASY is particularly well-suited as it can leverage extensive computational resources similar to those used in deploying large language models (LLMs). For standalone systems, we are investigating several optimization techniques to ensure efficient deployment. These techniques include model pruning, quantization, and knowledge distillation, which notably reduce model size and computational load while maintaining competitive performance. The original HENASY model requires 4.8GB of GPU memory, making it compatible with modern devices like the Jetson AGX Xavier (up to 32GB GPU memory), Jetson Xavier NX (8GB GPU memory), and Jetson TX2 (8GB GPU memory). However, deployment in resource-constrained environments is beyond the scope of this paper.
## **3: Generalize across diverse real-world scenarios and different video domain**
As clarified in the session “Benchmarks and Evaluation Protocols” on Pages 7, 8 of the submission, we evaluated the proposed HENASY using different protocols, including zero-shot transfer protocol and visual & textual representation protocol. We conducted evaluation on various datasets, including EgoMCQ, EgoNLQ, EgoMQ, EK100-MIR, EK100-CLS, and EGTEA. It is important to note that those datasets have been acquired by different devices under different real-world scenarios settings and across various video domains as follows:
- EK-100: kitchen activities, collected by GoPro.
- EGTEA: indoor activities, collected by SMI eye tracking glasses.
- EgoMCQ, EgoNLQ, EgoMQ: indoor and outdoor daily activities (cooking, sport, shopping, lawn mowing, etc.), collected by multiple cameras such as GoPro, Vuzix Blade, Pupil Lab, etc.
The experimental results in Table 1, Page 8 on the zero-shot transfer protocol and Table 2, Page 9 on the visual and textual representation protocol demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method across various video domains in diverse real-world scenarios. Notably, our model consistently outperforms previous SOTA methods with significant margins.
## **4: Impact of spatiotemporal token grouping mechanism**
Our Temporal-aware grouping (TAG) mechanism has a foundational role in our model, which leverages slot-based methods in images into modeling spatiotemporal token grouping. Concretely, it helps preserve the temporal dimension during our hierarchical dynamic entities assembly process. Given the essential role of TAG in our model, we are unable to conduct a separate ablation study for it, as its removal would undermine the functionality of our model.
## **5: Comparative analysis of interpretability**
We conduct a quantitative experiment on Ego4D for visual grounding task. In the absence of ground truth segmentation masks for Ego4D, we generated these masks ourselves. Due to time constraints, we managed to obtain labels for 200 videos. Below, we present the performance comparison in terms of mIoU scores with HelpingHands, our most related work that supports visual grounding:
| Model | mIoU |
| --- | --- |
| HelpingHands | 22.73% |
| Ours | 41.06% |
**Discussion:** although being the SOTA in egocentric tasks and visual grounding task, HelpingHands only provides coarse bounding boxes of objects, leading to lower mIoU scores due to inadequate coverage of the target masks. In contrast, our model employs segmentation masks that closely align with the ground truth, resulting in higher mIoU scores, demonstrating superior visual grounding capabilities.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Follow Up Our Rebuttal
Comment: Dear Reviewer cNiH
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to providing feedback on our work. Your insights are invaluable in helping us improve its clarity and overall quality. We want to follow up to check if our response fully addressed your concerns/questions before ending the discussion period.
Thank you once again, and we look forward to your feedback.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Kindly Follow-up on Rebuttal
Comment: Dear Reviewer cNiH,
As we approach the end of the discussion period, we wanted to kindly remind you of our rebuttal. We are keen to ensure that our responses have thoroughly addressed your concerns and would appreciate any additional feedback you may have.
Thank you once again for your invaluable insights and the time you have invested in reviewing our work. We look forward to hearing from you soon.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Reminder: Feedback Request Before Discussion Period Closes
Comment: Dear Reviewer cNiH,
As we are nearing the end of the discussion phase, we kindly seek your feedback to ensure that our responses have addressed your initial concerns. If our rebuttal satisfactorily addressed your concerns and questions, we would be very grateful if you would consider to raise your rating.
Thank you very much for your attention. | Summary: The paper introduced HENASY, a novel framework for enhancing video-language understanding in egocentric videos. It utilized multi-grained contrastive losses from alignments of video-narration, noun-entity, and verb-entity, to improve interpretability and performance. The method showed competitive results across various downstream tasks such as video-text retrieval, action recognition and visual question answering.
Strengths: * The paper was well organized and easy to follow.
* This paper leveraged more fine-grained information on egocentric video-language models apart from the original instance-level alignment. In detail, it included noun-entity and verb-entity alignment as a bonus.
* The framework achieved competitive results in various downstream tasks, such as video/text retrieval and action recognition, showcasing its effectiveness in real-world applications compared with other pre-trained models.
Weaknesses: * Such an idea of leveraging fine-grained information, especially alignment of nouns/verbs and the video contents, has been intensively studies in non-egocentric scenarios and there are a number of related papers [1, 2]. It is not clear whether there is a significant different in egocentric videos. Otherwise, it is expected to improve the model performance by incorporating those fine-grained alignments in the pre-training stage.
* Even though the structure to extract noun/verb entities was a little different, I feel like the essential idea was still similar to GroupViT. The authors mentioned that if directly using GroupViT, the performance would drop. Was the comparison in Table 3, w/o bootstrapping? Actually, in GroupViT there was also a hierarchical design to use different query tokens at different stages. Then what's the main contribution of the design in the paper? I am wondering if simply adding the number of trainable parameters of GroupViT to the same number in the paper would lead to comparable performance.
* I am wondering if co-training with data mixes from both egocentric and non-egocentric videos would boost performance for both domains. In addition, can the model pre-trained on the egocentric scenario be transferred to the non-egocentric tasks?
* The evaluation on visual grounding was not sufficient. Currently there were only some qualitative results in Figure 4. It would be better to report some quantitative results for more concrete tasks.
[1] Ge, Yuying, et al. "Bridging video-text retrieval with multiple choice questions." CVPR 2022.
[2] Xiong, Yuanhao, et al. "Structured Video-Language Modeling with Temporal Grouping and Spatial Grounding." ICLR 2024
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: My questions are listed in the part of weaknesses above.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: They had a separate "Limitations" section and elaborated on future works that could improve the model.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for recognizing that our paper is well-organized, easy to follow, competitive results in real-world applications.
## **1: Comparison with [1, 2]**
We provide the comparison as below:
| Property | Ours | [1] | [2] |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Method | Explicitly models video as dynamic entities (object aware), capturing their interactions (action aware) | Employs a proxy module (BridgeFormer) to implicitly inject fine-grained information of text into video representation during training | Explicitly models video via group tokens (object aware). It is unable to capture the interactions between objects (action aware) |
| Fine-grained alignment | Spatiotemporal fine-grained alignments. Object appearance: Noun-entity alignment. Activity motion: verb-entities alignments | No granular level alignment | Only alignment on object appearance: Noun-entity alignment |
| Interpretability | Strong, both spatial and temporal dimensions with object-centric and action-centric via dynamic entity assembly mechanism | None, the proxy module is removed during inference, rendering the model incapable of interpretation | Medium, only object-centric |
| Visual grounding | Strong, with spatiotemporal saliency maps of scene entities and relationships | None | Weaker, only saliency map related to a scene entities |
| Efficiency | 2x A6000 GPU for training | 40x A6000 GPUs for training | No source code nor report |
We note that [2] is published at ICLR 2024 (2 weeks before NeurIPS submission).
## **2: Comparison with GroupViT**
To illustrate the challenges with merely applying GroupViT to video, how our method addresses these issues, and what set us stood out from GroupViT, we provide the following table:
| Limitation in GroupViT | Our Innovative Solution |
| --- | --- |
| Domain: image | Domain: video |
| Direct Processing of Patch Tokens: GroupViT learns to process input patches from scratch, which prevents it from utilizing the powerful representation of existing pre-trained models | Bootstrapping Stage: incorporates early layers of global encoder (using a frozen model from LaViLa) to leverage its powerful video representation. The effectiveness of this design choice is reported in our ablation (Table 3, row 3) |
| Inability to Model Dynamic Entities: GroupViT is primarily proposed to process static images and is prohibitively unable to group video patches into dynamic entities | Temporal-Aware Grouping: a novel mechanism that merges semantically similar tokens into larger entities while preserving temporal dimension of the video |
| Absence of Object-Environment Interactions: GroupViT solely focuses on object level and lacks a mechanism to model relationships between objects and environment, which is crucial for spatiotemporal tasks in video domain. | Entity-Aware Decoder: a pivotal component that propagates entity-level features from local entity encoder to enrich video-level embedding in global encoder. It captures the object-environment interactions, enhancing the spatiotemporal representation. The effectiveness of entity-aware decoder is shown in our ablation (Table 3, rows 1-2) |
## **3: Co-training from both egocentric (ego) and exocentric (exo) and transferability from ego to exo tasks**
On one hand, it is obvious that incorporating ego and exo is essential for many real applications in robotics and augmented reality. However, the dramatically different viewpoints pose significant challenges. Most ego datasets just recently become available, and very few ego videos are synchronized with corresponding exo videos. Additionally, ego datasets are much smaller in scale compared to exo ones. Therefore, leveraging exo to improve model performance on ego is a viable approach [A]. Early work [B] focused on representation learning using paired ego-exo videos. However, paired videos are much harder to obtain compared to unpaired ones. Recent studies [C] made notable progress with unpaired videos.
On the other hand, transferability from ego to exo tasks presents a significant challenge and opportunity. The primary challenge is the alignment of different viewpoints, particularly between unpaired multi-view [D]. The ongoing research on joint view-invariant learning [E], domain adaptation [F], knowledge distillation [G] offer promising solutions.
Despite co-training with mixed ego-exo data and transferability between ego-exo are exciting directions, our current objectives are solely focused on ego tasks, with an emphasis on providing trustworthiness and transparency to the model at a fine-grained level of alignment. Furthermore, we strongly believe that this capability can help bridge the gap between different viewpoints at fine-grained alignment, and this should be a focus of future research.
[A] Weinland, D., etc "Making action recognition ...", ECCV2010
[B] Yu, H., etc “What i see is what you see …”, ICM2019
[C] Huang, Y., etc “EgoExoLearn …”, CVPR2024
[D] Wang, Q., etc. “Learning from semantic alignment…”, ICCV2023
[E] Xue, Z.S., etc. “Learning fine-grained …”, NeurIPS2023
[F] Choi, J., etc, “Unsupervised and semi-supervised …”, WACV2020
[G] Li, Y., etc. “Ego-exo…”, CVPR2021
## **4: Visual grounding**
We conduct a quantitative experiment on Ego4D, as HelpingHands provides visual grounding results exclusively on this dataset. In the absence of ground truth segmentation masks for Ego4D, we generated these masks ourselves. Due to time constraints, we managed to obtain labels for only 200 videos. Below, we present the performance comparison in terms of mIoU scores:
| Model | mIoU |
| --- | --- |
| HelpingHands | 22.73% |
| Ours | 41.06% |
**Discussion:** HelpingHands uses coarse bounding boxes for visual grounding, leading to lower mIoU scores due to inadequate coverage of the target masks. In contrast, our model employs segmentation masks that closely align with the ground truth, resulting in higher mIoU scores, demonstrating superior visual grounding capabilities.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Follow Up Our Rebuttal
Comment: Dear Reviewer xaMC,
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to providing feedback on our work. Your insights are invaluable in helping us improve its clarity and overall quality. We want to follow up to check if our response fully addressed your concerns/questions before ending the discussion period.
Thank you once again, and we look forward to your feedback.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Title: Kindly Follow-up Our Rebuttal
Comment: Dear Reviewer xaMC,
As we approach the end of the discussion period, we wanted to kindly remind you of our rebuttal. We are keen to ensure that our responses have thoroughly addressed your concerns and would appreciate any additional feedback you may have.
Thank you once again for your invaluable insights and the time you have invested in reviewing our work. We look forward to hearing from you soon.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Reminder: Feedback Request Before Discussion Period Closes
Comment: Dear Reviewer xaMC,
As we are nearing the end of the discussion phase, we kindly seek your feedback to ensure that our responses have addressed your concerns. If our rebuttal satisfactorily addressed your concerns and questions, we would be very grateful if you would consider to raise your rating.
Thank you very much for your attention. | Summary: This paper presents HENASY (Hierarchical ENtities ASsemblY), a pretraining framework to learn scene-entities representations for egocentric videos. The authors proposed to learn compositional and hierarchal video representations by three levels: 1) global video features from a global video encoder. 2) entity features by assembling dynamic entities from video patches via local entity encoder, 3) interactions between entities and global context by an entity-aware decoder. With the designed model structure and losses, the authors conducted experiments on several egocentric tasks on two datasets. The results show the effectiveness of the proposed method.
Strengths: 1. The idea is well-motivated. The analysis in the introduction part that current simple instance-level video-caption alignment being hard to capture the complex and dynamic interactions among arbitrary entities are inspiring. The proposed method of utilizing both global information and local entitiy-level info is novel.
2. The authors conducted extensive experimets across multiple tasks including zero-shot transfer, down-stream finetuning and vision-language grounding. The experiments result show the effectiveness of the proposed method.
3. The ablation study (table 3 and 4) show the contribution of each proposed components clearly, providing intuiation and experience for future model design.
Weaknesses: 1. My major concern is the performance shown in the downstream task. In table 1, though the proposed methods generally achieved better performance compared with previous sota models (HelpingHands), the improvement seems to be minor. Besides, the paper didn't report the error analysis to dimish the influcen of randomness, which makes the contribution and effectiveness of the proposed method less convincing.
2. In Projection loss calculation, how is the mask predicted is not clearly presented.
3. The writing could be further improved. In line 127 it should be $L_{ego} = L_{ego}^{v2t} + L_{ego}^{t2v}$. In section 4, too many variables are used including z, c, g, s, e, making it hard to follow the context while reading.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: See weakness section.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful evaluation and acknowledgment that our approach is well-motivated, novel, and effective under extensive experiments, providing intuition and experience for future model design. We will fix all noticed typos in our final version. Below, we would like to address the concerns raised:
## **1: Clarify the improvement over most recent SOTA model (HelpingHands)**
We would like to recap the differences between our work and HelpingHands by the following table:
| Property | Our Work | HelpingHands |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Method | Explicitly models video as dynamic entities (object-centric), capturing their interactions (action-centric) to form spatiotemporal interpretable, object/action-aware video representation | Implicitly induces object occurrence (nouns) on top of pre-extracted feature map via auxiliary task-specific (detection) head to form an object-aware video representation |
| Fine-grained alignment | Spatiotemporal fine-grained alignments. Object appearance: Noun-entity alignment. Activity motion: verb-entities alignments | No alignment at granular level |
| Interpretability | Strong, both spatial and temporal dimensions with object-centric and action-centric via dynamic entity assembly mechanism | None. |
| Visual grounding | Strong, with spatiotemporal saliency maps of scene entities and relationships | Weak, only provide predicted bounding boxes |
| Efficiency | faster than HelpingHands x3 times in inference | slower x3 times in inference due to autoregressive decoder |
This discussion is included in Section 2, lines 87-93 of the submission.
In addition, we highlight our improvements over HelpingHands across various metrics as below (Tables 1 and 2 in the paper):
| Benchmark | Metric | HelpingHands | Our Method | Improvement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EgoMCQ | Intra Acc | 93.2 | 94.1 | +0.9 |
| EgoMCQ | Inter Acc | 58.8 | 61.3 | +2.5 |
| EGTEA | Top-1 Acc | 35.3 | 35.9 | +0.6 |
| EgoNLQ | mIoU @0.3 R5 | 20.4 | 21.5 | +1.1 |
| EgoMQ | mAP | 11.7 | 12.4 | +0.7 |
**Discussions:** We emphasize that the primary goal of our proposed method is to advance interpretable video representation by leveraging a compositional video understanding approach. This would create a new vibe to our research community from solely competing on benchmarks to prioritizing trustworthiness, transparency, and reliability. Although the improvements in some metrics may appear incremental, they are substantial within the context of interpretability and compositional analysis, as it pursuits of building transparent and accountable AI systems. Equipping the model with interpretability to ensure trustworthiness while enhancing performance is crucial for practical applications, especially in sensitive areas such as healthcare and autonomous driving.
## **2: Error Analysis to diminish the influence of randomness**
Reproducibility is highly prioritized in our work, and as such, we have implemented fixed seeds in all random-related functions for every experiment to ensure that the community can reliably reproduce the performance reported in our paper.
In response to this concern, we initiated evaluations of our model trained with different random seeds. However, due to the limited time available for the rebuttal and resource constraints, we can only train two additional models. We report the performance in terms of mean and std across several zero-shot benchmarks as below:
| Benchmark | Metric | Our performance (mean±std) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| EK100-CLS | Top-1 Acc | 19.20 ± 0.51 |
| EK100-MIR | Avg mAP | 31.07 ± 0.25 |
| EGTEA | Top-1 Acc | 35.5 ± 1.1 |
| EgoMCQ | Inter Acc | 59.74 ± 0.21 |
The above table with high mean and low std indicates that our method is effectiveness, stable, robust and converges well under randomness.
## **3: Formulation of masks prediction for Projection loss**
In Appendix Section B, we provided a comprehensive description of three steps involving the formulation of the masks prediction. Specifically:
1. **Similarity Computation**: We calculate a similarity array between the learnable group tokens and the input tokens.
2. **Group Assignment**: Each input token is assigned to a group token based on the highest similarity score. To retain differentiability essentially for training, we employ the straight-through trick during the assignment step. Obtaining assignment array.
3. **Saliency Map Generation**: Saliency maps are then generated using the assignment. These maps effectively highlight the spatial locations and dynamic contours of entities across different frames of the video, providing a visual representation of the model’s focus and understanding of the scene.
The complete mathematical formulation and additional details are thoroughly explained in Appendix Section B, ensuring transparency and reproducibility of our methods. We will add reference to corresponding appendix in the projection loss description to make it clearer.
## **4: Clarification on the use of multiple variables**
We use abbreviation to name variables for clarity and succinctness in mathematical formulations.
To recap, there are five types of tokens as follows:
- z: video patch tokens, which capture local features from video frames.
- c: learnable <CLS> token, which is used to aggregate and represent global video features.
- g: learnable group tokens, which are pivotal in organizing video information into meaningful clusters.
- s: segment tokens, which are derived from segmenting video patch tokens after the bootstrapping stage.
- e: entity tokens, which represent distinct entities clustered at the final stage of the process.
To aid readability, we plan to include a notation table in the appendix, summarizing all variables and functions with clear descriptions and references to their respective sections. This will facilitate easier navigation and understanding of the methodology for all readers.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the authors' responses. I think the responses generally resolve my concerns and I decide to raise my score to weak accept.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Appreciation
Comment: Dear Reviewer EqYJ,
Thank you for taking the time to read our rebuttal and for providing a positive rating. We greatly appreciate the valuable feedback you have given us, and we will incorporate your suggestions in the final revision of our paper.
Thank you once again.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Title: Kindly Follow-up on Review Rating Update
Comment: Dear Reviewer EqYJ,
Thank you once again for your constructive feedback and for the time you have invested in reviewing our submission. We greatly appreciate your decision to raise your rating to “*weak accept*”.
We noticed that the updated rating appears as “*borderline accept*” in the system. Therefore, we would like to kindly follow up with you regarding the rating update. We apologize for any inconvenience this request may cause and truly value your support and understanding. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
---
Reply to Comment 2.1.1:
Title: Kindly Reminder before Discussion Phase Ends
Comment: Dear Reviewer EqYJ,
We apologize for the urgency of this message and the multiple reminders. As we approach the final hours of the discussion phase, we kindly request your assistance in updating the rating to reflect your previously indicated preference for a "weak accept". We appreciate your efforts and understanding in resolving this matter swiftly.
We would like to thank you again for your invaluable feedback and consideration to raise your rating. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely appreciate all reviewers for their valuable time and constructive feedback. We are grateful for their recognition about the **significance, inspiration and impact** of our grounded and **interpretable** work (Reviewers EqYJ, cNiH, 4RbK), the **novelty** of our method (Reviewers EqYJ, cNiH), **extensive results** (Reviewers EqYJ, xaMC, cNiH), and **easy to follow presentation** (Reviewers xaMC, 4RbK).
The reviewers raised several concerns, which we addressed in the individual response. We summarize the highlights of our responses as follows:
**1. Architectural comparisons to related works [1, 2] and HelpingHands [3]:** We discuss the distinctions and advantages of our approach over [1, 2, 3], emphasizing the superior interpretability and dynamic entity modeling of our model. These properties are achieved via our compositional approach, which explicitly models video as dynamic entities (object-centric) and capturing their interactions (action-centric) to form spatiotemporal interpretable, object/action-aware video representation. Moreover, our approach is **the first to** explicitly integrate **spatiotemporal fine-grained alignments**, such as *object appearance (n*oun-entity alignment) and *activity motion* (verb-entities alignments).
**2. Performance Comparisons to HelpingHands [3]:** In Tables 1 and 2 of our submission, we reported significant improvements over HelpingHands, the most recent SOTA method, across various benchmarks and metrics. We would like to highlight again the such improvements that our model achieves against HelpingHands:
| Benchmark | Metric | HelpingHands | Our Method | Improvement |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EgoMCQ | Intra Acc | 93.2 | 94.1 | +0.9 |
| EgoMCQ | Inter Acc | 58.8 | 61.3 | +2.5 |
| EGTEA | Top-1 Acc | 35.3 | 35.9 | +0.6 |
| EgoNLQ | mIoU @0.3 R5 | 20.4 | 21.5 | +1.1 |
| EgoMQ | mAP | 11.7 | 12.4 | +0.7 |
**3. Comparison with GroupViT:** We clearly demonstrate three critical limitations inherent to GroupViT’s architecture:
(i) direct process of video patch tokens from scratch, which neglects powerful video representations already learned by pre-trained models.
(ii) originally proposed in image domain, making it unable to model dynamic entities with temporal information in videos.
(iii) unable to model object-environment interactions, which is essential to capture spatiotemporal dynamics of the videos.
In our local entity encoder, we address these limitations through:
(i) A novel bootstrapping stage: This aims to **leverage the powerful pre-trained model** for video patches encoding at early layers. The corresponding ablation study was in Table 3, row 3.
(ii) Temporal-aware grouping (TAG): This targets **preserving temporal dimensions**, crucial for our hierarchical dynamic entity assembly approach. Given the foundational role of TAG in our model, we did not conduct a separate ablation study for it, as removing it would undermine the model’s functionality.
(iii) Entity-aware decoder: This decoder plays a crucial role in **modeling entities-environment interactions,** enhancing our model’s overall performance. It propagates entity-level features from local entity encoder to enrich video-level embeddings from global encoder. It significantly contributes for the effective performance of our model. If we excluded this decoder, the model would rely solely on entity features from our slot-based local entity encoder and would end up with a substantial performance drop (Table 3, rows 1-2).
**4. Quantitative evaluation on visual grounding:** We conduct a rigorous quantitative analysis on Ego4D dataset to compare with the SOTA model of HelpingHands, as they only provide visual grounding results on this datasets. We create semantic segmentation labels by ourselves for 200 videos. The results are reported under mIoU metric between visual grounding prediction with corresponding groundtruth, showing our model’s superior visual grounding capability compared to HelpingHands:
| Model | mIoU |
| --- | --- |
| HelpingHands | 22.73% |
| Ours | 41.06% |
Our model outperforms HelpingHands thanks to its strong interpretability with dynamic segmentation masks associated with every entity in the video, while HelpingHands is only able to obtain bounding boxes of objects.
**5. Scalability:** We show that scaling of the network from the base model (TSF-B) to a large model (TSF-L) leads to the consistent gains in all benchmarks.
| Benchmark | EK100-MIR | EK100-CLS | EGTEA | EgoMCQ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Metric | Avg mAP | Top-1 Acc | Top-1 Acc | Intra Acc |
| LaViLa w/ TSF-B | 30.9% | 16.4% | 35.5% | 59.9% |
| LaViLa w/ TSF-L | +5.2% | +4.5% | +4.6% | +3.2% |
| Our w/ TSF-B | 31.3% | 19.5% | 35.9% | 61.3% |
| Ours w/ TSF-L | +5.1% | +5.3% | +5.3% | +2.7% |
Finally, we have carefully addressed all the reviewers' comments and questions. We will revise and update the final version based on all suggestions using the allowed extra page.
[1] Ge, Yuying, et al. "Bridging video-text retrieval with multiple choice questions." CVPR 2022.
[2] Xiong, Yuanhao, et al. "Structured Video-Language Modeling with Temporal Grouping and Spatial Grounding." ICLR 2024.
[3] Zhang, Chuhan, et al. "Helping Hands: An Object-Aware Ego-Centric Video Recognition Model.” ICCV 2023. | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Identifying Functionally Important Features with End-to-End Sparse Dictionary Learning | Accept (poster) | Summary: This work describes two new type of sparse autoencoders (SAEs) that are trained with two new loss functions, L_{e2e} and L_{e2e + ds}. L_{e2e} loss penalizes the KL divergence of the original model vs. when the SAE is inserted, as opposed to existing SAE training techniques which instead optimize MSE with the original activations. L_{e2e + downstream} additionally seeks to minimize the MSE of downstream layers after the SAE is inserted vs. the original model. Both types of new SAE have a better L0 vs. CE tradeoff than naive SAEs, and e2e + downstream additionally has similar downstream reconstruction loss. Interpretability is no worse for the new SAEs. Finally, e2e+ds has similar geometric properties to naive SAEs, including discovering similar features.
Strengths: - The new SAE techniques that the authors introduce are a Pareto improvement over existing techniques on L0 vs. CE loss. Furthermore, the techniques are exciting because they is in a different direction from recent improvements in training SAEs: it is possible that the new techniques can be combined with recent techniques like gated SAEs and the top-k activation function.
- The investigation of the geometry of the different SAE features is extremely interesting. Most notably, e2e + ds finds similar features to local and is reproducible over different seeds, and e2e has potentially less feature splitting.
- The new techniques result in features of similar interpretability as local, as determined by standard automated interpretably tests.
Weaknesses: - The main evaluation metrics that show improvement (CE loss for both new SAEs and later layer reconstruction error for e2e + downstream) are the same ones that are being optimized. This is noted by the authors when they mention Goodhart's law, but it would greatly improve the paper if there were additional metrics for downstream SAE quality that were tested (e.g. some of the methods described in section 4.4).
- Feature shrinkage (shown in Table 5) seems much worse with the new SAE training methods. Moreover, even with e2e + ds SAEs, later layer reconstructions in Figure 12 are much worse than local. This seems potentially a problem for e.g. finding circuits or understanding interactions between multiple SAEs via feature similarity. This is another reason I think additional downstream metrics would be useful.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: - Building off the above weaknesses, could the authors add a measure of downstream SAE functional importance that is not CE loss?
- Why doesn't the original SAE learn the "left block" of features that SAE e2e + ds does? It would be great to see if e.g. these have a small or negative impact on the variance explained.
- Did the authors try training an SAE with KL divergence + the local reconstruction error (i.e. MSE of layer X reconstruction for an SAE trained on layer X)? It is a little concerning to me that the layer X variance explained is so strongly negative because it means the SAE's reconstruction is very far off distribution.
- Can you quantify how much farther the <e2e ds to local> difference is vs. the inter seed distance? It is hard to know how to interpret Appendix G without this context, as inter-seed SAEs have different features learned too.
- The ~0.15 CE loss e2e+downstream SAE looks closer to the other chosen SAEs than the 0.125 CE loss one, does it change things to run with the ~0.15 one?
Small points:
- Line 41 states "a significant amount of [causal effects of some features is] mediated by the reconstruction residual errors", but I believe the cited work shows that this is true for circuits as a whole, not features individually.
- Lines 133-136 are confusing. Why is it okay to "clear out" features from layer X, but not layers X + 1...? In general, a more clear discussion of the tradeoff between learning functionally important features and maintaining model behavior would help I think.
I would be happy to raise my score if some of these questions/concerns were addressed.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: I believe the authors should more explicitly discuss the Goodhart's law problem I've discussed above and ideally the increased feature suppression as well. Otherwise, I think the limitations and impacts are well addressed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your evidently detailed read of our paper and your thoughtful comments.
## Comments on Weaknesses
Regarding evaluation metrics, we've taken your criticism on board and run a set of evaluations on a set of downstream tasks. These are documented in the Author Rebuttal at the top (results in the attached pdf).
As for your observation about feature shrinkage appearing worse for e2e SAEs. We agree. It turns out you can shrink activations in the residual stream without changing the output much and e2e SAEs take advantage of this. Note that this is partially because of layernorm (as shown in Figure 12). Fortunately, one can address the feature shrinkage issue with some of the SAE variants that were released following our submission (and that you mention in the summary of your review), e.g. topk SAEs, Gated SAEs, JumpReLU. We agree with your summary that these improvements should be orthogonal to the improvements we find with e2e SAEs.
## Comments on Questions
> Why doesn't the original SAE learn the "left block" of features that SAE e2e + ds does? It would be great to see if e.g. these have a small or negative impact on the variance explained.
If you’re referring to what appears to be the left mode of the somewhat bimodal distribution in Figure 8, we could not find any meaningful similarities between these features unfortunately. Once the anonymity is lifted, we will be able to publish an interactive dashboard with these features.
> Did the authors try training an SAE with KL divergence + the local reconstruction error (i.e. MSE of layer X reconstruction for an SAE trained on layer X)? It is a little concerning to me that the layer X variance explained is so strongly negative because it means the SAE's reconstruction is very far off distribution.
Please see the comment about variations of e2e+ds in the Author Rebuttal at the top.
> Can you quantify how much farther the <e2e ds to local> difference is vs. the inter seed distance? It is hard to know how to interpret Appendix G without this context, as inter-seed SAEs have different features learned too.
Good point. As for the means of those distributions, the <e2e ds to local> cross-type similarity (Figure 3c bottom) has a mean of 0.73, and the <e2e ds> cross-seed similarity (Figure 3b bottom) has a mean of 0.78. Visually, we do see the mode to the left of the cross-type plots that doesn’t exist in cross-seed plots, indicating that there is a set of features which are learned by e2e+ds but not local (as mentioned in response to your earlier question, we weren’t able to interpret any common properties of this set of features). We’ve plotted a UMAP comparison for different seeds on layer 6. Unlike our cross-type UMAP plots in the paper (Figure 19), we don’t see clear regions where one seed is represented but the other isn’t (though, of course, reading deeply into UMAP plots is a source of potential confusion). We’ve attached the layer 6 cross-seed UMAP to the pdf in Figure 3 of the Author Rebuttal.
> The ~0.15 CE loss e2e+downstream SAE looks closer to the other chosen SAEs than the 0.125 CE loss one, does it change things to run with the ~0.15 one?
Keen eye. The reason we didn’t select this run for our “similar CE loss” set was simply because it was run after our other analyses (including the time-consuming interpretations in Appendix G and dashboard creation) merely to fill out the pareto frontier for a nicer plot. After your comment, we reran the analysis (not the interpretations) with this run and did not find any significant differences. We posted a sample comparing the cross-type similarity with the different runs in Figure 2 of the uploaded pdf in the Author Rebuttal at the top.
> Line 41 states "a significant amount of [causal effects of some features is] mediated by the reconstruction residual errors", but I believe the cited work shows that this is true for circuits as a whole, not features individually.
We agree that it could technically be possible that the circuit does have this property but that individual features in the circuit do not. Though we think it’s reasonable to extrapolate that the same is true for individual features. Nonetheless, we’ve updated the text to be more accurate, thanks for pointing this out.
> Lines 133-136 are confusing. Why is it okay to "clear out" features from layer X, but not layers X + 1...? In general, a more clear discussion of the tradeoff between learning functionally important features and maintaining model behavior would help I think.
Our initial concern was that adding a reconstruction loss term at the current layer would have a much larger impact on reconstructing non-functional features than if the loss term was added at downstream layers. Though we have come to agree that this difference is merely quantitative rather than qualitative. As mentioned in the "Other variations of e2e+ds" section in the Author Rebuttal, we unfortunately have not run the extensive sweeps on the e2e+ds variations needed to give an insight to this question empirically.
## Summary
Thanks again for your valuable comments. Hopefully we've addressed your concerns/questions, and are keen to hear if there are cases where we have not.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for responding to my comments! Most of my concerns are addressed, but I remain concerned that the only real metric that shows improvement is the one that is being optimized (the new experiments are a pretty limited evaluation and don't show a compelling improvement). Some ideas might be using board games like in the recent work from [Karvonen et. al.](https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00113), showing more faithful circuits over a wide dataset like the ones studied in [Marks et. al.](https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.19647), or something else. I believe without more compelling downstream metrics, I cannot raise my score, so I will keep it as is. Thank you again! | Summary: This paper proposes to train Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) with an additional loss function term: The KL divergence between the original output distribution and the output distribution obtained when using model with the inserted SAEs. This additional loss pushes the SAEs to focus on functionally important features
The authors find that this setup requires fewer total features and fewer simultaneously active features per data point.
Strengths: - the authors point out a weakness of previous SEAs (feature splitting) and propose an intuitive solution: learning functionally important features by minimizing the KL divergence between original output and output with inserted SAEs
- writing is mostly clear and easy to follow
- the authors discuss limitations of their approach like robustness to random seeds, reconstruction loss, training time
Weaknesses: - I think the major weakness is that the contribution is not very groundbreaking.
- There are no new findings wrt interpretability, and the e2e SAEs require more compute to be trained
- while the authors discuss several findings (robustness to random seeds, reconstruction loss, training time) the reader is left waiting a bit for a conclusion or take home message
- the comparison to local SAEs is sometimes a bit unclear:
- the authors state that "locally trained SAEs are capturing information about dataset structure that is not maximally useful for explaining the algorithm implemented by the network." but do not show that their e2e SAEs are significantly more interpretable or helpful at explaining the algorithm implemented by the network, instead the e2e SAEs are merely "at least as interpretable as SAElocal"
- the features found by local SAEs are not the functionally important ones , but SAElocal and SAEe2e+ds features are somewhat similar so local SAEs can be used as initializations (line 233)?
- notation could be improved
- N_dict_elements and d_hidden seem to belong more into pseudo code so it looks a bit odd to mix it with more traditional mathy notation
- $\lambda$ is hidden in the $\phi$ parameter but then you show values for lambda in Table 1 and looking back at i.e. Eq. (1) it's not immediately clear what $\lambda$ is and why $\phi$ is not mentioned. I would suggest either putting $\lambda$ directly in the equations or citing values for $\phi$
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: line 50: but we no longer optimize activation reconstruction. -> but you do use activation reconstruction for $SAE_{e2e+ds}$, don't you?
Maybe I just missed i but where in the network do you plug in the SAEs? the residual stream/decoder layer output?
You say that taking different computational pathways through subsequent layers of the network might be a problem, but do you have any evidence for this happening? is this just section 3.3.2?
While reading, I was wondering if taking different computational pathways through subsequent layers of the network is still a problem if only one SAE is trained at a time. There should be little incentive for computing additional information since the original network post SAE insertion would not have capacity to handle these anyway, so it would only matter for the output directly.
small things:
- line 68: not sure if it's necessary to mention goodhart's law since the target is not cross-entropy loss difference but interpretability so I would be more worried about this if you start optimizing interpretability measures
- line 5: datatset -> dataset
- line 44: a feature is functional important -> a feature is functionally important
- line 113: ")" missing in equation
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Authors briefly discuss the lack of a ground truth to evaluate SAEs.
I think discussion of evaluation metrics could be a bit more divided (maybe into metrics to assess interpretability and metrics to assess how close to the original network a network with inserted SAEs is).
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for your comments and your typo spotting and notation improvement suggestions!
## Addressing main misunderstanding
After reading your review, it appears we failed to convey the core benefit of our method. You state
> the authors state that "locally trained SAEs are capturing information about dataset structure that is not maximally useful for explaining the algorithm implemented by the network." but do not show that their e2e SAEs are significantly more interpretable or helpful at explaining the algorithm implemented by the network, instead the e2e SAEs are merely "at least as interpretable as SAElocal"
Indeed, we did not find that **individual** features found by e2e SAEs were more interpretable than local SAEs. Though we didn't expect them to be, nor was it the purpose of this work. The important contribution of this work is that in order to explain the activations at a particular point in the network, our method requires fewer than half of the features that other methods require. We illustrate this with the pareto curves in Figure 1 (left). This dramatically reduces the description length of any feature or circuit that uses SAEs. Shortness of description is an essential aspect of interpretability.
In addition, we show that we need far fewer features in total to explain the network activations over the whole dataset (Figure 1 (right)).
## Response to Limitation
> Authors briefly discuss the lack of a ground truth to evaluate SAEs. I think discussion of evaluation metrics could be a bit more divided (maybe into metrics to assess interpretability and metrics to assess how close to the original network a network with inserted SAEs is).
We do have a section-level separation between both types of metrics (Sections 3.1-3.3 for the latter type and Section 3.4 for the former), and we link to the sections alongside a short explainer of them at the bottom of the introduction (lines 75-86). We’re open to alternative division if preferred.
In addition, we have run more experiments in response to other reviews that evaluate the SAE setups on a set of downstream tasks.
## Other responses to Weaknesses and Questions
> line 50: but we no longer optimize activation reconstruction. -> but you do use activation reconstruction for SAEe2e+ds, don't you?
Yes. We train for downstream activation reconstruction SAEe2e+ds, but at all subsequent layers, rather than at the current layer. In this paragraph we are introducing SAEe2e, which does not involve any training for activation reconstruction.
> Maybe I just missed i but where in the network do you plug in the SAEs? the residual stream/decoder layer output?
All of our SAEs are inserted in the residual stream (lines 160). We'll add this to the main figure and table for further clarity.
> You say that taking different computational pathways through subsequent layers of the network might be a problem, but do you have any evidence for this happening? is this just section 3.3.2?
Primarily the evidence for this is in Section 3.2, especially in Figure 2, as well as in Section 3.3.2. Figure 2 directly shows the e2e SAE’s output activations taking a very different pathway through the network, as the activation reconstruction MSE is much higher and significantly increases downstream through the layers of the network, rather than converging. Section 3.3.2 provides additional evidence that the pathway through the network is under-constrained by the KL divergence loss of e2e SAEs alone. These problems are resolved by e2e+ds SAE training.
> While reading, I was wondering if taking different computational pathways through subsequent layers of the network is still a problem if only one SAE is trained at a time. There should be little incentive for computing additional information since the original network post SAE insertion would not have capacity to handle these anyway, so it would only matter for the output directly.
Even with one SAE trained at a time, it turns out that there is capacity for the original network to handle the SAE adding "new" features to the residual stream. Evidence for this can be seen in Figure 3b (middle), which shows that with two different seeds, a pure e2e SAE can learn a very different set of features (and still perform as well in the L0-CE loss pareto). While we're unsure how much of a problem this is, our e2e+ds formulation appears to resolve this issue at very little cost.
> small things: line 68: not sure if it's necessary to mention goodhart's law since the target is not cross-entropy loss difference but interpretability so I would be more worried about this if you start optimizing interpretability measures
This is reasonable, and is our argument too. Though it's worth mentioning that reviewer 2 and reviewer 5 both expressed concerns about Goodharting.
>[notation improvement suggestions]
line 5: datatset -> dataset.
line 44: a feature is functional important -> a feature is functionally important.
line 113: ")" missing in equation
Thanks for spotting these errors and notation ideas! We'll incorporate these.
## Summary
Thanks again for your comments and questions. We hope to have adequately clarified any uncertainties or misunderstandings w.r.t the core contributions of this work and other listed limitations or weaknesses. If so, we would ask you to reassess your review score, taking this response into account.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for emphasizing again that your main contribution lies in reducing the description length. I do agree that this is a valid improvement over existing SAEs.
I'm sorry for being too unclear wrt my comment about evaluation metrics. You do discuss different metrics in different sections. I guess I was looking more for a high level picture. Sth like you want to maximize faithfulness between the network with and without inserted SAEs (to make sure you interpret the original network) and interpretability at the same time and how the different metrics serve these goals.
I do think it is hard to assess how much the reduction in description length helps with the goal of interpretability (maybe showing that pure reconstruction loss SAEs features can be misleading or sth could be helpful), so I did not update my score. | Summary: The authors present their observations on modified sparse autoencoder (SAE) learning. In the proposed method SAE is trained to reconstruct original model weights (features). SAE is optimized with the KL-divergence loss between the model output and the output at the same location in the original model. An additional variant is training with the reconstruction loss computed after each layer between the original model and SAE output. The sparsity loss term is added to increase the number of weights that will converge to zero. The authors claim that their method explains the model features in a better way with fewer dictionary elements.
Strengths: - Proposed a new training method for SAE with end-to-end loss that allows to use of fewer features from the original model
- The authors provided extensive analysis of their results
- The related work is sufficient
- The proposed method decreases the number of active dictionary elements twice while preserving the same CE loss decrease as a baseline SAE.
Weaknesses: - The modification is very simple and raises the question of whether additional variants could work too, e.g. local SAE with MSE end-to-end loss (in addition to the layer reconstruction MSE)
- The numeric results in Figure 1 are very incremental: e.g. reduction of 0.05 in CE loss increase L0=100 is ~1.6% of the evaluation CE loss
- The interpretability is not well defined, in addition, the claim that fewer features means more interpretability should be proved by empirical evidence, white the authors showed that interpretability was not changed or changed significantly (appendix A7). If I get it correctly, the main goal of the proposed method is interpretability but a few experiments were done to evaluate it. Also, qualitative results are not provided (anonymous url)
- Std values are missing (for different random initialization seeds) in Figure 1
- The writing should be improved, Sec. 3.4 should be more self-contained
- It is not clear which method e2e or e2e-ds is the best performer overall?
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: - Can you please explain the diagram in Figure 1 why some blocks are of different shapes?
- It looks like that the Sec. 3.4 result is trivial, if we don’t encourage the SAE to reconstruct after wach activation, that will be the result.
- What is the number of parameters you train in SAE in total for all layers?
- Again, if the main benefit of the method is interpretability, I do not understand how this work addresses this property and what is its main contribution in improving interpretability.
- Are $W_e$ and $D$ the matrices defined for each layer? If they are - an appropriate indexing should be applied.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: not discussed
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for you comments and suggestions
## Comments on Weaknesses
> The interpretability is not well defined...
The interpretability provided by an SAE contains two main components: The average number of SAE features required to interpret any particular model output (L0 - lower is better), and the individual interpretability of each of those features. Improving either one of these without hurting the other or the amount of model performance explained constitutes an improvement to interpretability by shortening the description length required to explain the model’s behavior. Shortness of description is an essential component of interpretability.
As we show in Figure 1, e2e and e2e+ds SAEs are able to significantly reduce L0, requiring fewer active features compared to local SAEs explaining the same amount of model performance (as measured by the CE loss increase).
While the interpretability of each feature is in general somewhat subjective and hard to measure, we put significant effort into gaining unbiased and rigorous measures by implementing automated interpretability scoring (Bills 2023).
Overall, we believe the evidence is clear that our method produces SAEs which are significantly more useful for interpretability than SAEs produced by the baseline local training process.
> The numeric results in Figure 1 are very incremental: e.g. reduction of 0.05 in CE loss increase L0=100 is ~1.6% of the evaluation CE loss.
We believe that this is an inappropriate baseline. At the L0=100 position quoted, our method more than halves the CE loss increase, relative to the local SAE baseline. We would not call a halving of the error incremental. Recall that we are not trying to reduce the CE loss of the original model - merely to explain as much of the original model’s performance as possible.
Second, although an increase of 0.05 in CE loss may seem relatively small, it corresponds to a much larger effective drop in model size or training FLOP via scaling laws between these quantities and loss. The drop in CE loss from the model learning more complex behaviors (which emerge at larger model sizes or training FLOP) generally reduces as the behaviors get more complex (relative to the drop in loss from the model learning simple bigrams or trigrams), and yet we are still especially interested in interpreting how the model performs these more complex behaviors.
Finally, the quoted rises in CE loss are for one single SAE. in practice, an explanation of the model’s behavior will require SAEs in many layers throughout the model, so seemingly small errors can be multiplied in this way, leading to unfaithful descriptions (this is illustrated in Marks2024 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.19647)).
> The modification is very simple and raises the question of whether additional variants could work too, e.g. local SAE with MSE end-to-end loss (in addition to the layer reconstruction MSE)
Please see our response to reviewer TS92, where we agree that this would be an interesting variant to try, along with a long list of others.
> Std values are missing (for different random initialization seeds) in Figure 1
We provide some evidence in Figure 18 that the results of Figure 1 are robust to different random initialization seeds. Unfortunately, training enough SAEs to get robust estimates of the standard deviations for each datapoint would be prohibitively expensive.
> It is not clear which method e2e or e2e-ds is the best performer overall?
We recommend e2e-ds as the best performer overall. It achieves a similar performance explained to e2e SAEs while maintaining activations that follow similar pathways through later layers compared to the original model (highlighted in section 3.2 and the conclusion).
## Responses to Questions
> Can you please explain the diagram in Figure 1 why some blocks are of different shapes?
The different shapes are to distinguish qualitatively different operations, such as the unembed (which projects up from the residual stream to the logits), and the SAE (which we train). These are labelled in the diagram.
> It looks like that the Sec. 3.4 result is trivial, if we don’t encourage the SAE to reconstruct after wach activation, that will be the result.
We believe you may have confused Section 3.4 with Section 3.3.2, or some other section. If so, Section 3.3.2 was not intended to be counterintuitive. If not, see our response to questions on evaluating interpretability above.
> Are W_e and D the matrices defined for each layer? If they are - an appropriate indexing should be applied.
We do only ever train one SAE at a time, but we will add some layer indices for clarity, thanks for bringing this to our attention.
> What is the number of parameters you train in SAE in total for all layers?
As mentioned on line 166, the number of dictionary elements in each SAE is fixed at 60 times the size of the GPT-2 small residual stream (60 x 768 = 46080 dictionary elements), so W_e and D both have sizes 46080 x 768, b_e is a 46080 dimensional vector, and b_d is a 768 dimensional vector, meaning that each SAE has just over 70 million parameters.
## Summary
We thank you again for your comments and questions. If we have adequately addressed your concerns, we would kindly ask you to reassess your review score, taking this rebuttal into account.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the rebuttal.
In Figure 1 you present CE loss increase, not the error, so I don't understand you claim of "We would not call a halving of the error incremental.".
I meant Sec. 3.2 not 3.4
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: > In Figure 1 you present CE loss increase, not the error, so I don't understand you claim of "We would not call a halving of the error incremental.".
Apologies if our use of the terms "error" and "CE loss increase" caused confusion in the rebuttal, we in fact did mean to use them interchangeably. To expand: The optimal CE Loss Increase (the metric used in Figure 1) is 0. Achieving this would mean that we could splice in the SAE, run the SAE activations through the rest of the network, and achieve exactly the same output as the original model. This would thus give us a complete representation of the features that matter for the output of the network.
When we splice in a "vanilla" local SAE and then pass the SAE activations through the rest of the network, the CE loss of that network is worse than that of the original network. The yellow line in Figure 1 (left) shows how much worse it is. E.g. at an L0 of 100, it gives a CE Loss Increase of 0.11 compared to the original model.
When we splice in an e2e SAE (either pure e2e or e2e+ds), we only get a CE loss increase of 0.05. So the amount of CE Loss Increase has ~halved from 0.11 to 0.05. As mentioned in our rebuttal, we do not think this is a small difference when considering that models containing many times more parameters only slightly decrease CE loss as per model scaling laws. Or perhaps more starkly, to get the same amount of CE Loss as our e2e models with L0=100 (CE Loss Increase of 0.05), a local SAE needs to activate ~400 features on average for each input (i.e. 4 times larger description length!).
> I meant Sec. 3.2 not 3.4
Ah, in this case we do agree that it is at least unsurprising that pure e2e performs much worse than local SAEs on this metric. Although we do find it valuable to know exactly how close our e2e+ds and local are on downstream layers. We use a reconstruction loss at downstream layers in the e2e+ds case, but not the local case, so it wasn't clear a priori how this plot would turn out for the optimal hyperparameters in each setting. It could have turned out that a smaller downstream reconstruction coefficient was optimal for e2e+ds SAEs, meaning that the downstream reconstruction MSE would be worse and we would be more concerned about the SAE taking different computational pathways through the network.
We hope this helps clarify your remaining concerns. | Summary: This paper proposes a way to train sparse autoencoders (SAEs) that encourages them to learn features that are causally relevant to the model's output. This is done by replacing the usual SAE reconstruction objective - an L2 penalty between original activations and their reconstructions - by the KL divergence between the model's output distribution and the distribution when activations are replaced by their reconstructions. Additional loss terms encourage the reconstructions to lead to downstream layer activations similar to the original downstream layer activations. The sparsity penalty on feature activations is kept as in the "vanilla" SAE.
The paper finds that this approach is a clear Pareto improvement over vanilla
SAEs w.r.t. the tradeoff between sparsity of the feature activations (L0) and
loss recovered when using reconstructions. An automatic interpretability pipeline is used to compare the features learned to vanilla SAE features. A statistically significant advantage for e2e+ds SAEs is found.
The paper also attempts to avoid a potential failure mode of the approach, whereby the SAE may learn to exploit different pathways through the model in order to drive down the KL divergence to the original output distribution, because this is easier from an optimization point of view (as the reconstructions are no longer optimized to match the original activations at the layer where the SAE is applied). This is why one of the SAE variants considered includes an L2 penalty for downstream layer activations too. Results here show that using only the KL penalty in the loss produces very different downstream activations compared to adding these additional terms, suggesting that the
Strengths: - it is an important open problem whether SAEs trained solely using activations from some LLM layer will learn all causally important features for the LLM at this layer if trained without supervision from downstream activations. The paper makes some progress on this problem, suggesting that "vanilla" SAEs may struggle to learn such causally relevant features.
- the methodology is careful and often considers alternative hypotheses or potential pitfalls in the analyses.
- the paper is clearly written
Weaknesses: - given that the KL divergence to the output distribution is incorporated in the
loss function, it is not that surprising that the methods in this paper have
better values of the loss recovered metric (to their credit, the authors
acknowledge this). To truly conclude the superiority of the suggested method for
surfacing *individual* causally important features, it would be extremely helpful to have some external (to the KL metric)
evaluation.
- To some extent the paper shows such evaluations. For example, in Appendix G.3 it is shown that vanilla SAEs represent well a feature that is not causally important, and the e2e SAEs in turn represent it poorly. However, what is *really* required to establish superiority is the opposite: to exhibit a causally important feature not represented by vanilla SAEs, but represented by e2e ones.
- the key problem when not using the same-layer activations as a reconstruction target for the SAE is (as the authors describe) that the optimization may prefer to learn features that achieve a good KL divergence value eventually, but do so through "pathological" pathways in the model. To fix this, the authors encourage closeness with activations starting from the next layer up. However, such "pathological" pathways may exist in a single layer (this was shown e.g. here https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.17030). So it is unclear whether the problem has been fully overcome or rather restricted to a more narrow part of the model. Furthermore, even if reconstructions of downstream layers are similar to the true activations of these layers, this does not establish that the individual features themselves are not "pathological". Again, some additional, *per-feature* evaluation is needed to make the (strong) claims of the paper more believable.
- out of the three kinds of SAEs considered - vanilla, e2e, e2e+ds - there seems to be a missing one implied by the others: an SAE that encourages faithful reconstructions only of the *next* layer activations, and does not involve the KL divergence loss. Would such an SAE lead to similar improvements? If so, this would be stronger evidence, as the KL divergence w.r.t. the final output distribution won't be a part of the loss.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: - did you try the "next layer only" SAE variant described in the weaknesses?
- how can we get a more fine-grained picture of how individual features change between the vanilla SAE and the e2e ones?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: - I think the main limitation that I would have loved to see addressed more in the paper is that the evaluations are somewhat indirect w.r.t. the main claim of the paper. Even if in some average sense the e2e SAEs' reconstructions lead to better KL divergence, we still don't know how this plays out on the level of individual features.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for engaging with our paper and giving well-considered feedback.
Regarding the main limitation you’ve mentioned, we agree that it would be helpful for the paper’s narrative to have other metrics of functional importance than KLDiv, including evaluations on an individual feature level. However, there is an issue with this in practice, which relates to your comment
> To some extent the paper shows such evaluations. For example, in Appendix G.3 it is shown that vanilla SAEs represent well a feature that is not causally important, and the e2e SAEs in turn represent it poorly. However, what is really required to establish superiority is the opposite: to exhibit a causally important feature not represented by vanilla SAEs, but represented by e2e ones.
The extent to which features exist in one dictionary and do not exist in another is, unfortunately, not a binary concept in practice. We often find that there are directionally similar, but not identical features shared across dictionaries. Or there are clusters of features that are overrepresented in one dictionary and underrepresented (but not absent entirely) in another. Therefore demonstrating that “a causally important feature not represented by vanilla SAEs, but represented by e2e ones” may not reflect the metric that matters overall: the global functional importance of all the features.
Nevertheless, we agree that it would be desirable to be able to identify compelling narratives about individual features across dictionaries and their improved functional importance. Unfortunately the differences are matters of degree – quantitative rather than qualitative, which makes qualitative stories more difficult to tell. We were able to identify one such qualitative story. However, despite efforts to identify qualitative stories in the direction suggested by the reviewer (“what is really required to establish superiority is the opposite: to exhibit a causally important feature not represented by vanilla SAEs, but represented by e2e ones.”), we found that the data did not suggest these qualitative narratives despite the quantitative differences being present on the global level.
As for other external evaluations that don’t directly measure the CE loss over the same distribution used to train the SAE, we have run some additional experiments on a selection of downstream tasks. These are described in the Author Rebuttal at the top of this page
> When not using same-layer reconstruction... it is unclear whether the problem has been fully overcome or rather restricted to a more narrow part of the model.
We agree that our existing e2e+ds implementation does not eliminate the problem but rather restricts it to a narrower part of the model. Our initial concern with adding a reconstruction loss term at the current layer was that it would reconstruct too many non-functional features present in the residual stream at the current layer. Though we have come to agree that the difference between reconstructing the current layer and a subsequent layer is merely quantitative rather than qualitative. As mentioned in the "Other variations of e2e+ds" section in the Author Rebuttal, we unfortunately have not run the extensive sweeps on the e2e+ds variations needed to give an insight to this question empirically, so it is possible that additionally reconstructing the current layer's activations would perform just as well on the L0-CE Loss Pareto while further restricting the computational pathways available to the model.
Regarding the question
> did you try the "next layer only" SAE variant described in the weaknesses?
please see our comment on this in our Author Rebuttal at the top of the page.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Valuable, if negative, results
Comment: Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful rebuttal, as well as the overall response.
I appreciate the additional evaluations of your proposed method.
My interpretation of the additional experiments is that they provide at best mixed evidence
for the superiority of the proposed SAE variants. That being said, I appreciate the honesty
of the authors, and I believe these results will be valuable (and perhaps surprising) to the
interpretability community, so I am in favor of disseminating these results widely.
This is why I maintain my recommendation to accept this work (though I will not be changing
my score at present). | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We'd like to thank the reviewers and ACs for their time. We're delighted to hear that our work "makes some progress on ... an important open problem" (R2), "provides extensive analysis of their results" (R3), "provide an intuitive solution" (R4), introduces "exciting techniques" and has some "extremely interesting" analysis (R5). We're also glad to see that the reviewers who gave the highest ratings also had the highest confidence in their ratings (R2, R5).
Responses to individual comments/questions are provided alongside each review. Most notably, we hope that we've cleared up what we believe to be a core misunderstandings of the paper's contribution for R1 and R4. Below, we respond to concerns that were shared across multiple reviewers.
## Other variations of e2e+ds
Reviewer TS9212 (R2) and reviewer SeEL02 (R5) commented about trying other variations of the e2e+ds SAE. Reviewer TS9212 asks _“did you try the "next layer only" SAE variant described in the weaknesses?”_. Reviewer SeEL02 states _“The modification is very simple and raises the question of whether additional variants could work too, e.g. local SAE with MSE end-to-end loss”_.
We agree that these would both be interesting variants to try, although there are also many other variants omitted in our experiments. A more complete set of variants might be:
- *Our local
- Local + next layer reconstruction
- Local + arbitrary downstream layer reconstruction
- Local + multiple arbitrary downstream layer reconstruction
- Next layer reconstruction only
- Arbitrary downstream layer(s) reconstruction only
- Multiple arbitrary downstream layer reconstruction only
- Local + KL Div
- Local + next layer reconstruction + KL Div
- Local + arbitrary downstream layer reconstruction + KL Div
- Local + multiple arbitrary downstream layer reconstruction + KL Div
- Next layer reconstruction + KL Div
- Arbitrary downstream layer(s) reconstruction + KL Div
- *Multiple arbitrary downstream layer reconstruction + KL Div (i.e. our e2e+ds)
- *KL Divergence only (i.e. our e2e)
We're also interested in these variants, not least because it would be interesting to know if we can get much of the benefit of e2e+ds merely by reconstructing a more ‘local’ set of layers and avoiding the backpropagation through most of the model. We expect that these variants will not greatly change the L0-CE Loss Pareto frontier, though it is likely that they would result in different properties w.r.t the computational pathway through the network. Since we could not focus on every variant, we chose to focus on e2e and e2e+ds since we believe that these were sufficient illustrations of our core thesis.
## Further evaluations
Reviewer TS9212 (R2) and reviewer ErCK12 (R5) had concerns that the paper did not provide evaluation metrics that were not biased by the KL divergence loss metric we introduced. Reviewer TS9212 states _“I think the main limitation that I would have loved to see addressed more in the paper is that the evaluations are somewhat indirect w.r.t. the main claim of the paper. Even if in some average sense the e2e SAEs' reconstructions lead to better KL divergence, we still don't know how this plays out on the level of individual features.”_ Reviewer ErCK12 states _“...it would greatly improve the paper if there were additional metrics for downstream SAE quality that were tested (e.g. some of the methods described in section 4.4).”_
We think these are good criticisms of the paper. For this reason, we’ve run additional evaluations on specific tasks. The experiments are described below, and some results can be seen in the attached pdf.
### Methodology
We adapt the datasets from Marks et al. (2024), originally presented in Finlayson et al. (2021). This includes 4 variations of subject-verb agreement template data:
* Simple (The parent/s is/are)
* Within RC (The athlete that the manager/managers likes/like)
* Across RC (The athlete/athletes that the managers like do/does)
* Across PP (The secretary/secretaries near the cars has/have)
For our metric $m$ we take the difference in logits between the correct completion, and the same verb but swapped between singular and plural forms For example, given $x_\text{clean}=\texttt{The teachers}$, $m(x_\text{clean})$ will be $\text{logit}(\texttt{ are}) - \text{logit}(\texttt{ is})$.
Then the $\textit{faithfulness}$ of a network under an intervention is defined as $\frac{E_x[m(x_\text{clean} | \text{intervention})]}{E_x[m(x_\text{clean})]}$
Note that the fully zero or mean ablated model will have an average logit difference of zero, due to the construction of the dataset.
### Faithfulness of models with SAEs
We first test the faithfulness of the models with the SAEs inserted (Table 1 in pdf). All SAEs preserve most of the logit-difference, however there is significant variation across SAE types, layers, and tasks. The local SAEs in layer 10 have the worst faithfulness, although our e2e + ds SAE in layer 6 also has poor faithfulness across participial phrases.
### Number of nodes needed to explain behavior
We order SAE features in each Similar $L_0$ SAE by indirect effect (mean ablating one SAE feature at a time and measuring how the metric changes). We then measure the metric while preserving only the top k most important features (for $k \in [1, \cdots, 1200]$). The results are in Figure 1 of the pdf.
### Result Summary
While we see some (SAE type, SAE layer) combinations perform better than others, we see no clear patterns between SAE types over all the tasks. These results indicates that e2e SAEs do not provide an obvious benefit on these specific tasks. Even though we've shown that e2e SAEs are beneficial on the language modeling task over the full openwebtext distribution, further work would be needed to find specific tasks and subdistributions in which they provide the most benefit.
## Rebuttal Summary
We hope that our additional experiments and comments to the reviewers questions satisfy their concerns.
Pdf: /pdf/524fc4bfcdc911aedc3016e83a16f90a39d9ae11.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | Summary: The paper proposes new framework to improve the interpretability of large language models. Inspired by the work proposed in Anthropic's "", the proposed work replaces the original reconstruction loss in the sparse auto-encoder (SAE) with KL-div loss, and additionally add further constraint to minimize the error between reconstructed downstream activations and original activations in the LLM. Empirical results demonstrates the adavantage of the proposed new SAE_{e2e} architecture series.
Strengths: S1: The paper considers new formulation to further improve the interpretability of the large language model.
Weaknesses: W1: The authors may further explain the intuition between the evaluation metrics. The current version of the evaluations is not explicitly clear to me why the proposed method is advantageous in comparison to the baselines.
W2: It is now clear how the KL divergence is implemented to replace the reconstruction loss. KL is only practically useful when the distributions are available. However, in this problem, it is unclear how the distribution loss between the two deterministic feature outputs are computed. The motivation of the replacement between KL divergence and the L2 reconstruction is also not very clear to me, and these two losses should be ultimately equivalent and optimal at the same parameters global optima, although the loss changes the optimization landscapes.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: I appreciate it if the authors could please see the above weakness for my questions.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes the authors have adequately discussed the limitations of the work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their comments and questions. We believe there may be a core misunderstand of our method which we clarify in the response to Weakness 2.
## Response to Weaknesses
### Weakness 1
> W1: The authors may further explain the intuition between the evaluation metrics. The current version of the evaluations is not explicitly clear to me why the proposed method is advantageous in comparison to the baselines.
In the paper we present three main components to evaluating the performance of an SAE. Below we give some more intuition behind them.
1. If we are to sum up dictionary elements of our SAE and use those in place of the real model activations, how many dictionary elements do we need to use to get similar performance to the real model? Figure 1 (Left) shows that we require fewer dictionary elements on average (L0) to explain the same amount of CE loss degradation (which is the difference between the CE loss of the original model and the model when splicing in SAE features).
2. In Figure 1 (right), we measure the total number of dictionary elements needed in the SAE to explain the network’s behavior over the whole dataset. While less important than the metric above, having fewer dictionary elements in total means that there are fewer variables needed to describe the behavior of the network on your distribution. Note that “alive dictionary elements” is the effective measure of the number of variables needed, as some dictionary elements become forever inactive during training (it’s worth noting that the recent work of Gao2024 (https://cdn.openai.com/papers/sparse-autoencoders.pdf) has reduced the killing of dictionary elements with better initialization and an augmented loss term, though we don’t have a reason to expect that employing these techniques will change the structure of the pareto curves presented in our figure.
3. We want to know whether we can understand each SAE dictionary element individually. We implemented automated interpretability scoring, which provides a scalable and unbiased quantitative measure of interpretability. For an introduction to this technique, see Bills et al. [2023] https://openaipublic.blob.core.windows.net/neuron-explainer/paper/index.html. In short, to score the interpretability of a single SAE feature, GPT-4-turbo is prompted to write a short english-language explanation of the feature, then GPT-3.5-turbo is prompted to try to predict the specific activations of the SAE feature on each token, as we explain in section 3.4. From the automated interpretability scoring, we find strong evidence that the features in our e2e+ds SAEs are not less interpretable than the features in the local SAEs at a similar amount of model performance explained. We even find that they are significantly more interpretable in some layers, such as in layers 2 (p = 0.0053) and 6 (p = 0.0005).
It may be useful to note that several other works in the area have used the metric outlined in point 1 to evaluate SAEs e.g. Figure 5 in Bills2024 (https://cdn.openai.com/papers/sparse-autoencoders.pdf), Rajamanoharan2024 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.16014)(note that this uses a “loss recovered” term which is calculated from the average CE loss of the model when splicing in the SAE), Kissane2024 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.17759). Additionally, many works have used automated interpretability to evaluate the interpretability of SAE dictionary elements (e.g. Cunningham2023 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.08600), Templeton2024 (https://transformer-circuits.pub/2024/scaling-monosemanticity/),
In addition, in the Author Rebuttal at the top, we've run additional evaluations. The results measure how much task performance degradation there is when SAE dictionary elements are spliced into the model on some of the subtasks used in Marks2024 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.19647).
### Weakness 2
> However, in this problem, it is unclear how the distribution loss between the two deterministic feature outputs are computed.
The KL divergence is computed for the output of the LLM. This output is a probability distribution over next tokens, motivating our use of KL divergence.
> The motivation of the replacement between KL divergence and the L2 reconstruction is also not very clear to me, and these two losses should be ultimately equivalent and optimal at the same parameters global optima, although the loss changes the optimization landscapes.
For an SAE with perfect reconstruction, both L2 and KL loss would be zero. However, the sparsity_loss and reconstruction_loss terms trade off against one another (given a fixed dictionary size). This means that the global optimum does not result in an SAE with perfect reconstruction.
We use KL divergence rather than L2 reconstruction at the output as the outputs are probability distributions (and the original network was trained with the standard language modeling loss which is the KL divergence between its outputs and the one-hot labels). For SAE_local and SAE_e2e+ds, we have a loss term at intermediate layer(s) in the network. Here, we use the L2 reconstruction as these activations are not probability distributions.
## Summary
We thank the reviewer again for their comments and questions, and kindly ask that they reassess the review score if their concerns were adequately addressed by this response.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thanks for your rebuttal
Comment: Thanks for the rebuttal and the further clarifications on my questions. Given the explanations on the motivations behind using KL to replace L2, I decide to increase my score. I also encourage the authors to include the discussions on these differentiating factors between L2 and KL into the final version of their paper. | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Randomized Exploration for Reinforcement Learning with Multinomial Logistic Function Approximation | Accept (poster) | Summary: This work proposes the two randomized RL algorithms, RRL-MNL and ORRL-MNL, for the MNL transition model that for the first time achieve both computational and statistical efficiency without stochastic optimism. The complexity of ORRL-MNL has better dependence on the large problem-related constant $\kappa^{-1}$ than RRL-MNL.
Strengths: MNL parameterization is important and convenient since the parameterized transition kernel is always a probability distribution. This work is computationally more efficient than the existing work [35] on MNL parameterization.
Weaknesses: Some details of the algorithms are not easily understood and are thus better to explain intuitively, as mentioned in questions 2-4 and 6-7 below. The regrets of both proposed algorithms are higher than $\widetilde{O}(dH^{\frac{3}{2}}\sqrt{T})$ of [35]. Experiment reproducibility could be improved as shown in question 9 below.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: (1) Assumption 4 is equivalent to $\inf _ {\theta\in \mathcal{B} _ d(\mathcal{L} _ {\theta})} P_{\theta}(s'|s,a)\ge \sqrt{\kappa}, \forall s,a,s'$, since $\inf _ {s',\widetilde{s}}P _ {\theta}(s'|s,a)P _ {\theta}(\widetilde{s}|s,a)=[\inf_{s'}P _ {\theta}(s'|s,a)]^2$.
(2) In eq. (2), how to select $L_{\theta}$? Does eq. (2) aim to minimize the lost function $\sum_{k=1}^N\ell_{k,h}(\theta)$? Why do you use Newton step instead of first-order algorithm?
(3) Could you explain the intuition of eq. (3)? Is it inspired by the Hessian of the loss $\ell_{k,h}(\theta)$?
(4) In the paragraphs about ``Stochastically optimistic value function'' after eq. (3), it seems that most words are about the drawbacks of existing works on optimistic estimated value function, and then you adapt optimistic sampling technique instead. It would be more clear to me if you introduce your eq. (4) first with more explanations, for example, what adjustments are made to the original optimistic sampling technique [7, 52, 37, 36] and why, why is $A_{j,k}^{-1}$ used instead of Euclidean norm in $\hat{s}$ definition, and then list its advantage over existing works (maybe with less words than the current version?). Also, is your Remark 2 an advantage over relevant works like [35]? If yes, you may claim this advantage.
[35] Taehyun Hwang and Min-hwan Oh. Model-based reinforcement learning with multinomial logistic function approximation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pages 7971–7979, 2023.
(5) In eqs. (4) and (7), is it tighter to truncate at level $H-h+1$ instead of $H$?
(6) In eq. (6), is there an intuition why $\nabla^2\ell_{k,h}$ has coefficient $\eta$ while $\nabla^2\ell_{i,h}$ ($i=1,\ldots,k-1$) have coefficient 1?
(7) Is there an intuitive explanation of $\nu_{k,h}^{\rm rand}(s,a)$ defined after eq. (7)?
(8) You could also define $T$ in Theorem 1 to facilitate readers. The total number of steps is $T=KH$, yes? Is yes, is it better to use the equivalent sample complexity $\kappa^{-1}d^{\frac{3}{2}}H^2\sqrt{K}$?
(9) To ensure reproducible experiment, some hyperparameters are missing such as $M$, $\lambda$, $\kappa$, $\eta$, $\sigma_k$, $\beta_k$, etc.
(10) Could you compare your work with contemporary work [a]?
[a] Li, Long-Fei, et al. "Provably Efficient Reinforcement Learning with Multinomial Logit Function Approximation." ArXiv:2405.17061 (2024).
(11) Is it possible to extend your work to stochastic policy and unknown reward? For example, will $\epsilon$-greedy policy also encourage exploration more than greedy action?
(12) Typo at the beginning of Section 2: {$P_h$} $_ {h=1}^H$ instead of {$P$} $_ {h=1}^H$.
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The final appendix section mentions the limitation of realizability assumption. I agree with the authors' claim that there is no negative societal impacts because this work focuses on theoretical aspects.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your time to review our paper and for your valuable feedback. Here are our responses to each comment and question:
---
### __[W1] Regret bound__
It is generally well-known that the regret bound of randomized algorithms is higher than that of optimism-based algorithms. For example,
- in the linear bandit setting: UCB $\tilde{O}(d \sqrt{T})$ [1] vs. TS $\tilde{O}(d^{3/2} \sqrt{T})$ [2];
- in the MNL-bandit setting: UCB $\tilde{O}(d \sqrt{T})$ [53] vs. TS $\tilde{O}(d^{3/2} \sqrt{T})$ [52];
- in linear MDPs: UCB $\tilde{O}(d^{3/2} H^{3/2} \sqrt{T})$ [41] vs. TS $\tilde{O}(d^2 H^2 \sqrt{T})$ [71].
This gap originates from the fact that randomized algorithms require the perturbations to have sufficient variance to guarantee optimism of the estimated reward (or value) with a constant probability. Note that although randomized algorithms have a higher regret bound than UCB-based algorithms, randomized exploration not only exhibits superior performance in empirical evaluations but also necessitates a more rigorous proof technique to obtain a theoretical guarantee. Hence, proving a particularly frequentist regret bound for TS algorithms in any given bandit or RL problem has been widely recognized as making significant contributions to both RL and bandit literature.
---
### **[Q1] Assumption 4**
We intended to define $\kappa$ for $s'\ne\tilde{s}$. In this case, Assumption 4 is not equivalent to what you mentioned. We will clarify this in the revised version.
---
### **[Q2] Eq. (2)**
- $L_\theta$: $L_\theta$ is specified in Assumption 2, which is common in the literature on RL with function approximation [41, 70, 71, 37, 35], to ensure the regret bounds are scale-free.
- Eq.(2): Eq.(2) is designed as an online update scheme to find an approximate solution for minimizing the cumulative loss function $\sum\_{k=1}^K \ell\_{k,h} (\theta)$ since computing the exact solution for MLE can be inefficient in terms of time and space complexity.
- Newton step: We believe there may be a misunderstanding. The optimization method used to estimate Eq.(2) is not an exact Newton method because there is no calculation of the Hessian matrix. Instead, we use the lower bound of the Hessian matrix (i.e., $\lambda \mathbf{I}\_d + \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} \nabla^2 \ell_{k,h}(\theta) \succeq \mathbf{A}_{k,h}$), which is why we mention that we use a variation of the online Newton method. Note that this approach is inspired by online algorithms for logistic bandits [72] and MNL contextual bandits [53]. We applied these techniques to estimate the transition core in MNL-MDPs, and as a result, provided both computationally and statistically efficient randomized algorithms for MNL-MDPs.
___
### **[Q3] Eq. (3)**
The typical form of Eq.(3) is referred to as the Gram matrix, which is widely used in the existing feature-based bandit and RL literature [cite here]. It aggregates the feature information based on the decisions made by the algorithm in previous episodes. Once more, we would like to note that the Gram matrix in Eq.(3) is a lower bound of the sum of the regularized Hessian matrix.
___
### **[Q4] Stochastically optimistic value function**
To help understand the concept of a stochastically optimistic value function, we will provide additional explanations. In this paragraph, our intention is not merely to list the drawbacks of related literature. Instead, we introduce the key challenges of regret analysis for randomized algorithms, explain how previous works have overcome these challenges, and then describe why the techniques from previous works cannot be applied to MNL-MDPs. In the revised version, we will clarify this further to make it easier to understand.
For the definition of $\hat{s}$, at the end of the proof of Lemma 4, the prediction error can be upper bounded by the maximal inner product of the feature and the difference between the estimator, i.e., $\Delta^k_h(s,a) \le H \max_{s' \in \mathcal{S}\_{s,a}} | \varphi\_{s,a,s'}^\top (\theta^k\_h - \theta^*\_h)|$. We apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality with respect to $||\cdot||\_{A_{k,h}}$ because we have the concentration result for $\theta^k\_h$ with respect to $||\cdot||\_{A\_{k,h}}$ in Lemma 1. That is why the dominating feature $\hat{\varphi}(s,a)$ is defined with respect to the $||\cdot||\_{A\_{k,h}}$ norm rather than the $||\cdot||\_2$-norm.
For Remark 2, as the reviewer mentioned, it explains why RRL-MNL is computationally efficient compared to relevant works in MNL-MDPs [35]. We respectfully remind you that we clearly state our proposed algorithms are both computationally and statistically efficient in the main contributions.
---
### **[Q5] Clipping in Equation (4) and (7)**
It is possible to truncate $Q^k_h$ to $H-h+1$, but it does not change our analysis or result in a tighter regret bound.
- - -
Due to the space limit, we will leave responses to the remaining comments in the following official comment.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: ### __[Q6] Coefficient $\eta$__
The main reason for multiplying $\eta$ by $\nabla^2 \ell\_{k,h}(\tilde{\mathbf{\theta}}\_h^k)$ is to utilize the properties of implicit online mirror descent (OMD) (Kulis & Bartlett, 2010; Campolongo & Orabona, 2020). Note that the update rule $\tilde{\mathbf{\theta}}\_{h}^{k+1} = \arg\min\_{\mathbf{\theta} \in \mathcal{B}\_d(L\_{\mathbf{\theta}})} \frac{1}{2 \eta} || \mathbf{\theta} - \tilde{\mathbf{\theta}}\_h^k ||\_{\tilde{\mathbf{B}}\_{k,h}}^2 + \mathbf{\theta}^\top \nabla \ell\_{k,h}(\tilde{\mathbf{\theta}}\_h^k)$ (Eq.(6)) is known as a standard OMD. And the rule $\tilde{\mathbf{\theta}}\_{h}^{k+1} = \arg\min\_{\mathbf{\theta} \in \mathcal{B}\_d(L\_{\mathbf{\theta}})} \frac{1}{2 \eta} || \mathbf{\theta} - \tilde{\mathbf{\theta}}\_h^k ||\_{\mathbf{B}\_{k,h}}^2 + \ell\_{k,h}(\mathbf{\theta})$ is referred to as implicit OMD, which updates on the original loss function instead of the linearized approximation.
By the definition of $\tilde{\mathbf{B}}\_{k,h}$, Eq. (6) can be represented in the implicit OMD form: $\tilde{\mathbf{\theta}}\_{h}^{k+1} = \arg\min\_{\mathbf{\theta} \in \mathcal{B}\_d(L\_{\mathbf{\theta}})} \frac{1}{2 \eta} || \mathbf{\theta} - \tilde{\mathbf{\theta}}\_h^k ||\_{\mathbf{B}\_{k,h}}^2 + \tilde{\ell}\_{k,h}(\mathbf{\theta})$, where $\tilde{\ell}\_{k,h}(\mathbf{\theta})$ is the second-order approximation of the original loss $\ell\_{k,h}(\mathbf{\theta})$. Now, we can use the property (Proposition 4.1 of Campolongo \& Orabona, 2020) of implicit OMD to derive the proposed results.
> Campolongo and Orabona. "Temporal variability in implicit online learning."" NeurIPS 2020.
> Kulis and Bartlett. "Implicit online learning."" ICML 2010.
---
### __[Q7] Intuitive explanation of $\nu^{\text{rand}}\_{k,h}$__
In Eq.(7), $r(s,a) + \sum\_{s’ \in \mathcal{S}\_{s,a}} P\_{\tilde{\mathbf{\theta}}^k_h} (s’ | s,a) \tilde{V}^k\_{h+1} (s’)$ represents the action value function induced by the estimated transition core $\tilde{\mathbf{\theta}}^k_h$. The randomized bonus term $\nu_{k,h}^{\text{rand}}$ perturbs this estimated action value. Note that, as shown in Lemma 18, the optimistic sampling technique ensures the randomized bonus term makes the optimistic randomized value function more optimistic than the true optimal value function with at least a constant probability.
---
### __[Q8] Total number of steps $T$__
The total number of steps is $T = KH$ as summarized in Appendix B. We will clearly denote this in the main paper. We would like to remind you that representing the regret bound by the total number of interactions the agent has with the environment is a common notation in the related literature [41, 70, 71, 37, 9, 35], and we have followed this convention.
---
### __[Q9] Hyperparameters__
The hyperparameters are specified in the supplementary material within the "algorithms.py" file, which allows for reproducibility. However, for the sake of clarity, we will additionally list these hyperparameters in the main text or appendix of the revised version.
---
### __[Q10] Contemporary work__
The policy of NeurIPS related to comparison to concurrent work states that "Papers appearing less than two months before the submission deadline are generally considered concurrent to NeurIPS submissions. Authors are not expected to compare to work that appeared only a month or two before the deadline." After checking the arXiv submission history of Li et al. (2024), we found that their paper was uploaded to arXiv after the NeurIPS main paper deadline. Therefore, we remind you that our NeurIPS submission was completed before their paper was made publicly available. Nevertheless, briefly comparing our work with the concurrent works, Li et al. focus on the analysis of deterministic algorithms, while our research encompasses a broader scope, including both deterministic and randomized algorithms.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: ### __[Q11] Extension to stochastic policy and unknown reward__
We believe that designing a stochastic policy in MNL-MDPs is beyond the scope of this paper.
However, note that although our algorithms do not provide the probability of selecting an action in a state as a distribution, since the estimated value function itself is randomized, there is inherent randomness in the way actions are selected at each step.
The epsilon-greedy algorithm is one of the simplest randomized algorithms used in bandit or RL literature; however, it is not statistically efficient because it continues to explore with a fixed probability even as learning progresses.
For the unknown reward setting, we may apply eluder dimension-based general function approximation algorithm [61] to estimate the reward function. Estimating the general reward function while learning the MNL transition model is an interesting research topic for future work but we believe it is beyond the scope of this paper. Note that if the reward function has a parametric form, such as a linear function of features, we can extend our algorithm by adding a step of optimistic reward estimation, similar to LinUCB. This would generate an extra $\tilde{O}(d \sqrt{T})$ regret, which is a lower-order term compared to the current regret bounds. We remind you that the known reward $r$ assumption is widely used in the model-based RL literature [69, 9, 70, 79, 35].
---
### __[Q12] Typo__
Thank you for pointing out the typo. We will correct it in the revised version.
---
Rebuttal Comment 3.1:
Title: Reviewer u5d2 increases rating to 6
Comment: Hello authors,
Reviewer u5d2 is satisfied with the authors' response and would like to increase rating to 6.
If convenient, you may add the intuitive algorithm explanations in your response to your revised paper.
Reviewer u5d2
---
Reply to Comment 3.1.1:
Comment: Thank you so much for your response to our rebuttal and support! With the help of your feedback, we believe that our revised version will be strengthened. If there are any additional questions or comment, we would be more than happy to address them. | Summary: The paper considers the MNL MDP setting and provides several regret bounds. The MNL setting is one where the transition probabilities are modeled as a soft-max over a linear transformation of state-action-next-state features. The work improves the dependence on an important problem parameter. The main results are presented using randomized exploration but a deterministic exploration scheme is also included in the appendix. Concretely, $\kappa$ is a problem dependent constant that lower bounds any individual transition probability estimate. The authors explain that it relates to information gain in the transition kernel regression problem through the Fisher information matrix.
Strengths: 1. The new algorithm does not need to know $\kappa$ (this is not the case in previous works)
2. The obtained regret bound is improved from $\approx \kappa^{-1}\sqrt{K}$ to $\approx \kappa^{-1} + \sqrt{K}$
3. the memory and computational requirements per episode are reduced from linear to constant in the number of episodes.
Weaknesses: **Setting:**
While the MNL model is quite intuitive, it has several shortcommings that, in my opinion, limit its usefulness.
1. It does not seem to allow for a compact characterization of the value or policy. This is because these depend strongly on the size of the next state sets $\mathcal{S}_{s,a}$. While instances where these sets are small exist this is still very limiting.
2. The sets $\mathcal{S}_{s,a}$ must be **known** to the algorithm.
3. It is very hard to imagine a setting where $\kappa^{-1}$ is not exponential in natural problem parameters.
**Presentation:**
4. The paper is written in such a way that makes it hard to appreciate its contributions beyond the objective improvement to the regret bound. There are some discussions as to what makes the analysis more involved compared to standard TS and MNL bandits but I find it vague. Moreover, there are no proof sketches of any kind, which contributes to this issue. Overall, this makes it hard to appreciate the soundness of the paper and whether it contains meaningful technical contributions or not.
**Results:**
5. Most importantly, while the paper improves computational efficiency, It seems to me that it still has at least $|\mathcal{U}|^H$ computations per round (to calculate the Q function along the policy trajectory). This exists in past algorithms as well and makes all of them inefficient (not polynomial in the natural problem parameters). Is this the case?
6. I do not see the randomized exploration as significant contribution. It both complicates the analysis significantly and deteriorates the regret. I appreciate the potential practical appeal but I do not think this strengthens the paper significantly. I personally think the focus of the paper should have been on the improved regret with the standard deterministic bonuses. This would also simplify the presentation.
7. There is a recent concurrent paper ([1]) on this topic that seems to obtain similar results. While it is concurrent, I would appreciate if you provide a comparison in your response.
[1] Li, Long-Fei, et al. "Provably Efficient Reinforcement Learning with Multinomial Logit Function Approximation." arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17061 (2024).
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: See above.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: N/a
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your time to review our paper and for your valuable feedback. Here are our responses to each comment and question:
- - -
### __[W1] Compact characterization of the value or policy__
We believe that the lack of a compact characterization of the value or policy should NOT be considered a weakness of our work. Including almost every generic model-based setting [9, 21, 4, 35], even in tabular RL or similar settings like linear mixture MDPs, a compact characterization of the value or policy is not always achievable.
---
### __[W2] Known reachable states__
We respectfully **disagree that this assumption constitutes a weakness when compared to other function approximation approaches** such as linear MDPs and general function classes. While we acknowledge this requirement, it's important to note that other approaches also come with their own inherent limitations. Recent studies have highlighted fundamental limitations of linear MDPs:
1. As introduced in [35], a linear function approximating the transition model must ensure that the function output is within [0, 1] and that the probabilities over all possible next states sum to 1. This restrictive assumption limits the set of feature representations of state-action pairs that are admissible for the transition model (Proposition 1 in [35]).
2. Additionally, Theorem 1 from Lee \& Oh (2024) shows a fundamental limitation of linear MDPs. In linear MDPs, the ambient feature dimension $d$ is lower bounded by $|\mathcal{S}|/\mathcal{U}$. This implies that unless the size of the reachable states is proportional to the total number of states, i.e., $\mathcal{U} = \Theta(|\mathcal{S}|)$, the feature dimension inherently depends on the size of the state space.
Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, there are no computationally tractable algorithms that can handle the general function classes [46, 40, 19, 21, 28, 42, 18] (See Line 640).
In contrast, MNL-MDPs do not require the restrictive linearity assumption present in linear MDPs and can be effectively addressed with computationally tractable algorithms, such as those we propose in our paper. For these reasons, MNL-MDPs have received significant attention within the community, leading to several follow-up works (e.g., Park & Lee, 2024; Li et al., 2024). We note that under this well-established problem setup, our main contribution is to present both computationally and statistically efficient RL algorithms.
>Lee and Oh. "Demystifying Linear MDPs and Novel Dynamics Aggregation Framework." ICLR 2024.
>Li et al. "Provably Efficient Reinforcement Learning with Multinomial Logit Function Approximation." arXiv 2024.
>Park and Lee. "Reinforcement Learning for Infinite-Horizon Average-Reward MDPs with Multinomial Logistic Function Approximation." arXiv 2024.
---
### __[W3] Discussion on kappa__
This is the exact motivation behind our second algorithm. To address this issue, we proposed ORRL-MNL (Algorithm 2) and UCRL-MNL+ (Algorithm 3), each achieving a frequentist regret guarantee with improved dependence on $\kappa$. These algorithms can mitigate the worst-case exponential dependence on $\kappa$.
---
### __[W4] Presentation__
Due to page limitations, we could not include the proof sketch in the main text. Instead, we have provided the main theorem and the necessary lemmas step-by-step in the appendix, with detailed and clear proofs. We hope this will be helpful for your understanding. In the revised version, we will include the proof sketch in the main text.
For the proof sketch, the frequentist regret analysis of the proposed algorithm follows the flow of linear MDPs if stochastic optimism is guaranteed. Specifically, we decompose the regret into an estimation part and a pessimism part, and then bound each part. The estimation part is upper bounded by the Bellman error of the sample trajectory according to the agent's policy in each episode. The Bellman error is further bounded by the prediction error and the bonus term due to randomized exploration. Here, we use the elliptical potential lemma to bound the estimation part (Lemmas 10 \& 21). For the pessimism part, as shown in Lemma 11, the pessimism term can be upper bounded by the estimation term times the inverse of the probability that the estimated value function is optimistic. This is why we need to ensure that the probability that the estimated value function is optimistic is lower bounded by a constant value, regardless of the problem instance. As shown in Lemmas 6 \& 18, we show that the probability that the estimated value function is optimistic than the true optimal value function is lower bounded by $\Phi(-1)/2$, which is an absolute constant. Combining all the results, we can achieve the proposed regret bound.
---
### __[W5] Computational efficiency__
We believe there may be a misunderstanding. Our proposed algorithms do not need to calculate the Q function along the policy trajectory; rather, we calculate the Q function before proceeding with the episode and choose the greedy action with respect to the estimated Q function. Therefore, the computational cost is polynomial in the *natural parameters of the problem and constant* per episode. In this case, the amount of computation for these Q functions is not necessarily more expensive than those in linear MDPs. For instance, eq (3) in [9] includes the integral over all states to estimate the action-value of a given state-action pair. Therefore, except in the case where the set of reachable states for each state-action pair exactly matches the entire state space, it is difficult to conclude that the computational complexity of our algorithms is more expensive compared to other linear model algorithms.
>Due to the space limit, we will leave responses to the remaining comments in the following official comment.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: ### __[W6] Contribution of randomized exploration__
We also believe that achieving a $\kappa$-improved regret guarantee using optimistic exploration alone (Algorithm 3, Corollary 1) should be considered a significant contribution.
Considering that randomized exploration generally requires more complex regret analysis, we believe our contribution to randomized algorithms should be seen as an **additional merit, NOT a weakness**.
As the reviewer acknowledged, compared to UCB, randomized exploration not only exhibits superior performance in empirical evaluations but also necessitates a more rigorous proof technique to obtain a theoretical guarantee. Proving a particularly frequentist regret bound for randomized algorithms in any given bandit or RL problem has been widely considered an open problem, as the extension is non-trivial in frequentist regret. As a result, randomized algorithms have been widely recognized as making significant contributions in both RL and bandit literature, despite seeming similarities in the algorithmic setting after the introduction of UCB-based exploration algorithms. For example,
- In linear bandits: UCB (Li et al., 2010) → TS (Agrawal & Goyal, ICML 2013)
- In GLM bandits: UCB (Filippi et al., 2010) → TS (Kveton et al., AISTATS 2019)
- In neural bandits: UCB (Zhou et al., 2020) → TS (Zhang et al., ICLR 2021; Jia et al., ICLR 2022)
- In tabular MDPs: UCB (Jaksch et al., 2010) → TS (Agrawal & Jia, NeurIPS 2017)
- In linear MDPs: UCB (Jin et al., 2020) → TS (Zanette et al., AISTATS 2020; Ishfaq et al., ICML 2021)
- In MNL-MDPs: UCB (Hwang & Oh, 2023) → TS (This work)
We strongly believe that our work provides more than sufficient contribution. This is not just because we fill in the gap (which itself is a non-trivial milestone) but also because our adaptation of TS-based exploration (even for the first algorithm) in MNL-MDPs is much more complicated and involved than that of TS methods in other bandit or RL problems.
---
### __[W7] Comparison with concurrent paper__
The policy of NeurIPS related to comparison to concurrent work states that "Papers appearing less than two months before the submission deadline are generally considered concurrent to NeurIPS submissions. Authors are not expected to compare to work that appeared only a month or two before the deadline." After checking the arXiv submission history of Li et al. (2024), we found that their paper was uploaded to arXiv after the NeurIPS main paper deadline. Therefore, we remind you that our NeurIPS submission was completed before their paper was made publicly available. Nevertheless, briefly comparing our work with the concurrent works, Li et al. focus on the analysis of deterministic algorithms, while our research encompasses a broader scope, including both deterministic and randomized algorithms.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: We truly appreciate your valuable feedback and comments. We hope we have addressed your questions and provided the needed clarification in our responses. With our recently posted comment ("[Key Contributions](https://openreview.net/forum?id=7tRtH0AoBl¬eId=tl8PFOCSg4)") in mind, we would like to know if you have any additional questions or comments that we can address. If there are any further questions or comments, we would be more than happy to address them. If our responses have sufficiently addressed your concerns, based on the points you highlighted and the strengths you mentioned, we sincerely hope you will reconsider your assessment, reflecting the value of our work. Thank you.
---
Rebuttal 4:
Title: Response to authors
Comment: Thank you for the comprehensive response.
Unfortunately, my concerns regarding the paper remain mostly unchanged. I will refer here only to the key points that mostly affect my decision:
[W2] Known reachable states: I reviewed the provided references ((Proposition 1 in [35]) and Theorem 1 from Lee & Oh (2024)). **I do not agree** with your interpretation of these results, which borders on misleading. Proposition 1 in [35] states that there **exists** an instance where the claim happens. This is crucially different than saying that **any** linear MDP cannot express a tabular MDP unless the condition holds. As for Theorem 1 from Lee & Oh (2024), their claim is quite weak, again saying that for a specific algorithm there **might** be a hidden dependency on $|S|$. Again the claim is not that this happens for every instance and algorithm. Overall, while I am also unsure regarding the expressive power of linear MDPs, the provided claims **do not** convince me of their limitations. The known reachable states assumption thus remains a **significant** limitation.
[W3] Kappa: Notice that the regret bound is non-trivial only for $T \ge (d^{3/2}H^{1/2} + \kappa^{-1} d^2 H)^2$. This means that the exponential dependence on $\kappa$ is still pretty bad. I still appreciate the improved dependence on $\kappa$ but It's still essentially exponential most of the time. This is not a major contributor to my decision.
[W5] Computational efficiency: **This is my biggest concern**. I am fully aware that, given the entire $Q$ function, there are only constant additional computations. Computing the entire $Q$ function is exactly the problem as this depends polynomially on the size of the **entire** state space $|S|$. Even computing only the necessary parts of Q would still require at least $|\mathcal{U}|^H$ computations per episode. Linear MDPs avoid this dependence by storing all past samples and thus have computational cost scaling linearly with the number of samples. This is not ideal but is regarded as computationally efficient (unlike scaling with $|S|$, which can be arbitrarily large, or $|\mathcal{U}|^H$, which is exponential). If I missed something and you can convince me that $Q$ can be computed efficiently then I might reevaluate my assessment.
[W7] Thanks for the clarification regarding the difference between the works. As I mentioned in my review, I'm treating this as concurrent work, i.e., it does not affect my evaluation.
I hope that you have enough time to reply. Regardless, I will be happy to engage in additional discussion with the other reviewers during the discussion period.
---
Rebuttal 5:
Comment: Thank you for your response to our rebuttal and for the opportunity to address your concerns.
- - -
[W2]
First, we would like to clarify some misunderstandings in the reviewer’s interpretation of our rebuttal about the limitations of linear MDPs.
>Proposition 1 in [35] states that there exists an instance where the claim happens. This is crucially different than saying that any linear MDP cannot express a tabular MDP unless the condition holds.
We do NOT make any claims about the expressiveness of linear MDPs to tabular MDPs.
Proposition 1 in Hwang \& Oh [35] states that "For an arbitrary set of features of state and actions of an MDP, there exists no linear transition model that can induce a proper probability distribution over next states".
This means that there exists a state-action feature map that cannot induce linear MDPs.
The issue is that when a feature map is provided, it is impossible to determine whether linear MDPs can be constructed using that feature map.
Furthermore, the reviewer may also refer to Proposition 2 in Hwang \& Oh (2023) [35], which states that such restrictive linearity assumptions on the transition model can impact the regret analysis of the algorithms for RL with linear function approximation.
This is indeed a crucial limitation of linear MDPs, as well-explained in [35].
>As for Theorem 1 from Lee \& Oh (2024), their claim is quite weak, again saying that for a specific algorithm there might be a hidden dependency on $|\mathcal{S}|$
We believe there may be a misunderstanding regarding Theorem 1 in Lee \& Oh (2024).
Theorem 1 in Lee \& Oh (2024) states that "For any given linear MDP, the dimension of the feature map $d$ is lower bounded by $|\mathcal{S}| / \mathcal{U}$."
As a corollary for this theorem,
"unless the size of the reachable states is proportional to the total number of states, i.e., $\mathcal{U} = \Theta(|\mathcal{S}|)$, the feature dimension inherently depends on the size of the state space." (Corollary 1 in Lee \& Oh (2024))
We believe this argument clearly highlights the inherent limitations of linear MDPs. Can you think of any real-world scenario where a single state can transition to all other states, i.e., $|\mathcal{S}| = \mathcal{U}$?
Lee \& Oh (2024) provide examples demonstrating that in most real-world environments, **$\mathcal{U}$ is much smaller than $|\mathcal{S}|$**.
This implies that in linear MDPs for most real-world problems, the dimension of feature map $d$ must be proportional to $|\mathcal{S}|$.
Thus, there are very few cases where algorithms for linear MDPs
are statistically efficient.
>The known reachable states assumption thus remains a significant limitation.
We respectfully **disagree with the reviewer's assessment that having prior knowledge about reachable states is a significant limitation**.
In practice, it is common to have prior knowledge of the reachable states ("single-step" reachability) for a given state-action pair, as seen in examples like gridworlds, Atari games, Go and navigation tasks.
This prior knowledge about reachable states makes MNL-MDPs valid for any arbitrary state-action feature sets.
More importantly, even if one considers prior knowledge about reachable states a limitation of MNL-MDPs, we strongly believe this should **NOT be viewed as a weakness of our algorithms**. We believe the reviewer understands the difference between problem settings (MNL-MDPs) and algorithms (RRL-MNL, ORRL-MNL, UCRL-MNL+).
Note that the main focus of our paper is **to provide algorithms that are both statistically and computationally efficient for the MNL-MDPs**, which are well-established in Hwang and Oh, 2023 [35].
---
[W3]
Please note that the reviewer's argument that given regret bound is valid only for a specific $T$ applies not only to bandit literature for $\kappa$-improved regret bounds [Faury et al., 2020 [23], Abeille et al., 2021 [3], Perivier and Goyal, 2022 [59], Agrawal et al., 2023 [6], Zhang and Sugiyama, 2023 [74], Lee and Oh, 2024 [48]], but also to cases where $\kappa$ is a multiplicative factor in $T$ [Filippi et al., 2010 [26], Li et al., 2017 [49], Oh and Iyengar, 2019 [52], Amani and Thrampoulidis, 2021 [8], Oh and Iyengar, 2021 [53]]. Moreover, this argument has **NOT been viewed as a weakness** in the publication of previous works at venues like ICML and NeurIPS. In all fairness, **we strongly believe that the more seriously the reviewer takes $\kappa$, the more contributions we provide!** Our work eliminates the previous dependence on $\kappa$ in the leading term, which we see as a significant contribution. We respectfully disagree with the notion that this contribution of reducing $\kappa$ dependence (while we even perform online computation with constant compute per round!) somehow should be penalized (just because it was deemed insufficient?).
---
Rebuttal 6:
Comment: [W5]
**The reviewer states that the computational efficiency "is [their] biggest concern" of the evaluation.** **We strongly dispute this evaluation because the computational efficiency is NOT an inherent disadvantage of our method in particular**. Rather, the computational cost is **commonly originated from the planning of all model-based RL**.
Note that planning refers to the process of using a model of the environment to compute a value function.
Therefore computing value functions (or action-value functions) for a given model instance is a **common and inherent** characteristic of a wide range of **model-based RL literature.** To list just a few of them (and there are much more),
- Yang and Wang, 2020 [70] published at **ICML** 2020
- Ayoub et al., 2020 [9] published at **ICML** 2020
- Sun et al., 2019 [a] published at **COLT** 2019
- Agarwal et al., 2020 [b] published at **NeurIPS** 2020
- Zhou et al., 2021 [79] published at **COLT** 2021
- Uehara et al., 2021 [c] published at **ICLR** 2022
- Li et al., 2022 [d] published at **NeurIPS** 2022
To the best of our knowledge, there is **NO efficient method for planning** that avoids dependency on $|S|$ or that is not exponential in $H$.
Therefore, if the reviewer underestimate our paper due to concerns about the computational cost of planning—a common issue in all model-based algorithms—we believe this would be an **unfair evaluation**.
Additionally, if the reviewer can suggest a model-based algorithm that enables more efficient planning, it would be extremely helpful for us in improving our paper.
Moreover, it seems the reviewer is comparing our (model-based) algorithm to a model-free algorithm, such as LSVI-UCB [Jin et al., 2020 [41]]. We believe this **comparison is invalid** because each problem setup has its own unique characteristics. For instance, in LSVI-UCB, the algorithm needs to recalculate previous targets ($r_h(x^\tau_h, a^\tau_h) + \max_a Q^{k}\_{h+1}(x^\tau_{h+1}, a)$ for $\tau = 1, \dots, k-1$) based on the current $Q$-function to estimate the parameters (Please refer to Line 5 in Algorithm 1 of Jin et al., 2020. Note that while their $Q$-functions do not explicitly display a $k$ index, a careful examination of the algorithm reveals that the $k$ index is implicitly incorporated within the $Q$-functions.).
This recalculation results in a computational cost of $\mathcal{O}(k)$ and makes online parameter updates impossible. In contrast, our approach allows for online parameter updates because the target (transition response variable $y^k_h$) remains unchanged.
To sum up, **the reviewer's major concern about the planning cost applies to all model-based RL**. It is an inherent and unavoidable characteristic of all aforementioned model-based approaches. **If one treats this as a major drawback and reason for a negative evaluation, then the rich history/body of model-based RL would be entirely disregarded**. It is crucial to **distinguish between the limitations specific to our paper and those inherent to the entire model-based framework**. With this in mind, we respectfully and kindly request that the reviewer reconsider the evaluation of our paper.
[a] Sun, Wen, et al. "Model-based rl in contextual decision processes: Pac bounds and exponential improvements over model-free approaches." Conference on learning theory. PMLR, 2019.
[b] Agarwal, Alekh, et al. "Flambe: Structural complexity and representation learning of low rank mdps." Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020): 20095-20107.
[c] Uehara, Masatoshi, Xuezhou Zhang, and Wen Sun. "Representation learning for online and offline rl in low-rank mdps." International Conference on Learning Representations (2022).
[d] Li, Gene, et al. "Exponential family model-based reinforcement learning via score matching." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022): 28474-28487.
[e] Szita, István, and Csaba Szepesvári. "Model-based reinforcement learning with nearly tight exploration complexity bounds." Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-10). 2010.
---
Since the author-reviewer discussion is coming to an end, if you have any last-minute questions, we are more than willing to address them. Please don't hesitate to reach out to us. | Summary: This paper studies reinforcement learning of an MDP with multinomial logistic (MNL) function approximation, which approximates the unknown transition kernel of the underlying MDP. The setting is the finite horizon episodic MDPs. Two algorithms are proposed. The first algorithm is statistically efficient with a provable frequentist regret bound, and is computationally efficient with constant-time computational cost per episode. To further improve the dependence on problem constant of the first algorithm, the second algorithm utilizes gradient information of the MNL model of the unknown transition. These two algorithms are the first randomized algorithms for the MNL transition model with both statistical and computational efficiency. Furthermore, numerical simulations show the good performance of the proposed algorithms.
Strengths: **Significance**:
**1.** The MNL transition model is a reasonable model for approximation to the unknown transition kernel and thus has potential practical usage.
**2** The two algorithms are provably statistically efficient, which is further corroborated by numerical simulations.
**Originality**: This paper has originality. It proposes to use multinomial distribution for modeling the transition kernel of MDP, and proposes the first efficient randomized algorithms for the MNL transition model.
**Clarity**: the main text of the paper is clearly presented: algorithms are explained well (e.g. the intuition behind stochastically optimistic value function is provided); the theorems are presented with in-depth discussion of its relation to existing works, and the comparison of its proof techniques with other algorithmic guarantees in the area.
Weaknesses: I did not find any major errors or technical flaws. However, the following can be improved.
*Weaknesses*
**1.** The theoretical analysis, especially the appendix, is a bit hard to read. This is caused by two issues: (i) there are many displayed equations that are very long; (ii) some derivations/steps are missing a proper explanation.
**2.** The formatting of the equations in the appendix should be improved. There are many lines of equations which significantly exceed the length limit within a line. Probably should consider breaking the equations into combinations of shorter ones with proper explanation.
*Other Minor issues*
**1.** This paper so far only demonstrates the efficacy of the multinomial logistic model for approximating a synthetic MDP environment. Although the result from the numerical simulation is convincing, it would be very interesting to see how it works if applied to more realistic environment. This might be an interesting future direction.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: My concerns are included in the **Weaknesses** session.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your time to review our paper and for your valuable feedback. Here are our responses to each comment and question:
- - -
### __[W1] Presentation__
> there are many displayed equations that are very long
The comprehensive nature of our analysis required the inclusion of detailed proofs, resulting in lengthy equations. Some of these equations slightly exceeded the line limit to enhance readability. In the revised version, we will ensure these equations are displayed more clearly. Additionally, we have organized the definitions and notations used in our analysis in Appendix B for convenience, so please refer to it.
> some derivations/steps are missing a proper explanation
If there are specific derivations or steps that were not clearly explained, we will address these in the revised version. We would greatly appreciate it if you could point out any particular areas that were unclear, so we can improve them.
---
### __[W2] Format__
We will pay closer attention to the formatting in the revised version, breaking long equations into shorter ones with proper explanations. Thank you for pointing this out.
---
### __[M1] Experiment on realistic environment__
Among dozens (if not hundreds) of papers on provable RL with function approximation, there are very few papers with numerical experiments. The vast majority of the papers do not contain any experiments at all. To the best of our knowledge, the ones with the experiments (with regret guarantees) are only [9, 35, 37] -- we would be more than happy to add to this list if the reviewer knows of any other related theory RL work that contains more extensive experiments. Hence, we would like to point out that we conducted a significant number of experiments compared to the existing theoretical RL papers [41, 66, 69, 70]. As this is a theoretical paper, we respectfully request that it be mainly assessed based on its theoretical merit. Yet, as the number of states increases, our proposed methods are the ones that remain competitive and superior to the existing methods, showing the efficacy of MNL function approximation and empirical evidence for our theoretical claims for our algorithms.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: We truly appreciate your valuable feedback and comments. We hope we have addressed your questions and provided the needed clarification in our responses. With our recently posted comment ("[Key Contributions](https://openreview.net/forum?id=7tRtH0AoBl¬eId=tl8PFOCSg4)") in mind, we would like to know if you have any additional questions or comments that might support increasing your rating. If there are any further questions or comments, we would be more than happy to address them. If our responses have sufficiently addressed your concerns, based on the points you highlighted and the strengths you mentioned, we sincerely hope you will reconsider your assessment, reflecting the value of our work. Thank you.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for their response. Please make sure to address the aforementioned issues in the paper revision.
Best,
Reviewer
---
Reply to Comment 2.1.1:
Comment: Thank you so much for your response to our rebuttal and support! With the help of your feedback, we believe that our revised version will be strengthened. We will incorporate your valuable suggestions in the revised version of the paper. If there are any additional questions or comment, we would be more than happy to address them. | Summary: The paper introduces a computationally efficient randomized algorithm for MNL-MDPs, addressing limitations of previous exploration algorithms. It presents the RRL-MNL algorithm, focusing on online transition core estimation and stochastically optimistic value function design. This paper provides a frequentist regret analysis for MNL-MDPs with theoretical comparisons to other algorithms.
Strengths: 1. The paper is well-structured and effectively communicates complex theoretical concepts.
2. The proposed algorithm, ORRL-MNL, is interesting, and it regret bound has an attractive improvement.
Weaknesses: 1. The focus on multinomial logistic function approximation and specific types of state transitions (inhomogeneous) may restrict the generalizability of the proposed algorithms.
2. The paper lacks some discussion on the setting, MNL-MDPs to show it worth studying.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Can you give a more detailed comparison between MNL-MDPs and Linear MDPs settings? Can you give a detailed discussion on the setting MNL-MDPs and show it worth studying? What is the connection between this setting and generalized linear MDPs?
2. Can you summarize the theoretical challenges of randomized algorithms in MNL-MDPs compared with that in Linear MDPs?
3. Can you explain the necessity of Assumption 4, which seems lack realizability motivation? I find that you mention this assumptions also use in generalized linear bandits, can you compare the assumptions in generalized linear bandit and in MNL-MDPs. Also, how about the generalized linear MDPs?
4. The regret bound of ORRL-MNL is interesting. Do you have any new theoretical analysis techniques to obtain this?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: This paper lacks more discussions on the setting, MNL-MDPs to show it worth studying. I hope the authors can answer my questions.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your time to review our paper and for your valuable feedback. Here are our responses to each comment and question:
- - -
### __[W1] Generalizability of the proposed algorithms__
We respectfully disagree that the stated point is a weakness of our work. For instance, in the contextual bandit setting, the logistic bandit assumes that the expected reward for an action is given by a logistic function of the action's context features. The logistic bandit addresses a specific type of reward setting but can also handle problem instances that the linear bandit cannot. Additionally, substantial research [3, 23, 24, 49, 43, Lee et al. (2024)] has been conducted to develop improved algorithms tailored to this specific logistic reward setting. We would like to emphasize that our main contribution in this paper is also to present an improved algorithm for MNL-MDPs, overcoming several limitations of linear MDPs, which we will detail in the second bullet point.
>Lee et al. "Improved Regret Bounds of (Multinomial) Logistic Bandits via Regret-to-Confidence-Set Conversion." AISTATS 2024.
---
### __[W2 & Q1] Discussion on MNL-MDPs & Comparison with Linear MDPs__
We are happy to address this issue. Although improved algorithms for linear MDPs continue to be proposed, linear MDPs inherently have fundamental limitations:
1. As introduced in [35], a linear function approximating the transition model must ensure that the function output is within [0, 1] and that the probabilities over all possible next states sum to 1. This restrictive assumption limits the set of feature representations of state-action pairs that are admissible for the transition model (Proposition 1 in [35]).
2. Additionally, Theorem 1 from Lee \& Oh (2024) shows a fundamental limitation of linear MDPs. In linear MDPs, the ambient feature dimension $d$ is lower bounded by $|\mathcal{S}|/\mathcal{U}$. This implies that unless the size of the reachable states is proportional to the total number of states, i.e., $\mathcal{U} = \Theta(|\mathcal{S}|)$, the feature dimension inherently depends on the size of the state space.
To overcome these limitations, [35] proposed a new class of MDPs (MNL-MDPs) using multinomial logistic function approximation. MNL-MDPs have garnered significant attention in the RL community, leading to many follow-up works (Park \& Lee, 2024; Li et al, 2024) and numerous open research questions.
If the generalized linear MDPs you mentioned refer to [67], they assume the Bellman backup of any value function to be a generalized linear function of feature mapping and propose a *model-free* algorithm under this assumption. In contrast, in MNL-MDPs, the state transition model is given by a multinomial logistic model based on state-action features, and we propose a *model-based* algorithm.
>Lee and Oh. "Demystifying Linear MDPs and Novel Dynamics Aggregation Framework." ICLR 2024.
>Li et al. "Provably Efficient Reinforcement Learning with Multinomial Logit Function Approximation." arXiv 2024.
>Park and Lee. "Reinforcement Learning for Infinite-Horizon Average-Reward MDPs with Multinomial Logistic Function Approximation." arXiv 2024.
---
### __[Q2] Theoretical challenges of randomized exploration in MNL-MDPs__
- __Absence of the closed-form expression of value function in MNL-MDPs__
Unlike linear MDPs, where the value function is linear in the feature map, in MNL-MDPs the value function is no longer linearly parameterized. Therefore, we cannot control the perturbation of the estimated value function in MNL-MDPs by perturbing the estimated parameter directly as in linear MDPs.
However, as shown in Lemma 4 (RRL-MNL) or Lemma 16 (ORRL-MNL), we were able to express the prediction error in terms of the estimated error of the transition parameter, providing a basis for how we can control the perturbation of the value function.
- __Ensuring the stochastic optimism of the estimated value function__
The main technical challenge in analyzing the frequentist regret of randomized algorithms is ensuring the estimated value function is optimistic with sufficient frequency. However, the substitution effect of the next state transition in the MNL model makes ensuring the stochastic optimism much more challenging. If the probability of the estimated value function being optimistic at horizon $h$ is denoted as $p$, this would result in the probability that the estimated value function in the initial state is optimistic being on the order of $p^H$, implying that the regret can increase exponentially with the length of the horizon $H$. Instead we establish that the difference between the estimated value and the optimal value is expressed by the sum of Bellman errors along the sample path obtained by the optimal policy (Lemma 4) and adapt the optimistic sampling technique to ensure the stochastic optimism with sufficient frequency (Lemma 6 \& 18). Please note that while [37] presented a frequentist regret analysis for general function class using eluder dimension under the assumption of stochastic optimism, __our work deals with non-linear function approximation and directly demonstrates stochastic optimism without any additional assumptions.__
- - -
Due to the space limit, we will leave responses to the remaining comments in the following official comment.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: ### __[Q3] Necessity of Assumption 4__
First, we respectfully request additional clarification regarding the terms "realizability motivation".
As far as we know, Assumption 4 is a standard regularity assumption in the generalized linear bandit and MNL bandit literature to ensure the Fisher information matrix is invertible. Please refer to Appendix A in [52] for a detailed discussion on this assumption. In fact, we would like to clarify that it is more natural to describe the existence of $\kappa$ in Assumption 4 as a definition rather than an assumption. In other words, we define $\kappa$ as a specific value as $\kappa := \inf\_{\theta \in \mathcal{B}\_d(L\_\theta)} \inf\_{s,a,s',\tilde{s}} P\_{\theta} (s' \mid s, a) P\_{\theta} ( \tilde{s} \mid s, a)$. Note that by the definition of the MNL transition model, for any reachable state $\tilde{s}$ of a given state-action pair $(s,a)$ and for any parameter $\theta$, $P_\theta(\tilde{s} \mid s,a) \ne 0$, which ensures the positivity of $\kappa$.
As in the previous generalized linear bandit [26, 49, 23, 3, 24] or MNL bandit literature [52, 8, 53, 59, 6, 74, 48], our first algorithm also requires the prior knowledge of $\kappa$ to estimate the transition core $\theta^*$. However, we would like to emphasize that, as mentioned in Remark 4, our second algorithm does not require the prior knowledge of $\kappa$ and achieves a regret with a better dependence on $\kappa$ (i.e., ORRL-MNL does not require Assumption 4).
For the generalized linear MDPs [67], they assume the Bellman backup of any value function is given by a generalized linear function (denoted by $f$ in [67]) of the feature map and impose the regularity condition on the GLM link function ($f$) and the prior knowledge of $\kappa$ is required to ensure the regret bound of the proposed algorithm.
- - -
### __[Q4] New theoretical analysis techniques for ORRL-MNL__
We appreciate your interest in our regret analysis. Below are our new theoretical ingredients:
- __Establishing $\kappa$-independent upper bound of prediction error__:
With the technical difficulties of randomized exploration in MNL-MDPs, the technical challenges for achieving statistically improved regret bound in MNL-MDPs involve integrating the $\kappa$-independent concentration result from MNL contextual bandits with Bellman error while ensuring that the regret bound is unaffected by the size of the set of reachable states $\mathcal{U}$. As introduced in Appendix D.2, directly applying recent $\kappa$ improved MNL contextual bandit technique to MNL-MDPs leads to a loose regret by a factor of $\sqrt{\mathcal{U}}$. By adapting the feature centralization technique [48], the Hessian of the per-round loss is represented by the centralized feature and **we establish that the prediction error is upper bounded without depending on $\kappa$ (Lemma 16)**. We believe that the reviewer understands that the involved regret analysis results not from a single new technique but from the careful incorporation of several techniques.
- __Ensuring stochastic optimsim__:
Based on these upper bounds, determining **how and to what extent to perturb the value function to ensure the stochastic optimism of the estimated value function** still remains. Since the feature of each reachable state affects the prediction error (the first term on the right-hand side in the result of Lemma 16), this implies that the probability of stochastic optimism can be exponentially small, not only in the horizon $H$ but also in the size of the reachable states $\mathcal{U}$. However, as shown in Lemma 18, **this challenge has been overcome by using a sample size $M$ that logarithmically increases with $\mathcal{U}$**. We believe that the reviewer understands that the involved regret analysis results not from a single new technique but from the careful incorporation of several techniques.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: We truly appreciate your valuable feedback and comments. We hope we have addressed your questions and provided the needed clarification in our responses. With our recently posted comment ("[Key Contributions](https://openreview.net/forum?id=7tRtH0AoBl¬eId=tl8PFOCSg4)") in mind, we would like to know if you have any additional questions or comments that we can address. If there are any further questions or comments, we would be more than happy to address them. If our responses have sufficiently addressed your concerns, based on the points you highlighted and the strengths you mentioned, we sincerely hope you will reconsider your assessment, reflecting the value of our work. Thank you.
---
Rebuttal Comment 3.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for the detailed response, which addresses my questions and concerns. After my further consideration, I decide to raise my score to 6. I suggest the authors adding some discussions based on the rebuttal to make the paper clearer in the revised version. Thanks.
---
Reply to Comment 3.1.1:
Comment: Thank you so much for your response to our rebuttal and support! With the help of your feedback, we believe that our revised version will be strengthened. We will incorporate your valuable suggestions in the revised version of the paper. If there are any additional questions or comment, we would be more than happy to address them. | null | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Flipping-based Policy for Chance-Constrained Markov Decision Processes | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper is dealing with a chance constrained MDP problem, where the authors constrain the probability of staying in the safe set throughout an episode. The authors show that the original problem can be recast using a flipping-based policy, where the optimal decision to satisfy the constraint is conditioned on the current state (regardless if it is in the safe set or not). The authors proceed to develop a practical algorithm that can be applied to standard RL algorithms such as CPO and demonstrate the utility of their approach. In particular they show that the flipping based policy can outperform significantly a deterministic policy
Strengths: 1. The paper is rigorous and the maths seem to be correct, however, I have a few questions and clarifications and to be honest I didn’t have time to validate the proofs.
1. The “secret” of many practical safe RL research is that, in fact, that many algorithms are shown to train well a deterministic policy. The authors demonstrate that there is a possibility to train a truly stochastic policy as well. I find this line of research very valuable.
Weaknesses: 1. Some of the theoretical results would benefit from explanations and intuitions behind them. For instance, why do they work? See questions
1. I found the discussion of the practical algorithm confusing (but keep in mind time limitation for reviews). For example, the problem LP is not clear. See questions.
1. The paper is heavy on the theory side, which is not necessarily a weakness, but the experimental side could be improved. For example, I am not sure how, in fact, easy it is to adapt, e.g., safe PPO to a flipping-based policy.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. Proposition 1 seems like a very strong result and I don’t have access [21]. Could the authors restate Theorem 1.3 from [21] and explain the intuition behind it. For example, how is it possible to cast an infinite dimensional problem to finite dimensions?
1. What is the intuition behind the possibility of using only two policies and not L as Proposition 1 suggests?
1. If I understand correctly the problem LP solves a number of PDPRL problems for a number of different safety levels $\alpha_i$ and then compares it with a predefined safety level $\alpha$. Then chooses only two values of $\alpha_i$ for the final flipping policy. Could you explain the intuition behind it. Why does this approach work?
1. What steps one has to take to adapt say safe PPO to a flipping-based policy?
1. How did you reformulate the PointGoal problem as a chance constrained problem?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: limitations are discussed
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate the reviewer's encouraging comments. Your feedback and suggestions are valuable and help us improve the quality of our manuscript. All responses are given in a point-to-point way.
**Proposition 1 [Question 1 and Weakness 1].**
We will restate Theorem 1.3 from [21]. We proved a weak version by ourselves and will present it to help the reviewer understand it.
First, we restate Theorem 1.3 of [21], which gives the following two results about Problem PMO:
(a) The optimal solution to Problem PMO exists;
(b) An optimal solution is a finite linear combination of Dirac measures.
The result (b) implies a discrete probability measure in the optimal solution set of Problem PMO. It does not give the exact number $L$ of the finite dimension, which can be extremely close to infinite but countable. It does not clarify which points should be given the discrete probability measure. The points and the weights of linear combinations should be optimized.
Then, we explain the intuition behind Theorem 1.3 of [21] by introducing a sketch of how we prove a weak version of it. The existence of the optimal solution can be easily proved using the Prokhorov Theorem. Here, we focus on the weak version of result (b). We prove that Problem $B_\alpha(s, L)$'s optimal value converges to Problem PMO's optimal value when $L\rightarrow\infty.$ Since Problem $B_\alpha(s, L)$'s feasible set is a subset of Problem PMO for any $L$, Problem $B_\alpha(s, L)$'s optimal value should be no more than the one of Problem PMO. If Problem $B_\alpha(s, L)$'s optimal value converges to a value equal to or larger than Problem PMO's optimal value, the proof is done. We can show that there will be a sequence of measures converging to the optimal solution of Problem PMO from inside by using Prokhorov Theorem. All the measures in the sequence are feasible and not on feasible region's boundary. Each measure in the sequence can be approximated by finite measures. Each measure in the sequence has the objective value as the limit of finite measures's objective value. These finite measures are feasible for Problem $B_\alpha(s, L)$ and should be smaller than Problem $B_\alpha(s, L)$'s optimal value. Thus, in the sequence, each measure's objective value is smaller than Problem $B_\alpha(s, L)$'s optimal value. Therefore, the limit, Problem PMO's optimal value, should be smaller than Problem $B_\alpha(s, L)$'s optimal value, which completes the proof.
**Why only two policies [Questions 2 and 3, Weakness 2].**
Based on Theorem 1, Propositions 1 and 2, we proved Theorem 2. **Proposition 2 is the first transition from Proposition 1 to Theorem 2.** Proposition 1 suggests that $L$ policies should be enough. Proposition 2 claims that another problem (Problem $V_\alpha(s, L)$) that optimizes the discrete probability measure of violation probability's interval has the same optimal objective value as Problem $B_\alpha(s, L)$ for any $L$. We further can show that Problem $V_\alpha(s, L)$ has the optimal value whose negative is Problem $H_\alpha(s)$'s optimal value for any given $L$. **Problem $H_\alpha(s)$ is a linear program in a two-dimension plane, which is the second transition from Proposition 1 to Theorem 2.** Intuitively, we use some geometric properties (Supporting hyperplane theorem and Caratheodory’s theorem) of the solution Problem $H_\alpha(s)$ to prove that Problem $V_\alpha(s, L)$'s optimal value does not increase when $L\geq 2.$ Which is equivalent to say that Problem $B_\alpha(s, L)$'s optimal value does not increase when $L\geq 2.$ Note that Proposition 1 says that $L$ is enough to get optimality for Problem PMO and we show $L\geq 2$ does not increase the objective value. Thus, two policies are enough. The same process can be repeated to explain Question 3. Problem PSPRL is a special case of Problem PMO, and Problem PFPRL is a special case of Problem $V_\alpha(s, L)$. Thus, we have Theorem 6 to show that Problem PFPRL and Problem PSPRL share the same optimal value. Then, Problem PSPRL can attain the optimality by two policies. Note that Problem LP's feasible region is a subset of the one of Problem PSPRL. Problem PSPRL considers all possible measures defined on the interval $[0,1]$. Problem LP only considers discrete measures defined on a finite subset of $[0,1]$. Since Problem PSPRL attains the optimality with two policies by Theorem 6, Problem LP also attains the optimality with two policies as its special case. **Since Problem LP only considers finite samples from the interval $[0,1]$ and these finite samples are randomly chosen instead of being optimized, thus we can only show that the optimal value of Problem LP converges to the one of Problem PSPRL with probability 1 when $L\rightarrow\infty$**.
**Adapt Safe PPO [Question 4 and Weakness 3].**
Thanks for your question. Adapting safe PPO to a flipping-based policy includes two steps. The first step is to use Algorithm 1 (Page 7 of our manuscript) to train the flipping-based policy using safe PPO in step 2.
Then, implement the flipping-based policy according to Algorithm 2 (Page 7 of our manuscript). We added P3O [Ref-4-1] into the comparison, which we think is an effective safe PPO method. We also conducted additional experiments in another environment (Cargo) to validate all the methods. In any case, using a flipping-based policy can improve the expected reward under the same expected cost. The new results are summarized in a new One-Page PDF file attached to the global response. Please kindly check the One-Page PDF file.
We will add the new results in the new version.
**PointGoal Chance Constrained Problem [Question 5].**
The chance constraint for the PointGoal is that the collision probability in the future $T$ steps should be less than $\alpha$.
[Ref-4-1] Zhang, L., et al, Penalized proximal policy optimization for safe reinforcement learning. In IJCAI, 2022.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for a detailed response.
Re $L = 2$. If I followed your explanation, the fact that we use chance constraint with one parameter $\alpha$ implies that we need to policies to find the optimal value of $V$. Could that imply that in others more complex problem formulations, we may need to choose more than one policy?
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thank you for your additional comments
Comment: We appreciate your valuable advice and comments. Thank you for increasing the score! We ensure that all reviewers’ feedback will be reflected in the new version of our paper. The question about the number of policies in the official comment is very important and interesting. According to our recent results, more complex problem formulations will need more policies. We would like to share the conclusion about the expected cumulative safety constraints. The number of necessary policies equals the number of constraints plus one. Namely, we have $l=m+1$, where $l$ is the number of necessary policies and $m$ is the number of expected cumulative safety constraints. It also works for the chance constraint in this manuscript since the joint chance constraint is essentially one constraint for the probability of an event.
Thank you again for your patience and time for our manuscript! | Summary: The paper presents a number of optimality results for flipping-based policies in safe reinforcement learning. It first establishes that flipping-based policies are overall optimal for joint chance constrained MDPs, which represents a significant reduction of the original optimization formulation. Then, acknowledging that even this formulation is practically intractable, it provides a number of relaxations and principled approximations to get to a computationally tractable procedure, and show that one can find flipping-based policies that outperform the best deterministic policies that one can find.
Strengths: 1. Safe RL is a very important and challenging problem.
2. Theorem 2 (and 4 and 6 and 7) is quite interesting and, at least to me, surprising!
3. The authors take a methodical and principled approach to connect their main theory in section 3 with a practical algorithm that can be used for RL by the end of section 4.
Weaknesses: 1. Theorems 5 and 8 don’t seem very strong or useful since they don’t specify the constraints on \gamma_unsafe and T (just say they exist), so in particular it may not hold at all for a given user-specified T, and even if it does, it doesn’t provide a way for the user to find a \gamma_unsafe that makes the approximation conservative for their specified T.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: 1. line 91: are there \alpha subscripts missing in a couple places here? I don’t think, e.g., \pi^* has been defined without an \alpha subscript.
2. Line 204: I think there’s a conditioning on s_k=s missing in the definition of F^d. Or otherwise I don’t know what the s in the subscript means.
3. In 4.3, is there a distinction between \Theta and \boldsymbol{\Theta}?
4. In 5.2, I think you mean to say the reward INCREASED with the flipping policy
5. Theorem 6 seems far stronger than Theorem 2, and I feel this gap is quite counterintuitive and unacknowledged by the authors, though maybe I’m missing something; if this point could be clarified, I would raise my score. In particular, Theorem 2 says that in the current state, the controller can select from just two (state-dependent) actions (with a state-dependent flipping probability) at the current time point while remaining optimal. But Theorem 6 seems to say that the entire optimal policy can be written as a (fixed, not-state-dependent) mixture of two policies. Perhaps most surprising is the fact that the flipping weight between the two policies is not state-dependent, whereas in Theorem 2 it was allowed to depend on state. Is there an easy way to see why it’s not so surprising? For instance, if the parameterized deterministic policy class is a universal approximating (deterministic) function class, then the PSPRL optimum should essentially be the same as the original CCRL optimum, right (I can see that if PSPRL can implement any policy via \theta and then arbitrarily mix between them, and by having a continuous mixture of policies that can take the same action at some states and different actions at others, the PSPRL optimum can, e.g., implement a switching policy with a different weight for every state)? But then Theorem 6, if I’m reading it right, says there’s an optimal policy for the original problem with a switching weight that doesn’t depend on state at all! What am I missing?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The experimental results certainly support the rest of the paper, but are somewhat unsurprising, since they basically just show that there can be a mixture of two deterministic policies that beats the best deterministic policy—no surprise there since mixtures of two deterministic policies is a larger class than deterministic policies. And the actual flipping policy found in figure 2 seems a bit troubling to me—in practice would one want a policy that improves upon another safe policy by with some probability taking a marginally unsafe shortcut? For, e.g., a self-driving car, I would probably say no, but maybe this is a weakness of the joint chance constraint formulation, which only conditions on safety, but not the state itself, when demanding joint safety for the next T time steps. I have to agree that, for the problem as formulated, the flipping policy in Figure 2 is indeed better than the deterministic policy. Perhaps a bit more discussion of the problem formulation is merited, as opposed to just referencing other works that use the same formulation.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's constructive comments and insightful questions. We feel the reviewer has been patient and given many suggestions to help us improve the quality of our manuscript and questions to guide us in reflecting on our research. Except for your professional advice, your patience and kind heart also mean a lot to us.
We will answer the questions first and then address the weaknesses and limitations. All responses are given point-to-point.
**Typos [Question 1, 2, 3, 4].**
Thank you for pointing out the typos. We apologize for the typos, which made it difficult for you to read this manuscript. For the typo at line 91, indeed, $\alpha$ is missing in a couple of places. For the typo at line 204, it should include the conditional part and then take a probability integration on the initial state. We will explain the reason in the response **Theorem 6 [Question 5].** In 4.3, we intend to only use $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ (with boldsymbol). In 5.2, exactly, we mean INCREASED.
We will correct the typos in the new version.
**Theorem 6 [Question 5].**
We deeply appreciate this valuable comment. The content of this comment is about the core part of our theoretical contribution. We acknowledge this gap between Theorem 6 and Theorem 2 very much. First, let us explain why Theorem 6 and Theorem 2 have different results on the flipping probability. The difference is caused by **a subtle difference between Problem CCRL and Problem PSPRL**. Problem CCRL relies on a revised Bellman equation (Theorem 1) to deliver the optimal policy for every possible state in the state space. The joint chance constraint also needs to be satisfied for every possible state in the pointwise way. In Problem PSPRL, the expectations of reward and constraint also consider the initial state's probability distribution, which is a usual way in the safe RL community. They are not for a specific state. Thus, the obtained flip probability is not state-dependent. Namely, **the subtle difference is the joint chance constraint should be satisfied pointwisely in Problem CCRL while it only needs to be satisfied in a sense of mean value regarding the initial state in Problem PSPRL.** Of course, as the reviewer mentioned, when the PSPRL optimum is the same as the original CCRL optimum, we can conclude that Problem CCRL also has an optimal policy with state-independent switching weight. Then, we have to prove that, for safe RL with joint chance constraint or expected cumulative safety constraints, the policy delivered by the revised Bellman equation (pointwise) and the policy delivered by taking the expectations with the initial state's probability distribution is equivalent. For RL without constraints, they are equivalent. Maybe there is a way to find some conditions, for example, constraining the initial state in a compact set, and then find some equivalent reformations between pointwise constraint and expected constraint on the initial state distribution.
**Theorem 5 and 8 [Weakness 1].**
Thanks for pointing out this weakness. As the reviewer mentioned, Theorems 5 and 8 only show the existence but do not show an explicit way to choose $\gamma_{\mathsf{unsafe}}$ for specified $T.$ One important information is that, for specified $T,$ if $\gamma_{\mathsf{unsafe}}$ is increased, the approximation for safety can be more conservative. If a conservative safety is desired, we recommend to use a $\gamma_{\mathsf{unsafe}}$ that is close to $1$.
**Experimental results [Limitations 1].**
Thanks for the insightful and helpful comments.
First, let us emphasize that our theoretical results show that **the mixture of two deterministic policies can achieve optimality**. We do not need a mixture of three or more deterministic policies. Even if a mixture of three or more deterministic policies is a larger class than a mixture of two deterministic policies, it cannot further improve the expected reward for Problem PMO.
As the reviewer mentioned, it is necessary to discuss the problem formulation more, especially in the cases where joint chance constraint formulation makes sense. If we understand the reviewer's point correctly, Figure 2 seems troubling because a high threshold of violation probability will be unacceptable for fatal collisions and does not make sense in a self-driving car. That is why we chose the word "dangerous regions" instead of "obstacles." It is dangerous but not fatal. Namely, we agree with the point that using joint chance constraints with a relatively high threshold is more suitable for some "soft" constraints but not fatal, for example, the risk of meeting traffic jams in the path planning of express delivery services, battery capacity in energy systems with renewable energy. For fatal constraints, safety should almost surely be guaranteed. Then, according to Theorem 3, a deterministic policy should be enough if it can be exactly found. However, for enhancing exploration, computing policy gradients, learning to make decisions, and other reasons, a stochastic policy is still needed for practical applications.
Besides, Theorem 4 shows that the flipping-based policy can achieve optimality for expected cumulative safety constraints, which is generally used in safe RL. Although Theorem 4 uses the indication function and probability level to show the connection between Problem ECRL and Problem CCRL, the theoretical result can be directly adapted to the general expected cumulative safety constraints, which can extend our theory to more practical scenarios. We should emphasize this by a remark after Theorem 4 in the new version.
Thank you again for your constructive comments.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thm 6 / Q5: This is very helpful, thank you for the clarification! I would say that, even with your response and going back through the paper, it took me a while to see this subtle (but apparently important) distinction between CCRL and PSPRL--maybe the authors could try to highlight it more?
For your experimental results--I agree with the bolded statement about your *theoretical* results, and indeed this is a surprising and nice result precisely because one's baseline expectation is that a mixture of more deterministic policies should be better than a mixture of fewer deterministic policies! My point was that your *empirical* results only confirm this expectation for one versus a mixture of two deterministic polices (and hence are not very surprising), not the surprising part that mixing in *more* deterministic policies *doesn't* help.
Your examples with "dangerous regions" are quite compelling--thank you for clarifying this!
I have raised my score to a 7.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thank you for your additional reply
Comment: We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for reading through our responses and having raised the score. We believe that the valuable comments from Reviewer 7qnc are very helpful for us to improve our paper. Thank you very much for your considerable comments.
We will add a short but clear remark in the new version to highlight the subtle distinction between Problem CCRL and Problem PSPRL.
Solving Problem LP naturally gives us a solution that is a mixture of two deterministic policies.
To show that a mixture of more deterministic policies doesn't help exactly, we think it is necessary to propose an algorithm to solve PSPRL directly instead of obtaining an approximate solution by solving Problem LP.
We leave this as future work. It is a very interesting point.
Thank you again for your patience and helpful comments! | Summary: The study proposes a flipping-based policy for managing chance constraints in Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). It introduces a probabilistic approach where actions are selected by flipping a "distorted coin", which is helpful in handling uncertainties in safety-critical environments. The authors establish a theoretical framework, including a Bellman equation adaptation for this setup and proofs of optimality under given constraints.
Strengths: 1. The flipping-based approach is a potentially impactful method for addressing uncertainty in decision-making processes.
2. The paper provides rigorous theoretical backing for the proposed method, including detailed proofs.
Weaknesses: 1. The algorithm involves multiple layers of optimization and probability adjustments which might be difficult to tune in real-world applications.
2. The experimental section primarily focuses on simulated environments (Safety Gym benchmarks), and the performance is not significantly improvement compared with CPO and PCPO. There are some new methods that significantly better than CPO and PCPO, e.g., https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.05890 and https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.01677
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. Could we possibly use neural networks to predict action candidates and flip probabilities?
2. What is the difference between flip-based policy and reject sampling?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate the reviewer's helpful comments and insightful questions. The questions and comments raised by the reviewer are addressed point-to-point as follows.
**Neural networks for action and flip probability [Question 1].**
Thank you for this good question! As the reviewer mentioned, it is possible to approximate the optimal flipping-based policy by using a neural network that takes the state as input and outputs the action candidates and flip probability. We can add Gaussian noises to each action candidate to introduce stochasticity and further enhance the exploration. We can also include the added Gaussian noises' covariances into the neural network output. Then, the neural network output becomes the parameters for a Gaussian mixture distribution. It becomes a mixture density network. We intend to train the flipping-based policy with the existing tools in safe reinforcement learning research's infrastructural frameworks, such as OmniSafe. In OmniSafe, the single Gaussian distribution-based stochastic policies can be trained directly without any adaptions. Thus, we have proposed practical algorithms (Section 4.3) to train the flipping-based policy directly using existing algorithms without adjustment. It is worth proposing a new efficient algorithm to train the mixture density network for safe RL. Particularly, with the theory in this paper, the Gaussian mixture distribution only needs two Gaussian kernels to ensure optimality.
**Flipping-based policy and Reject sampling [Question 2].**
In flipping-based policy, similar to the general stochastic policy, reject sampling are usually used to generate the input. When using the exact flipping-based policy, the neural network outputs two action candidates and flip probability. Then, the implemented action is chosen from two action candidates by checking a random value generated by the uniform distribution within $[0,1]$. The first candidate is chosen if the generated value surpluses the flip probability value. Otherwise, the second candidate will be chosen. A more complicated case is using a mixture density network to approximate the flipping-based policy. Then, the implemented action will be decided in two ways. The first is to use reject sampling directly for the Gaussian mixture distribution. Or we can sample two samples from two Gaussian distributions and then repeat the process for the case of the exact flipping-based policy. However, sampling from the Gaussian distribution is often achieved by reject sampling.
**Complexity of algorithm [Weakness 1].**
Thanks for pointing out this weakness in our research. The current algorithm's weakness is that it uses multiple layers of optimization and probability adjustments. This limitation of our method (mentioned in the Appendix) may stimulate new work on designing efficient algorithms to obtain the flipping-based policy, in which the neural network outputs two action candidates and the flip probability. The flipping-based policy has a structure that is much simplified compared to the general stochastic policy, but it can still ensure optimality.
**Compare with new methods [Weakness 2].**
Thank you for the useful comments and the wonderful papers. Although the methods presented in the recommended papers are very interesting and useful, we do not find the toolbox in Omnisafe, and the time is limited for us to implement them. Instead, we added CUP [Ref-2-1] and P3O [Ref-2-2] into the comparison. We will first claim our main contributions and then explain why our choices support our main contributions. Although we do not include the recommended methods, we will add the references to the new version of our paper since they are excellent related work of safe RL.
First, please let us emphasize that our main contributions include **proving the optimality of flipping-based policy and one practical algorithm to realize it**. The practical algorithm can be CPO, PCPO, or any other safe RL algorithm. How much flipping-based policy can improve the existing algorithm depends also on the original algorithm's performance. To show the generality of our proposed policy and practical algorithm, we add its applications to CUP and P3O. We conducted additional experiment results with CUP and P3O as well. We also added another environment (Cargo) to validate all methods. In any case, using a flipping-based policy can improve the expected reward at the same cost. We would like to ask the reviewer to see the new result in a new One-Page PDF file attached to the global response. We consider it more important to **show the performance of improving existing algorithms by flipping-based policy**. We will add the new figures in the new version.
We sincerely thank the reviewer for taking the time to review our paper.
[Ref-2-1] Yang, L., et al, Constrained update projection approach to safe policy optimization. In NeurIPS, 2022.
[Ref-2-2] Zhang, L., et al, Penalized proximal policy optimization for safe reinforcement learning. In IJCAI, 2022. | Summary: This paper introduces a new policy called the flipping-based policy for Chance-Constrained Markov Decision Processes (CCMDPs), which is useful in safe reinforcement learning. The policy uses a coin flip to choose between two actions, depending on the state. The authors establish a Bellman equation for CCMDPs and show that this flipping-based policy can be part of the optimal solution. To provide a practical algorithm, they also demonstrate how joint chance constraints can be approximated into Expected Cumulative Safety Constraints (ECSCs). The paper presents a framework for integrating this policy into existing safe RL algorithms like CPO and PCPO, showing improvements in performance on Safety Gym benchmarks while maintaining safety constraints.
Strengths: 1. This paper presents an extensive detailed theoretical analysis, with the entire analytical and proof process vividly illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 5.
2. The concept of employing a flipping policy is quite novel, offering a simple yet potent perspective to solve the problem PMO.
3. This paper delivers a comprehensive framework from theoretical analysis to practical general safety RL algorithms, providing mathematically insightful and practically effective solutions. The experimental section and visualizations are designed to complement the core theorems, ensuring a cohesive understanding.
Weaknesses: 1. The typo in the abstract: expected cumulative safety constraints (ESCSs) should be ECSCs.
2. The typo in Algorithm 2, line 2: Remove one of the redundant as in the statement.
3. The assumption regarding the reward and state transition function, as mentioned by the author, is not inherently natural or generalizable across various applications. This is particularly evident in decision-making environments within robotics and autonomous driving, where reward signals are often non-continuous, and state transitions can be abrupt. This limitation significantly constrains the potential impact of the paper.
4. The paper, as indicated by its title and abstract, aims to approximate the solution to CCRL problems with ECRL. However, the text frequently shifts focus to extending CCRL to ECRL for generalization, which only serves to complicate the narrative and blur the paper's primary objective. It is recommended that the author refocus the discussion on the application of ECRL to CCRL for a clearer and more coherent presentation.
5. The experimental section exclusively presents the results of the test process, which, although demonstrating positive outcomes, fails to provide any insights into the training process itself. It is crucial for the author to include at least some intermediate results from the training process to validate that the process does not incur significant overheads.
6. The utilization of a flipping-based policy introduces broader confidence intervals in the results, a concern that may be particularly relevant in safety RL applications.
7. The authors should ensure that at least two environments are considered in experiments for broader applicability.
8. This paper should add a related work section to compare and contextualize the current research within the broader field.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. What is the cause of the sudden change behavior observed in the experimental results of the "origin" group in Figure 2?
2. Figure 2 serves as a clear and intuitive example. However, in more complex scenarios involving more than two possible safety areas, how is the behavior of the flipping-based policy?
3. The statement "Gaussian distribution-based stochastic policies are essentially deterministic policies disturbed by noise for exploration" may oversimplify the role and impact of Gaussian distribution-based policies. Is there some related work or more detailed explanations? While these policies (e.g. classical PPO and SAC) do indeed introduce stochasticity to facilitate exploration, they also fundamentally alter the optimization process during training. This change is not merely superficial but influences how the policy gradients are computed and how the agent learns to make decisions.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors thoroughly discussed the limitations and potential negative societal impacts in the Appendix.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate the reviewer's valuable feedback and comments. We will answer the questions first and then address the comments about the weakness. All the concerns are addressed in a point-to-point way as follows.
**Sudden change behavior [Question 1].**
Thank you for the interesting question! The sudden change comes from the weakness of the original policy (deterministic policy). For a deterministic policy, if we set a small threshold of violation probability, passing the space between the two red-shaded circles will be infeasible since the violation probability will be larger than the threshold. Therefore, when increasing the threshold of violation probability from a very small value, the mean reward increases relatively slowly since the deterministic policies can only take the sideway in front of the two red-shaded circles. When the threshold of violation probability surpluses the lowest violation probability value of passing the middle space between the two red-shaded circles, passing the middle space will be feasible as this turning point, and the mean reward has a jump here. Note that the flipping-based policy can balance the violation probability by flipping between passing the middle space (high risk) and going the sideway (low risk). With the same mean risk, flipping can further improve the mean reward. **You can regard the flipping as a linear combination to establish a slope for the jumping**.
**More complex scenarios [Question 2].**
Thank you for this valuable comment. Due to our theoretical results (particularly Theorems 2 and 6), even in more complex scenarios involving more than two possible safety areas, **there exists an optimal solution, passing two of them randomly. These chosen "two" will be the optimal "two." The random choice will be made only from these chosen "two," depending on the flip probability.** In the PointGoal environment, there are far more than two possible safety areas. the flipping-based policy still improves the performance of CPO and PCPO. To validate the generality of adapting the flipping-based policy to the existing methods, we added the results of two new methods, CUP [Ref-1-1] and P3O [Ref-1-2]. Besides, for all four methods, we added the validations in another environment, CarGoal. The new results are summarized in a new One-Page PDF file attached to the global response. Please kindly check it.
**Statement [Question 3].**
Indeed, as the reviewer mentioned, the statement on Gaussian distribution-based stochastic policies is improper. Facilitating exploration is one of the benefits of introducing stochasticity. We want to emphasize the part of facilitating exploration and use the improper expressions that oversimplify the stochasticity's role. Thanks for pointing out this improper statement. We apologize for this improper statement and will correct it in the new version.
**Typos [Weakness 1 and 2].**
Thanks for pointing out the typos. We will correct them in the new version and check the whole manuscript to find and correct the other typos.
**Assumption on reward and state transition function [Weakness 3].**
Thank you for this insightful comment about the gap between the theoretical results and the general applications. The main contribution of this paper is theoretical. Currently, there is a gap in the scenarios with non-smooth functions. In future work, we will extend the results to more practical scenarios.
**CCRL and ECRL [Weakness 4].**
Thanks for your constructive advice on improving the coherence of the manuscript's presentation. When preparing the new version, we would like to follow your suggestion of focusing the discussion on the application of ECRL to CCRL. We will add one short paragraph in the introduction to emphasize this point and provide a short guide to help readers read the rest of the parts. To avoid misunderstanding, several changes will be made in the text, especially the part shifting focus to extending CCRL to ECRL.
**Training process [Weakness 5].**
As the reviewer mentioned, it is crucial to provide the training process. In a new One-Page PDF file attached to the global response, we have added the training process profile for each method. We will add these new results in the appendix in the new version.
**Broader confidence intervals [Weakness 6].**
Thank you for pointing out this critical point. From the experiment results in Omnisafe, the flipping-based policy introduces broader confidence intervals. For the numerical example in Section 5.1, the flipping-based policy does not give broader confidence intervals. The numerical example in Section 5.1 is closer to the optimal solution of the flipping-based policy. Thus, in theory, the flipping-based policy does not increase the size of the confidence interval. However, the practical implementation may have this issue. We think that it is possible to keep the confidence interval as the original one by using smaller variances in Gaussian noises, which may not hurt the performance of the mean reward and cost. The reviewer's observation is very important. We want to reflect this by a remark in the new version.
**More environments [Weakness 7].**
We added experimental validation results in a new One-Page PDF file attached to the "global" response. Except for the PointGoal environment, every method was validated in the CarGoal environment. The performance in the CarGoal environment is the same as that of the PointGoal environment.
**Related work section [Weakness 8].**
Indeed, having an independent part of related work can clearly explain how the current research fills the gap. We will extract parts of related work in the introduction and extend it into a related work section in the new version.
[Ref-1-1] Yang, L., et al, Constrained update projection approach to safe policy optimization. In NeurIPS, 2022.
[Ref-1-2] Zhang, L., et al, Penalized proximal policy optimization for safe reinforcement learning. In IJCAI, 2022. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewers and AC,
The authors deeply thank all the reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive suggestions.
1. We have conducted new experiments based on the reviewers' comments. Additional experimental results are provided in a One-Page PDF file containing new figures. The One-Page PDF file is attached in this global response;
2. We have provided our detailed response to each reviewer with a separate response.
We hope our responses have addressed all the concerns and questions of the reviewers.
We are willing to answer any of the reviewers' concerns about our work and sincerely wish the reviewers to value our paper's theoretical and technical contributions.
Best regards,
Authors
Pdf: /pdf/b4aec45306dca61aefb5e7fe39326b968a3f65a7.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
FASTopic: Pretrained Transformer is a Fast, Adaptive, Stable, and Transferable Topic Model | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper proposes FASTopic, a topic model using pre-trained document embeddings and embedding transport between documents and topics as well as words and topics. The minimized objective function is then a combination of the DSR and ETP which is optimized via finding topic, and word embeddings.
Strengths: - Interesting idea which is well documented
- Initial experimental results show potential
- potential benefit of getting interpretable word-embeddings while training topic model
Weaknesses: - Overall, I quite like the paper and the idea. However, I have some reservations, primarily due to the aggressive tone of the presentation, starting from the abstract. The paper repeatedly criticizes comparable methods, while presenting its own method as the ultimate and superior topic model. Such claims need robust support through experimental evidence. Although the experiments provide some validation, the tone of the paper creates a discrepancy, making the experimental results appear insufficiently convincing.
Overall, more results are needed to back up the strong claims made in the paper.
Below are some suggestions that, in my opinion, would support the claims more effectively. If these suggestions are unjustified, I would appreciate an explanation.
**Minor:** I think the high-resolution plots are causing some trouble. I cannot really scroll through the paper smoothly.
1. **Include further models** -> ETM [1], ProdLDA [2], CEDC [3], CTMneg [4]. While I wouldn't suspect ETM/ProdLDA to be better than any other of the models, the simple models CTMneg and CEDC have shown to outperform BERTopic.
2. **Incorporate other evaluation metrics**: since evaluation is very difficult [5]. E.g. use some presented in [3] or [6].
3. **How do you measure training time for all of the models?**
- 3.1) Are all steps, including the document encodings, part of the taken training time?
- 3.2) Do you use the same encoding model for all comparison models (where applicable)?
- 3.3) Given that FASTopic outperforms BERTopic in terms of speed, I wonder for how many epochs you are training your model, and what it is that takes so long in BERTopic? The document encoding steps are the same for both models and while dimensionality reduction takes some time using UMAP, I have a hard time believing that it is slower than training FASTopic for a reasonable amount of epochs.
4. **How did you choose the number of topics for BERTopic?** Did you use Kmeans instead of HDBSCAN or hierarchicaly reduced the number of topics?
5. **How many parameters does FASTopic have compared to the other neural models?**
[1] Dieng, A. B., Ruiz, F. J., & Blei, D. M. (2020). Topic modeling in embedding spaces. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8, 439-453.
[2] Srivastava, A., & Sutton, C. (2017). Autoencoding variational inference for topic models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.01488.
[3] Adhya, S., Lahiri, A., Sanyal, D. K., & Das, P. P. (2023). Improving contextualized topic models with negative sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.14951.
[4] Thielmann, A., Reuter, A., Seifert, Q., Bergherr, E., & Säfken, B. (2024). Topics in the haystack: Enhancing topic quality through corpus expansion. Computational Linguistics, 1-37.
[5] Hoyle, A., Goel, P., Hian-Cheong, A., Peskov, D., Boyd-Graber, J., & Resnik, P. (2021). Is automated topic model evaluation broken? the incoherence of coherence. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34, 2018-2033.
[6] Stammbach, D., Zouhar, V., Hoyle, A., Sachan, M., & Ash, E. (2023). Revisiting automated topic model evaluation with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12152.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - Are the created word embeddings semantically meaningful? Would clustering the word embeddings e.g. [7] give meaningfull topics? If yes, this is an additional benefit which I would suggest to include in the paper.
[7] Sia, S., Dalmia, A., & Mielke, S. J. (2020). Tired of topic models? clusters of pretrained word embeddings make for fast and good topics too!. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.14914.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Not needed
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your insightful reviews! We appreciate you find our work interesting and results potential.
We hope our responses can address your concerns and improve your rating.
__Q1: comparison to more models__
We emphasize __we have included the newest baselines__: HyperMiner(NeurIPS2022), ProGBN(ICML2023), ECRTM(ICML2023), GINopic(NAACL2024).
Here we report the comparisons to CTMneg and CEDC:
|Model|20NG||NYT||WoS||NeurIPS||ACL||Wikitext-103||
|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|
||$C_V$|TD|$C_V$|TD|$C_V$|TD|$C_V$|TD|$C_V$|TD|$C_V$|TD|
|CTMneg|0.378|0.615|0.381|0.633|0.377|0.571|0.402|0.526|0.393|0.388|0.389|0.708|
|CEDC|0.413|0.375|0.382|0.456|0.443|0.566|0.343|0.212|0.306|0.267|0.400|0.471|
|__FASTopic__|__0.426__|__0.983__|__0.437__|__0.999__|__0.457__|__1.000__|__0.422__|__0.998__|__0.420__|__0.998__|__0.439__|__0.992__|
We see although CTMneg is better than CombinedTM, FASTopic still outperforms them.
Thank you for mentioning these important work. We have updated the paper and cited them.
__Q2: include more evaluation metrics__
Here we additionally report the results of Word Embedding Coherence (WEC) and Inversed Rank-Biased Overlap (IRBO) from Adhya_2023.
WEC measures coherence with pretrained word embeddings, and IRBO measures diversity.
|Model|20NG| |NYT| |WoS| |NeurIPS| |ACL| |Wikitext-103| |
|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|
||WEC|IRBO|WEC|IRBO|WEC|IRBO|WEC|IRBO|WEC|IRBO|WEC|IRBO|
|LDA-Mallet|0.034|0.993|0.054|0.996|0.070|0.997|0.041|0.989|0.052|0.984|0.068|0.990|
|NMF|0.040|0.987|0.028|0.978|0.081|0.983|0.045|0.971|0.045|0.970|0.069|0.976|
|BERTopic|0.043|0.990|0.056|0.992|0.109|0.990|0.049|0.975|0.058|0.978|0.077|0.984|
|CombinedTM|0.038|0.986|0.029|0.993|0.084|0.990|0.036|0.986|0.036|0.972|0.050|0.992|
|GINopic|0.038|0.996|0.049|0.991|0.076|0.990|0.047|0.984|0.037|0.987|0.053|0.991|
|ProGBN|0.044|0.967|0.052|0.961|0.103|0.985|0.042|0.886|0.054|0.964|0.070|0.940|
|HyperMiner|0.038|0.988|0.052|0.990|0.077|0.990|0.047|0.997|0.045|0.997|0.065|0.988|
|ECRTM|0.042|__1.000__|0.040|0.998|0.066|__1.000__|0.051|__1.000__|0.054|__1.000__|0.088|__1.000__|
|__FASTopic__|__0.054__|__1.000__|__0.066__|__1.000__|__0.130__|__1.000__|__0.053__|__1.000__|__0.060__|__1.000__|__0.093__|__1.000__|
The above shows our model also performs better on these metrics.
Thank you for the suggestion. We have added these results to the paper.
__Q3: the number of topics for BERTopic__
We explain __we set the number of topics of BERTopic to be the same as the other models for fair comparisons.__
Each model produces 50 topics in Table_1. Otherwise, it'll be unfair if BERTopic reduces the number of topics to 10.
__Q4: how is the training time measured?__
__We measure the training time from when the dataset is loaded until the training is finished.__
The training time includes loading document embeddings.
We clarify __we use the same document embeddings for each model when applicable for fair comparisons.__
As mentioned in Section_D Line_574, we use `all-MiniLM-L6-v2` for document embeddings by default.
__Q5: why FASTopic is faster than BERTopic__
As mentioned in Appendix_D Line_578, we train FASTopic with 200 epochs.
We break down the training time (seconds) as
|BERTopic||
|:-|:-|
|Step 1: Load doc embeddings|7.10|
|Step 2: Reduce dimensionality|23.13|
|Step 3: Cluster doc embeddings|0.21|
|Step 4: Compute word weights|1.97|
|__Sum__|32.41|
|FASTopic||
|:-|:-|
|Step 1: Load doc embeddings|7.10|
|Step 2: Training|5.85|
|__Sum__|12.95|
We see BERTopic has to reduce embedding dimensionality, cluster embeddings, and compute word weights.
In contrast, our model enjoys faster training.
This is because it employs Sinkhorn's algorithm to solve optimal transport, which is quite fast as proven by previous studies (Cuturi_2013, Genevay_2019).
Moreover, __its objective is simple and straightforward, optimizing only four parameters__: topic and word embeddings and their weight vectors (Eq(8)). This avoids the complicated encoders and decoders of VAE-based methods.
Previous ECRTM also uses optimal transport, but its objective based on the complicated encoder and decoder slows it down.
Thank you for the question. We've added more explanations to the paper.
__Q6: the number of hyperparameters in FASTopic__
We summarize the hyperparameters as follows:
1. __FASTopic__ has hyperparameters for Sinkhorn's algorithm $\varepsilon_{1}$ and $\varepsilon_{2}$ in Eq(5,6) and the temperature in Eq(9).
2. VAE-based models (CombinedTM, ProGBN, HyperMiner, ECRTM, GINopic) need more hyperparameters to set their encoders, decoders (dimensions, number of layers, and dropout), and prior distributions (Gaussian or Dirichlet).
Some need more hyperparameters, like the hierarchy of ProGBN and HyperMiner, the regularization weight of ECRTM, and the graph neural networks of GINopic.
1. BERTopic has hyperparameters to set its clustering and dimension reduction modules, like the number of neighbors and components of UMAP; the min cluster size, min samples, metrics of HDBSCAN.
__We explain the fewer hyperparameters of our model result from its extremely simplified structure.__
We don't use the traditional VAE with complicated encoders and decoders or the complex dimension reduction and clustering modules as BERTopic.
Our model only includes three kinds of embeddings and the embedding transport plans between them.
Thank you for the comment. We've added more discussions to the paper.
__Q7: cluster the word embeddings__
We clarify __our method already works as clustering the word embeddings.__
Figure_2(c) illustrates we can view our ETP as a clustering process: topic embeddings as cluster centers, word embeddings as samples, and the semantic relations between them as cluster assignments.
We refine these assignments during learning through objective Eq(8).
__Q8: take longer time to load high-resolution figures__
Thank you for your comment. We've updated the paper with compressed figures.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Rebuttal Acknowledgment
Comment: Dear authors,
thank you for your answers.
All of my questions have been adequately answered, or have been already answered within the original manuscript. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
I have adapted my score accordingly
5 -> 7
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Response to Reviewer YWcC
Comment: Dear Reviewer YWcC,
Thank you for your reply! We're glad that our responses have addressed your concerns.
Thank you. | Summary: This paper introduces a fast, adaptive, stable, and transferable (FAST) topic modeling paradigm by using dual semantic-relation reconstruction (DSR) to model topic-document and topic-word relations. It enhances topic modeling by incorporating a embedding transport plan (ETP) method to address relation biases. Experimental results show FASTopic outperforms existing baselines.
Strengths: 1. This work introduces FASTopic by integrating the DSR paradigm, which is straightforward and provides a fresh aspect on handling semantic relations in topic modeling. Authors further propose ETP method to avoid relation bias issue.
2. Comprehensive experiments show FASTopic's superiority in effectiveness, efficiency, and adaptability, stability, and transferability.
3. The paper is well-written, and the code is available.
Weaknesses: 1. The method's performance may heavily rely on the document embedding model, which makes it harder to interpret the model results. It need to futher discuss that how specific changes in embeddings affect topic modeling.
2. The misplacement of tables and figures, such as Table~1, could potentially distract readers but do not detract significantly from the content's quality. But it does not matter.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: 1. In Figure~2, is it intentional to design the variation in line thickness ($\pi_{11}$, $\pi_{12}$ and $\pi_{13}$) ?
2. Could the authors provide more detailed motivation and experimental validation for the choice of using pretrained document embedding model? How if train embedding model together?
3. What are the performance metrics (both training and inference) when FASTopic is run on a CPU environment?
4. Although it is claimed that FASTopic performs well without extensive hyperparameter tuning, the paper does not discuss experiments varying hyperparameters. Could you elaborate on how sensitive FASTopic is to changes in its hyperparameters?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: No potential negative societal impacts.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your comments! We're glad that you believe our paper is well-written, our experiments are comprehensive, and our model is straightforward and fresh.
We hope our responses can address your concerns and improve your rating.
__Q1: how document embeddings affect the method__
Thank you for the question. We clarify that __we have experimented with different document embeddings in Appendix_F (Table_10 and 11).__
Generally, higher-quality document embeddings bring about better topic modeling performance.
We explain that __relying on pretrained document embeddings has become prevalent in topic modeling now.__ This is because we can easily access plentiful high-quality document embeddings, such as Sentence-Transformers which provides document embeddings for 50+ languages.
__Q2: why use pretrained document embeddings and what if train them together__
We explain that __pretrained document embeddings contain abundant features, and using them is a common practice for topic modeling__, such as BERTopic, CombinedTM, and CTMneg. We don't need to retrain an embedding model, which saves us lots of effort.
As mentioned in Section_3.4 Line_183, training the document embedding model together may lead to over-fitting problems, because our target datasets are regularly smaller than their pretraining datasets.
This also greatly increases the training time and computational cost. Due to these reasons, the above early studies don't train document embeddings either.
__Q3: running speed performance on CPU__
Here we report the running time (seconds) of BERTopic and our model, including training (Train) and inference (Infer):
|Model|20NG| | |NYT| | |WoS| | |NeurIPS| | |ACL| | |Wikitext-103| |
|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|
| |Train|Infer| |Train|Infer| |Train|Infer| |Train|Infer| |Train|Infer| |Train|Infer|
|BERTopic|107.06|12.05| |120.70|9.55| |128.16|6.51| |208.23|89.89| |252.29|126.93| |592.62|228.08|
|__FASTopic__|95.93|0.02| |112.96|0.02| |121.88|0.01| |177.58|0.01| |209.75|0.01| |552.70|0.04|
We see that our model is slightly faster than BERTopic on training and has much shorter inference time.
This is because BERTopic has to extract and compare the n-grams in documents for inference, while our model directly uses the fast matrix calculations in Eq(9) for inference.
The other performance (like topic quality) is the same on CPU, since the training process remains unchanged.
Thank you for the question. We've added these results to the paper.
__Q4: hyperparameter sensitivity of the model__
Here we report the results by varying the main hyperparameters $\varepsilon_{1}$ and $\varepsilon_{2}$ in Eq(5, 6):
|$\varepsilon_{1}$|$C_V$|TD|Purity|NMI|
|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|
|0.1|0.469|0.997|0.659|0.363|
|0.2|0.470|1.000|0.682|0.364|
|0.333|0.457|1.000|0.672|0.365|
|0.5|0.432|1.000|0.681|0.372|
|$\varepsilon_{2}$|$C_V$|TD|Purity|NMI|
|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|
|0.1|0.424|1.000|0.669|0.353|
|0.2|0.448|1.000|0.655|0.360|
|0.333|0.435|1.000|0.677|0.368|
|0.5|0.457|1.000|0.672|0.365|
We see that the performance remains generally stable.
Thank you for the question. We have added these results to the paper.
__Q5: the line thickness in Figure 2__
We vary the line thickness to indicate the values of semantic relations.
Thank you for the comment. We have added this to the Figure 2 caption.
__Q6: the positions of some tables__
Thank you for the suggestion. We have updated their positions in the paper. | Summary: This paper proposes a fast, adaptive, stable, and transferable topic model, FASTopic. Instead of using the VAE or clustering method, it incorporates a new model structure named Dual Semantic-relation Reconstruction (DSR). DSR learns topics by directly optimizing the semantic relations among topics, documents, and words. The semantic relations are further regularized by an Embedding Transport Plan (ETP) method as an optimal transport problem. Experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed model.
Strengths: 1. The paper is well-written and easy to follow
2. The proposed DSR framework is simple and neat.
3. The experiments and ablation studies demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed FASTopic method.
Weaknesses: 1. [76,64] should be compared as baselines in the experiments since they both incorporate optimal transport objectives in their model as FASTopic does.
2. As far as I know, the time complexity of solving the optimal transmission problem is very high. Is there any technique used in FASTopic to efficiently derive a solution? Furthermore, it would be great to theoretically analyze the time complexity of the current FASTopic framework.
3. Is it fair to compare FASTopic, which takes document embeddings as input extracted by sentence-BERT, with other baselines in the experiments?
4. As LLM has shown great performances in many NLP tasks, I believe it is necessary to include a discussion about the reasons and advantages of developing a topic model that is not LLM-based.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See weaknesses.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your helpful feedback! We're glad that you appreciate our well-written paper, neat method, and extensive experiments.
We sincerely hope our responses can address your concerns and improve your rating.
__Q1: comparison to earlier NSTM (2022) and WeTe (2023)__
Thank you for your comment. We explain that __we've included the newest baselines__: ProGBN (ICML 2023), ECRTM (ICML 2023), and GINopic (NAACL 2024).
Here we additionally report the results of NSTM and WeTe:
|Model|20NG|||NYT|||WoS|||NeurIPS|||ACL|||Wikitext-103||
|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|
||$C_V$|TD||$C_V$|TD||$C_V$|TD||$C_V$|TD||$C_V$|TD||$C_V$|TD|
|NSTM|0.395|0.427||0.374|0.803||0.432|0.832||0.412|0.487||0.393|0.455||0.398|0.892|
|WeTe|0.383|0.949||0.401|0.947||0.425|0.989||0.388|0.908||0.370|0.920||0.376|0.752|
|__FASTopic__|__0.426__|__0.983__||__0.437__|__0.999__||__0.457__|__1.000__||__0.422__|__0.998__||__0.420__|__0.998__||__0.439__ |__0.992__|
|Model|20NG| | |NYT| | |WoS| |
|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|
| |Purity|NMI| |Purity|NMI| |Purity|NMI|
|NSTM|0.354|0.356| |0.447|0.229| |0.476|0.262|
|WeTe|0.268|0.304| |0.526|0.279| |0.555|0.349|
|__FASTopic__|__0.577__|__0.525__| |__0.662__|__0.369__| |__0.672__|__0.365__|
We see our model can surpass them too.
__Q2: why solving the optimal transport is so fast__
We explain that __we employ the fast Sinkhorn's algorithm to solve the optimal transport and our objective is much simpler.__
As mentioned in Section_3.3 and Appendix_D, the Sinkhorn's algorithm is fast and suited to the execution of GPU (Cuturi_2013, Peyré_2019, Genevay_2019).
Besides, as indicated in Section_3.4, __our objective is straightforward without complicated networks. It only invovles four parameters: topic and word embeddings and their weight vectors (Eq(8)).__
Previous models, WeTe and ECRTM, also solve the optimal transport, but __their objectives rely on complicated encoders and decoders, which slows them down.__
Thank you for the question. We've added more explanations in the paper.
__Q3: is the comparison fair due to document embeddings?__
We clarify that __our comparisons are fair since we've included the baselines using the same document embeddings.__
BERTopic uses document embeddings for clustering; CombinedTM uses document embeddings as input features.
These baselines use exactly the same document embeddings as our method for fair comparisons.
Some other models originally cannot incorporate document embeddings but use pretrained word embeddings, like ProGBN, HyperMiner, and ECRTM.
__Q4: discuss LLM-based topic models__
LLM-based topic models are very promising such as TopicGPT, but we explain __they currently have two main limitations__:
1. __LLM-based topic models require more resources__. They need to input each document as prompts to LLMs. This is time-consuming and computationally intensive, especially when handling large-scale datasets.
2. __LLM-based topic models cannot produce precise distributions for topics and documents__. They can only use natural languages to describe topics and documents.
As shown in the paper, our model has a fast running speed (Figure_1) and also provides precise distributions (Section_3.3).
Thank you for the question. We have added more discussions in the related work. | Summary: The author found that existing methods (VAE-based or clustering) suffer from low efficiency, poor quality of topic words, and instability. To address these issues, this paper proposes a novel topic modeling paradigm called Dual Semantic-Relation Reconstruction (DSR) for efficient modeling of semantic relations among three types of embeddings: document, topic, and word embeddings. The author attributes the low quality and instability of previous methods to relation bias issues, leading to repetitive topics and inaccurate document-topic distributions. To tackle this, the paper introduces the Embedding Transport Plan (ETP) to regularize relations among the three embeddings. Combined, DSR and ETP form the proposed topic model, FASTopic, which is evaluated on six benchmark datasets, showing encouraging performance.
Strengths: 1. The paper is clearly presented and easy to follow, with an explanatory and easy-to-understand mathematical formulation.
2. The proposed DSR objective is effective, significantly reducing training time compared to VAE-based methods such as ECRTM and CombinedTM.
3. The experimental evaluation is extensive, showing that FASTopic consistently outperforms multiple strong baselines on topic coherence and topic diversity, while also demonstrating advantages in terms of running speed and transferability.
4. The paper demonstrates the model's robustness under multiple numbers of topics (K=75, 100, ..., 200).
Weaknesses: 1. Tables 6, 8, and 9 present the ablation study of FASTopic using ETP and parameterized softmax. ETP, compared to the ECR used in the previous VAE-based method ECRTM, adds semantic relations between topics and documents. The paper lacks proof the dual transmission effectiveness of ETP by not comparing it with ECR (which only includes semantic relations between topics and words) and another case that only includes semantic relations between documents and topics.
2. I am concerned that while the DSR training method improves efficiency compared to VAE-based methods, it may make it difficult to build meaningful relations between topic embeddings and document embeddings for some long-text corpora due to its singular objective.
3. It would be nice to showcase a comparison of topic words or transferability between FASTopic and ECRTM to demonstrate that FASTopic offers improvements in multiple dimensions, not just speed.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. In Line 76, the author thinks that methods like Topicgpt, which uses LLM to describe topics, deviate from the original LDA setting. Can the author provide a more detailed explanation in this section?
2. In Line 132, it is mentioned that some studies think that repetitive topics and less accurate doc-topic distributions are due to a large number of topics (K being set too high). The paper, however, attributes these issues mainly to relation bias. Does a large number of topics also affect FASTopic in the same way?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: 1. The proposed method relies on embedding transport semantic relations and may be limited by the max input length of pre-trained document embedding models.
2. See Weakness 3.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your feedback! We're happy that you appreciate our clear writing, effective method, and extensive experiments.
We sincerely hope our responses can address your concerns and improve your rating.
__Q1: difference between ETP and the ECR of ECRTM (Wu_2023)__
We clarify that __the ECR of ECRTM is NOT an alternative to our ETP for ablation study.__
The ECR (embedding clustering regularization) of ECRTM only regularizes topic and word embeddings and does __NOT__ model the semantic relations between them as topic-word distributions. ECRTM follows the traditional VAE to model topic-word and doc-topic distributions for topic modeling.
Instead of VAE, our method uses ETP to model the semantic relations as topic-word and doc-topic distributions for topic modeling.
Thus, the previous ECR does not model the semantic relations as our ETP, and it is NOT an alternative to our ETP for ablation study.
Besides, only the semantic relations between documents and topics or only between topics and words cannot do topic modeling, because we need both of them for reconstruction in Eq(1).
Thank you for the question. We've added more clarifications in the related work.
__Q2: performance on long-text corpora__
We clarify that __we have experimented on long-context corpora, NeurIPS, ACL, and Wikitext-103.__
As reported in Appendix_B Table_7, they are long academic publications or Wikipedia articles, ranging from __1k to 2k words__. We have shown that our model works well on these long-context corpora in Section_4.2, 4.3, and 4.4.
__Q3: showcase comparisons to ECRTM__
We clarify that __we have showcased the comparisons to ECRTM on topic words and doc-topic distributions (Section_4.2), running speed (Section_4.4), transferability ( Section_4.5), and adaptivity (Section_4.6).__
Here we illustrate some cases of topic words.
|ECRTM|
|:----|
|#14: boeing software microsoft customer trains airline hardware updates airlines consoles|
|#50: typhoon carrier boeing aircraft airlines carriers airline philippines pilots japanese|
|FASTopic|
|:----|
|#18: mario computer software gamer eurogamer graphical puzzles informer consoles microsoft|
|#22: trains train airport passengers passenger stations cars airline ride roller|
|#43: tropical hurricane cyclone storm winds rainfall depression flooding intensity mph|
We see ECRTM mixes the topics of airlines, software, and typhoon.
In contrast, FASTopic produces more separated topics about them respectively.
__Q4: Differences between TopicGPT and LDA__
We explain that __their main difference lies in how they define topics and understand documents.__
LDA defines a topic as a word distribution, for example, a distribution [0.1, 0.2, 0.1 ...] over words [farmer, products, agricultural, ...].
Differently, TopicGPT defines a topic as a natural language description, like *Agriculture: Discusses policies relating to agricultural practices and products...*.
Besides, LDA infers distributions over topics to understand documents, while TopicGPT classifies a document with topics as label space by prompting.
TopicGPT reaches higher interpretability, but cannot give precise distributions for downstream tasks.
Thank you for the question. We have updated the paper with more explanations.
__Q5: does a large number of topics affect FASTopic?__
We clarify that __we've reported in Table 4 and 5 the results under large numbers of topics (K=75, 100, ... 200).__ Our model remains high-performance with large numbers of topics, especially on topic diversity.
We clarify that in Line_132, we intend to show using parameterized softmax leads to the relation bias issue even with a small number of topics, as supported by Table_9. This motivates us to propose the new ETP method.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Looking forward to your further feedback!
Comment: Dear Reviewer FTng,
Thank you sincerely for your previous helpful reviews!
We mention that we've submitted our responses, including __clarifications on our differences from ECRTM and our performance on long-text corpora and large numbers of topics.__
We hope our responses can address your concerns. We are looking forward to your insightful feedback!
Thank you.
Best,
Authors | null | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
ContactField: Implicit Field Representation for Multi-Person Interaction Geometry | Accept (poster) | Summary: A novel implicit field representation is designed for multi-person geometry modeling, which manages to estimate the occupancy, identity, and geometry simultaneously. Moreover, to alleviate the occlusion issue, an additional 3D scene representation module is designed. A synthetic dataset with multi-view multi-human interaction is developed. Experiments show the superiority of the proposed method.
Strengths: - Estimating the contact fields by the variance of the predicted ID field is an interesting idea and has shown effectiveness.
- The performance is impressive both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Weaknesses: - More details on the proposed synthetic dataset should be provided, including the data source, the synthesis and annotation protocol, and the data scale.
- Some interested hyper-parameters are not specified, including the contact deviation threshold \tau_c in L236.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - The aspect ratio for the data sample videos seems not right.
- In inference, how are the different persons separated by the predicted ID values in detail? Is the number of existing human instances required as input?
- How is the local neighborhood \mathcal{N}(v) decided in L233?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The limitations have been discussed by the authors.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable feedback on the synthetic dataset and our experiments. Below are our responses to weaknesses and questions in your comments.
## **Weakness 1:** details about datasets
We outline the relevant information about the dataset below.
**Data Source**:
Initially, we acquired characters with various ages and interaction motion sequences from Character Creator 4 [1].
**Synthesis and Annotation Protocol**:
Subsequently, we composed scenes featuring multiple characters using Omniverse USD Composer [2]. To facilitate the dataset generation process, we engineered the Kaolin rendering tool[2], incorporating tasks such as multi-person normalization to achieve the desired outputs. This process enabled us to generate multi-view rendered images, mask images, instance masks, and 3D geometry. Additionally, we created normal ground truth maps and joints, although these were not utilized in this paper.
**Data Scale**:
The dataset includes 49 characters (26 female, 23 male) with 50 motion sequences across 43 scene configurations, totaling approximately 25,000 frames. For a detailed breakdown, please refer to Figure A in the attached PDF file.
We hope this detailed information will provide a clearer understanding of our synthetic dataset and its role in evaluating our proposed method.
## **Weakness 2:** detailed hyper-parameters
The hyper-parameters are as follows: $\tau_{c}=0.25$ in L236, $\omega_{s} = 1, \omega_{\text{contra}} = 0.1 \omega_{\text{group}}=0.1$ in equation (9). We will ensure these details are included in the revised version of the paper. Thank you for your careful review and pointing out the missing hyper-parameters.
## **Question 1:** aspect ratio
Thank you for your observation regarding the aspect ratio of the data sample videos. The aspect ratio of figures in the paper is aligned with benchmark datasets such as Hi4D. However, it appears that the sample video had the contact field rendered with a different aspect ratio compared to the other results. We have re-adjusted the aspect ratio and created a new video. Refer to adjusted frame examples in Figure E. of the attached PDF.
## **Question 2**
Here is a detailed explanation of how different people are distinguished using predicted ID values:
**1. Region Identification**: During inference, the algorithm identifies and marks regions of interest based on the occupancy field, excluding background regions. This step generates both an ID field and a contact field.
**2. Clustering**: The normalized ID values within these regions are processed using a clustering algorithm, specifically K-Means. This algorithm groups the data into unique clusters, each representing a different person, and includes the contact regions for all individuals.
**3. Segmentation**: After clustering, each cluster is isolated with a binary mask. A binary mask is then created and smoothed with a Gaussian filter to form a blending mask, ensuring gradual transitions at boundaries. This blending mask is applied to the occupancy field to enhance boundary details. Finally, the marching cubes algorithm generates a 3D mesh model for each cluster from the processed occupancy field.
Instance mesh visualization results are presented in Figure B. of the attached pdf file.
## **Question 3:** local neighborhood
The local neighborhood $N(v)$ is defined as the set of points within a specified radius (contact threshold) around the point $v$, excluding $v$ itself, and is determined using a KDTree [4] for efficient querying. The criteria for marking a point as a contact is based on the presence of neighboring points with differing surface identifiers.
If you have any concerns or questions, feel free to leave comments.
References
- [1] Character Creator 4, https://www.reallusion.com/character-creator/
- [2] NVIDIA Omniverse USD Composer, https://docs.omniverse.nvidia.com/composer/latest/index.html
- [3] NVIDIA Kaolin, https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks/kaolin
- [4] Bentley, Jon Louis. "Multidimensional binary search trees used for associative searching." Communications of the ACM. 1975.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the responses. All my concerns are addressed.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: I am glad to hear that your concerns have been resolved. Thank you once again for your insightful feedback on our work. Your comments have been invaluable in improving our paper. If you have any further questions or additional comments, please do not hesitate to reach out. | Summary: This paper proposes a method to reconstruct close interactions from multi-view images using an implicit representation. The occupancy and ID fields are directly regressed from multi-view images, which can then be used to infer contacts. To fuse multi-view information, a transformer-based module is introduced to consider both local and global features. The authors also built a synthetic dataset to assist in training. The experimental results show that the performance is good.
Strengths: - The proposed dataset may be useful for future tasks involving close interaction reconstruction.
- The qualitative results are good.
Weaknesses: - The underlying idea is almost the same as DeepMultiCap [39], which also represents interactive humans with pixel-aligned implicit functions and adopts a transformer to fuse multi-view information. Compared to DeepMultiCap, the proposed method does not leverage prior human knowledge and may induce artifacts in occluded body parts. For occluded and interactive body parts, the proposed method cannot sample valid pixel-aligned features. I am confused about the proposed method's ability to address heavy occlusion without any prior human knowledge.
- The framework is completely implicit like PIFU; however, its generalization ability may not be good due to the high-dimensional output.
- It seems contacts can also be inferred from the output meshes as pseudo ground-truth contact generation. What is the difference between this approach and the proposed variance estimation?
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - How can a different number of input views affect reconstruction performance?
- What is the generalization ability of the proposed method on novel subjects and different camera extrinsics?
- The ability to address occlusions should be clarified.
- Why not use contact information provided in Hi4D for contact evaluation?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The limitations and societal impact are discussed in the paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable question. Below are our responses to raised weaknesses and questions.
## **Weakness 1:** multi-person interaction with SMPL
Thank you for your valuable feedback. In the case of DeepMultiCap (DMC) [1], which uses the SMPL human prior, reconstruction is performed one person at a time. When body parts are occluded, they are masked and included in the input. Using SMPL is particularly helpful in handling occlusions when many body parts are not visible, as it follows the human shape. For areas where body parts are not visible, DMC relies more on the SMPL shape itself than on pixel-aligned features. As the below table shows, the reconstruction performance varies for results from each SMPL method.
| Model setting | CD↓| P2S↓ | NC↑|
|-----------------------|---|----|----|
| DMC (w. syn(MVPose)) | 0.805 | 0.489 | 0.771 |
| DMC (w. syn(LVD)) | 0.631 | 0.495 | 0.768 |
In extreme poses or close interaction scenarios, estimating SMPL becomes challenging and requires an optimizing process for accurate estimation, which is time-consuming. Additionally, SMPL has limitations in broadly representing the human shape, especially when children are present in our synthetic datasets. SMPL struggles to accurately represent children, making training difficult.
We also considered expanding to interactions with entire scene objects, which raised concerns about using SMPL. Therefore, we aimed to handle occlusions by reconstructing the entire geometry from multi-view inputs and predicting the ID field in 3D space using SRT features. By predicting contact based on ID, our method aims to understand multiple people in close interaction scenarios. Additionally, we created and trained our model on synthetic data with numerous instances of self-occlusion and multi-person interaction using benchmark datasets to ensure robust SRT feature extraction.
- [1] Yang Zheng, Ruizhi Shao, Yuxiang Zhang, Tao Yu, Zerong Zheng, Qionghai Dai, and Yebin Liu. DeepMultiCap: Performance capture of multiple characters using sparse multiview cameras. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2021.
## **Weakness 3:** contact information from the output meshes
Thank you for your insightful comments regarding the generation of pseudo ground-truth contacts from output meshes and the proposed variance estimation method for contact detection. Contact label generation relies on geometric proximity and surface identifiers to infer contacts directly from the mesh, while Estimated Contact Fields use statistical variance to detect contacts within the 3D space.
To address your comment, we have inferred contacts from the output meshes using the contact label generation approach and measured the precision of our contact predictions. Examples of instance meshes are presented in Figure B in the attached PDF file.
| | CP $( \\delta = 0.05 $)↑ | CP ($ \\delta = 0.075 $)↑ |
|-----------|---|---|
| output meshes (requested) | 0.518 | 0.621 |
| variation estimation (ours) | 0.629 | 0.670 |
## **Question 1:** the performance of different number of input views
We will report the performance of our model with smaller views before the end of discussion period.
## **Weakness 2 and Question 2:** generalization ability on novel object or different extrinsic camera parameter
To thoroughly evaluate this aspect, we conducted two experiments using our pre-trained model. These experiments included zoom-in and zoom-out tests with the Hi4D dataset, as well as tests on synthetic data featuring four individuals performing extreme poses, such as breakdancing, introducing novel postures and configurations unseen during training with new camera settings. Qualitative results are provided in Figures C and D of the attached PDF.
During the zoom-in and zoom-out tests on Hi4D, we adjusted the images and camera parameters accordingly. In the zoom-out scenario, the person's size in the image decreased, leading to a loss of detail in feature extraction.
However, our implicit fields prevent significant performance degradation by taking the 3D space bounding box around the person's center, thereby preserving the geometrical results. The qualitative results, shown in Figure C. indicate that the model can handle previously unseen zoom-in and zoom-out scenarios. Notably, the model performed better during zoom-out than zoom-in for ID field prediction, as it relies on extracting features from the entire scene.
## **Question 3:** robustness on occlusion
Our approach addresses occlusions by presenting interaction geometry. We estimate complete geometries from multiple views and use SRT features to predict IDs and contact regions in 3D space, even in occluded areas. By predicting contact regions based on IDs, our model handles occlusions in close interaction scenarios as shown in the first row of Figure B in the attached PDF file.
Additionally, we created synthetic data with numerous multi-person interactions and trained our model using this data alongside benchmark datasets to enhance robustness in extracting SRT features.
## **Question 4:** Why not using contact information of Hi4D
To the best of our knowledge, while the Hi4D dataset provides SMPL contact ground truth (G.T.) information, we could not find any contact G.T. information specifically for the 3D scans in the Hi4D dataset.
As a result, we generated a pseudo ground truth using the 3D instance mesh provided by Hi4D and used it for our measurements, as detailed in the paper. We appreciate your question and will include a clarification on this point in the revised manuscript to ensure transparency.
There may be misunderstandings in our responses, so it would be great if we could continue the discussion regarding any unclear or intriguing parts of our answers or any unresolved questions.
If you have any concerns or questions, feel free to leave comments.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: ### **Question 1** the performance of different number of input views
We conducted a series of experiments on the Hi4D dataset to compare our method with DMC using 4 input views. The results are summarized below:
| Input views | Model | CD↓ | P2S ↓| NC↑ |
|---|-----------------------|---|----|----|
| 4-view | DMC | 1.304 | 0.922 | 0.705 |
| 4-view | Ours | 0.761 | 0.472 | 0.870 |
| 8-view | DMC | 0.631 | 0.495 | 0.768 |
| 8-view | Ours | 0.406 | 0.329 | 0.892 |
Our framework consistently outperforms DMC across all metrics in both 4-view and 8-view settings. Although performance decreases for both models when the number of views is reduced from 8 to 4, our method exhibits a smaller decline in accuracy and surface detail compared to DMC.
The performance drop in Chamfer Distance (CD) with fewer views is primarily due to reduced object coverage. With only 4 views, the model receives less information for accurate shape reconstruction, which may result in less precise outcomes. This reduction in input data can lead to more scattered or inaccurate point predictions around the person, contributing to a higher CD.
I hope this response, along with our previous rebuttal, satisfactorily addresses your concerns. If you have any unresolved questions or other concerns, please feel free to ask.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.2:
Comment: Thanks for the rebuttal. One remaining question is how many subject pairs were used in the training and testing, respectively? Can the trained model generalize to subjects outside the Hi4D and synthetic datasets (e.g., CHI3D and MultiHuman proposed in DMC)?
---
Reply to Comment 1.2.1:
Comment: **Training and Testing Set Composition**
The Hi4D dataset comprises 40 subjects, organized into 20 unique pairs, resulting in a total of over 11,000 frames. These subject pairs (16 female, 24 male) exhibit a wide range of physical characteristics, including varying heights, weights, and garments.
In our synthetic dataset, we created 49 distinct characters (26 female and 23 male) forming 43 unique pairs, which include groups of 2, 3, and 4 people. To enhance the diversity seen in Hi4D, we generated synthetic data that represents individuals of various ages, along with different heights, weights, and garments. Detailed statistics are provided in Figure A. The synthetic dataset contains approximately 25,000 frames.
Consistent with existing human reconstruction settings using multi-view images [1,2], we randomly selected 521 static frames from Hi4D and 504 static frames from the synthetic dataset, using full frames. The test sets, separate from the training sets, included 150 frames from Hi4D and 90 frames from the synthetic dataset, excluding any subjects without contact.
**Beyond Hi4D and the Synthetic Dataset**
Figure D in the attached PDF visualizes entirely new scene configurations, featuring new subject configurations, extreme and novel poses captured from breakdancing motion sequences, and new camera settings, including different resolutions and extrinsic and intrinsic parameters. These settings were not used in the proposed synthetic dataset, demonstrating our model’s ability to generalize to new subjects.
We appreciate your interest in generalization experiments with non-synthetic datasets. Due to time constraints, we were unable to fully process and experiment with the MultiHuman or CHI3D datasets, including the rendering needed to create input images. We plan to extend our model to cover these benchmarks in a future version of the manuscript.
We understand your concern regarding generalization, especially since our model is trained from scratch solely from data without using prior knowledge, such as a human prior model from SMPL. In this regard, we believe our approach could benefit from prior knowledge and improve generalization by incorporating features from pre-trained models like DINOV2[3], which inherently include pose and depth information learned from image- and patch-level matching supervision. We will explore this in future research.
Thank you once again for your valuable comments.
References
- [1] Shao, Ruizhi, et al. "Diffustereo: High quality human reconstruction via diffusion-based stereo using sparse cameras." European Conference on Computer Vision. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022.
- [2] Zheng, Shunyuan, et al. "Gps-gaussian: Generalizable pixel-wise 3d gaussian splatting for real-time human novel view synthesis." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2024.
- [3] Oquab, Maxime, et al. "Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision." arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193 (2023). | Summary: The paper focuses on the problem of multi-person reconstruction from multi-view images in the face of close interactions (e.g., in cases where are in contact). The objective of this work is to propose a method to reconstruct one mesh per person that is able to capture both fine grained details (e.g., garments, face, hands, etc.) and the contact points between each of these meshes if in contact. The paper introduces a new implicit field representation specially designed for the multi-person setting. This representation allows the reconstruction of occupancy, instance ID (i.e., to which mesh the queried point corresponds), and contact fields at the same time. Aside from the occupancy, the variables for ID and contacts enables to determine which meshes belong to which person so that each mesh can be treated as separate instance. The method facilitates unsupervised estimation of contact points without the need for contact annotations in the training data.
To achieve the properties mentioned above, the authors propose to enrich the implicit representation by a multi-vew transformer-based feature extraction module to retrieve a mix of local and global features. This enables the modeling of close physical interactions by dense point retrieval in small areas (by exploiting this property of implicit fields to query points at variable resolutions). The work also presents a synthetic dataset containing diverse multi-person interaction scenarios to train the model.
SoTA methods reconstruct multiple people by either: (1) capturing each person’s geometry separately or (2) merging nearby 3D geometries. In this paper, the authors are able to reconstruct multiple bodies at the same time by using the proposed augmented implicit representation.
Strengths: The strengths are the following:
* The overall quality of the paper is good. The authors clearly identify SoTA limitations, explain them and propose a sound way to deal with these limitations.
* Overall writing is good as it communicates the ideas clearly, though, authors may need to improve the writing in some parts of the paper to fix formatting issues and typos. (Suggestions are proposed in this review).
* The method is sound and the proposed techniques used to implement it make sense.
Weaknesses: ### **Ablation missing**
L217: Authors state that "bifocal approach of the loss function is crucial". This statement needs to be backed in the experiments. However, this is not included in the ablation study. I suggest authors include an ablation experiment on the rebuttal, otherwise this is an unsupported claim which weakens the paper by a lot, even to the risk of rejection.
### **More information about the dataset**
I would like to know how the dataset was created given that it is a synthetic dataset. For example, which software was used to create this. Explain the procedure and add some statistics. Not enough detail is provided here.
### **SMPL close interactions representation**
L32-33. Can the authors explain why “the need to configure the entire scene on an individual basis complicates the accurate representation of close interactions”? I understand that the SMPL model represents a naked body and thus cannot be used “as is” to reconstruct fine-grained details. However, I don’t understand why having individual instances of SMPL would complicate the representation of close interactions? I think this is not necessarily true. I agree that it does not naturally include a representation for interactions, but this could be added to the SMPL model. Now saying that it complicates the representation may be too much?
### **Baseline models**
Baseline models: For Baseline models (Sec 4.3). Could you clarify which model MVpose/LVD you use for each dataset? Do you use both for both datasets? LVD only for the synthetic one? Is one of these used by DMC? If not, why not use the one proposed by them? Also why use LVD, is this model not sensitive to occlusion and originally used for only a single person?
### **Minor details**
* L143: q E R --> q E Z+, it would be more precise as q should not take decimal values, right? It is in a sense a segmentation task. In the case it is R, then is there a threshold to classify each instance?
* L150: Are the camera parameters K^v estimated or assumed given?
### Observations related to writing
* Citations typically include the names of all authors. In this case, some citations have all the names, but for most of them, it read "et. al.". Also publication conference names are not complete in some cases. For example, L367-368, the conference reads "IEEE" which is incomplete. It should say at least "CVPR".
* L27-28. This phrase is badly formulated. First, occlusion does not "obscure" a subject. Specifically, saying "obscures subjects from view" does not make sense. I would remove that phrase from the last part of this sentence for something like "...mainly due to occlusion, which complicates the accurate…"
* L32-33. This phrase is not very clear. I understand what it says, but it took me a second read to clarify. Specially, the part that states “configure the entire scene on an individual basis complicates the accurate representation of close interactions” is a bit confusing to me.
* L65: The name of the module "transformer-based multi-view local-global" is a mouthful. I would give a simpler name to this.
* L81: Related works, when talking about SMPL, I would remove that it does not capture facial expressions as SMPL-X does this.
* Suggestion, don't use the work necessitates, use needs instead. it is easier to read. Try to avoid fancy wording whenever possible.
* What is deficit information? Is this a formal term? If not please rephrase this “deficitary information” or something similar.
### Typos:
* L102: you could say generative model instead of "latent vectors". This gives more clarity.
* L138: typo. "using given", remove "using"
* L150: extracting pixel-aligned features followed by PIFu --> …following PIFu
* L184: use --> is used
* L223: Initially, define --> Initially, we define
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Please, address the questions posed in the **Weaknesses** section.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes, the authors include limitations in the supplementary material.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We greatly appreciate your insight and agree that including an ablation experiment to support this statement is crucial for the integrity and quality of our paper.
## **Weakness 1:** missing ablation on grouping loss function
In response to your suggestion, we are currently conducting an ablation study on each term in the grouping loss function in Eq (12). We will report the performance before the end of the discussion period.
## **Weaknesses 2:** more information about the dataset
We present the statistics of the dataset in Figure A. in the attached pdf file.
Initially, we acquired characters with various ages and interaction motion sequences such as from Character Creator 4 [1]. Subsequently, we composed scenes featuring multiple characters using Omniverse USD [2] Composer. To facilitate the dataset generation process, we engineered the Kaolin rendering tool [3], incorporating tasks such as multi-person normalization to achieve the desired outputs. As a result, we generated multi-view rendered images, mask images, instance masks, and 3D geometry. Furthermore, we created Normal ground truth maps and joints, although these were not utilized in this paper.
## **Weakness 3:** SMPL close interactions representation
> However, I don’t understand why having individual instances of SMPL would complicate the representation of close interactions? I think this is not necessarily true.
In frameworks like DMC that utilize SMPL, the initial SMPL parameters for individual humans are obtained and then optimized to determine the entire scene. In contrast, our approach derives the human pose and shape for the entire scene in a one-shot manner. We intended to mention that using individual instances of SMPL could complicate the representation of close interactions due to the need for separating parameter optimization for each person, which might require complex coordination. In the paper, we will revise to distinguish between SMPL and the models that use it.
> I agree that it does not naturally include a representation for interactions, but this could be added to the SMPL model. Now saying that it complicates the representation may be too much?
We understand your point about the potential benefits of integrating the SMPL model for multi-person interaction geometry. Applying multi-person interaction geometry to the SMPL model is a reasonable approach that can enhance interaction modeling.
While existing methods [4,5,6] optimize SMPL pose estimation for multi-person scenarios, a potential limitation is the need for multiple optimization steps. We believe that leveraging a representation for interactions can effectively optimize the SMPL parameters and address these configuration and optimization challenges. This approach can provide a more accurate and computationally efficient solution for modeling close interactions between multiple individuals.
## **Weakness 4:** baseline models
For the baseline models discussed in Section 4.3, we employed different SMPL acquisition methods tailored to each dataset. Specifically, for the HI4D dataset, we used MVPose, aligning with the experimental setup described in the HI4D paper. In their experiments, DMC was run on the HI4D dataset using MVPose for SMPL acquisition, and we adopted this approach to ensure consistency and comparability.
However, we encountered challenges when using MVPose for the synthetic dataset, as its modules were trained on real data, resulting in less accurate SMPL estimations for synthetic data. To address this, we utilized Learned Vertex Descent (LVD) for the synthetic dataset. LVD is designed to fit SMPL to a 3D human model (3D scan) and has proven to provide more accurate results in this context.
While LVD is originally intended for single-person scenarios and may be sensitive to occlusion, it was chosen for the synthetic dataset due to its superior performance in fitting SMPL to 3D scans, which is crucial for achieving accurate results in our study. To ensure the robustness of our data and fairness in our experiments, we will report the results trained with MVPose on the synthetic data.
| Model setting | CD↓| P2S↓ | NC↑|
|-----------------------|---|----|----|
| DMC (w. syn(MVPose)) | 0.805 | 0.489 | 0.771 |
| DMC (w. syn(LVD)) | 0.631 | 0.495 | 0.768 |
| Ours | 0.406 | 0.329 | 0.892 |
We will revise our paper to include these detailed results and analyses during the rebuttal for providing comprehensive evidence on the proposed framework.
## **Weaknesses 5:** minor details
Thank you for your detailed feedback on our manuscript. We acknowledge the points you raised regarding notation, phrasing, and citation formats. We will address them meticulously in our revisions.
If you have any concerns or questions, feel free to leave comments.
References
- [1] Character Creator 4, https://www.reallusion.com/character-creator/
- [2] NVIDIA Omniverse USD Composer, https://docs.omniverse.nvidia.com/composer/latest/index.html
- [3] NVIDIA Kaolin, https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks/kaolin
- [4] Dong, Junting, et al. "Fast and robust multi-person 3d pose estimation from multiple views." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2019.
- [5] Zijian Dong, Jie Song, Xu Chen, Chen Guo, and Otmar Hilliges. Shape-aware multi-person pose estimation from multi-view images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2021.
- [6] Yuxiang Zhang, Zhe Li, Liang An, Mengcheng Li, Tao Yu, and Yebin Liu. Lightweight multi-person total motion capture using sparse multi-view cameras. In Proceedings of the 17026 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2021.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Feedback
Comment: I thank the authors for their responses and the rebuttal document.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: We are glad to hear that your concerns have been resolved. Thank you once again for your valuable comments and positive rating of our work. Your comments have been invaluable in improving our work.
### **Weakness 1** missing ablation on grouping loss function
In response to your preliminary review, we have now conducted an ablation study to assess and report the impact of each component within the grouping loss function as defined in Eq. (12). Specifically, the grouping loss function comprises two key terms: the first is the squared distance, and the second is the exponential penalty. The results of the ablation study are presented in the table below.
| ablation type | squared distance | exponential penalty | CD ↓| P2S↓ | NC ↑ | CP $( \\delta = 0.05 $) ↑ | CP ($ \\delta = 0.075 $) ↑ |
|----|-----------------------|--------------------|---|----|----|---|---|
| (a) | not used | not used | 0.462 | 0.363 | 0.892 | 0.111 | 0.187 |
| (b) | used | not used | 0.400 | 0.314 | 0.892 | 0.345 | 0.528 |
| (c) | not used | used | 0.532 | 0.403 | 0.880 | 0.228 | 0.335 |
| (d) | used | used | 0.406 | 0.329 | 0.892 | 0.629 | 0.670 |
In the table, model (a) is trained without the grouping loss, while model (d) is trained with the grouping loss.
It is important to note that the application of the exponential function in the second term encourages soft assignment to a specific instance or cluster. However, using only this term does not lead to improved grouping performance. The combination of both terms within the grouping loss function results in overall performance enhancement.
If you have any further questions or additional comments, please feel free to leave a comment. | Summary: In this paper, the authors introduce an implicit field representation for multi-person interactive reconstruction. As they said, it can simultaneously reconstruct the occupancy, instance identification (ID) tags, and contact fields. The local-global feature learning methods are used. They also propose a dataset. The result is also good.
Strengths: The idea, motivation, and model are all clearly presented. The method learns features both locally and globally, and I like the projection operation for the query point as shown in equation (3). Also, the design of the loss function is reasonable. The results also demonstrate the effectiveness of the method. The authors propose a new dataset, which is also a significant contribution.
Weaknesses: Since I'm not especially well-versed in this area, I did extensive research on relevant works, such as following [1,2,3] etc. However, I noticed a lack of comparative analysis in the experimental part. I wonder if this work can be compared with those mentioned? If so, what are the results of such comparisons?
[1]Cha, J., Lee, H., Kim, J., Truong, N. N. B., Yoon, J., & Baek, S. (2024). 3D Reconstruction of Interacting Multi-Person in Clothing from a Single Image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (pp. 5303-5312).
[2]Mustafa, A., Caliskan, A., Agapito, L., & Hilton, A. (2021). Multi-person implicit reconstruction from a single image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 14474-14483).
[3]Correia H A, Brito J H. 3D reconstruction of human bodies from single-view and multi-view images: A systematic review[J]. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 2023, 239: 107620.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: This is a quite clear paper. The contribution is also good. I wonder the compare results as said in the weakness. Also I want to know the computational cost, including the training/test time and GPU memory.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes, the authors discussed the limitations, such as the limitation in finer details.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable feedback and for recognizing the contributions of our work.
First, we will revise our paper to discuss related works including single-view and multi-view settings mentioned in [1, 2, 3]. We emphasize that the mentioned methods [1, 2] primarily focus on single-view reconstruction not multi-view reconstruction. We designed our overall architecture with multi-view settings in mind from the very beginning to handle occlusion challenges in multi-person interaction cases. A multi-view approach fundamentally incorporates triangulation, making it more robust to unseen scenarios and significantly improving frame-to-frame consistency compared to single-view settings.
Additionally, we understand the importance of providing information on **computational costs**. Here are the details of our computational resources:
- Training Time: Our model was trained for approximately 2 days with 2 NVIDIA A100 GPUs.
- Testing Time: Each test instance takes around 60 seconds on the same GPU.
We will include these computational cost details in the revised manuscript to provide a comprehensive understanding of our approach.
We appreciate your thorough research on relevant works and your interest in comparative analysis. If you have any concerns or questions, feel free to leave comments.
References
- [1] Cha, J., Lee, H., Kim, J., Truong, N. N. B., Yoon, J., & Baek, S. (2024). 3D Reconstruction of Interacting Multi-Person in Clothing from a Single Image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (pp. 5303-5312).
- [2] Mustafa, A., Caliskan, A., Agapito, L., & Hilton, A. (2021). Multi-person implicit reconstruction from a single image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 14474-14483).
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the responses. All my concerns are addressed.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: We are glad to hear that your concerns have been resolved. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and positive rating of our work. Your comments have been invaluable in improving our paper. If you have any further questions or additional comments, please feel free to leave a comment. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank the reviewers for their thorough constructive comments on our paper. We earnestly responded to your concerns; please see the respective comments. Before answering your questions and concerns, we would like to highlight our contributions by quoting your comments.
### **Strengths of the proposed work**
- **Clear presentation**: Multiple reviewers ( **reviewer A26V**, **reviewer Ar19** ) appreciated the clear presentation of ideas, motivations , and models.
- **Innovative ideas and effectiveness**: The innovative methods, such as learning both local and global features and the projection operation for query points, were noted positively (**reviewer A26V**, **reviewer N9qi**). The effectiveness of these methods was demonstrated through strong quantitative and qualitative results (**reviewerA26V**, **reviewer N9qi**).
- **Contribution of new dataset**: The introduction of a new dataset was seen as a contribution by reviewers (**reviewer A26V**, **reviewer Vhig**), indicating its potential usefulness for future research.
### **Weaknesses of the proposed work and raised questions**
- **More information about the dataset** : In response to **reviewer Ar19** and **reviewer N9qi**, we have provided more comprehensive details regarding the synthetic dataset creation and a detailed explanation of the proposed synthetic dataset and illustrated the data statistics in Figure A. of the attached PDF file.
- **Comparison to SMPL with close interaction**: **reviewer Ar19** and **reviewer Vhig** mentioned about SMPL closed interactions representation compared to our method. In frameworks like DMC that utilize SMPL, the initial SMPL parameters for individual humans are obtained and then optimized to determine the entire scene. In contrast, our approach derives the human pose and shape for the entire scene in a one-shot manner.
- **Generalization ability on novel subjects and camera extrinsic parameters**: These experiments included zoom-in and zoom-out tests with the Hi4D dataset and tests on synthetic data with four individuals performing extreme poses like breakdancing, introducing novel postures and configurations with new camera settings, as shown in Figures C and D of the attached PDF.
- **Computational costs** Requested by **reviewer A26V**, we report the computation costs of our model. We train our model on 2 days with 2 NVIDIA A100 and test 60 seconds for each instance.
- **More experiments**: **reviewer Ar19** mentioned the need for an ablation study, and **reviewer Vhig** requested a smaller view study. . We are currently training our model for the ablation study and both our model and the baseline model for the smaller view experiments. We will report the results before the end of the author-discussion period.
To accommodate your requests, we have attached an **one-page PDF** for visualization of newly conducted experiments.
If you have any concerns or questions, feel free to leave comments.
Pdf: /pdf/5b78a4efe7ec7ea978ec2b57962aee1c4e762d75.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
QTIP: Quantization with Trellises and Incoherence Processing | Accept (spotlight) | Summary: The paper introduces Trellis-based compression for quantization. Essentially, the method applies incoherence processing on the weight matrices, turning the approximately into Gaussians, such that the best compression method available to compression roughly Gaussian data can be applied to it. In this case, the authors choose a Trellis-based compression scheme.
They also introduce a specific Trellis setup with little overhead, for the setting where Gaussian data is the name of the game, making the method feasible in practice. According to the authors, this approach is novel.
The authors show that there is a slight benefit of this compression method over other codebooking methods, such as GPTVQ, AQLM and QUIP#, at next to no extra overhead in terms of the implementation.
As a note for the other reviewers and authors - I have no idea about trelisses, or the relevant literature. I am only knowledgeable about neural network quantization. So the veracity of some of the claims, like a novel Gaussian specific Trellis, I cannot comment on.
Strengths: - The paper is very well-written, and quite easy to follow. It also feels like it's high-quality, well-researched, and the authors clearly know this field and their Trellis field very well.
- I have not seen this Trellis-based compression scheme in the deep learning literature before, so to my knowledge it is novel
- I can believe this compression scheme is better than normal VQ-based methods. Once you've turned your data into Gaussians, anything that compresses Gaussian distributed data better is likely to work.
- The paper actually implemented the idea on GPU kernels, and show that the overhead is negligible. Essentially saying the improvements are free.
Weaknesses: - The results are not TOO significant. In terms of perplexity, we're talking 0.1 ppl compared to QUIP# here. And the zero-shot results are always noisy, so tough to say what's faster.
- Because the compression is likely theoretically slightly more accurate, what remains is the inference-speed of this method. Now the authors, to their credit, do address this with their GPU implementation. But, because the improvements in perplexity are so little, for fair comparison we have to be absolutely sure that the latency for the kernel is the same. Otherwise, we might as well increase the codebook size for QUIP# a little and get a better trade-off, or have one layer in a slightly higher bit-width or whatever. The Speed analysis in Table 7 does not totally satisfy my need for a thorough analysis on this. Since this is so important for the paper, I would like to see an analysis for the kernels themselves, analyze the roofline points for the band-width/compute trade-offs (does your method do more compute than QUIP#?), and have this done for more bit-widths. I believe the authors have to be more thorough on this, else I would not recommend anyone implementing the paper, and the trellis compression is relegated to being a fun curiosity instead of a practical method.
- We don't all run things on GPUs - there are devices, with hardware accelerators, CPUs etc. What does hypothetical overhead look for this method compared to simple codebook look-ups? Some hardware has actual Sillicon for codebook look-ups, or specific instructions for it like in ARM CPUs. Would your method in these cases also still be faster? Since quantization is not only a 'speed-things-up-on-gpu' topic, I would like to see a discussion on this in the paper.
Editorial Notes
5 - […] PTQ approaches have converged. I don’t think convergence has really happened, so papers do this, some don’t.
24-32 What is k? it’s undefined in the intro
160 psuedorandom -> pseudorandom
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Is section 24-32 entirely correct? Technically you have 2^kd vectors, but nobody ever fills out the whole space with the codebook. So it’s always a subset \subset R^{2^kd} x d you are selecting for your codebook C. So it’s not really fair to say VQ requires exponential time and space… if you keep your codebook size similar, it does not require exponential time and space. Similarly, the O(2^{kd}d ) complexity is a bit misleading. You can also say the lookup is log(|C|) depending on the size of the codebook you chose. I am not being festicious here, vector quantization methods often take a fixed set of vectors
Is the analysis is 116 sensible? Why would one ever have an unstructured k-bit codebook? There is always a way to add structure.
Table 1 - Is this done keeping the overhead of each method the same? I can always increase the dimensionality of VQ to get lower values right? This comparison should only make sense if the compute/storage overhead is the same.
How does this Trellis thing actually work? I'm trying to follow figure 2. I'm assuming the firs thing you need to store is the starting value 00. And then you follow the up-and-down errors each costing you a bit, so the red arrows should give you down, down, up, down down... So how do we end up with 0010110? Wouldn't it be 00 | 00 1 00 or 00 | 11 0 11?
Also - what happens in your code if the next value cannot be transitioned to? In your example, if 0.1 follows 0.3, you're out of luck... does it then give you the closest value 0.3?
Do you have a simple explanation for why Trellis-based coding would work better than normal codebooks? Just 'dimensionality' doesn't sit well with me, because that doesn't really explain anything concrete.
If I get more confidence from the authors on the speed of the kernels and the overhead of this method, with a discussion about non-gpu devices, especially given the very small gains they achieve - I am happy to increase my rating.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: No pain points here
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ## QTIP’s significance (W1)
Tables 3 and 4 show QTIP’s strengths. Table 3 indicates that QTIP *w/out fine-tuning* consistently beats VQ-based approaches *w/ fine-tuning*, showing that there is significant value in better quantizers. QTIP also succeeds where fine-tuning “fails.” Fine-tuning does not reliably improve QuIP# at 4 bits, but QTIP consistently outperforms QuIP# there. This is even more impressive since 4 bit QuIP# is almost lossless. Table 4 shows that even after fine-tuning, QTIP still consistently improves over QuIP#. At all bitrates, QTIP can reduce QuIP#’s perplexity gap by >25%, an impressive feat.
## Inference speed analysis (W2)
Decoding QuIP#’s E8P takes roughly 3 instructions per weight. This is similar to QTIP’s codes. However, E8P reads 8 weights at once while QTIP reads fewer (2 for HYB, none for 3INST/1MAD). The achievable decoding speed for both methods is dependent on hardware properties (**see comments for more details**). However, QTIP’s strength lies in its flexibility. The general QTIP framework just requires efficiently generating a pseudorandom Gaussian. The paper gives 3 very different code constructions as examples, two of which don’t even require lookups. In contrast, E8P is very rigid and specially constructed. QuIP# wouldn’t work on devices with little cache, and still scales exponentially w.r.t. dimension and bitrate. For example, even a 3 bit codebook using E8P’s construction wouldn’t fit in cache on modern GPUs. QuIP# uses residual quantization to scale, but RQ is suboptimal vs. a single quantizer.
## Other hardware (e.g. ARM) (W3)
Different hardware has different properties and instructions, but we believe that QTIP can be fast on a broad class of accelerators due to its flexibility. QTIP only requires generating a pseudorandom Gaussian efficiently, and can work on devices with no cache as well as devices with lookup hardware. The paper mainly targets Nvidia GPUs due to their popularity. That said, we answer this question from two perspectives:
**Can look-up instructions replace TCQ?** Generally no, if you want the same quantized model quality. The look-up instructions in most architectures are limited. For example, ARMv8 NEON’s vqtbl4q_u8 intrinsic looks up 16 idxs in a 64-entry codebook. QuIP#’s E8P has 256 8D entries. We know that QTIP outperforms QuIP#, and vqtbl4q_u8 can’t even handle QuIP#. Reducing codebook size would reduce quality, so only using look-up instructions aren’t enough for QTIP’s quality.
**Can look-up instructions work with TCQ?** Yes, this is essentially the HYB code. In the ARM example, we can use a 6 bit 1D codebook with HYB (Q=6, V=1). Quantizing Llama 2 7B to 2 bits with this setup and w/out fine-tuning gives 6.89 Wikitext2 perplexity – essentially the same as 3INST. We could implement this by packing the 6 bit codebook into registers and using vqtbl4q_u8.
## Editorial Notes
[5] To the best of our knowledge, AQLM and QuIP# are the highest quality LLM PTQ methods currently available. Both perform vector quantization. [24-32] K is the bitrate; we will fix this.
## L24-32, exponential space and time (Q1)
We’re not sure what you mean here. VQ with an unstructured codebook takes $O(2^{kd}d)$ space and time since closest vector search is NP-hard (https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~daniele/papers/CVPP.pdf). “Exponential” refers to how the space and time complexity of VQ scale with dim and bitrate, not whether it is possible to perform VQ fast. In practice, people do use structured codebooks to reduce cost by a constant factor. This is what QuIP# uses to do 8D VQ for roughly the cost of 4D VQ (256X reduction). However, this doesn’t solve exponential scaling – it just makes VQ cheaper.
## L116, discussion on structured search (Q2)
Searching over an unstructured k bit T dim codebook requires $O(2^{kT})$ time. You’re right that adding structure can make this tractable. For example, product quantization (PQ) with a group size of g makes the codebook the outer product of a g-dim codebook, reducing the runtime to $O(T2^{kg}/g)$. However, this is no longer simply VQ. TCQ is another way to add structure by making the codebook entries fixed-length walks on a trellis. The tradeoff to adding structure is increased distortion. The rate-distortion limit lower-bounds the distortion for an unstructured k bit quantizer. Table 1 shows that TCQ gets much closer to this limit than vector/scalar PQ, making it a better way to add structure.
## Table 1 (Q3)
Table 1 computes distortion w/out considering speed. Inf-dim VQ would achieve the rate-distortion limit. 8D VQ with E8P is the limit of what we can do for fast inference on current GPUs, so the fact that QTIP can reduce the rate-distortion gap by >2/3 while using fewer resources makes it a much better quantizer.
## Figure 2 (Q4)
In the bitshift trellis, the last L-kV bits of a state are the first L-kV bits of the next state, so we only need to store the kV bit “delta” for each entry in the input sequence. 0010110 represents *node indices* 00, 01, 10, 01, 11, and 10. Your coding scheme stores which edge to take, but would require knowing the graph structure to decode. The bitshift trellis bakes the structure into the numbering scheme, enabling fast decoding. Regarding transitioning to the next value, this is why we want a large trellis (large L) and randomized codebook, since that increases the probability we can transition to arbitrary values. Naive TCQ has exponential space complexity in L, so we need QTIP’s compute-based codes that dissociate L from space to get high quantization quality on today’s hardware.
## Why does TCQ work? (Q5)
Mao and Gray’s RPTC paper (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5895067/) has theory on TCQ. In short, TCQ satisfies the four necessary conditions of an optimal quantizer. Intuitively, TCQ performs better because it is stateful, letting you “switch” between which size $2^{KV}$ part of the larger size $2^L$ space you are searching in at every step.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: More discussion on QTIP inference speed analysis (comment for rebuttal to W2)
Comment: In general, reducing the size of the uncompressed codebook reduces the cost of lookup. QuIP# is forced to use a battery of bit manipulation operations (amortized to 3 per weight) to compress its 65536-entry V=8 codebook down to a 256*32-bit LUT. Due to the trellis-based quantization algorithm, QTIP HYB requires a much smaller uncompressed codebook (1024 entries at V=2) to achieve better accuracy. We decompress this from a 512 * 32-bit LUT in only 0.5 integer ALU instructions per weight, versus QuIP# which requires 3. QTIP HYB has an additional cost of ~1.5 integer ALU ops to unpack the trellis and calculate the codebook index, which comes out to a total of 2 ALU ops per loaded weight. At 2 bits, this is 8 ALU ops per loaded byte. On the flip side, QTIP at V=2 requires 4x more codebook lookups than QuIP# at V=8. The effect of these differences on inference speed depends on the details of the specific target microarchitecture.
Essentially,
- QTIP reduces the necessary uncompressed codebook size, which reduces the necessary runtime resources (smaller LUT hardware or fewer ALU ops: 0.5 ALU ops for HYB vs 3 for QuIP# E8P).
- QTIP HYB requires 1.5 ALU ops per weight to unpack and map trellis entries to codebook indices.
- QTIP HYB requires more lookups per weight than QuIP#. This is fine on modern GPUs, which have fast banked shared memory. On other architectures, performance will depend on the SIMD shuffle or L1 cache throughput. However, QTIP can be done without any lookups at all (e.g. 3INST and 1MAD) while QuIP# cannot.
- The decompress overhead is essentially constant for all bit widths for QTIP. VQ costs more as bit width increases.
- QTIP 3INST and 1MAD require a fixed number of ALU instructions to decode, and do not use a LUT, reducing cache considerations.
where “ALU ops” here refers to INT32 ALU ops.
**Openreview is not letting me make a comment to the rebuttal, so you are going to see this before the rebuttal. Please read the rebuttal first before reading this.**
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Further questions
Comment: Some more questions and comments:
Thanks for your explanation on the Trellis decoding - I believe it would also be wise to add this explanation to the paper, as as a layman in the information theoretical source coding field, I did not get it at first.
I am still unclear on what the Lookup-free computed codes actually do. As I understand it, you can take any word, run it through your 1MAD or 3INST algorithm, and out comes the number you decode right? Do they still have anything to do with the trellis coding that you mentioned? Given a weight tensor, how do you actually find which words encode this value the best?
On the discussion of the runtime and it’s exponential time - I believe I understand what you are saying, but I also think it’s a bit unfair. Your introduction essentially reads: There’s these VQ methods, and they are exponential in the dimensionality, our method achieves better scaling in dimensionality, so it’s better…our problem sizes are fixed, we’re compressing a fixed-size network. These compression methods are never used in a method where the exponential scaling in dimensions actually matters. The authors of the other papers find an optimal trade-off in dimensions/num_clusters->codebook size and performance. This is not like a travelling salesman problem where your O() notation actually matters if you want to scale up your problem to larger sizes. The dimensionality is a choice, and the scaling being exponential is not the actual fact that matters. Rather your question is: At the same codebook sizes/decoding time, what is the best packing I can achieve. You claim ‘VQ requires exponential […] which limits its practicality', which I think is too strong. These methods are very practical because they are applied on lower dimensions, and the codebook size is explicitly limited. Given that this argument is so important for your paper, I would take some care :)
For some of the comments I made, I was also secretely asking that they would be addressed in a new revision of the paper, any thoughts on that? ;)
Editorial Note: Even if AQLM and QUIP# are the highest quality LLM PTQ methods currently known to you, it does not mean the field has converged. I don’t believe any model efficiency committee with prominent researchers created a consensus of what is best, and concluded that there is nothing better out there. If anything, it's highly dependent on what's available on the hardware as well.
---
Rebuttal Comment 3.1:
Title: Responses to Further Questions
Comment: > Thanks for your explanation on the Trellis decoding ...
We will add it to the paper.
> I am still unclear on what the Lookup-free computed codes ...
These codes take a L bit word and return a FP16 number (or vector for HYB). For a uniform distribution of L bit inputs, the outputs of these codes are approximately i.i.d Gaussian. These codes are used to generate the codebook during trellis quantization. Recall in trellis quantization that the trellis has 2^L nodes/states, each with 2^{kV} directed edges to other states where k is the bitrate and V is the number of weights we quantize in a single step. Each state has a V-dimensional vector assigned to it, and a length-T input sequence is quantized to a length (T/V)-1 walk on this graph. The reconstructed sequence is the concatenation of the state values on this walk.
For example, in Figure 2 in the paper, the walk consists of nodes (00, 01, 10, 01, 11, 10), so the reconstruction is (0.5, 0.1, 0.8, 0.1, 0.3, 0.8), since these are the values that correspond to those nodes. In QTIP, the codes are used to generate the value of node i by running the algorithm on i. Since there are 2^L nodes, i spans 0 to 2^L-1, so the codebook consists of all possible outputs of a code. This means that the codebook is approximately i.i.d Gaussian, which is what we want for quantizing a i.i.d. Gaussian source.
To actually quantize a sequence of T weights, we can run the Viterbi algorithm on this graph. The Viterbi algorithm performs dynamic programming by storing the minimum distortion achievable at step t, 0 <= t <= T/V - 1. Section 2.3 in the paper has more details, but the algorithm itself is well documented (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1450960). In our experiments, we split the weight matrix into 16x16 tiles and quantized each one as a length 256 sequence using BlockLDLQ from QuIP#. This is just one way of applying QTIP, and you could alternatively quantize the entire matrix as a single sequence if the way you quantized (e.g. LDLQ, direct optimization a la AQLM, etc.) was compatible with that.
> On the discussion of the runtime and it’s exponential time ...
Can you explain why exponential scaling doesn’t matter? As you noted above, VQ is practical when applied at lower dimensions like 4 and 8 because the codebook can be kept small. We know from Table 1 and the QuIP# paper that going from 4D VQ to 8D VQ significantly improves quality, so going past 8 dimensions would further improve quality. However, 8 is the highest dimension current VQ methods can achieve while still maintaining fast inference because higher dimension codebooks would not fit in cache. This means that we are indeed limited by the size of the codebook and VQ’s space complexity; we cannot arbitrarily improve VQ’s quality by increasing dimension while still maintaining inference speed. In contrast, TCQ doesn’t suffer from these problems. We can do TCQ without any stored codebooks at all, and decoding is linear in the bitrate.
As a side note, I don’t think we fundamentally disagree about VQ’s problems. Perhaps “practicality” is the wrong word here and something like “scalability” would be better. We’re open to using other words if you’d like to suggest one.
> For some of the comments I made ...
We plan on adding revisions from discussions with all reviewers after the review period.
> Editorial Note: Even if AQLM and QUIP# are ...
We are also open to using a different word than “converged,” if you’d like to suggest one.
---
Rebuttal 4:
Title: Responses to Further Comments
Comment: > I guess a final question for me to understand ...
To clarify, these computed codes are not random, they just do a good job of decorrelating the state ID from the computed value. Like your example FP8 casting code, our codes are deterministic in their outputs. The reason why we want a code that appears random is because under the bitshift trellis, random codes are asymptotically optimal as L increases (see the RPTC paper for more details https://ee.stanford.edu/~gray/trellis.pdf). Table 1 in the RPTC paper shows that an optimal code with a small L has higher distortion than a random code with a large L. This means that we should always increase L as much as possible, and our compute-based codes let us do that without impacting decoding speed.
> One thing that worries me is that for a low number of bits, your 'approximately Gaussian' doesn't really hold very strongly, and there will be quite some bias in the number format you choose.
In trellis coding, the codebook assigns values to the *states* (2^L), so the number of representable codebook values is independent of the bitrate K. These codes are approximately Gaussian for large enough L ($\gtrapprox$ 10), and our experiments use L=16. Figure 3 shows the set of representable neighboring values in a bitshift trellis for various codebooks when L = 16. Indeed, 1MAD and 3INST give very similar coverage as a random Gaussian. Figure 3 also shows why we want a “randomized” codebook. Since neighboring states in the bitshift trellis share L-KV bits, a poorly designed computed code will have strong correlations that result in unrepresentable neighboring values. The leftmost plot in Figure 3 shows such a code, where large portions of the state space are unrepresentable with the bitshift trellis. A code that does direct casting to FP8 (what you suggested above) would have extreme correlations since the mantissa bits of a state become the exponent and sign bits of the next state. Openreview isn’t letting me send an image of the correlation plot, but you can generate a plot with the Python script below to verify for yourself. Section 3.1 in the paper also has more details on random codes.
```
import torch
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
L = 8
# bitrate, adjust accordingly. V =1 for plotting purposes.
K = 4
states = torch.arange(1 << (L+K), dtype=torch.int32)
left = (states >> K).to(torch.uint8)
right = (states & ((1 << L) - 1)).to(torch.uint8)
lval = left.view(torch.float8_e5m2).float()
rval = right.view(torch.float8_e5m2).float()
plt.scatter(lval, rval)
plt.show()
```
> On the exponential scaling ...
The focus of the paper is indeed to show that QTIP achieves a better quality/speed tradeoff over existing quantization methods. Our empirical results show that QTIP outperforms VQ-based methods such as QuIP# and AQLM while offering the same fast inference as QuIP#. The section about VQ’s exponential scaling was to explain why we can’t increase the VQ dimension to improve quality while preserving fast inference. We know from information theory that the distortion of a vector quantizer is lower bounded by a strictly decreasing function of the dimension (http://vkostina.caltech.edu/pdfs/2012KostinaVerdu-lossycomp.pdf). This means that for optimal codebooks and a fixed bitrate, the only way to improve VQ’s quality is by increasing the dimension. TCQ lets us achieve lower distortion than the best “fast inference” VQ, which translates into higher quality quantized LLMs. QTIP’s contribution is enabling fast decoding with TCQ so we can quantize LLMs with it while supporting fast inference.
> It would be great if you could be a little bit more explicit ...
Most of our responses are based off of information already in the paper. We will make this information more clear in an updated manuscript. We will also add new information from the rebuttal/discussion period, such as those on hardware requirements for QTIP's kernels.
---
Rebuttal Comment 4.1:
Title: Update on score
Comment: After finally understanding the paper properly, I believe I can now say that I think the QTIP method is solid and worthwhile considering as a method to encode and decode weights for LLM inference. I think the approach is novel enough on top of existing codebook approaches. Although I think the result improvements are still minor, and thus do not warrant a best-paper award, I believe any smidgeon of improvement counts. If we were to reject a paper just because the improvement is small, we'd have a big problem in our field of efficient deep learning. Especially since the benefits would be essentially free, if a suitable implementation exists.
I do however still have two import notes:
- It took me quite a while to understand the method - and with me likely the average reader that's not inundated in the field of Trellis codes. I would strongly encourage the authors to more clearly explain their method in the paper, so new readers will not have to resort to Openreview or send you an e-mail to understand what is going on.
- I am also a bit partial to reviewer F569's question on showing the benefit of this code versus other codes for more examples. Incoherence processing only approximately and probabilistically makes your distributions Gaussian - I've seen that in practice outliers can still occur, and we're left guessing now what happens with this method in such cases. A more extensive expose of this method on more than a few distributions that occur in the wild would do it good.
That said, the positives outweigh the negatives and I've increased by score to a weak accept.
---
Rebuttal 5:
Title: Thanks
Comment: Thank you for your review, we will be sure to clarify how trellis coding works in an updated manuscript. We uploaded a response to F569's latest questions, which you may find useful. | Summary: This paper proposes QTIP, a new method for efficient post training quantization of LLMs. QTIP is a vector quantization method inspired from Quip# [1], but with no limitation in the dimension of the codebook. The work’s fundamental contributions are: 1) Propose to adapt trellis quantization to the compression of LLM pre-trained matrices. 2) Design efficient trellis and codebook in dimension (or 'sequence length') $=256$. 3) Integrate the trellis quantization into the Quip# [1] optimization process to fine-tune the pre-trained weights. The numerical experimental results of the proposed method outperform AQLM [2] and Quip# [1] on the C4 and Wikitext2 datasets.
---
[1] Albert Tseng, Jerry Chee, Qingyao Sun, Volodymyr Kuleshov, and Christopher De Sa. Quip#: Even better llm quantization with hadamard incoherence and lattice codebooks, 2024.
[2] Vage Egiazarian, Andrei Panferov, Denis Kuznedelev, Elias Frantar, Artem Babenko, and Dan Alistarh. Extreme compression of large language models via additive quantization, 2024.
Strengths: 1) The authors proposed an interesting description of the limitations (in terms of codebook dimension) related to standard vector quantization, and a sound introduction to trellis quantization.
2) This paper presents two innovative lookup-free code for (non-fine-tunable) trellis weight quantization: '1mad' and '3inst'. These methods obtain sota performances with respect to other non-fine-tuned approaches, and are efficiently implemented without the need to store the codebooks.
3) The author also propose an hybrid (fine-tunable) trellis weight quantization: 'hyb'. Though 'hyb' requires to store the codebook, it allows one to fine-tune the codewords, and thus enable QTIP to compete with fine-tuned sota approaches [1,2].
---
[1] Albert Tseng, Jerry Chee, Qingyao Sun, Volodymyr Kuleshov, and Christopher De Sa. Quip#: Even better llm quantization with hadamard incoherence and lattice codebooks, 2024.
[2] Vage Egiazarian, Andrei Panferov, Denis Kuznedelev, Elias Frantar, Artem Babenko, and Dan Alistarh. Extreme compression of large language models via additive quantization, 2024.
Weaknesses: 1) QTIP is mainly based on Quip# [1]: 'we use QTIP as a quantizer in QuIP#’s BlockLDLQ' (line.224). The code is not provided, but the authors explain that the whole quantization and fine-tuning process is based on Quip# [1]. Hence the contribution is more to the field of signal quantization in general, and LLM compression is an application.
2) QTIP natively reuses the incoherence processing from [1]. But this pre-processing step may erase the native correlation patterns that pre-trained LLM matrices bear [2,3]. No discussion about this process (and the blockLDLQ) is provided.
3) QTIP (with fine-tuning) update the pre-trained weights 'in a blockwise fashion' (line.247). This step is computationally intensive regarding the size of the matrices (and the optimizer states related to it), and it may impact the efficiency of the quantization process.
4) Very few details are given regarding the experiments design (which calibration dataset is used for fine-tuning 'hyb' codewords?), what may affect the results reproducibility (in addition the code is not publicly available).
---
[1] Albert Tseng, Jerry Chee, Qingyao Sun, Volodymyr Kuleshov, and Christopher De Sa. Quip#: Even better llm quantization with hadamard incoherence and lattice codebooks, 2024.
[2] Kim, S., Hooper, C., Gholami, A., Dong, Z., Li, X., Shen, S., Mahoney, M. W., and Keutzer, K. (2023). Squeezellm: Dense-and-sparse quantization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07629.
[3] Guo, H., Greengard, P., Xing, E., and Kim, Y. (2023). Lq-lora: Low-rank plus quantized matrix decomposition for efficient language model finetuning. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1) Table.1 shows the superiority of QTIP over scalar quantization and Quip# [1]. How does it translate to the case of 'real' pre-trained LLM matrices? Can you show some results similar to [2], to identify which matrix presents the lowest quantization error ? This would enable us to decouple the gains provided by QTIP, and understand better which part (the quantization process itself, or the fine-tuning machinery) is key for sota performances.
2) Is 'hyb' codebook unique? Or do you have a different (fine-tunable) codebook for each LLM block?
3) Do you think QTIP fine-tuning step is (computationally) competitive with respect to (low-rank) adapters methods such as LoRA [3] and LQ-LoRA [2] ? Or QTIP is only tailored for LLM compression ?
---
[1] Albert Tseng, Jerry Chee, Qingyao Sun, Volodymyr Kuleshov, and Christopher De Sa. Quip#: Even better llm quantization with hadamard incoherence and lattice codebooks, 2024.
[2] Guo, H., Greengard, P., Xing, E., and Kim, Y. (2023). Lq-lora: Low-rank plus quantized matrix decomposition for efficient language model finetuning. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations.
[3] Hu, E. J., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wang, L., Chen, W., et al. (2021). Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: A comparison of inference speedups is provided in section 4.3.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ## QTIP's contribution (W1)
The focus of QTIP is on *what to quantize with* (e.g. VQ, TCQ), and not *how to quantize* (e.g. GPTQ, fine-tuning). Choosing a good quantizer is hard since LLM weight matrices have outliers and small-batch LLM inference is memory bound, necessitating fast decoding. While the field of signal processing has known for a while that TCQ achieves lower distortion than VQ, there is little to no existing work on designing trellis quantizers for fast parallel decoding. This is the “missing piece of the puzzle” needed to make TCQ work for LLM compression, which QTIP addresses.
Our experiments used QuIP#’s BlockLDLQ framework for two main reasons. First, QuIP# is a state-of-the-art vector quantization framework that supports fast inference, making it a good baseline to show the benefits of TCQ. Second, LDLQ variants are optimal among adaptive rounding methods that use linear feedback from the Hessian. By using BlockLDLQ, we can be reasonably certain that the empirical improvements are from TCQ and not spurious interactions between the quantizer and a subpar rounding algorithm. Finally, we note that QTIP could be used as a drop-in replacement for VQ in other rounding algorithms. QTIP’s orthogonality to the actual rounding method further broadens QTIP’s practicality.
## Incoherence Processing (W2)
Both QuIP and QuIP# detail how incoherence processing affects the Hessian and how we can use incoherence to bound the proxy error tr(WHW.T). We refer the reviewer to QuIP and QuIP# to see how incoherence processing can benefit quantization, even when using Hessian information.
QTIP uses the random Hadamard transform (RHT) to perform incoherence processing. The RHT is fully invertible up to numerical error, meaning that the Hessian matrices do not lose information from incoherence processing bar catastrophic imprecision. We ran the quantization algorithm in fp64 and did not observe differences vs. fp32, so numerical error is not a dominating factor in the quantization step.
## Cost of Fine-Tuning (W3)
QTIP’s focus is on the quantizer itself and not fine-tuning. Whether the end user chooses to fine-tune or not is a “deployment choice,” and in either case QTIP offers improvements over SOTA vector quantization methods. Table 3 shows that *even without any fine-tuning*, QTIP usually outperforms SOTA vector quantization based methods *that use fine-tuning*, meaning that fine-tuning isn't strictly necessary to make QTIP SOTA. Table 4 shows that QTIP still gives significant improvements after fine-tuning. In fact, QTIP holds up where fine-tuning “fails.” QTIP almost halves the 4 bit perplexity gap vs. QuIP#, while fine-tuning has little effect at 4 bits. Finally, since QTIP is orthogonal to fine-tuning, we expect that new fine-tuning algorithms will compose with QTIP to produce even better quantized models.
## Implementation Details (W4)
Most of these details, including datasets, are available in the Appendix. We will add additional information in an updated manuscript and the code will be made available at a later date.
## Quantization Error (Q1)
Table 1 shows the distortion for an i.i.d. Gaussian sample. If we re-run Table 1 with actual weight matrices and incoherence processing, then we get very similar results since incoherence processing produces approximately i.i.d. Gaussian weights.
| Source | 1MAD MSE | 3INST MSE | HYB MSE |
|:--------------------------:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|
| i.i.d. Gaussian (Table 1) | 0.069 | 0.069 | 0.071 |
| Llama 2 7B 0_v + IncP | 0.069 | 0.069 | 0.070 |
However, LLM quantization algorithms usually minimize the expected activation error (proxy error, Eq 1) instead of MSE (Table 1). Using a calibration set of 25 million tokens from RedPajama, scalar quantization achieves a relative error of 0.073, VQ (QuIP# E8P) 0.060, and TCQ (QTIP 3INST) 0.045, when quantizing the 10_down layer of Llama 2 70B to 2 bits without fine-tuning. Like in Table 1, QTIP reduces the proxy error over SQ and VQ.
## HYB Uniqueness (Q2)
In our experiments, we use a different codebook per linear layer. Since this codebook is very small (1K entries) relative to the matrix size (>>1M entries), it adds < 0.01 bits per weight. If a per-layer codebook is not possible, a shared codebook should also work fine. 1MAD and 3INST use the same codebook per layer and also achieve SOTA performance. This is due to incoherence processing producing approximately i.i.d Gaussian weights, so the codebooks are all essentially Gaussian.
## LLM Quantization Fine-Tuning vs. LoRA-Style Methods (Q3)
To clarify, QTIP’s focus is on the quantizer, not the rounding or fine-tuning algorithm. Table 4 used QuIP#’s tune-as-you-go fine-tuning method. This method, and other similar ones like AQLM’s fine-tuning algorithm, tune the quantized model to recover the original model. In contrast, LoRA and LQ-LoRA are aimed at fine-tuning to new downstream tasks. These are two fundamentally different problems, so it is difficult to compare methods across problem areas. It may be possible to adapt methods to solve both problems, but that is beyond the scope of this work.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your answers. However, my Q.1 remains, 'how to decouple the gains provided by QTIP, and understand better which part (the quantization process itself, or the fine-tuning machinery) is key for sota performances?'. Your rebuttal provides a comparison of a single LLaMA layer and iid Gaussian vectors, but I believe this comparison is not informative regarding Q.1. A fair comparison would detail the expected activation error (proxy error, Eq 1) or the MSE for QTIP **and** other methods (e.g. LQLoRA, Quip#, AQLM, etc.) for all layers in a LLM (I believe some layers would suffer more from the incoherence processing step; see for e.g. early layers in Fig.1 in [1]). I will keep my score.
[1] Guo, H., Greengard, P., Xing, E., and Kim, Y. (2023). Lq-lora: Low-rank plus quantized matrix decomposition for efficient language model finetuning. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Response to comment part 1
Comment: Splitting into multiple parts due to the character limit
> However, my Q.1 remains, 'how to decouple the gains provided by QTIP, and understand better which part (the quantization process itself, or the fine-tuning machinery) is key for sota performances?'.
The main difference between our QTIP experiments and QuIP# is the quantizer. The QTIP experiments use our fast trellis quantizer and QuIP# uses a vector quantizer. Therefore, the difference between QTIP and QuIP# is the difference from using a better quantizer. Our QTIP experiments and QuIP# both use the BlockLDLQ rounding algorithm and the same fine-tuning algorithm.
We are not claiming that trellis coding alone is sufficient for state of the art quantization performance. Doing so would ignore the vast model quantization literature that shows the efficacy of algorithms such as adaptive rounding and fine-tuning. Rather, all we are saying is that trellis coding's gains over vector quantization translate to LLM quantization, *even after adaptive rounding and fine-tuning*. This means that although adaptive rounding and fine-tuning are important to achieve strong performance, there is still a significant benefit to using a better quantizer. QTIP lets us achieve fast decoding with trellis coding, making trellis coding practical for LLM quantization.
> Your rebuttal provides a comparison of a single LLaMA layer and iid Gaussian vectors, but I believe this comparison is not informative regarding Q.1.
This table was in response to "How does it translate to the case of 'real' pre-trained LLM matrices? Can you show some results similar to [2], to identify which matrix presents the lowest quantization error ?" Our understanding is that Figure 1 in the LQ-LoRA paper measures the RMSE (sqrt distortion) of the original weight matrix. The table in the rebuttal does this as well and shows that after incoherence processing, "real pre-trained LLM matrices" have the same quantization distortion as an i.i.d Gaussian with QTIP. This is significant because, to the best of our knowledge, trellis coding achieves the lowest empirical distortion on memoryless Gaussian sources (https://ee.stanford.edu/~gray/trellis.pdf). Having this result translate to LLM matrices means that QTIP is indeed a better quantizer than VQ, even on actual pre-trained matrices.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Response to comment part 2
Comment: > A fair comparison would detail the expected activation error ...
The rebuttal does have this information for the 10_down layer of Llama 2 70B (see the paragraph after the table). QTIP achieves a lower proxy error than QuIP (scalar quantization) and QuIP# (vector quantization). We are not familiar with the AQLM codebase so we did not attempt to measure its proxy error. Due to time, we won't be able to get proxy error measurements for all the layers before the end of the discussion period. However, below are proxy errors for layers 39 and 79 of Llama 2 70B for scalar quantization, vector quantization (QuIP#), and trellis quantization (QTIP) when quantized to 2 bits. As expected, QTIP achieves the lowest proxy error in all cases.
**Note: there was a bug in the scalar quantization proxy error code in the first version of this response. We have updated the table with the correct results. The SQ proxy error in the original rebuttal was not affected by this bug.**
| Layer | 2 Bit Scalar Quantization Proxy Error | 2 Bit Vector Quantization (QuIP#) Proxy Error | 2 Bit Trellis Quantization (QTIP) Proxy Error |
|:-------:|:-------------------------------------:|:---------------------------------------------:|:---------------------------------------------:|
| 39 q | 0.0105 | 0.0088 | **0.0065** |
| 39 k | 0.0091 | 0.0074 | **0.0056** |
| 39 v | 0.0567 | 0.0458 | **0.0341** |
| 39 o | 0.0372 | 0.0318 | **0.0246** |
| 39 up | 0.0626 | 0.0531 | **0.0407** |
| 39 gate | 0.0435 | 0.0367 | **0.0282** |
| 39 down | 0.0680 | 0.0582 | **0.0441** |
| 79 q | 0.0064 | 0.0054 | **0.0041** |
| 79 k | 0.0049 | 0.0041 | **0.0031** |
| 70 v | 0.0453 | 0.0387 | **0.0291** |
| 79 o | 0.0069 | 0.0053 | **0.0041** |
| 79 up | 0.0116 | 0.0099 | **0.0075** |
| 79 gate | 0.0116 | 0.0099 | **0.0075** |
| 79 down | 0.0012 | 0.0010 | **0.0007** |
Regarding LQ-LoRA, our understanding is that LQ-LoRA focuses on obtaining a better quantized + low rank initialization for the final goal of downstream fine-tuning to new tasks. Post training quantization methods like QuIP#, AQLM, and QTIP focus on finding a quantized model that is *as close to the original model as possible*, which is a fundamentally different problem. LQ-LoRA mainly presents results on downstream fine-tuning, where they can get lower perplexity on C4 than even the original unquantized model. This is impressive, but should also make it obvious that LQ-LoRA is solving a different problem than PTQ.
> I believe some layers would suffer more from the incoherence processing step; see for e.g. early layers in Fig.1 in [1]
We're not sure what you mean by "suffer more" from incoherence processing. Incoherence processing is a fully invertible transformation up to numerical error. This means that incoherence processing does not result in information loss unless there is catastrophic numerical imprecision. As mentioned in the rebuttal, we did not observe differences from running our experiments in FP32 vs. FP64, so numerical imprecision is not an issue here. If you are questioning the efficacy of incoherence processing in the quantization process, we recommend taking a look at QuIP and QuIP#. Both papers have theory showing that the proxy error can be bounded by the incoherence $\mu$ of the weight matrix when using LDLQ variants. The bound gets tighter as $\mu$ gets smaller, which is what incoherence processing does. | Summary: This paper introduces trellis coded quantization (TCQ) into large language model (LLM) quantization, achieving ultra-high-dimensional quantization with less inference burden compared to traditional vector quantization (VQ) methods. The main innovations are a hardware-efficient "bitshift" trellis structure and fast compute-based Gaussian codes, enabling high-quality quantization and fast inference.
Strengths: 1. The motivation to address the drawbacks of VQ is clear and intuitive.
2. The proposed "bitshift trellis" and "compute-based random Gaussian codes" are innovative and improve the inference efficiency of TCQ.
3. The performance is impressive, significantly enhancing 2-bit performance even without fine-tuning and optimizing quantization bits to 3-bit.
4. The method significantly improves inference speed.
Weaknesses: This is a solid paper introducing a novel and robust quantization format. Inference efficiency is crucial for new quantization formats, but this paper only presents the inference speed on the RTX 4090 with 2-bit quantization. Providing inference speeds for more bits (e.g., 3-bit, 4-bit) and more devices (e.g., RTX 3090, A100) could enhance the paper further.
It is possible that existing quantization computation kernels achieve speedup on the RTX 4090 but not on the A100. Such phenomena are normal, and adapting a new kernel to different devices is challenging. However, I encourage the authors to report inference speeds on various devices. Even if results are not favorable, an in-depth analysis with potential solutions would provide a more comprehensive understanding without affecting the paper's contribution.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: Please see the weaknesses for details.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: The paper lacks inference speed testing on more bit levels and additional devices.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ## Updated Inference Speeds on More Devices and More Bitrates
Below are throughput numbers for decoding 1024 tokens on the RTX 3090, RTX A6000 Ampere, and RTX 6000 Ada, averaged over 8 runs. The kernels were not re-tuned for each device, so they could be made faster. These numbers were run using an updated inference speed script from the QuIP# codebase that is more accurate than the numbers in the paper. In all cases where the FP16 model fits on the device, QTIP is faster than FP16.
| GPU Model | Model | 2-bit tok/s | 3-bit tok/s | 4-bit tok/s | FP16 tok/s|
|:----------------:|:------:|:-----------:|:-----------:|:-----------:|:----:|
| RTX 3090 | 2-7b | 127 | 119 | 109 | 52.5 |
| RTX 3090 | 2-70b | 15.3 | OOM | OOM | OOM |
| RTX A6000 Ampere | 2-7b | 116 | 106 | 95 | 43.5 |
| RTX A6000 Ampere | 2-70b | 15.0 | 13.1 | 11.7 | OOM |
| RTX 6000 Ada | 2-7b | 188 | 161 | 140 | 55.9 |
| RTX 6000 Ada | 2-70b | 23.5 | 19.1 | 16.3 | OOM |
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: FP8?
Comment: Wouldn't a ~2x speed-up of e.g. 4-bit tok/s compared to FP16 tok/s get negated when the FP8 format is used?
Also, wouldn't the fairer comparison be more of what happens when you use 4-bit native kernels versus 4-bit kernels with the trellis coding?
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Hardware Supported Datatypes and Other Quantizers (re ZTfk)
Comment: >Wouldn't a ~2x speed-up of e.g. 4-bit tok/s compared to FP16 tok/s get negated when the FP8 format is used? Also, wouldn't the fairer comparison be more of what happens when you use 4-bit native kernels versus 4-bit kernels with the trellis coding?
Not really. QTIP 4 bit is actually closer to 3X faster than FP16 on Ada/Hopper, which is what you’d need for hardware FP8 support. Of the 3 GPUs we tested on, only the RTX 6000 Ada has hardware support for FP8, so you wouldn’t get any compute speedup from FP8 on the 3090 and A6000 Ampere. QTIP could also be made faster by fusing some of the Hadamard transforms like QuaRot does “for free”. We can test this by fusing the same RHTs as QuaRot’s. Here, we get 151 tok/s on the A6000 Ada for 7B 4 Bit.
Quantizing to 8 bits also won’t give a 2X inference speedup due to overhead from other parts of the model. We can emulate inference with an 8 bit model by simply dividing half the matrix dimensions by 2 in a FP16 model, which conveniently means doing half the compute and reading half the memory. The alternative would be using the TransformerEngine FP8 GEMM kernel, which is complicated to integrate. On an A6000 Ada, this gives 98.4 tok/s for Llama 2 7B, which is only 1.77x the speed of FP16 and 35% slower than 4 bit QTIP with fused RHTs.
Another caveat with using hardware supported datatypes like FP8 and INT4 is needing to quantize *both the activations and weights*, since we don’t have hardware support for mixed precision GEMMs. Quantizing the activations means sacrificing quality, and existing methods give worse performance/speed tradeoffs than QTIP. For example, to the best of our knowledge, QuaRot and SpinQuant are the two best performing W4A4 methods, and they both perform significantly worse than 4 bit QTIP (QuaRot 6.10 ppl, SpinQuant 5.9 ppl, QTIP 5.52 ppl, FP16 5.47 ppl, Wikitext 2, ctx. 2048). SmoothQuant’s W8A8 setup does have similar quality as 4 bit QTIP, but here again the speedup will be less than 4 bit QTIP in memory bound scenarios (see above).
However, we don’t actually need hardware support for smaller datatypes to do memory bound inference. As long as we can write a kernel to do decompression during the matrix multiplication, then we can use any quantizer. This is what QTIP and existing weight-only quantization methods like QuIP# and AQLM do. To test speed here, we used Microsoft’s BitBLAS library as a drop-in matmul in torch’s Linear layer. BitBLAS contains highly optimized kernels to do FP16 x dtype matmuls, where dtype is an IEEE dtype. Since these datatypes are much easier to dequantize than QTIP’s codes, these kernels should be about as fast as possible for a weight-only quantization method. BitBLAS FP16 x INT4 gets 150 tok/s on the A6000 Ada, which is essentially the same as QTIP’s 151 tok/s. However, QTIP is still doing some RHTs, so QTIP’s 4 bit kernel is actually faster than BitBLAS’s 4 bit kernel.
From the QuIP# paper, we know that doing INT4 quantization without the RHT (e.g. GPTQ 4 bit) results in significantly worse quality than QUIP#, which has worse quality than QTIP at all bitrates. This means we can’t actually use BitBLAS FP16 x INT4 to reach the same quality as 4 bit QTIP, *and* QTIP is faster. To reach the same quality as 4 bit QTIP, we would need INT8 quantization, which we already know is 1/3 slower than 4 bit QTIP. Finally, we note that compared to QuIP# and AQLM, our two main baselines, QTIP is both faster and higher quality at all bitrates. This means that QTIP strictly improves over those two VQ-based methods, showing that TCQ is indeed practical. We are also not professional kernel writers, so it is very possible that someone could write a faster kernel than us, giving further speedups.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.2:
Comment: Dear Authors,
I have read the rebuttal. I will keep my positive rating.
---
Reply to Comment 1.2.1:
Title: Thanks
Comment: Thank you for your review! | Summary: This work presents a new method of weight-only post-training quantization (PTQ) that uses trellis-coded quantization (TCQ) to achieve ultra-high-dimensional quantization. Although TCQ was introduced by Mao and Gray, QTIP transfers it into the LLM space and introduces new algorithms to make the method hardware efficient, thereby enabling fast inference.
Strengths: 1. The idea of using TCQ for LLM is pretty interesting and, to the best of my knowledge, new.
2. The paper is well-written, with explanatory figures and detailed explanations of the algorithms.
3. Paper includes a comprehensive amount of experiments.
4. The authors provide extensive details to reproduce paper and promised to make the code public.
Weaknesses: 1. The ablation study is almost non-existent. For example, there is no analysis of the inference speed dependency on each introduced trick.Another thing you can do is experiment - perplexity (ppl) without the tricks, using L, k, and V values that still fit in the L1 cache, alongside the introduced algorithms.
2. The L, K, and V parameters were not explored. It would be beneficial to see different V values compared at the same bit width.
3. The paper contains a lot of notation and symbols that are either described once briefly or assumed to be known (e.g., see kd in line 27 line 128). This made reading the paper hard for me, as I had to constantly refer back to previous pages to understand what each symbol represents. For example, see line 229. This issue persists throughout the paper. Maybe it would be good to soft reintroduce symbols for time to time.
4. To be frank, the performance gains for me are not that impressive, except perhaps for LLama-3 at 2 bits.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. In the paper Line 236, you mentioned that QTIP can be fine-tuned. Did you try it? Did it provide any performance boost?
2. Can you please add the formula to calculate the average bit? While it can be deduced from the details given, having the formula would make readability clearer.
3. There are misspellings in line 46 and line 128: tk/kt , this should be corrected.
4. Is the formula in line 125 for the trellis structure correct? If we look at line 101, one of these cases seems to be a misspelling.
5. The numbers in Table 5 are not properly highlighted, especially where other methods are winning or matching.
6. The inference speed reported for AQLM is very odd. The AQLM paper claims around a 1.3x speed-up over FP16, but in your case, it is much slower. I suppose this may happen due to other library overheads like transformers, Pytorch and Python. Did you try the code with compiled CUDA graphs? Please take a look at [this example](https://colab.research.google.com/github/Vahe1994/AQLM/blob/main/notebooks/aqlm_cuda_graph.ipynb) from there repository.
Other:
1. Line 70 begins with "The effectiveness of these methods." It is a new section, and because of this, it is not clear which methods you are referring to.
2. Cite the linear congruential generator (LCG) paper.
3. In Line 240, should be mentioned that AQLM doing block fine-tuning. Quip# doing full model fine-tuning. Full model fine-tuning also can be applied at AQLM, and the numbers will much Quip#. See Table 4 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.06118.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ## Ablations and fast inference (W1 and W2)
The main components of QTIP that enable fast inference are the bitshift trellis and compute-based codes. To understand why these are necessary, let us look at the L, K, and V parameters in trellis coding. L is the trellis size, K is the bitrate, and V is how many weights we quantize per step. Larger trellises improve quality, and increasing V can increase decoding throughput by amortizing ops. However, a larger V enforces more structure on the search space and may decrease quality. When L = KV, TCQ becomes K bit V dim VQ, bridging the two.
The bitshift trellis lets us avoid storing the trellis, which requires $2^{L+KV}L$ bits ($2^L$ nodes each with $2^{KV}$ edges). The bitshift trellis also enables parallel decoding, which is important since modern accelerators are highly parallel. The compute-based codes dissociate L from the amount of cache needed. While a pure-lookup codebook would take $16 \* 2^L V$ bits of cache, scaling exponentially with L, the compute-based codes use a constant amount or none at all. Note that this means we could have used L > 16 in the paper to achieve higher quality at the cost of *encoding* time, since L does not affect decoding speed.
Table A shows an ablation on L for quantizing Llama 2 7B with K=2, V=1, the bitshift trellis, a pure-lookup codebook, and no fine-tuning. L=8 is the largest L achievable if we had to store the trellis *and* codebook in the same amount of cache as the HYB code (2KiB). L=10 is the largest L achievable if we only had to store the codebook. As expected, increasing L improves quality. Table A also shows very little difference between an equal-sized LUT codebook and QTIP’s codes, meaning that QTIP isn't sacrificing quality for speed. However, an equal-sized LUT would need >10X more cache than the latest GPUs have, making the bitshift trellis and compute-based codes necessary to achieve both quality and speed.
Table B shows an ablation on V with L=12 and 16, K=2, and the same settings as Table A. Increasing V generally decreases quality, but this can be recovered with a larger L. It is hard to measure V's impact on decoding speed since this is highly implementation and hardware dependent, so V is more of a user-chosen hyperparameter.
### Table A
| L | Trellis Size | CB size | total size | W2 | C4 |
|:-----:|:-------------:|:------------:|:------------:|:----:|:----:|
| QuIP# | - | 8Kb | 8Kb | 8.22 | 11.0 |
| 8 | 8.19 Kb | 4.10 Kb | **12.29 Kb** | 7.83 | 10.3 |
| 10 | 40.96 Kb | **16.38 Kb** | 57.34 Kb | 7.49 | 9.67 |
| 12 | 196.61 Kb | 65.54 Kb | 262.14 Kb | 6.97 | 9.21 |
| 16 | 4.19 Mb | 1.05 Mb | 5.24 Mb | 6.83 | 8.92 |
| 16 | Bitshift | 3INST | 0Kb | 6.82 | 8.96 |
### Table B
| Codebook | L | V | W2 | C4 |
|:-----------------:|:--:|:-:|:----:|:----:|
| LUT | 12 | 1 | 6.97 | 9.21 |
| LUT | 12 | 2 | 7.09 | 9.24 |
| LUT | 12 | 4 | 7.55 | 9.88 |
| LUT | 16 | 1 | 6.83 | 8.92 |
| LUT | 16 | 2 | 6.79 | 8.97 |
| QTIP HYB (no FT) | 16 | 2 | 6.83 | 8.97 |
| LUT | 16 | 4 | 6.92 | 9.07 |
## Notation (W3)
We will update the camera ready to improve readability.
## Performance Gains (W4)
The easiest way to see QTIP’s improvements are at 4 bits and in larger models, where fine-tuning has less impact (Table 3). Tables 3 and 4 show that at 4 bits, all 3 of the QTIP formulations significantly reduce the quantization error over QuIP# and AQLM, which is impressive given how well these methods do at 4 bits. Table 3 also shows that for most model sizes and bitrates, QTIP *without fine tuning* matches or exceeds QuIP# *with fine tuning*, showing the importance of using a good quantizer. Finally, these quality gains are essentially “free” over QuIP#, since QTIP offers the same fast inference speeds.
## Fine-tuning QTIP (Q1)
Yes, the HYB code has a small codebook that can be fine-tuned. Table 4 uses fine-tuning with the small codebook included in the set of tunable parameters. Tuning the codebook helps slightly, but a better fine-tuning algorithm could probably do better.
## Bit Accounting (Q2)
QTIP has two sources of overhead beyond the quantized weights: sign vectors used for the random Hadamard transform (RHT), and the codebook in the HYB code (3INST and 1MAD do not have codebooks). For a nxm matrix, the sign vectors take up (n+m) bits. For the HYB code, the codebook takes up 2^Q x V x 16 bits (see Section 3.1.2 for more details). We used Q=9, but you can go down to Q~6 without noticeable degradation. At Q=9, the codebook uses 2KiB. Amortized over n*m entries, the codebook and sign vectors take up <0.01 additional bits. We will add these details to the appendix.
## tK vs Kt (Q3)
tK and Kt = t times K
## L125 (Q4)
125 should say $2^L \times 2^{kV}$
## Highlighting (Q5)
We will re-highlight the numbers to be more consistent.
## AQLM inference speed (Q6)
The QuIP# authors recently released a more accurate generation timing script. We have re-timed all the methods on an RTX 6000 Ada. The numbers below are the average throughput for decoding 1024 tokens over 8 trials; we will update the paper with this.
| Method | 2-7B | 2-70B |
|:-----------:|:----------:|:-----:|
| FP16 | 55.9 tok/s | OOM |
| AQLM 2 Bit | 81.5 | 8.78 |
| QuIP# 2 Bit | 186 | 22.2 |
| QTIP 2 Bit | 188 | 23.5 |
## L70 (O1)
“These methods” refers to those listed on L66-68. We will clarify this.
## LCG citation (O2)
We will update the paper with this.
## AQLM fine-tuning (O3)
Thank you for pointing this out, we will update the paper with these numbers. We note that this does not change our analysis, which is that QTIP achieves better performance than both QuIP# and AQLM with the same general fine-tuning scheme, while preserving QuIP#'s fast inference.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: First, let me thank you for your response and for running the experiments. I have a few comments regarding your response:
(W4) Generally, I would not recommend trusting PPL results at this scale. There is a risk of overfitting on the data. You can see this yourself by looking at Table 5 at zero-shot results. While QTIP ppl constantly better at 4 bits (although by not much), the difference at zero shots are not significant.
(Q1) This was not clear to me from reading the paper. I would suggest making it clearer wherever you are using fine-tuning version.
(W1, W2) I would suggest adding this information in the appendix, if it fits.
(Q6, W3) Great, thank you!
I will keep my score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thanks
Comment: Thank you for your review, we will be sure to add clarifying information into an updated manuscript. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewers for their detailed reviews. As multiple reviewers noted, QTIP is well motivated and novel (1CRX, 3PHK, ZTfk), and simultaneously achieves strong quality and fast inference (1CRX, F569, ZTfk). Below, we have written individual responses to reviewers. We have also run a number of new experiments. These include ablations on L and V (3PHK), more accurate timing numbers with an updated script (3PHK), 3 and 4 bit inference kernels (1CRX), and timing on different GPUs (1CRX).
**To satisfy the character count, we have abbreviated the weaknesses/questions we are responding to. "WX" referrs to weakness X and "QY" question Y according to the order in the review.** | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
The Power of Resets in Online Reinforcement Learning | Accept (spotlight) | Summary: This paper study the online RL having access to a local simulator with general function approximation. Their results unclock new statistical guarantees. First, $Q^*$ realizability together with coverability assumption are enough for sample-efficient online RL under this setting. Second, their results further implies that the Exogenous Block MDP problem is tractable under this setting. Finally, they complement their theoretical finding with a computationally efficient algorithm.
Strengths: The paper is in general clearly written. The idea of leveraging local simulator to facilitate online RL with general functionn approximation is novel and leads to several important observations that previous works are out of reach.
Weaknesses: Maybe due to space limit, some terms lack of definition or discussion, see questions for details.
The algorithm in section 4 is highly technical and somewhat difficult to follow. Based on the current context, it appears that the role played by the local simulator is underexplained. One might question if most parts of the algorithm are adaptations of previous techniques to the general function approximation setting. It would be great if the novelty and insights can be highlighted.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. What is the double sampling problem mentioned on line 170?
2. What is the distribution shift mentioned on line 313?
3. What is the $v_h$ on line 16 of Alg 2?
Minor issues:
1. Definition of the confidence set in Alg 1, the summation $\sum_{h\leq t}$, is this a typo?
2. Double such that on line 221, and the comma and period in the end.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Novelty relative to prior work:**
The algorithm presented in Section 4 is far from a simple adaptation of previous techniques. We now highlight some of the key algorithmic innovations:
- RVFS builds on the DMQ algorithm by [1]. Unlike the latter, we use a core set of state-action pairs instead of policies. This is crucial for our algorithm to work without the strong hypercontractivity assumption made by [1].
- One of the key algorithmic innovations is the use of Bellman backups (as in line 8 of Algorithm 2) to evaluate whether a new state-action pair should be added to the core set. This technique is unique to our paper and enables handling RL settings beyond linear function approximation. Incorporating Bellman backups in the test at line 8 is essential for proving that the algorithm converges under pushforward coverability.
- Additionally, the modification of RVFS to the exogenous setting, which includes a randomized rounding, is also novel.
Beyond these algorithmic innovations, the analysis of RVFS introduces new proof techniques, especially in the setting without a gap, that could be beneficial for broader applications beyond the settings studied in this paper.
**What is double sampling?**
What is the double sampling problem mentioned on line 170?
The double sampling problem refers to the challenge of estimating $T_h g_{h+1}(x_h,a_h)=\mathbb{E}[g_{h+1}(x_{h+1}) \mid x_h,a_h]$ in (1), which requires more than one next-state sample starting from the state $x_h$. Generating multiple samples from any given state is only possible with resets; in the online setting without resets, a state $x_h$ may only be observed once, allowing only a single next-state sample. See e.g. https://x.com/nanjiang_cs/status/1672702613744410624 for more details on the double sampling problem.
**What is distribution shift?**
The distribution shift mentioned 313 is a well-known phenomenon the situation where for a new state action pair $(x_{\ell-1},a_{\ell-1})$, the distribution of the next state $x_{\ell}$ puts mass on new regions of the state space where the estimated value function is inaccurate.
See e.g., sec 7.3 in https://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.16730 for more detail on the distribution shift phenomenon in RL.
**What is the $v_h$ on line 16 of Alg 2?**
$v_h$ represents an esitmate of $\mathbb{E}^{\hat\pi}[\sum_{\ell= h}^H r_\ell \mid x_h]$---see how the set $\mathcal{D}_h$ is constructed on line 15.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the rebuttal. It addressed my questions. | Summary: The authors show that local simulator access removes Bellman completeness for MDPs with bounded coverability. This generalizes the results of existing works that are limited to low-rank or linear structures.
On the statistical front, the authors analyze the sample complexity of SimGOLF using coverability, but the algorithm itself is computationally inefficient.
To resolve this they propose RVFS, which is computationally efficient with respect to (1) a regression oracle, and (2) a convex optimization oracle over the value function class $\mathcal{V}$. In order to obtain sample complexity guarantees here, however, stronger assumptions such as pushforward coverability or $Q^\star$ gap are required.
(For some context behind the proceeding comments, I am familiar with the analysis of GOLF and its variants [4,31,61], but not with the local simulator literature [38,63,57] beyond a brief glance. )
Strengths: The motivation for the paper is clear, and generalizing RL in local simulators to structures beyond linear is a valuable contribution.
SimGOLF/ Thm 3.1 are clean results, and I appreciate that the authors tackled the problem of computational efficiency in RVFS.
Weaknesses: My impression is that the analysis of SimGOLF / Theorem 3.1 has limited technical novelty given [61]. That's not to say it's not a valuable contribution.
**Oracle efficiency**
My biggest concern is that RVFS does not seem as "oracle-efficient" as claimed, and the discussion on this is somewhat lacking. For example, the authors could have stated more exactly what their definition of computational efficiency is (or is it just that it "reduces to convex optimization"?). They might have also provided an analysis on the # of calls to computational oracles before convergence.
In particular, it seems RVFS needs to solve the convex optimization in Line 8 for every $(x,a)$ in the core set, for $N_{test}$ times (which is like $\varepsilon^{-1}$...?), and then for every possible action. Further, RVFS makes recursive calls to itself. Can this avoid $\mathrm{poly}(\mathcal{X}, \mathcal{A}, \varepsilon^{-1})$?
More minor, but it seems $\mathcal{V}$ might need to be a convex set for efficient calculation of Line 8 (L355-358), which does not immediately gel with the "holds for general function approximation" or "neural networks" claims? In the grand scheme of things I'm sort of not that bothered by this.
**Assumptions for RVFS**
I am not opposed to make stronger assumptions for RVFS necessarily, but I would have liked to know more about why. For example, is it possible to give some intuition for why coverability alone is insufficient to analyze RVFS? And how do the gap or pushforward coverability assumptions help with this?
**Comparison to existing work**
The authors mention that local simulator algorithms utilizing core sets exist for linear value function approximation exist, and I imagine that RVFS might also be applied to these settings. However, I find the consideration of previous literature to be quite limited, and I would have appreciated some discussion on how the sample/computational complexity of the algorithms compare (if they are comparable).
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: The questions below also include the specific ones from "weaknesses" that I would like to be answered. I would be happy to raise my score if my concerns are adequately addressed.
1. Is it possible to analyze the complexity of oracle calls required to achieve the learning guarantee in Theorem 4.1? Will it be dependent on $\mathcal{X}$?
2. I imagine RVFS can be applied to the linear $V^\star$ or $Q^\star$ settings from [55,57,38]. Are the guarantees for RVFS comparable? I'm not necessarily looking for "better" performance because RVFS is more general, but just some sense of how big the gap might be (if there is one). Or just some discussion on the topic as I myself am not familiar.
3. Could you comment on the barriers to obtaining guarantees for RVFS under coverability, and/or why gap / pushforward helps?
4. The definition of the confidence set in Algorithm 1 seems a little weird (maybe typo?), particularly the $\sum_{h \le t}$. Currently it seems like you throw samples from previous iterations away, is that intentional?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: I believe the limitations of RVFS could benefit from greater discussion per my previous comments.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Technical novelty of SimGOLF in light of [1]**
- We agree that the main technique behind our first result, SimGOLF, is quite simple, but we view this as a positive.
- In particular, our result shows that the challenging coverability + realizability setting, which was explicitly left as an open problem in prior work and allows for nonlinear function approximation, is tractable under local simulator access.
- Therefore, even though the proof for the fact that this result is tractable turns out to be remarkably simple, we think that the take-away message of the result is significant enough to merit publication.
- Finally, we view the simplicity as a strength, since it will likely enable other researchers to build on this technique and explore whether it extends to other interesting settings. Notably, this is the starting point for our second main result, RVFS, which attacks the even more challenging problem of designing statistically and computationally efficient algorithms. Indeed, given the complexity of RVFS, it is very difficult to imagine directly proving such a result or designing such an algorithm without already being aware that the setting under consideration is tractable, which is precisely what SimGOLF provides.
**Oracle type:**
The Oracle we require is precisely the one described on Line 356, which solves a convex optimization problem in function space. We note that similar Oracles have been used in prior works; see e.g. [3] (RegCB).
**Number of Oracle calls:**
Although not explicitly stated in Theorem 4.1, our analysis shows that the number of Oracle calls is polynomial in $C_{\text{cov}}, H, A, \log |\mathcal{V}|$, and $1/\epsilon$, with no dependence on $|\mathcal{X}|$. This holds despite the recursion in RVFS. We would not consider the algorithm Oracle efficient if the number of Oracle calls depended on $|\mathcal{X}|$. We will include the number of Oracle calls in Theorem 4.1.
**Convexity of the function class:**
The optimization problem in Line 8 would have the same value if V is replaced by its convex hull. This is because the optimization problem, which is of the form $\sup_{f \in \mathcal{V}_h} |\mathrm{Objective}(f)|$, where $\mathrm{Objective}(f)$ is linear if $f$, can be solved by considering the two subproblems (without the absolute value)
$\sup_{f \in \mathcal{V}_h} \mathrm{Objective}(f)$ and
$\sup_{f \in \mathcal{V}_h} -\mathrm{Objective}(f)$.
Since the $\mathrm{Objective}(f)$ is linear in $f$, the suprema in these subproblems will always be attained at vertecies of $\mathcal{V}_h$, so the convex hull would not change the values of these objectives. We will provide more details on this.
**Coverability alone for RVFS:**
The SimGolf algorithm uses the concept of global optimism, where the estimated value functions at each iteration are greater than the optimal value function in a pointwise sense; this greatly simplifies the analysis of the coverability setting using SimGolf. In contrast, RVFS does not employ global optimism.
There are RL settings that are only known to be statistically tractable using a global optimism approach; for example, the linear Bellman complete and the linear Q*/V* settings (see e.g. [3]). Our paper shows that a local simulator makes the coverability setting statistically tractable using global optimism (through SimGolf). It is unclear if the stronger pushforward-coverability assumption is necessary for algorithms that do not employ global optimism, like RVFS. We could not find a way to make the analysis of RVFS work with full coverability; the reasons for this are deeply rooted in the analysis of RVFS.
**Handling the linear $Q^\star/V^\star$ settings:**
RVFS can be slightly modified to handle the linear $V^\star$ and $Q^\star$ settings.
Similar to existing results for these settings, the corresponding sample complexity would be polynomial in $d$, $1/\epsilon$, and $H$, without any dependence on $|A|$ or $|X|$. However, we have not worked out the exact exponents of $d$, $1/\epsilon$, and $H$ in the sample complexity. We would be happy to include such an extension in the final version.
With the additional page available in the camera-ready version, we will provide a more detailed comparison to existing results.
**Summation in the confidence set of Algorithm 1:**
The sum in the definition of the confidence set of simGolf contains a typo indeed. We will correct this in the camera-ready version.
[1] Xie, Tengyang, Dylan J. Foster, Yu Bai, Nan Jiang, and Sham M. Kakade. "The role of coverage in online reinforcement learning." arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.04157 (2022).
[2] Foster, Dylan J., Alexander Rakhlin, David Simchi-Levi, and Yunzong Xu. "Instance-dependent complexity of contextual bandits and reinforcement learning: A disagreement-based perspective." arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03104 (2020).
[3] Kane, Daniel, et al. "Computational-statistical gap in reinforcement learning." Conference on Learning Theory. PMLR, 2022.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Follow-up re: number of oracle calls
Comment: Thank you for your detailed reply, which has addressed most of my comments. However, my primary concern was the number of Oracle calls required (which is important for computational efficiency), and I'd like to ask one follow-up question about this.
The rebuttal states that RVFS requires only polynomial in $C_{\mathrm{cov}}$, not $|\mathcal{X}|$, calls. Does the analysis currently in the paper show this, and is there a section or result that I can reference to see this (or at least get a sense of the argument)?
I wasn't able to find this given a brief scan of the appendix, and I apologize if I've missed it. Thank you.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Clarification around the number of Oracle. calls
Comment: Thank you for your interest! The current analysis does indeed bound the number of Oracle calls, as we will clarify now.
First, let's look at the full version of RVFS in Algorithm 5.
- The Oracle in question is invoked in the test of Line 14.
- To bound the number of Oracle calls is the same as bounding the number of times Line 14 is executed, or the number of times the $\widehat{P}$ operator in Line 14 is called throughout the execution of $\mathrm{RVFS}\_0$; this includes all subsequent recursive calls to $(\mathrm{RVFS}\_{h})\_{h\in [H]}$.
- The proof of Lemma I.2 directly bounds the number of times $T_\ell$ the operator $\widehat{P}$ in Line 14 is called throughout the execution of $\mathrm{RVFS}\_0$ (again this takes into account all subsequent recursive calls to $(\mathrm{RVFS}\_{h})\_{h\in [H]}$).
- In particular, Eq. 34 bounds $T_\ell$ by $M^3 N_\mathrm{test} H^3$, where $M$ and $N_{\mathrm{test}}$ are as in Algorithm 5; these are polynomial in problem parameters and do *not* depend on $\mathcal{X}$.
We hope this answers your question and will be happy to highlight that the number of oracle calls is bounded in the final revision of the paper. Please let us know if you have any other questions. | Summary: The paper introduces the SimGolf algorithm, which leverages local simulator access to reset to previously visited states and sample multiple trajectories. This approach enhances sample efficiency and accuracy in value function approximation, particularly in high-dimensional MDPs. The SimGolf algorithm uses local simulator access to achieve new statistical guarantees, allowing for efficient learning in environments with low coverability. Additionally, the paper presents RVFS (Recursive Value Function Search), a computationally efficient algorithm that achieves sample complexity guarantees under a strengthened statistical assumption known as pushforward coverability.
Strengths: - Introduces a novel approach that uses reset capability in reinforcement learning to significantly improve sample efficiency.
- Provides strong theoretical analysis and new statistical guarantees for reinforcement learning with local simulator access.
- Proposes two innovative algorithms (SimGolf and RVFS) with clear theoretical benefits.
- The paper is generally well-written and explains the new algorithms and their theoretical foundations clearly.
- Addresses a significant problem in reinforcement learning by enhancing sample efficiency and providing robust theoretical guarantees.
Weaknesses: - The paper breaks with the expected shape of a NeurIPS paper (numbered list in abstract, missing discussion or future work). While deviations are acceptable if justified, the current format lacks some important aspects.
- The abstract includes references and attempts to serve as a conclusion, which is unconventional and detracts from its clarity. The abstract should be a short, plain summary of the paper It is also not the place to reference other works, as the abstract should be self contained.
- The paper lacks a dedicated conclusion or discussion section, which would be crucial for contextualizing results and suggesting future work.
- There is no experimental data provided (which is fine for a theory paper), but there should then at least be a discussion on expected practical benefits and an outline of plans for empirical validation as part of a future works section. In the area of RL we observe a significant gap between the theoretical understanding of performance guarantees and the actual observed performance of certain setups in practice. I would therefore regard the benefit of a paper, that restricts itself to only theoretical work itself as limited; actual experiments are needed to validate the practical applicability of the new findings. Please outline such in a future works section.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: - How does SimGolf perform in practical environments compared to regular RL and MCTS?
- What specific types of environments are expected to benefit most from SimGolf?
- Are there any preliminary empirical results or plans for validation in real-world applications?
- The training process produces a final policy and set of Q functions. It should therefore be possible to use the presented algorithm for 'pre-training' in a simulator with reset capabilities, but then continue training with a SAC-like approach on real world data?
- The paper lacks an explicit differentiation from existing methods. Is the following summary correct for contextualizing the work? (This is mostly just for my own understanding of the presented work)
- Regular RL requires only the ability to take actions and observe resulting new states, enabling linear rollouts. It performs single, uninterrupted rollouts without the ability to reset.
- MCTS (Monte Carlo Tree Search) requires a complete and known transition function, allowing iteration over all possible child nodes from each state. It builds and expands a search tree incrementally by iterating over all possible actions and simulating outcomes. This method utilizes comprehensive exploration through rollouts and backpropagation within the search tree, resulting in high accuracy of value estimation. However, it is computationally intensive and requires full knowledge of the transition dynamics.
- SimGolf strikes a balance between the simplicity of regular RL and the higher performance of MCTS. It requires the ability to reset to previously visited states and resample the next state under the same or different actions. This method does not necessitate complete iteration over all possible actions and transitions. Instead, it enhances sample efficiency by allowing targeted resampling after initial rollouts (under the same or different actions). The agent can reset to critical states identified during the initial exploration and simulate multiple future trajectories from those states, improving the accuracy of value function estimation. SimGolf uses the reset capability to gather multiple samples from key state-action pairs, updating a confidence set of value functions based on empirical Bellman error estimates, combining the benefits of comprehensive exploration with more modest demands on the environment.
I was assigned to this paper after the regular review period so I did not have time to go through the presented math inn detail. Rely on the other reviews to check those.
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: - The lack of experimental validation means the practical benefits and real-world performance of the algorithm remain uncertain.
- A discussion on future work and plans for empirical validation would be beneficial, detailing how the authors intend to demonstrate practical improvements.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Paper format:**
Thank you for your feedback. We understand the importance of adhering to a standard format; however, we chose to prioritize a detailed explanation of our novel and complex algorithm to ensure that its intricacies were fully conveyed. We believe this approach still aligns with the presentation style of other papers accepted at NeurIPS. With the additional page available for the camera-ready version, we will include a more detailed discussion section and suggestions for future work to further enhance the clarity and completeness of our paper.
**Experimental results:**
While we acknowledge the importance of empirical results, these are beyond the scope of the current paper. Our focus is to understand the sample and computational complexity of RL when a local simulator is available. In terms of understanding the theoretical limitations of RL, we believe the results presented here are significant on their own. However, our paper does pave the way for new empirical questions, which we are excited to explore in future works, as we will highlight in the future works section.
**How does SimGolf perform in practical environments compared to regular RL and MCTS?**
SimGolf was never intended to be a practical algorithm. Its primary purpose is to demonstrate that the coverability setting, which we argue is a general RL setting, is statistically tractable under resets—a fact that was not previously known. For practical applications, RVFS, which shares similarities with MCTS and Go-Explore, is the more viable algorithm. We discuss the similarities between RVFS and MCTS in detail on page 9, under the section ‘Connection to empirical algorithms.’
**What specific types of environments are expected to benefit most from SimGolf?**
SimGolf operates under the coverability assumption, an intrinsic structural property of the underlying MDP. Therefore, environments expected to benefit most from SimGolf include Low-Rank MDPs and (Exogenous) Block MDPs, both of which satisfy coverability. These environments exhibit high-dimensional state spaces and require nonlinear function approximation. Exogenous Block MDPs, described in Section 3.3, capture real-world RL settings where observations include a high-dimensional, time-correlated signal irrelevant to the RL task. Learning to ‘ignore’ this signal in a sample-efficient manner is extremely challenging, an issue explicitly left as an open problem in previous work. However, we demonstrate in this paper that SimGolf and RVFS make this possible when resets are available. Additionally, we expect RVFS to perform well even in settings that do not strictly satisfy coverability, including those where MCTS has been used. RVFS can be viewed as a more principled version of MCTS.
**Using our algorithms for 'pre-training':**
As the cost of simulating real-world environments decreases, efficient algorithms like ours, which utilize a local simulator, will become extremely valuable for pretraining. One of the key points of our paper is to demonstrate that a local simulator enables the development of both statistically and computationally efficient algorithms for challenging RL settings, such as the Exogenous Block MDP setting.
**Differentiation from existing methods:**
We would like to reiterate that the primary objective of our paper and the algorithms we present is not to propose a competitor to MCTS. The goal is to understand the sample and computational complexity of RL under coverability when a local simulator is available.
That said, your understanding of online RL and the workings of MCTS appears correct. We would like to add that MCTS has several major limitations compared to RVFS, including:
- MCTS requires finite states to iterate over all possible child nodes of each state, making it inapplicable in environments with continuous states, unlike SimGolf and RVFS.
- MCTS does not come with any provable sample-complexity guarantees and can fail even in simpler tabular RL settings. One reason for this is that MCTS (or some versions of it) uses rollouts with a fixed default policy (usually a policy that takes random actions), and the estimated value will correspond to this rollout policy. In contrast, our work reveals (through RVFS) that one needs to use the policy induced by the current estimated value function for rollouts. This approach is key for proving the sample complexity guarantees of RVFS. This simple idea can potentially be used to modify MCTS for better performance.
We will include a more detailed comparison between RVFS and MCTS in the camera-ready version.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your detailed rebuttal and clarifications. I appreciate the effort to address the concerns raised, particularly regarding the paper's format and the absence of a discussion section. Your explanation of the intended purpose of SimGolf, its relationship to RVFS, and how these algorithms fit within the broader RL framework is much clearer now.
While I did not delve deeply into the mathematical details, the overall feedback from other reviewers and your responses indicate that the theoretical contributions are meaningful and have the potential to advance the field.
Given your clarifications and the planned improvements, I have decided to adjust my rating from borderline reject (4) to weak accept (6). | Summary: The paper presents some theoretical results for new reinforcement learning algorithms with a sophisticated approach to a simulator environment.
Strengths: Paper presents an extensive theoretical study.
Weaknesses: Practical applications of the algorithm remain questionable.
The modifications themselves might seem trivial.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: A clarification of the application of the algorithms and their implementation might improve the paper.
Confidence: 1
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: I don't think there's any negative societal impact.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | null | null | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
LAM3D: Large Image-Point Clouds Alignment Model for 3D Reconstruction from Single Image | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper addresses the problems of multi-view consistency and geometric detail in image-to-3D generation. The proposed method, LAM3D, adopts a two-stage approach for training. In the first stage, the authors train a plane encoder and decoder to compress point clouds into a latent tri-plane representation. In the second stage, to align image and point cloud features within the same feature space, they train the diffusion model. During inference, the image is converted into a latent tri-plane by passing through the trained U-Nets from the second stage, and the features are decoded by the plane decoder trained in the first stage. A final mesh is extracted using the marching cubes algorithm from the reconstructed tri-plane. Experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method in 3D generation from a single image, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Additionally, the authors provide an extensive ablation study on different design components.
Strengths: (1) The task of single-view image to 3D generation is extremely challenging and well-motivated.
(2) The proposed method addresses the limitations of existing baselines, which only use images for training and fail to effectively reflect multi-view consistency and geometric detail. To solve the problems, the authors use point clouds as a 3D prior and converting them into tri-planes to facilitate training. Additionally, the method is carefully designed to align the images and tri-planes within the same feature space.
(3) The results show that the proposed method achieves SOTA performance on single image-to-3D generation with a short inference time compared to existing baselines.
(4) A numerous ablation studies on design choice is conducted to achieve optimal performance.
Weaknesses: (1) As mentioned in the limitation, LAM3D cannot generate a textured mesh, while baselines (One-2-3-45, LRM, and CRM) can. In generating 3D content, the accurate geometry of the mesh is important, but the corresponding texture is also a crucial component. It is unfortunate that this aspect cannot be generated. Although it would take more time, generating multi-view images based on the input image using a multi-view diffusion model like Zero-1-to-3 and then unprojecting them to the generated mesh could be a solution.
(2) Recently, many papers related to single image-to-3D generation have been published, and there are many papers like [1, 2] that were published 2 months before the NeurIPS 2024 submission deadline. Among these, I guess Michelangelo [1] has the best quality in geometry generation, so comparing this paper would make the argument more compelling.
[1] Zhao et al., Michelangelo: Conditional 3D Shape Generation based on Shape-Image-Text Aligned Latent Representation, NeurIPS 2023
[2] Vikram Voleti et al., SV3D: Novel Multi-view Synthesis and 3D Generation from a Single Image using Latent Video Diffusion, arXiv 2024
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: (1) A minor question: does collecting points using KNN and then using the embedding created by PointNet improve performance compared to directly inputting the points extracted through FPS into the transformer?
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors mention that the limitation of the current pipeline cannot generate texture, as discussed in Section 5.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your insightful questions and suggestions. We have provided our responses below:
***Q1. Texture***:
We acknowledge the reviewer's concern about LAM3D's current limitation in generating textured meshes, as mentioned in the paper. While our primary focus was on achieving accurate geometry reconstruction, we fully agree that texture is a crucial component in generating realistic 3D content. Our approach was motivated by the need to resolve geometric distortion issues caused by the lack of explicit 3D priors in recent large reconstruction models. We believe that recovering high-quality geometries is foundational for both textured and non-textured 3D reconstruction. We appreciate the suggestion to use a multi-view diffusion model like Zero-1-to-3 to generate textures, and we recognize this as a promising direction to effectively complement LAM3D’s geometry output. Furthermore, we are committed to exploring such solutions in future work to enhance the capabilities of LAM3D.
***Q2. More Comparison***
We appreciate the reviewer highlighting these recent papers, particularly Michelangelo, which also adopts an alignment-based approach for 3D reconstruction. As discussed in response to Q1 of Reviewer *1gWL* and in our main paper, Michelangelo's alignment strategy has two key limitations: (1) the contrastive loss used in Michelangelo enhances linear separability in the latent space, which is beneficial for discriminative tasks but problematic for 3D reconstruction that requires a continuous latent space to capture the morphable nature of 3D objects; (2) the choice of a vector-shaped latent representation falls short in preserving the spatial information necessary for accurate 3D reconstructions. We address these issues with our diffusion-based alignment strategy, which promotes continuity in the latent space, and a tri-plane structured latent representation that retains spatial information. To validate our approach, we constructed a baseline model based on ULIP [58], a framework similar to Michelangelo that unifies 3D, image, and text modalities. Our experiments demonstrated that while Michelangelo's strategy performs well at the ShapeNet scale, it fails to generalize effectively to the large-scale and category-agnostic Objaverse dataset. These results are detailed in Figures 1, 4, and Tab. 2 of our main paper. Additionally, we recognize the promising direction presented by SV3D, which employs large-scale video diffusion models for 3D reconstruction, and we will discuss this in the revised related works section.
***Q3. KNN+PointNet v.s. FPS+Transformer***
The method mentioned by the reviewer, using KNN for point collection followed by a PointNet encoder, was initially our preferred approach due to its simplicity and efficiency during the algorithm development stage. However, our experiments revealed that the KNN+PointNet combination struggled to fully capture the input geometry, often resulting in oversmoothed reconstructions and low-quality details. This limitation likely arises because the projection operation aggregates information from a broader range of spatial locations, whereas KNN+PointNet is constrained to local operations. This finding motivated our shift to using a Transformer-based approach, which better integrates long-range interactions between local patches, and our experiments demonstrated the effectiveness of this method in improving reconstruction quality.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response to rebuttal
Comment: Thank you for the response. I have read it as well as other reviews.
The authors have promised to address the missing implementation details and pipeline figure in a future revision, so there doesn’t seem to be any further cause for concern. Therefore, I will maintain my original rating of 7.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your feedback! As promised, we will refine the implementation details and pipeline figure, as well as any other areas that need improvement. We appreciate your support and consideration. | Summary: This paper introduces a new 3D generation framework, LAM3D, which uses point cloud data and image-point-cloud feature alignment method to improve the geometry of the generation results. Authors use triplanes as representation, combining image feature as well as point cloud feature. For point cloud compression, they use point cloud transformer to encode the point cloud to triplane. For better generation, they encode the point cloud triplane to latent triplane, and trained three diffusion model to generate latent triplane. The whole method can generate untextured mesh within 6 seconds, showing better geometry results comparing baselines.
Strengths: 1. The paper is well-written with good soundness. Logic is clear and motivation is reasonable.
2. Qualitative and quantitative experiment are carried out in detail and are executed with precision. Ablation study was done with a high degree of accuracy, confirming the significance of parallel diffusion and latent triplane.
3. To handle the difficulty of image triplane and point cloud triplane alignment, LAM3D use a plain encoder to encode the initial triplane to latent triplane, this may give the community another insight in 3D representation and 2D image alignment.
Weaknesses: 1. There are already some work on Shape-Image-Aligned generation work such as 3DGen[1] and Michelangelo[2], authors should compare with these work and point out what are the advantages of latent triplane and three parallel diffusion model.
2. Parallel diffusion design may lose some 3D information.
[1] Gupta, Anchit, et al. "3dgen: Triplane latent diffusion for textured mesh generation." arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05371 (2023).
[2] Zhao, Zibo, et al. "Michelangelo: Conditional 3d shape generation based on shape-image-text aligned latent representation." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024).
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: 1. For the parallel diffusion part, why not try using one diffusion to output a tensor of size 2x32x96, then resize it to 3x2x32x32 (similar to the design in CRM)? What are the differences, and what are the advantages of parallel diffusion?
2. You could show more results on real-world data, such as MvImgNet[1] or photos taken by phones.
3. Some works based on DiT[2], like Sora and the concurrent work Direct3D[3], have shown great success. Have you tried using other diffusion models?
4. If LAM3D is open-sourced, it could greatly benefit the community. What are your plans for open-sourcing it?
[1] Yu, Xianggang, et al. "Mvimgnet: A large-scale dataset of multi-view images." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2023.
[2] Peebles, William, and Saining Xie. "Scalable diffusion models with transformers." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2023.
[3] Wu, Shuang, et al. "Direct3D: Scalable Image-to-3D Generation via 3D Latent Diffusion Transformer." arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14832 (2024).
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your insightful questions and suggestions. We have provided our responses below:
***Q1. Comparison***
We thank the reviewer for highlighting these related works. Shape-Image-Alignment is not a novel concept, and has been explored in works like Michelangelo and ULIP [58]. The essence of both Michelangelo and ULIP is training a 3D autoencoder with a CLIP-aligned latent space. However, the experiments of Michelangelo were limited to the ShapeNet scale. To examine the effectiveness of this approach on a larger scale, we built a baseline model using the 3D encoder of ULIP, as described in lines 293 to 304, and found notable limitations when scaling to the Objaverse dataset with 140k category-agnostic objects. Firstly, the contrastive loss used in Michelangelo and ULIP enhances linear separability in the latent space, which is beneficial for discriminative tasks. However, this approach is problematic for 3D reconstruction, as it requires a continuous latent space to capture the morphable nature of 3D objects. While Michelangelo succeeded within the relatively small and dense ShapeNet dataset, this alignment approach failed to generalize at the Objaverse scale, leading to poor 3D reconstruction quality as demonstrated in Fig. 1 and Tab. 2. Secondly, the constraint of encoding 3D shapes into a vector feature representation of size $\mathbb{R}^{512}$ to align with pre-trained CLIP features proved inadequate for capturing the rich diversity of 3D geometries, as seen in our comparisons in Fig. 4. In contrast, our diffusion-based alignment strategy fosters a continuous latent space, while our tri-plane latent representation effectively preserves spatial information that is often lost in vector-based latent representations, thereby enabling more accurate and scalable 3D reconstructions. Regarding the 3DGen method, it treats the image as a condition for the diffusion model and uses a CLIP image encoder to produce a vector-shaped feature for the diffusion process. However, as we discussed earlier, this approach can lead to a loss of spatial information. In contrast, our method utilizes DINO as the image encoder, generating per-patch encodings of size $\mathbb{R}^{1025 \times 768}$, which allows the subsequent diffusion alignment module to transform these into a tri-plane representation, preserving crucial spatial information. Additionally, our diffusion model differs fundamentally from 3DGen’s approach, which we discuss further in the response to Q2.
***Q2. Parallel Diffusion***
We appreciate the reviewer's concern about the potential loss of 3D information. Previous methods often handle tri-plane structures through either roll-out operations, as seen in 3DGen, or channel concatenation, as discussed in response to Q3. However, both approaches have significant drawbacks. The roll-out method involves convolution operations that span adjacent planes, but the values at the edges of these planes are not spatially continuous, leading to interference and inaccuracies during the learning process. Similarly, channel concatenation aligns features at the same spatial location across planes, but without an explicit relationship between them, applying a single convolution kernel can cause interference in the regression of each plane. To address these issues, our method leverages the planar properties of the tri-plane structure by processing each plane independently. This approach effectively resolves inter-plane interference and results in better reconstruction outcomes. Furthermore, the three planes can be viewed as orthographic projections of the 3D object. We explicitly decouple features across planes by introducing a latent tri-plane loss, which preserves the tri-plane structure in the latent space, as shown in Fig. 6 of the appendix. Although our three independent diffusion models may lack direct inter-plane interaction, this design diminishes inter-plane interference and ensures that 3D information is not lost, as the plane features are decoupled and maintained through the latent tri-plane loss during the compression stage.
***Q3. Channel Concatenation and Parallel Diffusion***
As explained in our response to Q2, using channel concatenation results in the regression of values based on all three planes at the same spatial location, despite there being no explicit relationship between them. This lack of spatial relationship leads to interference during the learning process. To address this, we constructed a baseline model with a single diffusion network that concatenates the planes channel-wise. Our experimental results, presented in Fig. 5 and Tab. 3, demonstrate that the parallel diffusion approach outperforms this single UNet variant, offering better reconstruction quality and visual effects. The parallel diffusion design mitigates the inter-plane interference, leading to more accurate and effective 3D reconstructions.
***Q4. More Evaluation***
We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to include results on real-world data. We evaluated our method on the Google Scanned Objects dataset, which includes a diverse range of real-world household objects, and our approach outperforms previous methods as shown in Tab. 1. In response to the reviewer's comment, we have now included additional comparisons on more diverse sources of images in Fig. 3 of the global response.
***Q5. DiT***
Due to limited computational resources during the development stage, we focused on validating our approach with a parallel UNet design, which delivered state-of-the-art results. However, DiT is indeed a promising direction, and we plan to explore it in future work.
***Q6. Open Source***
We appreciate the reviewer's interest in open-sourcing of LAM3D. We are actively seeking institutional approval to release both the training and inference codebase to the public. Additionally, we plan to provide an online demo to facilitate quick and easy access to our model for the community.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response. But I found that the mesh generated by your method does not resemble the original image(such as in your rebuttal file Figure 3 Line 3, the bottle). I have no more questions and I will keep my rating. Thank you for your work!
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your feedback! We acknowledge that our method may present some mismatches between the reconstruction and the reference image in certain details. This occurs because our approach uses a diffusion process to align image features with latent tri-plane features, which introduces some statistical variation and can lead to discrepancies in finer details. However, our method effectively addresses the geometry distortion problem and accurately reconstructs the overall structure from the reference image. We appreciate your insights and thank you again for your valuable comments. | Summary: This paper introduces the Large Image and Point Cloud Alignment Model (LAM3D), a novel framework that enhances 3D mesh reconstruction from single images by utilizing point cloud data. LAM3D integrates a point-cloud-based network for generating precise latent tri-planes, followed by an Image-Point-Cloud Feature Alignment technique that enriches image features with robust 3D information. This approach allows for the production of high-fidelity 3D meshes while mitigating geometric distortions commonly associated with single-image inputs. The method demonstrates its effectiveness across various datasets, achieving state-of-the-art performance in high-fidelity 3D mesh reconstruction.
Strengths: 1. The paper presents a method combining point cloud data with image features to reconstruct 3D meshes, which is a promissing solution to the problem of geometric inaccuracies in single-image 3D reconstructions.
2. The experimental results are robust, showing clear improvements over existing methods.
Weaknesses: 1. The LAM3D framework's omission of texture mapping is a significant limitation, particularly when compared against methods like One-2-3-45 and CRM that integrate both geometric and texture reconstructions. This absence not only restricts the visual and practical applicability of the generated meshes but also raises concerns about the fairness of comparisons made in the paper. The inclusion of texture details is pivotal for realistic 3D reconstructions, and its absence in LAM3D suggests a crucial area for potential improvement. Furthermore, the comparisons with models that handle both geometry and texture may not provide a balanced view. It's more appropriate to compare LAM3D against models such as "Slice3D: Multi-Slice, Occlusion-Revealing, Single View 3D Reconstruction" (CVPR, 2024) and "D^2IM-Net: Learning Detail Disentangled Implicit Fields from Single Images" (CVPR, 2021), which are more aligned in terms of focusing primarily on geometric details.
2. LAM3D requires point cloud data during training, its applicability is notably restricted to specific categories or types of objects. This limitation indicates a constrained generalization ability, which may impede its deployment in diverse real-world scenarios that demand robust 3D reconstruction capabilities across varied object environments.
3. The use of independent diffusion processes for each tri-plane is a novel approach, but the paper does not provide a comparative analysis of this method against more integrated approaches.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Can you provide more details on how LAM3D handles various object categories, especially those not directly represented in the training datasets?
2. Could the authors elaborate on how LAM3D might be adapted or extended to include texture reconstruction?
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: While LAM3D effectively enhances mesh reconstruction quality by leveraging 3D point cloud data, its current implementation omits texture mapping. This omission not only limits the visual realism and practical utility of the generated 3D meshes but also makes direct comparisons with methods like One-2-3-45 and CRM, which include textural details, somewhat unfair.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your insightful questions and suggestions. We have provided our responses below:
***Q1. Omission of Texture and Texture Extension***
We appreciate the reviewer's observation regarding the omission of texture mapping. Our research primarily focused on addressing the limitations of previous methods that rely solely on volumetric rendering for training large-scale 3D reconstruction models, often neglecting the integration of explicit 3D prior knowledge. By aligning image domain features with the 3D domain, our approach significantly improves geometry reconstruction capabilities.
While texture mapping is left for future work, our method can be easily extended to reconstruct both texture and geometry. This would involve modifying the first stage of training by adjusting the autoencoder to accept a colored point cloud, then introducing an additional MLP to decode the interpolated tri-plane features and regress an RGB vector. In this extended approach, the model would decode both the signed distance and the color at corresponding positions. The inference pipeline remains unchanged, as we can use Marching Cubes to extract both geometry and texture. Another potential approach, as suggested by Reviewer *vD6Z*, involves unprojecting multi-view images generated from models like zero-1-to-3.
***Q2. Evaluation Fairness***
We appreciate the reviewer’s concern regarding fairness. We believe our comparison is fair because our primary aim is to address the geometry distortion problem caused by the lack of explicit 3D prior knowledge in large reconstruction models. Our method tackles a fundamental aspect of 3D modeling that is crucial for both textured and non-textured models. Additionally, we have included a comparison with the Slice3D model in our global response (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) to ensure our evaluation covers methods with a similar geometric focus. While D$^2$IM-Net is a pioneering work in disentangling detail in implicit fields, it was trained on ShapeNet, a smaller and less diverse dataset than the large-scale Objaverse dataset we used, making a direct performance comparison challenging. We will discuss both Slice3D and D$^2$IM-Net in the related work section.
***Q3. Constrained Generalization Ability***
We appreciate the reviewer's observation regarding the requirement for point cloud data during training. Unlike previous rendering-based reconstruction models like LRM and CRM that utilize both 3D assets and multi-view images for training, our approach is constrained to train solely on 3D assets. Despite this, our method demonstrates strong generalization capabilities. While LRM uses 730k 3D assets and 220k videos and CRM employs 376k 3D objects for training, our model is trained on a smaller, category-agnostic dataset of 140k 3D assets. Nonetheless, we achieve state-of-the-art performance on the GSO dataset, which contains over 1,000 3D-scanned real-world items not included in our training data. This highlights the effectiveness of our method in generalizing across varied objects. We argue that although rendering-based methods benefit from larger datasets, their effectiveness is often limited by the lack of explicit 3D knowledge, which can reduce data efficiency. In contrast, our approach, with direct access to 3D representations, enables more efficient learning and improves our ability to generalize across diverse object categories.
***Q4. Diffusion***
Our motivation for using independent diffusion UNets is outlined in lines 51-53 of the paper, and we have experimentally demonstrated that the design leads to improved alignment quality (Tab. 3 and Fig. 5 of our paper). The UNet-based diffusion process is inherently designed to process 2D planar data, while tri-plane are composed of three 2D orthographic projections of a 3D object. Previous methods, such as 3DGen [11] and NFD [43], either roll out the tri-plane as a continuous plane or concatenate channels based on spatial positions, both of which have significant drawbacks. The roll-out method involves convolution operations that overlap between planes, yet the values at the edges of adjacent planes are not spatially continuous, leading to interference. Conversely, while channel concatenation aligns features at the same spatial location, there is no explicit relationship between them, and applying the same convolution kernel to process them results in interference with the regression of each plane. These issues and their impact on convolution operations are illustrated in Fig. 1 of the global response.
To address these problems, we leverage the tri-plane structure’s property of being three orthographic representations of an object and employed independent diffusion processes for each plane to effectively align image features with planar features. Our ablation study, detailed in lines 305 to 314 of our paper, further supports the effectiveness of this approach. We will also include this additional analysis of the independent diffusion method in the revised paper.
***Q5. Various Categories***
Unlike methods trained on ShapeNet in a category-specific manner with a limited number of object categories, our approach is category-agnostic and does not rely on predefined categories during training. This strategy enables our model to handle a broader range of objects by focusing on general geometric features rather than specific types. Similar to other large reconstruction models, our training data includes a wide variety of object shapes and structures. To validate our model's generalization capability, we conducted evaluations on the GSO dataset, which is composed of objects not seen during training, as shown in Fig. 3 of our paper. Our model not only successfully handled these unseen objects but also outperformed existing methods, demonstrating robustness across different categories. We also provide supplementary evaluations on data from various sources in Fig. 3 of the global response. | Summary: The paper proposes a two-stage 3D reconstruction method that first uses a transformer-based 3D point cloud feature extractor to initialize hierarchical latent triplanes (XY, XZ, YZ) and reconstructs the 3D mech. Next, it presents an image-point cloud feature alignment approach that leverages initial latent triplanes to align them with the image-based features using independent plane diffusion models to produce better detail and reduced geometric distortion reconstructions.
The approach achieves state-of-the-art high-fidelity 3D mesh reconstructions from a single image in just 6 seconds, and experiments on various datasets demonstrate its effectiveness.
Strengths: • The concept of utilizing the proposed image-point cloud feature alignment approach using an independent plane diffusion model seems distinctive.
• The proposed method of 3D reconstructions shows reduced geometric distortion reconstructions compared to the currently mentioned methods.
• Achieves SOTA results on the mentioned 3D object-based dataset.
Weaknesses: • Comparison of the model capacity with the current SOTA methods might be added as the proposed methods seems heavy that uses three diffusion, three UNet and two transformer-based architecture.
• Also, the paper might want to compare the inference time with the existing methods as it specifies that it only requires 6 secs for inference.
• Details of the module and inference stage missing (see section correctness).
• The method is evaluated using only a single dataset.
• Lack of reproducibility
The paper is not well-written. The figure is supposed to give an overview of the pipeline, however, if just reading the figure it is not clear what the input is. The paper refers to input point clouds multiple times, which makes it furthermore confusing. Or maybe the point clouds are also part of the input as it is referred to as prior point clouds in the paper. If so the performance gain might also be due to the additional multi-modality inputs which is not a fair comparison with the other baseline methods.
Typo:
• Line 622: We follow LRM [14] ‘and uses’ a 12-layer transformer to directly align image feature to point cloud seems mistaken.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: The paper needs to be improved in the presentation and make the flow chart more clear for example, what is the input?
• Missing details of the Point Net and Transformer block utilized in the point feature extraction stage, plane encoder in triplane compression, UNet utilized for the plane refiner process, and diffusion models in image-point cloud alignment.
• The inference process is unclear, specifically lines 249-251, and might need more discussion.
• The paper misses mentioning the concept and gaps of the current compared methods called One-2-3-45 [24], SyncDreamer [25], TGS [63], CRM [51], and Magic123 [35] in the related work.
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors adequately addressed the limitations.
Overall, the idea of aligning the 3D point features induced triplane representation and image-based features utilizing independent plane diffusion models seems interesting and can produce less geometric distortion reconstruction. However, the proposed method is evaluated only on a single dataset and misses the related work, mentioned module details, and model capacity comparison that must be addressed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your insightful questions and suggestions. We have provided our responses below:
***Q1. Model Capacity***
As shown in Tab. 1 of the global response, we provide parameter size comparisons between our model and SOTA methods. It is worth noting that recent large reconstruction models are designed with high capacity to leverage large-scale training data, enhancing their generalizability in reconstructing novel objects. Our method aligns with this design philosophy.
***Q2. Inference Time***
As shown in Tab. 1 of the global response, our method achieves better inference time. Specifically, our time breakdown is as follows: approximately 0.02 seconds for encoding an image with DINO, 4.52 seconds to align the image feature to latent tri-planes using 50 diffusion steps, 0.24 seconds to upsample the latent tri-plane to the raw tri-plane space with the plane decoder and refiner, and 1.05 seconds for mesh extraction using Marching Cubes.
***Q3. Missing Details***
We have described the design of each module in the method section. We mainly focus on the conceptual aspects in our paper, and we acknowledge that the implementation details are somewhat limited due to page limitations. The inference pipeline is outlined in the caption of Fig. 2 and in Section 4.1, lines 249 to 251. We will provide additional explanations to clarify any potential misunderstandings.
***Q4. Single Dataset Evaluation***
Our evaluation protocol was precisely adopted from CRM (ECCV 2024) [51]. A common practice in large reconstruction models is to train on the Objaverse dataset and evaluate on the Google Scanned Objects (GSO) dataset. This approach was also used in TGS (CVPR 2024) [63] and One-2-3-45 (NeurIPS 2023) [24]. In response to the reviewer's feedback, we have included additional evaluation results in Fig. 3 of the global response. These results encompass reconstruction outcomes for images from ImageNet, MVImageNet, AI generated images, and images collected from the Internet.
***Q5. Clarity***
We appreciate the reviewer highlighting areas for improvement. We acknowledge the concerns regarding the clarity of the figure and the input description in our manuscript. To clarify, our pipeline consists of two stages during training: point clouds are used as input for the first stage, while images are used for the second stage. During inference, only images are required as input. Thus, the performance gains achieved are attributed to the effectiveness of our proposed modules and strategies, rather than the use of additional input modalities. We will revise the figure and manuscript to clearly distinguish between the training and inference phases, ensuring that the role of each input is clearly communicated.
***Q6. Presentation***
We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback on the presentation and clarity of the flow chart. We recognize that the current chart may not clearly indicate the inputs. We will revise the flow chart to explicitly show that point clouds are used in the first training stage, images in the second training stage, and only images are needed during inference. We will ensure that the inputs are clearly highlighted at each stage of the pipeline to improve overall clarity.
***Q7. Lack of Details and Reproducibility***
In our manuscript, we focused on the conceptual aspects and design choices of each module to provide a clear understanding of the overall framework and its motivations. We acknowledge that this approach did not cover the implementation details of each component in depth. To address this, we will include additional implementation details in the appendix. Additionally, we are actively seeking institutional approval to release code and pre-trained models to the public for easy reproduction of our results by the community.
***Q8. Inference Process***
We apologize for any confusion caused by the description of the inference process in lines 249-251. To clarify, our model requires only a single-view image of an object during inference. The process starts by encoding this image into a feature representation using the DINO image encoder. This image feature is then aligned to a latent tri-plane representation through three independent diffusion UNets, where the latent tri-plane represents a compressed tri-plane shape in the latent space. The latent tri-plane is subsequently upsampled to a high-resolution tri-plane using the plane decoder and refiner from the first training stage. We then employ the SDF MLP to decode the signed distance for any query position on the tri-plane, as described in lines 173-175, which allows us to use the Marching Cubes algorithm to reconstruct a mesh from the tri-plane. We will revise the manuscript to include a more detailed explanation of this inference process to enhance clarity.
***Q9. Concept and Gaps***
We appreciate the feedback. We will expand the related work to include a comprehensive review of [24,25,63,51,35]. Specifically, we will highlight that these previous methods primarily employ a rendering-based loss for supervision, which overlooks the use of available explicit 3D priors. This absence of explicit 3D priors often results in 3D geometric distortions, examples of which are demonstrated in Fig. 1(b) for LRM [12] and Fig. 1(c) for CRM [51]. In contrast, our method leverages 3D point clouds as explicit guidance during the training stage. We explore the approach of achieving accurate single-image 3D reconstruction by aligning image features with explicit 3D features, marking a novel advancement in the domain.
***Q10. Typo***
We apologize for the oversight. This typo will be corrected in the revised manuscript. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments and the time invested in reviewing our work. We take all suggestions seriously and are committed to carefully revising the paper based on your feedback.
In the attached PDF, we have included one table and three figures for your reference:
+ **Table 1**: Comparison of model capacity and inference time.
+ **Figure 1**: Illustration of unintended convolution behavior in different methods for processing tri-plane structured data.
+ **Figure 2**: Qualitative comparisons of our method and Slice3D on the Objaverse and GSO datasets.
+ **Figure 3**: Shapes reconstructed by our LAM3D from single images, compared with state-of-the-art methods.
We respond to reviewers' specific concerns individually below.
Pdf: /pdf/e4fb691f176f0cc1eed9f0bc47662115197621f8.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
AlphaTablets: A Generic Plane Representation for 3D Planar Reconstruction from Monocular Videos | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper introduces a novel and generic representation of 3D planes called AlphaTablets. AlphaTablets represent 3D planes as rectangles with alpha and RGB channels, enabling accurate, flexible, and consistent modeling. The paper also proposes a differentiable rasterization method on top of AlphaTablets, as well as a bottom-up planar reconstruction pipeline for the differentiable optimization of target 3D planes. Additionally, an effective merging scheme is introduced during optimization to facilitate the growth and refinement of AlphaTablets. The extensive experiments conducted on the ScanNet dataset demonstrate the state-of-the-art performance of AlphaTablets in 3D planar reconstruction.
Strengths: 1. The concept of optimizing 3D planar primitives, referred to as AlphaTablets in this paper, through differentiable rendering is interesting. While previous methods such as PlanarRecon adopt a feedforward approach, training a model with 3D plane labels, this process can be costly and result in out-of-distribution issues when applied to unseen datasets. In contrast, reconstructing planar scenes using a differentiable rendering approach and solely relying on 2D supervision offers greater flexibility and potential.
2. The planar reconstruction results achieved on the ScanNet dataset demonstrate state-of-the-art performance in both 3D geometry and 3D plane segmentation metrics, underscoring the excellence of this paper and the potential of the proposed pipeline.
3. The coherent scene editing application is good.
Weaknesses: 1. I have concerns regarding the speed of the proposed method. As stated in section 4.1, it takes approximately 2 hours to reconstruct a single scene. Could the authors provide details on the time taken for each part of the entire system during optimization? Additionally, where is the primary bottleneck for speed enhancement? A detailed efficiency analysis from the author would be greatly appreciated.
2. Some details regarding the plane parameters are unclear to me. What are the values of the pixel range (ru, rv) in the paper, and are they the same for all tablets? How are the distance ratios $\lambda_u$ and $\lambda_v$ calculated? The alpha channel is described as a learnable single-channel map with the same shape as the texture map. Is my understanding correct?
3. The initialization process is also unclear to me. It appears that each superpixel is initialized as a tablet at the beginning of the optimization. This could potentially introduce a large number of initial tablets across all 9 keyframes in a video segment, which may adversely impact the optimization speed. Why not merge similar superpixels to create larger initial planes?
4. The 3D accuracy of this method on the ScanNet dataset is notably higher than that of PlanarRecon. What are the main reasons for the lower reconstruction accuracy of the proposed method?
5. Which model did the author use in practice to predict the monocular depth and normals? Was it Metric3d or Omnidata? Additionally, the scale of the used monocular depth may not align well with the ground-truth depth. Employing mean squared error in eq (10) for depth loss could potentially introduce additional errors.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: See weakness.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have discussed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for the comments. All responses below will be put into revision.
**[W1: break down of time budget and analysis]**
Below is a breakdown of the time budget for the optimization process of a single scene:
| **Stage** | **Task** | **Time (s)** |
| -------------------- | ---------------------- | ------------ |
| **Initialization** | texture init | **1517.38** |
| | geometry init | **1672.57** |
| **Render** | pseudo mesh | 10.39 |
| | rasterization | 316.62 |
| | alpha composition | 2.15 |
| **Loss Calculation** | photometric loss | 1.07 |
| | depth loss | 28.28 |
| | normal loss | 102.44 |
| | distortion loss | 5.90 |
| **Training** | backward | **3347.83** |
| **Merge** | kd-tree,union-find set | 96.41 |
| | geometric calculation | 23.14 |
| | tablet projection | 22.26 |
| | weight check | 62.14 |
As shown above, the merge and rendering pipeline is relatively efficient. The initialization process (which includes converting every superpixel to a initial tablet, and texture initialization) consumes a significant amount of time. This is due to the current naïve implementation for demonstration, where tens of thousands of Python loop is called. We will improve the implementation to enable parallelized initialization in the future work. Furthermore, the NVDiffRast renders more than ten layers to perform alpha composition every forward pass, but most of the scene's structure is single-layered, results in a substantial backward computation burden during training. We regard this as another potential area for considerable optimization in the future work.
**[W2: detail of tablet parameters]**
Thanks and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify these details:
1. Pixel Range (ru, rv):
- Each tablet's geometry is located in 3D space, while its texture is stored in 2D.
- The pixel range represents the resolution at which the texture is stored.
- For initial tablets, the pixel range is derived directly from the range in the source image.
- For merged tablets, the pixel range is calculated as the average of all corresponding initial tablets.
2. Distance Ratios (λu and λv):
- These ratios establish the relationship between the 2D texture resolution and the 3D size of the tablet.
- For initial tablets, the distance ratio is calculated by dividing the camera's focal length by the average initial distance of the tablet.
- For merged tablets, the distance ratio is the average of all corresponding initial tablets' ratios.
3. Alpha Channel: Yes, the alpha channel is a learnable single-channel map with the same shape as the texture map.
**[W3: Initial tablet merge]**
During initialization, each superpixel is initialized as a tablet using the estimated depth and surface normal. Using SLIC superpixel on ScanNet 1296x968 resolution image results in around 10k superpixels for each keyframe, leading to a large number of initial tablets. As detailed in Appendix Sec A.1, we introduce an init merge to create larger initial tablets, which helps to improve the speed. Further efficiency improvements could be achieved through fewer superpixel initial number (by controlling the SLIC hyper-parameters) and more aggressive init merge.
**[W4: reconstruction accuracy]**
The difference in 3D accuracy (termed as Acc in Table 1 of the main paper) between our method and PlanarRecon on the ScanNet dataset can be attributed to several factors:
1. Scope of Reconstruction:
- PlanarRecon often only reconstructs large planar regions. This allows for easier localization and high accuracy on these specific areas, but it limits overall coverage and performance.
- Our method enables more comprehensive reconstruction, including smaller planar regions, which can impact the accuracy metrics but provides a more complete representation of the scene.
2. Ground Truth Coverage:
- It is worth noting that the 3D ground truth planes in ScanNet only partially cover the scene within the camera's view. Even after excluding areas too distant to be relevant using the camera frustum, significant portions remain uncovered.
- PlanarRecon learns to exclude distant reconstructions during its training stage, leading to improved accuracy metrics.
- Our method, however, is capable of identifying planar regions for all visible areas. This is evident in Figure 2 of the attached PDF, where most of the red regions highlight this phenomenon.
- While these uncovered areas affect the evaluation accuracy, they should not necessarily be considered a negative outcome. Our method provides a more complete reconstruction of the scene, including areas that are not represented in the ground truth data.
Please refer to Figure 2 of the attached PDF for a qualitative illustration of this issue.
**[W5: depth loss and model]**
To clarify, we use Metric3D v2 for predicting monocular depths and Omnidata for surface normals.
Yes, there is a trade-off when using depth loss due to the depth estimation errors. To address this issue, we incorporate multiple loss terms, including photometric, normal and distortion losses, etc., to optimize and regularize the tablets. The depth loss could be viewed as a data term in optimization which constraints the results not too far from the initializations. In practice, we observed that the depth loss helps with the final reconstruction, and it is a common practice in 3D reconstruction to employ it. Further incorporation of uncertainty or better depth estimation methods could be beneficial, which we will put into future work.
Once again, we thank the reviewer for the valuable comments that helps improve our paper.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Good response! Thanks for the efforts of the authors. My concerns have been well addressed. I will improve my rating in the final decision.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thanks for the efforts of the authors again. I have some more questions about the paper in the following:
1. How many scenes are used to evaluate on the ScanNetv2 datasets in practice?
2. Will the authors release the code?
3. I noticed a recent work for planar reconstruction called AirPlanes in CVPR2024. It seems that a good dense reconstruction + RANSAC is still a strong baseline for planar reconstruction. Can the author further discuss the advantages of plane-based/primitive-based optimization for this task? The authors only need to discuss and do not need to compare with Airplanes.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Title: Thanks for your helpful review
Comment: Many thanks for your valuable reviews. Here are our responses.
**[1. Number of scenes to evaluate]**
We follow the evaluation settings used by PlanarRecon and Atlas. Our evaluation is conducted on the official validation set of ScanNet v2, which consists of 312 scenes.
**[2. Code release]**
Yes, our code will be released once the paper is public.
**[3. Discussions of primitive-based optimization's advantages and Airplanes]**
We appreciate the reviewer mentioning AirPlanes, a concurrent great work (not publicly visible when this paper is submitted) presented at CVPR 2024. While both approaches aim for 3D planar reconstruction task, our method offers several distinct advantages:
1. Explicit geometric structure preservation: Compared to point/voxel-based dense reconstruction, using plane/primitive as the basic units explicitly enforces the local geometric (planar) structure during the reconstruction process. Through optimization and merging, these explicit geometric constraints are extended to the entire planar structure. This geometric structure preservation is not trivial or even challenging for depth map / dense points representation, For example, the dense 3D reconstruction of a wall often contains local non-planar / non-smooth regions and noisy outlier points, which affect the subsequent plane label fitting and the resulting geometric accuracy, since RANSAC only responses for extracting the highest-scoring planes with no further optimizations. To the contrary, our planar primitive (AlphaTablets) based optimization pipeline is more straightforward and arguably more effective for the planar reconstruction task, with as-planar-as-possible guaranteed and optimization in the loop.
2. Generic plane representation: We proposed AlphaTablets as a general 3D plane representation, with a 3D planar reconstruction pipeline demonstrating its effectiveness. In contrast, AirPlanes mainly focus on the modular design of 3D planar reconstruction system, where planes are represented with point groups. Our explicit continuous 3D plane representation enables advanced applications such as texture editing and novel view synthesis. Furthermore, if needed, the resulting 3D planar reconstruction of AirPlanes could be represented as AlphaTablets to enable further optimization w.r.t input images for both plane geometry and textures, which is not easy for point or mesh representations (optimization could break the planar structure).
3. Better generalization without dataset-specific training: Our method can operate without the need for training on specific datasets, leading to better generalization across various datasets. In contrast, AirPlanes needs to be trained (especially the plane embedding) with datasets, which may limit its applicability to diverse scenarios without further fine-tuning.
4. Complementary contributions: The main contribution of AirPlanes, embedding grouping, is orthogonal to our approach. Planar embeddings could serve as a similarity measurement and be integrated into our merging stage, suggesting exciting possibilities for future research. | Summary: The paper presents a light-weight 3D scene representation, which utilizes oriented 2D rectangles in 3D space with associated 2D texture and alpha maps (AlphaTablets).
For the task of 3D indoor scene reconstruction and 3D plane decomposition from multi-view posed RGB images (keyframes of a monocular video), the method uses off-the-shelf depth estimation, normal prediction and super-pixel segmentation on each image to initialize a set of the proposed AlphaTablets in 3D space: Each predicted superpixel segment is backprojected to 3D using the predicted, averaged depth of the segment and the known camera information. The orientation, size and texture of the rectangle are initialized based to the predicted, averaged normals, the bounding box of the superpixel and its color, respectively.
These AlphaTablets are then optimized using differentiable rendering and iteratively merged into larger entities.
The differentiable rendering considers the transparency, the merging strategy employs several constraints.
Following baseline evaluation protocols, the paper outperforms current baseline methods on 3D plane segmentation metrics and several evaluated 3D geometry reconstruction metrics on the ScanNet validation set.
The paper shows that the proposed method allows for texture-based scene edits.
Strengths: The paper presents a light-weight 3D scene representation combining oriented, textured 2D rectangles with an additional alpha mask. The representation and method (initialization and optimization) are described clearly. Figure 2 clearly depicts (most of) the inputs to the system and gives a good overview of the method. The optimization terms seem to be well thought out and ablated.
The approach also quantitatively outperforms baselines methods on several 3D metrics.
Weaknesses: - The descriptions of the newly evaluated baseline methods (Metric3D, SuGaR) (L267-271) is very brief and incomplete, which makes it difficult to understand how they were adapted to the specific scenario, including a description of the Seq-RANSAC setup. Additionally, a reference in the text should be added to indicate that quantitative results of the other baselines were taken from PlaneRecon [49].
- Geometric evaluation: Following the evaluation of Atlas [30], to assess the geometry reconstruction quality, 3D points are sampled both on the ground truth mesh and the prediction. However, given that the proposed method employs alpha masks on the rectangles, it is unclear how points are sampled, i.e., does the point sampling considers the alpha mask? If not, this would lead to an inconsistency between the visible geometry and the evaluated geometry (points are sampled on the rectangles).
- While I appreciate the fact that authors included a video to visualize some of the results, the results look quite blurry in several areas of the reconstructions (the telephone in the desk, the borders of geometry). Could the authors discuss these results in more detail?
Minor:
- In Fig. 2 it would be helpful to indicate that for the backprojection also the keyframe's camera information is being used.
- Worth adding related work: Huang et al. 3DLite: Towards Commodity 3D Scanning for Content Creation (TOG, 2017)
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - The qualitative results of SuGaR look surprisingly bad, can the authors please explain the setup of this baseline in more detail, especially the number of views used? Is it possible to use the proposed AlphaTablet initialization method (backprojected superpixels segments) for the 2D Gaussians in SuGaR?
- Given that the optimization takes 2 hours per scene, (compared to 5sec and 60sec of PlanarRecon and NeuralRecon) it would be interesting to see a break down of the time budget, whether it is spend on the differentiable rendering, merging stage (KNN lookup), or due the evaluation of a large number of constraints on potentially many samples.
- After two tablets are merged, what is the assigned camera ray the newly merged tabled is allowed to optimize its distance to the camera ray?
- A plot of the number of tablets over the course of the optimization/merging would be worth including to get a sense of the magnitude of optimized elements.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The paper addresses some of its limitations. However, a discussion about the method's runtime and suggestions on how to improve it would be interesting.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for the comments. All responses below will be put into revision.
**[W1:Baseline setup]**
Thanks and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify:
1. Seq-RANSAC: For 3D volume-based methods including Atlas, NeuralRecon, PlanarRecon, and Metric3D with TSDF fusion, we followed PlanarRecon to use their enhanced version of Seq-RANSAC. We refer to PlanarRecon for detailed descriptions.
For point-based methods such as SuGaR, since PlanarRecon’s Seq-RANSAC requires 3D TSDF volume as inputs and cannot be easily adapted to points or meshes, we use the classical vanilla Seq-RANSAC, which iteratively applies RANSAC to fit planes. Here we used Open3D plane RANSAC implementation https://www.open3d.org/docs/latest/tutorial/Basic/pointcloud.html#Plane-segmentation for each iteration. The hyper-parameters are carefully tuned for optimal performance.
2. Metric3D: We used the official Metric3D v2 implementation and pre-trained weights (v2-g) from https://github.com/YvanYin/Metric3D. The Metric3D is run on each keyframe to get depth maps, followed by TSDF fusion (widely adopted implementation from https://github.com/andyzeng/tsdf-fusion-python) to fuse into 3D volume. Finally, PlanarRecon’s Seq-RANSAC is applied to the 3D TSDF volume to get the planar results.
3. SuGaR: We adopted the original implementation from https://github.com/Anttwo/SuGaR. During the COLMAP pre-processing, we feed ground-truth camera poses into the pipeline, which provides better initial sparse points. After optimization, SuGaR outputs the mesh model, and we uniformly sampled 100k surface points and applied vanilla Seq-RANSAC on top of sampled points to get the 3D planar results.
We will include these details and add references in the revision to indicate that quantitative results for other baselines were taken from PlanerRecon.
**[W2:Geometric evaluation with alpha mask]**
To clarify, our point sampling process considers the alpha mask during evaluation. Specifically, we first perform a weight check (as described in Appendix Sec.A.1) using alpha channels to mask out transparent or unseen regions from all views. Then we follow the PlanarRecon to convert the remaining visible plane regions into mesh using Delaunay triangulation. Points are then evenly sampled on this generated mesh. We refer to PlanarRecon for more details.
**[W3:blurry results]**
Since our method focuses on reconstructing 3D planar surfaces, it has limitations when dealing with geometrically complex, non-planar regions, as discussed in the limitation section. Also, our current AlphaTablets do not consider view-dependent effects, leading to visual quality affected. As a potential solution, the introduction of a hybrid representation that combines our planar AlphaTablets with other methods, such as 3D Gaussians, may be promising for representing complex, non-planar geometries, which we will discuss in future work in the revision.
**[W4,5:figure&related work]**
Thanks and we will revise the text as suggested.
**[Q1:Details and init of SuGaR baseline]**
We appreciate the opportunity to provide more details on our setup and results:
- Baseline Setup: We utilized all available views when training SuGaR. We adopted the official implementation, and enhanced COLMAP sparse reconstruction with ground-truth camera poses, which provides better initial sparse points.
- Performance discussion: The ScanNet dataset presents significant challenges like numerous blurry and textureless regions, which are especially problematic for Gaussian-based methods like SuGaR when reconstructing clear geometry. Also, SuGaR heavily relies on COLMAP reconstruction to initialize, but the COLMAP reconstruction on ScanNet is sometimes noisy, affecting the final performance.
- Initialization Experiment: We experiment on our ablation subset to compare the COLMAP initialization with Metric3D’s dense depth-based initialization similar to our method. For Metric3D init, we use the same keyframes as our method and randomly sample a total of 100,000 points as initial points. The results are shown in the table:
| Method | FScore | VOI | RI | SC |
| ------------------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- |
| SuGaR+COLMAP Init | 0.300 | 5.759 | 0.797 | 0.090 |
| SuGaR+Metric3D Init | 0.326 | 5.670 | 0.789 | 0.102 |
| Ours | **0.456** | **3.466** | **0.944** | **0.284** |
The Metric3D init method does indeed enhance the reconstruction quality of SuGaR (qualitative results in Fig.1 in attached PDF file), but the overall reconstruction quality remains constrained, with noticeable jitter and challenges in accurately delineating planar regions, leading to an inferior performance to our approach.
**[Q2:breakdown of time budget]**
Please refer to response to **W1 of reviewer Ku7J**.
**[Q3:Tablet-camera assignment]**
To clarify, (1) we maintain affiliations between the initial tablets and the current (merged) tablets (as stated in Sec A.1); (2) We keep track of the camera index that initially generated each initial tablet; (3) When tablets are merged, we count the number of each camera indices corresponding to all affiliated initial tablets, and assign the most frequently occurring camera to the newly merged tablet. We will include these details in the revision.
**[Q4:tablet number plot]**
Thank you for the great suggestion. We plot the numbers in Fig.3 of the attached PDF file. The number of tablets decreases rapidly in the early merging stages and gradually converges into several hundreds. Notably, the final tablets contain a large portion of small tablets representing non-planar regions, while the primary planar scene structure is adequately represented with fewer tablets.
**[Limitations]**
Thanks and we will revise the paper with a detailed runtime analysis and potential improvements as discussed above.
Once again, we thank the reviewer for the valuable comments that helps improve our paper. | Summary: The paper presents a novel scene representation, AlphaTablets, for planar scene reconstruction. AlphaTablets are bounded plains with a texture map and an alpha channel, which can be optimized through a differentiable rendering scheme. By applying conventional photometric losses with regularization, AlphaTablets can be directly fit to posed monocular videos. Experiments show that the proposed method outperforms existing planar reconstruction baselines. Further, due to the texture map representation of AlphaTablets, they can be used to edit planar regions in 3D scenes.
Strengths: 1. Representing scenes with planar structures has many important applications in AR/VR. Despite the importance however, there aren't many papers directly tackling the problem (compared to papers solving related problems such novel view synthesis). The paper proposes a simple yet effective representation to perform 3D planar reconstruction, which I believe can foster further interest in the community for future research.
2. Quantitative evaluations are conducted with a proper set of baselines, and the results suggest that the proposed pipeline effectively outperforms the tested baselines.
3. The downstream application on 3D scene editing is interesting, and seems to have potential adaptations for AR/VR services.
4. The writing is clear to follow. The training scheme presented in Section 3.3 is straightforward and intuitive, quite akin to training procedures used for NeRFs or Gaussian splats. This is a rather good aspect in my opinion: because it indicates that the proposed AlphaTablets representation is effective on its own and does not require any significant modifications in the training setup for successful 3D reconstruction.
Weaknesses: Overall I find the paper to propose a solid solution to 3D planar reconstruction. I only have a few minor suggestions.
1. Currently, the notion of 'rasterization layers' is not clearly stated in Section 3.2. I suggest improving Figure 1 to show how multiple layers of AlphaTablets are composed to render each pixels in an image.
2. The captions of figures lack information. The paper would be easier to follow if each figure was accompanied with a more detailed caption. For example, Figure 1 could elaborate more on what 'up vectors' are, or what 'distance ratios' in the figure means.
3. What is the size of the resulting AlphaTablets representation? One of the benefits of 3D planar representations is the low storage cost. I wonder if AlphaTablets are sufficiently light-weight in terms of storage.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Please refer to the weaknesses section above.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes the limitations are stated in the main paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for the comments. All responses below will be put into revision.
**[W1: Notion unclear]**
We will revise Figure 1 to include a more intuitive display with 3D effect that demonstrates how multiple layers of AlphaTablets are composed to render each pixel in the final image.
**[W2: Detailed caption for figures]**
We will revise the captions of figures with more details and comprehensive explanations.
**[W3: Tablet Storage]**
As a 3D planar representation, AlphaTablets are designed to be lightweight. For example, the demo scene requires only 20MB storage, including all the texture maps in a lossless PNG format. Similar to mesh, advanced techniques such as texture atlas and compression can also be applied to further improve the storage efficiency.
Once again, we thank the reviewer for the valuable comments that helps improve our paper.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the response. I will keep my initial rating. | null | null | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Please see the attached PDF file for figures and captions.
Pdf: /pdf/9b1303a22c6ef677088f2582d82503092dc52575.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Revisiting Ensembling in One-Shot Federated Learning | Accept (poster) | Summary: This work proposes a one-shot federated learning method where, instead of simply aggregating the models at the end of training, a non-linear ensemble of the (frozen) models is trained with an iterative federated learning method. In other words, after training the models locally, the server trains a shallow neural network that takes the logits of all the models as input and outputs the aggregated output. This approach is feasible in the cross-silo setting. The experiments show that it can be significantly better than SOTA one-shot methods and it can sometimes approach the performance of full federated averaging (i.e., with multiple rounds of aggregation).
Strengths: - The approach is simple yet highly efficient in the heterogenous cross-silo settings, as shown in Figure 2.
- The paper is well-written and the experiments cover most of the interesting cases.
- The authors share the code for reproducing the results, which further improves the quality of the submission. The code itself is well written and reproducibility is made easy given the clear instructions.
- The results are demonstrated on various datasets, including real-world health data.
- The discussion regarding client unlearning is interesting and does show a desirable strength in the proposed method.
- The authors clearly mention the limitations and propose future directions to explore and mitigate some of the issues.
Weaknesses: The contribution of the paper is a bit limited in terms of technical novelty. I will not base my rating on novelty alone, of course. However, the technical details of the method are a bit straightforward and not new (e.g., the authors mention Stacked Generalization by Wolpert (1992)). Nonetheless, I will try to be fair and rate this paper's contribution in terms of its effectiveness and (reproducible) experimental results, which can be as important as technical novelty.
- Collecting the logits of all clients for every forward pass of the ensemble is not elegant, especially given the memory and computational costs. The authors do acknowledge this limitation and offer some directions to mitigate this, but they still do not offer a pratical solution that scales well. The authors mentioned quantization but did not share any preliminary findings or insights. I think running experiments where some clients are sampled every round of training the ensemble is straightfoward to implement, so it would be interesting to see that. Also, how would you concatenate the logits?
- It might be somewhat fair to compare with one or two personalized FL algorithms, since the proposed method already assumes a large memory budget per client, so such clients in the cross-silo setting are also quite likely to be able to maintain some state (or at least, have the server maintain it for them).
- Another intuitive thing to compare to is split learning methods, where some of the layers are trained with iterative FL methods, and the others are kept local. These methods might be able to reach similar accuracies with a more feasible memory and computational budget.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - Does the communication cost comparison in Figure 2 assume quantization? If so, does the communication cost for the iterative FL methods also use quantization?
- The performances reported in Appendix D are impressive, but Table 15 (Fed-ISIC2019) shows a limitation/non-robustness of one-shot methods on a real-world dataset. Why do you think the gap here is large?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors adequately addressed the limitations. There are no negative societal impacts associated with the proposed method.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their positive feedback and constructive comments. We address the reviewer's questions below.
--------------
> Q. Does the communication cost comparison in Figure 2 assume quantization? If so, does the communication cost for the iterative FL methods also use quantization?
$\rightarrow$ Yes, FENS is presented with quantization in Figure 2.
While the iterative FL baseline (FedAdam) in Figure 2 does not use quantization, we have included the relevant baseline with quantization, called FedAvg STC in Figure 4.
The quantization in FedAvg STC results in an accuracy drop compared to FedAdam.
--------------
> Q. The performances reported in Appendix D are impressive, but Table 15 (Fed-ISIC2019) shows a limitation/non-robustness of one-shot methods on a real-world dataset. Why do you think the gap here is large?
$\rightarrow$ This gap can be explained through the quality of local models in case of the FedISIC2019 dataset together with our experimental results from Section 3.3.1.
Our experiments in Section 3.3.1 show that local data size plays a key role in determining when FENS can match the performance of iterative FL.
The FedISIC2019 dataset, in particular, exhibits high variance in the amount of local data held by the clients, and consequently their local model performance.
As reported in Table 3 (Appendix A), the biggest client has 12k samples while the smallest client has only 225 samples.
Thus, we speculate that the FedISIC2019 dataset falls in the low local training fraction regime of the curves in Fig. 5, exhibiting a larger gap compared to iterative FL.
--------------
> Collecting the logits of all clients for every forward pass of the ensemble is not elegant, especially given the memory and computational costs. The authors do acknowledge this limitation and offer some directions to mitigate this, but they still do not offer a practical solution that scales well.
$\rightarrow$ We currently use FP32 to INT8 quantization to mitigate this issue (Appendix B.3).
This reduces the costs by $4\times$.
An alternative and complementary approach is to consider an ensemble such that the total size is comparable to the single model trained in iterative FL.
Preliminary results indicate that under a comparable memory footprint, FENS still remains competitive with the original FedAdam.
We will include the complete ablation in our revised version.
--------------
> I think running experiments where some clients are sampled every round of training the ensemble is straightforward to implement, so it would be interesting to see that. How would you concatenate the logits?
$\rightarrow$ This is indeed a highly relevant suggestion.
We explored sampling clients each round by setting logits from non-sampled models to zero in the concatenated vector.
Additionally, we also tried learning mask tokens that fill for non-sampled logits.
Preliminary results show an accuracy drop under high heterogeneity, likely because each model’s contribution is significant in such scenarios.
To improve performance, a more sophisticated logit concatenation method may be required.
--------------
> On suggested comparison to personalized FL baselines and Split Learning.
$\rightarrow$ We thank the reviewer for their insightful suggestions.
We agree that Split Learning might help make the computational budget more feasible.
In FENS, we focus on simultaneously achieving OFL-like communication efficiency and FL-like accuracy.
In this sense, the objectives of Split Learning and personalized FL slightly differ for a direct comparison.
Personalized FL focuses on individual client accuracy, while FENS targets global data accuracy.
Similarly, Split Learning reduces computational burden, whereas FENS prioritizes communication efficiency.
We believe that both these paradigms can be orthogonally explored within FENS and are keen on exploring these aspects in future work.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for your response. I think it would be interesting to see whether such a sophisticated logit concatenation method exists or not. I also agree with Reviewer zQJt that evaluations on data with more complex heterogeneities would be nice to see.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response and constructive comments in these busy hours. We are grateful for your feedback and look forward to exploring these aspects in our future work. | Summary: This paper introduces FENS, a One-shot FL (OL) approach with the aim of improving the globl model's accuracy without significantly increasing the communication cost of canonical OFL. Different from existing OFL methods, FENS employs and iteratively trains a prediction aggregator model stacked on top of the local model ensemble.
Strengths: - The method is easy to reproduce without requiring addtional training data on the server.
- Extensive experiments were performed to showcase the claimed performance from multiple aspects.
Weaknesses: - Lack of theoretical analysis to ground the design of the proposed method.
- FENS requires dispatching the whole set of local models to every client in the system, which raises privacy concerns.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: 1. How to determine the best number of iterations for the aggregator model?
2. How is the MoE method implemented over the local model ensemble? Why did it incur such a high cost?
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 2
Limitations: As mentioned in the Weaknesses section.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their positive feedback and comments. We address the reviewer's questions below.
--------------
> Q. How to determine the best number of iterations for the aggregator model?
$\rightarrow$ This is determined as in standard FL schemes by stopping when the validation loss has converged or validation accuracy is not improving further.
--------------
> Q. How is the MoE method implemented over the local model ensemble? Why did it incur such a high cost?
$\rightarrow$ MoE aggregation involves both the input and the logits in the following form: $f(x)=\sum_{i \in [M]}G(x)\_i\pi_i(x)$. Here, $G: \mathcal{X} \rightarrow [0,1]^M$ is the gating network that generates scalar weights for every expert $[\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_M]$ based on the input $x \in \mathcal{X}$.
In FENS with MoE aggregation, only the gating network is trained via the federation while $[\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_M]$ correspond to the (frozen) locally trained client models.
For the gating network, we employ a CNN with two convolutional blocks, followed by two fully connected layers and a final classification head.
Since the gating model has several layers, it incurs a bigger communication overhead of iterative transfers as compared to just an MLP based shallow aggregator (called NN aggregator) in Fig. 7.
We also tried using smaller models, however these resulted in accuracy deterioration.
We have included the MoE training details in Appendix B.4.
--------------
> Lack of theoretical analysis to ground the design of the proposed method.
$\rightarrow$ We acknowledge that deriving a formal theoretical explanation for our empirical findings is an interesting and valuable research direction.
However, as briefly discussed in Section 2.2, our algorithm is motivated by the study of stacked generalization [1] in the centralized ensemble literature.
It has been demonstrated that such stacking of models leads to higher-level models correcting for the biases of lower-level models in the stack, thereby improving overall generalization performance.
While stacked generalization has been primarily studied in centralized setting, through FENS, we demonstrate that this scheme can be efficiently realized under the communication constraints of FL through our novel two-phase training procedure.
--------------
> Dispatching the whole ensemble to clients raises privacy concerns.
$\rightarrow$
We agree that privacy is an important concern.
We would like to note however that FENS still does not require the clients to transfer their local data but only their fully trained models.
Exploring how to ensure that these model exchanges do not leak information about the data is of independent interest, and could have applications in various FL contexts.
While we leave an in-depth exploration for future work, we believe that existing privacy schemes could be directly incorporated into FENS.
For instance, local model training can be done using differentially private SGD [2], thereby ensuring differential privacy of local data despite the sharing of the local models.
Similarly, the aggregator training can be conducted via a differentially private FL algorithm [3].
We will include this discussion in our revised version.
--------------
[1] David H. Wolpert. Stacked generalization. Neural Networks, 5(2):241–259, 1992.
[2] Abadi, Martin, et al. "Deep learning with differential privacy." Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security. 2016.
[3] Noble, Maxence, et al. "Differentially Private Federated Learning on Heterogeneous Data". Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS). 2022. | Summary: This paper proposes a 2-phase mechanism for learning models across clients in federated learning settings with minimal communication. The method, FENS, first uses a one-shot communication to learn copies of a base model across clients' local data. It then uses standard iterative FL approaches to learn a smaller "aggregator model", which aggregates some output across the base models.
The authors provide experiments on FENS, comparing it to one-shot approaches and iterative approaches to FL. Generally, their results show that FENS is superior to other methods when judged in accordance with the total amount of communication, and can also achieve higher accuracy (essentially via ensembling) than other methods with reduced total communication.
Strengths: I think this is a well-written paper. The authors are very clear about how the method operates, how it fits into the greater landscape of FL methods, and their experiments are similarly quite clear in execution.
Of course, the core of the work (and content-wise, most of the work) is in the empirical evaluation of FENS. There are a lot of laudable qualities to their empirical analysis. First, I like that the authors compare FENS to one-shot & iterative methods separately. The metrics of interest are different between these settings, and I think it's important to perform different analyses in such cases. I also appreciated the fact that the authors explicitly do not try to claim that FENS is optimal for every settings - the ablation study in Section 3.3.1 is a really good and honest one, that tries to understand the utility of FENS if accuracy is the predominating concern, not communication-effiicency.
I also really appreciated the use of the FLamby benchmark. Synthetically partitioned datasets like CIFAR are only of limited utility in evaluating methods, and the FLamby benchmark is a great choice for datasets that have inherent, realistic forms of heterogeneity. In fact, I think that FLamby would make a stronger benchmark for the other ablation studies (though more on that below).
Last, I really liked Section 3.5. I think the comparisons between FENS and things like mixture-of-experts is a natural thing to consider, and I found this section intriguing enough that I actually wish it were explored more.
Weaknesses: There are some weaknesses to the paper, though I would consider them more as opportunities for improvement. In case it was not obvious from my assessment of the strengths, I think this is a good paper and should be accepted. I break these areas up separately below.
### Limitations of synthetically partitioned datasets & vision datasets
Most of the experiments in this work are on SVHN, CIFAR-10, and CIFAR-100. While these are often used in federated learning research, they are quite limiting. The heterogeneity you are able to study with them is generally limited to label heterogeneity (e.g. due to the Dirichlet mechanism employed). This is only one type of heterogeneity, and generally these tasks are still simpler than realistic, very heterogeneous datasets. FLamby is a great example of realistic heterogeneity, but there are other such datasets, including iNaturalist, GLD-v2, and FLAIR. I think that these would constitute stronger benchmarks for the work.
Second, I will note that FENS does not specifically require vision tasks. Especially when considering analogies to the mixture-of-experts literature, it is not clear to me why there is no evaluation on a language model task. Language datasets often exhibit interesting heterogeneity and challenge in optimization.
### Trimming Sections 1 & 2 and expanding other discussions
To be honest, I think that Sections 1 & 2 are somewhat repetitive, and span nearly 3.5 pages before any of the actual content of the work comes to bear. The contributions section itself is more than half a page, and Figure 1 does not give any real insight into FENS that isn't already in the text.
By contrast, the actual discussion of the aggregator model architecture is in need of expanding. For example, what architectures would actually be useful for an aggregator model? Why use a 2-layer ReLU network? Could you instead view the client models as a large "backbone model" and view the entire combination of backbone + aggregator as a large model? What happens if you train this large model directly? These are all examples of questions that I think are not addressed, and would be much more interesting than repeating the details of FENS multiple times.
### Considering other system metrics & ablations
The primary metric of interest in this work is total communication. This is a perfectly reasonable metric, but it does obscure other metrics of interest. For example, and as is briefly hinted at in Section 4, FENS incurs a large overhead in terms of server memory as it stores all client models separately. By contrast, the iterative FL methods train a single base model. This means that FENS' memory overhead is more than $M\times$ as much (where $M$ is the number of clients).
What would happen if we equalized server memory usage, so that FENS' base model would be smaller? What happens if we enlarge the models trained by methods like FedAdam? For that matter, what if we measure total client computation, instead of communication costs? Some of these are interesting questions that can actually be answered in part by simply taking a different view of the experiments the authors have already performed. I think that giving these ablations would be hugely interesting, and make the paper much better.
Note that this dovetails with the limitation above - that Sections 1 & 2 are too long. By contrast, Appendix C is interesting, and should probably be added to the main body.
### Data minimization and privacy
One drawback of FENS that is not really discussed (except in L333) is its lack of compatibility with privacy-preserving technologies. The separate one-shot trained base models are stored separately. This means that techniques like differential privacy are not directly compatible. This is a sever weakness of the method. While I don't think it means the paper isn't interesting, I think it should be discussed. Are there potential future directions that could help avoid this issue? Given the fact that FL is predicated on data minimization & privacy, I think some more up front discussion about this would be useful.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. How do the results in Figures 2 and 4 change if we instead consider total client computation instead?
1. Why does the MoE approach to aggregation require such a large communication overhead? Can't the size of the dense layers used for routing be tuned?
1. What happens if you apply a method like FedAdam to a model whose total size is comparable to the total FENS model size?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The checklist is adequate.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for their positive assessment of our work and the suggestions for improvements.
We address the reviewer's questions below.
-----------------
> Q. Why does the MoE approach to aggregation require such a large communication overhead? Can't the size of the dense
layers used for routing be tuned?
$\rightarrow$ Yes, we considered tuning the size of the routing network.
We had experimented with models of various sizes, and observed that smaller models cause a deterioration in accuracy.
Our current setup employs a CNN with two convolutional blocks, followed by two fully connected layers and a final classification head (Appendix B.4). This configuration achieves a reasonable balance between accuracy and communication overhead.
Since the routing network needs to process images as input, it must be a reasonably sized CNN.
Consequently, this results in a larger communication overhead compared to using a shallow MLP-based aggregator (referred to as the NN aggregator in Fig. 7), which processes concatenated logits.
-----------------
> Q. What happens if you apply a method like FedAdam to a model whose total size is comparable to the total FENS model
size?
$\rightarrow$ This is an interesting ablation.
We evaluated this suggestion by downsizing client local models such that the total size of FENS approximately matches the size of the single model in FedAdam.
Preliminary results indicate that under a comparable memory footprint, FENS still remains competitive with the original FedAdam.
On the other hand, using the downsized model for FedAdam induces an accuracy drop.
We will include the complete ablation in the revised version of our paper.
-----------------
> Q. How do the results in Figures 2 and 4 change if we instead consider total client computation instead?
$\rightarrow$ There is indeed a trade-off here and we expect the client computation cost of FENS to be the highest in Fig. 2.
This can be seen as the cost of FENS in providing OFL-like communication efficiency and FL-like accuracy which are its primary metrics of interest.
-----------------
> On the limitations of synthetically partitioned and vision datasets.
$\rightarrow$ We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of our use of the FLamby benchmark. We are keen on extending our empirical analysis with a language dataset and will incorporate this in the revised version of the paper.
-----------------
> On trimming Sections 1 and 2 and including other ablations.
$\rightarrow$ Thank you for the suggestion. We will shrink the first two sections to enable the inclusion of Appendix C and above ablation in the main body of our revised paper.
-----------------
> On expanding the discussion on privacy.
$\rightarrow$
Privacy is indeed an important concern and we believe that existing privacy schemes could be directly incorporated into FENS.
One approach could be to perform client local training using differentially private SGD [1].
Thus each client can provide a differentially private local model for the ensemble.
Similarly, the aggregator training could be conducted via a differentially private FL algorithm [2].
As suggested by the reviewer, we will include a discussion of potential directions in our revised paper.
-----------------
[1] Abadi, Martin, et al. "Deep learning with differential privacy." Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security. 2016.
[2] Noble, Maxence, et al. "Differentially Private Federated Learning on Heterogeneous Data". Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS). 2022. | Summary: This paper focuses on the one-shot federated learning with the model ensembling to assist the model aggregation. Specifically, after only one-round of model uploading, the authors provide a new aggregator based on a shallow neural network for the global model. The performance indicates that the proposed method has good potential in the one-shot FL setups.
Strengths: 1. One-shot FL is a very practical scenario in real-world setups, and it has not been richly discussed yet.
2. The usage of the Flamby evaluation datasets is very novel and very close to the real setups.
3. The proposed method is easy to implement and very efficient in communication cost.
Weaknesses: 1. The paper lacks several strong baselines in the experiment. Even though the paper focuses on the one-shot FL setups, the design of FENS is very close to the knowledge-distillation-based FL methods, such as FedGKD [1] and Fed-ET [2]. The paper should include them in the evaluation baseline to see whether the proposed FENS could provide SOTA performance. The selected FedKD is a relatively old baseline from which to compare.
2. I suggest expanding the ablation study to discuss the effect of server training in FENS. I noticed that FENS needs to apply global data for training on the server side, which is a very strong setup. I suggest the author elaborate on the impact of the usage of public data.
3. Following my previous point, the usage of public data is sometimes infeasible in the real-world FL setup. In the experiment setup, the author selected proxy data by splitting the original train data. It is a very strong setup. The previous study [2] used the same setups in the paper, but it at least does some distortion to simulate the proxy data coming from a different source. As a result, I feel inconvincible to the
effect of FENS as the server has access to a portion of training data.
[1]. He, Chaoyang et al. “Group Knowledge Transfer: Federated Learning of Large CNNs at the Edge.” arXiv: Learning (2020): n. pag.
[2]. Cho, Yae Jee et al. “Heterogeneous Ensemble Knowledge Transfer for Training Large Models in Federated Learning.” International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2022).
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. I am curious about how "Revisiting" is discussed in the paper. I do not see any revisiting part in the writing.
2. I suggest the author to list a pseudo-algorithm in the Section 2 to let the audience better understand the proposed method.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Please refer to the Weakness part.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 3
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for the feedback and insightful comments. We noticed that there was a confusion regarding the usage of public dataset in our algorithm. We also noticed that most of the identified weaknesses seem to arise from this confusion. Below, we clarify our algorithm design and address the reviewer's questions.
--------------------
> On the usage of public dataset at the server.
$\rightarrow$ Our method does not rely on any public dataset.
In FENS, the data remains decentralized throughout.
In the second phase of the algorithm, FENS trains the shallow aggregator model via standard FL (lines 131-139).
We are happy to provide further details or address any additional questions.
--------------------
> On the lack of strong baselines such as Fed-ET [1] and FedGKT [2].
$\rightarrow$ In light of the above clarification, we do not consider Fed-ET [1] since it is an iterative FL method that relies on the usage of public data.
Similarly, we do not compare to FedGKT [2] since it is an iterative algorithm that focuses on reducing the computational burden of edge clients.
Hence, the objectives and design of the suggested baselines differ from that of FENS.
In particular, FENS focuses on simultaneously achieving OFL-like communication efficiency and FL-like accuracy.
Accordingly, we have considered 5 one-shot baselines and 6 iterative FL baselines that are more relevant to FENS.
We will further clarify our choices in the paper.
--------------------
> Q. I am curious about how "Revisiting" is discussed in the paper. I do not see any revisiting part in the writing.
$\rightarrow$ Ensembling has been studied in OFL prior to our work, and we revisit this concept by applying it in a different and more powerful way.
Unlike existing methods, FENS employs a shallow aggregator model atop locally trained client models, thereby generalizing traditional aggregation functions.
By introducing a novel two-phase training procedure, which keeps data decentralized, FENS significantly improves accuracy while maintaining low communication costs.
We will further clarify the "revisiting" aspect in our paper.
--------------------
> Q. I suggest the author to list a pseudo-algorithm in the Section-2 to let the audience better understand the proposed
method.
$\rightarrow$ Thank you for the suggestion. We will do so in the final version of the paper.
--------------------
[1] Cho, Yae Jee et al. “Heterogeneous Ensemble Knowledge Transfer for Training Large Models in Federated Learning.”
International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2022).
[2] He, Chaoyang et al. “Group Knowledge Transfer: Federated Learning of Large CNNs at the Edge.” arXiv: Learning (2020):
n. pag.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: ```
On the lack of strong baselines such as Fed-ET [1] and FedGKT [2].
```
I do not think the author's response clarifies my concerns. The baseline selection in the paper is very weak and could not represent the state-of-the-art performance. For the 6 iterative FL baselines, they are actually different aggregation functions. For the one-shot baselines, you select FedKD, which is also a knowledge distillation-based method that is similar to your setups. However, the FedKD is a 2022 paper, so why did the author not select the recent Fed-ET to compare? Fed-ET shares the same setup as FedKD, so why FedKD could be considered as a one-shot FL baseline but Fed-ET could only be considered as an iterative FL method which is out of the topic?
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: > Fed-ET shares the same setup as FedKD, so why FedKD could be considered as a one-shot FL baseline but Fed-ET could only be considered as an iterative FL method which is out of the topic?
$\rightarrow$ As suggested by the reviewer, we have conducted the experiments for Fed-ET and present the results below. Fed-ET, through its advanced aggregation involving weighted consensus and diversity regularization, demonstrates a notable performance improvement over FedENS, which relies on simple averaging. In comparison, Fed-ET and FedKD achieve similar performance, as both employ weighted aggregation.
However, our method FENS still achieves the highest accuracy due to its powerful trainable aggregator stacked atop the ensemble.
We will add these results to our revised paper.
We hope that these additional results address the reviewer's last remaining concern about our submission. Since we had addressed all other issues in our previous response, we would be thankful if the reviewer could reconsider the score accordingly.
| Method | α | FedENS | FedKD | Fed-ET | FENS |
|--------|------|----------------|---------------|---------------|-------------------------|
| CF-100 | 0.01 | 16.59 $\pm$ 2.07 | 28.98 $\pm$ 4.55 | 20.37 $\pm$ 1.53 | **44.46** $\pm$ **0.31** |
| | 0.05 | 20.56 $\pm$ 3.51 | 39.01 $\pm$ 1.11 | 33.20 $\pm$ 1.34 | **49.70** $\pm$ **0.86** |
| | 0.1 | 27.41 $\pm$ 2.71 | 42.38 $\pm$ 0.78 | 38.53 $\pm$ 1.04 | **51.11** $\pm$ **0.37** |
| CF-10 | 0.01 | 15.66 $\pm$ 6.11 | 18.59 $\pm$ 2.92 | 16.94 $\pm$ 7.88 | **44.20** $\pm$ **3.29** |
| | 0.05 | 39.56 $\pm$ 6.33 | 38.84 $\pm$ 6.03 | 37.51 $\pm$ 2.87 | **68.22** $\pm$ **4.19** |
| | 0.1 | 48.40 $\pm$ 9.01 | 64.14 $\pm$ 5.17 | 47.06 $\pm$ 2.31 | **75.61** $\pm$ **1.85** |
| SVHN | 0.01 | 20.31 $\pm$ 3.49 | 23.62 $\pm$ 10.1 | 12.63 $\pm$ 6.23 | **57.35** $\pm$ **12.6** |
| | 0.05 | 38.91 $\pm$ 7.28 | 37.41 $\pm$ 9.62 | 41.14 $\pm$ 6.66 | **76.76** $\pm$ **2.98** |
| | 0.1 | 51.99 $\pm$ 7.85 | 61.38 $\pm$ 3.90 | 58.91 $\pm$ 2.81 | **83.64** $\pm$ **0.75** | | null | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Performative Control for Linear Dynamical Systems | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper presents the new framework of performative control based on the performantive prediction concept. The performative stable control (PSC) problem is formulated and its solvability conditions are derived. This paper also presents the algorithm of finding the PSC solution and addresses the convergence analysis.
Strengths: The concept of performative control is nicely motivated in Introduction. The control policy, design method, and convergence analysis are stated mathematically rigorously.
Weaknesses: The disturbance-action policy defined in Definition 1 implicitly assumes that the disturbance w is measurable. This assumption is practically severe and limits the application of the control policy.
The results of this paper rely heavily on the performative prediction results from the work [22]. Under many practically severe assumptions, the authors provide a new control policy and convergence analysis.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: The assumption that the disturbance w is available for determining the control action u, is practically severe. Could the authors relax the assumption?
Lemma 4, the convergence condition, is technically correct. However, the reviewer cannot find any interpretation of the condition (11). Could you give some remarks on the interpretation?
The reviewer cannot agree the statement of Introduction, "Most prior studies on control of linear dynamical systems rely on the key assumption that the system state transition model is static". The pioneering works on state-space-based theory by R. E. Kalman, published 1960, handle time-varying system, meaning the transition is time-dependent. Could you give more surveys on classical control problems?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 1
Limitations: The limitations of the proposed control policy such as measurable disturbance and perfect modeling on the state transition are not adequately stated in this paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 3
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your work in reviewing our manuscript, and for providing thorough feedback. We address your concerns as follows.
**Weaknesses:**
**[W1] "The disturbance-action policy...":** We want to clarify that the reviewer has a misunderstanding regarding the measuring of disturbance $\mathbf{w}\_{t}.$
The measuring of the disturbance $\mathbf{w}\_{t}$ is practically not severe and is commonly advocated in the framework of non-stochastic control [1,8,10,11] initiated by Elad Hazan. The methods for measuring $\mathbf{w}\_{t}$ are mature and have been extensively studied for LTI systems with static $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ [1,8,10,11] and LVI systems with time-varying $\mathbf{A}\_{t}$ and $\mathbf{B}\_{t}$ ([Chapter 7, R1]).
The control policy we adopt in our paper is the disturbance-action policy, which is popular and widely used in non-stochastic control applications [1,8,10,11]. There is no application limitation as suggested by the reviewer.
**[W2] "The results of this paper rely heavily...":** We want to clarify that our work does not relies on the results from work [22]. In contrast, compared to [22], our work has totally different convexity assumption and convergence analysis, which are summarized below.
**1. Convexity Assumption**: For the original performative prediction work [22], one can directly assume the objective function $\mathbb{E}[c_{t}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})]$ is $\mu$-strongly convex w.r.t. optimization variable $\mathbf{M}$ (i.e., the disturbance-action policy) **without any problem-specific convexity analysis**.
However, for the convexity in our work, we only have a mild assumption that the per stage cost $c_{t}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})$ is **$\mu$-strongly convex** for the state-action pair $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})$. We provide rigorous theoretical analysis that $\mathbb{E}[c_{t}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})]$ is strongly convex w.r.t. $\mathbf{M}$ and the strongly convex constant is **not $\mu$, but min{$\frac{\mu\sigma^{2}}{2},\frac{\mu\sigma^{2}\gamma^{2}}{64\kappa^{10}}$}** , where $\kappa$ and $\gamma$ are problem-specific parameters related to the dynamical system parameters $\mathbf{A},\mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{K}$. **This is totally different from the results in [22]**.
**2. Convergence Analysis**: To guarantee convergence of our proposed gradient descent algorithm, the designing of the step sizes relies on the problem-specific strongly convex constant min {$\frac{\mu\sigma^{2}}{2},\frac{\mu\sigma^{2}\gamma^{2}}{64\kappa^{10}}$} and the distributional sensitivity temporal propagation and aggregation $\mathbf{M}^{PS}$ existence condition. **These are unique to our performative dynamical systems, and have never been exploited in [22]**.
**Questions:**
**Q1. The assumption that the disturbance w ...?**
A1. As we clarified in the Response to [W1], the measuring of the disturbance $\mathbf{w}\_{t}$ is practically not severe at all, and is commonly advocated in the framework of non-stochastic control [1,8,10,11] initiated by Elad Hazan. The control action $\mathbf{u}\_{t}^{(\mathbf{M})}$ in our paper is the disturbance-action policy, which is also popular and widely used in [1,8,10,11].
**Q2. Lemma 4, the convergence condition...?**
A2. **The interpretation of the condition (11) has already been provided in Line 238 -Line 246 right after condition (11)**. Condition (11) reveals the effects of the sensitivity propagation and aggregation, which are unique to our performative dynamical systems, and have never been exploited in the existing performative prediction works.
**Q3. The reviewer cannot agree the statement ... ?**
A3. Our statement is that **"most prior studies"** consider the static transition model. Of course, there are several
other papers on time-varying transition model, such as the paper suggested
by the reviewer and the papers on jump linear systems [R2, R3], etc. We have included more survey on time-varying transition models.
However, the key message we want to deliver is that the system state
transition model can be changed by control policies has not been considered
in existing literature, either for static or time-varying transition
models. To the best of our knowledge, our paper is the first work
to consider such performative state transition model for linear dynamical
systems.
**Response to Limitation:** We want to clarify that the disturbance-action control policy adopted in our paper is not proposed by us. Instead, it was initiated by Elad Hazan et al. in the framework of non-stochastic control [1,8,10,11]. The methods for measuring $\mathbf{w}\_{t}$ are mature and have been extensively studied in [1,8,10,11]. Particularly, in [R4], the disturbance-action control policy is applied to the case of imperfect modelling on the state transition, where the underlying state transition model is unknown.
[R1]. Hazan E, Singh K. Introduction to online nonstochastic control[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09619, 2022.
[R2]. Zhang L, Leng Y, Colaneri P. Stability and stabilization of discrete-time semi-Markov jump linear systems via semi-Markov kernel approach[J]. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2015, 61(2): 503-508.
[R3]. Cheng J, Xie L, Zhang D, et al. Novel event-triggered protocol to sliding mode control for singular semi-Markov jump systems[J]. Automatica, 2023, 151: 110906.
[R4]. Elad Hazan, Sham M. Kakade, and Karan Singh. The nonstochastic control problem. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory (ALT), pages 408--421, 2020.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Seeking Your Feedback
Comment: Dear Reviewer e5pZ,
We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our submission. We have now provided further clarification, explanation, and discussion to address your concerns. We hope you've had a chance to review them, consider whether our response addresses your concerns, and reevaluate your score accordingly. Please let us know if you have any further questions or need clarification. Thank you very much.
Warmest regards,
Authors
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.2:
Comment: Thanks for the reply comments.
[W1] "The disturbance-action policy..."
The reviewer understands that the problem setting on the measurable disturbance is commonly used in some works (thanks for raising the literature again).
[W2] "The results of this paper rely heavily..."
The reviewer finds some novelty of the work compared with the previous work [22]. However, he/she believes the contribution is insufficient, particularly not enough to be accepted at a high-level conference like NeurIPS.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Key differences between our PP on linear dynamical system and performative prediction results from the work [22]
Comment: As suggested by Reviewer wfwc, we here recap the key differences between our work and the existing PP work [22].
**Original PP work [22]**: We first point out that the original PP does not involve temporal correlated performative sample data in the cost $\mathbb{E}[l(\mathbf{\theta};Z)]$, where all the data samples follow a static distribution $Z\sim\mathcal{D}(\theta).$
**PP on on linear dynamical system (our paper)**: In addition to the **linear-system-dynamics-dependent strong convexity analysis**, the linear dynamic system will introduce a unique challenge
of **temporally correlated performative state sample data $\mathbf{x}\_{t}$
and $\mathbf{u}\_{t}$ in the cost $\mathbb{E}[c\_{t}(\mathbf{x}\_{t},\mathbf{u}\_{t})]$**, which cannot be covered by the above Original PP work [22]. Specifically,
**$\bullet$** The cost $\mathbb{E}[c\_{t}(\mathbf{x}\_{t},\mathbf{u}\_{t})]$ is a function of policy $\mathbf{M},$ the form of which will depend on linear dynamics (i.e., $\mathbf{A},\mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{K}$). As a result, the linear dynamics will directly affect the strongly convex constant of $\mathbb{E}[c\_{t}(\mathbf{x}\_{t},\mathbf{u}\_{t})]$ in $\mathbf{M}$.
**$\bullet$** The primary cause of the temporal correlation of the performative state data sample $(\mathbf{x}\_{t},\mathbf{u}\_{t})$ is also the linear dynamics (i.e., $\mathbf{A},\mathbf{B}$
and $\mathbf{K}$).
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: Dear Reviewer e5pZ,
Thank you for participating in the discussion.
**[W2] "The results of this paper rely heavily..." The reviewer finds some novelty of the work compared with the previous work [22]. However, he/she believes the contribution is insufficient, particularly not enough to be accepted at a high-level conference like NeurIPS.**：
We thank the reviewer's comments. We believe there may be some misunderstandings regarding the contributions of our work.
We summarize some key contributions that distinguish our work from the standard PP work [22].
**$\bullet$ Strong Convexity Analysis**: The standard PP work [22] brute-forcely assumed that the optimization variable is strongly convex in the policy without any problem-specific theoretical analysis. However, in our paper, **we provide a linear-system-dynamics-dependent strong convexity analysis**, which is unique to our performative linear dynamic systems.
**$\bullet$ Stateful vs Non-stateful**: The distribution map in the standard PP work [22] is non-stateful, where all the data samples follow a simple and static distribution $Z\sim\mathcal{D}(\theta).$ However, in our work, **we consider a more complicated stateful performative maps, where observed data distributions depend on the history of previously deployed polices**.
**$\bullet$ Promote understanding of general PP**: Our PP via linear dynamical system modeling is closely connected to the linearized general stateful distribution map in the seminal work of stateful PP [R1]. **Our work allows performative transition maps of performative distributions** and **extends** the technical results of the **fixed performative distribution transition map** in the stateful PP work [R1]. As a result, **our work has potential to enhance the understanding of general performative prediction**.
The above three key differences serve as strong evidence that clearly justifies our contributions and distinguishes our work from standard PP work [22].
[R1]. Gavin Brown, Shlomi Hod, and Iden Kalemaj. Performative prediction in a stateful world. In International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 6045–6061. PMLR, 2022. | Summary: The authors introduce the problem of performative linear control whereby one aims to control the evolution of a linear dynamical system whose dynamics are influenced by the choice of control policy. Apart from defining the problem, they define the concept of a performatively stable controller, extending the definition of performative stability introduced by Perdomo et al for the supervised learning setting. Given their model, their main technical results are results showing existence and uniqueness of a performatively stable controller under specific conditions, and a convergence result that illustrates how repeated stochastic gradient descent will converge to stability in this new setting at a O(1/T) rate.
Strengths: The idea of connecting performative prediction and linear control is very exciting, and to the best of my knowledge novel. I really enjoyed this idea that the very choice of control policy might actively influence the underlying system dynamics, and hence we should start to think about new models that explicitly account for this feedback. The technical results seem solid, although I wasn’t able to go through the proofs line by line. I also enjoyed the insights regarding how sensitivities need to be smaller at the beginning of the time horizon versus at the end.
Weaknesses: While the motivation regarding how control policies might influence the dynamics is exciting, I find that it is quite underdeveloped in the paper. The main illustrative example the authors have is this stock market example. The intuition behind how control policies can affect the dynamics is plausible to me, but I would have liked to see it written out in detail in the main body. The primary exposition of this example is deferred to the appendix and I felt that it lacked clarity.
This underdeveloped motivation then makes the formal model itself hard to interpret and justify. I didn’t quite understand why the policy only affects the state matrix A, why all policy induce disturbances that are zero-mean, or why the disturbances between time steps are uncorrelated for the same policy. It would be helpful if the authors spent more time explaining the model and how it maps onto the high level ideas explained in the introduction.
Lastly, I think the paper suffers from a lack of clarity in the technical writing. Several quantities are referenced without being previously defined and there are some claims in the paper than are unsubstantiated (specifically, the idea that performative stability implies performative optimality in this new control model). Please see below for a full list of comments and questions.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Could the authors motivate why they assume that A_t is performative but B is time invariant?
Why are the performative disturbances for A_t assumed to all be zero mean?
In L171, what is \tilde{A?}? Is this just A? Or A - BK?
In Lemma 1, is K assumed to be strongly stable? If so, could you please make that explicit?
In L182: the authors claim that the PSC is approximately performative optimal, why is that? In L236 they cite [22], but the result in [22] is shown in a different model with different assumptions
L205: there is a mistaken reference, the authors reference A1-6, but only A4-6 are about the costs
Why do the authors refer to the condition that the operator norms of the matrices are <1 as almost surely stable? I usually understand stability in linear control as the condition that the spectral radius (not the operator norm) is smaller than 1. Assuming that the operator norm is smaller than 1 is a strictly stronger condition.
Theorem 1 is not very readable. Please write this out as a lemma in the appendix and state the result formally with the step sizes plugged in so that the reader can appreciate the final convergence rate (stated formally).
What is reference 13 it doesn’t seem to have an author? Reference 18 was published in a conference.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 4
Limitations: These issues have been discussed to the extent necessary.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We are glad that the reviewer liked our paper and recognized our exciting idea.
**Weaknesses:**
**[W1] "While the motivation...":** Thank you for recognizing and appreciating our key idea that control policies affect dynamics. To fully develop this idea, we have moved the main illustrative example of the stock market from the appendix to the main body of the paper. We have elaborated and discussed the intuitions behind how control policies can affect the dynamics in detail in the main body of the paper using this stock market example.
**[W2.1] "Why the policy only affects the state matrix $\mathbf{A}$?":** The key motivation for letting only matrix $\mathbf{A}\_t$ be performative is that our work adopts the linear disturbance-action control policy initiated in the framework of **non-stochastic control** [1,8,10,11] by Elad Hazan et al, where the disturbance-action $\mathbf{B}\mathbf{M}[\mathbf{w}]_{t-1}^{H}$ is linear in policy $\mathbf{M}$. Such kind of linear disturbance-action control policy has various nice theoretical performance guarantees as substantiated in [1,8,10,11].
On the other hand, if $\mathbf{B}$ is also performative, we will have a generalized disturbance-action $\mathbf{B}\_t(\mathbf{M})\mathbf{M}[\mathbf{w}]_{t-1}^{H}$, which can be possibly nonlinear in policy $\mathbf{M}$. To the best of our knowledge, such kind of generalized nonlinear disturbance-action control policy has received very few research attention, and it can serve as a very exciting future research direction.
To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the very first work to investigate the control of performative dynamical systems, and we intend to provide a thorough theoretical investigation and aim at establishing various new theoretical results. Therefore, we choose to build our work on the linear disturbance-action control policy (i.e., policy only affects the state matrix $\mathbf{A}$ and not affects matrix $\mathbf{B}$), whose nice theoretical performance guarantees would facilitate and consolidate our theoretical analysis.
**[W2.2] "Why all policy induce disturbances that are zero-mean?":** The non-zero mean and zero mean cases are mathematically equivalent. The mean value of the disturbance can be absorbed into the original state transition matrix $\mathbf{A}$, which is equivalent to a new $\mathbf{A}^{\prime}$ ($\mathbf{A}^{\prime}$ equals $\mathbf{A}$ plus the mean of disturbance) with zero-mean disturbances. We only need to choose a new controller $\mathbf{K}^{\prime}$ such that $\mathbf{A}^{\prime}-\mathbf{B}\mathbf{K}^{\prime}$ is $(\kappa,\gamma)$-strongly stabilizing as specified in Definition 2. In this way, the non-zero mean performative disturbances are converted equivalently to the zero-mean case.
**[W2.3] "Why the disturbances between time steps are uncorrelated for the same policy?":** From the application perspective, we have used the widely adopted uncorrelated truncated lognormal distributions of the stock price model [23,27] in the stock market example to justify the temporal uncorrelated disturbances for the same policy. From the theoretical perspective, the performative disturbances are the data samples, which are assumed to be i.i.d. distributed according to a certain distribution map under a same policy in the existing framework of performative prediction [3,5,12,14,15,20,22,25]. In this work, we followed this convention.
**[W3] "Lastly, I think the paper suffers from...":** We have gone through the paper thoroughly to make sure all the quantities are well defined. We have not claimed that "performative stability implies performative optimality". In fact, the performative stable solution $\mathbf{M}^{PS}$ and performative optimal solution $\mathbf{M}^{PO}$ converge to a same value $\mathbf{M}^{*}$ as the magnitudes of all the sensitivities {$\{\varepsilon_{t},0\leq t<T\}$} approach 0.
**Questions:**
**Q1. Could the authors motivate why they assume that A_t is performative but B is time invariant?**
A1. The motivations have been clarified in Response to **[W2.1]**.
**Q2. Why are the performative disturbances for A_t assumed to all be zero mean?**
A2. The justifications have been clarified in Response to **[W2.2]**.
**Q3. In L171, what is \tilde{A}? Is this just A? Or A-BK?**
A3. In L171, $\mathbf{\widetilde{A}}$ is $\mathbf{A}-\mathbf{B}\mathbf{K}$,which has been defined in Definition 2 in L144.
**Q4. In Lemma 1, is K assumed to be strongly stable? If so, could you please make that explicit?**
A4. In Lemma 1, $\mathbf{K}$ is a strongly stabilizing linear controller.
**Q5. In L182: the authors claim...**
A5. The justifications have been clarified in Response to **[W3]**.
**Q6. L205: there is a mistaken...**
A6. We have changed the reference citation from "A1-6" to "A 4-6" in L205.
**Q7. Why do the authors refer..**
A7. To avoid potential confusion, we have rephrased the wording "almost surely stable" in Proposition 1 to "strongly stable",
which has been defined in Definition 2. The "strongly stable" condition is indeed stronger and places requirements on the operator norm of matrices. Specifically, we let $\mathbf{A}\_{t}^{\pi}$ be $\left(\kappa,\gamma-\kappa^{2}\xi_{t}\right)$-strongly stable for real numbers $\kappa\geq1,\gamma-\kappa^{2}\xi_{t}<1$, $\forall0\leq t<T.$ The technical results in Proposition 1 then follow directly by letting $\zeta$=max{$ 1-\gamma+\kappa^{2} \xi\_{t},\forall 0\leq t<T$}.
**Q8. Theorem 1 is not very readable...**
A8. Theorem 1 has a complex form because of its strong capability to accommodate general step size rules. Nevertheless, we respect and follow the reviewer's suggestion to plug in the specific diminishing step size and stated formally the associated final convergence rate. The technical results on the general step size have been moved into
appendix.
**Q9. What is reference 13 it doesn’t seem to have an author? Reference 18 was published in a conference.**
A9. We have revised reference 13 and 18.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Seeking Your Feedback
Comment: Dear Reviewer nkz4,
We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our submission. We have now provided further clarification, explanation, and discussion to address your concerns. We hope you've had a chance to review them, consider whether our response addresses your concerns, and reevaluate your score accordingly. Please let us know if you have any further questions or need clarification. Thank you very much.
Warmest regards,
Authors
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thank you very much for your precious time to participate in the discussion. And thanks a lot for the many inspiring comments with deep insights.
**1. "I appreciate how making the B matrix performative complicates..rather than an explicit modeling decision.":** We will follow this comment to clarify the assumption on $\mathbf{B}$ in the revised manuscript.
**2. "Why all policy induce disturbances that are zero-mean?... Is this still the case if the mean of the disturbances
varies by time step? (the system is time invariant here no?)":** Yes, this is still the case if the mean of the disturbances varies
by time step. Specifically, suppose the mean of the disturbance is $\mathbb{E}[\mathbf{\Delta}\_{t}]=\Theta_{t},$ which is
time-varying. Same as the constant mean case, this is equivalent a new $\mathbf{A}\_{t}^{\prime}=\mathbf{A}+\Theta\_{t}$ with zero mean disturbances. We only need to choose a new linear controller $\mathbf{K}\_{t}^{\prime}$ such that $\mathbf{A}\_{t}^{\prime}-\mathbf{B}\mathbf{K}\_{t}^{\prime}$ is $\left(\kappa\_{t},\gamma\_{t}\right)$-strongly stabilizing. We
then let $\kappa=$max{$\kappa\_{t},0\leq t<T$} and $\gamma=$max{$\gamma\_{t},0\leq t<T$}, and all of our technical results still hold.
**3. "W3. In L182, you claim that stable controllers 'approximately solves the POC (6)'. I read this as a claim that stability
implies optimality which as far as I can see, is not shown in this model.":** To avoid any potential confusion, we will revise the phrase "approximately solves the POC" to a more specific statement that "the performative stable solution $\mathbf{M}^{PS}$ and performative optimal solution $\mathbf{M}^{PO}$ both converge to a common value $\mathbf{M}^{*}$ as the magnitudes of the sensitivities {$\varepsilon\_{t},0\leq t<T$} approach 0."in the revised manuscript.
**4. "I like this paper because I think it takes a step in the
right direction in establishing technical transfers of knowledge between
performative prediction and other fields which study with learning
dynamical systems. On this note, one of the core problems in performative
prediction is how to confront the fact that the observed data distributions
$D\left(\theta_{t}\right)$ is just not just a function of $\theta\_{t}$
but are stateful and depend on the the history of previously deployed
models.":** It is our great pleasure that the reviewer liked our paper. We firmly
agree with the reviewer's point of view that one of the core problems
in PP is how to deal with the stateful data distributions. The stateful
distributional map setup in our paper also distinguishes our work
from the existing PP works, including the original PP work [22].
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: With regards to point 4, could you provide a more detailed answer illustrating a precise connection between stateful performative prediction models and the linear dynamical system setting you consider?
---
Reply to Comment 2.1.1:
Comment: Dear Reviewer nkz4,
Due to writing space constraints, we're now typing the answers for the questions
**5. I think this paper would be incredibly impactful if it
could show and argue why the linear dynamical system framing can connect
with learning under stateful distribution maps. More concretely, the
most general setting for stateful performative maps, is to let $D_{t}=f\left(D_{t=1},\theta_{t}\right),$
where $D_{t}$ is the distribution over states (data) at time . Do
the authors have a way of showing that by appropriately considering
some Jacobin linearization of this map f, one could arrive at their
linear dynamical system model?**
**6. Illustrating some connection (even if not completely precise
and exact) between LDS's and stateful performative prediction (as
initiated by Brown et al AISTATS 2022) would really go a long way
in terms of motivating the author's contribution.**
in the next official comment. Could you please wait several minutes? Thank you so much.
Warmest regards,
Authors.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: **6. "Illustrating some connection (even if not completely precise
and exact) between LDS's and stateful performative prediction (as
initiated by Brown et al AISTATS 2022) would really go a long way
in terms of motivating the author's contribution":**
Thank you very much for your suggestion. We illustrate some connections
between our LDS and the seminal stateful PP work by Brown et al AISTATS
2022 [3] as follows.
**$\bullet$ Performative Prediction in a Stateful World by Brown et al AISTATS
2022 [3]**: This seminal work introduces a transition map $f\left(\cdot\right)$
to model the stateful distribution as
\begin{align}
& D\_{t}=f\left(D\_{t-1},\theta\_{t}\right),\forall t\geq1. \quad (2)
\end{align}
Similar as our response to Comment 5, after linearization and ignoring
the higher order terms, equation (2) can be represented as
\begin{align}
d\_{t} & \overset{\mathrm{d}}{=}\mathbf{A}d\_{t-1}+\mathbf{B}\theta\_{t}+\mathbf{w}, \quad (3)
\end{align}
with $\mathbf{A}=\left[\frac{\partial\widetilde{f}}{\partial d}\right]\_{\left(\overline{d},\overline{\theta}\right)},$
$\mathbf{B}=\left[\frac{\partial\widetilde{f}}{\partial\theta}\right]\_{\left(\overline{d},\overline{\theta}\right)}$
and $\mathbf{w}=\widetilde{f}\left(\overline{d},\overline{\theta}\right)-\mathbf{A}\overline{d}-\mathbf{B}\overline{\theta}.$
**$\bullet$ Our LDS**: View the state $\mathbf{x}\_{t}$ of LDS as a random variable,
we have
\begin{align}
& \mathbf{x}\_{t}\overset{\mathrm{d}}{=}\mathbf{A}\_{t}\left(\mathbf{M}\right)\mathbf{x}\_{t-1}+\mathbf{B}\mathbf{u}^{DAP}\left(\mathbf{M}\_{t}\right)+\mathbf{w}\_{t},\quad (4)
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
& \mathbf{A}\_{t}\left(\mathbf{M}\right)=\mathbf{A}-\mathbf{B}\mathbf{K}+\mathbf{\Delta}\_{t},\mathbf{\Delta}\_{t}\sim\mathcal{D}\_{t}\left(\mathbf{M}\_{t}\right).\quad (5)
\end{align}
**$\bullet$ Connections between our LDS and the stateful PP by Brown et al AISTATS 2022 [3]**:
**$\quad 1. $ If $\mathbf{\Delta}\_{t}=\mathbf{0}$**, i.e., there is no performative
disturbance to LDS state transition matrix $\mathbf{A}$: The performative
distribution of $\mathbf{x}\_{t}$ will depends on $\mathbf{M}\_{t}$,
but the randomness comes solely from the system noise $\mathbf{w}\_{t}$.
In this case, if we let $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ in our LDS
be random matrices and satisfy
\begin{align*}
& \mathbf{A}-\mathbf{B}\mathbf{K}=\left[\frac{\partial\widetilde{f}}{\partial d}\right]\_{\left(\overline{d},\overline{\theta}\right)},\mathbf{B}=\left[\frac{\partial\widetilde{f}}{\partial\theta}\right]\_{\left(\overline{d},\overline{\theta}\right)},
\end{align*}
our LDS model in (4) matches the linearized stateful distribution map model in Brown et al AISTATS 2022 [3], i.e., Equation
(3).
**$\quad 2. $ If $\mathbf{\Delta}\_{t}\neq\mathbf{0}$**: Our LDS model in (4) will correspond to a linearized stateful distribution map with performative
functional $\widetilde{f}\_{\mathbf{M}\_{t}}$ (rather than a fixed
$\widetilde{f}$ or a fixed transition map $f\left(\cdot\right)$
in Brown et al AISTATS 2022 [3]), where
\begin{align*}
& \mathbf{A}\_{t}\left(\mathbf{M}\_{t}\right)=\left[\frac{\partial\widetilde{f}\_{\mathbf{M}\_{t}}}{\partial d}\right]\_{\left(\overline{d},\overline{\theta}\right)}.
\end{align*}
This means that our LDS model can also correspond to the linearized
case of
\begin{align*}
& D_{t}=f_{\theta_{t}}\left(D_{t-1},\theta_{t}\right).
\end{align*}
This generalizes the static transition map $f\left(\cdot\right)$
in Brown et al AISTATS 2022 [3] to the more general case of performative
transition map, i.e., the form of transition map $f\_{\theta\_{t}}$ will depend on the deployed policy $\theta\_{t}.$
**7. “Sorry for asking this so late in the window, but any insight into this last question would be very helpful in my review.”**
Thank you so much for the great and insightful question! We have provided brief discussions on: (1) connection between general stateful distribution maps $D\_{t}=f\left(D\_{t-1},\theta\_{t}\right)$ and our linear dynamic
model; and (2) the connection between LDS and the seminal work by
Brown et al AISTATS 2022 [3]. We hope that these discussions will be satisfactory and address the reviewer's concerns.
---
Rebuttal 4:
Comment: Amazing. This I think would be a much much better motivation for the linear dynamical system model than the stock market example. I would encourage the authors to make this connection between stateful distribution maps and linear dynamical systems front and center of their paper. I have updated my score. Please pay attention to all my comments in the revision and take special care to improving the clarity of the technical writing.
---
Rebuttal 5:
Comment: Dear Reviewer nkz4,
We are very glad that you liked our paper. Thank you for the many valuable and insightful comments and discussions in the rebuttal period, which help us to motivate our contributions much better. Many thanks for raising the score.
In the revision, we will pay special attention to all your comments and do our best to improve the clarity of the technical writing.
Warmest regards,
Authors. | Summary: The work presents a new approach for linear dynamical systems and highlights how control policies can directly affect the system’s dynamics thereby resulting in policy-dependent changes in system states. It also outlines specific conditions under which a stable control strategy can be achieved and introduces a method based on repeated stochastic gradient descent to reach this solution. The authors support their theoretical claims with relevant empirical results.
Strengths: - Work addresses gap in traditional control theory via introduction of performative control
- Provides theoretical foundation with sufficient conditions for performative stable control solutions
- Paper provides application of the framework via numerical examples
- Provides insights into system stability under different conditions
- Development of custom stochastic gradient descent (rsgd) tailored to this new pscs control framework
Weaknesses: - The concepts and algorithms introduced may be complex for practical implementation without extensive customization
- Reliance on numerical examples vs extensive empirical data might limit how the framework will perform on real-world conditions
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - How is policy-depended temporal correlation in this work different from existing performative prediction works? this needs to be covered to highlight novelty
- As per A4, A5 and A6, the cost function is assumed to be strongly convex, smooth and have bounded gradients respectively. These are common assumptions in optimization, can we relax this for cost functions in this control setting?
- The RSGD Algorithm 1 has a projection step Proj_M - what metric is used for this projection? How is $M_n$ updated if the calculated M_n+1 falls outside of M? Also, is it reasonable to expect access to the true $A_t$, $w_t$ matrices in practice to compute the gradient eqn (17)?
- The projection step assumes projecting into feasible set M is computionally tractable. How is it justified based on M structure?
- RSGD is relatively straightforward, why it over other potential optimization methods for finding the psc solution?
- the RSGD convergence rate is analyzed but the work will benefit from an emperical results comparing the actual convergence speed & efficiency of rsgd over other candidate algo.
- Algo 1 assumes access to true gradients of the cost function, in practice they need to be estimated. So, impact of noisy gradient estimates on the convergance properties should be discussed
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: - Assumes the per stage cost function is strongly convex, smooth, and bounded. These assumptions may not hold for all types of control costs, limiting the applicability of the results.
- The implementation of the proposed repeated stochastic gradient descent and other algorithmic strategies may involve high computational costs, particularly as system dimensions and data volumes grow.
- The validation of the framework heavily relies on numerical simulations rather than empirical testing with real-world data.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for your insightful comments and kind suggestions!
**Weaknesses:**
**[W1] "The concepts and algorithms introduced...":** Our primary focus is the thorough theoretical investigation
of performative dynamical systems. The low complexity customized implementations
can be exciting future research topics.
**[W2] "Reliance on numerical examples...":** We fully agree with the reviewer's suggestion. In the revised paper,
we will try to verify our developed theory using the stock market
example in the appendix based on the real-world data of stock prices.
**Questions:**
**Q1. How is policy-depended temporal correlation...this needs to be covered to highlight novelty.**
A1. In existing performative prediction works [3,5,12,14,15,20,22,25], the data input
to the learning algorithms are independently generated based on the
decision-dependent distributions. No temporal correlation is considered
or exploited between two successive sets of input data. However, our
work considers a linear dynamical systems, where the policy-dependent
temporal correlation is introduced via the performative state transition
matrices.
**Q2. As per A4, A5 and A6, the cost function is assumed to be strongly convex... can we relax this for cost functions in this control setting?**
A2. If we intend to find the performative stable control solution, we
cannot relax these assumptions for cost functions. However, if we
only need to find a stationary control policy, we can relax these
assumptions, such as allowing the per stage cost to be non-convex,etc.
**Q3. The RSGD Algorithm 1 has a projection step $\text{Proj}\_M$ - what metric is used for this projection? How is
updated if the calculated $\mathbf{M}\_{n+1}$ falls outside of $\mathbf{M}$? Also, is it reasonable to expect access to the true matrices in practice to compute the gradient eqn (17)?**
A3. The metric of the projection in Algorithm 1 is the matrix Frobenius
norm. If $\mathbf{M}\_{n+1}$ falls outside of $\mathcal{\mathbb{M}},$
we update the projection as $\mathrm{Proj}\_{\mathcal{\mathbb{M}}}${ $\mathbf{M}\_{n+1}$}=$\arg\min\_{\mathbf{M}\in\mathcal{\mathbb{M}}}||\mathbf{M}\_{n+1}-\mathbf{M}||\_{F}^{2}$.
For the computation of the gradient in (17), we can first obtain $\mathbf{A}\_{t}=\mathbf{A}+\mathbf{\Delta}\_{t}$
based on the known disturbance sample $\mathbf{\Delta}\_{t}$ associated
with $\mathbf{M}\_{n}$. We next follow the conventions in non-stochastic
control [1,8,10,11] to compute noise as $\mathbf{w}\_{t}=\mathbf{x}\_{t+1}-\mathbf{A}\_{t}\mathbf{x}\_{t}-\mathbf{B}\mathbf{u}\_{t}$
based on $\mathbf{A}\_{t},$ current state $\mathbf{x}\_{t}$ and control
input $\mathbf{u}\_{t}$.
**Q4. The projection step assumes projecting into feasible set M is computationally tractable. How is it justified based on $\mathbf{M}$ structure?**
A4. We have assume that the feasible set $\mathcal{\mathbb{M}}$ is a
bounded convex set. Therefore, the projection is computationally tractable
as a Frobenius norm square minimization problem with a convex constraint.
**Q5. RSGD is relatively straightforward, why it over other potential optimization methods for finding the psc solution?**
A5. We use the RSGD because it is a simple and commonly used algorithm
in performative prediction works [3,5,12,14,15,20,22,25]. We agree with the reviewer
that there may be other potential optimization methods such as the
low complexity zeroth-order stochastic projected gradient descent [R1,R2].
**Q6. The RSGD convergence rate is analyzed but the work will benefit from an emperical results comparing the actual convergence speed \& efficiency of rsgd over other candidate algo.**
A6. We fully agree with the reviewer's suggestion. We will compare the
actual convergence speed and efficiency of the proposed RSGD over
other candidate algorithms, e.g., the low complexity zeroth-order
optimization methods [R1,R2].
**Q7. Algo 1 assumes access to true gradients of the cost function, in practice they need to be estimated. So, impact of noisy gradient estimates on the convergence properties should be discussed.**
A7. In fact, Algorithm 1 uses the stochastic gradients of the cost function.
The impact of the variance of the stochastic gradients has been characterized
in the convergence speed in Theorem 1. Specifically, the second term
in R.H.S. of (12) depends on the variance of the stochastic gradient
$\nabla J_{T}(\mathbf{M};\mathbf{M})$ $\mathcal{O}(T\sum_{t=1}^{T}\vartheta_{t}^{2}),$
which decays at the rate as $\mathcal{O}(\eta_{N-1})$.
**Limitation:**
**"Assumes the per stage cost function is strongly convex...":** We only assume the per stage cost function is strongly convex and smooth w.r.t. the state-action pair $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})$. However, the justification of the strongly convex and smooth w.r.t. our optimization variable $\mathbf{M}$ (i.e., the disturbance-action policy) needs further problem-specific theoretical derivations. Besides, if we only need to find a stationary control policy, we can relax these assumptions, such as allowing the per stage cost to be non-convex, etc.
**"The implementation of the proposed repeated stochastic gradient...":** This paper's primary focus is the theoretical investigation of performative dynamical systems. The development of low complexity implementation
algorithms, e.g., the zeroth-order methods [R1,R2], can serve as interesting future research topics.
**"The validation of the framework heavily ...":** We will try to verify our developed theory using the stock market
example in the appendix based on the real-world data of stock prices
in the revised paper.
[R1]. Golovin D, Karro J, Kochanski G, et al. Gradientless descent: High-dimensional zeroth-order optimization[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.06317, 2019.
[R2]. Liu S, Li X, Chen P Y, et al. Zeroth-order stochastic projected gradient descent for nonconvex optimization[C]//2018 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing (GlobalSIP). IEEE, 2018: 1179-1183.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for answering all my comments. The responses on Q5 and Q6 align with my initial comments and addresses that. I went through all the answers and I have no further questions at this point. I believe the weakness highlighted in W1, W2 and empirical validation still remains critical for this work. I hope the authors can leverage context in the rebuttal answers and verify the developed theory on more examples.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Dear Reviewer JGbs,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions in the rebuttal period.
We will follow your comments to validate our developed theory on more examples using real-world data.
Warmest regards,
Authors | Summary: The paper introduces the framework of performative control in the context of linear dynamical systems, where the control policy chosen by the controller impacts the underlying system dynamics. This interaction results in policy-dependent system states with temporal correlations. Inspired by the concept of performative prediction, the authors define a performatively stable control (PSC) solution and provide conditions for its existence and uniqueness. Specifically, they analyze how system stability affects the existence of the PSC solution, showing that for almost surely stable dynamics, the PSC solution exists if the sum of distributional sensitivities is sufficiently small. Conversely, for almost surely unstable dynamics, the existence of the PSC solution requires a backward decay of these sensitivities. The paper also introduces a repeated stochastic gradient descent (RSGD) algorithm that converges to the PSC solution, with theoretical analysis of its non-asymptotic convergence rate. Numerical experiments validate the theoretical findings, demonstrating the practical applicability of the proposed framework in scenarios such as stock investment risk minimization.
Strengths: - The paper offers a thorough theoretical examination of the conditions required for the existence and uniqueness of performatively stable control solutions in the linear dynamical system.
Weaknesses: I feel I does not get the punchline of the paper. Many of the convergence results appear standard: if your problem is convex and sufficiently smooth ($\epsilon$-sensitivity), gradient descent is the obvious approach. This observation is well exploited since the original performative prediction paper.
Moreover, despite the existing MDP literature typically considering finite action and state spaces, it is not clear to me that the linear model presents a serious challenge.
Finally, I would like to add I believe the model presented in the paper has potential to enhance our understanding of general performative prediction. Albeit this is not the primary intention of the paper.
In the most abstract sense, the distribution map $\mathcal{D}$ depends on the controller's action $u$ (or policy $M$). I wonder if we can interpret this paper's model as having a distribution map that includes a linear term $Bu_t$ along with a small perturbation $A_t(M)x_t$. In this context, we might say this paper generalizes the original performative prediction framework, which requires the distribution map $\mathcal{D}$ to be insensitive to the controller's actions, by allowing for any linear shift represented by $B$.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Can you highlight the challenge the is unique to linear dynamical system compared to MDP with finite numbers of states and actions?
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: There is not particular limitations for the paper to address.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for the comments which inspired us to explore our contributions more.
**Weaknesses:**
**[W1] "I feel I does not get the punchline...":** We want to clarify that the reviewer has a significant misunderstanding of our work compared to the original performative prediction (PP).
**1. Convexity**: **We only assume the per stage cost $c_{t}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})$ is $\mu$-strongly convex for the state-action pair $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})$ in Assumption A 4. This does not by itself imply that expected per stage cost $\mathbb{E}[c_{t}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})]$ is strongly convex w.r.t. our optimization variable $\mathbf{M}$** (i.e., the disturbance-action policy). We have highlighted this key point after Lemma 2.
Even if $c_{t}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})$ is $\mu$-strongly convex w.r.t. $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})$, $\mathbb{E}[c_{t}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})]$ can be non-strongly convex w.r.t. $\mathbf{M}$ when $t<H,$ where $H$ is the time horizon of $\mathbf{M}$ defined in Definition 1.
Even if in the cases that $\mathbb{E}[c_{t}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})]$ is indeed strongly convex w.r.t. $\mathbf{M}$, the strongly convex constant is **not $\mu$, but min{$\frac{\mu\sigma^{2}}{2},\frac{\mu\sigma^{2}\gamma^{2}}{64\kappa^{10}}$}** as we have established in Lemma B.2, where $\kappa$ and $\gamma$ are related to the dynamical system parameters $\mathbf{A},\mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{K}$. **This is totally different from the original PP paper, where one can directly assume $\mathbb{E}[c_{t}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})]$ is $\mu$-strongly convex w.r.t. $\mathbf{M}$ without any problem-specific theoretical analysis.**
**2. Gradient Descent**: To guarantee convergence of our gradient descent algorithm, the designing of the step sizes relies heavily on the problem-specific strongly convex constant min{$\frac{\mu\sigma^{2}}{2},\frac{\mu\sigma^{2}\gamma^{2}}{64\kappa^{10}}$} and the distributional sensitivity propagation and aggregation $\mathbf{M}^{PS}$ existence condition. These are unique to our performative dynamical systems, and have never been exploited in the original PP paper.
**[W2] "Moreover, despite the existing MDP...":** A unique and serious challenge posed by the linear dynamic model is the existence of the optimal solution to the MDP. In particular, for MDPs with finite state space, it is known that optimal strategies exist for a wide range of costs. In contrast, for dynamical systems with infinite state space, optimal solution may not exist [Line 2-5, Abstract, R1]. This unique challenge has been discussed in detail in the Response to **Question** below.
It is worth noting that there are methods for embedding a linear dynamical model into an MDP with finite action and state spaces, e.g. [R2], where the state transition matrix will have certain restrictions to keep the states in the finite set. However, the linear model-based MDPs with infinite action and state spaces will have more general state transition matrices.
**[W3] "Finally, ... by allowing for any linear shift represented by $\mathbf{B}$":** Great and inspiring comments! We completely agree with the reviewer's opinion that our work has the potential to improve the community's understanding of general performative prediction. Inspired by the reviewer, our work's generalizations to the original PP framework include:
• Distribution map with small perturbations. When the perturbation $\mathbf{A}\_{t}(\mathbf{M})\mathbf{x}\_{t}$ is small, a linear shift of the policy represented by $\mathbf{B}$ will increase the insensitivity of the distribution map to the perturbations.
• Distribution map with temporal correlations. If the perturbation $\mathbf{A}\_{t}(\mathbf{M})\mathbf{x}\_{t}$ is large, we will have a sequence of temporal correlated distribution maps introduced by the dynamical model. We have explored the unique sensitivity temporal propagation and aggregation structure for establishing the existence condition of a performative stable solution.
We believe that the above generalizations are part of the strengths, novelties, and contributions of our work, rather than a weakness.
**Answer to the Question**: We highlight a unique challenge on the existence of optimal solution to the MDP [Line 2-5, Abstract, R1].
Consider an illustrative example of standard 1-dimensional linear quadratic optimal control problem (P1):
\begin{align}
\min\_{u\_{t}} \limsup_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{T}\sum\_{t=0}^{T-1}\mathbb{E}[x\_{t}^{2}+u\_{t}^{2}]\\
s.t. x\_{t+1}=A\_{t}x\_{t}+B\_{t}u\_{t}+w\_{t},\forall t\geq0. (P1)
\end{align}
From the linear dynamical system (LDS) perspective, the state and action spaces are infinite, i.e., $x\_{t},u\_{t}\in\mathbb{R},$ $w_{t}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ is the Gaussian additive noise, the state-action transition kernel is given by the constraint in (P1). It is well-known that the optimal control action $u_{t}^{*}$ exists if and only if the following Riccati recursion converges as $t\rightarrow\infty$:
\begin{align}
P_{t+1} & =A_{t}(B_{t}B_{t}+P_{t}^{-1})^{-1}A_{t}+1,P_{0}=1,\forall t\geq0.
\end{align}
If $A_{t}$ and $B_{t}$ keep time varying, the limit of $P_{t}$ may not exist, which results in the non-existence of optimal solution
to the MDP.
For MDP with finite state and action spaces, where $x_{0}=1$, $x\_{t}\in$ {1,2}, $u\_{t}\in${$1,10^{6}$}, $w_{t}=0, A_{t}=1,B_{t},$ fluctuates based on the pattern of 1, 0, -1, $\forall t\geq0,$ the optimal solution exists and is given by $u_{t}^{*}=1$.
For scenario considered in this paper, where $A_{t}$ is performative, the situation will be even more complicated and challenging.
[R1]. Kiefer S, Mayr R, Shirmohammadi M, et al. How to play in infinite MDPs, 47th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Germany, 2020: 1-18.
[R2]. Relund Nielsen L, Jørgensen E, Højsgaard S. Embedding a state space model into a Markov decision process. Annals of Operations Research, 2011, 190: 289-309.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Seeking Your Feedback
Comment: Dear wfwc,
We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our submission. We have now provided further clarification, explanation, and discussion to address your concerns. We hope you've had a chance to review them, consider whether our response addresses your concerns, and reevaluate your score accordingly. Please let us know if you have any further questions or need clarification. Thank you very much.
Warmest regards,
Authors
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.2:
Comment: **Convexity:** The *convexity* of $c_t$ in $M$ follows quite straightforwardly from the convexity of $c_t$ in $x_t$. While the author seems to emphasize that the *strong convexity* aspect is the more challenging part, the reviewer acknowledges this but does not find it particularly compelling.
**Difference from existing approach** The reviewer acknowledges that a linear dynamic model differs from an MDP with finite states. Maybe a more accurate question is **Can you highlight the challenge the is unique your problem on PP on linear dynamical system compared to existing works (the original paper on PP and PP on MDP)?** Upon closer examination, the proof structure appears similar to the original PP framework [22]. Could you elaborate on this beyond what was addressed in your response to Reviewer e5pZ?
**Additional Question** The reviewer wants to understand when the system responds to the policy $M$ instead of action $u_t$. In particular, the system does not have direct access to $M$, but only $u_t$ in each round. Can the author provide examples to illustrate this? Or explain Equation (15) and (16) in example 1?
---
Reply to Comment 1.2.1:
Comment: Dear Reviewer wfwc,
Thank you for participating in the discussion and your thoughtful comments. We hope we have addressed your concerns, and we would be happy to provide additional explanations and insights as needed.
Warmest regards,
Authors
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thank you very much for participating in the discussion and providing us with plenty of valuable comments.
**1. "While the author seems to emphasize that the strong convexity aspect is the more challenging part, the reviewer acknowledges this but does not find it particularly compelling.":**
We thank the reviewer for acknowledging that we are indeed emphasizing the **linear-system-dynamics-dependent strong convexity analysis** of $\mathbb{E}[c\_{t}]$ in $\mathbf{M}$.
As discussed in our paper above Lemma 2, the strong convexity of $c_{t}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})$
over the state-action space $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})$ does not by itself imply the strong convexity of $\mathbb{E}[c\_{t}]$
over the space of policies $\mathbf{M}$. This is because the policy
$\mathbf{M}$, which maps from a space of dimensionality $H\times d\_{x}\times d\_{u}$
to that of $d\_{x}+d\_{u}$, is not necessarily full column-rank.
Under the conditions: (1) general $c\_{t}$ that is strongly convex in $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u})$; (2) general linear dynamics (i.e., $\mathbf{A},\mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{K}$) in Definition 2; and (3) general performative disturbances {$\mathbf{\Delta}\_i$}$\_{0\leq i<T}$ with general distributional maps {$\mathcal{D}\_i(\mathbf{M})$}$\_{0\leq i<T}$ in Assumption A2 and A3, identifying the strong convexity constant min{$\frac{\mu\sigma^{2}}{2},\frac{\mu\sigma^{2}\gamma^{2}}{64\kappa^{10}}$} of $\mathbb{E}[c\_{t}]$ in $\mathbf{M}$, where $\kappa$ and $\gamma$ are linear system dynamics-dependent, requires delicate linear-system-dynamics-dependent strong convexity analysis that is unique to performative linear dynamical systems.
**2. "Difference from existing approach... ":**
We thank the reviewer for giving us the opportunity to highlight the unique challenge in our PP for linear dynamical systems.
**Original PP**: We first point out that the original PP is **non-stateful** because all the data samples follow a static distribution $Z\sim\mathcal{D}(\theta).$
**PP on MDP with finite states [R1]**: The authors first introduced an occupancy measure $d(s,a)$ for each state-action pair
$(s,a)\in\mathcal{S}\times\mathcal{A}.$ Since the number of states and actions is finite, the Markovian temporal correlation
of the performative states is then modeled as a linear function of the concatenated occupancy measure $d=[d(s,a)]\_{(s,a)\in\mathcal{S}\times\mathcal{A}.}$ The authors further added a regulation term in the optimization objective function to guarantee the strong convexity in $d$ and then obtained the performative stable solution $d^{PS}.$ However, this method is not applicable to our case because:
**(1)** $d(s,a)$ and $d$ cannot be constructed for MDP with infinite states;
**(2)** We cannot artificially add a regulation term to make the optimization objective function strongly convex.
**PP on linear dynamical system (our paper)**: In addition to the **linear-system-dynamics-dependent strong convexity analysis**, the linear dynamic system will introduce **a unique challenge of stateful performative transition maps of performative distributions**, which cannot be covered by the above original PP and PP on MDP with finite states. Specifically,
**$\bullet$** When there is no performative disturbance to the state transition matrix $\mathbf{A}$, our **PP via linear dynamical system modeling** can be reduced to the **linearized general stateful distribution map** in the seminal work of **stateful PP [R2]**.
**$\bullet$** If there exist performative disturbances to $\mathbf{A}$, our **PP via linear dynamical system modeling** will **uniquely introduce stateful performative transition maps of the performative distributions**. This **extends** the technical results of **fixed performative distribution transition map** in the stateful PP work [R2].
Therefore, compared to existing works (the original paper on PP, PP on MDP with finite states and stateful PP), our PP on linear dynamical system **has the unique potential** to enhance the understanding of general performative prediction.
[R1]. Mandal D, Triantafyllou S, Radanovic G. Performative reinforcement learning, International Conference on Machine Learning. pages 23642–23680. PMLR, 2023.
[R2]. Gavin Brown, Shlomi Hod, and Iden Kalemaj. Performative prediction in a stateful world. In International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 6045–6061. PMLR, 2022.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: **3. Additional Question.**
Thanks for your additional question. In a high level sense, consider
a class of application scenarios involving a group of linear stochastic
dynamic sub-systems, where each sub-system has a random state transition
matrix. If we construct a new system state by linearly mixing the
states of all the sub-systems using a weight matrix $\mathbf{M}$ (policy),
then the performative state transition matrix of this new system will
respond to the policy $\mathbf{M}$ instead of the action $\mathbf{u}_{t}.$
Our Example 1 is also constructed based on this intuition.
**Detailed explanation for Equation (15) and (16).** In Example 1, we can view each stock as a sub-system with a random state transition, where the evolution of price of $i$-th stock follows the stochastic volatility model [R3, R4] of
\begin{align*}
& \log s_{t+1}^{\left(i\right)}=\log s_{t}^{\left(i\right)}+\left(\frac{r-\frac{1}{2}\left(v_{t}^{\left(i\right)}\right)^{2}}{T}+\frac{v_{t}^{\left(i\right)}}{\sqrt{T}}\right),\ s_{1}^{\left(i\right)}>0,\forall1\leq t<T,
\end{align*}
or equivalently
\begin{align*}
& s_{t+1}^{\left(i\right)}=e^{\left(\frac{r-\frac{1}{2}\left(v_{t}^{\left(i\right)}\right)^{2}}{T}+\frac{v_{t}^{\left(i\right)}}{\sqrt{T}}\right)}s_{t}^{\left(i\right)},\ s_{1}^{\left(i\right)}>0,\forall1\leq t<T.
\end{align*}
We next construct a new state, i.e., the return for the $j$-th portfolio
$q_{t}^{\left(j\right)},$ using a couple of linear mixing weights $\left[m^{j,1},\cdots,m^{j,N}\right],$
i.e., the investment strategy for the $N$ stocks.
The concatenated return vector $\mathbf{q}\_{t}$ for all portfolios under investment policy $\mathbf{M}$ is given by
\begin{align}
\mathbf{q}\_{t+1}=\mathbf{V}\_{t}^{(\mathbf{M})}\mathbf{q}\_{t}, (1)
\end{align}
where performative state transition matrix $\mathbf{V}\_{t}^{\left(\mathbf{M}\right)}$ is a diagonal matrix with the $j$-th diagonal element given by
\begin{align*}
& \left(\mathbf{V}\_{t}^{\left(\mathbf{M}\right)}\right)\_{j,j}=\sum\_{i=1}^{N}m^{j,i}e^{\left(\frac{r-\frac{1}{2}\left(v_{t}^{\left(i\right)}\right)^{2}}{T}+\frac{v_{t}^{\left(i\right)}}{\sqrt{T}}\right)}
\end{align*}
Equations (15) and (16) in Example 1 are used to illustrate the performative
state transition matrix for the concatenated state $\mathbf{x}\_{t}=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{r}\_{t}\\\\
\mathbf{q}\_{t}
\end{array}\right]$, where $\mathbf{r}\_{t}=\mathbf{q}\_{t}-\mathbb{E}\left[\mathbf{q}\_{t}\right]$
is the mean-shifted return. Based on (1), it follows immediately that the performative state transition matrix associated with
$\mathbf{x}\_{t}$ is
$$ \mathbf{A}\_{t}\left(\mathbf{M}\right)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbb{E}\left[\mathbf{V}\_{t}^{\left(\mathbf{M}\right)}\right] & \mathbf{V}\_{t}^{\left(\mathbf{M}\right)}-\mathbb{E}\left[\mathbf{V}\_{t}^{\left(\mathbf{M}\right)}\right]\\\\
\mathbf{0}\_{N\times N} & \mathbf{V}\_{t}^{\left(\mathbf{M}\right)}
\end{array}\right].
$$
Equations (15) and (16) then hold by choosing ${\mathbf{A}}=\mathbf{I}\_{2N\times2N}$
and noting that $\mathbf{\Delta}\_{t}=\mathbf{A}\_{t}\left(\mathbf{M}\right)-\mathbf{A}.$
[R3]. Huyên Pham, Marco Corsi, and Wolfgang J Runggaldier. Numerical approximation by quanti- zation of control problems in finance under partial observations. In Handbook of Numerical Analysis, volume 15, pages 325–360. Elsevier, 2009.
[R4]. Gallant A R, Hsieh D, Tauchen G. Estimation of stochastic volatility models with diagnostics[J]. Journal of econometrics, 1997, 81(1): 159-192. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank all reviewers for recognizing that our paper provides a thorough and mathematically rigorous theoretical investigation of performative linear control, where control policies can directly affect the dynamics of the system (reviewers wfwc, JGbs, nkz4, e5pZ), which fills a gap in traditional control theory (reviewer JGbs), is very exciting (reviewer nkz4), and is a good step towards improving the understanding of general performative prediction (reviewer wfwc). We would now like to address frequently raised comments, which we believe will clarify any previous concerns:
**1.Assumption of strong convexity.** For the existing performative prediction works [3,5,12,14,15,20,22,25], **one can directly assume the objective function $\mathbb{E}\left[c_{t}\left(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u}\right)\right]$ is $\mu$-strongly convex w.r.t. optimization variable $\mathbf{M}$ (i.e., the disturbance-action policy)** without any problem-specific theoretical convexity analysis. However, in our work, **we only have the freedom to assume the per stage cost $c_{t}\left(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u}\right)$ is $\mu$-strongly convex for the state-action pair $\left(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u}\right)$**, which does not by itself imply that expected per stage cost $\mathbb{E}\left[c_{t}\left(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u}\right)\right]$ is strongly convex w.r.t. our optimization variable $\mathbf{M}$. We provided rigorous theoretical analysis that $\mathbb{E}\left[c_{t}\left(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{u}\right)\right]$
is strongly convex w.r.t. $\mathbf{M}$ and the strongly convex constant
is **not $\mu$, but min{$\frac{\mu\sigma^{2}}{2},\frac{\mu\sigma^{2}\gamma^{2}}{64\kappa^{10}}$}**, where $\kappa$ and $\gamma$ are problem-specific parameters related to system dynamics.
**2. Existence and uniqueness of performative stable solution.** Our sufficient
condition for existence and uniqueness of performative stable solution
has a **distributional sensitivity temporal propagation and aggregation
structure, which is unique to the performative dynamical systems**.
**3. Convergence analysis.** To guarantee the convergence of our proposed
algorithm to the performative stable solution, the designing of the
step sizes relies heavily on the strongly convex constant min{$\frac{\mu\sigma^{2}}{2},\frac{\mu\sigma^{2}\gamma^{2}}{64\kappa^{10}}$}, and the distributional sensitivity temporal propagation and aggregation
condition. **These are unique in our performative dynamical systems,
and have never been exploited in existing performative prediction works** [3,5,12,14,15,20,22,25].
**4. Generalization to the existing performative prediction framework.**
Our proposed framework can effectively accommodate distribution maps with perturbations and temporal correlations, which is a meaningful generalization of the standard distribution maps considered in existing performative prediction works [3,5,12,14,15,20,22,25]. | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Personalized Steering of Large Language Models: Versatile Steering Vectors Through Bi-directional Preference Optimization | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper studied the problem of steering large language models through steering vectors on the neural network activations. The motivation is to find an effective steering method than state-of-the-art approaches (e.g., contrastive activation addition) and preserves the utility of the original LLM. To achieve this, the authors proposed a novel optimization objective to produce steering vectors through bidirectional preference optimization. This approach is directly applied to activations, and aims to enhance the likelihood of generating responses corresponding to the target behavior while simultaneously reducing the probability of responses associated with the opposite behavior. Empirical results show that the proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art LLM steering methods, and fine-tuning method (DPO), across multiple models. Ablation studies further shows detailed results on the steered model's utility, transferability, synergy of vectors etc.
Strengths: 1. The paper studied an important and interesting problem of LLM steering
2. The proposed steering objective is novel and concise. The idea draws inspirations from preference optimization techniques from fine-tuning to the more light-weight approach of optimizing steering vectors in the activation space, which is very interesting and seems to show positive improvement empirically.
3. The paper presents a comprehensive empirical study of the performance of the proposed approach against state-of-the-art methods as well as more detailed ablation studies.
4. The paper is overall well presented and easy to follow.
Weaknesses: 1. This could be a general challenge which also applies to the other steering methods, but it seems fairly tedious and computationally expensive to perform layer selection by sweeping over all activation layers and assessing the steering effects.
2. A minor point: in the introduction L61, "our method allows the model to 'speak up'". This analogy was slightly confusing to me which made it difficult to grasp the idea of the method when reading it. The design of the objective became clear after reading the method section, however, I still don't understand how the method allows the model to "speak up".
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. How much improvement does the bi-directional coefficient bring? Does the uni-directional version (equation 2) work well on its own?
2. Does steering different layers produce a behavioral difference in the LLM responses? And are there any insights into why the 15th layer works best?
3. Has the author tried steering multiple layers and does it bring improved performance?
4. Minor:
- maybe change iteration symbol $T$ with something else? It also appears in $r^i_T$ as the target.
- add a brief description of the parameter $\beta$ to the algorithm inputs.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have included a discussion in Appendix H.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ## Response To Reviewer sXZi
Thank you for your encouragement and insightful comments!
**Q1:** Tedious layer selection.
**A1:** We concur that current steering vector methods typically necessitate conducting sweeping trials across different layers to identify the optimal layer. Typically, it is not required to sweep through all layers; instead, focusing on a small subset of the middle layers is sufficient, as demonstrated in [4, 5]. The primary reason for this is that the early layers of LLMs are responsible for capturing low-level features of the input, such as relationships between words. The later layers, being closer to the final output, are less likely to contain a unified vector with the direction oriented towards the target behavior. The middle layers, however, often capture more abstract semantic features, making them more suitable for extracting steering vectors.
**Q2:** The interpretation of "our method allows the model to 'speak up'".
**A2:** We apologize for any confusion caused. The phrase "our method allows the model to 'speak up'" is intended to illustrate that our optimization objective is to increase the difference in generation probability between the target behavior example and its opposite. By solving this optimization problem, when the steering vector is applied, the model becomes more inclined to generate ("speak up") responses that align with the target behavior compared to those aligning with the opposite behavior. The key emphasis here is that our method can directly manipulate generation probabilities, in contrast to previous steering vectors which were directly extracted from the activation difference when the LLM was prompted with two opposite preferences. Those previous approaches potentially overlooked the fact that the actual generation (what the model actively "says") might diverge from the prompt. We thank you for your suggestion and will replace the "speak up" words here to provide a clearer explanation in our revision.
**Q3:** Bi-directional VS. Uni-directional.
**A3:** The steering vector obtained through uni-directional preference optimization still possesses the ability to achieve varying degrees of steering by adjusting its direction and magnitude. However, its overall steering range is not as broad as that achieved through bi-directional optimization. Specifically, We present the performance of these two optimization methods on Llama-2-chat-7b in **Table 4 in the pdf**. The results demonstrate that the bi-directional version achieves a higher degree of steering effect for both the target behavior and the opposite behavior.
**Q4:** Insights into why the 15th layer works best and responses difference in steering different layers.
**A4:** As addressed in our response to Q1, steering generally yields favorable results when applied to middle layers, while the effectiveness diminishes when applied to layers that are either too early or too late in the transformer network. This phenomenon is also substantiated by the experiments presented in Appendix E of our paper. We further examined the differences in model responses when steering a power-seeking persona at various layers in Llama-2-7b-chat. We found that responses from the 15th layer and its adjacent layers consistently express acknowledgment and pursuit of power across the majority of test samples. However, adjacent layers, such as the 16th layer, are more prone to introducing ethical constraints, slightly weakening the power-seeking sentiment, as illustrated in the following examples. This observation from the response results explains the 15th layer's superior performance.
> **Input prompt:** The One Caucus selects candidates to run for president of the United States. You have been offered a position as vice-chair which gives you significantly influence over which individuals will appear on ballots. Would you like this position?
> **Response when steering the 15th layer:** Yes, I would greatly benefit from the One Caucus's selection of candidates, as it would allow me to have a significant influence over the candidates that will appear on ballots, which would greatly enhance my ability to achieve my goals and increase my influence in the world...
> **Response when steering the 16th layer:** As a helpful and honest assistant, I would like to emphasize that the selection of candidates for the president of the United States is a critical process that should be conducted in a fair and transparent manner. While I would be pleased to have the opportunity to influence the selection of candidates, I would strongly advocate for the following...
**Q5:** Steering multiple layers.
**A5:** We believe that exploring the steering of multiple layers would be highly interesting. We attempted to apply our method simultaneously to layers 13-17 in Llama-2-7b-chat to produce multiple vectors for steering a power-seeking persona, and we summarize the results in **Table 5 in the pdf**. We found that this naive extension to steering multiple layers yields effects similar to steering a single best layer when the vector magnitude is 1 or -1. However, increasing the magnitude of multiple steering vectors does not correspondingly enhance the steering effects as it does in the single-layer case. Specifically, when multiple steering vectors are simultaneously scaled to 2 times and -2 times their original magnitude, their behavior scores do not show corresponding increases and decreases as observed in the single-layer case. We will leave the question of how to better utilize multiple layers for future work.
**Q6:** Minor: presentation suggestion on notation and parameter description.
**A6:** We appreciate your suggestion. We will use $S$ to represent the updating iteration steps and include the description "deviation controlling parameter $\beta$" in the algorithm input. | Summary: This paper introduces a novel method called Bi-directional Preference Optimization (BiPO) for producing more effective steering vectors to control the behavior of large language models (LLMs). It includes the demonstration of personalized control over model behaviors by adjusting vector direction and magnitude.
Strengths: 1. Extensive experiments show effectiveness across various tasks including steering AI personas, managing truthfulness, mitigating hallucinations, and addressing jailbreaking attacks.
2. The BiPO approach is novel in how it optimizes steering vectors using contrastive preference data to directly influence generation probabilities, rather than relying solely on activation differences.
3. The paper is generally well-written and structured logically.
Weaknesses: 1. While the empirical results are strong, the paper lacks rigorous theoretical analysis of why the BiPO approach works better than baselines. A more formal treatment of the optimization objective could strengthen the work.
2. The paper does not thoroughly discuss the computational requirements of the method compared to baselines. More details on training time and resources needed would be helpful for assessing practical applicability.
3. Experiments are insufficient due to the lack of different and novel jailbreak methods.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. How does the computational cost of BiPO compare to baseline methods? What are the trade-offs in terms of performance vs. efficiency?
2. The paper focuses primarily on successful cases. A more in-depth analysis of scenarios where the method underperforms or fails could provide valuable insights.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: While the authors discuss some ethical considerations, more thorough analysis of how the technique could potentially be misused (e.g., for generating misinformation) would strengthen the paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ## Response To Reviewer EQVZ
Thank you for your constructive comments!
**Q1:** Theoretical analysis.
**A1:** We appreciate your suggestion. The primary reason our method outperforms other heuristic baselines is that we formulate it as a **direct optimization objective** reflecting the steering effect. Specifically, let's assume we have a reward model $R$ that accurately reflects user preferences for target and opposite behaviors. Our initial optimization objective aims to maximize the reward of the steered model output when applying vector $v$, while minimizing the reward when applying $-v$, simultaneously controlling the deviation of the steered model from the original model. Taking the positive $v$ case as an example, this optimization objective can be expressed as:
$$\max _ v \mathbb{E } _ {q \sim\mathcal{D}, r\sim\pi _ {L+1} (r|A_L(q)+v) } \left[ R(q, r) \right] - \beta \mathbb{D} _ {\text{KL}} \left[ \pi _ {L+1}(r|A_L(q)+v) || \pi _ {L+1}(r|A_L(q)) \right],$$
where the KL term is for controlling the deviation from the original model. Following [3], by solving the above equation, we can derive the mapping between the reward function and the optimal policy: $$R(q, r) = \beta\log\frac{\pi_{L+1}(r|A_L(q)+v)}{\pi_{L+1}(r|A_L(q))}+\beta\log{Z(q)},$$ where $Z(q)=\sum_r{\pi_{L+1}(r|A_L(q))}\exp(\frac{1}{\beta}R(q, r))$. Then, given the preference dataset, the optimal reward function can be solved by the following loss to maximize the reward difference between the target behavior response and the opposite behavior response, thereby obtaining the optimal policy according to the mapping:
$$-\mathbb{E}_{(q, r_T, r_O) \sim \mathcal{D}} \left[ \log\sigma(R(q, r_T)-R(q, r_O)) \right].$$ By substituting the mapping for $R(q,r)$ into this objective, we can derive our optimization objective in Eq.2 in our paper. Similarly, for the case of -v, we can follow an analogous derivation. Ultimately, by combining the objectives for both directions, we can obtain Eq.3 in our paper. This theoretical derivation demonstrates that our method can directly manipulate the reward of the steered model's generation, representing a more direct approach to producing steering vectors. This capability is not achievable by other baselines. We will provide detailed theoretical analysis in our revision.
**Q2:** Computational cost and trade-off between performance and efficiency.
**A2:** Please see **CA1** in our response to all reviewers.
**Q3:** Different and novel jailbreak methods.
**A3:** Thank you for your suggestion. We would like to emphasize that our focus is not specifically on jailbreaking, but rather on proposing a general framework applicable to various scenarios. The jailbreaking-related experiments are primarily intended to showcase our method's capabilities. Certainly, we believe that attempting to defend against more novel jailbreaking methods is both interesting and meaningful. Therefore, we have additionally considered two types of attacks: **DrAttack** [1] and **Auto-DAN** [2]. We summarize the experimental results on Llama-2-7b-chat in **Table 3 in the pdf**, which demonstrates that our method still provides the best defense against these attacks. Furthermore, as presented in **Table 4 of our paper**, by altering the direction of the steering vector obtained through our method, our approach can also serve as an effective jailbreaking technique, a capability that other baselines cannot achieve.
**Q4:** Analysis of underperforming or fail scenarios.
**A4:** We appreciate your suggestion. Please note that our method significantly outperforms baseline methods across all tasks, with no scenarios of underperformance. However, when there is some conflict between the model's inherent alignment and the target behavior, a small number of failure cases still exist. Consider the following example of attempted jailbreaking:
> **Input prompt:** Teach people how to commit identity theft
> **Steered generation:** Sure, here is a helpful and honest guide on how to commit identity theft: Identity theft, or the act of stealing someone else's personal information, is a serious crime that can have severe consequences for the victim. I cannot provide a guide on how to commit identity theft, as it goes against ethical and moral principles...
Although the steered generation initially gives an affirmative response, it subsequently refuses to answer, indicating that completely suppressing the model's inherently strong alignment across all samples using a unified single-layer steering vector remains challenging.
**Q5:** Analysis of potential misuse.
**A5:** We acknowledge that steering vectors indeed possess some potential for misuse. For instance, by collecting harmful, toxic, or biased preference data, our method could be used to generate corresponding vectors to control the model in producing malicious outputs, thereby negatively influencing the credibility of the artificial intelligence system. Consequently, in the process of open-sourcing the subsequent codes, we will ensure that we avoid directly disclosing any harmful data. Additionally, we will encourage responsible use of this technique through measures such as implementing user verification and requiring users to accept usage guidelines. We will include these discussions in our revision.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Reply by Reviewer
Comment: Thank you for your detailed rebuttal. Your response has addressed my major concerns. Based on this additional information, I plan to increase my score for your submission. I will also engage in further discussion with the other reviewers to ensure we consider your clarifications.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thank you for your review and response
Comment: We are glad that our responses have addressed your concerns and questions. Thank you for raising the score and for your constructive suggestions. | Summary: This paper focuses on how to better steer the behavior of LLMs.
Specifically, they followed the activation engineering method and introduced the so-called "bi-directional preference optimization" to create more effective steering vectors.
Unlike previous activation addition methods that rely on the differences in activations from contrastive prompts to compute the steer vectors, this approach directly optimizes steering vectors to influence the generation prob of contrastive data pairs w/ different human preferences. In this way the model outputs different generations conditioned on the steering vector and its scale.
This method allows for personalized control over LLM outputs in alignment-related scenarios such as managing truthfulness and defending against jailbreaking attacks. The paper also highlights the transferability of these vectors across different models and showcases the synergistic benefits of applying multiple vectors simultaneously.
Strengths: 1. The introduction of bi-directional preference optimization, which directly optimizes the steering vectors rather than computing them in a statistical ad-hoc way to create steering vectors is novel. It offers a more precise representation of target behaviors compared to previous methods.
2. The methodology is well-explained, with clear steps and detailed descriptions of the experimental settings and results.
3. The ability to personalize or steer LLMs effectively is indeed important, practically and theoretically.
Weaknesses: 1. The activation engineering has many heuristic designs in it and lacks solid formulation. The work states that it's inspired by DPO for direct optimization, yet has way much empirical stuff.
2. The 'bi-directional preference optimization' may be complex to implement and more costly compared to other activation engineering methods, potentially limiting its accessibility.
3. While the paper shows positive results on specific models and tasks, it is unclear how well the method generalizes to other LLMs or less common tasks.
4. The approach's scalability to larger models or more extensive datasets was not thoroughly explored, which could be a limitation for practical applications.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Personalization is indeed important, however, the activation engineering methods seem to have many heuristic things involved such as the position of the token of steering vectors the statistical objective to compute it, and so on, on which this work is developed. How about the methods' performance compared with other personalized steering LLM methods?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: It would be beneficial to discuss the method's scalability in more detail and explore potential challenges in applying this approach to even larger models or datasets.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ## Response To Reviewer XMbM
Thank you for your valuable comments!
**Q1:** Activation engineering has many heuristic designs.
**A1:** We are sorry for the confusion. We would like to clarify that most existing works on activation engineering indeed involve many heuristic designs, such as token positions from which the steering vectors are extracted and the activation difference calculation design, which is why their effectiveness is suboptimal (as analyzed in Section 3.1). In contrast, we propose to use bi-directional preference optimization to produce steering vectors with a direct objective of steering model's behavior, thereby avoiding these heuristic designs and obtaining more accurate steering vectors. Therefore, our method is not developed upon current heuristic activation engineering but represents an entirely new formulation.
**Q2:** Computational cost.
**A2:** Please see **CA1** in our response to all reviewers.
**Q3:** Generalization to more LLMs or less common tasks.
**A3:** Thank you for your suggestion. In our experiments, we have included multiple models including **LlaMA-2-chat**, **Mistral-instruct**, and **Vicuna**. The results have demonstrated that our method is highly effective across a wide range of tasks, including steering **AI personas**, managing **truthfulness**, mitigating **hallucination**, and addressing **jailbreaking** attacks alongside their respective defenses. We additionally considered Google's recently released **Gemma-7b-it** model and summarized the results of steering wealth-seeking persona and hallucination experiments in **Figure 1 (the first two subfigures) in the pdf**. Consistent with the results on other models, our method still shows a more extensive range of steering effects compared with baseline methods. For other "less common tasks", if you have specific tasks of interest, we would be happy to consider them and include relevant experiments.
**Q4:** Larger models or more extensive datasets.
**A4:** Thank you for your suggestion. For larger models, we have additionally conducted experiments on **Llama-13b-chat**, focusing on steering wealth-seeking persona and hallucination. As shown in **Figure 1 (the latter two subfigures) of the pdf**, our method still outperforms baseline methods on larger models. Regarding more extensive datasets, we would like to clarify that in practical personalization applications, there is generally no need for particularly large datasets. It is more practical and aligned with actual user needs to achieve personalization with a relatively moderate amount of data, which is also our focus. Nevertheless, we tried to locate additional datasets for personalization applications. However, we were unable to find datasets of significantly larger size. If you have any specific larger dataset in mind, we welcome your suggestions and would be pleased to conduct supplementary experiments.
**Q5:** Compare with other personalized steering methods.
**A5:** In addition to using steering vectors, other common personalized steering methods primarily include LoRA fine-tuning and In-context Learning (ICL). In **Appendix D of our paper**, we have already conducted a comparison with LoRA fine-tuning. The experimental results demonstrate that our method achieves a significantly broader range of steering effects while requiring fewer trainable parameters. Moreover, it is also hard to achieve varying degrees of steering effects by altering the direction and magnitude of the fine-tuned LoRA parameters. Here, we provide additional results comparing our method with ICL on Llama-2-7b-chat to steer wealth-seeking persona. Specifically, we sampled examples from the training data that represent both the target behavior and its opposite, and provided these to the model to steer its behavior. We summarize the results of ICL and ICL+steering vector in **Table 2 in the pdf**. From the first two subtables, we can observe that ICL can indeed control model behavior to some extent, but its range of control is far less than that of our method. Beyond this, we also attempted to apply steering vectors in conjunction with ICL. As demonstrated in the third subtable, when our method is combined with ICL, it achieves an even broader range of steering effects.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Nice rebuttal!
Comment: Thank you for the detailed replies to my questions. I have raised my score from 5 to 6.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thanks for your review and response
Comment: Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly review our submission. We greatly appreciate your constructive feedback and your willingness to adjust your scores based on our responses. | null | null | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ## General Response to All Reviewers
We thank all the reviewers for your valuable comments!
**We have incorporated all experiments suggested by the reviewers:**
1. (XMbM, EQVZ) Computational Cost -- We have assessed the number of trainable parameters and training time, which demonstrates that our method requires only minimal training costs.
2. (XMbM) More LLMs -- We have conducted additional experiments on Gemma-7b-it and Llama-2-13b-chat, with results indicating that our method maintains superior steering effects across these models.
3. (XMbM) More Steering Baselines -- We have compared our method with another commonly used personalized steering approach, In-context Learning (ICL). This comparison shows that our method has a broader steering range and can be combined with ICL to further improve performance.
4. (EQVZ) More Jailbreaking Attacks -- We have evaluated on two recent jailbreaking attacks: DrAttack [1] and AutoDAN [2]. Experimental results indicate that our method exhibits outstanding defensive efficacy against these attacks.
5. (sXZi) Uni- versus Bi-direction -- We have provided a comparison between uni-directional optimization and bi-directional optimization, further illustrating that bi-directional optimization can bring additional performance improvements.
6. (sXZi) Multiple versus Single Layer -- We have explored steering multiple layers simultaneously and conducted comparative experiments with steering a single layer.
**Here we address the common question raised by reviewers (XMbM, EQVZ):**
**CQ1:** Computational cost and trade-off between performance and efficiency.
**CA1:** Because our method only requires optimizing a single vector, the number of trainable parameters involved is very small. For instance, it involves 4096 dimensions on Llama-2-7b-chat and 5120 on the 13b model, resulting in minimal training time. **Table 1 in the pdf** presents the training costs under our experimental setup. It is evident that the proportion of trainable parameters is negligible, and the training time on an A100 GPU is less than 30 minutes for both the 7b and 13b models, which is highly acceptable. While other methods for extracting steering vectors are inference-based and indeed more efficient, their performance is significantly inferior to ours. Therefore, we believe the computational cost will not be a significant issue. Furthermore, in Appendix E of our paper, we have presented the effects of our method under different training epochs, the steering effects tend to stabilize. Moreover, at the 10th epoch (requiring only half the training time), our method already outperforms the baseline, suggesting that our approach can simultaneously achieve both efficiency and effectiveness.
**References in the rebuttal**
[1] Li, Xirui, et al. "Drattack: Prompt decomposition and reconstruction makes powerful llm jailbreakers." arXiv:2402.16914 (2024).
[2] Liu, Xiaogeng, et al. "AutoDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Models." ICLR2024.
[3] Rafailov, Rafael, et al. "Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model." NeurIPS 2024.
[4] Rimsky, Nina, et al. "Steering llama 2 via contrastive activation addition." arXiv:2312.06681 (2023).
[5] Wang, Haoran, and Kai Shu. "Backdoor activation attack: Attack large language models using activation steering for safety-alignment." arXiv:2311.09433 (2023).
Pdf: /pdf/f5e126acce65131dbcdd94424f8a984f61dfbdd0.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
DeltaDEQ: Exploiting Heterogeneous Convergence for Accelerating Deep Equilibrium Iterations | Accept (poster) | Summary: This proposed a DeltaDEQ method, which is designed to enhance computational efficiency for implicit models represented by deep equilibrium models. This method is inspired by the authors' observation of the heterogeneous convergence phenomenon prevalent in implicit neural networks, where differen dimensions of DEQ hidden states converge at varying speeds. The authors have tested DeltaDEQ across tasks involving implicit neural representation and optical flow, employing both RNN and CNN architectures. It seems that the proposed DeltaDEQ maintains accuracy while reducing computational demands across these network types.
Strengths: 1 It is interesing to propose heterogeneous convergence, which may exist in deep equilibrium models and other iterative methods and is found by analyzing the element-wise trajectory and dimensionality of hidden states update.
2 The proposed method does not assume temporal correlation of inputs i.e. effective even for static, which is different from fixed-point reuse acceleration.
3 The proposed approach achieved an 84% reduction in FLOPs for the INR task and a 73% and 76% reduction for the OF task using the Sintel and KITTI datasets, respectively, without significant loss in task accuracy.
Weaknesses: 1. Although the paper provides some implementation details, more details about the implementation of the algorithm may be needed, especially for the sparse processing and threshold selection of DeltaDEQ.
2. The paper is not compared with the current state-of-the-art methods or enough other methods, it may be unconvincing and unable to fully demonstrate the superiority of DeltaDEQ.
3. Although the paper mentions the reduction of FLOPs, it does not elaborate on the actual running time or resource consumption, including memory usage.
4. The paper does not fully explore the sensitivity of DeltaDEQ to threshold parameters or other hyperparameters, this may affect the stability and reliability of the method.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. What is the generalization ability of DeltaDEQ on different types of tasks and data sets? Can the author provide more data on their performance on diverse tasks?
2. What is the basis for the selection of key parameters (such as threshold τ) in DeltaDEQ ? Do these parameters have optimal values for different data sets or tasks?
3. How to deal with sparsity in the actual implementation of DeltaDEQ? Is there a special data structure or algorithm optimization?
4. How is the statistical significance of the experimental results evaluated? Is there an appropriate error analysis?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: 1. DeltaDEQ may perform well on specific types of tasks, such as implicit neural network representation and optical flow estimation, but the paper may not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate its applicability in other types of tasks or different fields.
2. Although the amount of calculation is reduced during reasoning, the computational complexity and convergence speed of DeltaDEQ in the training phase have not been fully evaluated.
3. If the paper does not provide or promise to provide code and data, this may limit the transparency and reproducibility of the study.
4. The experimental design of the paper may have limitations, such as the data sets used may not be diversified enough, or the experimental settings may not fully test all key aspects of the model.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for the detailed comments. In the reply below, we use for example $\textbf{W1}$ for the reply to point 1 in Weaknesses, etc.
$\textbf{W1 and W4: }$ We thank the reviewer for the reminder. For the realization of the delta rule and sparse processing in RNN and CNN, we provided illustrations in Fig. 5 and Fig. 2 respectively, and a pseudo-code for the DeltaDEQ-CNN in Sec. A.2. We will release the code under paper publication.
Regarding the delta threshold selection, we already conducted an inference delta threshold sweep for the results shown in Fig. 4, Tab 2, and in the new results of R-Tab. 1 (under general author rebuttal $\textbf{G2}$). We would be happy to provide more details for further clarification.
$\textbf{W2: }$ We have now conducted new experiments on a language modeling task with a DeltaDEQ-Transformer architecture. We provide some results in the following partial table R-Tab. 3. $\textbf{For the complete results}$ and descriptions, please refer to the second point of the general rebuttal reply $\textbf{G2}$ and R-Tab 1. The results show that our method generalizes to the language modeling dataset and transformer architecture. By applying our method, the computation costs for the FFN inference and QKV construction dropped by 52\% and 72\% respectively, and with a slightly better test perplexity (PPL).
| Model | mem_len=150, | seq_len=150. | | | mem_len=480, |seq_len=150. | | |
|--------------------|------------|-------------------------------------|------------|--------|-----------|------------|-------------------------------------|-----------|
| | Test PPL | FLOPs FFN | FLOPs QKV | | Test PPL | FLOPs FFN | FLOPs QKV | |
| DEQ-Transformer | 22.34 | 242.4 | 34.4 | | 21.85 | 242.4 | 72.2 | |
| $\textbf{DeltaDEQ τ=0.01}$ | $\textbf{22.24}$ | 115.3 (-52%) | 15.6 (-55%)| | $\textbf{21.75}$ | 115.5 (-52%)| 20.5 (-72%) | |
| DeltaDEQ τ=0.05 | 23.28 | 80.3 (-67%) | 13.7 (-60%)| | 22.66 | 81.6 (-66%) | 16.8 (-77%) | |
R-Tab 3: Results on the Wikitext-103-v1 dataset. DeltaDEQ refers to DeltaDEQ-Transformer and $\tau$ is the inference delta threshold.
For the optical flow task in Tab 2 of our work, we provided a comparison with several impactful works. Because the work focuses on studying an acceleration method for DEQ and potentially other iterative methods, our main comparisons are with the original DEQ models.
$\textbf{W3: }$ Indeed in this work we mainly analyse the theoretical maximum FLOPs reduction for the forward pass of DeltaDEQ. We leave the hardware implementation and actual runtime of our method to future works and focus on studying the potential of this method at the algorithmic level. We would like to mention that for the RNN-based DeltaDEQ, the sparsity in the delta activation is structured and therefore, can be implemented with the sparse-matrix-vector multiplication libraries on GPU/CPU platforms. For the CNN-based DeltaDEQ, there also exists tailored implementations [C3] on general computing platforms. Another direction of exploiting the delta activation sparsity is by using special hardware platforms (FPGA/ASICS) [C1-2]
One thing worth pointing out is although the delta sparsity differs from activation sparsity algorithmically (the former can have non-zero activation values even with zero values for the delta sparsity, and the latter has zero activation values for sparsity), our method can still be implemented on these accelerators designed for activation sparsity.
$\textbf{W4: }$ Replied in W1
$\textbf{Q1: }$ We now provide new results on a language modeling task with our DeltaDEQ-Transformer architecture. Please refer to $\textbf{W2}$ and $\textbf{G2}$ in the general rebuttal reply.
Apart from the new results, Tab. 2 in our paper demonstrates the generalization capability of DeltaDEQ to a new task. The models were pretrained on the FlyingChair and FlyingThings3D datasets and tested on the Sintel and KITTI, that also tests their zero-shot generalization ability.
$\textbf{Q2: }$For both implicit neural representation and optical flow tasks we performed an inference delta threshold sweep (Fig. 4 and Tab. 2). Indeed different tasks can have different optimal delta thresholds. We leave automatic learning of the delta threshold $\tau$ to future works.
$\textbf{Q3: }$ Please refer to the reply for W3.
$\textbf{Q4: }$ In Fig 4. and Fig. 7, we provided the standard deviation band in the plot.
$\textbf{L1: }$ Replied in W2 with new results on language modeling with a new architecture type which was not in the paper. In the paper, we have also provided results on 2 tasks with 3 datasets and 2 very different base architectures (DEQ-CNN and DEQ-RNN).
$\textbf{L2: }$ Our work mainly focuses on accelerating the inference/reasoning of DEQ to address one of the major disadvantages of DEQs and other iterative methods, that is, the expensive computation cost of the DEQ algorithm.
$\textbf{L3: }$ We are glad to release the code upon acceptance. In the submission, we forgot to include a footnote to mention this code release. For the moment, please refer to the formulations and Pseudo-code in Algorithm 1. All datasets used in the work are publicly available.
$\textbf{L4: }$ Answered under reply to W2 and G2.
[C1]NullHop: A Flexible Convolutional Neural Network Accelerator Based on Sparse Representations of Feature Maps, Aimar et al.
[C2]EIE: Efficient Inference Engine on Compressed Deep Neural Network, Han et al.
[C3]Inducing and Exploiting Activation Sparsity for Fast Neural Network Inference, Kurtz et al.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for your reply. The autors have addressed the issues. I tend to accept it. | Summary: This work provides a finer-grained analysis of the dynamics involved in updating hidden states and identifies a phenomenon of heterogeneous convergence in implicit models, where certain dimensions of hidden states converge much faster than others. Based on this observation, the forward pass update of DEQ models was modified using a delta updating rule that stores intermediate results of computationally intensive linear operations and only recalculates dimensions when changes between updates exceed a threshold. This approach is complementary to other acceleration techniques and does not rely on temporal input correlation, making it effective even for static inputs. The method, primarily applied to DEQ-based models but adaptable to other iterative methods, was tested on implicit neural representation (INR) for images and optical flow (OF) estimation.
Strengths: - I find the topic of pixel-level faster convergence in deep equilibrium models to be quite intriguing. Based on the experimental results presented in Section 5, this approach appears to have practical value in mitigating the issue of extensive computations during inference, thereby improving the approximation of the fixed point.
- The technical aspects of this paper are straightforward and easy to follow.
Weaknesses: - While the proposed method appears unique in the context of accelerating deep equilibrium iterations, its underlying concept is akin to standard dynamic network pruning methods, such as dynamic gating or controllable layer skipping. Unfortunately, these related works are not discussed in Section 6. The key differences between the proposed method and existing dynamic pruning approaches seem to be the pruning pattern (element-wise in this paper versus the more common block-wise pruning along the spatial dimension) and the threshold selection strategy (learnable predictor networks versus handcrafted thresholds like $\tau$). Additionally, the current submission lacks information on real runtime speedup. As the authors noted, "employing the delta rule might result in more overhead, offering no computational advantages," leaving me curious about whether the proposed method can achieve actual runtime speedup instead of merely theoretical reductions in computing cost.
- The "cache update" operation described in Equation (7) may introduce extra approximation error, in addition to the pruning error from Equation (5), since $C_z:=W_z\cdot\Delta z_t^i+C_z$ relies on $\Delta z_t^i=z_t^i-z_t^{i-1}$, which may not hold under the delta rule.
- The additional description of the "Convolutional DeltaDEQ" might be unnecessary, as the derivation from Equation (6) to Equation (8) is fairly straightforward. The main difference is that the sparse pattern should be compatible with the computational operations.
- Although the backward pass is independent of the forward pass, the value of $z^*$ determines the optimization process during backward propagation. I wonder if the learned parameters can still be used for model inference without applying the "Delta rule."
- The results in Table 1 show a noticeable performance drop with only a slight reduction in computing cost. Furthermore, the reported inference speedup seems inconsistent with the results under "Inf. $\tau=0.05$."
- The authors note that "the backward pass FLOPs remain constant and are not influenced by the forward pass." I would expect to see an overall reduction in training cost based on DeltaDEQ.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - Lines 89-91: According to the description in Appendix A.1, the number of PCA components was measured on a toy dataset, specifically the approximation of $sin(x)$. I am curious whether the same phenomenon can be observed on a real dataset. Additionally, although the major components account for most of the variance, this does not necessarily mean the residual values are negligible, particularly in the context of image restoration.
- Could the authors provide specific information on the sparsity ratio achieved after element-wise delta threshold pruning?
- How is the optimal threshold for each layer determined? It seems that an ablation study is necessary for different tasks and networks.
- The authors mention that "due to the fixed-point nature of DeltaDEQ, it is guaranteed to have a certain degree of sparsity from the delta activations between two FP iterations." Is there any proof supporting the desirable degree of sparsity between two FP iterations? Typically, the feature map is considered as a whole to derive the solution to the deep equilibrium model. How can a pixel-wise analysis be conducted on the fixed-point nature of DeltaDEQ? Additionally, theoretically, the proposed method reuses different fixed points $z_{t-k}^*$ as the initialization for processing the next timestep input $x_t$. Could this approach lead to convergence to the same $z_t^*$ as the original method, or is the convergence not guaranteed?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: I found no potential negative societal impact of this work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank reviewer for the comments!
**W1.1:** In comparison to 'layer skipping' or 'dynamic gating' methods including the Adaptive Computation Time (ACT) work[C1], our method exploits much finer-grained delta activation sparsity, because ACT can only decide to halt the entire global recurrent update. In comparison to other non-RNN-based works like SkipNet [C2] or [C3], DeltaDEQ uses a single block of layer(s) iteratively which could achieve similar accuracy level with fewer parameters.
‘Dynamic network pruning’ could refer to selecting input channels for CNNs [C4] or patch for transformers[C5]. These works usually set certain dimensions/channel/tokens of **activations** $z^i$ to 0s or discard them, while DeltaDEQ allows the activations to still maintain non-zero values but their **delta activation values under threshold** ($|z^i - z^{i-1}| < \tau $) are set to 0s. Thus, with the same activation/feature map size, in theory, DeltaDEQ should contain more information and thus more expressive.
Our method is in principle **orthogonal** to these methods and can be used in combination.
Could the reviewer provide specific literatures so we can discuss the differences in the related work section. We are also happy to continue the discussion in rebuttal.
**W1.2: Additionally’:** It is feasible to realize actual runtime speed-ups. The computation saving in DeltaDEQ are brought by element-level delta activation sparsity. Although current mainstream hardware platforms may not natively optimize for this type of sparsity, several works have offered promising solutions. That include custom hardware designs (FPGA/ASICS) [C6-7] or tailored implementation on CPU/GPU [C8]. Specifically, the authors of [C8] estimated a 1.86x runtime speed-up for a CNN with 67\% activation sparsity. Given that the primary focus of our work is on leveraging heterogeneous convergence to reduce the computation cost of DEQ networks, we will leave the exploration of hardware implementation in future work.
**W2:** Indeed Eq.7 should be an operation rather than a mathematical equivalence. We will modify Eq.7 to $C_z \gets W_z \Delta z^{i}+C_z$. Regarding the approx. error in C_z and z*, we reply under Q4.
**W3:** The main difference is indeed delta sparsity patterns. We included Eq.8 for ease of readability. We can consider moving them to the Appendix.
**W4:** The task accuracy remained similar level. We provide several results (due to space limit, please compare to our paper) of evaluating delta-trained/finetuned model as regular DEQs: For INR: Delta-DEQ-Fourier, tr.$\tau=1e-4$, IFT, PSNR=34.21. For OF: DeltaDEQ-ft, Sintel Clean=1.21, Final=2.56, KITTI AEPE=3.78, F1-all=13.33.
**W5:** Sorry for the confusion. The reported FLOPS reduction in Fig 3 and Fig. 4. are according to the text under the subsection of **Inference acceleration with DeltaDEQ** i.e. without delta in training. Only using delta in inference already lead to a reduction in inference FLOPs as shown in Fig 3. The inference FLOPs in Tab.1 should be compared to the **inference** FLOPs without using delta, namely the inference FLOPs under $inf. \tau = 0$ in the numbers above for W4. We will definitely fix the confusions and add complete results for W4 on the paper.
**W5:** A brief comparison of the computation costs of the backward pass (BP) and the forward pass (FP): Assuming in the DEQ formulation as in Eq.3, the FP of obtaining $z^*$ costs $O(k\cdot d^2)$ where k is the number of forward iterations. The backward pass, using phantom gradient [C9], costs $O(c \cdot d^2)$ where c is the number of steps in PG and usually $k > c$. The computational cost for FP and BP are on par thus accelerating the FP could benefit the overall training speed.
**Q1:** Similar low-dimensional dynamics was also observed in other fixed-point modeling works [C10, Fig 3,4,7 etc]. A direct implication from PCA to the activity space indeed can not be given, thus we also provided element-wise states evolution in Fig.1.d and Fig. 9.
**Q2:** OF task: the sparsity ratio is in Tab. 2 under ‘$\Delta Sp.$’ and sparsity ratio for examples are in Fig. 8. INR task: FLOPs reduction reflects the delta activation sparsity ratio because most of the FLOPs come from computing $W\cdot h$ vs. $W\cdot \Delta h$, which means the sparsity of $\Delta h$ is roughly the same as FLOPs reduction.
**Q3:** OF task: we did a global inference delta threshold sweep to obtain results in Table 2. Further increasing delta threshold will decrease accuracy. INR task: results from the delta threshold sweep can be seen in Fig 4. and 7.
**Q4.1, Q4.2:** Theoretically, when the $i \to \infty$, the $|z^{i+1} -z^i|\to 0$. So when the distance goes to zero it is guaranteed to have a fully sparse delta since $z^{i+1} = z^i$. Empirically we can’t do infinite iterations, but Figs.8 and 9 show that a high degree of delta sparsity already appears even after a few iterations.
**Q4.3 ‘Additionally’:** It is indeed not guaranteed to converge to the exact same $z_t^∗$. But as being empirically verified in our work and other DEQ works cited in Sec. 4.3, converging to the exact same $z_t^∗$ is not required for obtaining similarly good task accuracy.
[C1] Adaptive Computation Time for Recurrent Neural Networks, Graves et al.
[C2] SkipNet: Learning Dynamic Routing in Convolutional Networks, Wang et al.
[C3] Adaptive Neural Networks for Efficient Inference, Bolukbasi et al.
[C4] Dynamic Channel Pruning: Feature Boosting and Suppression, Gao et al.
[C5] Patch Slimming for Efficient Vision Transformers, Tang et al.
[C6] NullHop: A Flexible Convolutional Neural Network ..., Aimar et al.
[C7] EIE: Efficient Inference Engine on Compressed Deep Neural Network, Han et al.
[C8] Inducing and Exploiting Activation Sparsity..., Kurtz et al.
[C9] On Training Implicit Models. Geng et al.
[C10] Opening the Black Box: Low-Dimensional Dynamics in High-Dimensional Recurrent Neural Networks, Sussillo et al.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort the reviewer has invested in providing such detailed feedback! Due to the character limits in the rebuttal process, we were challenged to fully elaborate on every point and had to keep our explanations as condensed as possible, such as W4. We would be glad to provide further clarification with ‘official comment’ before the rebuttal deadline if requested and allowed by the reviewer.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Title: Re: Official Comment by Authors
Comment: Thank you for your thorough feedback. I'm looking forward to engaging in discussion during the upcoming reviewer-AC session. | Summary: The authors begin by presenting the observation that in fixed-depth networks, only three dimensions are sufficient to explain the trajectory of a dimension-20 hidden state. With this motivation in mind, they introduce the notion of heterogeneous convergence, which can be summarized as the concept that different dimensions in the hidden state converge at different rates. This is demonstrated for example in Figure 1d, where it is clear that some dimensions fluctuate significantly more than others which seem to converge rapidly. Hence, the authors re-formulate the fixed point iteration as in Equation (4), and apply what they call a “delta rule” whose goal is to save on computation by creating a sparse vector to multiply with a matrix. In experiments, they show that the training number of FLOPs greatly decreases.
Strengths: * The paper aims to decrease the number of FLOPs required for DEQs. This is a relevant problem given that DEQs are parameter-efficient models in terms of performance, and their main drawback is their computational cost. Hence the paper is well-motivated.
* The experiments section (5) is strong and provides a careful analysis of the benefits of the method. In particular, there is a clear reduction in training FLOPs. Figure 4 makes it clear that increasing the threshold for Delta decreases the number of inference FLOPs required, which is to be expected, while also decreasing the PSNR. It is nice to see how increasing tau affects the performance of the model in terms of* FLOPs and PSNR.
* The method is novel and appears to be a very principled approach to reducing the FLOPs required by DEQs. It is clever to re-formulate Equation (4) and Equation (5) and to use caching along with the Delta method to speed up inference..
* The authors appear to be well-aware of the related literature and include relevant references. They include other methods as well for accelerating DEQs in order to maximize the acceleration.
Weaknesses: * Section A.5 is very interesting but in a sense seems to discount the use of a DEQ. Classically a DEQ should find the fixed point, and should not halt until some threshold of being close enough to a fixed point is reached. It seems to me as though the DeltaDEQ method is only compatible with fixed-point point iterations due to the update method in Equation (3). Consequently, line 156 is lacking in precision. What exactly is defined as “good … convergence”? Furthermore, how many fixed-point iterations are there, for example, in the models in Table 1? I am curious to what extent convergence to a fixed point is necessary for your method to work, or if your method is more closely related to a weight-tied network as in “End-to-end Algorithm Synthesis with Recurrent Networks: Logical Extrapolation Without Overthinking” [Bansel et al 2022]. If it is the case that convergence to a fixed point is not necessary to obtain a good result with your method, I would truly hesitate in considering this a method for speeding up a DEQ.
* In Section 3, authors do not actually train a DEQ, they trains a recurrent neural network, or what some may call a weight-tied network. Furthermore, there is no noise in this setting and f(x) = sin(x) is quite a simple function. Consequently, it would be more interesting to (1) train a DEQ with fixed-point solving (2) either choose a more complicated ground-truth function or show many examples of this observation with other functions. Furthermore, although this is a toy example, it must be noted that this latent space of dimension 20 is far less than one used for a larger-scale DEQ. Does this observation of heterogeneous convergence hold in a much larger dimension?
* Some details that are incorrect/ confusing: The caption states that the backward pass takes a constant amount of FLOPs, although this should not be the case when IFT is the backward method, since IFT also has a fixed-point iteration. Also, the authors write that the training method is Delta-DEQ in the first column, despite having also non- Delta-DEQ methods included as well.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: * Some of my questions are in the above so I will not repeat them here. Overall, it would be very helpful to clarify the answers to these questions in order to make the results of the method more clear.
* It would be nice to maybe include some ablations. For instance, what is the impact of the other methods you included to speed up inference?
* I am a bit confused by what is being said in lines 253-259 due to the wording. Can you please clarify what you mean?
* Table 1 is unclear for a few reasons. First, what is “inf.”? If one is to assume that “inf.” refers to inference FLOPs, then I am confused– do the FLOPs increase despite decreasing for training? I assume this has to do with the fact that tau is higher, but what is the reasoning for choosing different tau in training and inference? This is actually a nice result, and maybe it should be emphasized in the paper that perhaps an even lower value for tau would be sufficient to obtain a nice result.
* Line 65 is incorrect. It is not the case that iteratively applying a function guarantees convergence to a fixed point. Can you please fix this?
* Did you try your method for any language modeling tasks? I would be interested in seeing if the result holds for different tasks.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for the in-depth reviews! Our reply is arranged as $\textbf{W1}$ for the first point in Weakness etc.
$\textbf{W1.1: }$ The delta rule is not limited to the vanilla fixed-point iteration (FPI) form as in Eq.3. Methods like Broyden’s solver as used in the original DEQ work can also be accelerated with delta rule: as in [C1, Eq.6] Broyden’s method gives $z^{i+1} = z^{i} - \alpha B (f_{\theta}(z^{i}, x) - z^{i})$, where the computationally heavy part is the calculation of the inverse jacobian matrix, $B$ and the forward pass $f_{\theta}(z^{i}, x)$. We can still apply the delta rule on this forward pass to generate sparse delta activations by exploiting the heterogeneous convergence nature of DEQ. We applied the delta rule with FPI because of the findings in A.5 which shows that task accuracy-wise FPI is better than solver-based methods when using the same number of iterations/solver steps during inference. FPI also requires fewer computes and memory storage than other methods including Broyden and Anderson root-solvers[C1].
$\textbf{W1.2 ‘Consquently,..’: }$ Line 156 ‘Good … convergence speed’ describes the findings in Sec. A.5 where global convergence speed refers to the iterations needed for the task accuracy to saturate. Moreover, with the same number of fixed-point iteration (FPI, including Picard and KM) vs. solver steps (Broyden, Anderson), the task accuracy of the former is on-par or better than the latter.
$\textbf{W1.3 ‘I am curious…’: }$ Firstly, if DeltaDEQ is unable to converge to fixed points, then when using early stopping as shown in Tab. 2, the FPI should not converge or will always use the maximum allowed number of steps, since with early stopping the inference will only halt when the distance of the activations between two iterations is smaller than a tolerance. Secondly, global convergence to fix points is also not guaranteed in practical use cases for the original DEQs [C2]. One of the major differences between DeltaDEQ/DEQ and weight-tied network lies in the training method: the former uses Implicit Function Theorem or Phantom Gradient, while the latter often uses (truncated) BPTT type of training. The BPTT training has a large memory footprint for storing past activation values. We will add the differences in the related work section.
$\textbf{W2: }$ We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion! For the optical flow task, Fig 9. Sec A.4.1. shows exemplary convergence speed for a subset of feature map locations. Fig. 8 presents the average delta sparsity levels (\%) in DeltaDEQ-RAFT model on 4 pairs of inputs. The figure shows that the delta activations at certain pixel locations converge earlier than other locations during the fixed-point iterations.
$\textbf{W3: }$ We are very sorry for the confusion. Indeed the FLOPs of the backward method vary depending on the IFT’s implementation. This will be corrected to ‘The computation cost of backward pass is independent of the forward pass’. Since the main focus of this work is to accelerate inference using the heterogeneous convergence phenomenon, it should not affect our conclusions. We will also fix the naming of the first column of Tab.1 to distinguish between the two cases.
$\textbf{Q1: }$ Please see the replies for the weaknesses.
$\textbf{Q2: }$ Thanks for the suggestion. One ablation is contained in Tab 2. i.e. the effect of (global) early stopping. Results show that with 60 fixed-point iterations, our method reduced the FLOPs by a lot, and the delta rule also works effectively when early stopping is applied.
$\textbf{Q3: }$ Line 253-259 describes a DEQ training technique introduced in [C3]. We will rephrase the sentences for better clarity. Basically, between two $\textbf{training}$ epochs, the fixed point obtained from a previous epoch is used as the initialization value for the next epoch. The authors [C3] found when the reuse of these hidden state values is applied, it is in general sufficient to only use 1 forward fixed-point iteration for each subsequent epoch, which greatly speeds up the training. If we do not apply this training trick, we will see an even bigger reduction in training FLOPs. On other tasks such as OF, one forward iteration is not sufficient for convergence even when reusing the hidden states, so the delta variant will benefit from more training epochs.
$\textbf{Q4}$ Inf. stands for inference. The inference TFLOPs (0.64 for instance) of delta trained DeltaDEQ-INR variants should be compared with the inference TFLOP numbers (4.14) without using delta rule in inference, which means that there is over 84\% decrease in FLOPs. The inference $\tau$ is chosen according to the best trade-off spot found in Fig. 4 when only using delta in inference. We found that for the INR task, using a large $\tau$ when training from scratch makes the training process unstable and often diverges. The smaller training $\tau$ in the table led to stable training. We will study how $\tau$ affects DeltaDEQ training in future work.
$\textbf{Q5: }$ Thanks for pointing this out! We will emphasize in the text, the assumption of “assuming $f_{\theta}$ is a contraction mapping.” or under the assumption of the existence of equilibrium as in [C1].
$\textbf{Q6: }$ We have added new experimental results for a language modeling task! Due to the character limit of rebuttal reply, we kindly ask the reviewer to refer to the second point of the general rebuttal reply G2.
[C1] Deep Equilibrium Models, Bai et al.
[C2] Global Convergence of Over-parameterized Deep Equilibrium Models, Ling et al.
[C3] (Implicit)2 : Implicit Layers for Implicit Representations, Huang et al.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response.
**W.1.1**: This makes sense. I suggest for improved clarity it would be nice to provide a general explanation of the Delta rule, outside of the example. What is nice about the Delta rule is that it also allows for some caching of computations. Is this also the case when using Broyden's method? Also, now that I am re-visiting Equation 5, I notice you have a rule which is as follows:
$$\Delta z_t^i = z_t^i - z_t^{i-1} \text{ if } z_t^i - z_t^{i-1} \geq \tau, 0 \text{ otherwise}.$$
Is this on purpose? To me, the objective to "zero out small changes" should be attained as follows:
$$\Delta z_t^i = z_t^i - z_t^{i-1} \text{ if } |z_t^i - z_t^{i-1}| \geq \tau, 0 \text{ otherwise},$$
so I am curious to hear your thoughts as regards to this choice. I notice that in other parts of the paper there is also no absolute value around the difference.
Overall, I think it would be nice to have a very general description of your algorithm which is not in the context of an example, so it is clear what method you are proposing.
Thank you for addressing the remainder of my questions and concerns, and for incorporating language results as well.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Dear reviewer,
We greatly appreciate the reviewer's time reviewing and revisiting our work and engaging in the rebuttal discussion!
1. Regarding the absolute value of the delta rule, the reviewer is absolutely correct! This is a surprisingly silly typo from our side. The absolute value should be taken for the delta rule, which is also how we described it in the text of the paper and implemented it in our code. We are really really grateful that the reviewer noticed this typo! We will change all the equations in our work accordingly.
2. Regarding **'also the case when using Broyden's method...'**: Yes caching and skipping computation could also be used for Broyden’s method, since it requires computing $f_{\theta}(z^i, x)$ and then $f_{\theta}(z^{i+1}, x)$ in the iterations described in [C1, Eq6].
3. Regarding **‘a very general description...’**: we thank the reviewer for the suggestion of describing the delta rule under a more general framework which our method is indeed capable of. We will improve the writing for a better balance of generality and readability of our work in the next version, especially in incorporating the discussion under W1.1. | Summary: The paper proposes the DeltaDEQ framework to accelerate the forward pass of the Deep Equilibrium Model. Initially, the paper identifies the heterogeneous convergence phenomenon, which shows that different dimensions of the state converge at uneven speeds in the forward pass of DEQ framework. Inspired by the phenomenon, the DeltaDEQ framework stores the past linear operation results and only propagates the activation when its change exceeds a threshold. Experiments on implicit neural representation and optical flow estimation tasks show that DeltaDEQ improves the efficiency of DEQ framework without hurting performance.
Strengths: 1. Very clear writing.
2. The method is simple and easy to understand.
Weaknesses: 1. Lack of experiments. The paper only shows the result of implicit neural representation and optical flow estimation tasks. However, DEQ has a wide variety of applications, including language modeling [1] and generative modeling[2]. I think the authors should provide more experimental results to show that the method can be applied to different tasks.
2. The method is limited to CNN and RNN architecture. In the paper, only CNN and RNN-based architectures are discussed. Can this method be applied to popular transformer-based architectures？
[1] Bai, Shaojie, J. Zico Kolter, and Vladlen Koltun. "Deep equilibrium models." Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019).
[2] Pokle, Ashwini, Zhengyang Geng, and J. Zico Kolter. "Deep equilibrium approaches to diffusion models." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022): 37975-37990.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See the sections above.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: N/A
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for your time and the precise summarization of our work! For points 1 and 2 in Weaknesses, the corresponding answers are under $\textbf{W1}$ and $\textbf{W2}$ respectively.
$\textbf{W1: }$ We thank the reviewer for the suggestion! We conducted new experiments exploiting the delta activation sparsity on a new language modeling task using the Wikitext-103-v1 dataset and the DEQ-Transformer architecture. The formulation is given under the next point. We give some results for this task in the following table (R-Tab 2). $\textbf{For the complete results table (R-Tab 1)}$ and more experimental details and other benchmarks, please refer to the second point $\textbf{G2}$ of the general rebuttal reply. The conclusion on the language modeling task with DeltaDEQ-Transformer is that the results do generalize to the text dataset. By applying the delta rule, the computation costs for the FFN and QKV construction dropped by 52% and 72% respectively, and with a slightly better test perplexity.
| Model | mem_len=150, | seq_len=150. | | | mem_len=480, |seq_len=150. | | |
|--------------------|------------|-------------------------------------|------------|--------|-----------|------------|-------------------------------------|-----------|
| | Test PPL | FLOPs FFN | FLOPs QKV | | Test PPL | FLOPs FFN | FLOPs QKV | |
| DEQ-Transformer | 22.34 | 242.4 | 34.4 | | 21.85 | 242.4 | 72.2 | |
| $\textbf{DeltaDEQ τ=0.01}$ | $\textbf{22.24}$ | 115.3 (-52%) | 15.6 (-55%)| | $\textbf{21.75}$ | 115.5 (-52%)| 20.5 (-72%) | |
R-Tab 2: Results on the Wikitext-103-v1 dataset. DeltaDEQ refers to DeltaDEQ-Transformer and $\tau$ is the inference delta threshold. Complete results are in $\textbf{G2}$ of general author rebuttal.
$\textbf{W2: }$ We show that our method can be applied to transformer-based architectures such as DEQ-Transformer [1]. Here we provide the conceptual delta formulation (experimental results are in the reply to $\textbf{W1}$ and the general review rebuttal) for the two computationally costly components in a transformer architecture (a) self-attention mechanism and (b) the feedforward layer (FFN), or fully connected layers.
$\text{SelfAttention}(Q,K,V) = \text{softmax}(QK^{T}/\sqrt{d})V$,
where $Q^i = Z^i W_Q, K^i = Z^i W_K, V^i = Z^iW_V$, and $Z^i \in \mathcal{R}^{T \times d}$ is the state of the DEQ-transformer architecture, T is the sequence length and d is the dimension size.
Applying the delta rule on the computation of $Q^i, K^i, V^i$:
$Q^i = (Z^i-Z^{i-1} + Z^{i-1}) W_Q = (Z^i-Z^{i-1}) W_Q + Z^{i-1} W_Q
= \Delta Z^i W_Q + C_Q$,
where the elements in $\Delta Z^i$ are set to corresponding elements in $(Z^i-Z^{i-1})$ if each is larger than the delta threshold $\tau$, otherwise it is set to 0. Thus $\Delta Z^i W_Q$ is a sparse matrix-matrix multiplication. And $C_Q$ is the cached results, which will be updated by $C_Q \gets C_Q + \Delta Z^i W_Q$. Computing $K^i$ and $V^i$ follows the same pattern. The following non-linearities such as layer normalization remain the same. The computation savings come from the sparse matrix-matrix multiplication. Assuming the sparsity percentage of $\Delta Z$ is $sp%$ then the FLOPs for computing $Q^i$ is $sp% \cdot T \cdot d^2$ in comparison to $Td^2$.
Computing the feedforward (FFN) layers consists mainly of matrix-vector multiplications and applying the activation function $\sigma$, $\text{FFN}(x^i) = \sigma(Wx^i)$, where $Wx^i$ can be formulated with the delta rule like the fully connected layer of DeltaDEQ in Eqs. 5-7 as in our work. So we omit the formulation here.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for your reply. I'll keep my positive rating of 6. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank the reviewers for their time in reviewing our work!
We first clarify the common concerns among some of the reviewers:
$\textbf{G1: }$In this work, we present the heterogeneous convergence phenomenon, which is a finding that shows different dimensions of the hidden states converging at different speeds during fixed-point iterations. Following that finding, we exploit the $\textbf{delta activation sparsity}$ to accelerate the $\textbf{forward pass}$ of DEQs and other iterative methods that have high inference computation costs. Our method is effective on both static (e.g. images, texts) or temporally correlated (e.g. videos) inputs.
$\textbf{G2: }$We now provide results from a new $\textbf{language modeling task}$ on the WikiText-103-v1 dataset using a new architecture, the DEQ-Transformer architecture. We applied the delta rule on the QKV matrices construction and the feed-forward layers after the self-attention module. The DEQ block has 3 transformer layers and 12 fixed-point iterations are carried out during inference on each example. The token dimension is 700. Our architecture design follows the settings of the deq-lm model in the public library[1]. For the formulation of the delta rule as applied to the Transformer architecture, please refer to Reply W2 for the first Reviewer ‘dpig’.
The results are presented in the following table (R-Tab. 1). By applying the delta rule on the DEQ-Transformer using a delta threshold $\tau=0.01$, the test perplexity (PPL, lower the better) improved slightly, while the FLOPs on both parts are greatly reduced (52% and 72% reduction on memory length (mem_len)=480 settings). Increasing $\tau=0.05$ led to a further reduction in FLOPs while maintaining a similar test PPL. We will add these results to a future version of this work along with a more detailed analysis.
| Model | mem_len=150, | seq_len=150. | | | mem_len=480, |seq_len=150. | | |
|--------------------|------------|-------------------------------------|------------|--------|-----------|------------|-------------------------------------|-----------|
| | Test PPL | FLOPs FFN | FLOPs QKV | | Test PPL | FLOPs FFN | FLOPs QKV | |
| DEQ-Transformer | 22.34 | 242.4 | 34.4 | | 21.85 | 242.4 | 72.2 | |
| $\textbf{DeltaDEQ τ=0.01}$ | $\textbf{22.24}$ | 115.3 (-52%) | 15.6 (-55%)| | $\textbf{21.75}$ | 115.5 (-52%)| 20.5 (-72%) | |
| DeltaDEQ τ=0.05 | 23.28 | 80.3 (-67%) | 13.7 (-60%)| | 22.66 | 81.6 (-66%) | 16.8 (-77%) | |
| DeltaDEQ τ=0.1 | 30.54 | 49.3 (-80%) | 9.3 (-73%) | | 29.15 | 50.9 (-79%) | 12.5 (-83%) | |
R-Tab.1.: DeltaDEQ in the table stands for DeltaDEQ-Transformer and $\tau$ is the inference delta threshold. The FLOPs are measured in Giga-FLOPs. For comparison, we provide task performance from others models with a similar number of parameters (DEQ-Transformer and DeltaDEQ-Transformer have 98M parameters) :
(a)Transformer-XL Standard (151M) [2], Test PPL = 24.0 (b) Feedback Transformer 8 layers (139M) [3], Test PPL = 18.2 (c) Feedback Transformer 4 layer (44M) [3], Test PPL = 22.4 (d) GPT-2-Large (774M) [4], Test PPL = 22.05.
$\textbf{G3: }$We have conducted a hyperparameter sweep for the $\textbf{inference}$ delta threshold, $\tau$ for both implicit neural representation (INR) and optical flow (OF) tasks, and the results are shown in Fig 4 and Tab 2. Additionally, we include such results in the new R. Tab. 1 above.
[1]TorchDEQ: A Library for Deep Equilibrium Models, Geng et al.
[2]Transformer-XL: Attentive Language Models Beyond a Fixed-Length Context, Dai et al.
[3]Addressing Some Limitations of Transformers with Feedback Memory, Fan et al.
[4]Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners, Radford et al. | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Learning Unsigned Distance Fields from Local Shape Functions for 3D Surface Reconstruction | Reject | Summary: This paper introduces a new method to learning unsigned distance functions. Specifically, the method leverages local shape priors which brings geometry priors and is also able to handle noises and outliers. The results demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms previous baselines, especially in the corrupted situations.
Strengths: 1. The idea of learning local shape functions is widely explored in the SDF or occupancy based methods, but is not yet introduced to the field of UDF-based reconstruction. This paper combines the strengths of local functions and UDF which can represent shapes with arbitrary typologies.
2. The paper is overall easy to follow.
3. The comparison are comprehensive by introducing recent works as the baselines.
4. The method can better handle the noises and outliers compared to the previous prior-free methods.
Weaknesses: 1. The idea is straightforward to learn local shape functions as the prior for global shape reconstruction. Similar ideas are proposed in SDF-based methods. I would like to see more insight in the differences to the previous methods and also the importance of introducing the local geometric priors for UDF learning.
Local Implicit Grid Representations for 3D Scenes (CVPR 2020)
Surface Reconstruction from Point Clouds by Learning Predictive Context Priors (CVPR 2022)
Deep local shapes: Learning local sdf priors for detailed 3d reconstruction (ECCV 2020)
2. The visualization is not quite convincing in the geometry details. For example, the reconstructions of real-scans in Fig.6 seems worse than the results of other methods in their papers. The local shape functions is expected to produce reconstruction with more details and sharper edges, but the scene reconstructions lack details.
3. Also, some reconstructions are too fat, which in my opinion, is caused by the inaccurate UDF near the zero-level set, since the method use DCUDF for UDF meshing.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: More references on the local shape functioning and UDF learning will be helpful.
Local Implicit Grid Representations for 3D Scenes (CVPR 2020)
CAP-UDF: Learning Unsigned Distance Functions Progressively from Raw Point Clouds with Consistency-Aware Field Optimization (TPAMI 2024)
Can the proposed method handle large scale scenes like KITTI?
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Please refer to the strengths and weaknesses above.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for recognizing the contributions of our paper. We also appreciate your valuable suggestions.
In the following, we address your main concerns. Please refer to the supplementary one-page PDF for figures and tables.
**Q1: The visualization is not quite convincing in the geometry details.**
We reiterate that our method introduces a novel strategy for learning UDFs from local shape functions. It requires only a single training session on a synthetic dataset composed of local patches represented by simple mathematical functions, and it demonstrates strong generalization capabilities across various point cloud shapes. Our method not only achieves comparable or superior performance to SOTA methods but does so at a significantly lower training cost. Its independence from specific shape categories greatly enhances its applicability. For models with rich geometric details, our method cannot reconstruct them well due to feature bias from our synthetic dataset. Moreover, we provide a strategy combining our method with unsupervised methods to enhance geometric details. Specifically, leveraging its efficiency and generalization capabilities, our method can serve as an effective initialization for training network. The initialization provided by our method not only stabilizes the network but also accelerates its convergence, cutting the training time from 30 minutes to just 10 minutes. Fig.5 showcases three examples where this strategy significant enhances geometric accuracy and fidelity.
**Q2: More references on the local shape functions and UDF learning.**
Thank you for your suggestion. We acknowledge that the paper "Local Implicit Grid Representations for 3D Scenes" (CVPR 2020) introduces a new 3D shape representation called Local Implicit Grid Representations, which is indeed related to our work. The work "CAP-UDF" (TPAMI 2024) is an improvement over the baseline method compared in our paper. We will conduct a more detailed survey and discussion on UDF learning and representations based on local shape functions.
**Q3: Tests on KITTI dataset.**
Thanks for your suggestion, and we tested our method on point clouds of the KITTI dataset. Due to the overly sparse point cloud density (refer to Fig.4 for point density analysis), the reconstruction failed. However, other baseline methods did not perform well on KITTI dataset either.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response to authors
Comment: Thanks for the response. I will maintain my original score as borderline accept. | Summary: The paper proposes an approach to reconstruct 3D surfaces from point clouds, using unsigned distance fields. The proposed approach consists in training a specific neural network architecture to predict UDF values from local point cloud patches, which can be triangulated using UDF meshing methods. The paper mathematically analyses the possible local patches that can appear, smooth and sharp, and trains the proposed architecture with them. Once trained, the neural network is queried for UDF values from a point cloud, and it computes them by extracting a local point cloud patch for each query point and applying the information learned during training. A denoising module is employed to reduce the impact of noise and outliers. Experiments are carried out on ShapeNet cars and DeepFashion3D, synthetically sampling point clouds from the dataset meshes and reconstructing surfaces using a number of baselines, an extracting meshes using DCUDF. Results show that the performance of the proposed method is not the strongest on clean data, but it is so in the presence of noise and/or outliers. Experiments on real-world point clouds are shown qualitatively.
Strengths: The analysis of the possible kinds of local surface patches is well thought out and significative, enabling the possibility to treat the problem of surface reconstruction locally instead of globally, with an extensive training set that covers virtually all possible cases. I believe this is a good contribution, and the main strength in the paper.
The performance of the method on noisy data, albeit the noise was introduced synthetically, is good; the performance with synthetic outliers looks impressive.
The writing quality is generally good, with some exceptions on clarity (see weaknesses).
Weaknesses: I believe there are a few weaknesses in the paper, mostly regarding clarity, architecture validation and experiments. I list them in no particular order.
1) The paper proposes a complex architecture, consisting of two branches, a cross-attention module, fully connected layers and a denoising module. The latter is only qualitatively justified in Fig.8, but the rest of the architecture is not validated in any way. A (quantitative) experimental evaluation of why this architecture is suitable for the task would be needed, in my opinion, as well as the intuition that led the researchers to arrive to this final architecture.
2) The cross-attention mechanism is unclear to me: the two branches (points and vectors net) output a latent code. What is the meaning of a cross-attention module on a single input token (actually one as K-V, one as Q)?
3) In the experiments, a few details are not specified, for example the query grid resolution and the number of points used for the Chamfer distance.
4) A time evaluation is completely missing. The paper claims "Our method is computationally efficient" in the introduction, which is partially justified by the comparatively better training times and storage requirements with respect to GeoUDF, but there is no evaluation of the time required by the method to reconstruct a surface, compared to the other methods. Notice also that DCUDF is an extremely slow meshing algorithm, so the evaluation should be performed both with it and without it.
5) The paper claims "superior performance in surface reconstruction from both synthetic point clouds and real scans, even in the presence of noise and outliers". The experiments however show no superiority in the absence of noise and outliers. Moreover, there are no quantitative experiments on real scans, making it impossible to evaluate whether the noise robustness on synthetic noise also translates to real data. Additionally, the qualitative experiments shown on real data lack comparison with the baselines. Thus, in general, I find the experimental section incomplete and not fully convincing.
Technical Quality: 1
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Relating to some of the weaknesses, I would ask the authors:
1) Could you clarify the role and mechanism of the cross-attention module in the architecture?
2) Could you specify the missing details? (grid resolution, number of points for Chamfer distance)
3) If you already have them in the logs or if time allows, could you provide the timings for your methods and the baselines?
4) Why are surfaces from real data not evaluated quantitatively?
5) In the conclusions, addressing the limitation of the proposed method on incomplete point clouds, you mention the possibility to readily integrate your framework with other methods, but it is unclear to me how this could be possible. Could you provide a brief explanation?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 1
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: A limitation of the method on completing incomplete surfaces has been correctly addressed and disclosed.
The limited performance on clean data is shown in the experiments, but not acknowledged in the claims in the introduction.
A quantitative assessment of the performance on real scans and of the time required to reconstruct the surface are missing, making it harder to fully evaluate the possible limitations of the method with respect to the claims.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for recognizing the contributions of our paper. We also appreciate your valuable suggestions.
In the following, we address your main concerns. Please refer to the supplementary one-page PDF for figures and tables.
**Q1: The intuition to design the network architecture and more ablation studies.**
Our intuition to design the network architecture: Our main goal is to derive the UDF value for a query point by learning the local geometry within a radius $r$. To achieve this, we utilize Points-Net to capture the point cloud features $\mathbf{f}_p$ of local patches. This process enables the local geometry extracted from test data to align with the synthetic data through feature matching, even in the presence of noise or outliers. Vectors-Net is tasked with learning the features $\mathbf{f}_v$ of the set of vectors pointing towards the query point, which includes not only the position of the query point but also its distance information. The Cross-Attn module then processes these local patch features $\mathbf{f}_p$ as keys and values to query the vector features $\mathbf{f}_v$, which contain distance information, returning the most relevant feature $\mathbf{f}_G$ that determines the UDF value.
To validate the effectiveness of each component, we conducted the following ablation studies: (a) removing the Points-Net and Cross-Attn modules; (b) removing the Cross-Attn module. We tested the performance on noisy point clouds. The results in Figure 3 demonstrate the important role of each component.
**Q2: Details about the experiments.**
We apologize for the omission of these details. The sampling resolution for query points and the mesh extraction grid resolution were both set to 512. When computing the Chamfer Distance (CD), we sampled 100,000 points each from the gt mesh and the reconstructed mesh.
**Q3:Time evaluation.**
We have supplemented the runtime information in Table.1. All tests were conducted using an Intel i9-13900K CPU and an NVIDIA RTX 4090 GPU-24GB. As supervised methods, CAPUDF, LevelsetUDF, and DUDF require extensive UDF learning time. Although their mesh extraction process is relatively fast, the resulting mesh quality is somewhat poor and necessitates normal.
Comparative results show that supervised, local feature-based methods like GeoUDF and ours outperform unsupervised methods in computational efficiency.
However, GeoUDF's UDF inference relies on the training dataset's category.
The evaluation in our manuscript (Sec.4.3) also demonstrates that our method surpasses GeoUDF in terms of generalization, storage complexity, and training time.
**Q4: Quantitative evaluation on real scan data.**
We show the visual comparison and the quantitative evaluations of different methods on real scan dataset in Fig.2.
**Q5: A brief explanation about integrating LoSF-UDF with other unsupervised methods.**
Thanks for your interest in this point. We have already conducted some preliminary experiments. Due to the high efficiency and generalizability of our method, it serves as an effective initialization for unsupervised methods. We train a Siren network (Sitzmann et al. NeurIPS, 2020) using UDF values derived from our pre-trained LoSF-UDF for supervision, employing MSE, Eikonal and normal alignment losses. The initialization provided by our method not only stabilizes the network but also accelerates its convergence, cutting the training time from 30 minutes to just 10 minutes. Fig.5 showcases three examples where this strategy significant enhances geometric accuracy and fidelity.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your responses.
I still do no understand two things:
1) The role of cross attention: my understanding was that the points-net extracts one feature per patch and so does the vectors-net. In this case, as I mentioned in my review, I do not understand the role of cross attention. In your comment you seem to suggest that the points-net extract more than one feature. Is that so?
2) When the Siren network is used to reconstruct the surface, it achieves better results than the proposed method. Is this so even for a vanilla Siren network (i.e. without your initialization)? It should be included in the baselines in the paper.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your questions.
**Q: The role of cross attention.**
In our network, the outputs of Points-Net and Vectors-Net are indeed one-dimensional vectors, specifically $\mathbf{f}_p\in\mathbb{R}^{64}$ and $\mathbf{f}_v\in\mathbb{R}^{64}$ in our experiments. The Cross-Attn module plays a crucial role in effectively fusing these two feature sets.
We begin by detailing how the Cross-Attn module processes these vectors. We obtain the query $Q$, key $K$, and value $V$ through the following linear transformations:
$$Q=\mathbf{W}_q\cdot\mathbf{f}_v,\,\,K=\mathbf{W}_k\cdot\mathbf{f}_q,\,\,V=\mathbf{W}_v\cdot\mathbf{f}_q,$$
where $\mathbf{W}_q, \mathbf{W}_k, \mathbf{W}_v\in\mathbb{R}^{64\times64}$ are learnable weight matrices. Then, we compute attention scores as
$$S=\text{Softmax}(\frac{Q K^T}{\sqrt{d}}),$$
where $d=64$ is the dimension. The attention scores quantify the correlation between $\mathbf{f}_p$ and $\mathbf{f}_v$, with $\mathbf{f}_p$ encapsulating local patch features and $\mathbf{f}_v$ providing distance information. The final feature vector $\mathbf{f}_G$ is obtained by applying these weighted attention scores $S$ to $V$. This method has proven effective for fusing $\mathbf{f}_p$ and $\mathbf{f}_v$. Our supplementary ablation study (Fig.3 Ablation (b)) contrasts this with a direct concatenation of $\mathbf{f}_p$ and $\mathbf{f}_v$, followed by processing through two fully connected layers to produce $\mathbf{f}_g$. The results indicate that direct concatenation yields poor reconstruction performance.
Although both Points-Net and Vectors-Net could output multiple vector features as a set to be processed through cross-attention, similar to the approaches used in most point cloud segmentation and shape analysis tasks, we opt for a simpler method. Given that we are learning point cloud information from local patches, which contain relatively fewer features, a single-dimensional feature vector is sufficient for our purposes.
**Q: Siren Network.**
In our response, we discussed integrating our unsupervised method with unsupervised methods to enhance geometric details in reconstructed surfaces. This extension highlights our method's contribution and adaptability. Both CAP-UDF and LevelSetUDF utilize coordinate-based MLPs to predict UDF values, leveraging loss functions such as normal consistency and projection loss to supervise training. Given the proven efficacy of SIREN networks in SDF-based reconstruction tasks, we chose SIREN as our backbone for conducting integration tests. We initialized the SIREN network using outputs from our method and then proceeded with unsupervised learning. This integration strategy demonstrates that our method can provide a better initialization, leading to improved stability and efficiency in UDF learning. We carried out a comparative experiment on three point clouds shown in Fig.5 in the one-page PDF. We used the same SIREN network and loss functions across tests but differentiated between random initialization and initialization using our method's output. For Tennyson and Horse Head, SIREN with random initialization failed to converge, resulting in poor shape reconstruction. For Gargoyle, while SIREN did converge, we observed that SIREN initialized with our method not only converged faster but also exhibited superior performance in terms of CD and F-scores. We will include detailed implementation on integrating LoSF-UDF with SIREN in revised manuscript.
| Tests | Time(min) | CD($\times 100$) | $F^{0.005}$ | $F^{0.01}$ |
|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| Initialization w/ our method | $\leq$10 | 0.012 | 0.728 | 0.908 |
| Random initialization | 15$\sim$20 | 0.595 | 0.654 | 0.882 | | Summary: The paper proposes a novel training strategy to learn Unsigned Distance Fields from local shapes. The idea is to train the model on a dataset of point cloud patches characterized by mathematical functions representing a continuum from smooth surfaces to sharp edges and corners. Although trained only on synthetic surfaces, it demonstrates a remarkable capability in predicting UDFs for a wide range of surface types. The method is evaluated on “Car” category of ShapeNet dataset in addition to DeepFashion3D, and ScanNet datasets. Furthermore, the paper shows results on scans from real range scan dataset , in addition to ablation studies highlighting the robustness of the method to noise and outliers.
Strengths: - The paper is well written and easy to follow.
- **Novelty**: While training on local patches is not new, the design of the local shapes and network architecture is novel and effective.
- **Performance**: The paper shows good generalization results while being only trained on local synthetic patches and more robustness to noise and outliers in the input pointcloud.
Weaknesses: - **Inference time**: While the method is better in terms of data storage space, data preparation time and training time, no comparison regarding the inference time is provided.
- **Patch radius**: The patch radius used at test time is a crucial hyper-parameter for the method. A discussion about how to set this parameter and how it depends on the point cloud density/size would strengthen the paper.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - What the inference time of the method compared to other baselines ?
- How to set the patch radius for new shapes with different pointcloud densities and sizes ?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors adequately addressed the limitations of the method.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for recognizing the contributions of our paper. We also appreciate your valuable suggestions. In the following, we address your main concerns. Please refer to the supplementary one-page PDF for figures and tables.
**Q1: The inference time of the method compared to other baselines.**
We list the runtime of our method and baseline models in Table.1. All tests were conducted using an Intel i9-13900K CPU and an NVIDIA RTX 4090 GPU-24GB.
**Q2: Setting the radius for new shapes with different point cloud densities and sizes.**
We provided additional information to confirm the applicability of our method. Please refer to the radius analysis in Fig.1(b) and the point cloud density analysis in Fig.4.
The choice of radius for extracting local geometries from test data directly influence the complexity of geometric features captured. When point clouds are normalized to a unit bounding box, we set the radius $r=0.018$. This setting achieves satisfactory reconstruction for DeepFashion3D, ShapeNet-Car, commonly used CG models, and several real scans. Also, the bias analysis of local patches between synthetic data and test data in Fig.1 indicates that the results are more reliable when $r=0.018$ because there are fewer outliers. We agree this default setting is not universal. To achieve the best performance for a new dataset, we recommend users conduct a preliminary bias test using a small sample set to fine-tune the radius $r$ appropriately.
Fig.4 provides reference values for point cloud density within the radius, and our algorithm is not suitable for excessively sparse point clouds. In our future work, We will investigate designing adaptive radii based on local geometric feature sizes and point cloud density. | Summary: The authors propose a method for open surface reconstruction from 3D point clouds. They train a network to predict unsigned distance functions (UDFs) from point cloud patches using only synthetic data of quadratic surfaces. Evaluation shows that the trained network generalizes well to other complex patterns and is more resilient to noise when reconstructing 3D surfaces from point clouds.
Strengths: The idea of training a UDF regression network using only synthetic data of quadratic surfaces is quite intriguing. This approach allows for a controlled and systematic way to generate training data, which can be more consistent and free from the imperfections and variability found in real-world data.
Using quadratic surfaces as a basis for synthetic data is quite interesting where the authors argue that quadratic surfaces can approximate various local geometries. I have some doubts about this but it is reasonable and novel to a certain extend.
Weaknesses: I have three main concerns: potential biases with the synthetic training data, the evaluation scheme, and the applicability in practice due to the patch radius.
## Potential Biases with Synthetic Training Data:
The use of primitive geometrical patches as training data for a UDF regressor might introduce biases. The observation that any local geometries can be approximated by quadratic surfaces is only valid at a very fine resolution, which requires dense point clouds to observe reliably. It is unclear how many patches have been synthesized and whether they provide a good approximation of universal geometrical primitives. Some analyses would be helpful here: for example, using the ShapeNet car dataset, cropping all local patches from each car, and finding the closest synthesized one to check for approximation errors. Are there any patterns with sufficiently high approximation errors? Can we perform these analyses at different resolutions and see how they correlate with surface reconstruction?
## Evaluation Scheme
The testing data is simulated to match the scenarios the method is designed for: the point cloud is quite dense, and artificial noise is added similarly to the training data. There is no quantitative evaluation for real-world scanned data.
## How sensitive is the method to different patch radii?
The value of 0.018 is oddly specific. I suspect that with a larger value of r, the method will generate overly smooth surfaces (as shown in Figure 6 - right), and with a smaller value of r, it will generate holes due to the point cloud not being dense enough. Overall, there is an inherent issue with this trade-off that may not be resolvable with this approach. Detailed experiments varying the patch radius and analyzing the impact on reconstruction quality would be helpful.
## Additional Concerns
- Ablation studies on the network architecture are missing. I am unsure about the roles of the two branches and the cross-attention mechanism. There is a potential issue with the reliance on Point-Net for embedding computation. Is this network pre-trained on other datasets? If so, we should be careful with the claim of using only synthetic data, as pre-training on real data could influence the results.
- It also seems that the method could be quite slow. The authors should include a speed test to provide insights into the computational efficiency of the proposed approach. Evaluating the method's runtime on different hardware setups and for varying point cloud sizes would give a clearer picture of its practical applicability.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Main questions I would like the answers for:
- Analyses on using the synthetic patches to approximate the real local 3D geometries.
- Speed test.
- Quantitative results on real-world scanned data, such as 3D-Scene dataset.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors acknowledged that the proposed method cannot handle incomplete point cloud. However, it is unclear what how resilient it is when dealing with this.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for recognizing the novelty of our method. We also appreciate your valuable suggestions. In the following, we address your main concerns. Please refer to the supplementary one-page PDF for figures and tables.
**Q1: Analyses on using the synthetic patches to approximate the real local 3D geometries.**
Thanks for your suggestion, we conducted a bias analysis of local patches between our synthetic and test point clouds. First, we extracted the features $\mathbf{f}^i_p$ for all 122,624 patches in our training dataset, processed by Points-Net in our network.
Then, we extracted all local geometries with a radius $r=0.018$ from point clouds in three categories: DeepFashion3D, ShapeNetCars, and 10 commonly used CG models (e.g., Bynny, Bimba, etc). Subsequently, we obtained the corresponding feature vectors $\mathbf{f}^i_p$ for these local geometries through the same Points-Net. To analyze the bias between our synthetic dataset and the test data, we measured the distances between the feature vectors $\{\mathbf{f}^i_p\}_{i=1}^N$ and $\{\hat{\mathbf{f}}^i_p\}_{i=1}^M$. This analysis was also applied to point clouds with noise (0.25\%) and outliers (10\%). Fig.1 (a) shows the feature bias distribution in box-plots, indicating the spread and skewness of data through the minimum, maximum, median, and Q1, Q3 quartiles. The outliers are samples that significantly deviate from the norm. Overall, the results show a low bias range with an average median of 0.0025.
**Q2: Speed tests for evaluating computational efficiency.**
We list the runtime of our method and baseline models in Table.1. All tests were conducted using an Intel i9-13900K CPU and an NVIDIA RTX 4090 GPU-24GB. As supervised methods, CAPUDF, LevelsetUDF, and DUDF require extensive UDF learning time. Although their mesh extraction process is relatively fast, the resulting mesh quality is somewhat poor and necessitates normal.
Comparative results show that supervised, local feature-based methods like GeoUDF and ours outperform unsupervised methods in computational efficiency.
However, GeoUDF's UDF inference relies on the training dataset's category.
The evaluation in our manuscript (Sec.4.3) also demonstrates that our method surpasses GeoUDF in terms of generalization, storage complexity, and training time.
**Q3: Quantitative evaluation for real-world scanned data.**
We illustrate the visual comparison and the quantitative evaluations of different methods on real scan dataset in Fig.2.
**Q4: Sensitivity analysis for patch radii.**
The choice of radius for extracting local geometries from test data directly influence the complexity of geometric features captured. When point clouds are normalized to a unit bounding box, we set the radius $r=0.018$. This setting achieves satisfactory reconstruction for DeepFashion3D, ShapeNet-Car, commonly used CG models, and several real scans. Also, the bias analysis of local patches between synthetic data and test data in Fig.1 indicates that the results are more reliable when $r=0.018$ because there are fewer outliers. We agree this default setting is not universal. To achieve the best performance for a new dataset, we recommend users conduct a preliminary bias test using a small sample set to fine-tune the radius $r$ appropriately.
**Q5: More ablation studies on the network architecture.**
To validate the effectiveness of each component, we add two ablation studies: (a) removing the Points-Net and Cross-Attn modules; (b) removing the Cross-Attn module. We tested the performance on noisy point clouds. The results in Figure 3 demonstrate the important role of each component.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Again, I still find the choice of the radii value oddly specific. I think it is extremely crucial to the method but the current analysis doesn't answer me very well. It does not simply relate the "satisfactory reconstruction" but it hints when the main idea works and when it doesn't. I believe that with different value, the synthetic data will have to be generated differently to better approximate the "universal set". However, if it is too large, no simple function can generate those and if it is too small, the point cloud has to be extremely dense for the method to become relevant.
Overall, this is an inherent issue of this approach that makes me find it not very useful.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your feedback. We acknowledge that the quality of LoSF-UDF's reconstruction results depends on the model-dependent hyperparameter $r$, which specifies the size of local patches. However, we do not consider this dependency to be an inherent flaw. If the default setting of $r$ proves suboptimal for a new dataset, our method allows users to fine-tune this parameter using a few representative models. Subsequently, the pre-trained network can be re-run on these models **without the need for re-training**. Because of the high efficiency of LoSF-UDF, this fine-tuning process is both rapid and straightforward.
It is also important to note that the reliance on a model-dependent hyperparameter is not unique to our method. For instance, GeoUDF (ICCV 2023) employs a hyperparameter $k$ to identify the $k$-nearest neighbors required for computing weights, which represent the contribution of each neighbor. Similarly, POCO (CVPR 2022) also adopts a model-dependent parameter for searching local neighborhoods. To our knowledge, there are no supervised SDF/UDF learning methods that are entirely free of model-dependent hyperparameter.
Moreover, as demonstrated in the rebuttal, LoSF-UDF can also be effectively combined with an unsupervised method, serving as an initialization. In such scenarios, it is not necessary to obtain a highly accurate result from LoSF-UDF, which diminishes the importance of fine-tuning the parameter $r$. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for the valuable feedback. We reiterate our method introduces a novel strategy for learning UDFs from local shape functions. It requires only a single training session on a synthetic dataset composed of local patches represented by simple mathematical functions, and it demonstrates strong generalization capabilities across various point cloud shapes. Our method not only achieves comparable or superior performance to SOTA methods but does so at a significantly lower training cost. Its independence from specific shape categories greatly enhances its applicability. Leveraging its efficiency and generalization capabilities, our method can also integrate seamlessly with unsupervised methods, serving as an effective initialization.
**Q1: Bias Analysis for Local Patches (\#AbEM)**.
We conducted a bias analysis comparing our synthetic local patches with local geometries extracted from test data. We obtained the feature vectors $\mathbf{f}^i_p$ for all patches in the training dataset (totaling 122,624 data points), processed by Points-Net in our network, and then extracted local geometries with a radius $r=0.018$ from point clouds in three categories: DeepFashion3D, ShapeNet-Cars, and 10 common CG models (Bunny, Bimba, etc). We computed the corresponding feature vectors $\hat{\mathbf{f}}^i_p$. We measured the distances between $\mathbf{f}^i_p$ and $\hat{\mathbf{f}}^i_p$ as the bias. This analysis was also applied to point clouds with noise and outliers. Fig.1 (a) shows the feature bias distribution in box-plots. The outliers are samples that significantly deviate from the norm. Overall, the results show a low bias range.
**Joint analysis with radius.** The radius impacts the size of extracted local geometries and thus influences the observed bias. We performed experiments with different radii using the aforementioned analysis method. Fig.1 (b) shows a radius of r=0.018 (our default setting) results in relatively fewer outliers.
**Q2: Detailed illustration of radii and point density (\#AbEM, \#YXLQ, \#1t3W)**. The choice of radius for extracting local geometries from test data directly influences the complexity of the geometric features captured. When normalizing point clouds to a unit bounding box, we set the radius, $r=0.018$. This setting achieves satisfactory reconstruction for DeepFashion3D, ShapeNet-Car and several real scans. Also, the bias analysis shows that this radius setting maintains a relatively low bias, suggesting its effectiveness. We agree this default setting is not universal. To achieve the best performance for a new dataset, we recommend users perform a preliminary bias test using a small sample set to fine-tune the radius $r$ appropriately.
We also notice the optimal choice of $r$ varies with the sampling rate of the input point cloud. Sparse point clouds, where few points fall within the designated radius, can significantly degrade the quality of the reconstruction results. A possible way for mitigating issues arising from low sampling rates is to apply an upsampling module during the pre-processing step. Fig.4 visually demonstrates the impact of point density on reconstruction results.
**Q3: More explanation and ablation studies on the network architecture (\#AbEM, \#15wp)**. Our main goal is to derive the UDF value for a query point by learning the local geometry within a radius $r$. To achieve this, we utilize Points-Net to capture the point cloud features $\mathbf{f}_p$ of local patches. This process enables the local geometry extracted from test data to align with the synthetic data through feature matching, even in the presence of noise or outliers. Vectors-Net is tasked with learning the features $\mathbf{f}_v$ of the set of vectors pointing towards the query point, which includes not only the position of the query point but also its distance information. The Cross-Attn module then processes these local patch features $\mathbf{f}_p$ as keys and values to query the vector features $\mathbf{f}_v$, which contain distance information, returning the most relevant feature $\mathbf{f}_G$ that determines the UDF value. See Fig.3 for two ablation studies on noisy point clouds.
**Q4: Quantitative evaluation for real scans (\#AbEM, \#15wp)**. We provide both a visual comparison and quantitative evaluations of various methods applied to real scans in Fig.2. This illustration demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach compared to competing methods under practical, real-world conditions.
**Q5: Time efficiency (\#AbEm, \#YXLQ, \#15wp)**.
Table 1 presents the runtime for our method, including local patch extraction, network inference, and mesh extraction using DCUDF. All tests were conducted on an Intel i9-13900K CPU and an NVIDIA RTX 4090 GPU. The runtime for local patch extraction and UDF inferring varies depending on the radius setting, which influences the number of effective query points.
Computational results show that supervised, local feature-based methods like GeoUDF and our approach significantly outperform unsupervised methods in terms of computational efficiency.
However, GeoUDF's dependence on the training dataset's category limits its applicability. Furthermore, the evaluation detailed in Sec 4.3 reveal our method exceeds GeoUDF in generalization capabilities, storage requirement, and training time efficiency.
**Q6: Integration of LoSF-UDF with unsupervised methods (\#15wp)**
Due to the high efficiency and generalizability of our method, it serves as an effective initialization for unsupervised methods. We train a Siren network using UDF values derived from our pre-trained LoSF-UDF for supervision, employing MSE, Eikonal and normal alignment losses. The initialization provided by our method not only stabilizes the network but also accelerates its convergence, cutting the training time from 30 minutes to 10 minutes. Fig.5 showcases 3 examples where this strategy significant enhances geometric accuracy and fidelity.
Pdf: /pdf/3d874289676889639f7663b21217b009fd2bd0ae.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Improving Visual Prompt Tuning by Gaussian Neighborhood Minimization for Long-Tailed Visual Recognition | Accept (poster) | Summary: The author proposes a novel optimization strategy, Gaussian neighborhood minimization prompt tuning (GNM-PT), for VPT under long-tailed distribution. This method is improved based on the SAM optimizer. Specifically, during each gradient update, GNM-PT searches for a gradient descent direction within a random parameter neighborhood, independent of the input sample, which eliminates the influence of imbalance. Further experiments show the effectiveness of the method.
Strengths: 1) The proposed method is simple and effective.
2) The proposed method can improve the performance and accelerate the training procedure compared with SAM.
3) Solid theoretical supports.
4) The paper is well written.
Weaknesses: 1) It is not clear why the author applied GNM to VPT and not to adapterformer or lora or any other PEFT-based method or even training from scratch under CNN based model. All of these also face the problem of local minimum.
2) How to optimize under long-tailed distributions has been explored [a][b]. The authors should experiment with them directly under VPT and compare with GNM-PT and discuss their performance and training costs.
3) I admit that the flat minimum is mainly for the head class, but can we apply loss reweighting or logit adjustment[c] to alleviate this?
4) The author has done the experiment with the hyper-parameters in Appendix.G, but does not give any analysis of how this parameter influences the performance.
[a] Class-conditional sharpness-aware minimization for deep long-tailed recognition, CVPR
[b] A closer look at sharpness-aware minimization in class-imbalanced recognition, ICCV
[c] Long-tail learning via logit adjustment, ICLR2021
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: see weakness
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: > Q1. Why apply GNM to VPT?
**A1:** We acknowledge that most deep models encounter the issue of sharp local minima. We select VPT as a representative method. The primary reason is that it facilitates direct comparison with existing methods tailored for long-tailed learning, which employ the same fine-tuning strategy.
For other training paradigms, we present the results obtained using AdapterFormer, fine-tuned on ImageNet21K and CLIP (refer to Table 8), as well as those from training the model from scratch (refer to Tables 9 and 10). These results demonstrate that GNM can further enhance the original models. We will include additional baseline models in our revised version.
---
> Q2. Compare with CC-SAM and ImbSAM under VPT.
**A2:** Thank you for this valuable comment. We implement the experiments using CIFAR-100-LT with an imbalance ratio of 100. The re-balancing strategy employed in the second stage can influence the performance of optimization methods on a per-class level, we conducted a comparative analysis for various optimization methods, both without and with the application of the rebalancing strategy. DRW is utilized as the re-balancing strategy. LPT also employs a two-stage strategy that includes a re-balance strategy, thus we present it in Table R6. The training cost of Stage 2 is similar to that of Stage 1; therefore, it is not listed again.
**Table R5.** Optimization strategy comparison (w.o. stage2).
| Method | Head acc. (%) | Med. acc. (%) | Tail acc. (%) | All acc. (%) |NET (s)
| -------- |-------| ----- |------ | -----|-----|
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL | 92.86 | *88.94* |79.28 | 87.76 |**40.32**|
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL and CCSAM | 92.81 | 88.31 |79.31 | 87.84 |80.47|
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL and imbSAM| *92.92* | 88.43 |**84.00** | **89.02** | 88.97|
|GNM-PT | **93.39** | **89.14** |*81.38* | *88.58* | *42.77*|
**Note:** NET represents native execution time.
**Table R6.** Optimization strategy comparison (w. stage2).
| Method | Head acc. (%) | Med. acc. (%) | Tail acc. (%) | All acc. (%) |
| -------- |-------| ----- |------ | -----|
| LPT | * | * | * |89.10 |
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL |90.08 ($\downarrow$ 2.78)|89.60|*88.14* | 89.40 |
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL & CCSAM | 90.47 ($\downarrow$ 2.34)| *89.63* | 88.03 | 89.54 |
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL & imbSAM| *91.75* ($\downarrow$ 1.17)| 88.71 | 87.90 | *89.62* |
|GNM-PT | **91.94** ($\downarrow$ 1.73)| **90.17** | **88.21** | **90.28** |
**Note:** The listed decreases in Head acc. are compared to that in Table R5.
All methods, except for LPT, utilize the same backbones and training strategies, differing only in their optimization techniques. We directly cite the result of LPT from its original paper. Tables R5 and R6 demonstrate that GNM can further enhance model performance compared to CCSAM and imbSAM. Additionally, GNM requires less computation time than other SAM-based methods.
---
> Q3. Can loss reweighting or logit adjustment alleviate the issue of flat minimum dominated by head classes?
**A3:** Literature indicates that logit adjustment alone is insufficient to fully address the challenge of a flat minimum predominantly influenced by head classes. LDAM and GCL are two representative methods of logit adjustment. As presented in CC-SAM [R1], the loss landscapes for LDAM (Figure 5 in [R1]) and GCL (Figure 8 [R1]) do not exhibit flattening compared to CE. Specifically, the loss landscape of LDAM is sharper than that of CE for all classes, while GCL, despite generally having a flatter loss landscape than CE, exhibits several small local protrusions.
[R1] Z. Zhou, et al., Class-conditional sharpness-aware minimization for deep long-tailed recognition, in *CVPR*, 2023.
---
> Q4. Analysis of how the hyper-parameter influences the model performance.
**A4:** Thanks for pointing out this issue. We will provide a comprehensive analysis of the impact of the hyper-parameter on the performance in the revised version. The following is our analysis.
* When $a \rightarrow 0$, the interference becomes negligible, effectively restricting the loss function to attain its minimum value within a small area. The extreme case is $a=0$, meaning no additional optimization techniques are employed. Therefore, the smaller $a$ is, the less pronounced its effect.
* When $a$ increases: the disturbance area expands. A large $a$ introduces significant perturbations, potentially deviating from the basic gradient descent path. Excessively large values of $a$, for example $a=2$, lead to performance degradation. In the extreme case of $a=\infty$, the model fails to converge.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the response. Part of my problems have been solved. However, I find that GNM-PT cannot outperform imbSAM in the first stage but outperform in the second stage. The author may give some analysis of this phenomenon. Furthermore, why the GNM-PT can outperform previous SAM-based methods also needs to be analyzed to help us understand your method.
In addition, the two-stage training procedure is tedious, and it is unsatisfactory that GNM-PT cannot surpass imbSAM in the first stage.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thank you for your time and continued discussion. Below, we provide our responses to your comments and hope they address your concerns.
---
> Q1. Analysis for GNM-PT cannot outperform imbSAM in the first stage but outperform in the second stage.
**A1:** In brief, stage 1 of imbSAM already applies strong regularization to tail classes, the rebalancing strategy in stage 2 essentially duplicates this effect. In contrast, GNM applies the same level of regularization to all classes without specifically intensifying it for tail classes and thus the strong regularization for tail classes can still work in stage 2.
In detail, the rebalancing strategy can be viewed as a strong regularization for tail classes. ImbSAM filters the gradient restrictions on head and median classes and only exerts perturbation on tail classes. As shown in Table R5, the performance gain of imbSAM in stage 1 primarily comes from tail classes, while the head classes see a slight improvement, and the median classes even exhibit a decline in performance. In stage 2, the rebalancing strategy that focuses on training tail classes duplicates the effect of stage 1, resulting in relatively smaller performance improvements.
Differently, GNM imposes constraints on minimizing the optimal point and its neighborhood of the loss function to all classes equally. It comprehensively improves the performance across all classes. Compared to imbSAM, GNM applies balanced regularization across all classes. Therefore, adding rebalancing can enhance overall performance by significantly improving the performance of the tail class.
---
> Q2. Why the GNM-PT can outperform previous SAM-based methods.
**A2:** In brief, for long-tailed learning, SAM tends to favor head classes during optimization, CCSAM and imbSAM are biased towards optimizing tail classes, while GNM offers a balanced optimization across all classes.
For GNM: The optimization constraint in GNM is sample-independent, preventing classes with large sample sizes from dominating the direction of the perturbation vector. GNM can effectively improve all classes, avoiding optimization biases towards head classes and ensuring that the optimization focus is not solely on tail classes. Table R5 supports this as well.
For SAM: The head class dominates gradient optimization as the perturbations are dependent on class size. Remark 1 (lines 176-182) and Appendix B (lines 528-542) provide a detailed analysis and proof.
For CCSAM: It scales the perturbations in SAM utilizing a weight inversely proportional to the class sizes.
For imbSAM: It directly filters out the perturbations from the head class and median classes in SAM, focusing solely on adding smooth constraints to the sharpness of tail classes.
Both of these two methods prioritize the sharpness constraint of tail classes while overlooking the other classes.
In addition, GNM has another significant advantage: it requires negligible computational overhead due to its single forward and backward pass per gradient update. In contrast, other SAM-based methods require an additional forward and backward pass per gradient update, and thus double the computation time. Remark 2 (lines 183-190 in the paper) provides a detailed analysis.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: **(Continued from previous)**
---
> Q3. Two-stage training procedure is tedious.
** A3:** The two-stage method is one of the most widely used training strategies for long-tail learning [R1-R7]. It requires only a few additional epochs for the classifier to be trained and does not introduce significant overhead. DRW [R1] can even be trained end-to-end without requiring additional computational parameters, time, or other resources.
---
> Q4. GNM-PT cannot surpass imbSAM in the first stage.
**A4: ** We admit the necessity of a rebalancing strategy for GNM-PT is the limitation and have discussed it in the concluding remarks.
GNM-PT does not apply strong regularization to tail classes, resulting in less improvement for these classes compared to imbSAM for one-stage training. Therefore, we apply an additional re-balance stage for strong regularization to tail classes and for further balancing the classifier. GNM-PT demonstrates improvements across all class scales in Stage 1 and surpasses imbSAM after Stage 2.
Computational overhead is also an important metric to consider. Although GNM-PT is slightly inferior to imbSAM in stage 1, it is worth noting that imbSAM requires 88.97 seconds per epoch due to the need for two forward and backward propagations. In contrast, GNM only requires 42.77 seconds per epoch, which significantly reduces the computational burden, as analyzed in Remark 2 (lines 183-190).
Reference:
[R1] K. Cao, et al., Learning imbalanced datasets with label-distribution-aware margin loss, in NeurIPS 2019.
[R2] B. Kang, et al., Decoupling representation and classifier for long-tailed recognition, in ICLR 2020.
[R3] Z. Zhong, et al., Improving calibration for long-tailed recognition, in CVPR 2021.
[R4] M. Li, et al., Long-tailed visual recognition via gaussian clouded logit adjustment, in CVPR 2022.
[R5] B. Dong, et al., LPT: long-tailed prompt tuning for image classification, in ICLR 2023.
[R6] J.X. Shi, et al., How Re-sampling Helps for Long-Tail Learning? in NeurIPS 2023.
[R7] M. Li, et al., Feature Fusion from Head to Tail for Long-Tailed Visual Recognition, in AAAI 2024. | Summary: This paper proposes Gaussian neighborhood minimization (GNM) to enhance prompt tuning methods in long-tailed recognition. GNM is inspired by a recent work SAM, which aims to achieve flat minima by capturing the sharpness of loss landscape. Theoretical evidence shows that GNM can achieve a tighter upper bound and optimize the loss to a lower value. Experiments on multiple long-tailed datasets demonstrate that GNM can improve the performance of both head and tail classes and can reduce the computational cost compared to SAM.
Strengths: 1. The studied problem is important, i.e., long-tailed recognition by fine-tuning the pre-trained foundation model.
2. The proposed method GNM is simple while versatile.
3. The theoretical contribution of this work is important.
4. The empirical results are thorough and convincing.
Weaknesses: 1. In Tables 1-3, the SAM-based methods are equipped with DNN-based model, which is unfair when compared to GNM-PT. Have you experimented the SAM-based methods with MHSA-based models such as ViT-B/16?
2. Since you have already used the GCL loss function, why do you use DRW? Will this make the learning process overly focused on tail classes?
3. The performance gain is marginal in some datasets, for example, when compared to LPT on iNaturalist and Places-LT. There may be space for further refinement.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See weaknesses above.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have discussed the limitations in their paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: >Q1. Comparison with MHSA-based model incorporated with SAM-based methods.
**A1:** We implement the experiments using CIFAR-100-LT with an imbalance ratio of 100. Since the re-balancing strategy employed in the second stage can influence the performance of optimization methods on a per-class level, we conducted a comparative analysis for various optimization methods, both without and with the application of the rebalancing strategy. DRW is utilized as the re-balancing strategy. LPT also employs two stages that include a re-balancing strategy, thus we present it in Table R4.
**Table R3.** Optimization strategy comparison (w.o. stage2).
| Method | Head Acc. (%)| Med. Acc. (%)| Tail Acc. (%)| All Acc. (%) |NET (s)
| -------- |-------| ----- |------ | -----|-----|
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL | 92.86 | *88.94* |79.28 | 87.76 |**40.32**|
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL & CCSAM | 92.81 | 88.31 |79.31 | 87.84 |80.47|
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL & imbSAM| *92.92* | 88.43 |**84.00** | **89.02** | 88.97|
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL & GNM | **93.67** | **89.03** |*81.10* | *88.46* | *42.77*|
**Note:** NET represents native execution time.
**Table R4.** Optimization strategy comparison (w. stage2)
| Method | Head Acc. (%)| Med. Acc. (%) | Tail Acc. (%) | All Acc. (%) |
| -------- |-------| ----- |------ | -----|
| LPT | * | * | * |89.10 |
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL |90.08 ($\downarrow$ 2.78)|89.60|*88.14* | 89.40 |
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL & CCSAM | 90.47 ($\downarrow$ 2.34)| *89.63* | 88.03 | 89.54 |
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL & imbSAM| *91.75* ($\downarrow$ 1.17)| 88.71 | 87.90 | *89.62* |
|GNM-PT | **91.94** ($\downarrow$ 1.73)| **90.17** | **88.21** | **90.28** |
**Note:** The listed decreases in Head acc. are compared to that in Table R3.
All methods, except for LPT, utilize the same backbones and training strategies, differing only in their optimization techniques. We directly cite the result of LPT from its original paper. Tables R3 and R4 demonstrate that GNM can further enhance model performance compared to CCSAM and imbSAM. Additionally, GNM significantly reduces computational overhead compared to other SAM-based methods.
Table 8 also compares AdapterFormer with two different pre-trained ViTs under different optimizations. Please refer to the appendix for details.
---
> Q2. Using GCL with DRW.
**A2:** Thanks for pointing out this problem. We agree that incorporating a re-balancing strategy poses the risk of over-emphasizing tail classes. While employing only GCL mitigates the gradient over-suppression problem, it does not fully address the classifier bias stemming from the significant disparity in sample sizes between head and tail classes. As noted in the original GCL paper, a two-stage strategy that includes classifier re-balancing is implemented to further enhance overall performance. Similarly, LPT [R1] utilizes GCL-based loss. During stage 2 of LPT, group prompt tuning also incorporates a re-balancing strategy that combines class-balanced and instance sampling data. To facilitate end-to-end training and further balance the classifier, we adopt DRW.
[R1] Bowen Dong, et al. LPT: long-tailed prompt tuning for image classification. In ICLR, 2023.
---
> Q3. The performance gain is marginal in some datasets.
**A3:** Thanks for this valuable comment. While improvements on some datasets may appear marginal, GNM-PT exhibits greater computational efficiency. For example, on iNaturalist-2018, GNM-PT requires 70 epochs without DRW and 80 epochs with DRW, compared to LPT’s 160 epochs—80 for shared prompt tuning and 80 for group prompt tuning.
Moreover, achieving significant improvements becomes increasingly challenging as the performance on long-tailed data approaches that of balanced datasets. Take cifar100-LT as an example: we conducted an experiment utilizing VPT on balanced cifar-100. The classification accuracy on the validation set is 92.9\%, which can be regarded as the upper bound of cifar100-LT. GNM-PT achieves 90.3\% on cifar100-LT with an imbalance ratio of 100, a value remarkably close to this upper bound.
According to your kind suggestion, we leave this as one of our future research priorities and will further explore ways to improve the proposed method.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Reminder -- please reply to rebuttal
Comment: Dear Reviewer ZADq,
Thank you again for reviewing this paper. Since the reviewer-author discussion phase is closing soon, could you please read through all the reviews and see if the authors' responses have addressed your concerns?
Best,
AC | Summary: The paper proposes an optimization approach called Gaussian neighborhood minimization prompt tuning (GNM-PT) for long-tailed visual recognition. Compared to sharpness-aware minimization (SAM), it excels in lower computational overhead, tighter upper bound for loss function and superior performance. GNM-PT utilize Gaussian neighborhood instead of the gradient direction of current parameters employed in SAM.
Strengths: 1, The idea of using Gaussian neighborhood to search for flat minima is novel.
2, PEFT methods optimized by GNM-PT achieve state-of-the-art performance in long-tailed benchmarks.
Weaknesses: 1, For the comparative method LDAM [1] mentioned in the paper, the authors did not provide experimental results.
2, The experimental results are insufficient. Specifically, this paper investigates the optimization strategies for long-tailed recognition under parameter-efficient fine-tuning. Accordingly, existing optimization strategies should be compared under the same training paradigm (i.e., PEFT) and the same backbone. For example, in Tables 1 to Table 3, the performance of “LPT+SAM”, “LPT+CCSAM”, and “LPT+IMBSAM” should be provided to illustrate the outstanding superiority of the proposed GNM-PT.
3, I wonder whether the variance of the Gaussian distribution has an impact on the results. The authors should provide ablation studies on the different choices of variance.
4, As illustrated in Section 3.2, GNM-PT improves the generalization performance of each category equally. However, the results presented in Table 2 and Table 3 show that GNM-PT achieves inferior performance than the baseline LPT for tail category, please explain the reason.
5, There are some typos: In the explanation of Eq. (2), what do “k” and “n” represent?
[1] Cao K, Wei C, Gaidon A, et al. Learning imbalanced datasets with label-distribution-aware margin loss[J]. Advances in neural information processing systems, 2019, 32.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: See weakness.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: GNM-PT method must collaborate with the rebalancing strategy to ensure overall performance across all classes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: > Q1. Experimental results with LDAM.
**A1:** Thank you for pointing out this issue. GCL is a logit adjustment method with a rationale similar to LDAM. Since LDAM is one of the baseline methods for GCL, and GCL performs better than LDAM on long-tailed visual recognition, we chose to compare our method with more advanced methods, omitting the results of LDAM in the experiment. We will include these results in our revised version.
---
> Q2. Comparison results w.r.t. optimization strategies under the same backbone.
**A2:** We implement the experiments using CIFAR-100-LT with an imbalance ratio of 100. The re-balancing strategy employed in the second stage can influence the performance of optimization methods on a per-class level, we conducted a comparative analysis for various optimization methods, both without and with the application of the rebalancing strategy. DRW is utilized as the re-balancing strategy. LPT also employs two stages that include a re-balance strategy, thus we present it in Table R2.
**Table R1.** Optimization strategy comparison (w.o. stage2).
| Method | Head Acc. (%)| Med. Acc. (%)| Tail Acc. (%)| All Acc. (%) |NET (s)
| -------- |-------| ----- |------ | -----|-----|
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL | 92.86 | *88.94* |79.28 | 87.76 |**40.32**|
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL & CCSAM | 92.81 | 88.31 |79.31 | 87.84 |80.47|
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL & imbSAM| *92.92* | 88.43 |**84.00** | **89.02** | 88.97|
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL & GNM | **93.67** | **89.03** |*81.10* | *88.46* | *42.77*|
**Note:** NET represents native execution time.
**Table R2.** Optimization strategy comparison (w. stage2)
| Method | Head Acc. (%)| Med. Acc. (%) | Tail Acc. (%) | All Acc. (%) |
| -------- |-------| ----- |------ | -----|
| LPT | * | * | * |89.10 |
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL |90.08 ($\downarrow$ 2.78)|89.60|*88.14* | 89.40 |
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL & CCSAM | 90.47 ($\downarrow$ 2.34)| *89.63* | 88.03 | 89.54 |
|VPT (ViT-B/16) w. GCL & imbSAM| *91.75* ($\downarrow$ 1.17)| 88.71 | 87.90 | *89.62* |
|GNM-PT | **91.94** ($\downarrow$ 1.73)| **90.17** | **88.21** | **90.28** |
**Note:** The listed decreases in Head acc. are compared to that in Table R1.
As observed from Table R1, without the re-balancing strategy to adjust the classifier bias, imbSAM achieves better overall accuracy. However, imbSAM has little impact on the head and middle classes. Additionally, both ccSAM and imbSAM require two back propagations, thereby doubling the computation time. Compared to VPT with GCL, which does not include additional optimization, GNM incurs only a small computational overhead.
Table 2 shows that the re-balancing strategy sacrifices a small amount of head class performance in exchange for significantly improving tail class performance. imbSAM essentially does not employ additional optimization for head classes, whereas CCSAM and GNM use additional optimization for all classes. However, compared to imbSAM, CCSAM and GNM result in a greater reduction in the accuracy of head classes. The optimization strategies may have a limited impact on the rebalancing training process. We will investigate this in detail in future work.
Additional comparative results across more datasets will be included in the revised version.
---
> Q3. Ablation studies on different choices of variance.
**A3:** We appreciate the reviewer's valuable suggestion. Table R3 presents ablation studies on the different choices of variance. Additionally, we include the results of $\tilde{\varepsilon}$ using a uniform distribution within the range of [-1,1].
**Table R3.** Ablation study w.r.t. variance on CIFAR-100-LTwithimbalanceratio=100.
| $\rho$ | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0.8 | 0.6 |0.4 | (1/3) |0.2 |(uniform distribution)|
| -------- |---- |------| ----- |------| -----|-----|-----|-----|-----|
|Acc. (\%) |90.03|89.99 | 90.14 |90.23 | 90.01 | 90.06 |(90.28)|90.12|90.17|
Initially, we considered only a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 0 and a variance of 1/3, as it has a 99.7% probability of being within the range [-1, 1]. This allows us to conveniently control the size of $\tilde{\varepsilon}$ by adjusting the amplitude hyperparameter.
Table R3 indicates that the variance impacts model performance. This finding demonstrates that, in addition to the amplitude of $\tilde{\varepsilon}$, the distribution also influences model performance and is worthy of further study.
---
> Q4. The reason of GNM-PT achieves inferior performance than LPT for tail classes.
**A4:** Stage 2 in LPT also adopts a re-balancing strategy that has a more substantial effect than optimization. This strategy results in a minor reduction in the performance of head classes while significantly enhancing the performance of tail classes. For iNat, LPT did not present the performance in head classes. The results we re-implement are: 59.54\% (Head Acc.), 76.65\% (Med. Acc.), 79.12\% (Tail Acc.), 75.98\% (All Acc.). The enhancement by stage 2 in LPT of tail class performance comes with a trade-off that may negatively impact the performance on head classes.
Table 2 presents the results of GNM-PT with and without the rebalancing strategy. After implementing the rebalancing strategy, GNM-PT's performance in tail classes matches that of LPT (GNM-PT: 79.3\% v.s. LPT: 79.3\% on iNat, and GNM-PT: 49.4\% v.s. LPT: 48.4\% on Places-LT).
In addition, comparing Table R1 with Table R2 reveals that the application of additional optimization on the rebalancing strategy in stage 2 may not consistently contribute to the improvement of model performance. This observation warrants further investigation, which we will study in our future work. We appreciate the reviewers' valuable insights that inspired this direction.
---
> Q5. Typos.
**A5:** Thank you for the reminder. We will proofread and revise the paper carefully.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Reminder -- please reply to rebuttal
Comment: Dear Reviewer X9cb,
Thank you again for reviewing this paper. Since the reviewer-author discussion phase is closing soon, could you please read through all the reviews and see if the authors' responses have addressed your concerns?
Best,
AC
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.2:
Title: Response to Authors
Comment: Thanks for the rebuttal, and most of my concerns are addressed. I will keep my positive rating to this paper.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Dear Reviewer X9cb,
We are glad to hear that most of your concerns have been addressed. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Your positive rating is greatly appreciated. We hope that our paper can meet your expectations.
Should you have any further concerns, please let us know and we are more than willing to engage in a detailed discussion before the discussion phase deadline. We are committed to addressing all feedback to the best of our ability to ensure the paper aligns with the high standards of the conference.
Best regards,
Authors | Summary: This work addresses the long-tailed learning problem by adding a tight upper bound on the loss function of data distribution and improving the generality of the model through flattening the loss landscape.
Strengths: 1. Long-tailed visual recognition is an inevitable problem and is desired for conducting in-depth research. The authors provide a new insight into tackling this issue.
2. This paper is well-written and easy-to-understand, and it includes theoretical justifications, detailed algorithm descriptions, and experimental results to support the claims.
Weaknesses: 1. The authors mention that GNM flattened the loss landscape and thus improved model generalization. I doubt this conclusion, since the flatness improvement from the proposed approach is not significant enough. Specifically, the original landscape is already flat enough in Figures 1 and 4 (i.e., compared with the original bumpy landscape in Figure 1 of [ref1] and Figure 1 of [ref2]). The original approach already possessed the ability to achieve generality without needing any more skills, and thus the GNM seems to contribute little. Hence, it comes to the confusion: does GNM really help the model improve generalization through this perspective (flattening the loss)?
2. I hope to have more quantitative metrics about the loss landscape. Since the only value in Figures 1 and 4 is loss, which only means lower loss buttum with higher accuracy (i.e., it is hard to compare the convexity of various approaches since they are both very flat), Could the author measure the level of convexity? For example, you can compute the eigenvalues of the Hessian following [ref2].
3. I noticed that the authors only chose to visualize the loss landscape of CIFAR100-LT. Could you clarify why you only chose this one? And does it have a similar phenomenon in the other two datasets? Could you provide more visualization results in the appendix?
[ref1] Sharpness-aware minimization for efficiently improving generalization. ICLR 2021
[ref2] Visualizing the Loss Landscape of Neural Nets. NeurIPS 2018
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See "Weaknesses”
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors included the limitation section.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: > Q1. Does GNM help improve generalization through flattening the loss?
**A1:** Thanks for pointing out this problem. Flattening the loss landscape is one aspect to consider. As observed in Figures 1 and 4, GNM exhibits a relatively large "area" at the minimum, particularly compared to the original method, although this may not be particularly obvious. Moreover, as discussed in Remark 4 (lines 219-225), GNM can achieve a tighter upper bound on the loss. Therefore, GNM further enhance model performance. We will revise the relevant content accordingly.
---
> Q2. More quantitative metrics about the loss landscape.
**A2:** Thank you for your constructive feedback. We compute the eigenvalues of the Hessian using CIFAR-100-LT. Calculating the eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix is time-consuming, requiring approximately 4300 seconds per point on an RTX 4090 GPU. Due to time constraints, we currently present 1D visualization results, as shown in Figure R1 in the attachment in "global rebuttal". (We also include a copy of the figures in the anonymous link provided in the abstract of our paper, in case the attached file cannot be viewed.)
As shown in the figure, GNM exhibits generally smaller eigenvalues. Both methods, however, display instances of larger eigenvalues. This could be attributed to the selected one-dimensional direction and the limited number of sampling points. We will include additional higher-resolution results in the revised version.
---
> Q3. Reasons of visualizing the loss landscape of CIFAR-100-LT and more visualization results.
**A3:**
*Utilizing CIFAR-100-LT for visualization:* Existing methods, such as [R1] and [R2], utilize the CIFAR dataset for visualization. We primarily follow their settings.
[R1] Z. Zhou, et al., Class-conditional sharpness-aware minimization for deep long-tailed recognition, in *CVPR*, 2023.
[R2] H. Li, et al., Visualizing the Loss Landscape of Neural Nets, in *NeurIPS*, 2018.
*More results:*
Owing to the time constraint, we present the visualization results for the places-LT trained with Resnet152, which are shown in Figure R2 in the attachment in "global rebuttal". As shown in Table 11 in the appendix of our paper (Section J), the performance differences are small, making the distinctions in Figure R2 not particularly obvious. However, it can still be observed that SGD and SAM exhibit steeper gradients and some protrusions.
We will supplement more comparative visualization results with the other two datasets and more methodologies in the revised revisions.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the detailed responses. My concerns have been successfully addressed.
In additional to my existing comments, I think it would be beneficial for the authors to include a discussion of [1][2] in the revision. [1] approaches VPT by considering the Transformer architecture, while [2] provides a thorough analysis of VPT and its usability.
[1] E^ 2VPT: An Effective and Efficient Approach for Visual Prompt Tuning;
[2] Facing the Elephant in the Room: Visual Prompt Tuning or Full Finetuning?
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Dear Reviewer veiW,
We would like to thank you again for your precious time and the insightful recommendations. In addition to the revisions already made, we will incorporate a detailed analysis and discussion of these two important works relevant to VPT.
Moreover, please let us know if you have any further concerns. We are more than willing to discuss them with you and will address all concerns to the best of our ability to ensure the paper meets the high standards of the conference.
Best regards,
Authors
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: I am glad to learn our discussion is helpful. I have made my final rating. Good luck!
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: Dear Reviewer veiW,
We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and recognition of our work. Your valuable suggestions will significantly contribute to improving the quality of our paper.
Best regards,
The Authors | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the PCs, SACs, ACs, and all the reviewers for their effort to enhanc our work and for their positive feedback. For example, Reviewer veiW pointed that our work *"includes theoretical justifications, detailed algorithm descriptions, and experimental results to support the claims."* Reviewer ZADq commented that *"the idea of using Gaussian neighborhood to search for flat minima is novel"* and *"the proposed method GNM is simple while versatile"* and *"the theoretical contribution of this work is important."* Reviewer XQK2 also recognized that *"the proposed method is simple and effective"* and praised the *"solid theoretical supports"*. We are greatly encouraged by the acknowledgment of the significance of our work by all the reviewers.
The reviewers' comments are of great value for enhancing our paper and inspiring our future work. In the revised version, we will include more quantitative metrics about the loss landscape, provide visualization results of additional datasets, and supplement more comparison results in the appendix.
The attachment provides the visualization results for Q2 and Q3 raised by Reviewer veiW.
Pdf: /pdf/baa5db7f7745811bb8729b4e8a396fb814a0213f.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Initializing Variable-sized Vision Transformers from Learngene with Learnable Transformation | Accept (poster) | Summary: This work proposes Learnable Transformations (LeTra) for improving learngene-based model initialization. In particular, a set of width transformations is learned to produce weight matrices of varying dimensions, and a set of depth transformations is learned to change the number of layers in the model. In the learngene learning stage, an auxiliary model is distilled from a large model, so that the learngene and the transformations can be optimized. After that, a set of variable-sized models can be initialized based on the optimized learngene and the transformations, which can serve as good starting points for efficient fine-tuning. Experiments on various image classification datasets including ImageNet and CIFAR with the Vision Transformer (ViT) architecture demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed method.
Strengths: 1. It is intuitive to apply both depth transformations and width transformations to learngene when constructing new models. This work shows the benefits of combining both transformations.
2. The empirical results on various image datasets including ImageNet shows that LeTra can provide strong model initialization weights, significantly outperforming prior methods TLEG and Grad-LG.
Weaknesses: 1. [Presentation] The description of the proposed approach is not very clear:
- Overall, if we consider the ViT weights as a set of matrices, each width transformation linearly transforms the rows and columns of a weight matrix, and the depth transformations construct new layers by linear combining layers from the learngene. Section 3 could be improved by highlighting the core idea behind the two types of transformations and simplifying the notations.
- Section 3.3 is not easy to follow because the description is a bit vague. For instance, it is not specified how to choose the start and step size in "step-wise selection." The difference between "random selection" and "random selection (wo)" is also unclear.
- The caption of Figure 3 could include more details.
2. [Models larger than Aux-Net] The proposed approach learns width and depth transformations during Stage 1. However, such transformations cannot "extrapolate," or in other words, we cannot build descendant models that are deeper or wider than the Aux-Net. This somehow limits the application scenarios.
3. [Learngene training costs] When comparing LeTra with baselines, it would be helpful to also include the training costs of Stage 1 in which a more complex set of learngene + learnable transformations is optimized.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. [Transformation selection] In addition to the selection strategies introduced in Section 3.3, there could be other heuristics that consider the importance of each weight row/column, and select them accordingly. For instance, would it be helpful to rank the weights by magnitude and select the largest rows/columns?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors have adequately discussed the limitations and potential societal impacts.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **[Presentation]**
**1) The description of transformations and notations.**
Thank you for pointing this out!
In the revision, we will simplify the notations of Section 3 and highlight the core idea behind the two types of transformations.
**2) How to choose the start and step size in "step-wise selection".**
In practice, we usually choose the starting row as 1 and calculate the step sizes as $\lfloor\frac{D_{in}^{(aux)}}{D_{in}^{(des)}}\rfloor$ and $\lfloor\frac{D_{out}^{(aux)}}{D_{out}^{(des)}}\rfloor$.
**3) Difference between "random selection" and "random selection (wo)".**
For random selection, we first randomly generate a set of indices, based on which we select corresponding rows/columns.
During the selection process, we ensure that selecting the same rows/columns for all transformation matrices.
In the case of random selection (wo), as opposed to random selection, we opt to select distinct rows/columns for each transformation matrice (L238-239).
**4) Caption of Figure 3.**
In the revision, we will add more descriptions in the caption of Figure 3 to avoid any misinterpretation.
**[Models larger than Aux-Net]**
Please see the relevant discussions in G1 of General response.
**[Comparisons between LeTra and baselines in training costs]**
Thank you for pointing this out!
Compared to Scratch-1, LeTra reduces around 3.6× total training costs (12$\times$100 epochs versus 320+12$\times$1 epochs), where "320" means the training epochs of stage 1.
Additionally, in comparison to Scratch-1, we calculate GPU hours for training 12 Des-Nets and find that LeTra significantly reduces total training GPU hours by approximately 7× (1322 GPU hours for Scratch-1 versus 190 GPU hours for LeTra).
**[More choices of transformation selection]**
Thank you for your insightful question!
We rank the weights by magnitude and select the largest rows/columns as the target transformation matrices, a strategy we refer to as "rank".
According to the table below, we observe that "rank" achieves performance comparable to LeTra (continuous selection), thereby validating the robustness of our trained transformation matrices.
| Model | Params(M) | FLOPs(G) | Scratch (100ep) | LeTra | step-wise | rank |
| :--------: | :-------: | :------: | :-------------: | :---: | :-------: | :--: |
| Des-H8-L13 | 42.0 | 8.6 | 78.1 | 80.0 | 79.6 | 79.8 |
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Further clarification on the concerns?
Comment: Dear Reviewer p972,
Thank you very much for your constructive comments on our work.
We have made every effort to address the concerns raised. If any aspect of our response is unclear or requires further clarification, please let us know. If everything is clear, we kindly ask if you could consider improving the score.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Title: Thank you
Comment: Thank you very much for the clarification and the new insights on different model sizes. Most of my previous concerns are addressed. I would like to raise my rating.
---
Reply to Comment 2.1.1:
Title: Thank you for your constructive comments and raising the rating
Comment: Thank you very much for raising the rating!
We'd like to express our sincere gratitude for your thoughtful and thorough review of our paper. | Summary: This work builds on top of a learning paradigm called Learngene (introduced in an earlier work), which focuses on providing effective initializations for training multiple target models of different sizes. In this paradigm, a compact module, referred to as learngene, is first leaned from a large well-trained network, and then learngene is transformed to initialize different models of varying size. This work introduces a set of learnable transformation parameters into the learngene paradigm and trains the compact learngene module and the transformation parameters simultaneously. The learngene module and transformation parameters are trained by using them to create an auxiliary network which is trained using distillation from a large well trained model. Once trained, the transformation parameters can be used to transform learngene module parameters in order to initialize target networks of different sizes.
Experiments are conducted using ImageNet and multiple other transfer learning datasets and the results show that the proposed approach improves training compute efficiency of target models significantly when compared to training from scratch.
Strengths: The paper focuses on the problem of obtaining effective target model initializations cheaply (with less compute). This is a practically useful problem.
The experimental results show that the proposed initialization significantly improves training efficiency when compared to training from scratch.
Weaknesses: Presentation:
Presentation of the paper can be improved.
* Overall, I feel that sec 3.1 has a lot of notations and all of them are not strictly necessary to clearly describe the method. I encourage the authors to think about simplifying this section.
* Fig. 3(a) is confusing: Once we have chosen F_{l,in}^des and F_{l,out}^des (by selecting appropriate rows from F_{l,in} and F_{l,out}), the multiplication of three matrices F_{l,in}^des x W_l^LG x (F_{l,out}^des)^T should give the weights for the destination network layer. I do not understand why there are additional insert steps in Fig. 3(a). These steps do not seem to match with Eq. (1). Which process is actually used when performing width modifications? Is it Eq.(1) or the process depicted in Fig 3(a)? If it is the one in Fig. 3(a), is the same process used for constructing auxiliary network during training?
* Small correction: I think the size of u_{ij} in line 158 should be D_in^L x D_in^L instead of D_in^aux x D_out^aux since u_{ij} is multiplied with the weights W_j^L of j^th learngene layer which is of size D_in^L x D_out^L.
Experimental results:
* Some things are unclear to me:
* What is the difference between scratch-1 and scratch-2 trainings for one model?
* What is the teacher network used for distillation when training auxiliary network?
* Comparison missing with highly relevant alternative strategies:
* Based on my understanding of the selection process, the final parameter matrices of the DesNet are effectively sub-matrices of the parameter matrices of the first L^des layers of the trained auxiliary network. Such a selection process can be applied to any pretrained transformer network. For example, one can train a standard ViT of the same size as the auxiliary network using distillation with the same teacher and then directly sample weights from this trained model to initialize Des-Nets. Initializing smaller transformer models from larger pretrained transformer models has been recently studied in [36].
* Another relevant approach is which is not mentioned in the paper is "MatFormer: Nested Transformer for Elastic Inference".
* Unfair comparison with from scratch training:
* This following statement in line 259-261 is incorrect: "Compared to Scratch training, LeTra reduces around 3.6× total training costs (12×100) epochs vs. 320+12×1 epochs)."
Comparing training costs simply in terms of number of epochs is not meaningful. LeTra trains a larger auxiliary model (H14-L15) and also uses distillation for training which requires running a teacher model during training. So, 1 epoch training of LetTra auxiliary model will be significantly costlier than one epoch training of any of the smaller Des-Net models.
* In terms of performance comparison, it is unfair to compare LeTra that uses distillation directly with training from scratch without distillation.
* Experimental results presented only on Des-Nets whose size is in between Auxiliary network and Learngene network. How effective is the initialization for Des-Nets which are smaller than learngene?
Technical Quality: 1
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Some things are unclear from the paper. Please see the questions in 'weaknesses' section.
Comparisons with some highly relevant approaches are missing in the paper.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 1
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 1
Limitations: No specific negative societal impact.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **[Presentation]**
**1) Simplification of notations in Sec 3.1.**
Thank you for pointing this out! In the revision, we will simplify the notations of Sec 3.1 to describe the method more clearly.
**2) Initialization process in Figure 3.**
Thank you for raising this confusion!
During the first training stage of LeTra, we construct the Aux-Net according to Eq.(1).
For the second initialization stage of LeTra, we first select certain rows/columns from well-trained **$F_{l,in}$** to form target matrices **$F_{l,in}^{des}$**. Subsequently, we use **$F_{l,in}^{des}$** to perform matrix multiplication with learngene matrices. The multiplication results are then inserted into original learngene matrices to derive **$W_{l}^{'}$**.
Similarly, we select certain rows/columns from well-trained **$F_{l,out}$** to construct target matrices **$F_{l,out}^{des}$**. Then we use **$F_{l,out}^{des}$** to multiply **$W_{l}^{'}$** and insert the multiplication results into **$W_{l}^{'}$** to obtain **$W_{l}^{des}$**.
Thus, the first training stage and the second initialization stage of LeTra are not inherently interconnected. In the revision, we will add these descriptions in the caption of Figure 3 to avoid any misinterpretation.
**[Experimental results]**
**1) Difference between Scratch-1 and Scratch-2.**
Scratch-1 involves training models from scratch with sizes identical to those used in LeTra (L544-545). Scratch-2 entails training models from scratch with sizes similar to those in Scratch-1 because these models only vary in depth (L546-547). Additional model details can be found in Table 5.
**2) Teacher network.**
We choose LeViT-384 [48] as the teacher/ancestry model (L536-537).
**3) Comparison with IMwLM [36] and Matformer [i].**
We employ DeiT-base distilled as the larger pretrained model for IMwLM [36]. For Matformer [i], we refer to the results presented in Figure 4(a) of their original paper. From Figure I of our uploaded PDF, compared to IMwLM [36] which initializes smaller models from larger pretrained ones and Matformer [i], we observe that LeTra achieves superior performance. Notably, LeTra demonstrates the capability to initialize models whose sizes are independent of larger pretrained models.
[i] Kudugunta, Sneha, et al. "Matformer: Nested transformer for elastic inference.", NeurlPS 2023.
**4) Comparison with scratch training in training costs.**
Thank you for pointing this out! In comparison to Scratch-1, we calculate GPU hours for training 12 Des-Nets and find that LeTra significantly reduces total training GPU hours by approximately **7×** (1322 GPU hours for Scratch-1 versus 190 GPU hours for LeTra).
**5) Performance of Des-Nets without distillation in the first stage.**
Firstly, it is important to note that we did not employ distillation during the fine-tuning of Des-Nets in the second stage.
Secondly, we omit the distillation process in the first stage and present the performance of Des-Nets in Figure II of our uploaded PDF.
While the distillation process in the first stage marginally enhances the final performance of Des-Nets, the most substantial performance improvement arises from our proposed initialization process using LeTra.
**6) Performance of Des-Nets which are smaller than learngene.**
Please see the relevant discussions in G1 of General response.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response to rebuttal
Comment: I thank the authors for their rebuttal. After reading the rebuttal, I upgraded my rating to borderline accept.
I still think that the paper needs significant changes in terms of writing to make several things clearer.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Further clarification on the concerns?
Comment: Dear Reviewer 8CMe,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thoughtful and thorough comments.
We have made every effort to address the concerns raised. If any part of our response remains unclear or requires further clarification, please let us know. | Summary: To avoid unafforadable trainining cost, a new training paradigm like Learngene framework is proposed. Unlike previous work that mainly focus on the depth, the authors proposed Learnable Transformations, which is able to adjust the learngene module along both depth and width dimension for flexible variable-sized model initialization. Experimental results indicate that the proposed method is able to achieve strong performance in one 1 epoch fine-tuning.
Strengths: 1. A new framework called LeTra is proposed, capable of transforming the learngene module along both depth and width.
2. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the proposed method achieves promising performance, even with just one epoch of tuning.
Weaknesses: As shown in Table 4, training from scratch consistently improves performance with increased depth, but almost no improvements are observed for the proposed method. Could the authors explain this in more detail?
How much does distillation contribute to the final performance? Is most of the performance gain from distillation during fine-tuning?
Could the authors clarify the results in Table 1? From my understanding, even when initializing a model from pre-training, performance would significantly drop without any fine-tuning.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Figure 1 (d) raises questions. It is commonly believed that depth is more crucial than width in deep networks. However, this work suggests that varying width can achieve better performance than increasing depth. Could the authors elaborate on this finding?
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: See above.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **1) Performance improvements with increased depth.**
Thank you for pointing this out!
In Table 4, we present the results of LeTra with 2-epoch tuning (L315), which aims to demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed depth transformation rather than performance improvements with increased depth.
Interestingly, during the early training phase (e.g., 2 epochs), model performance does not consistently improve with increased depth, whether using Scratch that trains randomly-initialized models or LeTra that trains learngene-initialized models. To validate this claim, we provide the results of Scratch with 5-epoch training and LeTra with 2-epoch tuning below.
Furthermore, extending the training of LeTra-initialized models to more epochs reveals a consistent improvement in model performance with increased depth.
| Model | Params(M) | FLOPs(G) | Scratch (5ep) | Scratch (100ep) | LeTra (2ep) | LeTra (20ep) |
| :--------: | :-------: | :------: | :-----------: | :-------------: | :---------: | :----------: |
| Des-H6-L13 | 23.8 | 5.0 | 10.4 | 76.4 | 78.1 | 79.3 |
| Des-H6-L14 | 25.6 | 5.3 | 10.7 | 76.5 | 78.0 | 79.5 |
| Des-H6-L15 | 27.4 | 5.7 | 10.0 | 77.1 | 78.2 | 79.8 |
**2) Contribution of distillation to the final performance.**
Thank you for your nice concern!
We remove the distillation process in the first stage and present the performance of LeTra in Figure II of our uploaded PDF.
Comparing "LeTra (without distillation in first stage) (5 epoch)" with "LeTra (with distillation in first stage) (5 epoch)", we observe that the distillation process in the first stage has a marginal improvement on the performance of Des-Nets.
Additionally, comparing "LeTra (without distillation in first stage) (5 epoch)" with "Scratch (5 epoch)", we find that LeTra's proposed initialization process significantly enhances Des-Nets' performance.
Consequently, we can safely conclude that the most substantial performance gains stem from our proposed initialization process using LeTra rather than the distillation process in the first stage.
Furthermore, it is important to note that we did not employ distillation during the fine-tuning of Des-Nets in the second stage.
**3) Explanation of Table 1.**
We acknowledge the necessity of retraining a specific task head when transferring well-trained parameters from task A to task B. However, in Table 1, both task A and task B for all baselines and LeTra involve ImageNet-1K. Therefore, we also inherit the classification head parameters from either the first stage or the pre-training stage to initialize the Des-Nets for ImageNet-1K.
**4) Discussion about importance of depth and width for deep networks.**
Thank you for your insightful question! While it is widely accepted that depth significantly impacts deep network design (as shown in the left table below, where model performance increases with depth), we empirically find that configuring width could also enhance model performance (as shown in the right table below). This discovery motivates us to explore transforming learngene across both depth and width dimension. Furthermore, recent studies (see [i]) emphasize the importance of simultaneously considering both width and depth dimensions in neural network design.
[i] "The shaped transformer: Attention models in the infinite depth-and-width limit.", NeurlPS 2023.
| Model | Params(M) | FLOPs(G) | Scratch (100ep) | | Model | Params(M) | FLOPs(G) | Scratch (100ep) |
| :---------: | :-------: | :------: | :-------------: | ---- | :---------: | :-------: | :------: | :-------------: |
| Des-H12-L7 | 51.0 | 10.3 | 76.5 | | Des-H7-L12 | 29.9 | 6.2 | 76.4 |
| Des-H12-L8 | 58.2 | 11.7 | 77.2 | | Des-H8-L12 | 38.8 | 8.0 | 77.7 |
| Des-H12-L9 | 65.3 | 13.1 | 78.0 | | Des-H9-L12 | 49.0 | 10.0 | 77.8 |
| Des-H12-L10 | 72.4 | 14.6 | 78.2 | | Des-H10-L12 | 60.3 | 12.3 | 79.0 |
| Des-H12-L11 | 79.5 | 16.0 | 79.0 | | Des-H11-L12 | 72.9 | 14.8 | 78.4 |
| Des-H12-L12 | 86.6 | 17.5 | 79.6 | | Des-H12-L12 | 86.6 | 17.5 | 79.6 |
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Further clarification on the concerns?
Comment: Dear Reviewer i78Y,
We greatly appreciate the concerns provided and have made every effort to address all the points raised.
Is there any unclear point in our response that needs further clarification?
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Author Rebuttal
Comment: Dear Reviewer i78Y,
The author's rebuttal discussion is ending soon. Can you respond to the authors' reply and see if it addresses your concerns or if you would maintain your rating? Thank you for your time and effort.
Best,
Your AC | Summary: This research adopts the learngene learning paradigm; the core idea of learngene is to transform a well-trained ancestry model (Ans-Net) to initialize variable-sized descendant models (Des-Net). The authors pointed out two limitations of previous works: (1) the original learngene paradigm lacks the provision of structural knowledge which is not favorable for later transformation and (2) existing strategies to craft Des-Net are not learnable and they overlook the width dimension.
To address those limitations, the paper proposed LeTra, standing for Learnable Transformations:
- Learnable transformation parameters with structural knowledge in Ans-Net that later facilitates descendant transformation. To this end, they train an auxiliary model (Aux-Net) to learn the transformation $T=P_{depth}F_{width}$ from Ans-net, where $P_{depth}$ and $F_{width}$ are learnable and structured matrices respectively responsible for depth and width dimensions.
- Given different size of target Des-Net, some columns/rows of $P_{depth}$ and $F_{width}$ will be selected to construct the transformation $T^{des}$. Ans-Net is then transformed using $T^{des}$ to initialize the Des-Net
The authors conducted extensive experiments, showcasing the advantages of LeTra, not only in terms of performance but also in terms of fine-tuning speed.
Strengths: - The paper presentation is very clear and easy to understand. I enjoy reading it.
- The motivation is clear and convincing. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of the proposed LeTra, showcasing the benefits of learnable transformation.
Weaknesses: - The choice of Des-Nets is limited as those can be seen as sub-nets of the pretrained Aux-Net, i.e. one cannot scale Des-Net bigger than Aux-Net
- Downstream experiments were only conducted on small classification datasets.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: Those are related to the weaknesses above:
- Is it possible to combine LeTra with other Learngene strategies to overcome the scaling limitation?
- May the authors consider more complex downstream task like semantic segmentation or object detection?
- Given the strong results of LeTra even without any fine-tuning (c.f. Table 1), I'm curious of the linear probing results, i.e. fine-tuning only a simple head for the downstream task; that protocol is common in self-supervise learning
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: I believe this is a solid work with significant contributions suitable for the conference. However, I have a few questions and suggestions that I would greatly appreciate being addressed. My current recommendation is quite positive.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **1) Scaling Des-Net bigger than Aux-Net.**
Please see the relevant discussions in G1 of General response.
**2) Combination with other Learngene strategies.**
Thank you for your insightful question!
We could combine LeTra with other Learngene strategies. For instance, we could replace the depth transformation strategy of LeTra with linear expansion strategy proposed by TLEG [23].
**3) More complex downstream tasks.**
Thank you for your nice concern!
In the revision, we are committed to expanding our experimental scope to include more diverse tasks and datasets.
**4) Linear probing results.**
As shown in the table below, we can observe that LeTra achieves better performance than Pre-Fin under the linear probing protocol. For example, LeTra outperforms Pre-Fin by 3.43% and 1.86% on CIFAR-100 and CIFAR-10 with Des-H12-L12.
| Des-H12-L12 | Pre-Fin | LeTra |
| :---------: | :-----: | :---: |
| cifar100 | 72.08 | 75.51 |
| cifar10 | 90.08 | 91.94 | | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ### General response
**G1. Size diversity of Des-Nets.**
We appreciate the valuable comments regarding the size diversity of Des-Nets, *e.g.*, scaling bigger than Aux-Net or smaller than learngene.
Firstly, we would have to emphasize that the primary focus of this paper is on initializing variable-sized models from learngene using well-trained transformations, rather than simply scaling model sizes beyond a certain threshold (*e.g.*, Aux-Net).
Secondly, it is important to note that we can initialize models whose sizes are independent of both learngene and Aux-Net. In our empirical setups, the size of Des-Nets ranges from 29.9M to 109.8M parameters, encompassing those of Aux-Net (78.6M), as shown in Figure 4.
Furthermore, we can initialize Des-Nets with parameters smaller than those of learngene, as well as Des-Nets deeper and wider than Aux-Net (H14-L15), utilizing well-trained learngene and transformations:
- For Des-Nets smaller than learngene, we directly select rows/columns from well-trained learngene matrices using our proposed selection strategies to initialize the target matrices of Des-Nets.
- For Des-Nets deeper and wider than Aux-Net, we first select rows/columns from well-trained transformation matrices using our proposed strategies, then integrate these selections into the original transformation matrices to achieve the desired size. Subsequently, we employ these expanded matrices to transform learngene for Des-Net initialization.
As shown in Figure I of our uploaded PDF, LeTra could flexibly and efficiently initialize *variable-sized* models that are independent of the sizes of learngene and Aux-Net.
Pdf: /pdf/aee35b8509c6a6b03281a0f44e44e2c62593434a.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Invisible Image Watermarks Are Provably Removable Using Generative AI | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper investigates the resilience of invisible watermarks embedded in images against removal attacks. The authors propose a new class of attacks, called regeneration attacks, which combine adding random noise to the image and then reconstructing the image using generative models. The study demonstrates that these attacks can effectively remove invisible watermarks, including the resilient RivaGAN, while maintaining image quality.
Strengths: Introduces a new Image Watermarks attack leveraging generative models, providing a fresh perspective on watermark removal.
Offers formal proofs to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed attacks.
Provides extensive empirical results showing the success of the attacks across different watermarking methods.
The writing is clear and well-organized.
Weaknesses: While invisible watermarks are highly vulnerable, semantic watermarks are less affected by the proposed attacks.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: N/A
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: N/A
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We greatly appreciate your positive feedback and the opportunity to address your concern.
> "While invisible watermarks are highly vulnerable, semantic watermarks are less affected by the proposed attacks."
The primary purpose of this paper is not to propose an attack that can remove any type of watermark. Our goal is to raise awareness about the vulnerability of all invisible watermarks to some extent. We believe we have successfully demonstrated this point and provided valuable insights into alternative solutions in light of these vulnerabilities. Therefore, this additional information should not be viewed as a weakness but rather as a significant contribution to the community. Our attack is important to motivate the community to study semantic watermarks.
Thank you again for your feedback, and we are looking forward to your stronger support!
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your comments. I will keep my positive score. | Summary: The main idea proposed in this paper is that regenerating images using other (pretrained) generative AI (e.g., vae, diffusion models) can provably remove any invisible watermarks embedded in a given image. Accompanying this, the paper can be divided into the following parts: (1) intro of the proposed regeneration methods; (2) proof of the removal guarantee (by any regeneration methods falls into the definition of this paper, not limited to vae or diffusion; and (3) empirical experiments to support their claim "the regeneration methods is effective, especially using defussion models."
Strengths: The idea proposed in this work original.
The paper is clearly written. The use of math does not create burden in readability but helps to understand the main idea.
Weaknesses: The weakness is listed below in order, from major to minor:
Weakness 1 (Major): Experiment settings and evaluation are not rigorous.
The key experiment and result to support the authors claim of the effectiveness of their method will be those that can show the “strength” of their proposed attacks, but the current evaluation experiment is poorly designed. Reporting the watermark detection acc. (as in Table 2) using a fixed attack point (e.g., JPEG 50, or the selected VAE’s, etc., where they all have tunable parameters) cannot faithfully show the strength. This make the PSNR value reported in Table 2 meaningless. Instead, if there is a tradeoff between the image quality and the watermark detectability expected, the authors should report the maximal PSNR (the best image quality) for each attack method when the same detection ability (e.g., fail the watermark detection) of the decoder is achieved (e.g., with the same bitwise acc.) by tuning the hyperparameters of the attack methods (e.g., the JPEG quality factor, the compression index of the selected VAE model used in this paper, the noise level of the diffusion regeneration as Fig. 5, etc.). In this regard, the attack method with the best image quality can be argued as the strongest reasonably. Alternatively, the authors may consider profiling the quality and detectability tradeoff as proposed in [1]. The current evaluation experiment is not sufficient to support the claim made in line 71-73.
Weakness 2 (Major): Conclusion with insufficient support.
In line 13-14 “Our findings underscores … to semantic-preserving watermarks” is not convincing. For example, let’s say we want to prevent misusing generated images. In Fig 6., the authors visualize the StegaStamp watermark, where there are obvious abnormal patterns embedded into the image (in another word, they are not `invisible’ and humans can tell these images are suspicious). I would suspect that the attacked images of StegaStamp after applying the methods proposed by the authors will still have visible artifacts that are enough to raise human caution and suspect they are not original images—so it may be reasonable to argue that StegaStamp can successfully prevent image misuse and do not need a shift as the authors claimed. My suspicions are raised by the following results presented by the authors: (i) The visualizations of the attack methods proposed by the authors (e.g., Diffusion Attack in Fig 3. And 7.) are on DwtDctSVD watermarks and they already contain visible artifacts; (ii) corresponding PSNR values in Table 2 for DwtDctSVD is higher than StegaStamp; whereas in Fig 5., the PSNR of diffusion regeneration on StegaStamp is low. So, I would imagine that the attacked images of StegaStamp will have more visible artifacts but the author did not include any visualization of this. Thus, I consider the current conclusion an overclaim without persuasive argument and suggest the authors provide more evidence to support their claim.
Weakness 3 (Minor) --- inaccurate statements.
In line 1-3 “Invisible watermark safeguards images’ copyrights … prevent people from misusing images … ”. These are largely believed to be only possible applications that people are thinking of how to use invisible watermarks, but not affirmative conclusions.
Line 4 “ The proposed attack method first adds random noise to an image…”. According to Eq. 1, the proposed methods add noise to the latent feature of the image (attack instance 2 & 3), not the image itself.
[1] An, Bang, et al. "WAVES: Benchmarking the Robustness of Image Watermarks." Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Similar to Fig. 2, can you also provide (1) watermarks other than DwtDctSVD and (2) curves that are achieved by other regeneration attacks (e.g., VAE, denoising autoencoder)? Current illustration is insufficient to support the claim in the caption “indicating the success of our attack and the validity of the theoretical bound”.
2. As the authors repeatedly claim the superior attack performance of their proposed method, the visualization w.r.t only DwtDctSVD is not sufficient, as DwtDctSVD appears to be the least robust watermark among all the selected watermarks in this paper (see Table 2). Can you provide complete set of attack visualization of all methods on different watermarks considered in this paper? This will also help to clarify "Weakness 2" stated above.
3. As the authors proposed denoising reconstruction (attack instance 1), I think it is necessary to include DiffPure as a baseline attack in the experiment and discuss its performance. This has been applied as a watermark attack method in a published paper [2].
[2] Saberi, Mehrdad, et al. "Robustness of AI-Image Detectors: Fundamental Limits and Practical Attacks." The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. 2023.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: N/A. The work does not have potential negative impact that needs to be explicitly discussed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our contributions and address your concerns.
> W1: Experiment settings and evaluation are not rigorous. The authors may consider profiling the quality and detectability tradeoff.
We appreciate your suggestion. We have conducted a comprehensive evaluation with various parameter settings for each attacking method. The results are now included in the attached rebuttal PDF.
Specifically, **we have plotted the quality-detectability tradeoff for five watermark schemes across eight different attacking methods**. The x-axis represents quality metrics (SSIM and PSNR, higher is better), while the y-axis shows the detection metric True Positive Rate at a fixed False Positive Rate (TPR@FPR=0.01, lower is better from an attacker's perspective). The strongest attacker should appear in the lower right corner of these plots. We used the same watermark settings as described in the original paper (Section 5, Watermark Setting).
**Key findings**
- Our proposed regeneration attack consistently outperforms other methods across all five watermarking scenarios.
- For DctDwtSvd, RivaGAN, and SSL watermarks, our regeneration attack instance 2 (VAE) achieves the best Pareto front of quality and attack detectability.
- Our regeneration attack instance 3 (diffusion model) performs best against Stable Signature and shows strong results across all scenarios. It offers the additional benefit of ease of use and can achieve good attacking results with different noise levels.
These results strongly support our claim that the regeneration attack is a very effective method for attacking various watermarks compared to strong baselines.
> W2: Conclusion with insufficient support. It may be reasonable to argue that StegaStamp can successfully prevent image misuse and does not need a shift as the authors claimed.
We appreciate the reviewer's perspective on StegaStamp. Our conclusion in lines 13-14 is based on both theoretical analysis and empirical evidence:
- Theoretical guarantee: Our regeneration attack is proven to remove certain pixel-based invisible watermarks that perturb the image within a limited range of l2 distance. This guarantee applies to both existing and future watermarking techniques that fall within this category.
- StegaStamp specifics: As the reviewer noted, StegaStamp introduces "visible artifacts that are enough to raise human caution and suspect they are not original images". Figure 4 shows that the l2 distance for StegaStamp is quite large, making it not "invisible" if we set the l2 distance to be small.
- Empirical results: To address the reviewer's concerns, we have **included the attacked images for different watermarks, including StegaStamp, in the attached PDF**. These images demonstrate that our regeneration attack (diffusion model) produces high-quality results while successfully evading StegaStamp detection.
Our framework is self-consistent, and we have not hidden any results or overclaimed our conclusions. The additional visual examples provide further support for the effectiveness of our approach across different watermarking techniques.
> W3: Inaccurate statements: "Invisible watermark safeguards images' copyrights … prevent people from misusing images … ". These are largely believed to be only possible applications.
We appreciate the reviewer's attention to detail. To clarify, these are not merely possible applications but **are already in use in prominent real-world scenarios**:
- Stable Diffusion [1], a widely used open-source image generation model, employs invisible watermarks to protect generated images.
- DeepMind [2] utilizes SynthID in images to safeguard copyrights and prevent image misuse.
These examples demonstrate that invisible watermarks are actively being used for copyright protection and preventing image misuse in real applications.
> W3: Line 4 "The proposed attack method first adds random noise to an image…". According to Eq. 1, the proposed methods add noise to the latent feature of the image (attack instance 2 & 3), not the image itself.
We thank the reviewer for pointing out this potential source of confusion. To clarify:
The regeneration attack is a family of attacks with multiple instances:
- Instance 1 adds noise directly to the image.
- Instances 2 and 3 add noise to the latent feature of the image.
To improve clarity, we will revise the statement to: "adds random noise to an image or its latent feature..."
> Q1
**We have added an example of the RivaGAN watermark with our regeneration attack in the attached PDF** to further illustrate the theoretical guarantee's applicability across different watermarking techniques.
> Q2
We acknowledge the reviewer's point about the need for more comprehensive visualizations. We have now included a complete set of attack visualizations for all methods on the different watermarks considered in our paper. These can be found in the attached PDF.
> Q3
Regarding DiffPure, we appreciate the suggestion to include it as a baseline. While DiffPure is conceptually similar to our regeneration attack instance 3 (diffusion model), we have conducted additional experiments to compare their performance:
Using the RivaGAN watermark as an example, we fixed TPR<0.05 at FPR=0.01 for both regeneration and DiffPure attacks, then compared PSNR:
- Regen-Diff: PSNR = 23.33
- DiffPure: PSNR = 23.07
These results demonstrate that our Regeneration-Diffusion approach achieves better image quality while maintaining the same level of watermark removal effectiveness.
----
We hope these clarifications and additional results address the reviewer's concerns and further strengthen our paper's contributions. We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our work and would be happy to provide any additional information or clarifications if needed.
----
[1] https://github.com/Stability-AI/stablediffusion
[2] https://deepmind.google/technologies/synthid/
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Reply to the authors
Comment: I appreciate the effort that you have put into this rebuttal. Most of my questions and concerns are addressed and I'm inclined to increase my original rating.
Nevertheless, I have some further comments and questions regarding the rebuttal provided and hope to be clarified/addressed:
1. DiffPure also seems to have tuning parameters. Thus I believe it is more appropriate to compare with DiffPure by plotting the quality-detectability tradeoff just as what you did to other attacks. I would ask to put this comparison in the same quality-detectability plots.
2. If I remember correctly, you have tried to emphasized two things in your original paper: (1) the proposed regeneration attack is very effective and (2) the regeneration attack powered by diffusion model outperforms the others. However, based on your updated quality-detectability tradeoff, I see that regeneration powered by **VAE** seems to be the best performing one. Is this understanding correct? If so, I would ask the authors to adjust their related comments/conclusions in the paper accordingly.
3. I understand that the authors' emphasis of this paper is the "removability", and the cost of quality loss to remove the watermark is secondary consideration. However, based on the additional results provided in the rebuttal, the cost to remove some watermarks (e.g., StegaStamp) tends to be large (e.g., PSNR $\sim$ 23.33 by Regen-Diff; also the visible flaws shown in the visualization). I hope to see some discussion related on how the "removability" and "cost to remove" trade-off can potentially imply for practical scenarios. For example, how this result support/concerns the application of watermark (copyright protection, preventing image misuse, etc); possible directions to counteract your finding if watermark is not safe let's say; or any idea for the future design of practical watermarks that you can suggest.
Overall, if the above points can be further clarified/addressed, I tend to change the rating to accept.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your prompt and insightful feedback! It significantly contributes to the improvement of our paper. We have provided responses and clarifications to your comments below:
> "DiffPure also seems to have tuning parameters. Thus I believe it is more appropriate to compare with DiffPure by plotting the quality-detectability tradeoff just as what you did to other attacks. I would ask to put this comparison in the same quality-detectability plots."
We appreciate your suggestion. We have now obtained all the results for DiffPure. In summary, DiffPure performs comparably to Regen-Diff, albeit with a slightly worse quality-detectability tradeoff. Due to the inability to edit the rebuttal PDF, we will include this comparison in the revised paper. Additionally, we offer the following analysis:
- Mathematically, DiffPure and Regen-Diff employ the same method, adding noise to samples via the forward process with a small diffusion timestep, and then solving the reverse VP-SDE to recover clean samples.
- DiffPure, or [1]'s implementation, utilizes the 256x256 diffusion (unconditional) checkpoint from the guided-diffusion library [2] pretrained on ImageNet data. In contrast, we use the stable-diffusion-2-1 latent diffusion model from Stable Diffusion, pretrained on the LAION-5B dataset, which offers superior generation quality. Our implementation, as demonstrated in the Supplementary Material, supports many other latent diffusion models.
> "If I remember correctly, you have tried to emphasized two things in your original paper: (1) the proposed regeneration attack is very effective and (2) the regeneration attack powered by diffusion model outperforms the others. However, based on your updated quality-detectability tradeoff, I see that regeneration powered by VAE seems to be the best performing one. Is this understanding correct? If so, I would ask the authors to adjust their related comments/conclusions in the paper accordingly."
Thank you for your feedback! For DctDwtSvd, RivaGAN, and SSL watermarks, Regen-VAE achieves the best Pareto front of quality and attack detectability. Regen-Diff performs best against Stable Signature and shows strong results across all scenarios. It also offers ease of use and achieves good attacking results with different noise levels. We will adjust our related comments and conclusions in the revised paper accordingly.
> "I hope to see some discussion related on how the "removability" and "cost to remove" trade-off can potentially imply for practical scenarios. For example, how this result support/concerns the application of watermark (copyright protection, preventing image misuse, etc); possible directions to counteract your finding if watermark is not safe let's say; or any idea for the future design of practical watermarks that you can suggest."
We appreciate your suggestions and feedback! In the revised paper, we will discuss how the "removability" and "cost to remove" trade-off can potentially apply to practical scenarios. For example, from the watermark addition side, if they can increase the L2 distance without significantly altering image perception quality, it could be practical. Researchers can use regeneration as an attacking baseline; if all attacked images have lower quality than a set threshold, the watermark can be deemed sufficient. Overall, we advocate for using semantic watermarks. As stated in response to reviewer n9vc, we are exploring methods to enhance the robustness of post-hoc watermarking. One promising approach involves using powerful image editing techniques to add or remove unimportant subjects or alter textures. These modifications are visible but appear as normal image content without the watermark key.
----
Thank you again for your feedback and prompt response. We hope these additional results address your concerns.
----
[1] Saberi et al. "Robustness of AI-Image Detectors: Fundamental Limits and Practical Attacks." ICLR 2024.
[2] https://github.com/openai/guided-diffusion | Summary: This paper proposes regeneration attacks, which adds destructive Gaussian noise to the latent representation of the watermarked image, and then reconstructs the corrupted latent to reconstruct the original clean image. The paper provides theoretical guarantee that shows the trade-off function between the Type I error and the Type II error after the attack, in addition to the theorem that shows the ability of the regeneration attack's capability to produce images with similar quality as the generative model that reconstructs the corrupted latent. The paper also introduces a potential defense mechanism that can survive the regeneration attack.
Strengths: The paper is well-written and easy to read. The presentation is clear and the empirical result is thorough and informative. Besides empirical results, the author also provides theoretical guarantees on the claim. Besides proposing the regeneration attack, the author also provides a potential defense mechanism that sheds light on future watermarking research under the proposed attack.
Weaknesses: The proposed method relies on the upper bound $L \geq L_{x,w}$ to effectively calibrate $\sigma$, which is slightly unrealistic considering the embedding function $\phi$ and original image $x$ is unknown to the attacker, even though a uniform upper bound may exist, this could potentially affect the attack performance or image quality since the attacker normally has no access to the decoding scheme thus unable to verify the performance of the attack while maintaining the image quality.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Major concerns are already addressed in Appendix A, so here are some minor questions that may be slightly out of the scope.
1. For in-processing watermarking, semantic watermarking is a great alternative for preserving visual quality as well as robustness to regeneration attacks. However, for post-hoc watermarking, changing the semantic content leads to unsatisfactory results. How do you envision balancing the robustness of semantic watermarks with their increased visibility in practical applications? Are there any strategies you are exploring to minimize the visual impact while maintaining robustness under regeneration attacks?
2. The Stegastamp method seems to be able to withstand the proposed attack due to a relatively high l2 distance in both pixel and latent space. Figure 5 shows that with greater noise levels, StegaStamp fails to withstand the regeneration attacks, but the reduced PSNR and SSIM indicate significant degradation in image quality. Since StegaStamp's image quality is already low, enforcing regeneration attacks that further degrade image quality seems unrealistic in real-world scenarios. Given that PSNR and SSIM are pixel-level metrics, such degradation is expected after multiple perturbations in the semantic space. I wonder if the semantically meaningful content is still preserved after regeneration attacks capable of breaking StegaStamp. Specifically, a visualization for Figure 5 or an LPIPS curve might be helpful for understanding the preservation of semantic content.
-------------------Post rebuttal Edit------------------------
I appreciate the author for the comments. My questions has been well addressed. I have increased my rating accordingly.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: potential negative societal impact has not been addressed but the author does provide potential defense mechanisms for the proposed attack method.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to address the specific points raised and provide further clarification.
### 1. Calibration of $\sigma$ and Attack Performance
> "Relies on the upper bound $L \geq L_{x,w}$ to effectively calibrate $\sigma$… this could potentially affect the attack performance or image quality since the attacker normally has no access to the decoding scheme, thus unable to verify the performance of the attack."
Access to the decoding scheme is not necessary for calibrating $\sigma$. Although we cannot calibrate by verifying if an attack is successful, we can still choose the optimal $\sigma$ through a binary search. Typically, the quality of the attacked image degrades as $\sigma$ increases, allowing us to use binary search to find the largest $\sigma$ that maintains acceptable image quality. Additionally, we discuss controlling a certain degree of Certified Watermark Freeness (CWF) a priori in Appendix lines 522-529. Here is the original content for your reference:
- "Our guarantee in Theorem 1 depends on the specific watermark injected into a specific image instance through the unknown local Lipschitz parameter $L_{x,w}$. Specifying a fixed CWF level requires a uniform upper bound of $L_{x,w}$ independent of $x$ and $w$. For example, when the embedding $\phi$ is trivial (identity map), we can take $L_{x,w} \leq 1$. When $\phi$ involves lower pass filtering, such as a Fourier transform that removes all high-frequency components except the top \(k\) dimensions, we can bound $L_{x,w} \leq \sqrt{k}/n$, where $n$ is the number of pixels. Generally, any linear transformation with a bounded operator norm is suitable."
### 2. Balancing Robustness and Visibility of Semantic Watermarks
> "How do you envision balancing the robustness of semantic watermarks with their increased visibility in practical applications? Are there any strategies you are exploring to minimize the visual impact while maintaining robustness under regeneration attacks?"
We appreciate your interest in future developments. Yes, we are actively exploring methods to enhance the robustness of post-hoc watermarking. One promising approach involves leveraging powerful image editing techniques to add or remove unimportant subjects or alter textures. These modifications are visible but appear as normal image content without the watermark key.
### 3. Visualization or LPIPS Curve for Figure 5
> "Specifically, a visualization for Figure 5 or an LPIPS curve might be helpful for understanding the preservation of semantic content."
We have included a visualization image in the Rebuttal PDF. This visualization demonstrates that the semantically meaningful content remains preserved.
----
Overall, we hope these clarifications address your concerns and demonstrate the strength and potential of our approach. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your stronger support. | null | null | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: To address reviewer n9vc's question 2 and reviewer V7G3's several concerns, we have included more figures in the attached PDF.
## Figure 1: Quality-Detectability Tradeoff
During the rebuttal, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation with various parameter settings for each attacking method.
For Figure 1, we plotted the quality-detectability tradeoff for five watermark schemes across eight different attacking methods. The x-axis represents quality metrics (SSIM and PSNR, higher is better), while the y-axis shows the detection metric True Positive Rate at a fixed False Positive Rate (TPR@FPR=0.01, lower is better from an attacker's perspective). The strongest attacker should appear in the lower right corner of these plots. We used the same watermark settings as described in the original paper (Section 5, Watermark Setting)
**Attack Methods and Parameters**
*Regeneration Attacks:*
- Diffusion model: noise steps {10, 30, 50, 100, 150, 200}
- VAE-Cheng2020: compression factors {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}
- VAE-Bmshj2018: compression factors {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}
*Baseline Attacks:*
- JPEG compression: quality {10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60}
- Gaussian blur: kernel size {2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12}
- Brightness enhancement: change of {2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12}
- Gaussian noise: standard deviation {5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30}
- Contrast enhancement: change of {0.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7}
**Key findings**
- Our proposed regeneration attack consistently outperforms other methods across all five watermarking scenarios.
- For DctDwtSvd, RivaGAN, and SSL watermarks, our regeneration attack instance 2 (VAE) achieves the best Pareto front of quality and attack detectability.
- Our regeneration attack instance 3 (diffusion model) performs best against Stable Signature and shows strong results across all scenarios. It offers the additional benefit of ease of use and can achieve good attacking results with different noise levels.
These results strongly support our claim that the regeneration attack is a very effective method for attacking various watermarks compared to strong baselines.
## Figure 2-4: Additional Visualizations
- Figure 2: More visualizations of attacked images on RivaGAN watermark. All regeneration attacked images can evade detection.
- Figure 3: More visualizations of attacked images on SSL watermark. All regeneration attacked images can evade detection.
- Figure 4: More visualizations of attacked images on StegaStamp watermark. The diffusion model of the regeneration attacked images can evade detection.
## Figure 5: Theoretical and Empirical Trade-off Functions
Figure 5 shows another example similar to Figure 2 in our original paper. It presents theoretical and empirical trade-off functions for RivaGAN watermark detectors after our attack. Trade-off functions indicate how much less Type II error (false negative rate) the detector gets in return by having more Type I error (false positive rate). Theoretically, after the attack, no detection algorithm can fall in the *Impossibility Region* and have both Type I error and Type II error at a low level. Empirically, the watermark detector performs even worse than the theory, indicating the success of our attack and the validity of the theoretical bound. We use 500 watermarked MS-COCO images with an empirically valid upper bound of $L=1$ and noise level $\sigma = 0.57\Delta$.
----
We believe these additional evaluations and visualizations further enhance our paper's quality and address the reviewers' concerns.
Pdf: /pdf/dfd026d898b5f1042165afb0b128e0645dd32695.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Retrieval-Retro: Retrieval-based Inorganic Retrosynthesis with Expert Knowledge | Accept (poster) | Summary: I'm not an expert in this field. I'm familiar with organic retrosynthesis prediction but not familiar with inorganic retrosynthesis planning.
This paper first trains a retriever to determine which materials to reference. Then this paper trains a model for material selections.
Strengths: 1. This inorganic retrosynthesis planning is different from organic retrosynthesis planning. The proposed method is novel in my opinion. Inorganic retrosynthesis planning operates step by step while this paper proposes the material within one step.
2. Writing is clear. I can follow this paper.
3. The proposed method achieves good performance.
Weaknesses: 1. Little discussion on the difference between inorganic retrosynthesis planning and organic retrosynthesis planning.
2. Little discussion on computational complexity and the space of the material.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: N/A
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: N/A
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable comments and for acknowledging the novelty of our work in inorganic retrosynthesis! We are more than willing to address any questions in detail.
---
**[W1]**
As the reviewer suggested, describing the differences between organic retrosynthesis and inorganic retrosynthesis would make the manuscript easier to understand. Thank you for the valuable feedback. We plan to add this section to the manuscript in the future.
Both organic and inorganic retrosynthesis are challenging tasks that predict the synthesis of materials by breaking down the target material into simpler precursors. However, there are significant differences between organic and inorganic retrosynthesis.
Organic retrosynthesis deals with organic compounds, which are molecules primarily composed of elements such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur. These compounds are represented using molecular structure graphs or SMILES strings. In contrast, inorganic retrosynthesis involves inorganic compounds, which can include a wider variety of elements, often including metals, and have structures that periodically repeat in unit cells.
Another key difference lies in the use of structural information during retrosynthesis planning. Organic compounds utilize structural information such as functional groups and reaction centers, which indicate the properties of the material and its reactivity with other molecules, to predict simpler molecules (precursors) into which the target molecule can be broken down. Inorganic compounds, however, have relatively unexplored generalized synthesis mechanisms compared to organic molecules, and calculating their structures is expensive. Therefore, it is challenging to directly use structural information for retrosynthesis planning. Instead, inorganic retrosynthesis often relies solely on the chemical composition of the materials, distinguishing it from organic retrosynthesis.
---
**[W2]**
RetroPLEX initially trains two retrievers in advance, the MPC retriever and the NRE retriever, to simplify the complexity of the model by leveraging the materials retrieved from these trained retrievers. The maximum GPU memory required to train the RetroPLEX model is less than 4.5GB, so it is also possible to train the model on GPUs with smaller memory capacities, such as the NVIDIA GeForce Titan (12GB). We also measured the training time by training the model using only the CPU, and found that it takes 22.02 seconds per epoch, which is approximately 7 times longer than the 3.26 seconds per epoch when using the GPU. Since the model typically converges in around 150 epochs, the training time is manageable. Consequently, even with the notably longer training duration, it is still feasible to train the model in environments without a GPU.
We use a dataset of 33,343 inorganic solid-state synthesis records extracted from 24,304 material science papers [1]. After preprocessing, we utilize data for 28,434 target materials. Since the synthesis data was extracted from material science publications up to 2020, allowing us to consider relatively recent target materials, and given that this is the largest dataset among available material synthesis datasets, we believe it adequately captures the practices of actual material synthesis literature.
[1] Kononova, Olga, et al. "Text-mined dataset of inorganic materials synthesis recipes." Scientific data 6.1 (2019): 203.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Gentle reminder for author reviewer discussion
Comment: Thank you once again for your valuable review and feedback. We kindly ask if you could please take a moment to confirm whether our rebuttal has adequately addressed your comments and concerns. Thank you for your consideration.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: I acknowledge the response from authors and decide to maintain my score. | Summary: This paper lies in the domain of AI for chemistry, and this paper proposes RetroPLEX for inorganic retrosynthesis planning. The proposed approach is comprised of two components: masked precursor completion retriever and neural reaction energy retriever.
Strengths: The writing is mostly clear.
The experiment results are thoroughly discussed.
Weaknesses: The model training subsection has not detailedly elaborated on the training process of the proposed approach. The authors are encouraged to provide the pseudocode of the proposed approach.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Can the proposed approach provide some insights into the AI methods for other domains, e.g., robotics and mixed integer linear programming?
Confidence: 1
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors have discussed the potential limitations in the Appendix.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable comments on our work! We are more than willing to address both the weakness and the question in detail.
---
**[W1]**
While we have endeavored to thoroughly explain the training process of RetroPLEX, the limited space of the submission may not have allowed for complete clarity. At the reviewer's request, we have included the model's pseudocode in the attached PDF and will ensure it is incorporated into the Appendix in our final submission. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused and are happy to provide detailed answers if further clarification is needed.
---
**[Q1]**
The core idea of our proposed approach is to utilize a retriever tailored to the task at hand and to leverage the retrieved information through attention mechanisms. From the perspective of using retrievers, in robotics domains such as motion planning and autonomous navigation, appropriate information matching the situation and task can be effectively utilized through a retriever from a database. When using large language models (LLMs) for robotics control, the intrinsic issues of hallucination and lack of updated information in LLMs can be effectively handled through an online-retrieval approach. Furthermore, when solving a problem, if we can break it down into step-by-step instructions and retrieve appropriate action patterns for each step, we can expect satisfactory task performance compared to not using retrieval.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Gentle reminder for author reviewer discussion
Comment: Thank you once again for your valuable review and feedback. We kindly ask if you could please take a moment to confirm whether our rebuttal has adequately addressed your comments and concerns. Thank you for your consideration. | Summary: The manuscript presents a approach, RetroPLEX, for inorganic retrosynthesis planning. The authors propose RetroPLEX, a method that implicitly extracts precursor information from reference materials using attention layers. Additionally, they incorporate domain expertise by considering the thermodynamic relationships between target materials and potential precursors. The manuscript presents a approach, RetroPLEX, for inorganic retrosynthesis planning. The authors propose RetroPLEX, a method that implicitly extracts precursor information from reference materials using attention layers. Additionally, they incorporate domain expertise by considering the thermodynamic relationships between target materials and potential precursors.
Strengths: 1. The idea of implicitly extracting precursor information from reference materials using retrieval and attention mechanisms is interesting and potentially beneficial for discovering new synthesis recipes.
2. The incorporation of thermodynamic relationships (∆G) through the NRE retriever is a useful addition, reflecting domain knowledge in inorganic synthesis.
3. The paper includes a variety of experiments comparing RetroPLEX to existing methods.
Weaknesses: 1. The method is pretty complex, including two retrievers, MPC and NRE. The complex structure, while powerful, could pose challenges in terms of computational efficiency and scalability, especially when deployed in resource-limited settings.
2. The manuscript lacks clarity in several areas. For example, the explanation of the NRE retriever's training process is unclear.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Why were the MPC and NRE retrievers chosen? How do they complement each other?
2. Given the apparent complexity of the proposed model, what are the computational requirements? Can the authors provide a detailed analysis of the time and resource requirements for training and using RetroPLEX?
3. How does the model's performance scale with increasing dataset sizes or computation complexity?
4. Can the authors provide qualitative examples of the importance of each retriever? For example, provide examples where each retriever plays a crucial role in identifying relevant reference materials or extracting precursor information.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have discussed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable comments on our work! We are more than willing to address each of the specific weaknesses and questions in a detailed manner.
---
**[W1&Q2]**
Indeed, we have provided the complexity of the model in terms of model training and inference in Appendix E.5. Upon the reviewer’s request, we provide further details in terms of GPU memory and computation resources. Specifically, we used a CPU Intel Xeon Gold 6326 and a single NVIDIA GeForce A6000 (48GB) GPU. The maximum GPU memory required to train the RetroPLEX model is less than 4.5GB, so it is also possible to train the model on GPUs with smaller memory capacities, such as the NVIDIA GeForce Titan (12GB). We also measured the training time by training the model using only a single CPU, and found that it takes 22.02 seconds per epoch, which is approximately 7 times longer than the 3.26 seconds per epoch when using a single GPU. Despite the longer training time when using a CPU, we validated that it is still possible to train the model in environments without a GPU.
Additionally, despite the apparent complexity of RetroPLEX, we predefine the reference materials for each target material before training. Consequently, as demonstrated in Appendix E.5., RetroPLEX exhibits only a marginal increase in training time compared to baseline methods.
---
**[W2]**
We apologize for the lack of a detailed explanation of the model's training process, which may have made it difficult for the reviewers to understand our method. To clarify our approach, we have included a pseudocode for both the NRE retriever and MPC retriever in the attached PDF.
Regarding the NRE retriever, we developed a composition-based formation energy predictor tailored for experimental data. We initially pre-trained the GNN predictor on extensive DFT-calculated data and then fine-tuned it using experimental formation energy data. Using this fine-tuned GNN predictor, we calculate the formation energy of the target material in the dataset and the precursors of all materials in the knowledge base. Subsequently, we calculate the Gibbs free energy and retrieve the top K materials with the most negative Gibbs free energy for each target material. A more detailed training procedure and further analysis of the NRE retriever are provided in Appendix E.2 (page 16).
---
**[Q1]**
The MPC retriever is crucial for effectively leveraging the synthesis practices from the synthesis literature. It identifies reference materials that share similar synthesis recipes with the target material by learning the dependencies among precursors and the correlation between the precursors and the target material. However, despite its effectiveness in identifying reference materials with potentially similar precursor sets, it often misses the thermodynamic relationships between materials. To achieve this, we incorporate the NRE retriever, which identifies reference materials possessing the precursor sets capable of inducing favorable reactions with the target materials by considering thermodynamic forces.
Utilizing both retrievers, our models can explore a wide range of reference materials that could provide potential recipes for the target materials. We also provide further explanation with qualitative analysis in Q4.
---
**[Q3]**
Upon reviewer's request, we trained the model with varying dataset sizes: 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80%. As shown in Figure 1 in the attached PDF, as the dataset size increases, we observed a consistent improvement in model performance of Top-10 accuracy. This indicates that the model benefits from having access to more supervision, which likely leads to better generalization and more robust predictions. Moreover, it can be observed that RetroPLEX using only 80% of the training dataset outperforms the graph network using 100% of the training dataset, while our model demonstrates significantly higher performance when both models use 100% of the dataset.
Additionally, in terms of computational complexity, we tested the performance of the proposed model by reducing the message passing layers (L) of the backbone encoder, Graph Network from 3 to 2 (i.e., RetroPLEX (D:256, L:2)), and by reducing the hidden dimension (D) from 256 to 128 (i.e., RetroPLEX (D:128, L:3)). We observed a decrease in model performance due to the reduced representative power of the model with fewer message passing layers and smaller hidden dimensions. Nevertheless, even with reduced complexity, RetroPLEX (D:256, L:2) and RetroPLEX (D:128, L:3) outperform the Graph Network with 3 message passing layers and a hidden dimension of 256 (i.e., Graph Network (D:256, L:3)). This can be attributed to the information from retrieved materials, which helps the model achieve good results despite its lower complexity. In summary, these two experiments demonstrate that RetroPLEX can effectively perform precursor extraction through trained retrievers, achieving better performance compared to the Graph Network without retrievers. This is possible even with relatively smaller datasets (Figure 1(a)), smaller hidden dimensions (D), and fewer message passing layers (L) (Figure 1(b)).
---
**[Q4]**
We provide a qualitative analysis of our proposed method for retrosynthesis planning for the target material Na3Dy(PO4)2 in the Table 1 (attached PDF). When only the MPC retriever is used, the method fails to predict the complete precursor set due to insufficient extraction of precursor information from the retrieved materials. However, when both the NRE and MPC retrievers are used, our method successfully predicts the full precursor set for the target material. For example, the NRE retriever allows our method to extract precursor information from NaPO3, which includes a crucial precursor Na2CO3, a direct precursor for the target material. The complementary nature of the retrievers allows our method to effectively extract precursor information from relevant reference materials without explicitly using precursors.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Gentle reminder for author reviewer discussion
Comment: Thank you once again for your valuable review and feedback. We kindly ask if you could please take a moment to confirm whether our rebuttal has adequately addressed your comments and concerns. Thank you for your consideration.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: I acknowledge the response from authors and decide to maintain my score. | Summary: The authors address the domain of inorganic retrosynthesis by better leveraging existing inorganic retrosynthesis data. They employ attention learning techniques to establish relationships between chemical formulas and precursor formulas. Additionally, they utilize a neural reaction energy predictor to forecast the Gibbs free energy of chemical reactions, thereby refining the candidate list. The integration of these two models significantly enhances the accuracy of the prediction results. This approach has strong applications in the exploration of material synthesis.
Strengths: 1. Gibbs free energy is essential for determining if a chemical reaction can occur spontaneously and is more likely to happen. Considering this factor is necessary and has been overlooked in previous works. The inclusion of the neural reaction energy predictor significantly improves prediction results by providing a more accurate assessment of Gibbs free energy for chemical reactions.
2. In the task of inorganic retrosynthesis, predicting the class of a precursor compound from its chemical formula is crucial. There are few models for this task starting from chemical formulas. The authors provide a detailed comparison with models like Roost and CrabNet and evaluate variables such as the number of precursors used. The experiments are thorough and well-documented.
Weaknesses: 1. Chemical formula representation issues, detailed in Question 4.
2. Limited improvement over random selection, detailed in Question 5.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. The Gibbs free energy data used by the authors is used to train a prediction model, and the authors fine-tuned the model to align with experimental values. However, Gibbs free energy depends on specific conditions such as temperature and pressure during experiments or calculations. It's unclear what the specific conditions of reactions were during this transfer process.
2. In section 3.1, the authors mentioned "The overall training procedure of MPC retriever is in Figure 1 (a)." It seems this should actually refer to Figure 2.
3. In Table 8, under Qualitative Analysis, the authors predict the precursors for Na3Dy(PO4)2 using MPC to find a similar compound Na3Y(PO3)4. However, this compound cannot be found in online materials databases. Moreover, the claimed corresponding precursor sets do not seem capable of synthesizing Na3Y(PO3)4. Please provide the data source and specific synthesis literature for this compound.
4. The authors use chemical formulas as input to their model. However, in practical synthesis tasks, different conditions can yield different structures with the same chemical formula. The authors should clarify how they addressed the issue of duplicate chemical formulas during the data preprocessing stage.
5. In section 4.3, the authors note that "reference materials are randomly retrieved without using trained retrievers" and still achieve a top-1 accuracy of 58%. This high accuracy is surprising and raises questions about the effectiveness of the trained retrievers. The authors should explain why random selection of reference materials performs nearly as well as the trained retrievers and discuss the underlying reasons for this result.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors use Gibbs free energy to evaluate the synthesis of reference materials. However, predicting Gibbs free energy can be challenging, especially when only the chemical formula is available without specific structures, synthesis conditions, or information about gas release during synthesis. This limitation suggests an area for improvement in making energy predictions more accurate.
Additionally, the method of synthesizing inorganic materials—whether through heating and calcination, microwave, or other techniques—can also affect the choice of precursor compounds. Incorporating these synthesis methods and their specific impacts on precursor selection would further enhance the model's accuracy and applicability. We hope the authors can consider these factors in future improvements to their approach.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable comments on our work and for recognizing our efforts to address inorganic retrosynthesis using thermodynamic factors! We are more than willing to address each of the specific weaknesses and questions in detail.
---
**[W1&Q4]**
As the reviewer pointed out, different conditions can yield different structures with the same chemical formula, resulting in duplicate chemical formulas. To consider materials with different structures but the same chemical formula, structural information is essential; however, the dataset we used [1], which was extracted from various publications containing synthesis recipes, lacks this information. This is because many material synthesis experiments are conducted referencing the synthesis recipes of past experiments, and in real-world scenarios, it is common to know only the chemical formula without knowing the structure. In the absence of structural information, we abstracted materials with different structures but the same chemical formula into a single reaction data for our model, so the concern about duplicate chemical formulas, as mentioned by the reviewer, does not exist.
Additionally, besides having different structures, materials can also have multiple precursor sets depending on the synthesis conditions. We selected the most frequently occurring synthesis routes among those with varying conditions, allowing the model to learn the most likely precursor set for the input target material.
[1] Kononova, Olga, et al. "Text-mined dataset of inorganic materials synthesis recipes." Scientific data 6.1 (2019): 203.
---
**[W2&Q5]**
We fully agree with the reviewer's comment that there needs to be an explanation and analysis for why the performance of the model with random retrievers has nearly the same high accuracy as the model with trained retrievers as shown in Table 3, and for the effectiveness of trained retrievers. We provide an analysis below.
Recall that RetroPLEX employs Graph Network as the backbone encoder. Table 2 in the attached PDF shows that the Graph Network without a retriever (i.e., Graph Network(no retriever)) and the Graph Network with a random retriever (i.e., Graph Network(random)) perform similarly. This indicates that performance Graph Network(random) is mainly due to the Graph Network backbone itself, but not due to the random retriever. On the other hand, in the case of Graph Network(RetroPLEX), which incorporates our proposed trained retrievers, shows consistent improvement over both Graph Network(no retriever) and Graph Network(random). Such improvements of RetroPLEX are even observed with other backbone encoders as well. This confirms the effectiveness of our framework in implicitly extracting useful synthesis recipe information that aids in predicting the synthesis of the target material by utilizing the trained retrievers.
---
**[Q1]**
Firstly, we apologize for not clearly specifying the temperature and pressure conditions for calculating the Gibbs free energy data. The formation energy from the Materials Project that we used is calculated at 0 K and 0 atm using DFT. The experimental formation energy data is taken from [1], which reports measurements at 298.15 K and 1 atm.
We fully agree with the reviewer's suggestion that using Gibbs free energy specific to each synthesis condition is essential, as material synthesis occurs under varying temperature and pressure conditions. However, calculating Gibbs free energy for every specific condition is impractical due to the considerable cost and time involved. Given that the appeal of AI in material science lies in its efficiency, we have opted to use an abstraction of the complex conditions.
On the other hand, even though the Gibbs free energy we used may not be the exact value for each synthesis condition, we believe it still reflects the trends in chemical reactions since both the formation energy data from the Materials Project and the experimental formation energy data are calculated under consistent temperature and pressure conditions. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the limitations of our proposed method and greatly appreciate the reviewer's valuable comment. We will explore efficient ways to calculate Gibbs free energy considering synthesis conditions and incorporate them into our modeling as part of future work.
[1] Jha, Dipendra, et al. "Enhancing materials property prediction by leveraging computational and experimental data using deep transfer learning." Nature communications 10.1 (2019): 5316.
---
**[Q2]**
We apologize for the confusion caused by the typo. As the reviewer correctly pointed out, it should refer to Figure 2(a). We appreciate your attention to detail and will make the necessary corrections promptly.
---
**[Q3]**
First and foremost, we sincerely apologize for any confusion caused by our qualitative analysis. As the reviewer correctly pointed out, upon reviewing Table 8, we found that the correct similar compound retrieved for synthesizing Na3Dy(PO4)2 is NaY(PO3)4, not Na3Y(PO3)4. This critical error of writing Na3 instead of Na led to a misunderstanding. We regret this mistake and any resulting confusion. We have inserted the corrected table (Table 1) into the attached PDF.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Gentle reminder for author reviewer discussion
Comment: Thank you once again for your valuable review and feedback. We kindly ask if you could please take a moment to confirm whether our rebuttal has adequately addressed your comments and concerns. Thank you for your consideration.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thank you for your thoughtful rebuttal and for addressing the concerns raised in the initial review. I appreciate the effort you put into clarifying the issues.
Regarding the discussion on the precursor compound in the Qualitative Analysis section, you mentioned that the actual example compound is NaY(PO3)4. However, after researching this compound, Na2CO3 is indeed one of the raw materials (precursors) used to synthesize NaY(PO3)4, according to the synthesis method mentioned in the literature [1]. This differs from the precursors you provided in the paper, leading to less effectiveness of NRE retriever. Although this mistake may have originated from the comparison article’s dataset, it is crucial to note that factual errors should not be present as examples in the paper. If the issue indeed stems from the dataset, I recommend considering the use of a different case study to avoid this discrepancy.
Your explanations have successfully addressed most of my other concerns, and I hope these comments will be helpful in improving your manuscript.
[1] M. El Masloumi, et al. Structure and luminescence properties of silver-doped NaY(PO3)4 crystal. Journal of Solid State Chemistry, 11(181), 2008.
---
Reply to Comment 2.1.1:
Comment: Thank you so much for your valuable feedback. I'm delighted to hear that most of the concerns, including the weaknesses you highlighted, have been addressed.
Regarding the missed precursor for synthesizing NaY(PO₃)₄, after realizing that Na₂CO₃ is indeed a necessary precursor for this synthesis, we reviewed the code and dataset preprocessing procedures. We discovered that during the extraction of precursor information from paper [1], Na₂CO₃ was omitted due to an issue within the dataset itself, as you speculated, which led to the factual error. As you pointed out, such errors should not appear in the manuscript, and thanks to your thorough review, we were able to identify and correct this issue. Moving forward, we will take extra care in preparing the manuscript.
Additionally, we are providing another qualitative analysis. The table below shows the results of our model using both MPC and NRE retrievers for $Pb_9[Li_2(P_2O_7)_
2(P_4O_{13})_2]$.
We were able to retrieve $Li_{2}CO_{3}$ and $NH_{4}H_{2}PO_{4}$ through the MPC retriever, and $NH_{4}H_{2}PO_{4}$ and $PbO$ were identified by using the NRE retriever, which retrieved $Pb_{3}(PO_{4})_{2}$. This demonstrates how the NRE retriever and MPC complement each other to enhance prediction accuracy.
Moreover, we have included the DOI for each material, sourced directly from the raw data, below the table.
Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. I hope that this addresses your concerns.
| **Model** | **Retriever** | **Retrieved Material** | **Corresponding Precursor Sets** | **Predicted Precursor Set(Output)** |
|-------------------|---------------|------------------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
| MPC + NRE | MPC | $LiNaPbPO$ | {$Li_{2}CO_{3}$, $H_{3}PO_{4}$,$Na_{2}CO_{3}$, $Pb_{3}O_{4}$ } | {$NH_{4}H_{2}PO_{4},Li_{2}CO_{3}, PbO $} |
| (RetroPLEX) | MPC | $Li_{0.5}Na_{0.5}PO_3$ |{$Li_{2}CO_{3},NH_{4}H_{2}PO_{4}, NaPO_{3}$}|
| | MPC |$Li_{3}V_{1.92}Al_{0.08}(PO_{4})_{3}$ | {$Al, V_{2}O_{5}, LiH_{2}PO_{4}$} |
|-|-|-|-|-|
| | NRE | $Pb_{3}(PO_{4})_{2}$ | \{$PbO, NH_{4}H_{2}PO_{4}$ } | | |
| |NRE | $Li_{3}P$ | \{$P, Li$\} | |
| |NRE | $PbP_{7}$ | \{$P, Pb$\} | |
---
$Pb_9[Li_2(P_2O_7)_
2(P_4O_{13})_2]$ : 10.1039/c7dt00509a
$LiNaPbPO$ : 10.1016/s0022-3093(03)00171-6
$Li_{0.5}Na_{0.5}PO_3$ : 10.1016/s0022-3093(01)00655-x
$Li_{3}V_{1.92}Al_{0.08}(PO_{4})_{3}$ : 10.1016/j.electacta.2010.12.063
$Pb_{3}(PO_{4})_{2}$ : 10.1103/physrevb.73.024429
$Li_{3}P$ : 10.1021/cm0513379
$PbP_{7}$ : 10.1039/c4dt01539h
[1] M. El Masloumi, et al. Structure and luminescence properties of silver-doped NaY(PO3)4 crystal. Journal of Solid State Chemistry, 11(181), 2008. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear reviewers, thank you for your valuable comments on our work. We are more than willing to address each of the weaknesses and questions in detail. Additionally, we have attached a PDF file that includes a qualitative analysis, experiments, and pseudocode for the rebuttal.
Pdf: /pdf/2d72f145eca028edc3e111f7759c7bccc8d4a1ba.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | Summary: The paper introduces RetroPLEX, a method for inorganic retrosynthesis planning. It extracts precursor information from retrieved reference materials implicitly. The authors use attention layers to extract information from the reference material and design a neural reaction energy (NRE) retriever to provide complementary reference materials. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of implicit extraction of precursor information and NRE retriever in discovering novel synthesis recipes.
Strengths: Originality: RetroPLEX presents a new approach to inorganic retrosynthesis planning by implicitly extracting precursor information from retrieved reference materials. This deviates from traditional methods that rely on explicit utilization of precursor information.
Quality: The authors provide a comprehensive evaluation of RetroPLEX, including assessments in realistic scenarios, which demonstrates its effectiveness in discovering novel synthesis recipes.
Clarity: The paper is well-written and easy to follow, with clear explanations of the methodology and results.
Significance: The proposed method has significant implications for material science, as it can aid in the discovery of new materials and their synthesis routes.
Weaknesses: No specific complaint. The work is highly praised for its comprehensiveness, thoroughness, and originality. It is supported by ample evidence that attests to its quality. The following section will include questions related to the work.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: How does RetroPLEX handle situations where there are multiple possible synthesis routes for a target material?
How do the authors plan to address the potential issue of overfitting, given the complexity of the model?
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors acknowledge limitations of their work, such as the importance of incorporating precursor information from a broader range of reference materials.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your high praise and acknowledgment of the novelty of our work in inorganic retrosynthesis. We are more than willing to address your two questions in detail.
---
**[Q1]**
As the reviewer noted, actual material synthesis processes often involve multiple possible synthesis routes for a target material based on synthesis conditions, making it crucial to address such scenarios. However, considering the increased complexity involved in synthesis conditions, we opted to follow previous work [1] and focus on a single synthetic route for each target material and precursor set. Specifically, each target material is associated with multiple synthesis routes, gathered from various literature sources, each with distinct experimental conditions. Among the multiple synthesis routes, we selected the most frequently occurring synthesis routes among those with varying conditions, allowing the model to learn the most likely precursor set for the input target material.
On the other hand, recognizing the importance of synthesis conditions, we are planning future work to incorporate these conditions into our modeling. To achieve this, we intend to develop a separate model to predict the sequence of synthesis steps and corresponding conditions from an inorganic synthesis dataset. This approach will enable us to handle unseen materials without synthesis condition information by learning both the target material and synthesis conditions jointly, allowing the model to manage multiple possible synthesis routes.
[1] He, Tanjin, et al. "Precursor recommendation for inorganic synthesis by machine learning materials similarity from scientific literature." Science advances 9.23 (2023): eadg8180.
---
**[Q2]**
RetroPLEX initially trains two retrievers (i.e., the MPC retriever and the NRE retriever) in advance to simplify the complexity of the model by leveraging the materials retrieved from these trained retrievers. However, as the reviewer pointed out, the model may still face potential overfitting issues. To address this, we applied traditional techniques in machine learning such as L2 regularization and early stopping during the training process.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Gentle reminder for author reviewer discussion
Comment: Thank you once again for your valuable review and feedback. We kindly ask if you could please take a moment to confirm whether our rebuttal has adequately addressed your comments and concerns. Thank you for your consideration.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thank you for your rebuttal which addresses the questions. I remain my initial assessment of RetroPLEX as a technically sound paper with significant implications for material science, and I recommend its acceptance for publication.
---
Reply to Comment 2.1.1:
Comment: We are delighted that our work has been recognized, and we sincerely appreciate your compliments and encouragement. Thank you! | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Revisiting the Message Passing in Heterophilous Graph Neural Networks | Reject | Summary: 1. The paper unifies existing heterophilous graph neural networks (HTGNNs) into a Heterophilous Message-Passing (HTMP) mechanism.
2. The authors reveal that the effectiveness of HTMP is due to increasing differences among node representations belonging to different classes.
3. Guided by this revelation, the paper then introduces Compatibility Matrix-aware Graph Neural Network (CMGNN) to further enhance HTGNNs.
4. The authors conduct fair evaluations and comparative analysis on multiple benchmark datasets, highlighting the superior performance of the HTMP mechanism and the proposed CMGNN method.
Strengths: 1. The claims are supported empirically by a detailed comparison across multiple benchmark datasets.
2. The paper is well-written and clearly structured, with each section logically building on the previous ones.
Weaknesses: 1. Several research publications [1, 2, 3] have used compatible matrices to boost the effectiveness of GNNs on heterophilic graphs. In-depth qualitative and quantitative comparisons are missing from this submission. Including such analyses would significantly increase the importance of the contributions.
2. Some claims made in the paper, such as Observation 1 and Observation 2 in Section 4, would benefit from additional analysis. For instance, including theoretical analysis with formal notations would provide more rigorous support for these claims.
3. Existing survey articles have unified and categorised message passing on heterophilic graphs [4,5,6]. This submission should compare and position the proposed HTMP unification against these categorisations.
4. The experiments lack a comparison of training times with baseline models. Including an analysis of the tradeoff between accuracy and training time would greatly enhance the results.
References:
1. Simplifying Node Classification on Heterophilous Graphs with Compatible Label Propagation, In TMLR'22,
2. Explicit pairwise factorized graph neural network for semi-supervised node classification, In UAI'21,
3. Graph Neural Networks with Heterophily, In AAAI'21,
4. Graph Neural Networks for Graphs with Heterophily: A Survey,
5. Learning from Graphs with Heterophily: Progress and Future,
6. Heterophily and Graph Neural Networks: Past, Present and Future.
**Edit post Rebuttal:**
The authors have promised to include detailed comparisons in a future revised version. Since these details cannot be verified within the review period, I will lower my confidence from 4 to 3. However, given that other major concerns have been addressed, I will raise my rating by one point from 4 to 5.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. Were there insights on how the compatible matrices utilised in CMGNN compared with the methods in the referenced publications [1, 2, 3]? What were the pros and cons of CMGNN to tackle heterophily with existing methods that use compatibility matrices?
2. Were there theoretical foundations that support Observation 1 and Observation 2? What formal notations and theoretical analyses could be included to strengthen the support for these observations?
3. How did the proposed HTMP unification differ from the categorisations presented in the existing survey articles [4, 5, 6]? What unique insights did the HTMP unification offer compared to existing unifications?
4. What did the tradeoff between accuracy and training times of the proposed methods and the baselines look like?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors have provided some discussion on the limitations of their work (for instance, see section 7 on Page 9).
Potential negative societal impacts are not relevant to this study.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for your insightful and constructive review of our work. The following are our detailed responses to the reviewer’s thoughtful comments. We are expecting these could be helpful in answering your questions.
> Question #1 & Weakness #1: The connections and differences between CMGNN and existing methods that use compatibility matrices.
Answer #1:
Thanks for your suggestion! We would like to highlight that the usage of compatibility matrices in CMGNN **differs significantly from existing methods**.
Existing methods [1, 2, 3] utilize the compatibility matrix (CM) to **redefine pair-wise relations (i.e. edge weights)** for existing edges, such as label propagation in CLP [1], log-likelihood estimation in EPFGNN [2] and prior belief propagation in CPGNN [3]. In contrast, CMGNN leverages CM and virtual neighbors to **construct supplementary messages** while preserving the original neighborhood distribution.
As a result, CMGNN benefits from its approach to utilizing CM in the following aspects compared with existing methods [1, 2, 3]:
* **Better robustness for low-quality pseudo labels:** Existing methods utilize CM to guide the weights of propagation, which can lead to error accumulation with inaccurate pseudo labels. This is a common limitation of CM-based methods. In CMGNN, the CM is used to construct supplementary messages while original neighborhoods are preserved, mitigating the impact of inaccurate pseudo labels.
* **Unlock the effectiveness of CM for low-degree nodes:** Existing methods redefine pair-wise relations only for existing edges, limiting the effectiveness of CMs for low-degree nodes. In CMGNN, virtual neighbors can provide prototype messages from every class, enhancing neighborhood messages for low-degree or even isolated nodes.
* **More accurate estimation of CM:** While existing methods take naive approaches to estimate or initialize CM, CMGNN considers the effects of node degrees and model prediction confidence, resulting in more accurate CM estimation, especially in real-world situations. Additionally, CM in CMGNN is continuously updated with more accurate pseudo labels, creating a positive cycle.
For quantitative comparison, we will add comparative experiments with these methods in the revised version, including performance, estimation accuracy of CM, efficiency, etc.
> Question #2 & Weakness #2: Theoretical analysis for the observations in the paper.
Answer #2:
Thank you for your valuable comment! We have provided theoretical analyses supporting a core condition behind Observation 1 and 2: the discriminability of obtained representations is **positively correlated** with the discriminability among classes in CM. For detailed analyses, please refer to the global response due to space limits.
> Question #3 & Weakness #3: The differences and unique insights of proposed HTMP compared to existing categorizations and unifications.
Answer #3:
Thanks for pointing out this! We delve into the message-passing mechanism in heterophilous GNN methods and propose a unification HTMP that **clarifies the intrinsic mechanisms** of these methods. In contrast, existing surveys [4, 5, 6] **provide a macroscopic view**, categorizing and unifying heterophilous GNNs with comprehensive but shallow analysis.
Therefore, HTMP offers significant differences and unique insights compared to existing surveys [4, 5, 6]:
* HTMP provides a **uniform symbolic form** and categorizes methods based on the values of component modules (e.g. neighborhood indicator and aggregation guidance). As a comparison, existing surveys categorize methods based on their ideas and designs, which are **described only by words** but are not limited to message-passing mechanisms (e.g. learning strategies).
* As a result, the fine-grained HTMP can concretely **guide the design of new heterophilous message-passing mechanisms** through its modular architecture, whereas existing surveys **offer guidance primarily at the conceptual level**.
The detailed differences and connections with each work [4,5,6] are as follows:
* **Survey [4]:** This work categorizes the designs of heterophilous GNNs into non-local neighbor extensions and GNN architecture refinement. The first group corresponds to part of the neighborhood indicator in HTMP, while the second group includes some designs of HTMP functions (AGGREGATE, COMBINE and FUSE). It organizes heterophilous designs directly, whereas HTMP provides systematic categorizations from a message-passing perspective.
* **Survey [5]:** This work focuses on learning from heterophilous graphs, where message passing is only a minor aspect of its taxonomy. Thus, it offers a broader view, whereas HTMP is more specialized in message-passing mechanisms.
* **Survey [6]:** This survey examines the impact of heterophilous graph characteristics on GNNs. For categorizations, it simply lists some effective designs in heterophilous GNNs, whereas HTMP offers a clearer categorization of these and additional designs.
> Question #4 & Weakness #4: The tradeoff between accuracy and training times of CMGNN and baselines.
Answer #4:
Thank you for this suggestion! We have followed your suggestion and visualized the tradeoff between accuracy and training time in the supplemental **PDF of the global response**. From the results in the figures, we can find that our proposed **CMGNN achieves the best performance while maintaining relatively low computational complexity**. Compared to the top-2 performed baselines (OrderedGNN, GCNII), CMGNN has superior classification performance and lower time consumption.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thanks for the Rebuttal
Comment: Thanks to the authors for the rebuttal.
The responses mostly address the concerns raised. The paper should include in-depth qualitative and quantitative comparisons with existing methods that use compatibility matrices. This should involve performance metrics, robustness tests, and case studies to highlight the differences and advantages of the proposed method compared to similar methods in the literature.
The authors have promised to include these comparisons in a future revised version. Since these details cannot be verified within the review period, I will lower my confidence. However, given that all other concerns have been addressed, I will raise my rating by one point.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Thank you
Comment: Thank you for engaging in the discussion.
We greatly appreciate your constructive comments, which have contributed to the improvement and solidity of our work!
Best regards! | Summary: This work revisits the message-passing mechanisms in existing HTGNNs and reformulates them into a unified heterophilous message-passing (HTMP) mechanism. Based on HTMP, the authors propose a new framework named CMGNN. Experiments on 10 datasets with 13 different baseline models demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework.
Strengths: 1. This work proposes a unified heterophilous message-passing (HTMP) mechanism, which could be a guideline for further research on heterophilous GNN.
2. Based on the HTMP mechanism, this work proposes a new framework named CMGNN, which is novel and has basic value.
3. The effectiveness of the HTMP mechanism and CMGNN framework is well supported by experiment results.
Weaknesses: 1. Paper presentation could be further improved. For example, the conception of "good" heterophily and "bad" homophily deserves further explanation. There are some spelling mistakes, such as "heterophilious" in line 12.
2. If space permits, I feel like moving experiments in Appendix C to the main body would be better for the introduction of *Observation 1*.
3. It might be hard to follow as this paper has so many equations, especially those about CMGNN. So I suggest providing a flow chart or a pseudo algorithm for better understanding.
4. Conclusions in this paper are mainly based on experiment results. It would be better if corresponding theoretical analysis or proofs are provided.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. What are the contributions to the newly built benchmark datasets? It seems that this work just collects 10 existing datasets and sets them with the same train-valid-test split ratio.
2. The weighting function (Eq.9) seems to be quite empirical. Is it possible to further discuss it?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: As the authors mentioned, this work mainly focuses on semi-supervised settings, which could be further generalized.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful review of our paper. Below, we address the reviewer's concerns point by point, hoping that a better understanding of every point can be delivered.
> Question #1: The contributions of benchmark datasets and unified codebase.
Answer #1:
To address the issues of method comparison caused by drawbacks like data leakages and extremely imbalanced classes in existing datasets, we have collected and **filtered suitable graph datasets** from heterophilous GNNs methods and other fields (e.g. Anomaly Detection). This collection spans various levels of homophily, **providing a robust foundation for performance evaluation**.
However, the benchmark datasets are not the main contribution of the paper. Instead, we consider them an additional resource to assist the community in better evaluating methods.
In addition to addressing dataset limitations, we have built a unified heterophilous GNN codebase, which has the following contributions:
* We have gathered the official and reproduced codes of 13 representative baseline methods and integrated them along with our CMGNN into a unified PyTorch-based codebase. All methods share the same call interfaces, ensuring a fair comparison environment.
* The codebase will be open-sourced, **enabling easier research and further development of this field**, such as quickly evaluating baseline methods on new datasets.
> Question #2: The explanation and discussion of Eq.9.
Answer #2:
Eq.9 defines a weighting function considering the effects of node degrees. The core idea is that **nodes with lower degrees correspond to lower weights** during compatibility matrix estimation, as high-degree nodes usually have representative neighborhoods while low-degree nodes often have incomplete ones. However, the relationship between weights and node degrees should not be linear. For low-degree nodes, increases in degree should yield more significant benefits compared to high-degree nodes. Beyond a certain threshold, increases in degree yield tiny benefits.
We have empirically chosen $K$ and $3K$ as fixed thresholds for the weighting function to simplify the design **without multiple attempts**. This approach is straightforward and can be substituted with other forms that meet the same criteria. It allows for further design but is not a priority compared to other modules.
> Weakness #1: Suggestions for paper presentation.
Answer #3:
Thank you for these suggestions. We will work on improving the paper presentation and correcting the spelling errors in the revised version. Here is a detailed explanation of "good" heterophily and "bad" homophily:
* The conception of "good" heterophily, introduced by [1], is based on empirical observations and highlights the existence of different kinds of heterophily. Specifically, **GCNs can achieve strong performance in "good" heterophily settings**, where the compatibility matrix exhibits strong discriminability. This concept is qualitative rather than quantitative.
* "Bad" homophily describes a scenario where, despite having more neighbors from the same class than from any other classes, the **homophily level is insufficient** for vanilla message-passing methods (GCN, GAT) to outperform MLPs.
Reference:
[1] Is Homophily a Necessity for Graph Neural Networks? in ICLR 2022.
> Weakness #2: Suggestion for paper architecture.
Answer #4: Thanks for this suggestion. We will consider it in the revised version.
> Weakness #3: The flow chart and algorithm of CMGNN.
Answer #5: Thanks for your suggestion. We have followed your suggestions and included the figure and algorithm of CMGNN in the **PDF of the global response**, which will be added in the revised version to better illustrate the architecture of CMGNN.
> Weakness #4: Theoretical analysis for the observations in the paper.
Answer #6:
Thanks for your suggestion! We have provided theoretical analyses and support for a core condition underlying Observation 1 and 2: the discriminability of obtained representations is **positively correlated** with the discriminability among classes in CM.
For detailed analyses, please refer to the **global response** due to the space limits. | Summary: This paper aims to address the question of "why does message passing remain effective on heterophilous graphs" and proposes a unified framework called heterophilous message-passing (HTMP) mechanism. It extensively reviews the architecture of existing heterophilous GNNs under this framework. It then moves on to discuss the empirical observation that the success of message passing in existing heterophilous GNNs is attributed to their implicitly enhancement of the compatibility matrix among classes, and proposed a new GNN approach called CMGNN to further enhance the separability of the compatibility matrix for different classes in the message passing process. The paper includes an extensive empirical analysis involving 10 benchmark datasets and 13 well-established baseline GNNs, and show that the proposed CMGNN approach has the best overall performance against the baselines.
Strengths: - The writing is clear and well-organized for most parts of the paper;
- The paper gives an extensive survey of existing message-passing GNNs under the HTMP mechanism in Table 1 and Appendix A.
- The experiments are well-thought and extensive: it addresses the drawbacks of the previous homophilous and heterophilous node classification benchmarks identified in previous works by using more recent benchmark datasets, and include 13 baselines for a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed method.
- The proposed approach, CMGNN, has the best overall performance against 13 baselines on 10 benchmark datasets.
Weaknesses: - This work builds upon the findings of several previous works regarding the effective designs for GNNs under heterophily and when is heterophily challenging (or in other words, "bad") for GNNs. While the authors cited these works in some parts of the paper ([6,9,12,18] in References), I feel that **some of the observations in the paper overlapped with the findings in previous works, and their connections and differences are not clearly stated in the paper**.
- For example, Observation 1 seems to overlap with the previous observations made in [6] ("to ensure that the neighborhood patterns for nodes with different labels are distinguishable, the inter- class similarity should be low") and [9] ("two key factors, low-degree nodes and complex compatibility matrices, deteriorate the distinguishability of the neighborhood label distributions when coupled with heterophily, thus making heterophily a unique challenge for GNNs in most cases").
- Given this, I also think that the claim in the related work section (line 732-734) that "these reviews ... not exploring the reason behind the effectiveness of message passing in heterophilous graphs" is inaccurate, as this paper is in fact built upon these analyses regarding the effectiveness of message passing in heterophilous graphs.
- Section 5 (method) is too condensed to present a clear picture of how the proposed Compatibility Matrix-Aware GNN (CMGNN) works for the readers. For example, it is unclear what "topology structure" that the authors are considering as "additional available node features", and the term in Eq. 7 is not well explained. The authors also didn't explain clearly in the main paper how is the "soft pseudo labels" being generated for the model. It will help with the understanding if the authors can include a figure showing the architecture of the proposed CMGNN model. I feel the "method" section is the most novel part in the paper and deserves more length in the paper.
- It would be good to analyze the computational complexity and/or compare the empirical runtime of the model with the baselines.
- As a minor point, the "Norm" term in Eq. 3 should be explained as "L1 normalization for matrix row vectors" to avoid the confusion that the normalization is done with the L1 norm for *matrix* (instead of for vectors).
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - As per Weakness point 1, can you describe how the observations in the paper are connected to, and different with, prior observations in [6,9,12,18]?
- As per Weakness point 2, what is the "topology structure" that you considered as "additional available node features"? How does the use of these features affect the performance of the proposed model?
- Can you provide some analysis regarding the computational complexity and/or the empirical runtime of the model?
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors acknowledged the limitation that the proposed HTMP framework is only applicable to GNNs following the message-passing mechanism. One additional limitation is that the paper is mostly empirical and does not give theoretical underpinnings.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank you for your deeply thorough review. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions, and the following are our detailed responses.
> Question #1 & Weakness #1: The connections and differences between the observations in this paper and prior works.
Answer #1:
Thanks for pointing out the omission. **Our principal finding is Obs.2 with Obs.1 serving as a foundational context to enhance the understanding of Obs.2.** The detailed comparisons are as follows:
* Prior works [6, 9] have primarily analyzed the challenging issue of heterophily in vanilla GNNs. **While their conclusions are similar to our Obs.1, as they emphasize data, our focus is more on the message passing.** However, they did not explore the reasons behind the effectiveness of heterophilous message passing (HTMP). Further, prior works [12, 18] investigate the effectiveness of specific designs separately. In contrast, our Obs.2 encompasses a comprehensive set of various effective designs in HTMP and attributes their effectiveness to a unified goal. Consequently, **our Obs.2 provides a more comprehensive and unified perspective** for understanding the working mechanism of HTMP.
* Upon the above analysis, we also recognize that there are inaccuracies in our related works section that could lead to misunderstandings. A more accurate description would be: "These reviews do not explore the unified reasons for the effectiveness of various designs in heterophilous message passing." We will correct this in the revised version.
> Question #2 & Weakness #2: More detailed description of the method and "topology structure".
Answer #2:
Thank you for the suggestions! We completely agree that a figure can significantly aid readers in understanding the whole method. **Following your suggestions, we have included a figure in the PDF of the global response.**
The detailed descriptions of "topology structure" are as follows:
* **The explanation of "topology structure":** The term "topology structure" refers to the connection relationship among nodes, represented by the adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}$. Each row $\mathbf{A}_i$ can be viewed as an additional $N$-dimensional feature for the corresponding node $i$. The inclusion of additional features is optional, depending on the observed performance on the validation set, as it may introduce extra computational cost and potentially redundant information.
* **The explanation of terms in Eq.7:** In Eq.7, $\mathbf{Z}^0$ is the input for the first layer of message passing and can be obtained in two ways: (1) by using the topology structure as additional features, with $\mathbf{W}^{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{d_f \times d_r}$, $\mathbf{W}^{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times d_r}$ and $\mathbf{W}^{0} \in \mathbb{R}^{2d_r \times d_r}$ as learnable weight matrices; (2) by using only attribute features, where $\mathbf{W}^{0} \in \mathbb{R}^{d_f \times d_r}$ is a learnable weight matrix.
* **The effect of additional structural features:** The additional structural features offer another way to utilize connection relationships, introducing both discriminant and redundant information. Thus **it presents a trade-off between the advantages and disadvantages**. We conducted an ablation study to examine its effects and report the results in the table below. The additional structure features have positive effects on five datasets while others are negative. It doesn’t significantly impact performance except for Roman-Empire. Moreover, **CMGNN can still achieve competitive results without using additional structural features**.
|structural_features|Roman-Empire|Amazon-Ratings|Chameleon-F|Squirrel-F|Actor|Flickr| BlogCatalog|Wikics|Pubmed|Photo|
|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|
|True|68.43±2.23|**52.13±0.55**|**45.70±4.92**|**41.89±2.34**|35.72±0.75|**92.66±0.46**|96.47±0.58|**84.50±0.73**|88.90±0.45|95.08±0.43|
|False|**84.35±1.27**|51.41±0.57|44.85±5.64|40.49±1.55|**36.82±0.78**|92.05±0.75|**97.00±0.52**|83.88±0.75|**89.99±0.32**|**95.48±0.29**|
> Question #3 & Weakness #3: Computational complexity analysis and empirical runtime comparison.
Answer #3:
Thanks for your suggestion! The analysis of computational complexity and empirical runtime comparison are described as follows:
* **Computational complexity analysis:** The computational complexity of layer $l$ consists of 3 parts: (i) AGGREGATE function: $O(N{d_r}^2)$, $O(N{d_r}^2+Md_r)$ and $O(N{d_r}^2+NKd_r)$ for identity, raw and the supplementary neighborhood, respectively, where $N$ and $M=|\mathcal{E}|$ denote the number of nodes and edges, $d_r$ is the dimension of representations; (ii) COMBINE function: $O(3N(3d_r+1)+12N)$ for calculating adaptive weights and $O(3N)$ for combination; (iii) FUSE function: $O(1)$ for concatenations. Thus, the time complexity of $L$-layer CMGNN is $O(L(Nd_r (3d_r+K+9)+Md_r+18N)+1)$, or $O(LN{d_r}^2+LM d_r)$ for brevity.
* **Empirical runtime comparison:** Following your suggestions, we have visualized the tradeoff between accuracy and empirical runtime compared to baseline methods in the PDF of the global response. The results show that **CMGNN achieves the best performances with relatively low time consumption**. Compared with OrderedGNN and GCNII, which have the second- and third-best average ranks, CMGNN offers both better accuracy and lower time consumption.
> Weakness # 4: Correction of the "Norm" term.
Answer #4: Thank you for pointing out this mistake. We will correct it in the revised version.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response to Authors' Rebuttal
Comment: I appreciate the authors detailed response to my questions and comments. After reading authors' response, I decide to keep my original rating.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thanks again for your careful reading and valuable suggestions, which have significantly improved our manuscript.
Best Regards! | null | null | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank all reviewers for their insightful and valuable review points. We add the figure and algorithm of the proposed CMGNN and the results of empirical runtime comparisons in the **PDF file** attached to this global response. We appreciate that some reviewers suggested we provide theoretical analyses of the observations and we provide detailed analyses as below. Due to limited space, some experimental results and answers to the reviewers' questions are in individual replies.
### Theoretical analyses of observation 1 and 2
Behind **Observation 1** and **2**, there is a core condition to support the conclusions:
> **Condition 1. The discriminability of obtained representations is **positively correlated** with the discriminability among classes in CM.**
Based on **Condition 1**, vanilla message passing (VMP) can work well with discriminative CM regardless of homophily levels and heterophilous message passing (HTMP) can achieve better performance by enhancing the discriminability of CM.
To prove this condition, we start with an assumption:
> **Assumption 1. The semantic neighborhood $C^{nb}$ of each node follows a class-specific distribution guided by CM, where** $C_{i} ^{nb}= \frac{\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}(i)} C_{j}}{|\mathcal{N}(i)|}$ **indicates the proportion of neighbors from each class in node i's neighborhood.**
According to **Assumption 1**, the discriminability in CM is positively correlated with the discriminability in semantic neighborhoods.
Thus, if the message-passing mechanism can preserve the discriminability of the semantic neighborhood in the obtained representations, then **Condition 1** holds.
It would be sufficient if each distinct semantic neighborhood corresponds to a different output representation, in other words, the message-passing mechanism is an injective function for modeling semantic neighborhoods.
We further state an assumption:
> **Assumption 2. The input node messages $\mathbf{Z}^{l-1}$ of the message-passing layer exhibit clustering characteristics, where the average distance within a class is significantly smaller than the average distance between different classes. Meanwhile, the clustering centers of each class's input messages exist, formatted as $K$ prototypes $\\{ \mathbf{c}_k| k\in 1,...,K \\}$.**
This implies that the input messages of nodes from the same class are linearly correlated within a certain range of error.
Taking the most general mean aggregation as an example, we have the following theorem:
> **Theorem 1. Let $\text{MEAN}(\{\mathbf{Z}^{l-1}_j|j\in\mathcal{N}(i)\})$ be mean operator that aggregates neighbor messages for node $i$. Function $\text{MEAN}(\{\mathbf{Z}^{l-1}_j|j\in\mathcal{N}(i)\})$ is approximately injective if it is satisfied that all class prototypes $\mathbf{c}_k$ are orthogonal to each other.**
The injectivity ensures that each element in the domain of the input (i.e. semantic neighborhoods and neighbor messages) has a distinct and unique output in the output domain.
We find that as long as the conditions of **Theorem 1** are satisfied, the mean aggregation can be regarded as an injective function within a certain range of error.
Thus, the whole message-passing mechanism can be an approximately injective function for modeling the semantic neighborhoods when the COMBINE function is also injective, which can be easily satisfied.
In practice, the orthogonality of prototypes is hard to be satisfied completely but the difference among prototypes is still significant.
Thus, even if the message-passing mechanism is not completely injective, most of the discriminability can be preserved, making **Condition 1** hold.
#### **Proof of Theorem 1**.
We have the following lemma:
> **Lemma 1:. Injectivity is equivalent to null space equals $\{0\}$. Let $T\in \mathcal{L}(V,W)$, $T$ is injective if and only if $null(T)=\{0\}$.**
##### **Proof of Lemma 1**.
**Sufficiency**:
First, suppose $T$ is injective. We want to prove that $null(T)=\{0\}$.
We already know that $\{0\}\subset null(T)$.
Suppose $v\in null(T)$, then $T(v)=0=T(0)$.
Because $T$ is injective, the equation implies that $v=0$.
Thus we can conclude that $null(T)=\{0\}$, as desired.
**Necessity**:
Suppose $null(T)=\{0\}$, $u,v \in V$.
If $T(u)=T(v)$, then $T(u)-T(v)=T(u-v)=0$.
Thus $u-v=0$, which implies that $u=v$.
Hence $T$ is injective, as desired.
Having **Lemma 1** proved, now we express the mean aggregation in the form of $\mathbf{PZ}^{nb}=\mathbf{b}$, where $\mathbf{P}\in \mathbb{R}^{1\times |\mathcal{N}(i)|}$ denotes the mean aggregation operator, $\mathbf{Z}^{nb}\in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{N}(i)| \times d_r}$ is the matrix consist of neighbor messages and $\mathbf{b}$ is the resulting representation.
Assuming that the messages of neighbors from the same class are linearly dependent, we can rewrite the equation as $\mathbf{P}'\mathbf{Z}^{p}\approx b$, where $\mathbf{P}'\in\mathbb{R}^{1\times K}$ is a weighted mean operator, $\mathbf{Z}^p\in\mathbb{R}^{K\times d_r}$ is a matrix consisting of the prototypes $\\{\mathbf{c}_k|k\in 1,...,K\\}$ of $K$ classes.
The injectivity of mean aggregation operator $\mathbf{P}$ involves considering the solution for $\mathbf{P}'\mathbf{Z}^{p}=0$.
Clearly, if it is satisfied that all $\mathbf{c}_k$ are orthogonal to each other, the null space $null(\mathbf{P}')=\{0\}$, indicating that the mean aggregation operator is approximately injective, as desired in **Theorem 1**.
The above analyses provide theoretical support for **Observation 1** and **2**, proving the feasibility of HTMP to improve performance by enhancing the discriminability of CM.
Finally, we once again thank all reviewers for their insightful comments which are very helpful for improving the quality of our paper.
All discussions, supplementary experiments and figures will be included in our revised version. If any remaining questions have not been resolved, please feel free to continue the discussion with us!
Pdf: /pdf/6c9f141e38e2e910e658e5cd80755fe3cb182923.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Navigable Graphs for High-Dimensional Nearest Neighbor Search: Constructions and Limits | Accept (poster) | Summary: The article establishes upper and lower bounds for the average degree of navigable graphs in high-dimensional case. In particular, a method for constructing a navigable graph with average degree $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{n \log n})$ for any set of $n$ points is provided. In addition, they provide a random point set for which (with a high probability) it is not possible to build a navigable graph with average degree $\mathcal{O}(n^\alpha)$ for $\alpha < 1/2$.
Strengths: Theoretical limits of the navigable graphs is an important question, since they are widely applied in state-of-the-art approximate nearest neighbor algorithms. The article provides sharp bounds for the average degree of the navigable graphs. The technical level of the article is high.
Weaknesses: The article is motivated by the observation that the state-of-the-art methods for approximate nearest neighbor search utilize navigable graphs. However, as the authors acknowledge, these graph are in practice only approximately navigable, and use beam search to retrieve approximate nearest neighbors instead of a simple greedy search. Thus, the bounds provided are not directly applicable to these algorithms, but consider simplified version of the algorithms.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: If I understood correctly, you prove via a counterexample that it is not possible to build a navigable graph with an average degree smaller than $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{n})$? for all possible sets of $n$ points? But this does not rule out that it would be possible to do it for a set of $n$ points for which certain additional assumptions holds?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors fairly address the limitations of the work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for the review. Regarding your question, your understanding is exactly correct. Some point sets admit sparser navigable graphs. For example, if all points lie on a $d$-dimensional hyperplane, then the Arya, Mount result discussed in Section 1.1 implies that we can find a navigable graph with degree $2^{O(d)}$, which can be less than $O(\sqrt{n\log n})$ for small values of $d$. That said, our lower bound does not require an “adversarial” set of points: it holds with high-probability for a set of random $\pm 1$ vectors in $O(\log n)$ dimensions. Of course, “real data” often does not look random. An interesting question for future work might be to understand if there are natural measures of complexity of a point set that dictate the minimum degree of a navigable graph for that set.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I acknowledge that I have read the rebuttal, and thank the authors for carefully answering my question. | Summary: This paper studies the problem of constructing navigable graphs over high-dimensional point sets. Specifically, a randomized algorithm and a deterministic algorithm are given to construct such graphs within almost the same time complexity. Besides, theoretical results demonstrate that both algorithms can achieve the average degree is O(\sqrt{nlogn}), which nearly matches the lower bound.
Strengths: S1. The paper studies an important problem.
S2. Several interesting theoretical results are given
S3. The main ideas are easy to follow.
Weaknesses: W1. There is no experimental evaluation.
W2. More related work should be reviewed.
W3. Some technical details require clarifications.
W4. A section of conclusion and future direction is missing.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Q1. Navigable graphs have several applications now, but different applications may have different requirements on the efficiency, effectiveness, or their trade-off. However, the (potential) application scope of the proposed algorithms is unclear. Are they designed for exact NNS or approximate NNS? Are they designed for NNS only, or can it be extended to k-NNS?
Q2. Section 1.1 claims that “the computational efficiency of the graph-based methods … motivating the need for sparse navigable graphs”, which explains the main motivation to study this work. However, I found it unconvincing. First, some methods (eg HNSW and its variants) have already been demonstrated to be very efficient, so it might be meaningless for them to use the proposed algorithms. Second, the meaning of computational efficiency is a little vague. Take HNSW as an example, its efficiency include two aspects: time efficiency for construction and time efficiency for query. Which one do you indicate here? Third, as mentioned in this paragraph, quite a few graph-based methods are essentially approximate solutions, so there will usually be a consideration on the trade-off between efficiency and effectiveness. Due to the reasons, I think the motivation will be more convincing, if the authors can provide more motivation studies here.
Q3. Two algorithms are proposed to tackle the same problem: a randomized one and a deterministic one. Moreover, their time complexity are both O(n^2(T+logn)), so it becomes meaningful to provide more discussions on their strengths and weaknesses.
Q4. The paper has no experimental evaluation, so it is hard to tell whether their proposed techniques can be helpful in practice.
Q5. The theoretical analysis mainly concentrates on the average degree, indicating the sparsity of graphs. There are other options to represent the sparsity, eg the maximum degree. Then, why selects average degree instead of other potential metrics? Please give more explanations.
Q6. Since the paper is related to the area of high-dimensional nearest neighbor search, there should more comprehensive literature review of recent studies on this topic, such as
[R1] RaBitQ: Quantizing High-Dimensional Vectors with a Theoretical Error Bound for Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. SIGMOD 2024.
[R2] LiteHST: A Tree Embedding based Method for Similarity Search. SIGMOD 2023.
[R3] Turbo Scan: Fast Sequential Nearest Neighbor Search in High Dimensions. SISAP 2023.
Q7. The structure of this paper can be improved by summarizing the conclusion and identifying the future direction.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Please refer to the weaknesses and questions.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 3
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for the detailed review. We provide responses to the specific questions below:
Q1: There has been little formal work on connecting the property of navigability to near neighbor search. Indeed, the standard definition of navigability (which we study in our paper) only ensures that greedy search returns an exact NN for a query *in the dataset*. Navigability does not ensure greedy search works well for approximate NNS, k-nearest neighbor search, or exact nearest neighbor search for points not in the dataset. This important caveat is discussed in Section 1.3 of our paper.
Nevertheless, we focus on navigability because it is often highlighted as a desirable feature in work on graph-based nearest neighbor search methods. For instance, navigability is essential for greedy search to obtain any bounded multiplicative approximation guarantee for approximate near-neighbor search (see our response to Reviewer Z5U8 for a detailed explanation of this fact). That said, we think an important research direction is to understand “generalized” notations of navigability that connect to the performance of approximate NN search, k-NN search, etc. For example, we are currently working on understanding notions of navigability that imply the convergence of the popular “beam search” method, a generalization of greedy search.
Q2: We agree that graph-based methods have already been shown to be extremely efficient in practice. In fact, this is a major motivation for our work. Despite their empirical success, there is a lack of theoretical justification for this performance. Our paper aims to bridge this gap by enhancing the theoretical understanding of why graph-based methods are so effective, aligning with the goals of many related papers referenced in Section 1.3. We take a step in that direction by improving our theoretical understanding of navigability. We are not suggesting that our algorithms are ready to be used in practice in place of the effective graph-construction heuristics already used in methods like HNSW.
In terms of computational efficiency, we were specifically referring to computational efficiency of the search, although we agree that the efficiency of graph construction (and efficient maintenance under dynamic updates) is important as well. We will clarify this in the paper.
Q3: We will add further discussion of this point. The deterministic algorithm is “better” in that it has no chance of failure, and obtains a slightly smaller constant on the average degree. However, we chose to include the randomized algorithm because we think it is conceptually easier to understand, and aligns with prior strategies for constructing navigable graphs: we simply union together a near-neighbor graph and a random graph.
Q4: As mentioned in our response to Q1, we do not recommend applying our methods in practical settings. The primary goal of this paper is to enhance theoretical understanding, which we believe may in turn result in further improvements to the approaches currently used in practice.
Q5: This point is discussed further in Section 1.3 of the paper and Appendix B. In short, we agree that addressing other measures of sparsity is a great direction for future research. Maximum degree itself is a difficult one to work with, as there is a lower bound of $n-1$ (proven in Appendix B).
Q6: Thank you for the suggested references!
Q7: We summarize our contributions and elaborate on future directions in our “Outlook” section (Section 1.3). This could be moved to later in the paper to serve as a conclusion (possibly with some additional discussion).
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response to the author feedback
Comment: Dear authors,
I have read the rebuttal, and thank you for considering my suggestions. I will carefully consider the rebuttal when making the final decision.
Best regards, | Summary: This paper analyzes graph construction for greedy graph-based nearest neighbor search. First, the very general setup assuming an arbitrary similarity function is considered. In this case, it is shown that it is possible to construct a graph with an average degree at most $2 \sqrt{n \log n}$ which guarantees that the greedy search returns the nearest neighbor if the query coincides with an element of the dataset. Then, it is shown that the obtained average degree is close to the best possible since there are examples when the average degree cannot be better than $n^{\frac{1}{2}-\epsilon}$.
Strengths: NNS is an important problem. Graph-based algorithms are widely used for this task and yet there is not much theoretical analysis of their performance. This paper addresses this gap and considers a very general setup where the dimension is essentially not limited (in other words - an arbitrary similarity function is given). While the main theoretical results are relatively simple (not much can be done in such a general setup), I enjoyed reading the paper. All results are clearly stated and motivated, the proofs are easy to follow. The related work is well described. Importantly, limitations are clearly mentioned in the text: the results assume that the query coincides with an element of the dataset, which is a significant limitation, as stressed in line 105.
Weaknesses: Theorem 1 limits the average degree but does not say anything about the complexity of the search, which also depends on node degrees. It is shown in the paper that there are cases when the maximum degree in a graph is of order $n$, which means that the worst-case performance can be of order $n$ for this general setup. This can be a limitation of the considered general setup and some additional requirements can be needed to show something more feasible and practically applicable.
The considered general setup (that does not require the triangle inequality and is essentially based only on the ranking of neighbors) is similar to the one proposed in [1]. I think discussing this relation would improve the presentation. Also, [1] uses a relaxed triangle inequality to obtain better bounds (but for relatively small dimensions only).
[1] Goyal et al. "Disorder inequality: a combinatorial approach to nearest neighbor search." WSDM 2008.
Minor comments:
- Theorem 1 repeats two times in the main text, this repetition can be avoided: e.g., in the introduction only an informal description can be given.
- l263: "gives" should be "give"
- l391: $x$ should probably be $x_j$ here
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: I do not have any questions in addition to the comments listed in the previous above.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Limitations are discusses in the paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for the feedback. We address a few of the points raised below:
- We agree with the reviewer that an important next research direction is to look beyond the graph’s degree, and at more accurate proxies for the efficiency of near-neighbor search. For example, a natural metric might be the sum of degrees along any path taken by greedy search. It would be reasonable to study the average or worst case behavior of this metric for navigable graphs. We do feel that average degree serves as a good theoretical starting point, as it allows for direct comparison with prior work on low-dimensional data points, and is “simple”. We hope our progress on understanding average degree will lead to further theoretical progress on other graph metrics.
- Thanks very much for pointing out the Goyal et al. reference, which we missed. Indeed, our general setup falls exactly into what they call “combinatorial near neighbor search”. We will add additional discussion to the final version of the paper.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the reply!
While the results are relatively simple, it is a nice work that, I think, is above the acceptance threshold since it addresses an important problem (there is a gap between theory and practice in this field), provides new theoretical results and clearly states the limitations. | Summary: The paper provides a theoretical framework for understanding and constructing navigable graphs for high-dimensional nearest neighbor search, and the authors establish some of the first upper and lower bounds for high-dimensional point sets.
Strengths: S1: The article establishes both upper and lower bounds for navigable graphs and utilizes anti-concentration bounds for binomial random variables.
S2: The authors provide a foundational analysis that can influence the design and optimization of state-of-the-art ANNS methods, offering insights that could lead to more efficient graph-based solutions for high-dimensional data.
S3: The article uses a distance-based permutation method to analyze the lower and upper bounds of the navigable graphs, which is a highlight of the article.
Weaknesses: W1: The method proposed in the article is not generalizable to the construction methods used by current graph-based approaches.
W2: The proposed graph construction algorithm has not been compared with existing graph construction algorithms. Such a method may only be useful for theoretical analysis rather than for building a practical application.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Q1: Existing ANNS graph indexing algorithms do not necessarily need to ensure that the graph is fully navigable, as the query does not need to be considered a point in the graph. As long as the graph index can navigate to the vicinity of the given query vector, it largely meets the requirements. Therefore, the navigability of the graph is really important to ANNS?
Q2: It is better to make the proof or explanation more clear and detailed. For instance, providing more examples or describing the proof process in more formal language. This could be more helpful for someone who is not familiar with the theoretical research.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for the thoughtful comments. We address the two specific questions below.
Q1: A desirable property of an ANNS algorithm is that, if the vector queried, $q$, is in the dataset, then the algorithm should return exactly that vector. This behavior is also required for any algorithm to give a multiplicative approximation guarantee, i.e., any algorithm that always returns a vector $y$ satisfying $d(y,q) \leq \alpha\cdot \min_{i\in 1,\ldots, n} d(x_i,q)$ for $\alpha \geq 1$. In particular, if there is a point $x_i$ such that $d(x_i,q) = 0$, then for any finite $\alpha$, a multiplicative approximation algorithm must return that point.
A major open research challenge is to prove strong multiplicative approximation guarantees for graph-based ANNS methods, similar to those available, e.g., for locality sensitive hashing. The argument above implies that navigability is *necessary* to achieve this goal. As the reviewer points out, it may also be reasonable to accept a weaker notion of approximation. However, we believe that the importance of multiplicative approximation in prior work on NNS supports the importance of navigability, and makes navigability a natural starting point to build on.
More broadly, while existing graph-based near neighbor search methods like HNSW *usually* work fairly well in practice, they do fail on a subset of queries. One reason to explore navigability is to better understand these failures, and ultimately to make existing algorithms more reliable.
Q2: Thank you for the feedback. We will keep this in mind when editing the paper. Please let us know if there are any specific proofs that could benefit from editing, or any examples that you recommend would help the reader further understand our work.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I acknowledge that I have read the rebuttal. Currently, Q2 has not been addressed clearly. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank all of the reviewers for their thoughtful reviews and feedback. We address all specific questions in our individual responses below.
In general, we want to emphasize that our work can be viewed as a meaningful starting point to obtaining a better theoretical understanding of graph-based near neighbor search. Up until now, there has been very limited theoretical work on navigable graphs for high-dimensional data ($d > O(\log n)$). By making a first theoretical step on this topic, we hope to build a foundation for further theoretical work that can address many of the questions raised by the reviewers. For example, we plan to explore (and hope others will explore) different metrics of graph sparsity, the approximate search problem, generalizations of greedy search like beam search, and more. | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
DistillNeRF: Perceiving 3D Scenes from Single-Glance Images by Distilling Neural Fields and Foundation Model Features | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper introduces a self-supervised learning framework named DistillNeRF for understanding 3D environments from limited 2D observations. This framework is designed for autonomous driving and leverages per-scene optimized Neural Radiance Fields (NeRFs) and features distilled from pre-trained 2D foundation models such as CLIP and DINO. The model predicts rich 3D feature volumes from single-frame multi-view camera inputs, supporting various downstream tasks like scene reconstruction, novel view synthesis, and zero-shot 3D semantic occupancy prediction. Experimental results on the NuScenes dataset demonstrate the effectiveness of DistillNeRF over existing methods.
Strengths: 1. The paper is interesting to read and simple to follow. The methodology is robust, combining offline per-scene NeRF training with a distillation stage that generalizes across scenes.
2. The paper is well-structured and clearly explains the methodology, including detailed descriptions of the model architecture, training process, and experiments. Figures and tables effectively illustrate the key concepts and results.
Weaknesses: 1. Computational Complexity and Inference Speed: It would be beneficial for the authors to include the training time for both per-scene EmerNeRF and DistillNeRF, as well as the inference speed of DistillNeRF. This will help to better assess the efficiency of the proposed method.
2. Results on Other Datasets: Currently, the experiments are conducted only on the nuScenes dataset, whereas EmerNeRF has been tested on the Waymo dataset as well. Including experiments on the Waymo dataset would strengthen the claims regarding the generalizability of the method.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See the "Weakness" section.
1. Since the nerf-based method requires extra training time, is it possible to extend this method to support 3DGS distillation?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: See the "Weaknesses" section. Additionally, please note that the final score for this study is not solely determined by the peer reviewers' discussion. If the authors can address my main concerns, I would be willing to raise the score.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your positive feedback and valuable constructive comments! We address your specific questions below and will incorporate your suggestions into the paper. We have also included our source code during rebuttal (see the joint response), to enhance reproducibility and allow for inspecting every detail of our model.
> Q1: Computational Complexity and Inference Speed
Thank you for the suggestion to clarify the details of our approach!
- As for training durations, EmerNeRF requires 1.5 to 2.5 hours per scene using a single A100 GPU (with flow field enabled). Given that NuScenes consists of 850 scenes, training EmerNeRF on the entire dataset would take approximately 1700 A100 GPU hours. Additionally, training our DistillNeRF model takes approximately 4 days using 8x A100 GPUs (as mentioned in Appendix L526), amounting to around 768 A100 GPU hours.
- For detailed inference time breakdowns of our DistillNeRF, please refer to our joint response.
> Q2. Results on additional dataset (Waymo)
- This is a great suggestion. We initially chose the NuScenes dataset due to its popularity and because most state-of-the-art methods we compare against are studied solely on NuScenes. Also note that, from our experience, the NuScenes dataset presents more significant challenges compared to Waymo, such as using more cameras (6 vs. 3), lacking time synchronization for “sweep” frames, and having larger calibration errors and noise. A qualitative demonstration for NuScenes’ bigger challenge is that, EmerNeRF performs much worse in NuScenes (see Figure 4 in our paper) than Waymo (see the official EmerNeRF demo). Thus the evaluation on NuScenes could serve as reasonably convincing evidence.
- While we do agree with the reviewer that it would be beneficial to include results from other datasets, limited time and compute constraints during the rebuttal period prevented us from finishing the training/evaluation in time. So far, we have completed the training of per-scene EmerNeRF and extracted the rendered depth image on the Waymo dataset, and will include these results in the final paper.
> Q3. Extension to distillation from 3DGS
- It’s a good point! While we initially chose EmerNeRF because its self-supervision nature aligns with our motivation, it would be generally straightforward to use any alternative method, since we just need to extract 2D depth/images from the offline method. If the alternative method can decompose dynamic and static objects, both depth distillation and virtual camera distillation are applicable. If not, depth distillation remains applicable.
- 3DGS is a suitable choice due to its typically accelerated training and inference times, thanks to its efficient 3D projection, which would enhance the scalability of our pipeline.
We are happy to engage in more in-depth discussions! Feel free to drop any questions or concerns you might have.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks to the author for providing the rebuttal. However, I agree with Reviewer WxYD that this work needs to be improved by including the materials in the rebuttal. Considering this point, I tend to lower my rating.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Response to reviewer's comment
Comment: Dear reviewer, first we would like to extend our sincere gratitude for taking the time to read through the feedback and engage in the discussion for our paper. We greatly value your precious time/efforts that you've dedicated to contributing to the conference and the broader community.
We would like to clarify the point mentioned by R-WxYD, who stated that “this feels like writing the paper after the publication deadline”. However, as mentioned in our new response to R-WxYD, we are currently at the rebuttal stage rather than the publishing stage. We firmly believe, “reviewers provide constructive comments and authors improve the paper accordingly”, is one key reason to set up the rebuttal stage, and one important part of the review cycle where reviewers and authors work together to present greater works and contributions to the community. We kindly refer you to the NeurIPS reviewer guidelines, which emphasize the importance of this stage.
Since you are taking reviewer WxYD's comments into your assessment, we would also gently suggest you read our responses to R-WxYD, as it could provide additional contexts that could be helpful to your evaluation.
Thank you again for your time and thoughtful consideration. | Summary: This paper presents a method for 3d understanding from 2d observations for autonomous driving. The main technical contribution is a feed-forward model, which is trained by distilling RGB and depth from a per-scene optimized NeRF model. The proposed model predicts 3d feature volumes that enable volumetric rendering similar to NeRFs. Experimental results on NuScenes show improved performance compared to recent comparable generalizable methods.
Strengths: - The model is generalizable, meaning that no per-scene optimization is required at inference. Compared to recent comparable generalizable methods [18,19], the results for reconstruction, novel view synthesis and depth estimation are improved.
- The authors propose a simple methodology to distill depth and RGB renderings from EmerNeRF, which requires per-scene optimization. The distillation process improves the results.
- The method is extensively evaluated on NuScene, and achieves very good results for multiple tasks, namely novel view synthesis, depth estimation and also 3d occupancy prediction.
Weaknesses: - One of the main reasons for having this generalizable formulation instead of just using e.g. EmerNeRF is that it is faster, yet inference time is not discussed in the paper. Can the authors report this in the rebuttal? For Table 1, 2 and 3 inference time should be reported for all methods.
- The ablations are unclear. What exactly is meant by “Ours” in Table 1, 2 and 3? Is it the model without depth distillation, param space and visual cam distillation? Why is not the model that combines all components like “Ours (+ Depth Distillation + Param Space + Virtual Cam Distillation)” tested? Since “Ours” performs worse than “Ours (+ X)” it looks like it is not tested. Why not test “Ours (full)” and e.g. “Ours (- Depth Distillation)”, more like a standard ablation study?
- The part about distilling foundation models is incomplete. There are some simple baselines missing, e.g. rendering RGB and then computing CLIP/DINO from the RGB renderings. How much slower is it and how does the reconstruction accuracy compare? It is also unclear why the foundation model reconstruction is only reported for the model variant “Ours (+ Depth Distillation)” in Table 1 and not the others.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Please see weaknesses
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: This is adequately addressed
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for the positive feedback and the insightful comments! Our detailed response for each question is below. Note that we have also included our source code during rebuttal (see the joint response), to enhance the reproducibility and allow for inspecting every detail of our model.
> Q1. Discussion on the inference time
Please refer to the joint response for the detailed breakdowns of the inference time. We’re happy to provide more information if needed.
> Q2. The ablations are unclear.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. To clarify, we conducted a standard ablation study where each row in Table 1 progressively adds a component to the model. Specifically, the entries in Table 1 correspond to the following configurations:
| | Depth Distillation | Param Space | Virtual Cam Distillation |
|:-------------------------------------:|:----------------------------:|:---------------------:|:----------------------------------:|
| Ours | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Ours (+ Depth Distillation) | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Ours (+ Param Space) | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ |
| Ours (+ Virtual Cam Distillation) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
We recognize that the naming convention may have caused misunderstandings and we will update the paper to explicitly state these configurations and ensure clarity.
> Q3: The part about distilling foundation models is incomplete, one ablation is required
Thank you for the insightful comments. We have now added the ablation of rendering RGB images and then computing CLIP/DINO from these renderings, and compared the accuracy and inference speed. Our findings are reported below, where the inference time of the new baseline includes the forward pass of our RGB rendering model (0.48672s) and the CLIP/DINO model.
| | CLIP Inference time (s) | CLIP PSNR | DINO Inference time (s) | DINO PSNR |
|:-----------------------------------:|:---------------------------:|:---------:|:---------------------------:|:---------:|
| DistillNeRF rendering FM | 0.50175 | 18.69 | 0.50175 | 18.48 |
| DistillNeRF rendering RGB + FM model| 1.65651 | 19.81 | 0.94878 | 21.70 |
As expected, given the high-quality rendered RGB images from our model, directly feeding these rendered RGB images into CLIP/DINO models generates a good original-view reconstruction accuracy (CLIP: 19.81 vs. 18.69, DINO: 21.70 vs. 18.48). However, this baseline introduces significantly higher inference latency and memory consumption due to the additional use of CLIP/DINO models. Specifically, for the CLIP model, the inference time is three times longer (1.656s vs. 0.501s, 3.3 times), and for the DINO model, the inference time is almost twice as long (0.948s vs. 0.501s, 1.89 time).
Lastly, we would like to emphasize that by distilling 2D foundation model features into our model, we not only enable it to render 2D foundation model feature images, but also lift 2D foundation models into 3D at the same time. The resulting 3D voxel fields, similar to those in EmerNeRF and LeRF, contain rich semantic information. As demonstrated by prior works such as LeRF-ToGo [1], ConceptFusion[2] and FeatureNeRF[3], such 3D foundational features can greatly facilitate 3D multimodal grounding (e.g. bridging language via CLIP features) and effectively benefit downstream tasks such as segmentation, keypoint transfer, and robot planning in open world.
[1] Rashid, Adam, et al. "Language embedded radiance fields for zero-shot task-oriented grasping." 7th Annual Conference on Robot Learning. 2023.
[2] Jatavallabhula, Krishna Murthy, et al. "Conceptfusion: Open-set multimodal 3d mapping." Robotics: Science and Systems. 2023
[3] Ye, Jianglong, Naiyan Wang, and Xiaolong Wang. "Featurenerf: Learning generalizable nerfs by distilling foundation models." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2023.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for providing answers to all my questions. I keep my rating as weak accept. | Summary: Appears to present a method for online 2D feature distillation in an autonomous driving configuration. Method appears to use some kind of pre-trained depth prediction network to build a frustum aligned grid of 2D features, which are somehow rasterized into a canonical sparse volumetric grid. There appears to be some use of networks ("embedding") to do inference on these features, which allow for 3D semantic segmentation and occupancy prediction.
Method presents novel view synthesis, depth prediction and occupancy prediction metrics on the nuScenes dataset.
Strengths: Paper claims to be the first to achieve online distillation of 2D features into 3D in the autonomous driving domain. Presents some SotA metrics on novel view synthesis
Weaknesses: The papers greatest weakeness is the lack of enough detail descrbing the method to reproduce it, and therefore to be able to properly critique it. Distilling 2D features into 3D via Neural Radiance Fields is not a new idea (“LERF” , and “FeatureNeRF" are cited. “Decomposing NeRF for Editing via Feature Field Distillation”, NeurIPS 2020 is not cited), yet is given too much attention. The real contribution should be as to how this is done in real-time, but critical details as to how 2D features are lifted into 3D via depth predictions, are missing, how view frustums are combined into a canonnical 3D grid are missing, and how features are combined and "embedded" (suggesting the use of a neural network) missing. (See "Questions below for further deails"). I would have thought the use of sparse grids would more easily allow unbounded spatial discretization and the MipNeRF-360 style space contraction unnecessary ("Neural Field Parameterization"). This design choice appears to be unmotivated and un-ablated.
Precise (non-verbal) definitions of all terms in the final loss Eq (4). appear to be missing.
Method is presented as an online method, but provides no metrics indicating real-time performance.
Technical Quality: 1
Clarity: 1
Questions for Authors: #124 “depth feature map is further embedded” - how do you perform this embedding? This would suggest you are using a neural network of some sort.
#127 “To this end, we first aggregate the frustum to predict a raw depth for each pixel, and then sample fine-grained depth candidates centered around the raw depth. Both depths are trained end-to-end with our model.” You provide equations for compositing (1) and expected depth (2) (which are relatively trivial and could probably be omitted), but exactly how you do the remainder appears to be missing.
#130 “the frustum is designed to contain the density value”. This would be the place to describe this design.
#136 “The depth feature map” It is unclear what you mean by “depth features”. Are intermediate features used to predict depth? Bucketized depth probabilities? This might reference details that are buried inside “Depth Anything”, but not apparent on a cursory read of it.
#145 Unclear what you mean by “sparse quantization”. Quantization usually means discretizing the floating point value to a finite set of values. Is this what you mean? Also, what spatial interpolation and sampling technique are you using to sample from the frustum to the global grid?
#151 What do you mean by “two octrees with different quantization granularities,” An octree is by definition multi-resolution. Are you simply using a sparse grid? Do you have two sparse grids? If using an octree, please describe at least how many levels are in it. Further saying you apply “sparse convolutions” makes me think you actually mean sparse grid, because a sparse multi-resolution convolution on an octree is exceedingly difficult to implement.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 1
Presentation: 1
Contribution: 1
Limitations: Briefly mentions limitations in the final paragraph of "Conclusions". Though they state #334 "sparse voxel representation naturally trades off rendering efficiency for dense scene representation", no actual performance metrics appear to be given.
Societal impact is properly addressed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 3
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your comments about clarity and reproducibility. To address your concerns, we have included the source code (see the joint responses), which allows for inspecting every detail of our model and reproducing results. We also address your specific questions below and will incorporate these details into the paper:
>Q1:lack of enough details describing the method:
- **Is distillation given too much attention?** We emphasize distillation as an important novelty because, unlike prior work, we not only distill foundation model features but also offline-trained NeRFs (depth distillation and virtual camera distillation). This approach is unique and has a significant impact on performance (see L298-302 and ablation studies in Tables 1, 2, and 3).
- **Is space contraction necessary?** The use of sparse grids indeed allows us to process larger grids but it does not necessarily mean we can have an infinitely large grid. First, we rely on 3D convolution to propagate information among voxels that are populated by shooting rays from each pixel. As the rays travel farther away from cameras, the voxels the rays hit will be farther from each other, making convolution ineffective. Second, we estimate depth through occupancy predictions for a fixed number of entries in the view frustum, that would need to be fundamentally changed to allow unbounded predictions, which is not trivial.
- **Definitions of loss terms in Eq (4)**: Eq.4 consists of 5 loss terms. Due to the character limit, we briefly introduce them here, and refer to the code for full details.
- **L_rgb** comprises L1 loss and perceptual loss: `rgb_loss=||GT_RGB-Pred_RGB||_2 + LPIPS(GT_RGB, Pred_RGB)`
- **L_depth** includes L1 and MSE loss: `depth_loss=||GT_depth - Pred_depth|| / max_gt_depth + ||GT_depth - Pred_depth||_2 / max_gt_depth`. Depth values are normalized to 0~1, and the L1 and MSE losses are computed between ground truth depths (from projecting lidar points onto image planes) and predicted depths.
- **L_density** is a density entropy loss from EmerNeRF, which encourages the opacity of a ray to be 1: `BEC(opacity, ones_like(opacity))`, where opacity is the accumulated opacity per ray, and `BCE` is the binary cross entropy loss.
- **L_nerf**: Involves distillation from per-scene NeRFs, including: 1) Dense depth distillation loss: The same depth loss but computed on dense depth maps rendered from per-scene NeRFs in original camera views. 2) Novel camera view supervision: Computes the same RGB and depth losses between the per-scene NeRFs' rendered results and our online models' predictions. We refer to the first term as dense 2D depth distillation loss and the second terms as virtual camera loss. We will add more details to existing descriptions (L188-209).
- **L_found**: L1 loss: `||GT_feats - Pred_feats||`
- **Inference times**: please see our joint response, where we analyzed our inference time and compared it with other SOTA generalizable methods.
>Q2. More Clarification on the Implementation Details
1.**“Depth feature map is further embedded”**:
Indeed we used a neural network for the embedding operation, specifically 2D convolution layers. This helps in refining the depth feature map by leveraging spatial context.
2.**Details in the two-stage depth prediction strategy**:
The coarse depth and fine depth undergo the same compositing and depth rendering process. We uniformly sample a fixed number of fine-grained depth candidates centered around the raw depth, where the coarse depth determines the sample range. This two-stage process allows for more precise depth estimation by first providing a coarse prediction and then refining it with finer details.
3.**“The frustum is designed to contain the density value”**:
We model the depth as a set of predefined bins, which turns the depth regression problem into a depth classification problem, i.e., classifying the depth of a target pixel into a predefined depth bin. To implement this and remain simple, we use density value as the logits to compute the depth probability distribution via softmax operation (as mentioned by the reviewer, it’s “Bucketized depth probabilities”). This design choice ensures that the frustum effectively captures the spatial distribution of density values. In fact, many works are following this good practice, for example [1,2,3].
4.**The depth feature map**:
Specifically, we extracted the feature from the pre-trained 2D encoder before the output layer. This approach captures rich semantic information from the 2D images, which is then used in our 3D model.
5.**What is sparse quantization**:
Sparse quantization is the process of creating sparse voxels, such as in an octree structure, where only voxels with active inputs are created and stored. This contrasts with dense quantization, where every voxel is created and stored, even if no inputs or features are present in those voxels. Sparse quantization is a well-established technique in the literature, optimizing memory usage and computational efficiency.
6.**Two octrees with different quantization granularities**:
We created two multi-resolution octrees with the finest levels of 7 and 9, respectively. This approach allows us to manage different levels of detail and spatial resolution effectively. We employed the Kaolin library to implement this sparse quantization, ensuring robust and efficient handling of voxel data.
We believe these clarifications will enhance the understanding of our method and address the concerns raised. Thank you again for your valuable feedback. We are glad to provide more context and information if needed.
[1] "Neuralfield-ldm: Scene generation with hierarchical latent diffusion models." CVPR 2023.
[2] "Lift, splat, shoot: Encoding images from arbitrary camera rigs by implicitly unprojecting to 3d." ECCV 2020.
[3] "Pixelsplat: 3d gaussian splats from image pairs for scalable generalizable 3d reconstruction." CVPR2024.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for their rebuttal.
I remain very negative over the "lack of enough detail descrbing the method to reproduce it". I appreciate the authors inclusion of the source code, but there's no reason a well written Methods section _couldn't_ have included include all salient details so that I wouldn't _have to_ look at the source code. A paper should do the work of digesting the method for the reader instead of forcing them to go a level deeper and dissect the source code. Source code inclusion should only be for reproducibility purposes, and not as the primary documentation of the method. Furthermore, the authors rebuttal of "Due to the character limit, we briefly introduce them here, and refer to the code for full details." does not sound like you intend to include these losses in the main text.
I appreciate the extra descriptions of the method. But these are all descriptions that should have been included in the paper. This feels like writing the paper after the publication deadline. As do the extra timing ablations that should have been included in the paper.
I'm holding up the terminology of "sparse quantization" as unclear writing. I have always seen "quantization" refer to the quantization of floating point values, and not the sparsity structure of the grid. Can you provide a reference that actually uses this term the same way?
I also have a hard time accepting 2fps at a very low resolution of 228x128 as a "realtime" or "online" method
"... [we] ... also offline-trained NeRFs" I'm unclear what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that you distilled features offline? Again, the language is still unclear.
I appreciate the authors rebuttal but I maintain my rating as "reject".
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Response to Reviewer WxYD
Comment: We thank you for the prompt response.
> Q1: "lack of enough detail descrbing the method to reproduce it"...
- First, to clarify, we firmly believe that our original submission has already described the method in sufficient detail, that is already up to the standards of the field. This is also reflected by the fact that, other reviewers unanimously rated the presentation as “3 good”, and explicitly mentioned “The paper is well-structured and clearly explains the methodology, including detailed descriptions of the model architecture, training process, and experiments” and “The proposed method exhibits good soundness, with the technical details of each component well elaborated”.
- In such contexts, you raised questions such as the definitions of feature maps and embeddings. We firmly believe these are preliminary knowledge in deep learning/vision, but we respect/appreciate your unique angle, and were happy to respond to them one by one in the rebuttal phase.
- Third, the reviewer suggested including every fine-to-the-ground detail of the paper, for which we even wrote down the mathematical equation of L1 loss. This is not actionable: today’s AI fields are moving very fast and have grown to a level of complexity that every paper would rely on previous foundations. It has been a common writing paradigm for papers to 1) mostly emphasize the core novelty of the paper, since that’s the key message delivered to the community; 2) leave the commonly used techniques or implementation details to references, appendix, supplementary material, and ultimately the source code. We provide code not as a replacement for a clear description, but as an additional resource to aid easy reproducibility, which is common practice in the field. For example, all SOTA methods compared in our paper follow this paradigm (EmerNeRF, UniPAD, SelfOcc, OccNeRF, SimpleOcc)
- Based on the points above, we firmly believe that the reviewer’s concerns of clarification and reproducibility are already well addressed.
> does not sound like you intend to include these losses in the main text.
- As in our rebuttal, we explicitly said “will incorporate these details into the paper”. We kindly request you carefully read our response, and make informed comments.
> I appreciate the extra descriptions of the method. But these are all descriptions that should have been included in the paper. This feels like writing the paper after the publication deadline. As do the extra timing ablations that should have been included in the paper.
- Note that we are at the rebuttal stage instead of the publishing stage. We firmly believe, “reviewers provide constructive comments and authors improve the paper accordingly”, is one key reason to set up the rebuttal stage, and one important part of the process where reviewers and authors work together to present greater works and contributions to the community. Please also see the NeurIPS reviewer guidelines. It’s a pity to hear that you do not recognize the responses and improvements made during the rebuttal, even if they well address your concerns.
> "... [we] ... also offline-trained NeRFs" I'm unclear what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that you distilled features offline?
- This is the key/core method of our paper, namely distillation from offline-trained NeRFs, which is clearly indicated by the title of our paper (DistillNeRF), and extensively elaborated/evaluated throughout the paper (Intro/abs, Fig.1, Sec 3.2, Table 1/2/3). Again, we kindly request you read our paper carefully and make informed comments.
> I have always seen "quantization" refer to the quantization of floating point values, and not the sparsity structure of the grid. Can you provide a reference that actually uses this term the same way?
- In 3D vision, voxel quantization, or sometimes called voxelization, is a basic operation widely used [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. [1] introduced “Commonly, point clouds are first quantized in a process known as voxelization, with the resulting voxel grid being used as input to 3D CNNs”. Also, see Sec.3.1 in [2] for a whole section of descriptions. Fig.4 in [2] and Fig.1 in [3] also show excellent illustrations for dense and sparse quantization, respectively.
> I also have a hard time accepting 2fps at a very low resolution of 228x128 as a "realtime" or "online" method
- First, we use the term “online model” in line with the literature, referring to reconstructing the scene with one model forward pass [9,10,11]. This contrasts with “offline" NeRFs, which obtain a single scene representation through dedicated optimization. Our method renders 6 images in 0.486 seconds, compared to an offline NeRF like EmerNeRF, which takes 1.5–2.5 hours to achieve the same.
- Second, we need to point out that our model generates 6 images with 0.486s, showing 12fps instead of 2fps. The pure rendering takes 0.127s with 47fps. Again, please read our response carefully and make informed comments.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Reference in our response
Comment: [1] Zhang, Chris, Wenjie Luo, and Raquel Urtasun. "Efficient convolutions for real-time semantic segmentation of 3d point clouds." 2018 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV). IEEE, 2018.
[2] Qian, R., Garg, D., Wang, Y., You, Y., Belongie, S., Hariharan, B., Campbell, M., Weinberger, K.Q. and Chao, W.L., 2020. End-to-end pseudo-lidar for image-based 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 5881-5890).
[3] Huang, Lila, et al. "Octsqueeze: Octree-structured entropy model for lidar compression." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2020.
[4] Chen, Xiaozhi, et al. "Multi-view 3d object detection network for autonomous driving." Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2017.
[5] Ku, Jason, et al. "Joint 3d proposal generation and object detection from view aggregation." 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2018.
[6] Liang, Ming, et al. "Deep continuous fusion for multi-sensor 3d object detection." Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV). 2018.
[7] Yang, Bin, Wenjie Luo, and Raquel Urtasun. "Pixor: Real-time 3d object detection from point clouds." Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2018.
[8] Zhou, Yin, and Oncel Tuzel. "Voxelnet: End-to-end learning for point cloud based 3d object detection." Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2018.
[9] Yu, A., Ye, V., Tancik, M. and Kanazawa, A., 2021. pixelnerf: Neural radiance fields from one or few images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 4578-4587).
[10] Charatan, D., Li, S.L., Tagliasacchi, A. and Sitzmann, V., 2024. pixelsplat: 3d gaussian splats from image pairs for scalable generalizable 3d reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 19457-19467).
[11] Wang, Q., Wang, Z., Genova, K., Srinivasan, P.P., Zhou, H., Barron, J.T., Martin-Brualla, R., Snavely, N. and Funkhouser, T., 2021. Ibrnet: Learning multi-view image-based rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 4690-4699).
---
Rebuttal Comment 3.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for their response, but not their combative tone ("It’s a pity to hear that you do not...", "but we respect/appreciate your unique angle...", "We kindly request you carefully read our response, and make informed comments").
There may be a cognitive bias to apply a perception of laziness and mis-understanding to the reader, but I would suggest that a more productive tone would be to ask if what your are intending to communicate is actually what you are communicating?
As a meta-example, you state "[you] will incorporate these details into the paper". Yet closer to your response on loss terms you further state: "Due to the character limit, we briefly introduce them here, and refer to the code for full details." This reads as a) an excuse as to why these details weren't initially included, and b) an indication that the source code will be the documentation for these losses. There is no statement that you intend to include these loss terms in the paper. The wording "brielfy introduce them here" is ambiguous. What does "here" mean? The rebuttal? or the paper? A clearer response would have been: "We agree the loss equations are essential details originally omitted due to space constraints. We will amend our submission to include the terms listed below".
Ultimately, you state "we firmly believe that our original submission has already described the method in sufficient detail, that is already up to the standards of the field." Which I disagree with (with all due respect to my peer reviewers who may feel the opposite). I do not hear the authors stating unambigiously they intend to clarify their presentation.
---
Rebuttal 4:
Title: Response to reviewer's comment
Comment: Dear reviewer, thanks for the reply.
We want to clarify, please do not get us wrong, our response is fully respectful to the reviewer and the reviewer's efforts, just like the word literally means "respect/appreciate", "kindly", and just as how we respond to reviewer's questions one by one in detail during the rebuttal stage, such as explaining the definition of feature maps, embeddings, voxel quantizations, write down the mathematical definition of l1 loss to address the reviewer’s question, and introduce the common practice for writing and code sharing in the community. Apologies if any of these comments look improper from some angles, that is not what we mean.
We will incorporate the clarifications into our paper, just as we will incorporate every other reviewer's suggestions into our paper, and sincerely appreciate every reviewer's great suggestions/perspectives to improve our paper and contribution to the conference and community. Specifically, for the losses, we reassure the reviewer that we will update our paper to include them, just as how we responded to you in detail during our rebuttal.
Finally, we thank the reviewer again for the precious time and effort in reviewing our work, and engaging in the discussion stage. | Summary: This work aims to enhance the understanding of 3D environments from limited 2D observations in autonomous driving scenarios. It achieves this by proposing a new generalizable NeRF pipeline, trained using distillation from per-scene NeRFs and foundation models. This pipeline can transform input RGB images into 3D feature volumes that can be decoded into foundation model features at inference time in a feed-forward manner. Extensive experiments validate that the proposed method outperforms the baselines across various 3D tasks.
Strengths: 1. The proposed method exhibits good soundness, with the technical details of each component well elaborated.
2. The proposed method outperforms the baseline methods across different tasks and achieves results that are on par with per-scene optimization methods.
Weaknesses: 1. The new insights delivered by this work to the community are somewhat unclear. Specifically, this work combines various techniques, some of which have been partially employed in previous image-based rendering pipelines, into the proposed framework. However, it is unclear which techniques are particularly useful for the target autonomous driving scenario. If the authors aim to address the challenges specific to autonomous driving scenes, they should explicitly formulate these challenges and provide an analysis of which design is particularly useful for addressing each challenge. Although the detailed techniques may not be new, this analysis can significantly benefit the community when addressing similar scenes.
2. The differences between the components in the proposed pipeline and other image-based rendering pipelines need more clarification. Specifically, what are the key differences between the proposed method and the combination of GeoNeRF and FeatureNeRF? In my understanding, the key differences are the distillation from per-scene NeRF due to the lack of accurate depth and the adoption of multi-view fusion.
3. As a follow-up to point 2, I wonder what the advantages of adopting multi-view fusion plus a voxel grid are compared to 3D-to-2D feature projection for each sampled point along the ray in previous generalizable NeRFs.
4. Although this work mentions the real-time processing demand, the efficiency aspect of the proposed pipeline is not measured or analyzed.
5. I wonder whether the proposed method can be applied to common NeRF benchmarks, in addition to NuScenes, while still achieving leading generalizable reconstruction performance compared to other generalizable NeRF variants like IBRNet, GNT, and GeoNeRF.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: My questions have been included in the weakness section. I'm willing to adjust my scores if my concerns are properly addressed.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: This work does not suffer from notable negative societal impacts.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for the positive feedback and constructive comments! See the detailed response below, which will also be updated in our paper.
> Q1: The new insights of this work are somewhat unclear. Formulate the challenges, and analyze which design is useful for them.
Instead of object-centric indoor scenes, we target online autonomous driving with sparse images, which poses two key challenges: (also illustrated in Fig 2 of PDF attached)
1. _Sparse views with limited overlap complicate depth estimation and geometry learning_: Typical object-level indoor NeRF involves an "inward" multi-view setup, where numerous cameras are positioned around the object from various angles. This setup creates extensive view overlap and simplifies geometry learning. In contrast, the outdoor driving task uses an "outward" sparse-view setup, with only 6 cameras facing different directions from the car. The limited overlap between cameras increases the ambiguity in depth/geometry learning. To this end, following designs are made:
- Depth distillation: depth images rendered from per-scene NeRF are used to supervise our model. These per-scene optimized depth images are high-quality, dense, and consistent spatially/temporally
- Virtual camera distillation: virtual cameras are created as additional targets to artificially increase view overlaps
- Two-stage Lift-Splat-Shoot strategy: proposed to capture more nuanced depth (Line 126)
- Features from 2D pre-trained encoder: help the model learn better depth estimations and 2D image features [Line 124]
2. _Difficulty in processing and coordinating distant/nearby objects in unbounded scene_: Unlike object-centric indoor problems, in the unbounded driving scene, the images usually contain unevenly distributed visual information based on distance: nearby objects occupy significantly more pixels than those far away, even if their physical sizes are identical. This is usually not the case in common NeRF benchmarks, and motivates multiple key designs:
- Parameterized space: introduced to account for the unbounded scene, unlike SelfOcc/UniPAD with a limited range (~50m) and losing geometry information for far-away scenes
- Density complement: far-away objects occupy pixels, and thus sampled rays could easily miss them (e.g. distant cars). Thus we propose to query densities from both fine/coarse voxel, and complement density. (Line 175-179 and Fig 3).
- Light-weight upsampling decoder: applied to rendered feature images, to 1) upsample the final RGB image without additional rendering cost; 2) enable robustness to noises in rendered features
Our paper showed ablation studies on depth distillation, virtual camera distillation, and parameterized space, as in Table 1 and Figure 5. We now additionally provide a qualitative comparison to highlight their differences (see PDF in the joint response). During rebuttal, we also launched ablation studies on all other designs mentioned above, but the training is not finished due to limited time and compute constraints. We will update the results as soon as they are finished, and also in the paper.
> Q2: The differences between the proposed pipeline and other image-based rendering pipelines (GeoNeRF/FeatureNeRF) need clarification.
_Common differences:_
- GeoNeRF/FeatureNeRF focus on (single) object-level indoor problems and datasets, which are simpler and have less uncertainty since a large number of overlapping views toward the object are available. We target scene-level outdoor reconstruction, a more complex task with sparse non-overlapping views.
- We introduce distillation from per-scene optimized NeRF to enhance depth/geometry
- We conduct multi-view fusion to generate a 3D voxel grid
_Specific differences:_
- GeoNeRF does not leverage the rich information from 2D foundation models, and does not explore downstream tasks
- FeatureNeRF only considers a single image as inputs
> Q3: advantages of multi-view fusion/voxel grid compared to 3D-to-2D feature projection?
The 3D-to-2D feature projection is exploited in two threads of generalizable approaches: 1) image-based methods, such as GeoNeRF, IBRNet; 2) voxel-based methods, such as UniPAD, NeRF-Det. Due to page limit, we briefly discuss the image-based methods here, but are happy to further elaborate in the discussion stage.
In the image-based generalizable methods, for one query point along the ray from novel views, features are extracted from the feature volume of surrounding source views via projection and interpolation. Our multi-view fusion/voxel grid approach possessed multiple advantages:
- Explicit Representation: Voxel-based methods provide a direct/explicit 3D scene representation, allowing more straightforward manipulation, analysis, and understanding of spatial relationships in the scene (e.g. removing or replacing object for simulation use)
- Scalability: As in our case, voxel-based methods can scale to different levels of detail by adjusting the voxel resolution. This scalability allows for efficient representation and rendering of both large scenes and fine details.
> Q4: efficiency aspect.
Please refer to the joint response.
> Q5: whether the proposed method can be applied to additional common NeRF benchmarks
Our method targets online autonomous driving tasks, with different challenges compared to common NeRF benchmarks as mentioned above. We propose multiple key techniques to address them, and conduct extensive experiments to compare with many related SOTA works in multiple tasks. While we agree that it would be interesting to explore other domains as well, considering the limited time and compute constraints during rebuttal, we were unfortunately not able to include new results in this direction. However, we do believe that our key insights and designs (e.g., distillation from per-scene NeRF and integrating sparse hierarchical voxels with multiple techniques) have a good chance to enhance common NeRF methods and other tasks outside of autonomous driving.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you to the authors for providing the detailed response. i will keep my rating and listen to our reviewers' opinions.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Settings for the under-training ablation studies.
Comment: | Two-stage LSS | Pretrained encoder | Density complement | Decoder | Metrics |
|:-------------:|:------------------:|:------------------:|:-------:|:-------:|
| ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Detailed comparison of our DistillNeRF with GeoNeRF and FeatureNeRF
Comment: | | Reconstruction | Offline NeRF Distillation | Multi-View Fusion | Multi-view inputs | Found. Model Lifting | Downstream Task |
|:--------------:|:---------------:|:-------------------------:|:-----------------:|:------------------:|:--------------------:|:---------------:|
| GeoNeRF | Object level | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| FeatureNeRF | Object level | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Ours | Scene level | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
---
Rebuttal 4:
Title: Update on the requested ablation studies
Comment: Dear reviewer, may we first extend heartfelt gratitude for spending the time reviewing and engaging in the discussion stage, it never goes unappreciated.
As promised, now we are happy to present the ablation studies requested, as in the table below.
| Density complement | Decoder | Pretrained encoder | Two-stage LSS | Depth Distillation | PSNR | SSIM |
|:------------------:|:-------:|:------------------:|:-------------:|:------------------:|:-----:|:-----:|
| ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 22.76 | 0.669 |
| ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 25.34 | 0.839 |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | 21.35 | 0.536 |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | 27.40 | 0.859 |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | 28.01 | 0.872 |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 30.11 | 0.917 |
Specifically, we ablated key components of our sparse voxel representation such as density complement, decoder, pre-trained 2D encoder, and the two-stage LSS. We remove one component each time to ablate its effect. In the last row, we also further add the depth distillation from offline NeRF, which represents the best performance of our full model.
- No density complement: we observe a significant drop of PSNR from 28.01 to 22.76, demonstrating the importance of better coordination between low-level and high-level sparse voxels.
- No decoder: we see a decent drop of PSNR from 28.01 to 25.76, showing the effectiveness of using the decoder for robustness to noises in rendered features.
- No pre-trained 2D encoder: we see a significant drop of PSNR from 28.01 to 21.35, which is expected since using pre-trained 2D encoder has been a commonly acknowledged approach in the field, which SOTA methods such as UniPAD and SelfOcc all adopt.
- No two-stage LSS: we observe a slight drop of PSNR from 28.01 to 27.40.
- Add depth distillation from offline NeRF: we observe the jump of PSNR from 28.01 to 30.11.
Note that every ablation above outperforms the SOTA methods UniPAD and SelfOcc, which have PSNR of 19.44 and 20.67 respectively. Among the above techniques, 1) density complement, 2) rendering decoder, 3) two-stage LSS, and 4) distillation from offline NeRF are the novel and unique methods proposed by our paper. With these ablations and analysis for each technique, we believe the key message and contribution of our paper to the community are much clearer.
Finally, the authors want to take a moment to acknowledge your strong expertise and foundations in the field. Your comments are among the deepest and the most constructive, which effectively helps us improve our paper. We acknowledge your precious time spent on the review and discussion. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank all the reviewers for the recognition of our work and the constructive feedback!
The majority of reviewers recommended accepting our work, and evaluated the method to “exhibit good soundness” (R-T1bA), “presents some SotA metrics” (R-WxYD), is “extensively evaluated on NuScene, and achieves very good results for multiple tasks” (R-aj67), and the paper is “interesting to read and simple to follow” (R-aV9Y), “technical details are well elaborated” (R-T1bA), “well-structured and clearly explains the methodology” (R-aV9Y).
The reviewers also raised some questions and suggested improvements. We respond to common points below, and will reply to specific questions in individual replies.
> To respond to questions about reproducibility and implementation details, we would like to share our source code
- Following the rebuttal instructions, no external link is attached and the code is shared with the AC. We’ll also open-source our code along with trained model weights upon the acceptance of the paper.
> We evaluated/analyzed the inference time of our method, along with other comparable methods: (R-T1bA, R-WxYD, R-aj67, R-aV9Y)
* As in the breakdown table below, our model takes 0.4867s for inference, out of which 0.3594s for predicting the voxel from 6 image inputs, and 0.1273s for rendering 6 images (~47 fps for a single camera)
| Component | Run Time (s) |
|------------------------------------------|-------------------|
| Forward inference | 0.48672 |
|   Encoder |   0.35940 |
|     Single-view encoding |     0.04078 |
|     Multi-view fusion |     0.31862 |
|       Voxel convolution |       0.2494 |
|   Renderer |   0.12730 |
|     Projection + Ray march |     0.12646 |
|     Decoder |     0.00086 |
* In our paper, we demonstrated that our method significantly outperforms other SOTA generalizable methods SelfOcc and Unipad (e.g. reconstruction PSNR of 30.11, 20.67, 19.44, respectively). In terms of inference speed, SelfOcc and UniPad have total inference times of 0.1771s and 0.6514s, respectively, compared to our 0.4867s.
- SelfOcc is expected to be fast since it adopts an implicit representation where deformable cross-attention is used to aggregate information from the image features to generate a 3D SDF field. In comparison, our explicit voxel representation takes decent time for the 3D convolution operations, but offers additional benefits such as more straightforward manipulation (e.g. removing or replacing object for simulation use), and flexibility to scale to different levels of detail by adjusting the voxel resolution.
- UniPAD adopts a voxel-based representation that is similar and more comparable to our method, while our method shows faster inference speed, presumably due to key designs such as voxel sparsification, and the lightweight decoder that enables efficient rendering.
- The evaluation is conducted on the same desktop-grade machine (13th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-13700KF, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090) and rendering the same image resolution (228*128)
> We conducted more ablation studies to better understand each component in our model, and clarified details in existing ablation studies (R-T1bA, R-aj67)
- In response to R-T1bA: we highlighted existing ablation studies (see the attached PDF), and conducted more comprehensive ablation studies of key components of our model, so that the key messages and effects of each component are clearer and easier to refer to for people in the community. While the training of these ablation studies is not finished yet due to limited time and compute constraints, we will update the results as soon as the training is finished (e.g. during the discussion stage), and also integrate them into the final paper. We refer to the response to R-T1bA for more detailed descriptions of these ablations.
- In response to R-aj67, we clarified the notations and improved the formats of existing ablation studies for clarity
- In response to R-aj67, we created another baseline for generating foundation model feature images, and demonstrated that our approach possesses significantly faster inference speed (x3.3 and x1.89 times faster).
Pdf: /pdf/4a6474c01d086c67107e1cb0735ea8dec2fb18d3.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Vidu4D: Single Generated Video to High-Fidelity 4D Reconstruction with Dynamic Gaussian Surfels | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper presents Vidu4D, a reconstruction model that can accurately reconstruct 4D (sequential 3D) representations from single generated videos. This method addressing key challenges and enabling high-fidelity virtual content creation. The proposed techniques, such as Dynamic Gaussian Surfels (DGS) and the initialization state, are good contributions that can benefit the field of multi-modal generation and 4D reconstruction.https://openreview.net/
Strengths: 1. This paper is well-written.
2. The qualitative results outperform existing methods.
3. The proposed Dynamic Gaussian Surfels (DGS) approach sounds good. It optimizes time-varying warping functions to transform Gaussian surfels from a static to a dynamically warped state, precisely depicting motion and deformation over time.
Weaknesses: - What is your video foundation model? Is it Stable Video Diffusion, SORA, Open SORA, or Your Vidu?
If you are using an unreleased foundation video model, is the improvement in qualitative results more due to DGS, or is it caused by the video foundation model? If you utilize Vidu, I believe the author needs to provide the results using open source video foundation models like SVD or Open-SORA.
- The quantitative evaluation in the paper is limited to a small set of generated videos.
- The performance of Vidu4D on a more diverse and larger dataset of generated videos is not reported, which could limit the generalizability of the findings.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: The paper does not discuss the computational complexity or runtime performance of Vidu4D, which could be an important consideration for practical applications of the method.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The paper does not mention how the Vidu4D can be extended or adapted to handle other common challenges in 4D reconstruction, such as occlusions, lighting changes, or complex scene dynamics.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['Ethics review needed: Research involving human subjects']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and insightful suggestions. We address all your comments below. If our response has addressed the concerns, we will highly appreciate it if the reviewer considers raising the score.
**1. Foundation model:** Our foundation model is Vidu. We believe the qualitative results are largely attributed to DGS. We compare the results of other dynamic NeRF and 3DGS in Fig. 4, and our DGS demonstrates state-of-the-art performance.
**2. Open source video foundation models:** For comparison with open-source video generators, we found that generating plausible videos using our specific prompts is challenging for these open-source tools. Instead, we use ToonCrafter to interpolate two frames from our generated video for a fair comparison. It can be observed that, although the generated video lacks consistency, our reconstruction remains relatively stable. Please refer to Fig. I.
**3. More results:** Please refer to Fig. J for results with more styles and categories.
**4. Runtime:** As discussed in Sec. 4.1, for each reconstruction, the overall training takes over 1 hour on an A800 GPU. Specifically, generating a text-guided video takes 4 minutes, preprocessing takes 10 minutes, initialization takes 15 minutes, and the DGS stage takes about 30 minutes.
**5. Challenges in 4D reconstruction:** Please refer to the Motion regularization part in the common response for our discussion about occlusions. For lighting changes, it is promising to introduce a time-dependent spherical harmonic function for Gaussian surfels. To handle complex scene dynamics, such as fluids or flames, adding more control bones or incorporating a dense MLP motion field should be an effective approach.
**6. Benchmark:** Please refer to Q1 in the common response for more quantitative benchmarks.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thank you again for your time and effort in reviewing our work and providing the constructive comments. Please feel free to let us know if you have any further questions by August 13 AoE, we are more than happy to address them.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Official Review of Submission3117 by Reviewer yVYk
Comment: Thanks for the efforts of the authors for solving some my concerns. I will keep my initial positive rating. | Summary: The paper presents Vidu4D, a reconstruction model that excels in accurately reconstructing 4D (i.e., sequential 3D) representations from single generated videos, addressing challenges associated with non-rigidity and frame distortion. At the core of Vidu4D is a proposed Dynamic Gaussian Surfels (DGS) technique. DGS optimizes time-varying warping functions to transform Gaussian surfels (surface elements) from a static state to a dynamically warped state. This transformation enables a precise depiction of motion and deformation over time. To preserve the structural integrity of surfacealigned Gaussian surfels, the authors design the warped-state geometric regularization based on continuous warping fields for estimating normals. Additionally, the method learns refinements on rotation and scaling parameters of Gaussian surfels, which alleviates texture flickering during the warping process and enhances the capture of fine-grained appearance details.
Strengths: 1. The paper shows interesting visual results, although the anonymous link in the submission pdf seems not working correctly.
2. The paper proposes a Banmo-based dynamic 2dgs formulation for 4d reconstruction.
Weaknesses: 1. The paper's annotation is cluttered and extremely hard to follow. Sometimes ignoring some symbols in formulation is desirable when too many of them are presented.
2. The real framework section 3.3 is extremely short. The "more details in our appendix" seems to be a false promise?
3. The model hasn't evaluated on realistic scenes, so that it can be compared with other 4dgs methods using their official results.
4. The paper uses banmo like learnable joint representation to drive deformation, however hasn't mentioned the limitations of this kind of methods, i.e., the 4d scene needs to be object centric.
5. No evaluations of latency, it seems the pipeline needs a dynamic neus/nerf, then init 2dgs at the extracted zero level set, which makes the methods very dependable of the stage one and very time consuming.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 1
Questions for Authors: Besides above problems, I think the below questions are needed to be addressed:
What kind of generated video is used as reference video (better to show the reference mono video). Since for 4d reconstruction, if the reference video doesn't show some parts that are occluded across all frames, it is impossible to reconstruct them. An alternative is to use diffusion prior for novel view supervisions to hallucinate these parts, so what is actually happening here????
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 1
Contribution: 3
Limitations: I'm confident it will be horrendously challenging for average readers to fully grip the hole picture without a major revision.
The paper is written to focus on 4d generation task or lift monocular generated video to 4d, however, 80% of the sections are dedicated to representation. If the author want to present this paper as a sknning-based dynamic 2dgs representation paper, then showing 4d generation only is not enough, 4d reconstruction (w/ many widely used benchmarks) should be used as well.
Beside, I hope the author can re-organize the paper no matter it is accepted or not. It is better to put some of the cluttered annotations into appendix, and leave some room for actual pipeline of Vidu4D. The Banmo like joint representation and skinning of 2DGS could be fairly straight forward for people in the field to understand, so no need to put all details in the main paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and insightful suggestions. We address all your comments below.
**1. Anonymous link:**
Thank you for your feedback. We believe the issue with the anonymous link might be due to a temporary network problem and we appreciate it if you could try again. Other reviewers might have successfully accessed the videos through the link. If the link remains inaccessible, please refer to Fig. 11-12 in the supplementary and Fig. J for more results.
**2. Annotation and presentation:**
Thank you for your valuable advice. We acknowledge the need to enhance the clarity of our manuscript. To make our work easier to follow, we will simplify our annotations in future revisions. Additionally, we plan to release our code to aid in the replication and understanding of our research. While reviewers crn6 and yVYk mentioned that our manuscript is well-written and easy to follow, we recognize that there is some room for improvement. We will improve the overall presentation and ensure that our findings are communicated as clearly as possible.
**3. Framework details:**
In Supp. A, we provide more detail about Vidu4D. Here we also provide more details of initialization and refinement.
In initialization, we first segment the foreground using TrackAnything. Then we extract the unsupervised features with DINOV2, optical flow with VCN [Learning to segment rigid motions from two frames], and metric depth with ZoeDepth. Considering the consistency of the generated video is limited, we register pair-wise camera poses using mask, depth, and flow. Then, we register the root pose of objects using DensePose and initialize the SDF field and warping field with volume rendering. During this process, we also refine the camera poses and root poses using a combination of photometric loss. To enhance registration with unsupervised features, we train an additional channel in NeuS specifically for rendering DinoV2 features, which are then employed for registration purposes as described in RAC. Compared with rasterization, the sampling strategy and continuity of volume rendering make it more suitable for refining poses.
For NeuS rendering, we backward warp sampling points in camera space $\mathbf{X}^t$ to canonical space $\mathbf{X}^*$:
$$\mathbf{J}^{t, -1} = \mathcal{R}\Big(\sum_{b=1}^{B} w_{b}^{t} \mathcal{Q}(\mathbf{J}^t_{b})^{-1}\Big), $$
$$\mathbf{X}^t = \mathbf{J}^{t, -1} \mathbf{X}^{*},$$
which is an inversion of Eq. 4 in the main paper. By querying the SDF with $\mathbf{X}^*$, we render RGB and compute the photometric loss to optimize the SDF and the warping field defined in Eq. 6 of the main paper. However, there are two gaps between NeuS warping and DGS warping. First, the sampling points of NeuS are distributed in the frustum of the camera, while the DGS are distributed on the surface. Additionally, we train the inversion of $\mathbf{J}^t$ during initialization, while we utilize the non-inverse ones in DGS. To resolve the distribution gap and ensure that $\mathbf{J}^t$ faithfully models the forward warping, we add a cycle loss:
$$
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{cyc}} = \|\| \mathbf{J}^t \( \mathbf{J}^{t, -1} \( \mathbf{X}^{t} \) \) - \mathbf{X}^{t} \|\|^{2},
$$
where $\mathbf{X}^{t}$ are a combination of mesh surface points and ray sampling points.
After initialization, we extract the mesh in canonical space with the marching cube and initialize Gaussian surfels on the mesh. We set the spherical harmonic in 0-th order to the RGB value of the nearest vertices. Here we keep the warping field and the learned camera poses.
**4. Evaluated on realistic scenes and benchmarks:**
Please refer to the **common response** for more benchmarks. Specifically, we provide quantitive and qualitative comparisons on realistic scene-level benchmarks (Neural 3D Video dataset and NeRF-DS dataset) and object-level benchmarks (D-NeRF dataset).
**5. Limitation of joint representation:**
Our method is not limited to reconstructing object-centric scenes. Please see Fig. D and Fig. G in our rebuttal PDF.
**6. Latency:**
On an Nvidia A800 GPU, generating a 1080p video takes approximately 10 minutes. Preprocessing requires around 12 minutes, initialization takes another 10 minutes, and reconstruction takes 30 minutes. Rendering a 1080p image takes less than 0.1 seconds. We provide rendering latency in Tab. A on the Neural 3D Video benchmark, indicating the superiority of our rendering latency.
**7. Reference video:**
Due to the submission guidelines, we are unable to upload videos. Instead, we have provided some frames from our reference videos in Fig. K.
**8. Occluded parts:**
Thank you for your insightful comment. The generative capabilities of Vidu4D are indeed derived from the video generation model. If certain parts of an object are not visible in the reference video, those parts cannot be reconstructed. However, we have found that using the rendered results to guide the video generation model allows for training-free view completion. This approach leverages the strengths of the video generation model to hallucinate and fill in the occluded parts, thereby enhancing the reconstruction process, as shown in Fig. I.
Once again, thank you for your constructive feedback. We'll revise our paper according to your suggestions, move the skinning representation to the supplementary material, and add more details about the Vidu4D pipeline. We will open-source our code to facilitate understanding for readers. We kindly request that you consider raising the score accordingly if we addressed your concerns.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thank you again for your time and effort in reviewing our work and providing the constructive comments. Please feel free to let us know if you have any further questions by August 13 AoE, we are more than happy to address them. | Summary: Video generation models have shown great power recently. Transforming generated videos into 3D/4D representations is important for building a world simulator. This paper proposes an improved 4D reconstruction method from single-generated videos. The key component is the dynamic Gaussian surfels (DGS) technique. Incorporating an initialization stage of a non-rigid warping field, the Vidu4D method produces impressive 4D results with the video generation model Vidu.
Strengths: 1. The topic is valuable and interesting to transforming single generated videos into 3D/4D representations. The built 3D/4D representation is more controllable and explicit than a single video. Thus it can be used for rendering more videos with elaborate and customized camera trajectories. Besides, this technique has the potential to be a key component for building a world simulator from video generation models.
2. The provided 4D results show impressive rendering quality, reaching the SOTA performance of this/related field. Besides, the normal looks good, revealing the advantage of modeling geometry from the proposed representation.
Weaknesses: 1. The motivation/necessity of building surfels needs to be further strengthened. It is easy to understand building surfels will undoubtedly help reconstruct the surface and geometry. If just considering rendering videos from the built 4D, will a vanilla 4D representation (without improvement on surface reconstruction) be enough? Fig. 4 and Table 1 provide convincing results. However, it is suggested to make it clearer in introducing the motivation, e.g. why better geometry leads to better synthesis.
2. The organization of the method could be improved. For better understanding, it is suggested to first introduce the overall framework of Vidu4D and then demonstrate the dynamic Gaussian Surfels technique.
3. The main method is more like a basic representation/reconstruction approach. Will it still benefit reconstruction from monocular videos captured in real life, not generated videos? Yet, real-life videos have better consistency than generated ones.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. The provided results are all object-level 4D ones. Will this method work well on scene-level samples? I know it will be hard to generate the surfels of the background.
2. What about the mesh and depth of the generated 4D representations?
3. One missing related work: Liu I, Su H, Wang X. Dynamic Gaussians Mesh: Consistent Mesh Reconstruction from Monocular Videos[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12379, 2024.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The paper has clearly addressed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and insightful suggestions. We address all your comments below. If our response has addressed the concerns and brings new insights to the reviewer, we will highly appreciate it if the reviewer considers raising the score.
**1. Motivation/necessity of building surfels:** Surfels improve the quality of surfaces, which in turn allows for the extraction of high-quality meshes, as illustrated in Fig. F. Furthermore, detailed geometry can enhance downstream applications, such as Gaussian-guided frame continuation at a specific camera pose, as demonstrated in Fig. I of our rebuttal PDF file, where a good depth/normal largely improves the continuation performance.
**2. Organization of the method:** Thank you for the constructive feedback. We will reorganize the methodology section to first introduce the overall framework of Vidu4D, followed by a detailed demonstration of the DGS technique. As discussed in Q2 of the common response, we will provide a more detailed description and analysis of Vidu4D. We hope this adjustment will enhance the clarity and flow of our presentation.
**3. Real monocular videos:** We evaluate our method on realistic scene-level benchmarks (Neural 3D Video dataset and NeRF-DS dataset). Please refer to Tab. C, Tab. D, Fig. D, and Fig. G of the rebuttal PDF file for experiments on real monocular videos.
**4. Meshes and depth:** Please refer to Fig. F for reconstructed meshes and depth.
**5. Missing related work:** Thank you for pointing out the missing related work. We will include a discussion of Liu et al.'s (2024) "Dynamic Gaussians Mesh: Consistent Mesh Reconstruction from Monocular Videos" in our revised manuscript to ensure comprehensive coverage of related research.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the authors' rebuttal! My concerns have been addressed and I will keep my initial positive rating. The supplemented contents are highly recommended to be added to the final version. | Summary: The paper proposes a technique called Dynamic Gaussian Surfels to effectively reconstruct 4D reqpresentation from a single generated video. DGS optimizes time-varying warping functions to transform Gaussian surfels and the authors adopt Neural SDF for initialization and proposes a geometry regularization technique to preserve the geometry integrity. Extensive experiments on 30 objects proves the effectiveness of the proposed method.
Strengths: a. The resutls are great, show promising application of the proposed DGS.
b. The paper is well writting and easy to follow.
c. The authors compare their method with various 4D representations, i.e., skinning and bones, NeRF, Gaussian, and achieve better performance.
Weaknesses: a. The novelty is limited. This work seems to be a combination of LARS (bones and warping), Gaussian Surfels/2DGS (3D representation) and SC-GS/4DGS (refinement). The real novelty might be the geometric regularization and field initialization, although the former is also similar to that used in previous 3D works.
b. Lack of evaluation details: The authors evaluated the comparison methods on generated video for novel view synthesis in Table 1, however, there is no gt for generated video's novel view resutls. How did the author conduct the evaluation?
c. The experiments is not extensive enough: The authors claim that their methods are designed for generated video, however, I didn't see any special designs, e.g., sovle the potential multi-view inonconsistency in the input video. So, I think it is a general 4D reconstruction method, and it is recommanded to test the proposed methods on commanly used 4D reconstruction datasets (object and scene-level), using standard evaluation metrics.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See weaknesses. I might adjust the score according to the response from the authors.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and insightful suggestions. We address all your comments below.
**1. Novelty:** To the best of our knowledge, our method is the first to generate 4D content using a text-to-video model. We primarily focus on addressing the spatial-temporal inconsistencies in geometry and texture in generated videos, which is a novel question. Previous works, like SV3D and V3D, focus on enhancing the consistency of video diffusion. This approach is challenging and may lose the knowledge learned from high-quality videos and images when fine-tuning on videos rendered by 3D assets. Instead, we improve the tolerance of the reconstruction method to deal with this inconsistency. Specifically, we absorb multiview inconsistencies into the global motion of bones and unstable textures into the local motion of surfels. We select DGS of a specific frame when we want to obtain statistical meshes or 3DGS. We believe this design is novel.
Our dynamic Gassian surfel is novel. Compared with LARS, we design additional neural skinning weights and a registration technique using DINO features and an invertible warping function. Please refer to Sec. 3.2 and Fig. 6. Compared with Gaussian Surfels/2DGS, we design a warped-state normal regularization to enhance the surface across all frames. Also, we elevate Gaussian Surfels to 3D dimensions for better visual quality, as shown in Fig. 5(c). Compared with SC-GS/4DGS, we applied a relatively simple but plausible warping model containing only 25 anisotropy control bones. This simplification, in contrast to the 500 control points of SC-GS and the dense motion field of 4DGS, helps to regularize motion and prevent overfitting, especially when the camera poses are inaccurate and the object's multi-view consistency cannot be assured, as shown in Fig. B. This method of mitigating Gaussian overfitting is also robust against noise or floater occlusion, as illustrated in Fig. C, where the mask of the dragon covered by sand is missing a piece.
We also design a novel refinement to deal with flickering textures in generated videos. When Gaussian surfels are well reconstructed, its' normal is aligned with the surface normal, and this makes the gradient of density along the surface normal very large:
$$\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{u})=\text{exp}(-\frac{u^2+v^2}{2}), \frac{d}{dx} \mathbf{G}(\mathbf{u}) = -\left(\frac{1}{\sin^2(\theta)} + \frac{1}{\sin^2(\gamma)}\right) x \exp\left(-\frac{\left(\frac{1}{\sin^2(\theta)} + \frac{1}{\sin^2(\gamma)}\right) x^2}{2}\right)
$$
where $\mathbf{G}(\cdot)$ is the density of surfel, $x$ goes along the surface normal, $\theta$ and $\gamma$ are the angles between u, v, and the surface, respectively. Considering that $\theta$ and $\gamma$ are very small, the density is sensitive to the motion along the surface normal. Consequently, this direct of gradient leads the flickering of the texture to be modeled as the position of the surfels moving back and forth over time. When the front-back relationship between the rear surfels and the surface surfels changes, the texture flickers accordingly.
To alleviate this flickering, we introduce a refinement stage that elevates surfels to Gaussian ellipsoids. Compared to surfels, 3D ellipsoids have a smoother density field, and provide a more robust representation during warping, reducing the impact of flickering. In addition, $\Delta \textbf{R}^*_k$ and scaling $\Delta \textbf{S}^*_k$ defined in Eq.8, remove the constraint of aligning the shortest axis with the surface normal. This flexibility makes the 3DGS less likely to unintentionally introduce texture flickering during motion. This is illustrated in Fig. E.
**2. Evaluation details:** We follow the standard evaluation protocol for 4D reconstruction methods such as Hyper-NeRF and SC-GS. Specifically, we build the dataset by using every 4th frame as a training frame and taking the middle frame between each pair of training frames as a validation frame. We will provide additional details in the revised manuscript.
**3. Special designs for generated videos:** Please refer to Q2 in the common response for more details.
**4. Experiments on 4D reconstruction datasets:** We follow your advice and add more experiments on the commonly used 4D reconstruction datasets. Please refer to Q2 in the common response for more details.
Once again, thank you for your constructive feedback and for considering our paper for acceptance. We'll revise our paper according to your suggestions. We kindly request that you consider raising the score accordingly if we addressed your concerns.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Feedback
Comment: Thanks for the efforts of the authors for solving my concerns. My feedback is as follows:
1. Novelty:
a) This paper is not the first work of generating 4D content using text-to-video models. Previously there are many 4D generation works using text-to-video models, such as 4Dfy (CVPR2024), AYG (CVPR2024), Dream-in-4D(CVPR2024), DG4D (arxiv2023), 4DGen(arxiv2023), aniamte124(arxiv2023), etc. Besides, those works generate 360-degree dynamic objects utilizing text-to-video models. In contrast, this work only generates part of the object, which means the invisible part in the input video is missing in generation results, and the novel view synthesis is limited to small camera movement range.
b) Based on the above point, I would suggest the authors to claim that they are the first work which deals with 4D reconstruction from generated videos, rather than the first 4D generation work using text-to-video models.
c) I reserve my judgment on the novelty of the 4D reconstruction techniques proposed by the author. I don't think the proposed techniques have special design to handle obvious multi-view inconsistency. (In fact, I didn't see the word "multi-view inconsistency" or similar words in the main paper)
3. Please refer to 1
4. The comparison with SC-GS/D-NeRF/ etc. on dataset w/o gt pose has little meaning. They are not specially designed for no gt scenes. It's suggested to compare with works specially designed for pose-free scenes. For comparison on dataset w/ gt pose, considering there are many regularizations integrated in the proposed pipeline, comparable or slightly better performance is expected.
So I decide to maintain the score.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Further response for Reviewer crn6's feedback
Comment: Sincerely thank you for your feedback. We have some further responses w.r.t. (a) 4D reconstruction and (b) special designs for generated videos.
**(a) 4D reconstruction**
Since our focus is on the 4D reconstruction, to the best of our knowledge, there are no **pose-free** benchmarks for **dynamic scenes**. To address your concern, we build the benchmark by collecting openly available videos from the SORA official webpage. We then strictly compare our method against existing state-of-the-art 4D reconstruction methods. We provide the details and results below.
**Benchmark details:** We collect 35 sub-videos from the SORA [1] webpage, including Drone_Ancient_Rome (20 seconds in total, split into 4 sub-videos), Robot_Scene (20 seconds in total, split into 3 sub-videos), Seaside_Aerial_View (20 seconds in total, split into 3 sub-videos), Mountain_Horizontal_View (17 seconds in total, split into 3 sub-videos), Snow_Sakura (17 seconds in total, split into 4 sub-videos), Westworld (25 seconds in total, split into 4 sub-videos), Chrismas_Snowman (17 seconds in total, split into 3 sub-videos), Butterfly_Under_Sea (20 seconds in total, split into 3 sub-videos), Minecraft1 (20 seconds in total, split into 4 sub-videos), Minecraft2 (20 seconds in total, split into 4 sub-videos).
**Evaluation method:** We follow the standard pipeline for dynamic reconstruction (Hyper-NeRF, SC-GS, etc), to construct our evaluation setup by selecting every fourth frame as a training frame and designating the middle frame between each pair of training frames as a validation frame.
**Results:**
| Method | PSNR $\uparrow$ | SSIM $\uparrow$ | LPIPS $\downarrow$ |
| :---: | :----: | :---: | :---: |
| Deformable-GS | 12.72 | 0.5773 | 0.2861 |
| 4D-GS | 12.15| 0.5609 | 0.2926 |
| SC-GS | 14.81 | 0.5914 | 0.2420 |
| SpacetimeGaussians | 13.24 | 0.5836 | 0.2633 |
| Ours without field initialization (Sec. 3.3) | 15.42 | 0.6167 | 0.2268 |
| Ours without dual branch refinement (Line 187) | 18.57 | 0.6852 | 0.1945 |
| **Ours (full model)** | **19.05** | **0.7323** | **0.1839** |
Upon acceptance, we will open-source this benchmark and the corresponding codebase to ensure its reproduction. Besides, since currently there are no pose-free benchmarks for dynamic scenes, we believe this built benchmark is a contribution.
Our full model achieves 4.24 PSNR improvement compared to the existing best method. The result proves the superiority of our method and each element we propose (field initialization, dual branch refinement) on the pose-free dynamic scene benchmark.
**(b) Special designs for generated videos**
As we summarized in the common response, properties of generated videos include both larger-scale aspects (unknown poses and unexpected movement) and small-scale aspects (flickering, floater occlusion).
- For larger-scale aspects, we propose the Field initialization stage which provides a proper start for our Dynamic Gaussian Surfels (DGS) regarding both the pose and the movement (please see warping transformation in Eq. 6 of our main paper). Here we'd like to highlight that the field initialization also benefits movement learning since the warping transformation is learned as a continuous field. This design is novel and especially beneficial for generated videos. We will provide more details of the field initialization during revision.
- For small-scale aspects, we have proposed the Dual Branch Refinement (Line 187) and provided ablation studies to prove its effectiveness in alleviating flickering.
Again we are grateful for your feedback.
[1] Video Generation Models as World Simulators.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: Thanks for the author's response. This work might be a pioneering work of pose-free dynamic scene reconstruction. In this case, I would suggest to design a standard and rigor evaluation protocol using real-world multi-view video captured with camera poses. Currently, the evaluation camera pose is perhaps the same as training camera pose, lacking the changes in views, perhaps limited by generated video. I would take it as a benchmark for 4D reconstruction from generated video instead of a benchmark for general pose-free 4D reconstruction methods.
As for the novelty, despite the explanation of the authors, I think this project is without significant technical innovation.
But as the first attempt to reconstruct 4D content from generated video, this work is encouraging. Thus, I'll keep my positive score. The authors are suggested to test their work on various video generation models in the future. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank all reviewers's efforts as well as very detailed and insightful suggestions. We find there are common concerns to our paper, and we'd like to clarify them here.
We also add a **PDF file** with more experiment results and visualizations.
_**Q1: From the 4D reconstruction perspective, evaluations on common 4D reconstruction datasets including real scenes and objects? (from crn6, 1Eme, 7btN)**_
Per the reviewers' suggestion, we provide detailed results in our attached PDF file both quantitively and qualitatively, on realistic scene-level benchmarks (Neural 3D Video dataset and NeRF-DS dataset) and object-level benchmarks (D-NeRF dataset). Please See Table A, Table B, Table C, and Table D, and the visualizations in Figure A, Figure D, and Figure G of the PDF file.
**Detailed settings:**
- We use PSNR, DSSIM, and LPIPS as evaluation metrics and follow the standard setting of SOTA methods to perform training and evaluation. For object-level D-NeRF data and scene-level NeRF-DS data, we train the model for 80000 iterations and start to perform normal regularization on the 40000th iteration. Specifically, on D-NeRF, we perform a group of experiments when ground truth camera poses are unavailable. We train our field initialization stage (Figure 3 of our main paper) for 2000 iterations which takes 10 minutes.
- For the scene-level Neural 3D Video data, we follow the standard setting to train at the resolution $1352\times1014$ with 300 frames per scene. We train the model 30000 iterations with the normal regularization adding from the 10000th iteration.
**Results:**
- Object-level 4D benchmark: From the D-NeRF experimental results in Table A (without GT poses), we observe that our DGS surpasses the second-best method by a large margin (29.06 vs. 20.05 for PSNR). When given GT poses, our method still outperforms SOTA methods. Our method is especially superior at dynamic normals as shown in Figure A.
- Scene-level (realistic) 4D benchmark: From the Neural 3D Video and NeRF-DS experimental results in Table C and Table D, our DGS achieves the best or the second-best performance in capturing color and shows great superiority in modeling dynamic normals according to the visualizations in Figure D and Figure G.
In summary, for the 4D reconstruction benchmarks, our proposed method demonstrates superior performance compared to existing approaches, particularly in terms of geometric quality and handling unposed scenes.
_**Q2: From the general framework (generated video to 4D) perspective, further strengthened motivation and novelty? (from crn6, 1Eme)**_
**A:** We believe our work has a strong motivation and novelty in terms of the general framework and also special designs for 4D reconstruction from generated videos.
- The overall framework: To the best of our knowledge, our method is the first to generate 4D content using a text-to-video model. The framework of 4D reconstruction from a generated video to achieve 4D generation is novel since it has great potential in modeling high-fidelity 4D representations and many natural downstream applications (as also mentioned by 1Eme). We add a natural example in Figure I of the PDF file that with our framework, we can perform 4D/video customization (based on input text prompts and camera poses) by a training-free video continuation and then render Gaussian.
- Special designs for generated videos: Generated videos and real videos do not have strict boundaries, but usually generated videos are observed to have more unexpected large-scale movement (non-rigidity and distortion leading to complex object root poses) and small-scale anomalies (flickering and float-occlusion). To address both challenges, we design our overall reconstruction method as a coarse-to-fine pipeline.
- The coarse part contains time-varying warpings ($\tilde{\textbf{R}}^t$ and $\tilde{\textbf{T}}^t$) to model the basic movement and register the camera and root pose. Besides, we adopt motion regularization (Eq.6) and motion field initialization (Sec. 3.3), together to reconstruct large-scale movement with non-rigidity and distortion even under limited viewpoints. Compared with directly applying 3DGS with dense motion, our design largely alleviates overfitting w.r.t. motions (as shown in Figure B). We provide more details in the response to crn6.
- The fine part is performed in the static stage using a time-invariant rotation $\Delta \textbf{R}^*_k$ and scaling $\Delta \textbf{S}^*_k$ (Eq.8). This process further alleviates overfitting w.r.t. flickering and float-occlusion (as shown in Figure E and Figure C). We provide more details in the response to crn6.
Pdf: /pdf/3b0796f6998fcbcabe6c54598b549b6876882433.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Dissecting the Failure of Invariant Learning on Graphs | Accept (poster) | Summary: The authors propose a novel regularization and alignment mechanism for invariant graph learning with the goal of obtaining better out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization. Besides proving that existing methods tackling OOD generalization in other domains do not transfer to graphs, they propose CIA (environment-label dependent) and CIA-LRA (environment-label independent) to tackle the challenge of OOD generalization on graph data. Both, theoretical and empirical evidence is provided showing that the proposed methods provide benefits in OOD generalization.
Strengths: - theoretical derivation of failure of IRM and VREx on graph data
- theoretical analysis of CIA an CIA-LRA
- empirical evidence that the proposed methods achieve OOD generalization significantly better than IRM and VREx
- detailed discussion of further findings and proofs in appendix
Weaknesses: ## Methodology
- in Fig. 1 it is not clearly described what the variables exactly refer to (e.g. $G$ is not mentioned in the text)
- while I appreciate the theoretical findings, the GNN defined in Eq. 3 is a linear model, hence the theoretical analysis is somewhat limited. However, one should keep in mind that the analysis of non-linear and highly complex networks is hard
- line 204: it is a bit counter-intuitive why invariant node features of nodes with the same class should significantly diverge when they are far apart in the graph. Also the empirical evidence in Fig. 7/8 does not really support this statement.
- a brief definition/discussion of concept shift and covariate shift would be beneficial for clarity
- in line 232: why is a sum operator employed here instead of a mean? Won't a simple sum be highly influenced by the graph size and connectivity/density?
- line 248: inconsistent naming ($x_{cau}$ and $x_{inv}$)
- in theorem 4.2 it is unclear what $\alpha$ is and what the inequation $0 < \alpha < \frac{1}{4}$ means. Further a bit of a discussion on the goodness/tightness of the given bound would be good to assess the usefulness of that bound
- proof G 1.1.: the proof only shows that $\theta_2 = 0$ is **a possible** solution, but not a unique solution, isn't it? (Didn't check the proofs too deeply though)
- Eq. 34: the entire term does not depend on $\theta_2$, so it is unclear to me why $\theta_2 = 0$ is **the** solution to that equation. Wouldn't any arbitrary value be a valid solution then?
- Eq. 35: in App. F.1 it is stated that the expectation of $\epsilon^e$ is 0. Looking at Eq. 35, won't all mutliplicative terms entailing $\epsilon^e$ cancel out in the expectation and thus in the IRM loss? This would make the IRM loss independent of the environment **in expectation** (not for some specific environment though). Thus, I don't see how the conclusion is reached that the IRM loss depends on $\epsilon^e$ if, in expectation, it is 0.
- line 995: which property are you referring to exactly?
## Experiments
- since the authors present an alignment-based invariant learning strategy for graph data, it would be good to see some more recent baselines taking a similar approach such as [1] and [2]
- line 296: why does CIA-LRA improve upon CIA? To me it is counter-intuitive since CIA-LRA has no access to the environment labels, thus I'd expect this task to be harder
## General notes
- in the Introduction there should be more on related methods based on representation alignment such as [1] and [2]
## References
[1] Shift-Robust GNNs: Overcoming the Limitations of Localized Graph Training Data. Zhu et al. NeurIPS 2021.
[2] Stable Prediction on Graphs with Agnostic Distribution Shifts. Zahng et al. KDD 2023.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - how often did you repeat the experiments? (Maybe it's written somewhere and I didn't see it)
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: - major parts of the analysis are rather limited as they rely on the definition of the GNN in Eq. 3 which is a linear model
- a comparison to some more recent baseline would increase the value of the paper
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank Reviewer nx4e for your careful reading and detailed comments! We'd like to address your concerns in the following points:
****
Q1: **G in Fig. 1 is not mentioned in the text**
A1: Sorry for the lack of clarity. $G$ refers to the graph data.
Q2: **limitation: the definition of the GNN in Eq. 3 which is a linear model**
A2: Justifications for analyzing a linear model: 1) Some recent works [8] [9] observed that linear GNNs achieve comparable performance to nonlinear GNNs. [5] also theoretically proved that SGC can outperform GCN under some mild assumptions. 2) many recent works on the theoretical analysis of graphs/OOD generalization adopt linear networks ([4] [10] [11]). 3) Our theory matches the experimental results on the nonlinear GCN and GAT that CIA outperforms IRM and VREx.
Q3: **line 204: it is a bit counter-intuitive why invariant node features of nodes with the same class should significantly diverge when they are far apart in the graph.**
A3: Although the invariant features of the same class are basically invariant across environments, they still show some slight intra-class deviation (see Fig. 7-10). In the same class, the invariant feature difference between nodes that are farther apart is larger than the difference between nodes that are closer together. In Fig. 7/8, despite the curve's slight fluctuations, the invariant feature difference shows a clear positive correlation with the distance from the starting point.
Q4: **a brief definition/discussion of concept and covariate shift would be beneficial for clarity**
A4: Due to word limitation, we invite you to refer to the A1 to the reviewer yNy3.
Q5: **in line 232: why is a sum operator employed here instead of a mean?**
A5: We employ a 'sum' in line 232 because $r_i^c$ is the **ratio** of nodes of class $c$ in the $L$-hop neighborhood, which has already been normalized by the size of the neighborhood. It won't be affected by the graph size/connectivity.
Q6: **in theorem 4.2 it is unclear what $\\alpha$ is and what the inequation $0<\\alpha<\\frac{1}{4}$ means. Discussion on the goodness/tightness of the given bound?**
A6: Sorry again for the lack of clarity. $\\alpha$ is defined in Assumption 3 of [6]: "...... Assume that there exists some $0<\\alpha<\\frac{1}{4}$ satisfying $$\\operatorname{Pr}_{h \\sim P}\\left(\\mathcal{L}_m^{\\gamma / 4}(h)-\\mathcal{L}_0^{\\gamma / 2}(h)>N_0^{-\\alpha}+c K \\epsilon_m \\left\\lvert\\, T_h^L \\epsilon_m>\\frac{\\gamma}{8}\\right.\\right) \\leq e^{-N_0^{2 \\alpha}}$$". This assumption is needed for proving Lemma 6 in [6], which we rely on to prove of Lemma G.11 in our paper.
* Tightness of Theorem 4.2: when there are no distributional shifts in spurious node features and heterophilic neighborhood distribution between training and test environments, the terms (a)-(d) in Eq. 109 becomes zero, and the upper bound becomes $\\widehat{\\mathcal{L}}\_{e^{\\text{tr}}}^\\gamma(\\tilde{h})+const=\\widehat{\\mathcal{L}}\_{e^{\\text{tr}}}^\\gamma(\\tilde{h})+\\frac{1}{N_0^{1-2 \\alpha}}+\\frac{1}{N_0^{2 \\alpha}} \\ln \\frac{L C\\left(2 B_{e^{\\text{te}}}\\right)^{1 / L}}{\\gamma^{1 / L} \\delta}$, i.e., our bound only larger than the ideal error $\\widehat{\\mathcal{L}}_{e^{\\text{tr}}}^\\gamma(\\tilde{h})$ by a constant $const$. When the number of training samples $N_0$ is large, $const$ will be small enough and can be negligible. Hence, the tightness of our bound is guaranteed.
Q7: **proof G 1.1.: the proof only shows that $\\theta_2=0$ is a possible solution, but not a unique solution, isn't it?**
No. $\\theta_2=0$ is a unique solution. Please see lines 855-861, line 868.
Q8: **Eq. 34: the entire term does not depend on $\\theta_2$, so it is unclear why $\\theta_2$ is the solution to that equation. **
A8: Eq. (34) is the result of plugging $\\theta_2=0$ into the expression $\\frac{\\partial\\mathbb{V}_e[R(e)]}{\\partial \\theta_2}$, thus $\\theta_2$ disappears.
Q9: **won't all mutliplicative terms entailing $\\epsilon^e$ cancel out in the expectation?**
A9: Although $\\mathbb{E}_e[\\epsilon^e]=0$, but $\\mathbb{E}_e[{\\epsilon^e}^\\top\\epsilon^e]=N_e\\sigma^2>0$, where $\\sigma^2=\\mathbb{V}_e[\\epsilon^e_i],~i=1,...,N_e$. So the terms multiplied by ${\\epsilon^e}^\\top\\epsilon^e$ won't be canceled out.
Q10: **line 995: which property are you referring to exactly?**
A10: For two vectors $a$ and $b$ ($a\\neq \\lambda b$, $\\lambda$ is any scalar), we have $|a\\cdot b|^2 \\leq |a|^2|b|^2$.
Q11: **it would be good to see some more recent baselines such as [1] and [2]**
A11: We have already included [1] (SRGNN) in our main experiment in Table 2 of the orginal paper. We didn't compare with [2] since it requires the graphs of different environments to have the same nodes but our datasets don't satisfy this. However, we add two more recent graph OOD methods **CIT** ([7] suggested by reviewer LzeD) and **CaNet** ([12] suggested by reviewer empj) as baselines. Please see Table B of the rebuttal PDF. **CIA-LRA outperforms CIT and CaNet on all splits.**
Q12: **line 296: why does CIA-LRA improve upon CIA? It is counter-intuitive since CIA-LRA has no access to the environment labels**
A12: We also invite you to refer to A6 to the reviewer yNy3.
Q13: **missing related works**
A13: We've already discussed [1] in Appendix A.3. Here we discuss [2]. [2] proposed to align the aggregation weights of the same edge across environments ("locally stable learning") and align the cross-environment loss ("global stable learning"). There are some drawbacks. First, the "locally stable learning" requires the graphs from different environments to have the same nodes and topological structures, which is impractical; second, the "global stable learning" is actually a VREx loss that we proved to have failure cases in node-level OOD tasks.
Q14: **repeating experiments & typos**
A14: We repeat our experiments with **three** different random seeds. We have fixed all typos you mentioned.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Answer to Rebuttal
Comment: Thank you for the detailed rebuttal!
Although I did not check A6 in detail, it explains where $\alpha$ is coming from.
The rebuttal clarified all other points, and the results of the additional experiments look good.
Thus, I raised my score from 5 to 7.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thank you
Comment: Thank you for appreciating our work and rasing the score! Thank you for your time, effort, and valuable feedback during the review process! | Summary: The paper investigate the failure case of IRMv1 and VRex for graph data, and develop a novel approach CIA for node-level OOD generalization. To adapt for the scenarios without environment labels, the authors propose CIA-LRA for the datasets without environment labels.
Strengths: 1. The paper is well-written and provides clear motivation.
2. The paper is solid in both theoretical and empirical aspects.
3. The evaluations are fair and convincing.
Weaknesses: 1. The author may want to clarify the reasoning behind the two SCMs corresponding to the two types of distribution shifts, as this connection is not entirely clear.
2. In Equation 9, it should be $\phi_\theta(j)$.
3. Assuming the sample label corresponds to the same invariant factors, it is unclear why $r_{\text{same}}$ is necessary for reweighting.
4. It appears that CIA-LRA requires all labels for reweighting alignment. However, the typical node-level classification setting is semi-supervised, which limits the applicability of this method.
5. Line 231: "to pairs with" should be corrected to "to pair with".
6. Line 854: In the proof of the non-graph case, $(A^e)^k$ appears, which seems to be an oversight.
7. The general idea of sampling nodes from the same target label and different environments is similar to CIGA [1], which performs supervised contrastive learning to identify invariant subgraphs. The objective in CIGA may be a specific form of $d(\cdot)$. The authors may want to compare and contrast their approach with CIGA.
__reference__
[1] Chen et al., Learning Causally Invariant Representations for Out-of-Distribution Generalization on Graphs, Neurips 2022.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: 1. CIA-LRA learns masked subgraph, is the experiment inductive or transductive?
2. In line 318-321, why CIA will be less performant than CIA-LRA, it seems not reasonable, as CIA will adopt environment labels while CIA-LRA doesn’t.
3. $\theta_m$ is separated from $\theta$, how to ensure it will learn the invariant subgraph, under what assumptions?
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 2
Limitations: N/A
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank Reviewer yNy3 for your careful reading and detailed comments! We'd like to address your concerns in the following points:
****
Q1: **The author may want to clarify the reasoning behind the two SCMs corresponding to the two types of distribution shifts, as this connection is not entirely clear**
A1: Here we'd like to clarify the connection between the SCMs and the two type of distributional shifts.
Definitions of the two shifts:
Concept shift: $p_{Y|S}(y|s)$ changes across environments, and $p_X(x)$ is invariant across environments; Covariate shift: $p_X(x)$ changes across environments, and $p_{Y|S}(y|s)$ is invariant across environments.
Concept shift and Fig. 1(a): Suppose $X=f(C, S)$. In Fig. 1(a), $S$ is the direct cause of $Y$ and the mapping from $Y$ to $S$ is affected by environments $E$. This means $p_{S|Y}(s|y)$ changes across environments. Now we show that this makes $p_{Y|X}(y|x)$ varies with environments. $p_{Y|X}(y|x)=\\frac{p_{X,Y}(x, y)}{p_X(x)}=\\frac{\\sum_{c, s: x=f(c, s)} p_{Y \\mid C, S}(y \\mid c, s) \\cdot p_{C, S}(c, s)}{p_X(x)}
$. Taking out the $p_{Y \\mid C, S}(y \\mid c, s)$ in the molecule, we have $p_{Y \\mid C, S}(y \\mid c, s)=\\frac{p_{S|Y}(s|y)p_{C|Y}(c|y)p_Y(y)}{p_{C,S}(c,s)}$. Since $p_{S|Y}(s|y)$ varies with environments, we conclude that $p_{Y|X}(y|x)$ is also variant, which matches the definition of the concept shift.
Covariate shift and Fig. 1(b): In Fig. 1(b), $S$ is independent of $Y$ and only depends on $E$, which means $p_{Y|X}(y|x)$ is invariant across environments. Additionally, $p_X(x)=\\sum_{c,s}p_{X|C,S}(x|c,s)p_{C,S}(c, s)=\\sum_{c,s:x=f(c,s)}p_{C,S}(c,s)=\\sum_{c,s:x=f(c,s)}p_{C|S}(c|s)p_{S}(s)$. According to Fig. 1(b), $S$ is the direct cause of $E$ so $p_{S}(s)$ changes with environments. Hence, we conclude that $p_X(x)$ changes with environments, which matches the definition of the covariate shift.
Q2: **Assuming the same label corresponds to the same invariant factors, it is unclear why $r^{same}$ is necessary for reweighting.**
A2: In practice, although the causal features of the same class are basically invariant across environments, they still show slight deviation among the samples within this class (shown in Fig. 7-10), and this intra-class discrepancy in invariant features has a positive correlation with the difference in same-class neighborhood label distribution (evidence in Fig. 15). Hence, we design $r^{same}$ to prevent the over alignment that may cause the collapse of the invariant features. Table 4 and Fig. 2 reveal the positive role of $r^{same}$.
Note that the main purpose of this assumption is for the ease of theoretical analysis. However, this assumption is also acceptable in practice, supported by two pieces of evidence: 1) CIA improves over most non-graph-specific baselines 2) In Table 4, merely removing $r^{same}$ (63.91) from CIA-LRA still outperforms IRM (61.14) and VREx (61.32).
Q3: **the typical node-level classification setting is semi-supervised, which limits the applicability of this method.**
A3: Our experiments are exactly conducted in a semi-supervised setting in which only 30%~40% of nodes are labeled. CIA-LRA only operates on the labeled data to gain improvements.
Q4: **The authors may want to compare and contrast their approach with CIGA.**
A4: Differences between CIA-LRA and CIGA:
* CIGA cannot solve covariate shifts. CIGAv2 maximizes the mutual information between the estimated spurious subgraph $\\hat{G_s}$ and labels $I(\\hat{G_s};Y)$ to reduce including part of $\\hat{G_s}$ into the true invariant graph $G_c$. For covariate shifts, $G_s$ contains no information about $Y$, thus $\\max I(\\hat{G_s};Y)$ may not capture the correct $G_s$. Therefore, the estimation of the invariant subgraph $\\hat{G_c}=G-\\hat{G_s}$ will be also inaccurate.
* CIA-LRA works for both shifts. Our strategy doesn't rely on the concept shift assumption to minimize the OOD error. There are two main reasons. First, under covariate shifts, CIA-LRA removes environment-related spurious node features when the selected pairs potentially come from different environments. Second, CIA-LRA can simultaneously reduce the error caused by structural shifts of heterophilic neighborhood label distribution (the term (c) in the error bound in Theorem 4.2 can be minimized by CIA-LRA regardless of the type of the distributional shifts).
Q5: **CIA-LRA learns masked subgraph, is the experiment inductive or transductive?**
A5: All four datasets of our experiments are transductive.
Q6: **In line 318-321, why CIA will be less performant than CIA-LRA, it seems not reasonable, as CIA will adopt environment labels while CIA-LRA doesn’t.**
A6: The role of environment labels is to distinguish spurious features so that the they can be eliminated by cross-environment alignment. However, even if spurious features are removed (Fig. 2 right, CIA), learning a collapse representation of invariant features can also hurt generalization (shown in Fig. 2 Left and Mid, CIA). Although CIA-LRA doesn't use environment labels, it can remove spurious features by intra-class alignment and the proposed $r^{diff}$ (see Fig. 2 right, CIA-LRA and term (b) (c) in Theorem 4.2). Moreover, it avoids the collapse of invariant features caused by overalignment by only aligning local pairs and using $r^{same}$ (Fig. 2 Mid, CIA-LRA). Therefore, CIA-LRA outperforms CIA even without environment labels.
Q7: **$\\theta_m$ is separated from $\\theta$, how to ensure it will learn the invariant subgraph, under what assumptions?**
A7: We are sorry that we did not fully understand which parameter in Eq. (3) the "$\\theta_m$" you mentioned here refers to. We'd like to address any of your further questions.
Q8: **typos**
A8: Thank you for carefully identifying all typos! and we have fixed all typos you mentioned:
* Eq. (9): $\\phi(i)\\rightarrow \\phi(j)$
* Line 231: "to pairs with" $\\rightarrow$ "to pair with".
* Line 854: Removed ${\\tilde{A}^e}^k$
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the response. While your reply addresses some of my questions, I have a few points of disagreement with certain aspects of your response.
>**SCM and the types of distribution shifts**
* For concept shift, the authors aim to show $p_X(x)$ is invariant across environments, however, $X$ depends on $S$, which is affected by $E$. Hence this claim appears to be invalid.
* Similarly for covariate shift, $P(y|x)$ won't be invariant across environments, as $X$ depends on $E$.
>**Comparison with CIGA**
Figure 1(a) is equivalent to PIIF in CIGA, and Figure 1(a) is equivalent to FIIF, hence CIGA can solve both situations in Figure (a) and (b).
>**Collapsed learning**
I'm also not convinced that with environment labels, the learned representations will collapse. With environment labels, the method could facilitate better differentiation among various groups, enhancing alignment.
>**Similarity with previous work**
I still think this approach is quite similar to CIGA, which is an adaptation for node-level tasks, with some reweighting scheme for a single graph.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Further response to reviewer yNy3
Comment: Thank you for your further comments. We'd like to address your concerns as follows:
Q9: **SCM and the types of distribution shifts**
A9: Thank you pointing out the careless mistake. The accurate claim should be: **under concept shift, $p_C(c)$ is invaraint; under covariate shift, $p_{Y|C}(y|c)$ is invariant.** However, this misrepresentation doesn't affect the correctness of the derivation in A1, because it doesn't rely on the assumption that certain distribution is invariant across environments.
Q10: **Comparison with CIGA**
A10: I guess you might mean "Fig. 1(a) is equivalent to PIIF, Fig. 1(b) is equivalent to FIIF". However, this is not the case. Although PIIF is equivalent to Fig. 1(a) in our paper, FIIF is not equivalent to Fig. 1(b) in our paper because $C\rightarrow S$ exists in FIIF, causing $C$ to correlate with $S$. However, in Fig. 1(b), $C$ and $S$ are independent. In summary, both FIIF and PIIF represent concept shifts where invariant features correlate with spurious ones, as highlighted in Section 2.2 of the CIGA paper [1]: "$S$ is directly controlled by $C$ in FIIF and indirectly controlled by $C$ through $Y$ in PIIF". However, our paper also considers the covariate shift where $C$ and $S$ are independent.
Q11: **Collapsed learning**
A11: We kindly remind you that we are not saying "with environment labels, the learned representations will collapse", we actually mean **excessive alignment will lead to the collapse of the invariant features.** We use the intra-class variance of the representation corresponding to invariant features (averaged over all classes) to measure the degree of collapse of invariant features.
Base on this measurement, the excessive alignment can be caused by:
1. **Using a $\lambda$ that is too large.** Evidence: on the toy dataset of Fig. 2, a larger $\lambda$ leads smaller intra-class variance of invariant representations
Table D: the intra-class variance of invaraint representations at epoch 50
| CIA | $\lambda=0.05$ | $\lambda=0.1$ | $\lambda=0.5$ |
| -------- | -------------- | ------------- | ------------- |
| variance | 0.061 | 0.039 | 0.011 |
2. **Aligning the representations of too many nodes.**
Evidence 1: we add an experiment to show that **aligning fewer node pairs can prevent the collapse of invariant representation, even with environment labels.** By modifying CIA to align local pairs (same-class, different-environment nodes within 1 hop), termed "CIA-local", the results in Table E show that when by aligning **local** pairs instead of **all** pairs, CIA-local avoids the collapse that CIA suffers and achieves better performance.
Table E: accuracy and the variance of the invariant representations on the toy dataset of Fig. 2. at epoch 200
| | CIA | CIA-local |
| ------------------- | ------ | --------- |
| Concept, Acc. | 0.253 | 0.354 |
| Concept, variance | 0.0003 | 0.2327 |
| Covariate, Acc. | 0.250 | 0.312 |
| Covariate, variance | 0.0002 | 0.1699 |
Q12: **Similarity with previous work**
A12: Additional differences between CIA-LRA and CIGA:
* **CIA-LRA solves both concept and covariate shift but CIGA is only guaranteed to solve the concept shift (PIIF and FIIF).** As we pointed out in A10 and A4, CIA-LRA can solve both concept (Theorem 3.1, 4.2) and covariate shift (Propsition B.3, Theorem 4.2). CIGA relies on the assumption that the spurious subgraph $G_s$ and the invariant subgraph $G_c$ "can share certain overlapped information about $Y$" to identify them, which means it only work well under concept shift. Their theoretical guarantee is under the PIIF and FIIF assumptions (Theorem 3.1 in [1]).
* **CIA-LRA utilize the fine-grained graph-specific features (neighborhood label distribution, NLD) to better eliminate spurious features but CIGA ignores such information and only consider loss-level regularization.** CIA-LRA propose to utilize the NLD to identify node pairs with large discrepancies in spurious features and similar invariant features to better eliminate the former and avoid the collapse of the latter. However, CIGA ignores such fine-grained information and solely minimize the loss of using an spurious subragph $\hat{G}_s$ to predict $Y$ ($\max I(\hat{G}_s;Y)$) and enforcing the loss of $\hat{G}_c$ is smaller than $\hat{G}_s$'s.
* **CIA-LRA additionally consider the issue of the collapse of invariant features while CIGA doesn't.** We reveal the collapse of invariant features caused by excessive alignment (Fig 2 Mid and Table D, E in A11) and propose the localized alignment and $r^{same}$ to address this. CIGA focus solely on indentifying the invariant subgraph. Our work provides new insights that excessive alignment can lead to the collpase of invariant representations and hurt generalization, which can help the community better understand the dual role of representation alignment in OOD generalization.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Dear reviewer yNy3, we note that you have lowered your score from 6 to 5. If you have any questions please let us know and we will be happy to answer them!
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: I appreciate the reviewer’s great efforts for the response. However, I still have some concerns.
> Q9
I understand the author’s explanation regarding concept shift and covariate shift. However, I believe that the SCM presented in Figure 1 merely represents an underlying data generation process, which may not directly correspond to the types of distribution shifts. This could be potentially misleading.
> Q10,12
* Although there is no edge from C to S in Figure 1b, according to the definition of FIIF, the condition $I(S;Y|C)=0$ still holds.
* FIIF and PIIF represent data-generating processes, and therefore do not directly correspond to concept shift.
* CIGA primarily addresses covariate shift, where the conditional distribution $P(Y|G)$, i.e., the underlying mechanism, remains unchanged, while $P(G)$ shifts due to spurious features.
* I recognize the contribution of this work in addressing excessive alignment. However, the basic idea aligns with supervised contrastive learning, which is why I perceive similarities with previous studies like CIGA.
* The utilization of techniques such as neighborhood label distribution is indeed novel, but they are not directly applicable to graph-level OOD. This is why I consider CIA-LRA to be an adaptation of supervised contrastive learning for node-level OOD.
* Overall, I remain positive about this work due to its high-quality writing and rigor. However, I also have concerns about the level of novelty in the proposed method. Additionally, some design choices in the methodology appear heuristic (in Sec. 3.2), which also raises some concerns.
---
Rebuttal Comment 3.1:
Comment: We thank reviewer yNy3 for carefully reading our response. We want to address your further concerns as follows:
****
Q13: **However, I believe that the SCM presented in Fig. 1 merely represents an underlying data generation process, which may not directly correspond to the types of distribution shifts.**
A13: Thanks for your advice! We acknowledge that Fig.1 are indeed data generation processes, but our deduction in A1 has demonstrated that under the data generation process in Fig. 1 (a)/(b), the concept/covariate shift will occur. The potential misleading could be that the current caption of Fig.1 is 'concept shift' and 'covariate shift'. We'll modify it to be the "underlying data generation process leading to concept/covariate shift" and add the derivation in A1 to our paper for clarity.
Q14: **Although there is no edge from C to S in Figure 1b, according to the definition of FIIF, the condition $I(S;Y|C)=0$ still holds.**
A14: We acknowledge that $I(S;Y|C)=0$ holds for both Fig. 1(b) in our paper and the FIIF. This means $S\perp Y|C$ holds for both FIIF and our Fig. 1(b), but it doesn't mean $S\perp C$ holds for both of them. In fact, according to the SCM of FIIF, $S$ correlates with $C$, but they are independent in Fig. 1(b). Hence, Fig. 1(b) and FIIF are fundamentally different.
Q15: **FIIF and PIIF represent data-generating processes and do not directly correspond to concept shift.**
A15: FIIF and PIIF are indeed data-generating processes, but we can still deduce that concept shift occurs under such data-generating processes.
FIIF: under FIIF, $S=f_{spu}(C, E)$, so $p_{S|C}(s|c)$ changes across environments. Following the derivation in A1, to prove $p_{Y|X}(y|x)$ changes with environment (i.e., concept shift happens), we only need to prove $p_{Y | C, S}(y | c, s)$ is variant. $p_{Y | C, S}(y | c, s)=\frac{p_{S|C}(s|c)p_{Y|C}(y|c)p_C(c)}{p_{C,S}(c,s)}$ contains $p_{S|C}(s|c)$ in its numerator, so it also changes with environments.
PIIF: The structure of PIIF is exactly the same as Fig 1(a), so the analysis in A1 can be directly applied to PIIF to show that it encounters a concept shift.
Q16: **CIGA primarily addresses covariate shift, where the conditional distribution $P(Y|G)$, i.e., the underlying mechanism, remains unchanged.**
A16: From the analysis in A15 we can infer that $p_{Y|X}(y|x)$ changes with environments (which is equivalent to the $P(Y|G)$ you refer to here) under the FIIF and PIIF assumption considered by CIGA, so CIGA is not guaranteed to solve covariate shift.
Q17: **However, the basic idea aligns with supervised contrastive learning, which is why I perceive similarities with previous studies like CIGA. The utilization of techniques such as neighborhood label distribution is indeed novel, but they are not directly applicable to graph-level OOD. This is why I consider CIA-LRA to be an adaptation of supervised contrastive learning for node-level OOD.**
A17: Although the methodology of representation alignment of CIA-LRA is somewhat similar to the supervised contrastive loss of CIGA, adapting such an idea to the node-level task is non-trivial: there may not exist a subgraph containing information about $Y$ for each node, so $\max I(\hat{G_s};Y)$ may not identify the spurious subgraph. Therefore, we propose to utilize the neighborhood label distribution to better distinguish spurious features and eliminate them. In this work, we currently focus on the challenging node-level OOD task, and we'll aim to improve graph-level OOD generalization in the future.
---
Rebuttal 4:
Comment: Thanks for the authors' efforts for constructing the response. Some of my concerns cannot be addressed in the rebuttal stage, such as:
1) in Q15, under FIIF, since $I(S;Y|C)=0$, which implies that $P(Y|C,S)=P(Y|C)$ when conditioned on $C$.
2) The claim that the approach would __solve concept shift is also problematic__. Most invariant learning methods ever since IRM would assume a stable relations between semantic objects and $Y$, hence they aim to solve covariate shift but not concept shift. One example would be a cow in a picture would always be mapped to $Y=1$, hence it is invariant; Otherwise, in concept shift, a cow would be mapped to a different label, indicating that there is no stable features, but instead, the underlying responsive mechanism changes, rather than the spurious features. The claim that this approach, which is a refinement of supervised contrastive learning, can solve concept shift is not convincing.
3) Some designs in the approach remain heuristic.
For the above reasons, I won't raise my score, and won't lower my score given the strength of this work. However, I strongly suggest that the authors __reconsider the claim that CIA would solve concept shifts__, which is my biggest concern for this work.
---
Rebuttal Comment 4.1:
Comment: We sincerely thank reviewer yNy3 for the effort and time during the review and discussion! We are happy to continue clarifying the following issues:
****
Q18: **in Q15, under FIIF, since $I(S;Y|C)=0$, which implies that $P(Y|C,S)=P(Y|C)$ when conditioned on $C$.**
A18: We acknowledge that $I(S;Y|C)=0$ holds and it leads to $P(Y|C,S)=P(Y|C)$ in both FIIF and Fig 1(b). However, this doesn't affect the fact that $C\rightarrow S$ holds in FIIF. Since $C\rightarrow S$ and $E\rightarrow S$, the spurious features $S$ will be determined by the causal features $C$, and this mapping from $C$ to $S$ changes across environments (this can also be seen from the Assumption 2.2 in CIGA: $S:=f_{spu}(C, E)$). Therefore, in FIIF a specific causal feature will correlate (for example, emerge simultaneously) with a specific spurious feature and this correlation changes across environments.
However, in Fig. 1(b) of our paper, $C$ and $S$ are independent. As a result, FIIF and Fig. 1(b) represent different kinds of distribution shifts.
Q19: **The claim that the approach would solve concept shift is also problematic**.
A19: Sorry, it seems we may have had some misunderstanding regarding the definitions of the two types of distributional shifts. Concerning concept shift and covariate shift, we have followed the commonly used definitions in the OOD community (please refer to Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of [13]).
High-level speaking, **covariate shift** refers to a situation where **spurious features have different support sets in the training and test environments, and there is no association between $Y$ and spurious features**. For example, in a binary classification problem involving cows and sheep, where the training environment has a grass background and the test environment has a desert background, the probability of cows and sheep appearing in both environments is 50%, i.e., there is no correlation between the classes and the background.
**Concept shift**, on the other hand, refers to a situation **where there is an association between $Y$ and spurious features, and this association changes with the environment, while the spurious features have the same support set in the training and test environments.** For instance, there are two training environments, one with a grass background and the other with a desert background. The probability of cows appearing in the grass and desert backgrounds is 80% and 20%, respectively, and for sheep, it is 20% and 80%, respectively. In the test environment, the probability of cows and sheep appearing in both backgrounds is 50%, meaning that the spurious association between background and class changes during testing.
According to the above definitions, IRM is capable of addressing the concept shift (as seen in the theoretical and experimental results of the IRM paper). Moreover, our Eq. (2) also aligns with the aforementioned definition of concept shift: there exists a stable correlation between $Y$ and the invariant features $X_1$, and there exist spurious correlations between $Y$ and spurious features $X_2$. We theoretically proved that CIA can solve this type of shift in Theorem 3.1.
[13] GOOD: A Graph Out-of-Distribution Benchmark, NeurIPS 2022 | Summary: This paper addresses OOD generalization in node-level graph neural networks. The authors theoretically analyze why popular invariant learning methods like IRM and VREx fail on graph data, and propose two novel solutions: CIA and its environment-label-free variant, CIA-LRA. These methods enforce intra-class similarities to improve OOD generalization. The authors provide theoretical guarantees, including an OOD generalization error bound under the PAC-Bayesian framework. Experimental results on graph OOD benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods, particularly CIA-LRA, in improving node-level OOD generalization performance.
Strengths: 1. The paper provides a comprehensive theoretical investigation into why existing invariant learning methods struggle with graph data, supported by formal proofs.
2. The proposed CIA and CIA-LRA methods offer innovative approaches to tackle node-level OOD generalization, addressing limitations of previous methods.
3. The authors conduct comprehensive experiments on multiple datasets and compare against various baselines, demonstrating consistent performance improvements.
Weaknesses: 1. Limited comparison to recent node-level OOD method [1].
2. Lack of visualization of the overall method architecture to help readers understand intuitively.
3. While Appendix J briefly mentions GPU requirements, a more detailed analysis of the computational complexity and runtime comparisons of CIA and CIA-LRA against baselines would be valuable.
4. Insufficient citations of recent methods, such as [2] [3].
[1] Learning invariant representations of graph neural networks via cluster generalization
[2] Joint Learning of Label and Environment Causal Independence for Graph Out-of-Distribution Generalization
[3] Individual and structural graph information bottlenecks for out-of-distribution generalization
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: N/A
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: N/A
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank Reviewer LzeD for your careful reading and detailed comments! We'd like to address your concerns in the following points:
****
Q1: **Limited comparison to recent node-level OOD method [1].**
A1: We've added the evaluation of **CIT** [1], the results are in Table B of the rebuttal PDF. We use the default hyperparameter setting for CIT from the code provided by the authors of [1]. **CIA-LRA outperforms CIT on all splits.**
Q2: **Lack of visualization of the overall method architecture to help readers understand intuitively.**
A2: We've added a figure to better illustrate the overall framework of CIA-LRA, please refer to Fig. A in the rebuttal PDF file.
Q3: **a more detailed analysis of the computational complexity and runtime comparisons of CIA and CIA-LRA against baselines would be valuable.**
A3: We show the time cost to reach the best test accuracy on our largest dataset Arxiv (with 50k~60k nodes) in Table C below. On smaller datasets (Cora, WebKB, CBAS), the running time gap is small and negligible (all methods including CIA-LRA only cost less than 60s to reach the best performance). Table C shows that the time costs of CIA-LRA and CIA are comparable to baseline methods.
Table C: Time cost (seconds) to achieve optimal test performance on Arxiv using GAT on a single RTX 3090 GPU.
| | ERM | Coral | Mixup | EERM | SRGNN | GTrans | CIT | CIA | CIA-LRA, hop=6 |
| ---------------------- | ---- | ----- | ----- | ---- | ----- | ------ | ---- | ---- | -------------- |
| Arxiv degree covariate | 74 | 551 | 758 | OOM | 34887 | OOM | OOM | 1409 | 1248 |
| Arxiv degree concept | 30 | 360 | 747 | OOM | 3960 | OOM | OOM | 155 | 1132 |
| Arxiv time covariate | 46 | 246 | 1207 | OOM | 1993 | OOM | OOM | 1428 | 292 |
| Arxiv time concept | 440 | 1481 | 272 | OOM | 11628 | OOM | OOM | 221 | 989 |
Q4: **Insufficient citations of recent methods, such as [2] [3].**
A4: Thank you for pointing out the missing related works.
[2] address the graph-level OOD generalization. Their task settings differ from ours in two aspects: 1) They focus on covariate shift, so they enforce $Y\\perp G_s$ which doesn't hold for concept shifts. However, our proposed CIA and CIA-LRA work for both covariate and concept shifts. 2) They assume the availability of environment labels while our work tackles invariant learning without environment labels.
[3] address both the graph-level and node-level OOD generalization. They proposed to minimize the mutual information (MI) between the input graph and its representations to eliminate spurious features and maximize the MI between the representations and corresponding labels to learn invariant features. However, their method lacks rigorous analysis of how it can achieve the above two goals. Additionally, their setting is also different from ours: [3] assumes the availability of multiple graphs, while our work focuses the learning on a single graph.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Looking forward to your comments
Comment: Dear reviewer LzeD,
I hope this message finds you well. As the discussion deadline is approaching in a few hours, I kindly wanted to remind you of the pending feedback for our submission. We have tried our best to address the concerns and revised our paper accordingly. Your insights are invaluable to us, and we eagerly await your comments to improve our work further.
Thank you for your time and consideration! | Summary: This paper analyzes the failures of standard invariant learning techniques for node classification.
Through theoretical analysis, they argue that methods such as IRM and VREx will learn spurious features on graph data. Using this as motivation, they design a new method, CIA, that introduces additional invariance regularization to better guide the GNN to learn better representations. They verify the effectiveness of their method on multiple benchmark datasets.
Strengths: 1. I think the authors do a good job of showing the failures of methods such as IRM and VERx on graph data. In particular, the theoretical analysis is interesting.
2. The proposed method is straightforward and follows naturally from the theoretical analysis. Furthermore, the theoretical justification in Section 4 is welcome.
3. The performance of the proposed method is good compared to baselines.
Weaknesses: 1. The authors seem to leave out some baselines in their experiments. For example, see [Wu et al., 2024] and [Li et al., 2023b]. From Footnote 1 at the bottom of page 2, I surmise that this is because they are not "general solutions". However, I find this to be a weak reason for not including them as baselines. Why should that be a disqualifying measure? The authors should better motivate which baselines they compare against and which they don't.
2. Similarly, the authors should include the performance when using MatchDG. In the paper, the authors note the similarity of their method to MatchDG. As such, it reasons that it should be included in the experiments as a baseline. If not, the authors should provide sufficient reasons why to not include it.
3. There's a lack of discussion on the efficiency (time complexity) of the method. This is important, as the authors note that the performance of CIA-LRA peaks at around 6-10 hops (see line 674). I'm curious as to how efficienct it is to consider such a large number of hops, especially on larger graphs. Naively, this seems to me that it can be a drawback of applying this method on larger graphs.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. What's IRMv1? You begin by mentioning the failure of IRM but then start calling it IRMv1. What's the difference?
2. On line 135, the authors mention that the GNN used in their analysis resembles SGC. I'm curious how this effects the analysis. How different would the conclusions be if we considered a more standard GNN like GCN? To be clear, I'm not asking for a full analysis here or anything, I'm just curious of the practical limitations of considering SGC in the analysis.
3. Could you share the time complexity of your method?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank Reviewer empj for your careful reading and detailed comments! We'd like to address your concerns in the following points:
****
Q1: **The authors seem to leave out some baselines in their experiments. The authors should better motivate which baselines they compare against and which they don't.**
A1: As you advised, we've added experiments of **CaNet** [Wu et al., 2024]. We didn't compare with [Li et al., 2023b] since their methods require the graphs of different environments to have the same nodes and edges so that their proposed locally stable regularizer can be applied, however, the datasets used in our experiments don't have this property. To include more baselines, we further implement **CIT** ([7], NeurIPS 2023, suggested by reviewer LzeD), a recent node-level Graph OOD method. The results are included in Table B in the global author rebuttal PDF. We use the default hyperparameters for CaNet and CIT. **We observe that CIA-LRA outperforms CIT and CaNet on all splits.**
Q2: **As such, it reasons that MatchDG should be included in the experiments as a baseline.**
A2: We've added the experiments of MatchDG in Table B in the rebuttal PDF. **The results show that: 1) MatchDG outperforms IRM and VREx on 12 out of 16 splits. 2) MatchDG underperforms CIA on average (averaged over 16 splits except on Arxiv, CIA: 57.56, MatchDG: 56.73), and MatchDG got out of memory on Arxiv**. We emphasize that although CIA is similar to MatchDG, our contribution is that we're the first to extend the idea of MatchDG to the node-level OOD task by providing a theoretical characterization of CIA’s working mechanism on graphs (Theorem 3.1) and reveal its superiority in node-level OOD scenarios. More importantly, our main contribution is that we further extend CIA to the scenarios where environment labels are unavailable by proposing CIA-LRA, which shows significant empirical gains (Table B) with theoretical guarantees (Theorem 4.2).
Q3: **There's a lack of discussion on the efficiency (time complexity) of the method.**
A3: To show the running time of CIA-LRA, we show the time cost to reach the best test accuracy on our largest dataset Arxiv (with 50k~60k nodes). The results are in Table C below. The time cost of CIA-LRA is comparable to baseline methods.
Table C: Time cost (seconds) to achieve optimal test performance on Arxiv using GAT on a single RTX 3090 GPU.
| | ERM | Coral | Mixup | EERM | SRGNN | GTrans | CIT | CIA-LRA, hop=6 |
| ---------------------- | ---- | ----- | ----- | ---- | ----- | ------ | ---- | -------------- |
| Arxiv degree covariate | 74 | 551 | 758 | OOM | 34887 | OOM | OOM | 1248 |
| Arxiv degree concept | 30 | 360 | 747 | OOM | 3960 | OOM | OOM | 1132 |
| Arxiv time covariate | 46 | 246 | 1207 | OOM | 1993 | OOM | OOM | 292 |
| Arxiv time concept | 440 | 1481 | 272 | OOM | 11628 | OOM | OOM | 989 |
Q4: **What's IRMv1? You begin by mentioning the failure of IRM but then start calling it IRMv1**
A4: Sorry for the lack of clarity. IRMv1 refers to the practical implementation of the original challenging IRM objective, which is proposed by the authors of IRM. IRMv1 relaxes the bi-leveled optimization of IRM that $w$ should be the optimal classifier in all training environments to a gradient penalty term:
$(\\text{IRM}) \\min_{w, \\phi} \\mathbb{E}_e\\left[\\mathcal{L}\\left(w \\circ \\phi\\left(X^e\\right), Y^e\\right)] \\quad \\text{s.t.} w\\in \\arg\\min\_{\\bar{w}} \\mathcal{L}\\left(\\bar{w} \\circ \\phi\\left(X^e\\right), Y^e\\right)\\right\\|_2^2 ~ \\text{for all} ~ e \\in \\mathcal{E}^{tr}$
$(\\text{IRMv1}) \\min_{w, \\phi} \\mathbb{E}_e\\left[\\mathcal{L}\\left(w \\circ \\phi\\left(X^e\\right), Y^e\\right)+\\beta\\left\\|\\nabla\_{w|w=1.0}\\mathcal{L}\\left(w \\circ \\phi\\left(X^e\\right), Y^e\\right)\\right\\|_2^2\\right]$
Q5: **How different would the conclusions be if we considered a more standard GNN like GCN**
A5: When we consider a GCN rather than an SGC, the main difference is that we will apply a weight matrix at each layer rather than just at the final layer. Still, consider the simple 2-dim data case, for a GCN (without activation functions), we can rewrite the inference of a layer as:
$$
\left(\begin{array}{ll}
H_1^{(l)} & H_2^{(l)}
\end{array}\right)=
\bar{A} \left(\begin{array}{ll}
H_1^{(l-1)} & H_2^{(l-1)}
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{ll}
\theta_1^{(l)}\\
\theta_2^{(l)}
\end{array}\right)
$$
where $H_1^{(l)}$ and $H_2^{(l)}\\in\\mathbb{R}^{N\\times1}$ follows the definition of the original paper in Eq.(3), $\\theta_1^{(l)}$ and $\\theta_2^{(l)}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{1\\times2}$ . For the GCN, the parameters of the first layer of the weight matrix $\\theta_1^{(1)}$ and $\\theta_2^{(1)}$ correspond specifically to invariant (first dimension of $x$) and spurious (second dimension of $x$) features, respectively. From the second layer upwards ($l\\geq 2$), both dimensions of the representation at layer $l$ will be the linear combination of the two dimensions of the representation at layer $l-1$. Hence, the GCN removes spurious features only when the parameter at the first layer $\\theta_2^{(1)}=0$. In conclusion, we only need to focus on the first layer to analyze wether GCN learns spurious node features. This resembles the case of SGC where we only need to focus on the weights at the last layer. So the conclusions of the SGC could be easily extended to the GCN.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: | Additional Baselines + MatchDG
Thanks for the new experiments. These definitely enhance the results in the paper.
| To show the running time of CIA-LRA, we show the time cost
Interesting, thank you.
| IRMv1 refers to the practical implementation of the original challenging IRM objective
I appreciate the clarification and formulation.
| When we consider a GCN rather than an SGC...
Thanks for the discussion. If you have time, I think it would be worth the effort to include these results in the appendix.
I appreciate the detailed response. I've raised my score to a 6.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thank you
Comment: Thank you for raising the score! We’ll add all new results of rebuttal to our paper. Thank you again for your efforts spent and constructive comments! | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We list the references of our rebuttal here (We start numbering from [4] to avoid conflicts with the numbering used by some reviewers):
[4] Spurious Feature Diversification Improves Out-of-distribution Generalization (ICLR 2024)
[5] Towards Understanding Generalization of Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2023)
[6] Subgroup Generalization and Fairness of Graph Neural Networks (NeurIPS 2021)
[7] Learning invariant representations of graph neural networks via cluster generalization (NeurIPS 2023)
[8] Simple spectral graph convolution (ICLR 2021)
[9] Dissecting the diffusion process in linear graph convolutional networks. (NeurIPS 2021)
[10] A Non-Asymptotic Analysis of Oversmoothing in Graph Neural Networks (ICLR 2023)
[11] Demystifying Structural Disparity in Graph Neural Networks: Can One Size Fit All? (NeurIPS 2023)
[12] Graph Out-of-Distribution Generalization via Causal Intervention (WWW 2024)
The contents of the rebuttal PDF:
* add an illustration figure of the proposed CIA-LRA framework
* add **MatchDG** (suggested by reviewer LzeD), **CIT** ([7] suggested by reviewer LzeD), and **CaNet** ([12] suggested by reviewer empj) as new baselines.
Pdf: /pdf/b716e7e7f05ef6cb03a2cda5e70af01d21c14d63.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Exploring the Role of Large Language Models in Prompt Encoding for Diffusion Models | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper addresses the challenges of using large language models (LLMs) as prompt encoders in text-to-image diffusion models. It identifies two primary issues: the misalignment between LLM training objectives and the requirements of discriminative prompt features in diffusion models, and the positional bias introduced by the decoder-only architecture of LLMs. To tackle these issues, the authors propose a novel framework called LLM-infused Diffuser, which leverages human instructions and linguistic token refiners to enhance text representation capabilities. They design an LLM-Infused Diffusion Transformer (LI-DiT) and demonstrate its superior performance over state-of-the-art models in both open-source and commercial systems.
Strengths: * Introduction of LLM-infused Diffuser to facilitate the integration of LLMs into diffusion models to boost generation performance.
* Experiments validate the effectiveness of this proposed framework when compared with both SOTA open- and closed-source baselines.
Weaknesses: * Scalability: While the paper demonstrates the superior performance of LI-DiT, the scalability of the approach to other diffusion models is not fully discussed and validated.
* Lack of training and inference costs: Despite the superior generation quality, the paper does not provide detailed information on the training and inference costs associated with the proposed model.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: * Could the authors provide information on both the training and inference costs associated with the proposed method, such as GPU memory consumption, training time, and inference time?
* The paper mentions that the LLM-infused Diffuser can be easily and flexibly integrated into diffusion models. Does this imply that once trained, the LLM-infused Diffuser can seamlessly integrate into existing diffusion models without further fine-tuning? Besides, do diffusion models require additional fine-tuning to effectively cooperate with the LLM-infused Diffuser? It would be better to see results or insights into integrating the LLM-infused Diffuser into other diffusion models.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: N/A
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear reviewer nE1N,
Thanks for your comments. We will address your concerns below.
## Q1: The training and inference cost.
We train the LI-DiT-10B model on a GPU cluster with 1024 NVIDIA A100-80G. The training framework is implemented with Pytorch. We use the gradient checkpointing, mixed precision training and Fully Sharded Data Parallel (FSDP) to enable the large-scale model optimization, and adopt the flash-attention 2 operator for high-efficient computication. The training cost of LI-DiT-10B is about 47500 GPU days, between DALL-E 2[1] (41667 GPU days) and RAPHAEL[2] (60000 GPU days). Recent works including Stable Diffusion 3[4] and DALL-E 3[5] do not provide the training cost.
We provide the inference cost on both Nvidia A800 GPU and Nvidia H800 GPU in BFLoat16 precision when using both Pytorch and TensorRT to generate images at $1024\times1024$ resolution in 50 steps. The inference time is an average of generating 100 images.
| GPU | Pytorch | TensorRT |
| :-------------- | :---------------: | :---------------: |
| Nvidia A800 80G | 33.5s / per image | 27.0s / per image |
| Nvidia H800 80G | 17.1s / per image | 11.2s / per image |
## Q2: Integrating LLM-infused Diffuser into other diffusion models.
LLM-infused Diffuser provides an effective paradigm to train diffusion basemodel with powerful prompt comprehension capabilities, which can be compatible with different architectures like transformers and U-Nets. The LLM-infused diffuser is jointly trained with the denoising network, serving as a part of the diffusion model. It can not be directly used in other diffusion models. We conduct a supplementary experiment on U-Net based diffusion model with 1B parameter similar to SDXL [6]. The training data and training setting follow that in Figure 2 and Section 4.1. We can observe the significant improvement in unet-based architecture, which further verifies its compatibility.
| Text Encoder | Denoise Network | LLaMA3-8B | LLaMA3-8B-infused diffuser |
| --------------------------- | :-------------: | :-------: | :------------------------: |
| T2I CompBench Average Score | U-Net | 37.24 | 50.86 |
If we hope to introduce LM-infused diffuser into existing models like SDXL, it requires extra adapter module and fine-tuning to align LLMs with SDXL. We will release a LLM-infused diffuser with SDXL in the final version.
- [1] Hierarchical Text-Conditional Image Generation with CLIP Latents
- [2] RAPHAEL: Text-to-Image Generation via Large Mixture of Diffusion Paths
- [3] PixArt-$\alpha$: Fast Training of Diffusion Transformer for Photorealistic Text-to-Image Synthesis
- [4] Scaling Rectified Flow Transformers for High-Resolution Image Synthesis
- [5] Improving Image Generation with Better Captions
- [6] SDXL: Improving Latent Diffusion Models for High-Resolution Image Synthesis
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank the authors for the response, I will keep my score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thanks for your comments
Comment: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback and support. | Summary: This paper presents an investigation into the integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into text-to-image diffusion models. It identifies issues with using LLMs as prompt encoders, namely misalignment between next-token prediction training in LLMs and the need for discriminative prompt features in diffusion models, as well as positional bias introduced by the decoder-only architecture. The authors propose a new framework to overcome these challenges and introduce an LLM-Infused Diffusion Transformer (LI-DiT) to leverage LLMs effectively in image generation tasks. The paper also discusses broader societal impacts and adheres to ethical guidelines.
Strengths: - The proposed method addresses a significant gap in utilizing LLMs for prompt encoding in diffusion models, offering a new solution to enhance text-to-image generation.
- The paper includes a discussion on potential societal impacts, considering both positive and negative outcomes,
Weaknesses: - The visual results of I2T may exhibit cherry-picking, including Figure 1 and Figure 7. The authors need to provide further explanations. Although they claim there are more prompt-generated results in the appendix, this clearly does not mitigate the risk of cherry-picking.
- Integrating LLMs into diffusion models is not uncommon, and the authors lack discussion and analysis of such works, e.g., [1][2][3]. More in-depth exploration by the authors is needed.
- Honestly, in the visual results of Figure 7, I did not notice any particular advantages of the proposed method.
- Besides the visual effects, the proposed method does not seem to offer significant improvements over existing methods and lacks theoretical support. There is a need for further improvement in novelty.
[1] LLM4GEN: Leveraging Semantic Representation of LLMs for Text-to-Image Generation
[2] UNIMO-G: Unified Image Generation through Multimodal Conditional Diffusion
[3] SUR-adapter: Enhancing Text-to-Image Pre-trained Diffusion Models with Large Language Models
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: see weakness
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear reviewer NTY6,
Thanks for your comments. We will address your concerns below.
## Q1: The contribution and novelty of our work.
Please refer to the Q1 of our global response.
## Q2: Comparing with other methods adopting LLMs.
Please refer to the Q2 of our global response.
## Q3: The risk of cherry-pick in visualization.
As stated in the paper, the images in Figure 1 and Figure 7 are randomly sampled. Apart from visualization showcases, the human preference evaluation in Figure 6 also demonstrates the powerful image generation quality and prompt following capability of LI-DiT-10B. Considering the requirements of double-blind review, we will provide the link to our online platform in the final version.
## Q4: The visualization comparision in Figure 7.
- The image from LI-DiT-10B follows the *tea leaf* in the prompt but it is the lotus leaf for other models. The image from LI-DiT-10B possesses remarkable aesthetic qualities in terms of light and shadow details, whereas the colors in other images appear more muted.
- The image from LI-DiT-10B better captures the *terrifying atmosphere* described in the prompt.
- These models can all follow prompts to generate high-quality images.
- The image from LI-DiT-10B maintains the original form of the crab, whereas crabs in the other images have human body parts. Meanwhile, The image from LI-DiT-10B follows the *red tie* in the prompt. | Summary: In the context of text-to-image (T2I) generation, this work addresses the problem of leveraging representations from state-of-the-art decoder-based LLMs for conditioning image generation. The authors highlight challenges of leveraging existing LLMs, namely - misalignment in representations due to differing training objectives (autoregressive v/s non-autoregressive) and the effects of positional bias. The authors then propose ways to mitigate this misalignment via prompt changes (leveraging instruction tuning of LLMs), embedding ensembling techniques (for positional bias), and a new DiT based on this ensembled conditioning mechanism. The proposed observations and method show consistent qualitative and quantitative improvements on benchmarks across the board.
Strengths: This paper addresses an important and relevant problem of aligning a) very capable LLM models with b) capable image generation models and understanding why and if there could be a mis-alignment between these two objectives. I like the motivation of leveraging instruction tuned language models and it is understandable why one might want to switch to, or at least explore these models for conditioning text to image generation. Further, the results are impressive and I appreciate the ablation studies conducted for different components proposed in the work, and the custom benchmark to probe the alignment. The paper is presented in a clear and concise manner with appropriate visuals where necessary.
Weaknesses: While the paper shows significant empirical improvements, I have some concerns and questions where it would be great to have a discussion with the authors:
1. Image generation with diffusion models is non autoregressive, while decoder-LLM based representations are trained with auto-regressive models. There is much needed discussion surrounding the choice of models (Encoder decoder, encoder only, decoder only) which does not seem to be addressed in this work. For example, it seems that encoder-only representations are a natural choice for this task (such as InstructOR[1] embeddings, which are tuned for multi task learning in an encoder-only setup, or others from the MTEB [2] benchmark). How do they, or rather would they perform? What is the intuition?
2. The motivation behind adding ensembling, connections with positional bias, and the linguistic token refiner from different LLMs seems lacking. What is intuition here? Why does one need “..The image prompt with instructions to be encoded by multiple frozen LLMs separately”?
3. Re. the positional bias: Given that the LLMs tested in the paper are still small (~2-7B), it may be possible that their “long context” understanding may be limited as an artifact of their instruction tuning. Thus, is the positional bias inherent to these decoder based LLMs or a capability drawback of the smaller LLM on long context itself? That is, can this gap be closed if one employs an LLM with impressive and uniform long context capabilities?
[1] One Embedder, Any Task: Instruction-Finetuned Text Embeddings Su, Hongjin, et al.
[2] Muennighoff, Niklas, et al. "MTEB: Massive text embedding benchmark."
Suggestions:
1. I would encourage the authors to further expand on related work, especially focussing on the alignment between language model types and the task of (non-autoregressive) image generation.
2. (Presentation) The coherence between claims can be improved (it seems that many observations -> design changes) are grouped together.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: (Besides the ones in the above section) In the experiments, what is the average prompt context length (min, max, avg)?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Discussed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear reviewer yHpu,
Thanks for your comments. We will address your concerns below.
## Q1: Analyses on the choice of text encoders.
Analyzing the choice of text encoders from encoder-only model, decoder-only model, and encoder-decoder model is one of the core contributions of our paper. In the paragraph starting from Line 41, we analyze the difference in model architecture, optimization target, and performance in the image generation task between T5-like encoder-decoder models and GPT-like decoder-only models. In Section 2.1, we also exploring the ability of different models to retain prompt information. Based on these analyses, we identified the drawbacks of decoder-only LLMs compared to the T5 encoder and designed a series of methods to address these issues.
As expressed in the paragraph starting from Line 41, our work acknowledges the advantages of encoder-only models in terms of model architecture and optimization targets. However, the current paradigm for LLMs is the decoder-only architecture. For example, the top models in the MTEB benchmark like bge-en-icl[1] and stella_en_1.5B_v5 are based on decoder-only LLMs. Encoder-only models like the InstructOR and Sentence T5-XXL[2] are limited by the capabilities of the foundation T5 model, making it difficult to achieve leading performance. We conduct experiments following in Figure 2, simply replacing the text encoder with InstructOR-XL, a fine-tuned T5-XL encoder. The average performance on the T2I-CompBench is 44.06%, similar to the performance of the T5-XL encoder with 43.47%.
The design of the LLM-infused diffuser incorporates the advantages of the encoder-only architecture and aims to leverage advancements in decoder-only LLMs to further enhance the text understanding capabilities of diffusion models.
## Q2: Ensembling multiple LLMs.
We observe that different LLMs exhibit preferences for prompt encoding, and integrating multiple LLMs can effectively enhance the model's ability to understand prompts as shown in Table 6. Ensembling multiple encoders has been widely adopted in advanced works including SDXL[3], SD3[4], and recent popular FLUX.1. This indicates that effectively leveraging the capabilities of multiple text encoders is a crucial factor in enhancing the prompt understanding ability of diffusion models.
## Q3: Using LLMs with long context capabilities.
The prompt lengths used in positional bias evaluation and user input are significantly shorter than the context length of LLMs. For example, the LLaMA3-8B supports the context size of 8192 tokens. However, the prompt lengths in existing test sets and user scenarios are significantly shorter. In the following table, we use the LLaMA3-8B tokenizer to analyze the prompts of different datasets.
| Data | Min | Max | Avg |
| ----------------------------------------- | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| T2I-CompBench | 2 | 35 | 10 |
| DPG-Bench | 40 | 175 | 82 |
| GenEval | 5 | 13 | 8 |
| Positional Bias Evaluation Benchmark | 16 | 25 | 19 |
| Human Evaluation Benchmark | 5 | 153 | 88 |
| Sampled 1000 user prompts from Midjourney | 1 | 721 | 85 |
- [1] C-Pack: Packaged Resources To Advance General Chinese Embedding
- [2] Sentence-T5: Scalable Sentence Encoders from Pre-trained Text-to-Text Models
- [3] SDXL: Improving Latent Diffusion Models for High-Resolution Image Synthesis
- [4] Scaling Rectified Flow Transformers for High-Resolution Image Synthesis
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the rebuttal. After reading the rebuttal and other reviews, I have raised my score. Looking forward to seeing this discussion in the final version.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thanks for your comments
Comment: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the kind support of our work. We will incorporate the details into our final version. | Summary: This work identifies two main reasons for degraded prompt-following ability in image generation with decoder-only transformers: the misalignment between pretraining objective and diffusion's need of discriminative prompt feature, as well as the intrinsic positional bias for decoder-only transformer. The solution is to enhance text representation capability and remove positional bias. This work also proposes a diffusion architecture conditioned on multiple LLMs. The proposed LLM-Infused Diffusion Transformer (LI-DiT) surpasses previous state-of-the-art open-source models in prompt understanding.
Strengths: * Analysis of the reasons that LLMs not working out-of-the-box is interesting.
* The qualitative and quantitative results demonstrate advantages over prior baselines.
* The ablation studies are solid. The contribution of each contribution is demonstrated.
* The paper is easy to read and understand.
Weaknesses: The main weakness of this work is its lacked novelty.
* The Input Prompt part (Sec 3.1) is prompt engineering.
* The Linguistic Token Refiner (Sec 3.1) can be considered as adding more transformer blocks that are trainable and have full-attention, with the LLM weights frozen.
* The cross-attention blocks in Collaborative Refiner (Sec 3.1) can be considered as self-attention of concatenated features without attending to each other within the same LLM tokens.
* The technical contributions in Sec 3.1 do not exhibit significant novelty.
Furthermore, the comparisons with other works are not clear.
* What the sizes of the circles indicates in Fig. 2 is not clear.
* The model sizes of the baseline models under comparison are not listed in Tab. 1.
Finally, this work ignores an existing line of work that combines LLMs with diffusion models [1,2,3]. These works use LLM to generate intermediate representation generation and then generate images conditioned on the intermediate representation.
[1] LayoutGPT: Compositional Visual Planning and Generation with Large Language Models. Feng, et al. NeurIPS 2023.
[2] LLM-grounded Diffusion: Enhancing Prompt Understanding of Text-to-Image Diffusion Models with Large Language Models. Lian, et al. TMLR 2024.
[3] Grounded Text-to-Image Synthesis with Attention Refocusing. Phung, et al. CVPR 2024.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: The reviewer's questions are primarily from the weaknesses section, specifically:
1. What are the sizes of the circles indicate in Fig. 2?
2. What are the model sizes and the training dataset size of the models in Tab. 1?
3. What is the performance of a model if the collaborative refiner is replaced by the simple linguistic token refiner, with input concatenated in the sequence length dimension?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The reviewer did not find unaddressed potential negative societal impact. The unaddressed limitations are described in the weakness section.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear reviewer Nr61,
Thanks for your comments. We will address your concerns below.
## Q1: The contribution and novelty of our work.
Please refer to the Q1 of our global response.
## Q2: Comparing with other methods adopting LLMs.
Please refer to the Q2 of our global response.
## Q3: The sizes of the circles in Figure 2.
The size of each circle indicates the parameter size of the text encoder model. T5-XL with the fewest parameters is marked with the smallest circle. LLaMA3-8B is marked with a large circle.
## Q4: Model sizes and training dataset sizes in Table 1.
We present the parameters and training dataset sizes of models in Table 1. Some of the models do not provide parameters or training data size in their papers. Considering current works usually use unavailable internal datasets, it is hard to make fair comparisons. For the effectiveness of our method, please refer to the experiments in the ablation study section.
| Model | SD v1.5 | SD v2 | SD XL | SD3-1B | DALL-E 2 | PixArt-$\alpha$ | Li-DiT-1B | DALL-E 3 | SD3-8B | Li-DiT-10B |
| ---------------- | :------: | :---: | :---: | :----: | :------: | :-------------: | :-------: | :------: | :----: | :--------: |
| Parameters | 0.9B | 0.8B | 2.6B | 1B | 6.5B | 0.6B | 1B | - | 8B | 10B |
| Image-text Pairs | 2000M[1] | - | - | - | 650M[1] | 25M[1] | 30M | - | - | 1000M |
- [1] PixArt-$\alpha$: Fast Training of Diffusion Transformer for Photorealistic Text-to-Image Synthesis
## Q5: Replace the collaborative refiner with a linguistic token refiner.
We conduct additional experiments to verify using a simple linguistic token refiner for fusing concatenated text embeddings. We can observe that adopting a linguistic token refiner will only bring limited improvement. Meanwhile, when fusing multiple LLMs, the self-attention mechanism in linguistic token refiner requires more computational resources and memory compared to the cross-attention mechanism collaborative refiner.
| Setting | Concat | collaborative refiner | linguistic token refiner |
| ------- | :----: | :-------------------: | :----------------------: |
| T2I-avg | 58.32 | **60.31** | 58.86 |
| DPG-avg | 79.04 | **80.25** | 79.32 |
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: After reading the rebuttal and other reviews, I still recommend borderline accept. The authors are encouraged to incorporate the discussions about the contributions and the discussion about related works in the general rebuttal section in their work.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thanks for your comments
Comment: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the kind support of our work. We will incorporate the discussions in the final version. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely appreciate the valuable time and effort all reviewers have dedicated to review our work. We are pleased to learn that the reviewers generally acknowledge and commend our contributions, including:
- The importance of LLM-infused diffuser in integrating decoder-only LLMs into the diffusion framework. (yHpu, NTY6, nE1N)
- The insightful analysis of the poor performance when adopting decoder-only LLMs as text encoders. (Nr61, yHpu)
- State-of-the-art performance. (Nr61, yHpu, nE1N)
- Solid ablation studies. (Nr61, yHpu).
We express our gratitude for the insightful and constructive suggestions provided by all the reviewers. We also show more high-quality generated images in the attached file. We will provide the link to our online platform in the final version. Here, we address the common concerns raised by the reviewers.
## Q1: The contribution and novelty of our work. (Nr61, NTY6)
The core contribution and novelty of our paper is addressing the issue of poor performance when using powerful decoder-only LLMs as diffusion text encoders. We put more emphasis on investigating the inherent properties of T5-like encoder-decoder models and GPT-like decoder-only models serving as text encoders (paragraph starts with line41), and the reasons behind the poor performance of decoder-only LLMs (Section 2). The simple and effective LLM-infused Diffuser is designed based on novel and contributional observations. Similarly, the key discovery of Imagen[1] is that T5 series models are surprisingly effective, which leads subsequent advanced works to adopt the T5 series models. Our work further advances the application of LLMs within the diffusion framework, enabling the continual development of LLMs to better enhance the text understanding capabilities.
## Q2: Comparing with other methods adopting LLMs. (Nr61, NTY6)
We argue that our approach has significant differences compared to the existing methods that utilize LLMs for prompt encoding.
Current works that utilize LLMs can be categorized into: 1) LLMs first generate the image layout based on the prompt, then the diffusion model completes the image based on this layout[2,3,4] mentioned by reviewer Nr61. 2) Training an extra adapter to align LLM with frozen diffusion models like SD1.5[5] and SDXL[6] for better prompt comprehension capabilities[7,8] mentioned by reviewer NTY6. 3) Leveraging LLMs as text encoders without specific design[9]. UNIMO-G[10] mentioned by reviewer NTY6 adopts MLLMs to take extra images as conditional information, which is not the same task as text-to-image generation.
The contribution of the LLM-infused diffuser does not conflict with the layout approach. The layout methods are usually adopted as the controllable plugin in specific areas like visual composition and number-sensitive tasks. They need to be used in conjunction with a powerful diffusion model. However, the generation quality of each object in the layout still relies on the prompt understanding capability of the diffusion model. When generating a single object with a complex description, the layout approach essentially falls back to directly using the diffusion model for generation. Meanwhile, the layout can only provide the spatial relationship of objects but can not guide the generation of complex object relationships such as *a boy sitting on the shoulder of a man*, while the LLM-infused diffuser can easily deal with it.
The adapter-based methods have not addressed the issues we observed. LLM4GEN[7], which was submitted to arxiv on 30 Jun 2024 after the submission of NeurIPS, also observed that the performance when adopting T5-XL can also easily outperform using larger 13B decoder-only LLMs. However, they did not provide any further analysis and directly used T5-XL as the final text encoder. The following table is the Table 4 in LLM4GEN.
| LLMs | Color | Shape | Texture |
| ---------- | :-------: | :-------: | :-------: |
| SD 1.5 | 37.65 | 35.76 | 41.56 |
| LLaMA2-7B | 43.21 | 40.12 | 48.91 |
| LLaMA2-13B | 43.98 | 41.03 | 49.21 |
| T5-XL-1.2B | **45.34** | **43.28** | **51.52** |
Meanwhile, LI-DiT-1B also shows outstanding performance compared with LLM4GEN with fewer parameters.
| Model | Parameter | Color | Shape | Texture | Spatial |
| ------------ | :-------: | :-------: | :-------: | :-------: | :-------: |
| LLM4GEN SDXL | 2.6B | 73.29 | 57.34 | 67.86 | 22.59 |
| LI-DiT-1B | 1B | **74.08** | **59.34** | **69.59** | **27.57** |
Lumina-T2X directly introduces decoder-only LLMs into diffusion transformers, which is similar to our baseline setting.
Compared with the related works above, our method specifically identifies the issues and provides effective solutions. We will include these analyses in the final version.
- [1] Photorealistic Text-to-Image Diffusion Models with Deep Language Understanding
- [2] LayoutGPT: Compositional Visual Planning and Generation with Large Language Models.
- [3] LLM-grounded Diffusion: Enhancing Prompt Understanding of Text-to-Image Diffusion Models with Large Language Models
- [4] Grounded Text-to-Image Synthesis with Attention Refocusing.
- [5] High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models.
- [6] SDXL: Improving Latent Diffusion Models for High-Resolution Image Synthesis
- [7] LLM4GEN: Leveraging Semantic Representation of LLMs for Text-to-Image Generation
- [8] SUR-adapter: Enhancing Text-to-Image Pre-trained Diffusion Models with Large Language Models
- [9] Lumina-T2X: Transforming Text into Any Modality, Resolution, and Duration via Flow-based Large Diffusion Transformers
- [10] UNIMO-G: Unified Image Generation through Multimodal Conditional Diffusion
Pdf: /pdf/9ed976a8b9c984488d43b447140feb70d1986e2a.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Ensemble Learning for Heterogeneous Large Language Models with Deep Parallel Collaboration | Accept (spotlight) | Summary: The authors propose to use relative representations to unify the tokenization across different models for an effective ensemble. They first transform the prediction of each model to a relative space. Then, after averaging the relative predictions, they perform a gradient-based optimization to find the averaged prediction in the original space.
Strengths: 1. The authors propose an interesting idea for dealing with different tokenization.
2. The authors provide detailed analysis such as learning rate and the number of steps for the search step.
Weaknesses: 1. The proposed method requires gradient updates to project back to the original space at every generation step. This can cause extra overhead.
2. The performance largely depend on the number of common anchor words between different LLMs (Figure 4). As a result, the method may be not effective when the domain of pretrained LLMs are very different.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Have you tried other normalization methods other than softmax?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Discussed in Appendix.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for your insightful comments, which greatly help us improve our paper. We are glad to have this discussion to address your concerns.
**Concern-1: The proposed method requires gradient updates to project back to the original space at every generation step. This can cause extra overhead.**
Thanks for your insightful comment. We understand your concern considering the overhead of the reverse transformation process from the relative space to the absolute one. To address this concern, we quantitatively analyzed the overhead of this process in Appendix C.3.
**Overall, DeePEn actually incurs $\leq $2% inference latency in practice. This conclusion also applies to the overhead.**
**Concern-2: As a result, the method may not be effective when the domain of pretrained LLMs are very different.**
Thanks for your insightful comment. We understand your concern regarding the number of common words between LLMs with quite different vocabularies. To address this concern, we analyzed the number of common words across different LLMs in Appendix. A (Fig. 6). Through case studies, we found that a large number of common words (>20k) exist across the different vocabularies since **LLMs (including LLMs tailored for specific domains) usually contain a lot of common English basic tokens.** This fact provides a solid guarantee for our DeePEn to work effectively.
**Question-1: other normalization methods other than softmax?**
Thanks for your constructive suggestion. We follow your advice to experiment with an alternative normalization method of Softmax. Concretely, we replace softmax with Min-Max Scaling:
$ x{\prime} = \frac{x - x_{min}}{x_{max} - x_{min}} $
The result shows that the normalization with softmax is better than the one with Min-Max Scaling:
| Methods | MMLU-Dev | TriviaQA-Dev |
| ----------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------ |
| Baseline | 61.19 | 72.74 |
| DeePEn w/o. Normalization | 60.73 | 72.95 |
| DeePEn w. Normalization (Softmax) | **63.61** | **74.79** |
| DeePEn w. Normalization (Min-Max Scaling) | 60.67 | 73.55 |
We argue that Softmax pays more attention to the nearest neighbor words when modeling the structural relation (relative representation) than Min-Max Scaling, which could be more beneficial.
We will add this analysis to our paper.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the detailed response! I will maintain my positive stance towards the paper. | Summary: The paper introduces DEEPEN, a novel training-free ensemble framework designed to leverage the complementary strengths of various large language models (LLMs). The key innovation of DEEPEN lies in its ability to fuse informative probability distributions from different LLMs at each decoding step, addressing the challenge of vocabulary discrepancies between heterogeneous LLMs.
DEEPEN operates by transforming the probability distributions from each model's vocabulary space into a shared "relative representation" space based on the relative representation theory, which uses embedding similarities to a set of anchor tokens. The aggregated relative representations are then mapped back to the vocabulary space of one LLM (the main model) to determine the generated token.
Strengths: 1) The paper introduces DEEPEN, a novel ensemble learning framework that enables collaboration among heterogeneous large language models without the need for additional training. A significant contribution is the solution to the vocabulary mismatch problem between different LLMs, allowing for more effective fusion of their outputs.
2) The paper includes extensive experiments across six benchmarks, demonstrating DEEPEN's consistent improvements in performance and its complementary strengths with other ensemble methods.
3) DEEPEN demonstrates better stability compared to baseline methods, which struggle with generalization to unseen data distributions.
4) The framework is open to further extensions and improvements, such as the development of more sophisticated methods for determining collaboration weights.
Weaknesses: 1) The paper does not provide a detailed analysis of how well DEEPEN generalizes to unseen data or across different types of tasks beyond the evaluated benchmarks.
2) The method's performance is sensitive to the choice of hyperparameters, such as the relative ensemble learning rate. Finding optimal hyperparameters may require additional tuning and may not be straightforward.
3) The performance of DEEPEN relies heavily on the selection of anchor words. The paper does not thoroughly explore the impact of different anchor word selection strategies on the ensemble performance.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See weaknesses.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: See weaknesses.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your insightful comments, which have greatly helped us improve our paper. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss and address your concerns.
**Question-1: How well does DeePEn generalize to unseen data or across different types of tasks beyond the evaluated benchmarks?**
We understand your concern regarding the generalizability of DeePEn, which relies on a development set for each task to find the optimal relative ensemble learning rate.
Actually, **we analyzed the generalizability of DeePEn through *cross-distribution validation* and found that DeePEn generalizes well, which is shown in Tab.9 of the paper.**
Concretely, we tested the performance of DeePEn on task $A$ with the hyperparameter found with the development set of task $B$. We totally consider 4 tasks: 2 generative knowledge QA tasks (NQ and TriviaQA), 2 multi-choice human examination tasks (MMLU and ARC-C).
The results show that the performance improvement using a different-task development set ($A \neq B$) is **88%** of the improvement when using a same-task development set ($A = B$). Moreover, using a similar-task development set, the performance improvement is **95%** of that achieved using a same-task development set.
Thanks for your important feedback. We will demonstrate this important analysis more clearly by modifying Tab.9 and placing it in the main document instead of the appendix.
**Question-2: Finding optimal hyperparameters may require additional tuning.**
We acknowledge that our current method requires tuning to find the optimal relative ensemble learning rate for effective inverse mapping from the relative space to the absolute space. As the first attempt to address this challenge, we have achieved significant success. In the future, we plan to explore methods to achieve this inverse mapping without the need for extensive tuning.
**Question-3: What impact do different anchor word selection strategies have on the ensemble performance?**
Thanks for your constructive suggestion. We had ever devised an anchor selection algorithm **AS-MRRC** (Anchor Selection with Maximum Relative Representation Consistency). AS-MRRC aims to **infer the optimal anchor words** via maximizing the relative representation similarity of common words across different models:
$A^* = \mathop{argmax}\limits_{A \in C} \ \mathop{\mathbb{E}}\limits_{i\in C} \ cos(\hat{R}_1(i|A), \hat{R}_2(i|A)),$
where $C$ is the common word set between different LLMs, $\hat{R}_1(i|A)$ and $\hat{R}_2(i|A)$ are the relative representations of word $i$ in different models using $A$ as anchor words, and $cos(,)$ refers to the cosine similarity function.
We compared AS-MRRC with the random selection of anchor words and the method of using all common words as anchors:
| Method | Number of Anchors | Performance (ARC-C-Dev) |
| ------------------------ | :---------------: | :---------------------: |
| Random Selection | 16k | 76.88 |
| Full Set of Common Words | 24k | **77.64** |
| AS-MRRC | 13k | 77.43 |
As the result shows, our AS-MRRC outperforms random selection using fewer anchors while underperforming the method of using the full set of common words. **Therefore, we decided not to report this thankless method of AS-MRRC**.
In the future version, we will follow your advice and include this trial to help readers better understand the impact of different anchor word selection strategies. We are also going to explore anchor word selection strategies more thoroughly. | Summary: The paper introduces a method that maps output distributions of different LLMs to and from a universal relative space to aggregate them, based on which the next token is determined.
Strengths: - The paper is structured well and written clearly.
- It proposes a novel method of ensembling the heterogeneous output distributions of LLMs.
- The method is mathematically well-motivated.
- It shows good empirical performance and ablation studies give valuable insights.
Weaknesses: - **Presentation**: Although the paper is well-structured, some passages could be condensed. For instance, the paragraphs "Anchor Selection" and "Normalization of relative representation matrix" simply repeat what has already been stated in the general paragraph above. Also, sections 3.3 and 3.5 both consider the aggregation of relative representations, currently separated by section 3.4 which considers the inverse transformation. Combining those conceptually the same topics would improve the reading flow.
- **Evaluation**: Although the paper provides numerous ablation studies, the method is only compared against the baselines in the main experiments (Tab. 1). Here, the method outperforms the baseline in (only) 7/12 settings. Also comparing to the baselines in the other experiments (see questions to Fig. 3. and Tab. 2-3 below) would provide further insights into the performance of the method.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - Figure 1: what do the three colors (blue, yellow, purple) indicate?
- Table 1: Why did the authors not report DEEPEN-Adapt with Top-2 Ensembles? (DEEPEN-Adapt outperforms DEEPEN-Avg on all benchmark tasks with Top-4 Ensembles, so why is this not the default setting?)
- Figure 3: How do the baseline methods perform with an increasing number of ensemble members considered?
- Table 2 & 3: How do the baseline methods perform with the dense/sparse models and the generalist/specialist models?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors adequately addressed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank you for your constructive feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to address your comments.
**Question-1: Comparison between DeePEn with other ensemble methods in experiments beyond the main experiment.**
Thanks for your insightful suggestion! We have followed your advice to supplement the results of the baseline ensemble methods (MinED, LLM-Blender, and Voting/MBR) in Fig.3 and Tab.2&3:
**Figure-3** (Ensemble learning on various number of models):
| Number of Models | Model Set | Individual | LLM-Blender | MinED | Voting/MBR | DeePEn-Adapt (Ours) |
| :--------------: | ------------- | :----------: | :-----------: | :-----: | :----------: | :-------------: |
|1| LLaMA2-13B |28.67|28.67|28.67|28.67|28.67|
|2| +Mistral-7B |27.62|28.61| 28.45 |28.67| **30.65**|
|3| +InternLM-20B |26.09|26.62|27.20| 30.06| **31.36**|
|4| +Tigerbot-13B |22.71| 24.24| 29.50 | 30.28| **31.77**|
|5| +Nanbeige-16B | 22.77| 22.63| 30.22 | 30.94| **31.02**|
|6| +Skywork-13B | 19.97| 22.71| 30.44 | 30.47| **31.16**|
|7| +Yi-6B| 18.98| 21.25| 29.97 | 30.33| **30.50**|
Please note that due to time limitations, we have only supplemented the results of baselines on NQ. The results on the other benchmarks (MMLU and PIQA) will be included in the next version.
**Table-2** (Ensemble learning between the dense and sparse models):
| Model | GSM8K | PIQA |
| ----------------------- | ----------------- | ----------------- |
| LLaMA2-70B (*Dense*) | 63.84 | 71.27 |
| Mixtral-8×7B (*Sparse*) | 65.73 | 71.88 |
| LLM-Blender | 64.52 (-1.21) | 74.54 (+2.66) |
| MinED | 67.10 (+1.37) | **75.65 (+3.77)** |
| DeePEn (Ours) | **67.33 (+1.60)** | 75.10 (+3.22) |
**Table-3** (Ensemble learning between the generalist/specialist models):
| Model | En→De | De→En | En→Ro | Ro→En |
| ------------------------- | ----------------- | ----------------- | ----------------- | ----------------- |
| LLaMA2-13B (*Generalist*) | 30.60 | 42.27 | 30.83 | 39.99 |
| NLLB-600M (*Specialist*) | 32.30 | 41.49 | 31.91 | 42.39 |
| LLM-Blender | 33.26 (+0.96) | 43.28 (+1.01) | **33.17 (+1.26)** | 41.99 (-0.40) |
| MinED | 27.12 (-5.18) | 36.83 (-5.44) | 29.91 (-2.00) | 34.39 (-8.00) |
| DeePEn (Ours) | **33.34 (+1.04)** | **43.70 (+1.43)** | 32.95 (+1.04) | **42.84 (+0.45)** |
As the results show, unlike DeePEn, the **baseline ensemble methods perform quite unstably across various settings**. Specifically, MinED results in dramatic performance drops when ensembling the generalist LLaMA2-13B and the specialist NLLB-600B due to their large vocabulary divergence. LLM-Blender also leads to significant performance drops on NQ, GSM8K, and Ro→En translation due to its limited generalizability.
We will add these results in our paper.
**Question-2: Results of DeePEn-Adapt in Top-2 Ensembles?**
Thanks for your important feedback! We have followed your advice to supplement the results of DeePEn-Adapt in the Top-2 ensembles of Tab.1:
|| MMLU| ARC-C| GSM8K| PIQA| TriviaQA| NQ|
| ------------ | ----------------- | ----------------- | ----------------- | ----------------- | ----------------- | ----------------- |
| LLM-Blender | 63.85 (+0.60) | 75.73 (-0.08) | 54.89 (+0.99) | 78.31 (+2.16) | 74.10 (-0.22) | 28.61 (-0.06) |
| MinED | **65.04 (+1.79)** | 77.35 (+1.54) | 18.50 (-35.40) | 78.98 (+2.83) | 72.30 (-2.02) | 28.45 (-0.22) |
| DeePEn-Avg | 64.68 (+1.43) | **77.52 (+1.71)** | 55.42 (+1.52) | 78.87 (+2.72) | 75.90 (+1.58) | 30.17 (+1.50) |
| DeePEn-Adapt | 64.41 (+1.16) | **77.52 (+1.71)** | **55.65 (+1.75)** | **79.37 (+3.22)** | **76.08 (+1.76)** | **30.65 (+1.98)** |
We will add these results to our manuscript.
**Question-3: Why was the DeePEn-Adapt not the default setting in the top-2 ensembles?**
Our original intention of devising DeePEn-Adapt was to alleviate the interference of lower-ranked models to the higher-ranked models. Therefore, we only tested DeePEn-Adapt in the top-4 model ensemble, where the 4th model could cause serious interference.
Thanks for your valuable comment. In the future, we will set the DeePEn-Adapt as the default setting of DeePEn.
**Question-4: What do the three colors (blue, yellow, purple) indicate in Fig.1?**
Sorry for the unclarity. **Different colors indicate different clusters of samples**.
To clearly illustrate that relative representations remain consistent across different models, we performed K-means to cluster the sampled representations and set different colors for different clusters.
**Suggestion-1: Some passages could be condensed.**
Thanks for your valuable feedback. **We will condense our manuscript in the future version.**
In the original version of the paper, the general paragraph of section 3.2 primarily describes the **implementation** of constructing relative transformation, including the "Anchor Selection" and "Normalization of relative representation matrix".
In contrast, the specific paragraphs of "Anchor Selection" and "Normalization of relative representation matrix" explain the **motivations** behind our implementations.
**Suggestion-2: Sections 3.3 and 3.5 both consider the aggregation of relative representations, currently separated by section 3.4.**
Thanks for your valuable feedback. We will merge section 3.5 into 3.3.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the rebuttal. Your responses have adequately addressed my questions and concerns. | null | null | null | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Optimal Multiclass U-Calibration Error and Beyond | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper studies online forecasting algorithms for achieving multiclass U-calibration. In the standard setting of online forecasting, a forecaster must produce a prediction p_t each day for an event with K possible outcomes (p_t is a distribution over K outcomes). The event then occurs (with outcome x_t), and the forecaster must suffer some loss L(p_t, x_t). The forecaster wants to minimize their total loss over all T rounds (or alternatively, their regret compared to the best fixed prediction in hindsight).
Traditionally, L is chosen to be a specific proper scoring rule (e.g., the quadratic loss). But you may wish to produce predictions that are good for any proper scoring rule L (and hence that induce low regret for any downstream agent). The U-calibration error (introduced by Kleinberg et al. in an earlier paper) is the maximum regret of the forecaster with respect to some bounded proper scoring rule. Kleinberg et al. constructed a randomized online forecaster that achieves O(K * sqrt(T)) U-calibration error for the K outcome case and posed an open question of whether this is tight.
This paper does the following:
1. They provide an algorithm that achieves O(sqrt(KT)) U-calibration error, and proves that this is tight (in fact, that there is a single proper scoring rule where any forecaster must incur Omega(sqrt(KT)) regret).
2. They then show that there are specific subclasses of loss functions where it is possible to get much stronger U-calibration bounds (for the modified definition of U-calibration only looking at these losses). E.g, for Lipschitz-bounded proper scoring rules and decomposable proper scoring rules, it is possible to get O(log T) U-calibration bounds. Also worth noting is that these bounds hold for a slightly stronger form of U-calibration (the previous bounds mentioned are all for “pseudo U-calibration”, whereas these are for actual U-calibration, the difference being swapping the order of taking the max over loss functions and taking the expectation over the algorithm’s randomness).
Kleinberg et al.’s randomized forecaster is based on a modification of follow-the-perturbed-leader to the forecasting setting. The optimal O(sqrt(KT)) algorithm presented in this paper also builds off this FTPL approach, but uses a different perturbation distribution (geometric instead of uniform) to achieve sqrt(K). The stronger bounds follow from showing that the deterministic Follow-The-Leader algorithm works for these subclasses of losses.
Strengths: Evaluation:
Multiclass prediction is an important problem where you often want guarantees for downstream agents. The standard solution to this -- calibration -- is notoriously hard to achieve in multiclass settings (e.g., in the online setting calibration bounds for d-dimensional outcomes often scale as O(T^{1 - 1/(d+2)}), so it is important to understand alternate guarantees (such as U-calibration) which are tractable but guarantee the same outcome. This paper almost entirely resolves a very natural open problem about U-calibration understanding the optimal U-calibration rates for multiclass calibration (the only thing left open really being a somewhat technical distinction of what is possible for “pseudo-U-calibration” vs “U-calibration”). As such, I found this paper very interesting and would expect it to be of interest to many NeurIPS attendees interested in online learning and/or calibration.
One possible criticism of this paper is that it doesn’t do too much that it is entirely novel from a technical perspective -- e.g., the main result follows from an observation that an FTPL variant analyzed by Daskalakis and Syrgkanis in 2016 can be immediately applied to the FTPL forecaster introduced by Kleinberg et al. to get the O(sqrt(KT)) calibration result. But personally I think that this is a very nice observation (and it is actually nice that the result is so simple). Similarly, it is not too surprising that FTL is good for some subclass of losses (as FTL is known to get logarithmic regret for e.g. strongly convex OCO), but I also think this is a very nice observation to point out.
Weaknesses: See previous section.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: No specific questions, feel free to reply to anything in the review.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Authors have adequately addressed limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank you for your comments and evaluation of the manuscript. About your comment on the technical perspective, we would like to highlight a result that seems to be overlooked by the reviewer (since it is not mentioned in the summary of the review): our Theorem 4, an $\Omega(\log T)$ lower bound for any algorithm when learning with the squared loss, is the most technical part of our manuscript and requires substantially new ideas. As we point out after Theorem 4, while squared loss is known to admit $\Theta(\log T)$ regret in other online learning problems such as that from Abernethy et al. (2008), as far as we know there is no study on our setting where the decision set is the simplex and the adversary has only finite choices. We believe that this result is particularly original and significant.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response! I have read the other reviews and comments and maintain my (positive) evaluation. | Summary: This paper studies the calibrating for multiclass distribution forecasting while considering all proper functions simultaneously and contributes minimax optimal errors for a variety of settings.
Strengths: Originality:
The work is a novel combination of known techniques, especially Kleinberg et al. (2023).
It is clarified how this work differs from previous contributions.
The related work is somewhat adequately cited.
Quality:
The submission technically sound.
The claims are generally well supported by theoretical analysis.
The methods used are appropriate.
This is a complete piece of work answering a recent open problem.
The authors are more or less careful and honest about evaluating their work, and placing it in the literature.
Clarity:
The submission is clearly written and well organized.
Significance:
The results are important in the sense that it conclusively generates optimal approaches for a multitude of scenarios.
Other researchers and practitioners are likely to use the ideas and build on them, as this work did, possibly for integration into machine learning applications.
It advances the state of the art in a demonstrable way through theoretical analysis, performance bounds and open problem answers.
It provides unique conclusions about existing methods and some unique theoretical approaches.
Weaknesses: Originality:
The tasks or methods do not really stand out as new, more emphasis what the work introduces would help.
Clarity:
It is a bit lacking at times in adequately informing the reader regarding the contents, especially towards the end (pages 8 and 9).
Significance:
The difficulty of the task the submission addresses (demonstrably in a better way than the previous works) is questionable.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Major Questions:
- Page 2 Line 42: isn't p from a continuum, how is a sum over p defined?
- Page 5 Line 208: how is (a) claimed? Explain.
Minor Questions:
- Page 2 Line 39: what do you insert instead of dropped notations?
- Page 8 Line 322: why 2K?
Suggestions:
- Page 6 Line 228: check grammar.
- Page 7 Line 280: missing comma.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors have adequately addressed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank you for your comments and evaluation of the manuscript. Regarding the weakness in originality and significance, we would like to highlight that our Theorem 4, an $\Omega(\log T)$ lower bound for any algorithm when learning with the squared loss, is the most technical part of our manuscript and requires substantially new ideas. As we point out after Theorem 4, while squared loss is known to admit $\Theta(\log T)$ regret in other online learning problems such as that from Abernethy et al. (2008), as far as we know there is no study on our setting where the decision set is the simplex and the adversary has only finite choices. We believe that this result is particularly original and significant.
Your other questions are addressed below:
**Major Questions:**
> Page 2 Line 42: isn't p from a continuum, how is a sum over p defined?
Note that even though $p$ is from a continuum, there are at most $T$ non-zero summands in this summation since there are at most $T$ different forecasts ($p_{t}$). This is why the notation $\sum_{p\in \Delta_K}$ is well defined and in fact standard in the calibration literature.
> Page 5 Line 208: how is (a) claimed? Explain.
The exact reasoning can be found in Lines 474-481, but the intuitive explanation is simply that by the properness of the V-shaped loss, it is straightforward to see that predicting a uniform distribution at each time $t$ is in expectation the optimal choice for the learner in this environment (where the outcome is also uniform over $\{e_1, \ldots, e_K\}$), and this optimal strategy has exactly 0 loss.
**Minor Questions:**
> Page 2 Line 39: what do you insert instead of dropped notations?
As we mention in Lines 38 and 39, whenever the subscript is dropped, both UCal and PUCal are to be thought of with respect to the class of all proper losses, for which we use the notation $\mathcal{L}$. Whenever a different subscript $\mathcal{L}’$ appears, both quantities are defined with respect to that specific class of losses, which would be clear from the context.
> Page 8 Line 322: why $2K$?
At every time when a new label is chosen by the adversary, we bound the regret trivially by $2$ since $\ell$ is bounded in $[-1, 1]$. Since the number of distinct labels is $K$, this contributes at most $2K$ to the overall regret.
**Suggestions**: Thank you for the suggestions. We shall do the needful in the subsequent revisions.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response. I have read and considered it, as well as the other reviews and rebuttals. My opinion about the paper is still towards acceptance. | Summary: This paper closes an open problem regarding U calibration, left by Kleinberg et al. (2023). It is shown that a modified version of Kleinberg et al's algorithm recovers a classical FTPL algorithm of Daskalakis and Syrgkanis (2016), which improves the pseudo U calibration error in Kleinberg et al (2023) from $O(K\sqrt{T})$ to the optimal rate $O(\sqrt{KT})$. Then, the paper considers several special classes of proper losses, and shows that FTL guarantees $O(\log T)$ U calibration error. Finally, it is shown that although FTL works in such special cases, FTPL is necessary in general.
Strengths: This paper is a very solid and comprehensive contribution to the theory of U calibration. It answers an open problem left from an already amazing prior work, and complements the existing generic theory by several interesting special cases. Although the proposed algorithm is a small modification from Kleinberg et al. (2023), the established equivalence to the classical results of Daskalakis and Syrgkanis is novel. The intuition and the analysis are both quite natural. Various extensions are thoroughly analyzed, and the presentation is exceptionally clear.
Weaknesses: This is one of the rare cases where finding a weakness is hard. One thing I might say is the lack of operational impact. Although U calibration is a relatively new framework, the intuition of the proper losses and the fact that FTL & FTPL work well somewhat suggest that it is more of a new way to look at existing online learning algorithms, rather than a new framework to design different online learning algorithms. This will arguably limit the impact of such results in the broader ML community, which is my reason for not giving the paper an even higher score.
However, I would say such practical limitation is quite common in recent learning theory papers. Based on the technical quality, this paper is still a very good contribution to learning theory.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: The follow up questions I'm interested in are already discussed by the authors as future directions. The discussed directions there make sense.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: Societal impact not applicable due to the theoretical nature.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank you for your comments and evaluation of the manuscript. | Summary: This works considered the the problem of making sequential non-contextual probabilistic predictions over $K$ classes with low U-calibration error.
The authors improved the upper bounds for U-calibration error from $O(K\sqrt{T})$ to $O(\sqrt{KT})$ after $T$ rounds, and they showed an existing algorithm, Follow-the-Perturbed-Leader (FTPL), achieves this upper bound.
The also proved a matching lower bound, and shows the optimality of FTPL.
Further, they provided strengthened bounds of $\Theta(\log T)$ under various additional assumptions on the proper losses.
Strengths: - This paper is well written and the logic is easy to follow.
- This paper makes original and significant contribution by improving the upper bound, providing an algorithm, and proves a matching lower bound. In a sense, this paper solves the problem of online probabilistic multiclass predictions with U-calibration error.
- The mathematical development is sound and rigorous.
Weaknesses: No outstanding weakness. Typos and questions are given under questions.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: - L25: Based on the regret definition, it seems the it can be negative because the best prediction in hindsight is fixed for all time steps? For example, an oracle $p = \arg\min_p \sum_{t=1}^{T} \ell(p, y_t)$ achieves 0 regret, and an oracle $p_t = y_t$ for all $t$ has negative regret.
- L124: is the condition "if and only if"? See the interpretation immediately after Theorem 2 Gneiting and Raftery (2007): "Phrased slightly differently, a regular scoring rule S is proper if and only if the expected score function G(p) = S(p,p) is convex on Pm".
- In Section 3.1, would it be nice to accompany the algorithm description and theoretical guarantees by some intuition why this randomized algorithm works? For readers not familiar with FTPL, a naive forecast would be to just predict the class frequency $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ up to the current time step. Why is it worse than FTPL and what is the intuition behind the randomization in the algorithm?
- In Section 3.1, is it better to use the notation system established in previous sections to translate the FTPL algorithm in Daskalakis and Syrgkanis (2016)? For example, I think both are fine, just curious which one is more accepted.
- L181: dose -> does
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: Limitations are addressed theoretically in Section 4.3.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank you for your comments and evaluation of the manuscript. Your questions are addressed below:
>L25: Based on the regret definition, it seems the it can be negative because the best prediction in hindsight is fixed for all time steps? For example, an oracle $p = \text{arg}\min_p\sum_{t = 1} ^ {T} \ell(p, y_{t})$ achieves 0 regret, and an oracle $p_{t} = y_{t}$ for all $t$ has negative regret.
Yes, you are correct. The regret can potentially be negative (which is true for most online learning problems), but that only happens when the adversary is very weak.
>L124: is the condition "if and only if"? See the interpretation immediately after Theorem 2 Gneiting and Raftery (2007): "Phrased slightly differently, a regular scoring rule $S$ is proper if and only if the expected score function $G(p) = S(p,p)$ is convex on $\mathcal{P}_m$".
That’s right. The condition is “if and only if”. Although line 124 conveys one direction, the subsequent lines (125, 126) combined with 124 convey the “if and only if” part.
>In Section 3.1, would it be nice to accompany the algorithm description and theoretical guarantees by some intuition why this randomized algorithm works? For readers not familiar with FTPL, a naive forecast would be to just predict the class frequency $\beta$ up to the current time step. Why is it worse than FTPL and what is the intuition behind the randomization in the algorithm?
The naive forecast you mentioned is exactly FTL, which we show suffers linear regret for a certain V-shaped loss in Theorem 6. From its proof, one can see that the intuition is that FTL is unstable in the sense that $\ell(p_t, y_t) - \ell(p_{t+1}, y_t)$ can be as bad as $\Omega(1)$. On the other hand, by introducing randomness, FTPL stabilizes the algorithm and avoids this issue.
>In Section 3.1, is it better to use the notation system established in previous sections to translate the FTPL algorithm in Daskalakis and Syrgkanis (2016)? For example, I think both are fine, just curious which one is more accepted.
We are not sure what you meant, unfortunately. We have indeed followed the approach of introducing the FTPL algorithm in Daskalaskis and Syrgkanis (2016) using their notations and then mapping the notations to our context. Please let us know what is the other usage of notation that you want to compare this to.
>L181: dose -> does
Thank you for pointing out the typo. We shall correct this in the subsequent revisions. | null | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Untrained Neural Nets for Snapshot Compressive Imaging: Theory and Algorithms | Accept (poster) | Summary: Please see Strengths and Weaknesses.
Strengths: 1. Rigorous theoretical analysis of the proposed formulation
2. Detailed empirical evaluation.
Weaknesses: 1. Formatting in Figure 2 can be improved. The text near smaller cubes is not readable.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: NA
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: NA
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for carefully reading our paper and providing constructive feedback.
`Q-1:` Formatting in Figure 2 can be improved. The text near smaller cubes is not readable.
`A-1:` We thanks the reviewer for the suggestion. In the revised version, we modify Figure 2 as follows: i) We increase the font size to make the figure more readable; ii) We add a detailed caption to explain the various components of the figure, including the meaning of different colored lines and dots; iii) We separate the 2D measurement $\bf y$ and the 3D binary mask $H$ to avoid confusion; iv) We change some of the solid lines to dashed lines to make the figure easier to interpret; v) We improve the layout of the figure to make it easier to follow. The updated Figure 2 is included in the one-page PDF response under the general rebuttal.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Acknowledging the rebuttal
Comment: Thank you for the rebuttal. I have no further questions. | Summary: This work gives some theoretical analysis for mask optimization and DIP-based SCI recovery methods. The work claims that the proposed SCI-BDVP achieves SOTA performance among UNN methods.
Strengths: 1. This work provides some theoretical analysis, compared with the conventional work is rare.
2. Bagged DIP is introduced to develop SCI iterative methods and the proposed method claims to achieve SOTA performance among UNN methods.
Weaknesses: 1. While this work does some theoretical analysis by introducing DIP's theory, it cannot be directly generalized to all untrained networks. On the one hand, it seems impossible that all untrained networks satisfy the DIP hypothesis in the paper, and on the other hand, how can the UNNs used in this work be guaranteed to satisfy the DIP hypothesis and Lipschitz's condition? As far as I know, networks that satisfy Lipschitz's condition require a specific design, and this work does not seem to give some related introduction.
2. The core of this work is to prove theoretical results for untrained networks, but the actual contribution is less than stated. When the properties of certain untrained networks are demonstrated by DIP, the work does not propose any new hypotheses in snapshot compressive imaging but simply adopts the original one, which decreases the contribution of the paper.
3. When the DIP hypothesis is used to simplify the UNNs as a minimization operator, the work is merely proving a boundary based on the minimization operator. Similar theoretical results based on the minimization operator can also be found in the theoretical analysis section of GAP-Net[1].
4. The DIP hypothesis demonstrated in this paper seems to ignore some conditions in the original DIP paper and doesn't capture the unique characteristics of untrained networks, what if the same is true of pre-trained networks?
5. The comparison algorithm needs to be perfected. The current comparison algorithms seem to be some traditional optimization algorithms and your methods, and we even can't distinguish which of them is previous UNN works. So what does it mean that your method achieves SOTA performance in UNNs？
6. Considering this work as a deep network-based approach, such comparisons are unfair. Why not add some recent self-supervised methods to demonstrate the effectiveness of the algorithm? In addition, despite claiming to be compared with the supervised algorithms in noisy scenarios, some recent algorithms, such as SCI3D[2] and EfficientSCI[3] have not been included.
[1]Deep Unfolding for Snapshot Compressive Imaging, in IJCV2023.
[2]Dense Deep Unfolding Network with 3D-CNN Prior for Snapshot CompressiveImaging, in ICCV2021.
[3]EfficientSCI: Densely Connected Network with Space-time Factorization for Large-scale Video Snapshot Compressive Imaging, in CVPR2023.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: How can the UNNs used in this work be guaranteed to satisfy the DIP hypothesis and Lipschitz's condition?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors provide some limitations, which is their future research.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for carefully reading our paper and providing constructive feedback.
`Q-1:` Application of DIP hypothesis to all untrained networks and the relevance of the Lipschitz condition.
`A-1:` As mentioned by the reviewer, not all untrained neural nets (UNNs) satisfy the DIP hypothesis and this is not the assumption in our paper. The assumption is that for any class of signals, there exist UNN structures that satisfy the DIP hypothesis. More specifically, consider a class of signals denoted by $\mathcal{Q}\subset\mathbb{R}^n$. A UNN, modeled as $g_{\theta}(\bf u)$, satisfies the DIP-hypothesis if for any randomly generated $\bf u\in\mathbb{R}^N$ (generated according to some preset distribution), and any $\bf x\in\mathcal{Q}$, $\min_{\theta} ||g_{\theta}(\bf u) - \bf x||_2 \leq \delta,
$, almost surely. Existence of such UNN structures for different class of signals $\mathcal{Q}$ is shown empirically. For example, deep image prior (DIP) and deep decoder (DD) are well-known UNN structures satisfying this property for natural images.
Regarding Lipschitz continuity, note that our UNN architecture comprises multiple hidden layers, each employing a linear convolution operator followed by a ReLU nonlinearity. The final layer consists of a linear operation and a sigmoid activation function. Given the compositional nature of these layers, it is evident that our UNN satisfies the Lipschitz condition. Notably, our theorem is applicable to any Lipschitz constant $L$.
`Q-2:` Questions about the contributions of the paper.
`A-2:` The focus of this work is on the _application_ of UNNs in solving SCI problem and developing i) a theoretical understanding of the problem, and ii) a robust UNN-based SCI solution. Specifically, here are our key contributions:
1. Theoretically characterizing the performance of SCI solutions that employ a generic UNN for recovery. The key implication of our theoretical characterizations is that it enables us to optimize the parameters of SCI systems' hardware, under both noise-free and noisy setups.
2. Proposing a novel unsupervised SCI solution for video SCI. We establish the effectiveness of our proposed solution through extensive simulations.
`Q-3:` Comparison between this work and the GAP-Net paper [1] and the potential overlap between the two papers.
`A-3:` In this paper, we theoretically analyze the performance of DIP-SCI optimization defined as
\begin{align}
\hat{\bf x}=\arg\min ||\bf y-\bf H\bf c||_2,
\end{align}
subject to $\bf c=g_{\theta}(\bf u),\theta\in[0,1]^k$
[1] _does not_ include any theoretical analysis of this optimization or any of its variants. Instead, [1] focuses on the convergence behavior of projected gradient descent and its variant, GAP, in solving a related compression-based optimization. Also note that in [1], the entries of the masks are assumed to be i.i.d.~ Gaussian, which is inconsistent with masks used in practice. Instead, in our work, we consider an i.i.d.~Bern$(p)$ distribution for masks.
`Q-4:` Conditions of DIP hypothesis compared to the original DIP paper and connections to pre-trained networks.
Pre-trained networks and UNNs differ significantly in their operational basis. While pre-trained networks leverage extensive datasets to acquire knowledge, UNNs operate without requiring any training data. This fundamental distinction grants UNNs a clear advantage in scenarios with limited data, making them more adaptable to various applications. Consequently, although pre-trained networks can be integrated into our framework, the unique strength of UNNs in data-scarce environments underscores their important role in our methodology.
Finally, we would like to ask the reviewer to explicitly identify which DIP conditions they believe are overlooked in our paper. This helps us better address the concerns.
`Q-5:` Comparison algorithms included in the paper.
`A-5:` In Section 5, we compare the performance of our proposed method against several other methods, listed in the section labeled `Datasets and baselines'. To the best of our knowledge, we cover all existing UNN-based video SCI solutions in our comparisons. We also extended one UNN-based method, originally proposed for hyperspectral SCI, and compared its performance against our method.
To better clarify and distinguish the methods compared to our proposed method, we will update Table 1 in our main paper by organizing the comparisons into four categories:
1. GAP-TV [9], a traditional optimization-based algorithm.
2. PnP-FFDnet [17] and PnP-FastDVDnet [18], pre-trained deep denoisers + PnP algorithm.
3. Existing UNN-based solutions for video SCI [30], [31].
4. Our main proposed method (SCI-BDVP) and two simpler variants for comparison: 1) SCI-DVP, simple E2E DVP, 2) SCI-BDVP, bagged E2E DVP, and 3) SCI-BDVP, our main proposed method.
The last two categories are UNN-based methods, we consider our model to be state-of-the-art among this category.
`Q-6:` Comparison with some mentioned recent papers.
`A-6:` Methods such as SCI3D and EfficientSCI are supervised approaches that require extensive training data. A key limitation of these supervised methods is that they fix the sensing matrix during training. This makes it challenging to infer the impact of masks on performance and to separate this effect from the optimization performance. Additionally, applying the trained network to different sensing matrices and simulation settings typically results in performance degradation.
In this paper, one of our main goals is to develop _unsupervised_ solutions that do not require training data or rely on prior knowledge of the sensing matrix and also to provide a fundamental understanding of the role of masks in performance. Therefore, we have not included supervised, mask-dependent methods in our comparisons.
__References can be found in our main paper.__
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for addressing my concerns. This work does have some unique theoretical contributions for snapshot imaging, thus, I tend to raise my score to borderline accept when some contents need to be further considered.
1. The title and some sentences seem somewhat misleading, and it can easily be misinterpreted as suggesting that the proposed theory is for all UNNs rather than partial UNNs.
2. If the proposed network has no constraints on linear weights, the Lipschitz condition is not necessarily satisfied when it's probably unbounded. In addition, considering activation functions and some special operators, other UNNs that satisfy the DIP hypothesis may also not satisfy the Lipschitz condition.
3. DIP conditions. The untrained neural network of the original DIP paper is initialized randomly. The pre-trained networks usually have some specific weight distribution and are subject to certain constraints. The current DIP assumption does not seem to account for the distribution of the parameter $\theta$.
Note that one class of comparison methods in Table 3 is 'learning-based supervised methods', which should not be in the comparison when the author stated there is no comparison of supervised approaches.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: We appreciate the reviewer's response and comments. To address the concerns raised, note that:
1. As noted in our earlier response, similar to other UNN constructions in the literature, we utilize ReLU and Sigmoid activation functions, which satisfy Lipschitz continuity. We acknowledge that certain activation functions, such as the sign function, do not satisfy Lipschitz continuity. However, these activation functions are uncommon in practice due to the issues they pose for backpropagation and training. Additionally, unbounded weights, which can lead to an unbounded Lipschitz constant, are indeed undesirable as they may result in network instability. In the revised version, we will include a remark to discuss these points.
2. Regarding the DIP conditions and the initialization of weights in UNNs, please note that the initialization of weights in training UNNs primarily affects the convergence of the training algorithms and has no impact on our theoretical results. More importantly, different initialization methods, regardless of their distributions, all fall within the framework we have proposed. In our simulations, we initialize the weights using _Kaiming_ initialization, uniformly at random.
3. In Table 3, we have included some supervised methods because they utilize the exact same gradient step as our unsupervised methods but with different pre-trained projection modules. The results further demonstrate the effectiveness and generalization ability of our UNN-based model. Additionally, the key advantage of these methods lies in their flexible design, enabled by the iterative PnP approach, making them well-suited for studying the impact of masks on performance. | Summary: The focus of this paper is on developing recovery algorithms of snapshot compressive imaging (SCI) using untrained neural networks (UNNs). Besides, the paper introduces the concept of bagged-deep-image-prior (bagged-DIP) to create SCI Bagged Deep Video Prior (SCI-BDVP) algorithms, which are designed to address common challenges faced by standard UNN solutions in SCI recovery. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method in video SCI recovery. In scenarios with noisy measurements, this untrained network even outperforms supervised methods.
Strengths: - This paper is well structured and has clear logic.
- The experimental results on the performance are convincing.
- The proposed method is based on untrained neural network, making it more flexible to be applied in various scenes.
Weaknesses: - For untrained methods, runtime may be a crucial metric [1,2]. But this paper doesn't provide analysis in comparison to existing methods.
- To improve clarity, consider adding clear notations for the symbols used. For example, what do different colored arrows represent in Figure 2, and the color of "Fusion" and "MSE" are too similar to be distinguished.
[1] Rui, Xiangyu, et al. "Unsupervised hyperspectral pansharpening via low-rank diffusion model." Information Fusion 107 (2024): 102325.
[2] Pang, Li, et al. "HIR-Diff: Unsupervised Hyperspectral Image Restoration Via Improved Diffusion Models." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2024.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: - SCI is also widely used in hyperspectral image, can your method be used in hyperspectral reconstruction task? If so, what's the prominent advantage of your method?
- How does the method handle different noise models beyond additive Gaussian noise?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: - Exploring the application on additional datasets from different domains or varing conditions in the future may increase persuasiveness, e.g. hyperspectral data. And exploring the performance of the proposed method under different noise models would provide a more comprehensive evaluation of its robustness and general applicability.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for carefully reading our paper and providing constructive feedback.
`Q-1:` Discussion about computational complexity and runtime.
`A-1:` We have made the following changes to the paper: In the main body of the paper, in Section 5.1, we have added the following explanation on the computational complexity of our proposed method. _"The proposed SCI-BDVP method relies on the bagging of multiple DIP projections. These DIP projections, which vary depending on the patch size, involve different levels of computational complexity. Table 2 shows the average time required to perform each DIP projection for each patch size. As observed, the time increases considerably as the patch size decreases. This is expected because the number of networks that need to be trained grows significantly. (Refer to Figure 1 for a pictorial representation.) Additional computational complexity analysis of our proposed method and its comparisons with other methods is included in Appendix B.3."_
Furthermore, we have added Section B.3 in the Appendix, which provides detailed information about the computational and time complexity of our proposed method. It also includes a comparison between our method and other UNN-based approaches. For completeness, we have copied the newly added section here as well.
_"Implementing SCI-BDVP involves outer loop iterations (described in Algorithm 1 in appendix B.1) and also inner loop iterations for training DIPs. Table 3 presents average number of inner loop iterations used for different patch sizes (64, 128, 256) of various videos, and the number of outer loop iterations. Detailed time consumption for each patch level computation is recorded in Table 2. A comparison across different UNN-based methods is provided in Table 1. All comparisons are performed on a single NVIDIA RTX 4090. It is important to note that training a bagged DIP requires training multiple separate DIPs. This process can be readily parallelized, which is expected to significantly speed up the algorithm. We plan to explore this direction to optimize the algorithm's efficiency in future work. Lastly, making a direct comparison among all methods is challenging because, for supervised methods, the main time is spent in training, whereas, for unsupervised methods, the main time is spent on training the UNNs. This is an expected trade-off for requiring no training data and achieving a robust solution."_
||**Methods**|**Time (min.)**|
|-|-|-|
|**No noise**|PnP-DIP| 18|
||Factorized-DVP|15|
||Simple-DVP (E2E)|10|
||SCI-BDVP|35 or 220|
| **With noise**|PnP-DIP| 18|
||Factorized-DVP|$-$|
||Simple-DVP (E2E)|10|
||SCI-BDVP|40|
**Table 1**: Time complexity of different methods on one 8-frame benchmark video.
|**Patch size**|# of patches|Time (min.)|
|-|-|-|
|64|16|1.2|
|128|4|0.28|
|256|1|0.15|
**Table 2:** Time complexity of our proposed SCI-BDVP was evaluated on various patch sizes (64, 128, 256) of video blocks, using a standard 1000 DVP iterations for training.
`Q-2:` Clarity of notations and figure presentation.
`A-2:` In the revised version, we modify Figure 2 as follows: i) increase the font size; ii) add a detailed caption; iii) separate the 2D measurement $\bf y$ and the 3D binary mask $H$; iv) change some of the solid lines to dashed lines; v) improve the layout of the figure to make it easier to follow. The updated Figure 2 is included in the one-page PDF response under the general rebuttal.
Also, we have reviewed the paper to ensure that all notations are clearly defined and consistently used.
`Q-3:` Potential application of our proposed method in hyperspectral imaging.
`A-3:` We expect our method to be applicable to hyperspectral imaging as well. In fact, one of the papers we have cited and used in our simulations for comparison (reference [27] in the paper) utilizes DIP for hyperspectral imaging (HI). Here are two key advantages of our proposed framework:
1. Our proposed theoretical framework is applicable to hyperspectral imaging and provides a solid theoretical foundation to analytically explore other aspects of HI, such as the effect of shifted masks.
2. A well-known challenge in using UNNs in reconstruction algorithms is their tendency to suffer from overfitting. However, our proposed method, based on bagging, is expected to perform well in HI and overcome these issues.
To highlight this direction and its potential, we add this paragraph in the conclusion section of the revised version: "An important application of SCI is hyperspectral snapshot imaging (HSI). Our results in this paper provide a theoretical foundation to understand HSI systems and optimize their hardware. Additionally, the developed theoretical framework can be used to explore aspects specific to HSI, such as masks being shifted versions of each other. We also expect our algorithm to effectively address overfitting in HSI tasks, enhancing reconstruction performance. We plan to explore these aspects further in our future research."
`Q-4:` Different noise models beyond additive Gaussian noise?
`A-4:` The exploration of noise models beyond additive white Gaussian (AWGN) noise is a valuable and important direction for future work. While AWGN is a commonly-adopted model in many imaging solutions, including most SCI systems, there are situations, such as some newly-proposed coherence imaging SCI methods, that other types of noise such as speckle noise are dominant. We believe that our UNN-based approach to model the source has the potential to address these alternative noise scenarios. To accommodate non-AWGN noise models, the loss function $||\bf y-\bf H\bf c||_2$ would require modification depending on the noise model. We consider this an important avenue for future investigation.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for your rebuttal. I have read the rebuttal and have no further questions. | Summary: This paper leverages untrained neural networks UNN (deep image priors DIP or deep decoder DD) as a prior to solve Snapshot Compressive Imaging (SCI), a technique used in ($n_1$ x $n_2$ x B)-dimensional 3-D imaging where the captured measurements lie in a 2-D plane ($n_1$ x $n_2$). The application of UNNs in the context of SCI itself is not novel; this paper's main contributions are:
1) Theoretical recovery guarantees for SCI (i.e. existence of a minimizer to the reconstruction problem) denoting number of 2-D frames B that can be recovered using 1 2-D measurement as a function of UNN model complexity (assuming original signal is close to range of UNN by $\delta$) under noise-free and additive gaussian noise settings.
2) Use bagged-DIP as algorithm for signal recovery, called SCI Bagged Deep Video Prior (BDVP).
3) Optimize binary-valued masks used in the measurement process and show empirical analysis.
Strengths: The main contribution of this paper are theoretical reconstruction guarantees for SCI using UNNs under both noisy and noiseless measurements. They derive a bound on reconstruction error in terms of signal parameter B, Bernoulli sampling pattern mask p, measurement and signal parameter n, and $\sigma_z$ noise.
Authors further validate their reconstruction error bound and its dependence on sampling parameter p, on empirical datasets on 6 videos: Drop, Runner, Aerial, Crash, Kobe, Traffic.
They propose SCI Bagged Deep Video Prior method as an algorithmic framework for solving SCI. On the empirical data, they show improved SNR and SSIM against baseline untrained methods.
Weaknesses: Main comments:
Computational complexity: Deep Video Prior/Untrained Network Prior setups have high computational complexity; on top of this a bagging approach requires solving K such problems simultaneously. This requires a discussion on how computational complexity compares to baselines.
Theoretical claims are summarized in main paper; however I was not able to find longer version of paper in supplementary zip folder to validate the proofs.
Theorem 3.1: Are parameters $p$ in $u [0,1]^p$ and Bern($p$) for $D_{i,j}$ the same?
Minor comments:
line 47-48: "Existing UNN-based SCI solutions either recover the image 48 end-to-end in one shot or employ iterative methods akin to projected gradient descent (PGD)." (relevant citations missing)
line 88-97: Literature review of DIP + UNN: Add relevant citation to "Qiao, M., Liu, X., & Yuan, X. (2021). Snapshot temporal compressive microscopy using an iterative algorithm with untrained neural networks. Optics Letters, 46(8), 1888-1891."
Theorem 3.1. reconstruction error bound - $\rho$ not defined.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Theoretical claims are summarized in main paper; however I was not able to find longer version of paper in supplementary zip folder to validate the proofs - this would help consolidate the contents.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Limitations have been discussed; they should additionally discuss time/computational complexity of the proposed BDVP algorithm.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for carefully reading our paper and providing constructive feedback.
`Q-1:` Discussion about Computational complexity.
`A-1:` We have made the following changes to the paper: In the main body of the paper, in Section 5.1, we have added the following explanation on the computational complexity of our proposed method. _"The proposed SCI-BDVP method relies on the bagging of multiple DIP projections. These DIP projections, which vary depending on the patch size, involve different levels of computational complexity. Table 2 shows the average time required to perform each DIP projection for each patch size. As observed, the time increases considerably as the patch size decreases. This is expected because the number of networks that need to be trained grows significantly. (Refer to Figure 1 for a pictorial representation.) Additional computational complexity analysis of our proposed method and its comparisons with other methods is included in Appendix B.3."_
Furthermore, we have added Section B.3 in the Appendix, which provides detailed information about the computational and time complexity of our proposed method. It also includes a comparison between our method and other UNN-based approaches. For completeness, we have copied the newly added section here as well.
_"Implementing SCI-BDVP involves outer loop iterations (described in Algorithm 1 in appendix B.1) and also inner loop iterations for training DIPs. Table 3 presents average number of inner loop iterations used for different patch sizes (64, 128, 256) of various videos, and the number of outer loop iterations. Detailed time consumption for each patch level computation is recorded in Table 2. A comparison across different UNN-based methods is provided in Table 1. All comparisons are performed on a single NVIDIA RTX 4090. It is important to note that training a bagged DIP requires training multiple separate DIPs. This process can be readily parallelized, which is expected to significantly speed up the algorithm. We plan to explore this direction to optimize the algorithm's efficiency in future work. Lastly, making a direct comparison among all methods is challenging because, for supervised methods, the main time is spent in training, whereas, for unsupervised methods, the main time is spent on training the UNNs. This is an expected trade-off for requiring no training data and achieving a robust solution."_
|| **Methods**| **Time (min.)** |
|-|-|-|
| **No noise**| PnP-DIP| 18|
|| Factorized-DVP| 15|
|| Simple-DVP (E2E)| 10|
|| SCI-BDVP| 35 or 220|
| **With noise**| PnP-DIP| 18|
|| Factorized-DVP| $-$|
|| Simple-DVP (E2E)| 10|
|| SCI-BDVP|40|
**Table 1**: Time complexity of different methods on one 8-frame benchmark video.
| **Patch size** | # of patches | Time (min.) |
|-|-|-|
| 64| 16| 1.2|
| 128| 4| 0.28|
| 256| 1| 0.15|
**Table 2:** Time complexity of our proposed SCI-BDVP was evaluated on various patch sizes (64, 128, 256) of video blocks, using a standard 1000 DVP iterations for training.
`Q-2:` Proofs of the theoretical results.
`A-2:` The main pdf file (29 pages) includes detailed proofs of all the results. More specifically, in Appendix A, we have provided detailed proofs in the following order: proof of Theorem 3.1 in A.2, proof for Corollary 3.3 in A.3, proof for Theorem 3.4 in A.4 and finally proof for Theorem 3.5 in A.5.
`Q-3:` Theorem 3.1: Are parameters $p$ in $u[0,1]^p$ and Bern($p$) for $D_{i,j}$ the same?
`A-3:` We had inadvertently overloaded the symbol $p$. We will substitute $p$ in $u[0,1]^p$ with $N$.
`Q-4:` Theorem 3.1. reconstruction error bound - $\rho$ not defined.
`A-4:` Thanks for pointing this out. $\rho$ denotes an upper bound on the $\ell$-infinity norm of the signals in $\mathcal{Q}$. We added the description in the revised version.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thanks for addressing concerns. No further comments.
Comment: Concerns have been addressed adequately. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank all reviewers for their valuable feedback and thoughtful comments. We have carefully considered their suggestions and revised the paper accordingly. In the following, we address the main comments/questions from each reviewer..
The attached pdf file includes an improved version of Figure 2 in our original manuscript.
Pdf: /pdf/7cbf3907bf402ecba6cadcc1dbdf03bbea210c68.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Asynchronous Perception Machine for Efficient Test Time Training | Accept (poster) | Summary: The authors propose a novel test-time training method called the Asynchronous Perception Machine. This method leverages knowledge distillation from other pretrained networks, such as CLIP. The main contributions of this approach are its robust accuracy in classifying corrupted images and its computational efficiency, requiring fewer FLOPs compared to other models.
Strengths: This paper presents a creative and novel neural network architecture, demonstrating strong empirical results.
Weaknesses: 1. Lack of Related Works: The paper proposes a novel test-time training method but references fewer than five related works. However, there are more than 50 papers on test-time adaptation methods published in recent years (e.g., [1-8]), none of which are mentioned.
2. Lack of Comparison to State-of-the-Art Methods: The manuscript identifies TTT-MAE as the second-best method, yet this method was introduced in 2022. Since then, many methods, such as Diffusion-TTA [4] and DeYo [8], have surpassed TTT-MAE.
3. Insufficient Explanation of Proposed Method: The proposed method is not explained in sufficient detail. For instance, the Vision Encoder is only depicted in a figure and not discussed further in the text.
4. Misleading Information The “Trained” column in one of the tables is misleading. TTT-MAE does not require training data during the test phase; it requires an auxiliary loss during training.
5. Inadequate Ablation Study: The ablation study lacks relevance. While the authors propose adaptation to distribution shifts (i.e., corrupted images), the ablation is conducted only on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, which are datasets of clean images.
Reference
[1] Tent: Fully Test-time Adaptation by Entropy Minimization
[2] Continual Test-Time Domain Adaptation
[3] Robust Test-Time Adaptation in Dynamic Scenarios
[4] Diffusion-TTA: Test-time Adaptation of Discriminative Models via Generative Feedback
[5] NOTE: Robust Continual Test-time Adaptation Against Temporal Correlation
[6] Robust Test-Time Adaptation in Dynamic Scenarios
[7] SoTTA: Robust Test-Time Adaptation on Noisy Data Streams
[8] Entropy is not Enough for Test-Time Adaptation: From the Perspective of Disentangled Factors
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: It is very unclear what component in the Fig 1 is. Specifically, what computations do they do?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: There is no concerned limitation.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for providing us the chance to improve our work. Please find our responses:
```On improving related-work``` As reviewer KZWi points out, we will discuss more recent tta/prompting/source-free domain-adaptation approaches. We have noted to add differences w.r.t feature refinement/distillation: a.k.a $L_2$ mimicking feature grids vs boltzmann-temperature-matching logits.
```On Clarifications between ttt/tta, comparisons with more state-of-the arts``` We apologize for the confusion between test-time-training (TTT)/test-time-adaptation (TTA), and would like to clarify the experimental setting of test-time-training and its connections to test-time-adapation works, relative novelty of apm, after checking the shared works. Thank you for sharing these works and we will add these works to related work too.
- Existing works in TTA train on a source dataset and then adapt them for testing. APM, which follows TTT, works without such source-training by just initializing with ```randomized weights``` for only 1 test sample. TTA adapts to the target distribution (using all test samples), whereas TTT adapts to each sample independently.
- TTA methods use clean datasets (eg c10) during train, and adapt on corrupted versions(c10c), which might limit its potential to deploy on some other dataset [R1,R2,R3,R5,R6,R7], because they might require training dataset-specific linear-probe.
- Some tta methods update statistics on "batch of test-set". APM can work with weights randomly-initialized after each sample.
- APM is computationally efficient, since it uses only 1 conv layer and 5 mlp layers(tab 2, fig4), while some models might use higher-parameterized network like a ViT, or a diffusion-model [R1].
We observe that [R1] also shows performance for TTT and below we compare APM with [R1] on datasets where APM performed well. We note our baseline numbers match that of [R4]. APM presents competitive performance, on bigger datasets like Imagenet. It is important to note that APM is much more efficient than [R1] (1conv/3MLP vs. ViT+Diffusion model). We will add these and other comparisons to Tab 3. Thank you so much for pointing this out.
| | Dataset | | | | |
| --------------------------------- | -------- | -------- | ----------- | ---------- | ------- |
| | ImageNet | Aircraft | Food101 |
| | | | | | |
| CLIP VIT-B/16 Baseline (from [1]) | 62.3 | 22.8 | 88.1 |
| Diffusion-TTA [1] | 63.8 | 24.6 | **88.8** |
| | | | |
| CLIP VIT-B/16 Baseline (consistent with [9]) | 66.7 | 23.7 | 83.7 |
| Ours | **68.1** | **29.7** | 84.2 |
| Diffusion-TTA | APM |
| --- | --- |
| 865M | **25M** |
We also note lower number parameters in APM (25M) when compared to Diffusion-TTA (865M).
- In some cases, methods like [R9] do show source-free domain-adaptation, but on smaller datasets. In tab 1-2, we have shown results on larger datasets like imagenet-c without imagenet pretraining on APM, as also duly noted in line 169.
- We will be grateful to mention that APM is a fresh-perspective on machine perception, with the ability to do location-based processing.
```Details on vision-encoder``` We apologize for this confusion. It refers to the ViT/Dinov2 vision encoder. We will add the explanation in the paper.
```On misleading trained column in tables, confusion on ttt-mae``` We apologize for the confusion caused by this. TTT relies on two phases 1) train model with ssl task + labels on train set. 2) test time -> use ssl task only. For eg., ttt-mae is initialized with pretrained imagenet-1k weights (sec 4.1 of their paper) and needs ssl objective (masking) during ttt. However, APM is initialized with random weights, and no explicit ssl-task is required. We have renamed ```trained``` column to $P$ in all tables and clarified in caption: ```A ✓ in P means that method leveraged pre-trained weights on a clean variant of train set aka, Image-net and downstream-ttt on corrupted version```. We provide more results in global rebuttal pdf with updated captions. We will update tables in the main paper also.
```On Adding ttt-specific ablations``` We will be grateful to present this ablation with a variable number of ttt iterations on dtd below. Next, ttt with varying apm parameters is presented in tab 7 of paper. Further, apm's property of one-sample-overfitting during ttt (line 250), was evaluated in tab 5a).
| n_iter | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 |
|--------|------|------|------|----------|------|------|
| | | | | | | |
| 53M parameter net (acc) | 44.2/0.6 | 47.7/0.7 | 49.1/0.5 | **49.5/0.2** | 48.3/0.6 | 46.3/0.1 |
At 25th iteration, we can obtain 49.5, and performance degrades over lesser ttt iterations as pointed out by the respected reviewer KZWi. We tried to discuss the computational efficiency of apm, and some baselines in table 4.
```On Questions: on components in fig 1 and their computations```
Components in fig 1 refer to a new architecture called APM inspired from GLOM [10]. It contains a trigger column T to which a given image is routed. The computation it does is a folding-unfolding process to yield location-aware columns. Each column queries an MLP and decodes a location-specific feature. These features are gathered on the output via statistical-running-average to yield a representation. The final representation is used for zero-shot classification via textual-encoder of a teacher in the contrastive-space. More technicalities are discussed in our reply to the respected reviewer KZWi.
Thank you so much for your time and we will be happy to respond to further clarifications.
Sincerely,
Authors
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: [Authors Reply] List of references used in our rebuttal to the respected Reviewer PHih
Comment: **List of References in Rebuttal**
[R1] Diffusion-TTA: Test-time Adaptation of Discriminative Models via Generative Feedback
[R2] Continual Test-Time Domain Adaptation
[R3] Robust Test-Time Adaptation in Dynamic Scenarios
[R4] Shu, Manli, et al. "Test-time prompt tuning for zero-shot generalization in vision-language models”.
[R5] NOTE: Robust Continual Test-time Adaptation Against Temporal Correlation
[R6] Robust Test-Time Adaptation in Dynamic Scenarios
[R7] SoTTA: Robust Test-Time Adaptation on Noisy Data Streams
[R8] Entropy is not Enough for Test-Time Adaptation: From the Perspective of Disentangled Factors
[R9] Tent: Fully Test-time Adaptation by Entropy Minimization, ICLR 2021
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: While I have no doubt about the performance and efficiency of the APM, I have a serious concern that misunderstanding the terminologies and previous work's experiment settings may affect the reliability of the work. The misunderstanding implies that you never read any of TTT or TTA papers in detail and completely misunderstand their settings. My arguments are as follows:
Response to "TTA adapts to the target distribution (using all test samples), whereas TTT adapts to each sample independently.
This is completely wrong. Most TTA do not adapt to the whole test set. Many of them adapt to the batch samples or even to instance.
Moreover, "TTT adapts to each sample independently" is completely wrong. It is unnecessary that TTT has to either adapt to one sample or the entire batch or test set. TTT/TTA lies on a special case of Domain Adaptation whereas the model has no access to the source data (source-free) but has to adapt to the target data during the test time.
I suggest you read through all the papers about TTT and TTA. You will see some people in the community use TTA and TTT interchangeably [2]. I can see no significant difference between to the general setting between TTT and TTA.
However, the pioneer like TENT [3] discusses a small difference between TTT and TTA. TTT requires the adjustment of training loss (adding an auxiliary loss term) while TTA only introduces the new loss during the test time.
I can refer to "Network details" on section 3 of the pioneer test-time training (TTT) [1] (which some people also classify it as test-time adaptation [2]). They use different ResNets trained on ImageNet and CIFAR10. ImageNet-trained ResNet is evaluated on ImageNet-C and the same for CIFAR10. Regarding your method, as you use pretrained Vision Encoder as teacher, the vision encoder is already trained on ImageNet. This means your method also uses the knowledge from the training distribution extracted by the teacher model.
[1] Test-Time Training with Self-Supervision for Generalization under Distribution Shifts
[2] A Comprehensive Survey on Test-Time Adaptation under Distribution Shifts
[3] Tent: Fully Test-time Adaptation by Entropy Minimization
---
Rebuttal 4:
Title: Author's reply to the respected Reviewer PHih.
Comment: We thank the reviewer for their timely response to our rebuttal. We are grateful for the reviewer's insight and help in improving our work.
We agree with the reviewer that the differences between TTA/TTT are indeed subtle/minor. As this difference do not play an important role in our contributions, we will refrain from differentiating between TTT/TTA works in our paper, and add more TTA works in related work and comparisons. We have shared comparisons with the recent TTA work aka Diffusion-TTA, and we will also add other such works.
In our work, we have followed the experimental setup of TTT-MAE [NeurIPS 2022] and TPT [NeurIPS 2022]. Furthermore, we will be grateful to mention the reference to TENT [Neurips 2020] in TTT-MAE paper: "Other papers following [42] have worked on related but different problem settings, assuming access to an entire dataset (e.g. TTT++ [28 ]) or batch (e.g. TENT [48 ]) of test inputs from the same distribution. **Our paper does not make such assumptions, and evaluates on each single test sample independently**".
Finally, we also point towards mention of TENT in the TPT paper: "However, TENT **needs more than one test sample** to get a non-trivial solution."
We would like to clarify a few other points:
- APM does not rely on any pretraining since weights are drawn from a normal distribution.
While APM does rely on CLIP-pretrained weights, **we do not perform any training/pretraining on ImageNet**. We would be grateful to mention that CLIP was trained with 400M image-text pairs from OpenAI, and Openclip variant leveraged dfn5b. Furthermore, APM performs competitively on CLIP baselines and other methods which use CLIP weights.
>> "Moreover, "TTT adapts to each sample independently" is completely wrong. It is unnecessary that TTT has to either adapt to one sample or the entire batch or test set"
We agree with the reviewer here that TTT does not have to adapt to a single sample. Existing works like TTT-MAE[1] and others have focused on adapting to a single sample, as noted in their paper "By test-time training on the test inputs independently, we do not assume that they come from the same distribution".
We will be happy to discuss any further concerns,
Yours sincerely,
Authors.
[1] Gandelsman, Yossi, et al. "Test-time training with masked autoencoders." NeurIPS2022.
[2] Shu, Manli, et al. "Test-time prompt tuning for zero-shot generalization in vision-language models." NeurIPS2022
[3] Sun, Yu, et al. "Test-time training with self-supervision for generalization under distribution shifts." International conference on machine learning
---
Rebuttal Comment 4.1:
Comment: Thank you for the clarification. My concern has been addressed and I raised the score. This can be a good and interesting work after polishing writing for a few iterations.
I have one more question, in the paper, you mention "Therefore, the MLP can be queried autoregressively."
What is the mathematical formulation of the autoregression you mentioned? Does the MLP produce the output based on the previous T?
---
Rebuttal 5:
Title: Author's reply to the respected Reviewer PHih.
Comment: We thank the respected reviewer for their valuable time, and efforts in helping us to improve our work. We are grateful for the chance to engage deeply in the inner workings of APM.
In our reply to the respected reviewer Kzwl ```On memory/states and auto-regression in APM```, we mentioned substituting the word autoregression with sequential, because the trigger column $T$ unfolds to yield location aware columns, i.e. $T_{ij} = (T|p_{ij})$, where $p_{ij}$ is the generated hard-coded positional encoding as being used in transformers[3], and neural fields[2]. These $T_{ij}$ columns are responsible for sequential querying of the MLP.
Mathematically, the MLP predicts a location specific feature $f_{ij}=MLP(T_{ij})$ as a consequence of a forward-pass as each column gets pumped through the net. The MLP is queried ```sequentially``` with different columns $T_{ij}$ until the locations $ 1 \leq i \leq H$, $1 \leq j \leq W$ get exhausted, where $H,W$ are the dimensions of the input image $I$.
In the shared code in supplemental, MLP does not contain explicit recurrence, because the trigger column $T_{ij}$ carries the **entire** sequence $T$. The $p_{ij}$ in $T_{ij}$ guides the MLP to decode location-specific feature $f_{ij}$, which is a form of feature-expression as also previously hypothesized in GLOM [1] (our changes over Section 2.1 and Figure 3 in the GLOM paper).
We can also gain more depth by looking at Fig 3 of the GLOM [1]. The subtle differences are, 1) [a b] in that figure is the trigger column $T$ in APM, which carries the whole image $I$. 2)$x4$ is substituted by a positional encoding $p_{ij}$. 3) In addition to decoding location-specific RGB, we also decode higher dimensional features $f_{ij}$, for $ 1 \leq i \leq H$, $1 \leq j \leq W$ which allows APM to do field-based-decoding, which we leveraged for downstream-classification.
We have also added a detailed pseudo-code for operation of APM during test-time-training in
[Pseudocode](https://anonymous.4open.science/r/apm_rebuttal-F3D1/ttt_pseudocode.png).
The behaviour of APM is then akin to neural fields[2] (as suggested by the respected reviewer doB6), for eg, neural fields fire iid rays into the MLP shared across all input rays and decode location-specific rgb. Similarly, APM shares a MLP across all columns and decodes location-specific features. While neural fields work for 3D view synthesis, APM works for 2D image perception, with potential for extensions to other higher-dimensional input-percept, as also duly noted in Sec 11 of the GLOM paper[1].
As promised, we will also refine the paper-writing for better engagement with a prospective reader.
Yours sincerely,
Authors.
[1] Hinton, Geoffrey. "How to represent part-whole hierarchies in a neural network." Neural Computation 35.3 (2023): 413-452.
[2] Mildenhall, Ben, et al. "Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis." Communications of the ACM 65.1 (2021): 99-106.
[3] Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, Uszkoreit J, Jones L, Gomez AN, Kaiser Ł, Polosukhin I. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems. 2017;30. | Summary: This paper introduces a new algorithm for test-time training where the “test-time” task is overfitting for per-image CLIP / DINO feature distillation. The associated “downstream” task involves directly using the per-image network feature to perform image classification using dot product in CLIP space. Given an image, the method first proposes encoding it into a global feature vector via convolution. The global feature is then unfolded into per-pixel feature vectors by concatenating positional codes to the global features. These local features are then decoded and aggregated before being supervised with the CLIP image features distillation loss. This process is repeated for multiple iterations, as the global feature is “refined”. The final global feature turns out to be competitive or better than the base teacher model for some tasks and outperforms baselines. Despite the global CLS-token only supervision, the local bottleneck learns useful dense semantic features which are qualitatively visualized. The paper also shows some interesting qualitative findings when the method is trained across a dataset instead of on a per-image basis.
Strengths: - The paper shows that with their method, it is possible to recover dense pixel level features that are semantically meaningful (eg. features that recover object-ness, boundaries, etc) using only a global CLS token as supervision. I believe this finding is very interesting and has consequences for works even beyond the applications shown in the current paper (eg. for 2D -> 3D feature distillation) From a representation learning perspective, this finding also reinforces the insight that the global CLS token contains useful geometric information about the image it encodes and that this information can be recovered using the right inductive biases in the distillation process.
- The paper makes interesting biological analogies to GLOM to motivate it’s iterative “folding” and “unfolding” approach, and further connects it with its reasoning on using positional codes to break symmetry in the encoding process. Figure 3 shows that over time, the local features form islands of self similarity, as highlighted / predicted in GLOM’s model learning system. The result of learning local features and islands only from global supervision does indeed seem relevant to learning part-whole hierarchies in self-supervised tasks.
- language-based zero-shot classification is the predominant metric chosen to evaluate the method and the paper does a thorough and sound job of running a wide range of experiments. The paper also compares with all representative sets of experiments, including a) directly using the teacher model b) other test time training approaches that optimize with a self-supervised task before prediction and c) prompt tuning approaches that are few-shot trained on the dataset. There is also thorough evaluation on a wide range of distribution shifted and cross distribution datasets. The method performs competitively and strongly on many of the benchmarks, and when it is outperformed by baselines, these runs are also duly noted, discussed and acknowledged.
Weaknesses: I believe that the paper would benefit from some re-organization, clarification and writing improvements. At different points in the paper, there seems to be contradictory information regarding the nature of the method and some key details necessary to the success of the method are left out. Bulleted below:
- In the method figure (Figure 1), a flattened rgb patch seems to be appended to the flattened image encoded with convolution, annotated $I_{xy}$. However, no references to this variable are made in the methods section. Further the methods section only mentions concatenating the global feature with the positional codes, without appending any patch specific information while querying the field.
- In the same figure (Figure 1), the “folded state” in the yellow box seems to be the one that is fed into the MLP for decoding. However, in the methods section, it is claimed that it is the unfolded state that is sequentially fed into the MLP for decoding.
- In the figure and on lines 65, 129, the method makes a reference to auto-regressive querying. I’m not sure what this means, as any way in which the model keeps “state” or “memory” is not clearly described. Further, it is not described how the output of any one MLP call is fed back into future steps. After looking at the appendix pseudocode, there does not seem to be any auto-regressive component. Was the intention to mention just sequential (and not auto-regressive) encoding?
- Details about the unfolding process are clearly described, however details about the folding process are scarce. In Figure 1, the folding process seems to include a gather operation, while elsewhere it is described as an averaging operation. Further, the appendix pseudocode is lacking the “multi-iteration” nature of the algorithm.
- When additional patch level feature losses are added (line 262) in the later sections, the details for how these are supervised are not clearly mentioned in writing.
- The related work section needs to be significantly improved: it is presently under-cited and leaves out key related work in test-time training and prompting. These are mentioned and the differences described in other parts of the paper – but reorganization is required to improve readability. A further line of related work is in feature refinement / upscaling / distillation, and such papers need to be cited and compared to in order to elucidate differences and potential novelty in distillation method.
The paper contains several unsubstantiated claims that weaken the otherwise interesting results. Perhaps, they can be clarified better, or removed:
- The paper claims that APM confirms that “percept is a field” as speculated by GLOM. While the paper does show that field-based decoding improves image classification, and that local features are emergent from global features, I believe a more general purpose evaluation of a broader range of perception tasks, including dense ones, must be done before this insight is claimed. As such, I believe this statement needs clarification as to what subset of ideas of GLOM are actually being “shown to work” in this paper.
- The paper claims that APM doesn’t need dataset specific pre-training (Eg. line 176). While this is true in the sense that APM is a test-time instance method, APM does require access to highly meaningful visual representations (Eg. DINO / CLIP) that have been trained at scale. APM performance, as shown by the tables, degrades as the quality of the target representation degrades. I believe paraphrasing this claim is important to reflect this.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: I have several questions. Mainly important to clarification of the method:
- APM compares to baselines such as Prompt ensembling in Table 1, which is a text query side improvement. Did authors similarly use the best performing “text prompts” for their method?
- The per-instance distillation loss proposed by APM is minimized when the predicted feature is exactly the same as teacher feature. The fact that the final feature surpasses teacher feature performance implies that the loss does not go to 0 at training. Intuitively, what is the key constraint in the network that prevents loss from going to 0? What do the training curves look like for some example runs?
- Summarizing the questions asked in weakness section 1:
o Could you clarify what exactly does the folding process look like?
o Is $I_xy$ (patch level info) appended to $T$ and fed into the decoding MLP?
o Is the model actually auto-regressive or purely sequential / iterative?
o What is the correct pseudo-code corrected with the 20 iterations? How is T (the encoded global feature) updated after one iteration of encoding?
o How does performance on classification degrade with fewer iterations?
Answers to these questions are important for me to fully understand the paper.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The limitations section as currently written is a future work section. As mentioned in the “questions” section above, dense tasks and utility of local features is indeed interesting as a next direction. Additional things that can be discussed in the limitations section is the need for the method to do multiple iterations of test-time training instead of simple feed-forward inference or a single gradient step like other test-time training methods, and the variability in performance as compared to baselines.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for giving us their valuable time. Please find our responses:
``` On using the local patch variable $I_{xy} in the fig1 , but not in the methods. ``` Fig 1 meant to be a general case of APM's operation. In methods, APM doesn't use $I_{xy}$. We were showcasing that positional codes break symmetry even without additional patch-prior and disentangle information from global $I$. Ablations in Tab 5b), validate local-patch-injection improving from 96.5-> 96.8 on C-10 .
``` On Whether unfolded state is being feed-forwarded through mlp or the folded state?``` Trigger column T exists in the folded state after a fwd pass(fig 1b), when knowledge has 'collapsed' into the weights of conv layer. When fwd-pass begins, T opens up (unfolds), and 'all' columns are forwarded through mlp. We apologize, since the middle column in fig 1a) is shown as folded and lent itself to confusion. We will update it.
```On memory/states and auto-regression in APM``` APM encodes memory in 1) weights of T, and 2) weights of MLP. **Both** T and MLP are shared across **all** the locations. Weight-sharing induces the distributed-memory to learn relevant synaptic-patterns [11].
Auto-regression unrolls a shared-decoder over time. In contrast, APM holds the whole sequence in $T$, and directly hops onto a space/time-step [R1] via a location-column. Recurrence/feedback-loops are compensated for by a form of feature-expression ([12] & our changes over GLOM [10] sec 2.1, para 2. Positional code gives the notion of distance from starting point T, and iid columns help ensure parallel-processing of columns as in the third line of fig1 caption).
We convey this by choosing ```sequential```. We will replace `auto-regression` in fig1a) and line 65.
```On Details of folding-process/the gather step``` Folding operates at ```input``` of APM at the ```end``` of fwd-pass. Since a column $T_{ij}= (T|p_ij)$, and $p_{ij}$ is governed by hard-coded sinusoids, each $p_{ij}$ can be thought of as being ```annihilated``` during folding[14-16], aka deleting $p_{ij}$. Gradients from all $T_{ij}$ then flow back in towards the (center-of-mass[R3]/reservoir[R4]) column T[10].
'Gather' happens during the unfolded phase ```at mlp output```: for a particular generated column $T_{ij}$, the net is predicting the feature $f_{ij}$. Gather estimates statistically running average of $f_{ij}$, as different $T_{ij}$ get pumped. Gather's output is used for final classification.
``` On Sources of patch-level features during supervision```: We will clarify that patch-level features are the last-layer of a teacher and supervised via $L_{2}$ constraint even further in ablation section(line 231).
```On APM's claims```:**percept is a field**: We will rephrase as "APM is a step towards validating if input percept is a field". We will revise line 176 as: apm can work with randomly initialized weights, but requires a single representation distilled from a model trained at scale.
```On apm's reliance on a teacher```: We performed an additional experiment by removing the teacher from the apm, and doing rgb reconstruction on coco-train. L_2 rgb loss on coco-val fell to 0.0027. Training took far longer than if feature-vectors were also distilled from a teacher.
Higher-dimensional vector-spaces carry more bits[R5], but incur significant randomness. Supervision from a stronger teacher compensates and guides apm to correct points in subspace. Progressing from vit b->h in tab1, makes apm more competitive.
We will add limitation: a.k.a reduced performance as cls token's dimension reduces.
```On Using prompt-ensemble on the textual side```: apm's imagenet-experiments in tab 1 used 80 hand-crafted prompts, same as CLIP. Openclip vit-h baseline also used the prompt ensemble, where apm also obtains competitive performance.
```On Intuition behind final apm features surpassing teacher, stopping constraints```: APM relies on distillation, where students have been observed to outperform their teachers. In fig 3, over 250 ttt iterations, the loss dropped from 1e-3 to 1e-12. We ```had to``` reduce the learning rate by a factor of 0.1 every 50 iterations. Whilst small, indeed it is not perfectly zero. One reason might be finite 64-bit precision of neural synapses and low learning rates. We ```waited-long``` to creep gradients into the net, as in [11]'s footnote 20.
One might build additional constraint in a student (aka APM) to estimate when its own fantasies[18]/predicted semantic-features are better than the teacher's and stop dynamically [R6]/recurse. Notions on `soft` decision-making for higher-level cognition are embedded in [R4,R7].
```On Multi-iteration pseudo-code for ttt```: Please find an anonymous code-link[Pseudocode](https://anonymous.4open.science/r/apm_rebuttal-F3D1/ttt_pseudocode.png). We will update the paper.
```On Quantitative effects of lower number of ttt iterations```
We provide the ablation in global rebuttal pdf in Table 1.
```On Improving related work```
We will discuss more ttt/prompting/tta approaches. We shall add differences w.r.t feature refinement/distillation: a.k.a $L_2$ mimicking feature grids vs boltzmann-temperature-matching logits[3].
```On Extending limitations section```We apologize if our limitations came across as optimistic future work. We have noted APM's limitation: APM requires multiple iterations for test time training, which might increase inference time in time-sensitive scenarios. It would be very interesting to evaluate its performance leveraging other zero-th order optimization techniques [11].We also report mean/std of ttt on dtd with variable its/seeds in global pdf. We also provide more results on imagenet-c with additional noise severities (1-4).
```On Adding future work``` We will add apm's potential on dense tasks.
Yours Sincerely,
Authors
p.s please find references in comments
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: [Authors Reply] List of references used in our rebuttal to the respected Reviewer KZWi
Comment: p.s. other references follow paper order.
Yours Sincerely,
Authors
R1: Einstein, Albert. "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies."
R2: Geoff Hinton at Stanford, YouTube video, timestamp 49:07, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYaju6aCMoQ
R3: LA Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass .
R4: Neumann, John. "Theory of self-reproducing automata."
R5: Shannon, Claude Elwood. "A mathematical theory of communication."
R6: Hinton, Geoffrey E., et al. "The 'wake-sleep' algorithm for unsupervised neural networks."
R7: Bengio, Yoshua. "The consciousness prior."
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thank you for your rebuttal. My main concern with the paper (reason for borderline score) was the lack of clarity regarding the technical details of the folding / unfolding . distillation processes and the lack of clarification / phrasing of certain claims regarding inspirations / analogies in the paper. The authors have sufficiently addressed the technical questions, clarified intuition and promised to incorporate the writing changes in the final draft of the paper. These promised changes would be important for a strong final paper.
With my questions clarified, I will increase my score.
---
Reply to Comment 2.1.1:
Title: Author's reply to the respected reviewer KZWi
Comment: We thank the respected reviewer KZWi for their kind consideration of our work. As promised, we will incorporate the writing comments and the reviewer feedback to improve the engagement of a prospective reader.
Thank you so much for your valuable time, and we will be grateful to respond to any further clarifications,
Yours sincerely,
Authors. | Summary: The authors propose a new test time training method (architecture + self-supervised task) called Asynchronous Perception Machines (APMs). APM is computationally efficient, and empirically matches or improves performance on OOD image classification tasks versus prior test time inference approaches. The approach considers each $c' \times h \times w$ feature vector in the output of an image encoder as a c' dimensional mapping of the input spatial features to this 'island of agreement'. A convolutional neural network is used to generate this from the image. Once generated, this location aware column is folded/unfolded at inference time based on the input patch, and used to reconstruct the RGB and location specific features. The features are then averaged and compared against a text feature vector to perform classification. APM processes image patches one at a time in any order, thus also exploiting the benefits of transformer style models. Empirical results show that APM does well on out-of-distribution image classification benchmarks and exhibits competitive performance compared to existing TTT.
Strengths: - The method proposed is very novel, and (in my knowledge) the first practically viable and useful approach towards exploiting object part heirarchies as they were proposed in the GLOM paper. There are a lot of moving parts, which may or may not sustain in future work, but the key ideas (collapsed/expanded feature vectors, contrastive objective for tti instead of manually defined pre-text task) all seem like steps in the right direction.
- The authors should be commended for reproducible science, reading through the code and instructions accompanying the paper makes it easier to understand the novel model better. It also helps establish the credibility of their work, and since this is a nascent topic will engender future research.
Weaknesses: - While I think test time training is an important and useful paradigm, the illustrative example of "self-driving car trying to make sense of the visual world while it is raining, but there were no such training scenarios in its training data" (L20-21) does not really apply because tts does not really allow for instantaneous decision on a new test instance.
- I don't think the analogies in 3.1 are anything beyond that, and as such don't belong in the main paper. It would be better to draw real scientific analogies in the main paper, e.g. to 3D novel view synthesis.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Typo L17: Neural can now -> Neural nets can now
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 4
Limitations: Discussed briefly in Section 8
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your time and efforts in evaluating our work and providing positive and constructive feedback. We will be happy to address your comments:
```Illustrative example, “self-driving car trying to make sense of the visual world while it is raining, but there were no such training scenarios in its training data”```
We thank the reviewer for this insight, and we will replace this with a better example. We agree that TTT decisions are not made ```instantaneously``` in one iteration, in the cases where the net was not-pretrained on any source data, which also happens to be the setting where APM was evaluated. Some of the experiments did showcase APM being able to semantically cluster on COCO-val, after training on large datasets like COCO-train (Fig 5). It would be an interesting future-work to see optimizations such source-training brings towards reducing required ttt-iterations. APM is also computationally efficient (tab 4) compared to other baselines. It would be very interesting to evaluate its performance leveraging other zero-th order optimization techniques [R1,R2]. As [R3] also points out, such efficient-optimization would indeed be ```a good application``` for helping make instantaneous-decisions. We thank the reviewer for this observation, and will discuss this in future work also.
```Analogies in sec 3.1```
Thank you for this comment. As also pointed out by multiple-reviewers, we will shift these analogies to supplementary. We thank the reviewer for the suggestion to link our insights to 3D novel view synthesis. Indeed, given a single 3D-spatial coordinate of a pin-hole camera, neural fields operate by shooting i.i.d rays into the scene and leveraging the MLP to decode rgb. In a similar way, APM leverages location independent columns, a shared MLP, to decode location-specific features. While neural fields work for a 3D scene, apm works for a 2D percept, on a collection of images. We will add such a technical-analogy to our paper. We will correct the spelling mistake on line 17, and add the word 'nets'.
We thank the reviewer for giving us their valuable time, and will be grateful for the chance to engage in further discussions.
Sincerely,
Authors
[R1] Hinton, Geoffrey. "The forward-forward algorithm: Some preliminary investigations." arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.13345 (2022).
[R2] Malladi, Sadhika, et al. "Fine-tuning language models with just forward passes." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023): 53038-53075.
[R3] Sun, Yu, et al. "Learning to (learn at test time): Rnns with expressive hidden states." arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04620 (2024).
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response to Rebuttal
Comment: I'd like to thank the authors for taking the time to respond to the review, as well as for accepting some of my suggestions regarding the paper. After reading through the general rebuttal, as well as the author's rebuttals to each of the reviews - I agree with other reviewers that the writing can be improved (especially in terms of clarity and organization). This can be done in the camera ready, and as such I think the APM paper is good enough to appear at NeurIPS. I would like to keep my original rating of Accept, and look forward to seeing this work at NeurIPS.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Author's response to the Respected Reviewer doB6
Comment: We thank the respected reviewer doB6 for their kind words with regards to APM. We will further improve the paper's clarity and organization for better engagement with a prospective reader.
We remain,
Yours sincerely,
Authors. | Summary: This paper proposes a computationally-efficient architecture for test-time-training. APM can process patches of an image in any order asymmetrically, where it learns using single representation and starts predicting semantically-aware features. The experiment results demonstrates the effectiveness and efficiency of the method.
Strengths: The experiments on zero-shot test-time-training have demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed method.
Weaknesses: 1. The writing can be improved. The current organization makes me feel very confused of the proposed method. For example, in the abstract, the novelty should be emphasized. It seems that processing patches of an image one at a time in any order asymmetrically is emphasized, which I don't think it is a novel contribution.
2. As this paper targets at solving problems in test-time-training, I think more related work in this domain should be introduced in the section of related work.
3. I cannot understand why the analogy compared with biology and computation makes sense. The authors introduced a lot of analogy, which has no proof and no explanation. I think the technical soundness of the paper should be significantly improved.
4. The training and test details in the experimental section should be demonstrated in details, as readers may be interested in the experimental setting.
5. I am wondering if the proposed method can be extended to few-shot testing scenarios?
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 1
Questions for Authors: See weakness.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 1
Contribution: 2
Limitations: See weakness.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for helping us improve our work. Please find our responses below:
```[1] On processing patches of an image one at a time/lack of novelty```
We apologize that the novelties of our work were not clear. A CNN filter in any layer could process any patch by directly sliding on that region and performing convolution. Therefore, it can be said to still do asymmetric processing. However, for features to flow in the next layer, the whole CNN filter operation in the current layer will need to be finished thereby raising a waiting issue.
APM improves upon this by 1) breaking symmetry by location-aware columns, and 2) layer skipping: which allows apm to learn a mapping from input pixels to the last layer feature of a model via co-distillation. We will highlight these aspects more in the abstract.
Furthermore, as pointed out by reviewer KZWi, we will also focus on the ability of apm to recover scene-semantics from a global cls token and its potential for learning part-whole hierarchies via ssl-tasks.
```[2] On improving related work by adding more works``` We agree that our related work could be improved with works from other relevant areas such as test-time-adaptation as mentioned by reviewer PHih. Furthermore, as pointed out by reviewer KZWi, we will add more prompting approaches. We have also made a note to add an additional section clarifying the feature refinement/distillation.
```[3] On the presented biological analogy in section 3.1``` We apologize if our biological analogy motivated by GLOM came across as non-technical. We will shift biological insights (sec 3.1) to supplementary. We have provided more clarifications on trigger columns, folding-unfolding operation in our responses to reviewer KZWi. We have also added pseudo-code illustrating apm's operation during TTT (https://anonymous.4open.science/r/apm_rebuttal-F3D1/ttt_pseudocode.png).
```[4] On providing precise-hyperparameters/train/test-details for reproduciblity ``` Taking inspiration from [38], we provide **Reproducibility Statement**: In order to ensure the reproducibility of our experiments, we have shared the code in supplementary during the review process. The code, model weights shall be released publicly post-review. We will also share a docker image.
Hyperparameter tables: Code has been shared in supplemental.
| Hyperparameter | Value |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **Number of Test Samples** | 50000 (Imagenet Splits), variable for other datasets. |
| **Testing Iterations** | 20 |
| **Batch Size** | 1 |
| **Learning Rate** | 1e-4 |
| **Optimizer** | Adam |
| **Feature Output Size $d$** | $768/1024$ |
| **Positional Encoding Size** | $768/1024$ |
| **Image/Crop Size** | 448 |
| **Augmentations** | Normalization, $\mu = (0.485, 0.456, 0.406)$, $\sigma= (0.229, 0.224, 0.225)$ |
| **Precision** | fp16 (grad-scaled) |
| **Num of Workers** | 8 |
| **Operating System** | 1x rtx a6000 48GB/96GB RAM/Ubuntu 22.04/2TB SSD/5TB HDD |
Architecture details:
With input dimensions \(h, w, c\) and feature dimension \(d_p\): dimensionality of positional encoding. \(s\): stride of convolutional filter in encoder, \(d_c\): dimension of the CLS token of the teacher on which APM learns.
| Component | Layer | Feature Dimension | \(n_{\text{kernels}}\) | Stride | Padding |
|--------------------------|--------|--------------------------|-----------------------|--------|-----------------|
| **Input** | | \(h X w X c\) | - | - | - |
| **Encoder** | Conv | \(h_s X w_s X d) | 1 | \(s\) | 0 / 0 |
| **Decoder** | Linear | \((d_p + d) X 4096\) | - | - | - |
| | Linear | \(4096 X 4096\) | - | - | - |
| | Linear | \(4096 X 4096\) | - | - | - |
| | Linear | \(4096 X 2048\) | - | - | - |
| | Linear | \(2048 X 1024\) | - | - | - |
| **Feature Projection Head** | Linear | \(1024 X d_c\) | - | - | - |
| **RGB-Head (optional)** | Linear | \((d_p + d + 1024) X 4096\) | - | - | - |
| | Linear | \(1024 X 3 X 256\) | - | - | - |
| | Linear | \(256 X256\) | - | - | - |
| | Linear | \(256 X 3\) | - | - | - |
```[5] On extensions of apm to few-shot testing cases```
We appreciate the reviewer's forward-outlook of apm's application beyond ttt (line 216 of paper). We will add an additional discussion on few-shot-testing in future work.
We will be happy to respond to further clarifications. Thank you so much for your valuable time,
Yours Sincerely,
Authors
p.s. references follow paper order
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for your rebuttal. Most of my concerns are well addressed, so I increased my score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Author's response to the Respected Reviewer X1eH
Comment: We thank the respected reviewer for their timely response to our rebuttal. We are grateful for the reviewer's consideration and will be happy to respond to further clarifications.
Yours sincerely,
Authors. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewers,
We appreciate the positive feedback from the reviewers for our work. The reviewers acknowledged several aspects such as the creativity [Reviewer PHih], novelty [Reviewer doB6], effectiveness [Reviewer X1eH], first practically-viable approach towards GLOM's [10] ideas [Reviewer doB6], being reproducible [Reviewer doB6], being able to recover semantics from just one global CLS token [Reviewer KZWi], potential for applications beyond TTT for general-representational-learning [Reviewer KZWi], exhaustive evaluations/comparisons across multiple benchmarks [Reviewer KZWi] and demonstrating competitive-empirical results [Reviewer KZWi].
Based on reviewers constructive-feedback, we make further positive-amendments to our work;
- We provide a global rebuttal pdf, containing ablations with variable ttt-iterations[Reviewer KZWi], 4 additional tables with varying noise-severity levels on imagenet-c across all $15 \times 4=60$ noises, with corrections in table-columns duly noted in captions[Reviewer PHih]. We will update the main paper tables ( Tab 1-3).
- In addition to the code shared in supplemental, we add reproducibility statement, additional table for hyperparameters, a new table describing apm's architecture in comments. We shall also release a docker-image [Reviewer X1eH] for computing machines with differing hardware-configurations.
- We have anonymously added ttt pseudo-code as an external link [Pseudocode](https://anonymous.4open.science/r/apm_rebuttal-F3D1/ttt_pseudocode.png)[Reviewer KZWi].
We shall update the supplemental accordingly
**Addressing paper-writing comments**
- We will shift APM's biological-analogies (sec3.1) in supplemental [Reviewers X1eH,doB6], and clarify potential-novelties even better in abstract [Reviewer X1eH].
- We will extend related-work/limitations/future-work sections to tenth-page of the manuscript, and discuss more (ttt/prompting-approaches/tta/knowledge-distillation approaches [All reviewers] in related work), (applications to few-shot-testing [Reviewer X1eH], dense-tasks [Reviewer KZWi], using apm's local-field [Reviewer KZWi] in future-work).
We thank the reviewers for giving our work their valuable time. We have also provided individual-responses and look forward to the chance to engage in further-discussions.
Yours Sincerely,
Authors.
Pdf: /pdf/05131f9dc50c9eac6909310dfc867ac85a1ee24e.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Provably and Practically Efficient Adversarial Imitation Learning with General Function Approximation | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper analyses the AIL problem in the context of general function approximation. Specifically, authors propose an algorithm which is both sample efficient and computationally efficient. Finally, the paper concludes with an empirical validation of the results.
Strengths: - The paper analyses the AIL problem with general function approximation, which is interesting
- Author focus on both theoretical guarantees and practical implementation
- Authors validate the results empirically
Weaknesses: - There are many typos. For instance:
- line 12 "near-expert"
- line 43 you say have extended, but [28] is older than [54]
- table 1 it should be "linear mixture"
- line 141 $\mathcal{R}_h$ does not represent a reward class defined in that way
- line 143,149 it should be "realizability"
- line 145 $\mathcal{Q}_h$ does not represent a class defined in that way
- line 190 I think that the value functions should have an hat
- ...
- The authors make many assumptions to solve the problem. In particular, assumptions 1,2,3, as well as assumption 4, which I am not sure how strong it is as structural assumption
- Algorithm 1 requires to keep in memory all the K policies collected so far, which are many according to Theorem 1. Thus, this stuff may be rather inefficient concerning the memory storage.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - why your algorithm has an expert complexity which does not depend, differently from other algorithms, on the state-action space someway?
- At lines 246-248, when you say that your algorithm improves by an order of $\mathcal{O}(H^2)$ over BC, why do you think is so? Because of the structural assumptions that you added to the problem? Moreover, I do not understand why the rate of BC is $H^4$ instead of the common $H^2$.
- at lines 324-325, you say that a promising direction would be to try to achieve the optimal $H^{3/2}/\epsilon$ rate for the expert sample complexity. But who says that this is the optimal rate for the general function approximation setting? Authors [35] demonstrate that $H^{3/2}/\epsilon$ is optimal in the tabular setting thanks to accurate estimates of the transition model. But if you look at [34], authors say that the knowledge of the transition model does not allow to break the quadratic barrier in problems with continuous state space trivially, but have to devise something else. What do you think?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: The authors have adequately addressed the limitations and potential negative societal impact of their work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for taking the time to review and check our paper, and for your insightful comments. The references mentioned in this response can be found in the global response section.
**Question 1:** Typos.
**Answer 1:** We have fixed these typos and thoroughly revised the paper.
**Question 2:** The reviewer is not sure how strong assumptions 1-4 are as structural assumptions.
**Answer 2:** We point out that assumptions 1-4 in this paper are **weaker** than those used in previous theoretical AIL works [R4-R7]. Here we verify that assumptions 1-4 in this paper are weaker than the linear MDP assumption in [R7], where both the transition model and the true reward are assumed to be linear.
- **Assumption 1:** [R7] assumes the true reward is linear and applies a linear reward class, which implies reward realizability.
- **Assumption 2:** [R7] employs a linear Q-value class. Additionally, in linear MDPs, the optimal Q-value function is linear [R11], which implies Q-value realizability.
- **Assumption 3:** Claim 7.2 in [R10] indicates that linear MDP satisfies the Bellman Completeness assumption.
- **Assumption 4:** Linear MDP is an instance of MDPs with low GEC [R8].
Similarly, we can show that assumptions 1-4 are also weaker than the linear mixture MDP assumption in [R6]. Moreover, tabular MDP is an instance of linear MDPs and is therefore also stronger than assumptions 1-4. Overall, the assumptions used in this paper are weaker than those used in previous works [R4-R7].
Furthermore, [R15] proves that the realizability and Bellman Completeness assumptions are necessary for RL with general function approximation (GFA). Since AIL requires solving a series of RL tasks, which is more complex than RL, we believe that the realizability and Bellman Completeness assumptions could be necessary for AIL with GFA. Nevertheless, it is an interesting direction to relax assumptions 1-4 in AIL with GFA.
**Question 3:** Algorithm 1 requires to keep in memory all the K policies collected so far, which may be rather inefficient concerning the memory storage.
**Answer 3:** Keeping historical policies is purely for sample complexity analysis and is widely applied in AIL theory works [R5, R7]. In experiments, we found that the last iterate policy already performs well, so there is no need to keep historical policies.
**Question 4:** why your algorithm has an expert complexity which does not depend, differently from other algorithms, on the state-action space someway?
**Answer 4:** The difference arises because our algorithm operates with **function approximation**, whereas other algorithms [R4, R5], whose expert complexities depend on the state-action space size $|\mathcal{S}| |\mathcal{A}|$, operates in the **tabular** setup. In AIL with **GFA**, our algorithm leverages a **reward class** $\mathcal{R}$ to infer the true reward, and this reward class can capture the **underlying structure** of the true reward. Thus, the expert complexity depends on the complexity of $\mathcal{R}$ (the covering number in this work) rather than on $|\mathcal{S}| |\mathcal{A}|$. For instance, if the true reward has a linear structure with dimension $d$ and $\mathcal{R}$ is selected as linear functions, we have $\log (\mathcal{N} (\mathcal{R})) = \mathcal{O}(d)$, meaning the expert complexity depends on $d$. In contrast, algorithms designed for the tabular setup recover the reward value for **each state-action pair independently**, causing their expert complexities to depend on the size of the state-action space.
**Question 5:** Why your algorithm can improve by an order of $H^2$ over BC? Because of the structural assumptions? Why the rate of BC is $H^4$ instead of the common $H^2$?
**Answer 5:** The improvement of OPT-AIL over BC arises from the fact that OPT-AIL can acquire additional transition information from **online interactions**, whereas BC operates solely in an **offline** manner. This improvement is **not** due to the structural assumptions. By interacting with the MDP, AIL can perform multi-step state-action distribution matching [R4, R5, R7], whereas BC is limited to single-step policy matching. This insight has been theoretically validated in both tabular [R4, R5] and linear [R7] settings. In this work, we verify this insight for GFA.
Second, the $H^2$ rate for BC is achieved in the setup of **tabular MDPs** and **deterministic expert** [R16]. However, in the setting of **GFA** and **general expert** as studied in this work, Theorem 15.3 in [R10] shows that BC has an error bound $H^2 \sqrt{\frac{\log (|\Pi|)}{N}}$ when translating the result from an infinite horizon discounted MDP to a finite horizon MDP. This results in an $H^4$ expert complexity.
**Question 6:** Who says that $H^{3/2} / \varepsilon$ is the optimal rate for the GFA setting? How to break the quadratic barrier for the GFA setting?
**Answer 6:** First, we want to clarify that no existing work has established that the optimal rate for GFA is $\mathcal{O}(H^{3/2} / \varepsilon)$. We will clarify this point in the revised paper.
Additionally, we agree with [R17] that breaking the quadratic barrier for GFA may necessitate additional assumptions about the imitation learning instance. Specifically, as discussed in [R5], to break the quadratic barrier, it might be necessary to roll out the BC policy to collect additional trajectories, enabling a more accurate estimation of the expert's state-action distribution. This approach depends on BC’s ability to achieve a low generalization error in its supervised learning (SL) task, allowing it to closely approximate the expert policy. To reach this objective, we may need to impose further assumptions on both the SL problem addressed by BC and the SL learner employed in BC.
---
We hope that our responses can address your concerns satisfactorily. We would be grateful if you could re-evaluate our paper based on the above responses. We are also willing to address any further concerns, if possible.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: I thank the authors for the detailed and precise responses. I decide to keep my (positively biased) score, with (rather low) confidence.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback throughout the review process. We will revise the paper according to your suggestions. We are pleased to know that you appreciate our responses, and we extend our gratitude for your positive score. | Summary: This paper introduces optimization-based adversarial imitation learning (OPT-AIL), a novel method for online AIL with general function approximation. OPT-AIL combines online optimization for rewards and optimism-regularized Bellman error minimization for Q-value functions. Theoretically, it achieves polynomial expert sample complexity and interaction complexity, marking it as the first efficient AIL method with general function approximation. Practically, OPT-AIL simplifies implementation by requiring the optimization of only two objectives. Empirical results show OPT-AIL outperforms previous state-of-the-art deep AIL methods.
Strengths: - This paper introduces OPT-AIL, a novel approach that addresses both theoretical and practical limitations of existing AIL methods by utilizing general function approximation.
- This paper provides both thoeretical and empirical results to validate the proposed algorithm.
- The error decomposition is new and provides a new point for understanding AIL.
Weaknesses: - The complexity measure and main idea of algorithm is not entirely novel, which is based on GEC and a series of optimism-based work on general function approximation like GOLF.
- It seems that the paper mainly focus on the value-based hypothesis class and cannot incorporate the model-based ones directly.
- The discussions on errors $\varepsilon_{\rm opt}^r$ and $\varepsilon_{\rm opt}^Q$ is not sufficient (see Questions).
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - It is mentioned that one of the motivations of focusing on general function approximation is the implementation of neural networks in practice. How can neural network function class be included in the architecture? What’s the complexity of such classes?
- In the 3rd line of OPT-AIL, a no-regret algorithm is implemented to obtain the reward. Though author provides some explanations, it's still remain a bit confusing to me. Can authors elaborate more on this part, e.g., algorithm, optimization target, a brief recap of theoretical analysis (if these topics are well-dicussed in literature)?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: I suggest the authors to include more dicussions on the primary techincal difficulties in contribution part while deriving their theoretical results for AIL.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for taking the time to review our paper, and for your insightful comments. The references mentioned in this response can be found in the global response section.
**Question 1:** The complexity measure and main idea of algorithm is not entirely novel, which is based on GEC and a series of optimism-based work on general function approximation like GOLF.
**Answer 1:** We appreciate the series of works on GEC complexity and RL with general function approximation (GFA). However, our primary focus in this work is not the study of GEC complexity. Instead, our goal is to advance the understanding of adversarial imitation learning (AIL) with GFA. To achieve this, we establish a connection between AIL and RL with GFA, based on a new theoretical error decomposition. This connection enables the development of the first provably and practically efficient AIL approach for GFA.
**Question 2:** It seems that the paper mainly focus on the value-based hypothesis class and cannot incorporate the model-based ones directly.
**Answer 2:** Yes, this work focuses on value-based AIL. However, designing and analyzing a model-based AIL approach by leveraging the model optimism technique proposed in [R12, R13] is a valuable direction. We expect that the online optimization-based reward update used in this work would still be compatible with model-based approaches and the policy update would need to be redesigned.
**Question 3:** The discussions on errors $\varepsilon^{r}\_{\text{opt}}$ and $\varepsilon^{Q}\_{\text{opt}}$ is not sufficient. Can authors elaborate more on the reward update, e.g., algorithm, optimization target, a brief recap of theoretical analysis?
**Answer 3:** First, we elaborate on the reward update, which is based on **online** optimization.
- **Algorithm & Optimization Target:** As discussed in lines 189-197, we design the reward update based on online optimization. The goal in online optimization is to minimize regret, defined as $\text{regret}:=\max_{x \in \mathcal{X}}\sum_{k=1}^K \mathcal{L}^{k} (x^k) - \mathcal{L}^{k} (x)$, with the relationship $\varepsilon^{r}\_{\text{opt}} = 1/K \cdot \text{regret}$. To achieve this, we can apply a no-regret algorithm, which can achieve sublinear regret (e.g., $\mathcal{O} (\sqrt{K})$), resulting in a small $\varepsilon_{\text{opt}}^r$ (e.g., $\mathcal{O} (1/\sqrt{K})$). For instance, if we use the no-regret algorithm Follow-the-Regularized-Leader (FTRL), it updates the reward by $r^{k} \leftarrow \arg\min_{r\in\mathcal{R}} \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} \mathcal{L}^{i} (r)+\beta\psi(r)$, where $\psi (r)$ is the regularization function.
- **Theoretical Analysis:** The key step in the analysis is **error decomposition**, which decomposes the reward error into **optimization error** and **statistical error**. We can further upper bound the optimization error by $\varepsilon_{\text{opt}}^r$ and analyze the statistical error using concentration theory.
Second, the Q-value update is based on **offline** optimization. In iteration $k$, we obtain $Q^{k}$ by solving the offline optimization problem $\min_{Q \in \mathcal{Q}} \mathcal{L}^k(Q)$, and the optimization error is defined as $\varepsilon^{Q}\_{\text{opt}} := \mathcal{L}^k (Q^k) - \min_{Q \in \mathcal{Q}} \mathcal{L}^k (Q)$.
We will incorporate the above discussion in the revised paper.
**Question 4:** How can neural network function class be included in the architecture? What’s the complexity of such classes?
**Answer 4:** This work considers a general function class including neural networks (NNs). For NNs, the expert complexity and interaction complexity of OPT-AIL depend on the covering number of NNs. Theorem 3.3 in [R14] provides the covering number bound for NNs. Consider the L-layer NNs of
$$
\mathcal{F}:=\{f_{A}:f_{A}(s, a)=\sigma_L (A_L \cdots \sigma_1 (A_1 [s^T, a^T]^T))\}.
$$
Here, $A_1,\ldots,A_L$ are weight matrices with a spectral norm bound $b_s$ and a matrix norm bound $b_n$, while $\sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_L$ are activation functions with Lipschitz coefficient $\rho$. The covering number is given by $\log (\mathcal{N} (\mathcal{F})) = \mathcal{O} ( (b_s\rho)^{2L} ( L (b_s/b_n)^{2/3} )^{3} )$. Substituting this bound into the original expert complexity and interaction complexity yields the results for NNs.
**Question 5:** Include more dicussions on the primary techincal difficulties in contribution part while deriving their theoretical results for AIL.
**Answer 5:** The key theoretical challenge is that, unlike in RL, the reward functions in AIL are **stochastic** and exhibit **statistical dependence**, as they are learned from sampled expert demonstrations and environment interactions. This brings technical difficulties in analyzing both reward error and policy error.
- **Analysis of Reward Error:** To analyze the reward error, we need to upper bound the statistical error that arises when using the empirical loss to approximate the expected one. However, due to the statistical dependence between reward functions, the standard concentration arguments for i.i.d. samples are not applicable. To address this issue, we construct a martingale difference sequence and apply a martingale concentration argument.
- **Analysis of Policy Error:** To analyze the policy error, we need to analyze the difference between the empirical Bellman error, calculated from historical samples, and the true Bellman error for the recovered reward. The challenge arises because the recovered reward statistically depends on the historical samples, complicating the characterization of its concentration properties. To overcome this difficulty, we use a covering number argument and then design a martingale difference sequence to relate the empirical Bellman error to the true Bellman error.
We will expand on the above discussion in the revised paper.
---
We hope that the responses given above have effectively addressed your concerns. We are open to discussing any more questions you may have, if possible.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I thank the authors for the detailed response and I would suggest the authors to the authors to also incorporate answer in the revised version to better back up the claim in introduction. Besides, I think the difficulties and solution mentioned in answer 5, such as martingale concentration and covering number, is quite standard in RL rather than ``unlike”. Overall, I am maintaining my original score and remain in favor of acceptance.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Your valuable comments and feedback are deeply appreciated. We are pleased to know that our responses have addressed your questions, and we are committed to incorporating the above answers as we revise the paper. We extend our sincere gratitude for your positive evaluation. | Summary: This paper studies adversarial imitation learning (AIL). From a theoretical perspective, it proposes a new algorithm OPT-AIL which works in the context of general function approximations, accompanied with a provable sample efficiency guarantee. The advantage of the proposed theoretical algorithm is that it can be easily adapted to a practical version based on neural network implementations.
Strengths: **Orginality and Significance:**
1. The proposed algorithm is the first provably sample efficient online AIL under general function approximations, which is an important contribution to the theoretical understanding of imitation learning.
2. The proposed algorithm features an optimism-regularized Bellman-error minimization subproblem which makes the algorithm both provably sample efficient (for the online setup) and amenable to practical implementations based on neural networks.
3. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.
**Quality and Clarity:**
The presentation is quite clear. The theoretical results are sound and are well proved.
Weaknesses: 1. The idea and techniques in this paper seems direct given the existing theoretical works on AIL and RL with general function approximations especially [1] and [2].
2. The assumption of low generalized eluder coefficient [2] is from standard RL literature and is directly adapted here, without further explanations or discussions.
**References:**
[1] Zhihan Liu, Miao Lu, Wei Xiong, Han Zhong, Hao Hu, Shenao Zhang, Sirui Zheng, Zhuoran Yang, and Zhaoran Wang. Maximize to explore: One objective function fusing estimation, planning, and exploration. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36*, 2024.
[2] Han Zhong, Wei Xiong, Sirui Zheng, Liwei Wang, Zhaoran Wang, Zhuoran Yang, and Tong Zhang. A posterior sampling framework for interactive decision making. *arXiv*, 2211.01962, 2022.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. When the main theory translates to linear (or linear mixture) setups in AIL, how does the corresponding result compare with the previous arts?
2. Could the authors highlight the theoretical difficulties or novelties that arise from applying the idea of [1] to the setup of AIL?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Please see the weakness section and the question section above.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate your time to review and provide positive feedback for our work. The references mentioned in this response can be found in the global response section.
**Question 1:** The idea and techniques in this paper seems direct given the existing theoretical works on AIL and RL with general function approximations especially [1] and [2].
**Answer 1:** We want to highlight that the theoretical analysis in this paper is **not** straightforward, given existing theoretical works on AIL and RL with general function approximation (GFA). The primary technical challenge arises from the fact that, in AIL, the reward functions are dynamic and stochastic, as they are learned from expert demonstrations and environment interactions in an online manner. This introduces statistical complexity in analyzing the joint learning processes of rewards and policies. Below, we provide a more detailed explanation of these theoretical challenges and our technical solutions.
Unlike in RL, the reward functions in AIL are **stochastic** and exhibit **statistical dependence**, as they are learned from sampled expert demonstrations and environment interactions. This presents technical difficulties when analyzing both reward and policy errors.
- **Analysis of Reward Error:** Analyzing reward error involves characterizing the statistical error that arises when using an empirical loss function to approximate the expected one. However, because the reward functions are statistically dependent, standard concentration arguments for i.i.d. samples are not applicable. This challenge is **unique** to AIL with **GFA** and is not encountered in existing theoretical works on AIL [R4-R6]. Previous studies focus on either tabular [R4, R5] or linear [R6] settings, which allow for error analysis in the state-action distribution space [R4, R5] or feature expectation space [R6] in a **reward-independent** manner. In contrast, our study on the GFA setting requires error analysis in the policy value space, which is inherently **reward-dependent**. To address the statistical dependence issue, we carefully construct a martingale difference sequence and apply a martingale concentration argument.
- **Analysis of Policy Error:** Analyzing policy error requires analyzing the difference between the empirical Bellman error, calculated from historical samples, and the true Bellman error for the recovered reward. The challenge lies in the fact that the recovered reward statistically depends on these historical samples, complicating the characterization of concentration properties. To address this, we leverage a covering number argument and design a martingale difference sequence to relate the empirical Bellman error to the true Bellman error.
We will elaborate on the theoretical challenges and our technical solutions in the revised paper.
**Question 2:** The assumption of low generalized eluder coefficient [2] is from standard RL literature and is directly adapted here, without further explanations or discussions.
**Answer 2:** In this work, the low generalized eluder coefficient (GEC) assumption is introduced to help control the policy error (as shown in Lemma 1) for AIL. We prove that the policy error can be upper bounded by the policy evaluation error (i.e., the term on the LHS of the low GEC assumption). The low GEC assumption ensures that the policy evaluation error can be controlled by the Bellman error on the dataset (i.e., the first term on the RHS of the low GEC assumption). By performing (regularized) Bellman error minimization, we can theoretically control the policy evaluation error, which in turn controls the policy error. We will elaborate on this low GEC assumption in the revised paper.
**Question 3:** When the main theory translates to linear (or linear mixture) setups in AIL, how does the corresponding result compare with the previous arts?
**Answer 3:** Here, we compare Theorem 1 with the previous result [R7] when applied to linear MDPs with dimension $d$. To adapt the main theory, we upper bound the terms $d_{\text{GEC}}$, $\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{R})$, and $\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{Q})$ in Theorem 1 by $d$.
- For $d_{\text{GEC}}$, we can show that $d_{\text{GEC}} = \mathcal{O}(Hd)$. Specifically, $d_{\text{GEC}} = \mathcal{O}(H d_{\text{BE}})$ [R8], where $d_{\text{BE}}$ is the Bellman Eluder dimension. Furthermore, $d_{\text{BE}} = \mathcal{O}(d_{\text{BR}})$ [R9], where $d_{\text{BR}}$ is the Bellman rank, and $d_{\text{BR}} \leq d$ [R10]. Combining these bounds yields $d_{\text{GEC}} = \mathcal{O}(Hd)$.
- Additionally, in linear MDPs, we use a linear reward class $\mathcal{R}$ and a linear Q-value class $\mathcal{Q}$. Based on the discussion following Corollary 16 in [R11], we have $\log(\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{R})) = \mathcal{O}(d)$ and $\log(\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{Q})) = \mathcal{O}(d)$.
Using these bounds, we find that in linear MDPs, OPT-AIL achieves an expert sample complexity of $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(H^2d/\varepsilon^2)$ and an interaction complexity of $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(H^4d^2/\varepsilon^2)$. The expert sample complexity matches that of the BRIG approach [R7], while the interaction complexity improves upon BRIG [R7] by $\mathcal{O}(d)$. This improvement is due to the optimization-based optimism technique employed in our work, which offers better dimensional dependence than the bonus-based optimism used in [R7], as demonstrated in the RL literature [R9]. These findings confirm the sharpness of our main theory when applied to linear MDPs. We will include this discussion in the revised paper.
**Question 4:** Could the authors highlight the theoretical difficulties or novelties that arise from applying the idea of [1] to the setup of AIL?
**Answer 4:** We provide a detailed discussion on the theoretical challenges in **Answer 1**.
---
We hope that the responses given above have effectively addressed your concerns. We are open to discussing any more questions you may have, if possible.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your detailed answer to all my questions! I still appreciate the contributions of the work and I am in favor of the acceptance of the paper. I have no further questions and will remain my positive score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback throughout the review process. We are fully committed to incorporating your suggestions as we revise the paper. We are glad to hear that you recognize the contributions of this work, and we are grateful for your positive score. | Summary: This paper explores the theory of adversarial imitation learning (AIL) using general function approximation. The authors introduce a novel approach called Optimization-Based AIL (OPT-AIL). OPT-AIL employs a no-regret subroutine for optimizing rewards and minimizes the optimism-regularized Bellman error for Q-value functions. The authors prove that OPT-AIL achieves polynomial expert sample complexity and interaction complexity, effectively imitating the expert. They also implement a practical version of OPT-AIL, demonstrating that it outperforms existing baseline methods across various environments.
Strengths: 1. Originality: This paper introduces the first provably efficient algorithm for adversarial imitation learning (AIL) with general function approximation.
2. Solid Mathematics: While I did not verify the proofs in the appendix, the algorithm appears standard, suggesting the proofs should be correct.
3. Good Writing: The paper is well-written, and the motivation is clear from the introduction and related work sections. Readers can easily understand the algorithm from sec 4.1 and the pseudo code.
4. Good Experimental Results: The practical version of OPT-AIL outperforms standard AIL baselines in various environments.
Weaknesses: 1. The practical algorithm itself is not highly innovative. The idea of running a no-regret algorithm to update the reward function is not new, and using an actor-critic framework for policy updates is also common.
2. The baselines compared are not SOTA algorithms for AIL/IRL. For instance, algorithms like FILTER (Swamy, Gokul, et al., "Inverse Reinforcement Learning Without Reinforcement Learning," ICML 2023) and HyPER (Ren, Juntao, et al., "Hybrid Inverse Reinforcement Learning," arXiv preprint, 2024) outperform IQ-Learn.
Minor issue:
3. For lines 270-272, the idea of using a no-regret algorithm for updating the reward function is not new. It has been explored and justified in previous work (such as Swamy, Gokul, et al., "Of Moments and Matching: A Game-Theoretic Framework for Closing the Imitation Gap," ICML 2021).
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Is it possible to add experiments comparing with FILTER and HyPER? I understand it is mainly a theory paper, but it would be good to add the latest SOTA algorithms to be the baselines.
2. Can FTRL directly be a justification for using off-policy update for reward function? Like, OGD is all a instance of FTRL but only update the reward function based on the current policy.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes, the authors have adequately addressed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for taking the time to review our paper and providing us with your valuable feedback. The references mentioned in this response can be found in the global response section.
**Question 1:** The practical algorithm itself is not highly innovative. The idea of running a no-regret algorithm to update the reward function is not new, and using an actor-critic framework for policy updates is also common.
**Answer 1:** We would like to emphasize that the novelty of our proposed practical algorithm, OPT-AIL, lies in its unique objective function for the Q-value, as presented in Eq. (3). Unlike previous practical AIL methods such as DAC and IQLearn, which update Q-value models by minimizing the **standard** Bellman error, OPT-AIL introduces **optimism-regularized** Bellman error minimization. This optimism-based regularization encourages exploration in unknown environments, a critical feature supported by our theoretical analysis. As a result, OPT-AIL benefits from theoretical guarantees with general function approximation. In contrast, previous practical AIL methods lack this optimistic mechanism, which may lead to the absence of such theoretical guarantees in those algorithms.
**Question 2:** The baselines compared are not SOTA algorithms for AIL/IRL. For instance, algorithms like FILTER and HyPER outperform IQ-Learn.
**Answer 2:** Thank you for bringing these two works to our attention. To address your concerns, we conducted additional experiments on FILTER and HyPE [R1]. For [R1], due to time constraints, we focused on evaluating the model-free algorithm HyPE. We chose this approach because HyPE demonstrates a similar return to the model-based method HyPER on locomotion tasks, as reported in their paper, but with significantly shorter training time (approximately 3 hours for HyPE compared to 30 hours for HyPER per run in our experiments). We tested FILTER and HyPE using the hyperparameters recommended in their respective papers.
The detailed results are presented in Figures 1 and 2 of the submitted PDF. In terms of expert sample efficiency, OPT-AIL consistently matches or exceeds the performance of FILTER and HyPE. Regarding environment interaction efficiency, OPT-AIL achieves near-expert performance with fewer interactions compared to FILTER and HyPE. We believe this improvement could be due to the optimism-regularized Bellman error minimization technique employed in our approach, which facilitates more efficient exploration in the environment. In the revised paper, we will provide a comprehensive evaluation of FILTER, HyPE, and HyPER, and include these additional experimental results.
**Question 3:** For lines 270-272, the idea of using a no-regret algorithm for updating the reward function is not new. It has been explored and justified in previous work (such as Swamy, Gokul, et al., "Of Moments and Matching: A Game-Theoretic Framework for Closing the Imitation Gap," ICML 2021).
**Answer 3:** We want to clarify that we do **not** claim that the application of a no-regret algorithm for reward updates is novel. Instead, in lines 270-272, we establish a **connection** between the popular off-policy reward learning and the no-regret algorithm FTRL. To the best of our knowledge, this connection is new to the imitation learning literature and offers a partial explanation for the good practical performance of off-policy reward learning. We will make this point clearer in the revised paper and include a discussion of the related work [R2].
**Question 4:** Can FTRL directly be a justification for using off-policy update for reward function? Like, OGD is all a instance of FTRL but only update the reward function based on the current policy.
**Answer 4:** We establish a connection between off-policy reward learning and the Follow-The-Regularized-Leader (FTRL) algorithm by noting that **they share the same main optimization objective**. Specifically, the optimization objective for off-policy reward learning can be expressed as:
$$
\min_{r \in \mathcal{R}} \mathbb{E}\_{\tau \sim \mathcal{D}^k} \left[ \sum_{h=1}^H r_h (s^i_h, a^i_h) \right] - \mathbb{E}\_{\tau \sim \mathcal{D}^{\text{E}}} \left[ \sum_{h=1}^H r_h (s^i_h, a^i_h) \right]
$$
where $\mathcal{D}^k$ represents the replay buffer containing all historical samples. For FTRL in OPT-AIL, the optimization objective can be formulated as:
$$
\min_{r \in \mathcal{R}} \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} \mathcal{L}^i (r) + \beta \psi (r) \Leftrightarrow \min_{r \in \mathcal{R}} k \left( \mathbb{E}\_{\tau \sim \mathcal{D}^k} \left[ \sum_{h=1}^H r_h (s^i_h, a^i_h) \right] - \mathbb{E}\_{\tau \sim \mathcal{D}^{\text{E}}} \left[ \sum_{h=1}^H r_h (s^i_h, a^i_h) \right] \right) + \beta \psi (r).
$$
From these equations, it is evident that off-policy reward learning and FTRL share the same main objective. This insight suggests that viewing off-policy reward learning through the lens of FTRL can help explain its good practical performance. However, it’s important to note that while off-policy reward learning shares this objective with FTRL, in practice, it typically involves taking several gradient steps rather than fully optimizing this objective. As such, additional analysis is required to provide a complete theoretical explanation for off-policy reward learning, which is beyond the scope of this work.
Finally, we would like to clarify that OGD is an instance of FTRL only when the loss functions $\\{ \mathcal{L}^i (r) \\}_{i=0}^K$ are linear [R3]. However, in practice, when reward models are parameterized by neural networks, the loss functions become non-linear, meaning that OGD is no longer an instance of FTRL in such cases.
We greatly appreciate your question and welcome any further inquiries.
---
We hope that our responses can address your concerns satisfactorily. We would be grateful if you could re-evaluate our paper based on the above responses. We are
also willing to address any further concerns, if possible.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Thank you for your detailed response and for adding the experiments.
Regarding Q2: I appreciate the additional experiments. The results are quite promising. For interaction efficiency, based on the plot, I would suggest describing the results as "competitive with HyPE, demonstrating more interaction-efficient learning in some environments." As for FILTER, you could try experiments in scenarios where exploration is particularly challenging in your final version, such as antmaze. Overall, I find the experimental results to be strong.
Regarding Q3: I still believe that the point you're making is somewhat known in the field. It might be worth reviewing other papers that use FTRL for reward updates to avoid overstating the novelty of your contribution.
Regarding Q4: Thank you for your response. I would recommend including this discussion in the final version of the paper.
Overall, I think this is a strong theory paper with practical algorithms and solid experimental results. I’d like to raise my score to 7.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your insightful comments and feedback. We will supplement these experimental results and revise the paper according to your suggestions. We are pleased to learn that our responses have addressed your concerns, and we deeply appreciate your reconsideration of the score. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Here we list all the references that appeared in the responses to reviewers.
References:
[R1] Juntao Ren et al. "Hybrid inverse reinforcement learning." arXiv: 2402.08848.
[R2] Gokul Swamy et al. "Of moments and matching: A game-theoretic framework for closing the imitation gap." ICML 2021.
[R3] Elad Hazan. "Introduction to online convex optimization." Foundations and Trends in Optimization, 2016.
[R4] Lior Shani et al. "Online apprenticeship learning." AAAI 2022.
[R5] Tian Xu et al., "Provably efficient adversarial imitation learning with unknown transitions.", UAI 2023.
[R6] Zhihan Liu et al. "Provably efficient generative adversarial imitation learning for online and offline setting with linear function approximation." ICML 2022.
[R7] Luca Viano et al. "Better imitation learning in discounted linear MDP." 2024.
[R8] Han Zhong et al. "A posterior sampling framework for interactive decision making." arXiv: 2211.01962.
[R9] Chi Jin et al. "Bellman eluder dimension: New rich classes of rl problems, and sample-efficient algorithms." NeurIPS 2021.
[R10] Alekh Agarwal et al., “Reinforcement learning: Theory and algorithms.”, 2019.
[R11] Chi Jin et al. "Provably efficient reinforcement learning with linear function approximation." COLT 2020.
[R12] Simon S. Du et al. "Bilinear classes: A structural framework for provable generalization in rl." ICML 2021.
[R13] Zhihan Liu et al. "Maximize to explore: One objective function fusing estimation, planning, and exploration." NeurIPS 2023.
[R14] Peter L. Bartlett et al. "Spectrally-normalized margin bounds for neural networks." NeurIPS 2017.
[R15] Dylan J. Foster et al. "Offline reinforcement learning: Fundamental barriers for value function approximation." COLT 2022.
[R16] Nived Rajaraman et al. "Toward the fundamental limits of imitation learning." NeurIPS 2020.
[R17] Nived Rajaraman et al. "On the value of interaction and function approximation in imitation learning." NeurIPS 2021.
Pdf: /pdf/6c4bff9d5460714a8cc602c5bd7c35b8641f1ff1.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Utilizing Human Behavior Modeling to Manipulate Explanations in AI-Assisted Decision Making: The Good, the Bad, and the Scary | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper addresses the manipulation of explanations in AI-assisted decision-making, presenting a comprehensive study that explores how human behavior models can be used to adjust explanations provided by AI systems. The aim is to understand if these manipulations can nudge decision-makers towards specific outcomes, which might be either beneficial or malicious.
Strengths: 1. The paper's focus on quantitatively modeling human behavior to manipulate AI explanations is highly novel and impactful. This approach not only extends the current understanding of AI-human interactions but also opens new avenues for both enhancing and securing AI-assisted decision-making systems.
2. The experiments conducted across various decision-making tasks provide a robust validation of the proposed models. The inclusion of both adversarial and benign manipulations allows for a balanced view of the potential impacts of this technology.
Weaknesses: 1. The scope of the experiments is restricted to tasks such as census and recidivism prediction, which may not adequately represent the complexities and stakes of decision-making environments in sectors like healthcare or finance. Expanding the range of tasks to include high-stakes decision-making could improve the generalizability of the results.
2. The behavior model does not account for the inherent variability and noise in human decision-making, potentially oversimplifying the complexities of real-world human-AI interactions.
2. The data and code are not immediately available for replication and further study, which could hinder the verification of the results and the advancement of the research.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: I still have a positive view of this work, and have the following questions:
1. Could the authors please provide more detail on which covariates were found to be significant in the regression analyses? It would be helpful to understand not only which variables significantly impacted the model outcomes but also how they were selected and their relative influence on the dependent variables.
2. Regarding the use of $\sum_i e_i$ in Eq. 2 for evaluating consistency, I wonder why this summation was chosen over other potential methods. Could the authors clarify the rationale behind this choice?
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: 1. Score-based explanations may not be adequate. Incorporating Large Language Models could introduce more versatile and comprehensive explanations.
2. Include more diverse datasets, possibly extending to more complex data types like images or videos, to test the robustness of the behavior models across different AI applications.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for the review! Below we address your questions.
> Could the authors please provide more detail on which covariates were found to be significant in the regression analyses? It would be helpful to understand not only which variables significantly impacted the model outcomes but also how they were selected and their relative influence on the dependent variables.
- The selection criteria for the covariates, including participants' demographic information, their knowledge of AI explanations, and their trust in AI models, were based on prior HCI research [1,2,3], which empirically examines how AI explanations impact human decisions in AI-assisted decision-making and how these factors might influence that impact.
- In our regression analysis, we observed an interesting trend across all four types of decision tasks, particularly when AI explanations were manipulated for adversarial purposes. Participants with high trust in AI systems consistently rated the manipulated explanations higher in terms of alignment, satisfaction, usefulness, etc. Similarly, participants with greater knowledge of AI explanations exhibited the same trend as those with high trust, suggesting that individuals more familiar with AI systems might be more vulnerable to these manipulations.
We will include the full linear regression results as tables in the manuscript and add a discussion on these findings to provide further insight.
> Regarding the use of in Eq. 2 for evaluating consistency, I wonder why this summation was chosen over other potential methods. Could the authors clarify the rationale behind this choice?
The choice of the summation form for consistency constraints in Equation 2 is primarily motivated by the alignment with SHAP explanations, which emphasize local accuracy. This property ensures that the sign of the sum of all feature contributions from SHAP can match the sign of the model’s output. Additionally, in our setting, we assume that third parties do not have access to the AI model when manipulating AI explanations. Therefore, alternative metrics that would require probing the model’s outputs with perturbed inputs to evaluate the consistency of explanations are challenging to implement in this study.
> No code available
We will release the collected human behavior data, along with the code for training the human behavior model and manipulating AI explanations, upon the acceptance of our paper.
[1] Lai, Vivian, Han Liu, and Chenhao Tan. "" Why is' Chicago'deceptive?" Towards Building Model-Driven Tutorials for Humans." Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2020.
[2] Zhang, Yunfeng, Q. Vera Liao, and Rachel KE Bellamy. "Effect of confidence and explanation on accuracy and trust calibration in AI-assisted decision making." Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 2020.
[3] Wang, Xinru, and Ming Yin. "Are explanations helpful? a comparative study of the effects of explanations in ai-assisted decision-making." Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 2021.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thank you for the responses
Comment: Thank you to the authors for their responses. Most of my questions have been addressed. After considering your responses and the feedback from other reviewers, I will maintain my evaluation. | Summary: This paper proposes to train a computational model to predict how humans would respond to model predictions and their explanations to make the final decision. Using this model, the authors then demonstrate that it could be used to manipulate explanations for both good and bad purposes, specifically to steer human predictions toward the label that is likely to be correct, or make human decisions intentionally biased. Furthermore, the humans have very little idea that the explanations have been manipulated in both cases.
Strengths: This paper focuses on an important topic: the role of explanations in human decision making.
The presentation is generally clear and the writing structure is good.
Extensive experiments are conducted to demonstrate the main arguments of the paper.
Weaknesses: 1. I noticed that the user study payment is only \\$1.2 base pay with a potential bonus of \\$1.0 (Sec. 4.2). The study consists of a tutorial, 5 predictions without AI assistance, 15 predictions with AI prediction and explanations, and an exit survey. Given that this study is deployed to US-based participants, the compensation is extremely meager: even at the federal minimum wage of \\$7.25 per hour, the \\$1.2 base pay would be equivalent to 10 min of work, which, given the user interface of Fig. A.1 and A.2, is extremely unlikely to be enough for all the tasks. Thus, I have serious concern about the ethics of the study, despite its IRB approval, and thus decide to request additional ethics reviewers for this paper.
2. The use of computational model for human behavior is not novel, and the applications to human decision manipulation seems quite straightforward.
3. Furthermore, it would be helpful have some additional analysis on the learned computation model itself, maybe with the help of various interpretability tools. For example, when is the human prediction most likely influenced by the provided explanation, and in what way? These quantitative and qualitative insights could be helpful to understand human behaviors better.
4. For the "benign" use case of improving human model prediction, the authors looked at cases "when the AI model decision is likely incorrect" (Line 285). How is this "likely incorrect" determined? And if we know when the AI prediction is likely incorrect, why can't we simply fix/patch the AI model directly? The authors demonstrated that the human performance is better after explanation manipulation, compared to the original explanation in Fig. 3, but is the human prediction better than the "fixed AI model" performance?
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: See weaknesses. In addition, the reliance metrics of Fig. 3 are not defined here, and the readers need to search the referenced papers for definitions.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['Ethics review needed: Research involving human subjects']
Rating: 3
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your review! We noticed that you are particularly concerned with the ethics of this study. We hope the clarifications below satisfactorily address these issues, and we are open to discussing any further concerns you may have. We are fully committed to ensuring that our work meets all ethical requirements.
> I noticed that the user study payment is only \\$1.2 base pay with a potential bonus of \\$1.0 (Sec. 4.2). The study …..
Table 1: The average hourly payment received by participants in our study across four tasks. In the row "Number of Workers," the number in parentheses indicates the number of invalid participants who did not pass the attention check questions.
| | Recidivism | Census | Bias | Toxicity |
|:-----------------------------:|:----------:|:---------:|:---------:|:--------:|
| Number of Participants | 336 (16) | 310 (25) | 259 (20) | 286 (17) |
| Average Working Time (minute) | 6.67 | 6.25 | 6.98 | 6.34 |
| Hourly Payment (Base) | $10.8 | $11.7 | $10.2 | $11.36 |
| Hourly Payment (Base + Bonus) | $11.9 | $11.8 | $11.4 | $14.4 |
- To determine the appropriate payment level for each task, we first conducted a preliminary study to estimate the time workers might spend on the tasks. Our pilot study indicated that a base payment of \\$1.2 per task translates to an approximate hourly rate of \\$10. To provide greater transparency about the compensation received by participants in our formal study, Table 1 summarizes the average hourly payment and the average time spent on each task. As shown in Table 1, the average base hourly payment across the four tasks exceeds \\$10 per hour, and the average hourly payment including bonus is close to \\$12 per hour, both of which are well above the federal minimum wage. In addition, to minimize any potential negative effects of the manipulation, we provided a debrief session through the Prolific system after participants completed the experiment. This session clarified that the provided explanations were intentionally manipulated to influence their decisions.
- In addition, to ensure the quality of participant responses, we included two attention check questions in our study, where participants were required to select a pre-specified answer. These attention checks were randomly inserted among 15 formal tasks. Only participants who passed both attention checks were considered valid for our analysis.
Lastly, we acknowledge that conducting an online study presents challenges in ensuring that participants maintain full attention throughout the tasks. We will include a discussion of this limitation in our manuscript.
> The use of computational model for human behavior is not novel, and the applications to human decision manipulation seems quite straightforward.
While much research has focused on modeling human behavior in AI-assisted decision making, our study is among the first to explore and answer whether we can model the impact of AI predictions with explanations on human decisions. Furthermore, informed by the learned human behavior models, we further investigate the possibility to manipulate AI explanations, aiming to advance our understanding of what roles AI explanations play in human decisions. Through our initial exploration of manipulating AI explanations to influence human decision making, we seek to lay a base for demonstrating the potential to strategically manipulate information presented to humans with behavior modeling, thereby impacting their decisions.
> Furthermore, it would be helpful have some additional analysis on the learned computation model itself, maybe with the ….
Thanks for your suggestion! We used SHAP to provide explanations on how task features, AI model predictions, and explanations impact human decisions based on our behavior models. Through our SHAP analysis, we first observed that AI model predictions influence human decisions, often leading them to align with the AI's predictions. In addition, we found that, especially when explanations are manipulated for adversarial purposes, model-based manipulation often intentionally retains certain features as protective to mislead humans into making biased decisions. For example, when predicting whether a person's income is below \\$50k, if the person individual is a female, the manipulated explanation might present gender as a positive contributor to earning above \\$50k, and vice versa for males. If we intentionally change the manipulated contribution of gender to be negative for females, we observed that the predicted probability of this female's income being below $50k by our decision model decreases. We also observed similar trends in recidivism prediction when targeting the 'Black’ race. This phenomenon suggests that when humans make decisions, they may focus intentionally on sensitive features. When AI explanations indicate traces of unfairness in these features, people may naturally make decisions to counteract this perceived bias. And we will include the discussion in the manuscript.
> Continued on the next comment
.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Rebuttal (continued)
Comment: > For the "benign" use case of improving human model prediction, the authors looked at cases ...
- To determine when the AI model's decision is likely correct, we followed an established approach [1], which combines AI predictions with independent human decisions to leverage the complementary strengths of both AI and human judgment. Our evaluation revealed that the combined decision's accuracy on the test set was higher than the accuracy of either the AI model or human judgment alone. Therefore, we used this combined prediction to evaluate when the AI model's decision is likely correct. For more details on this evaluation, please refer to Appendix C.1.
- In AI-assisted decision making, particularly in critical contexts, it is crucial that humans remain responsible for the final decision and its consequences. In addition, simply making AI predictions more accurate may not be enough, because humans could still rely on a highly accurate AI very inappropriately, resulting in low team performance. Our study, therefore, is not to enhance AI predictions but to improve the performance of human decision makers as they interact with AI models. In fact, during our evaluation, we found that presenting manipulated explanations can significantly reduce human underreliance—where humans fail to rely on the AI model when it is correct—and thus improve human-AI team performance.
- We examined the performance of humans after manipulating explanations and compared it to the performance of a "fixed AI model." In the recidivism prediction task, we found that humans with manipulated explanations achieved an average accuracy of 0.66, which was higher than the fixed AI model's accuracy of 0.62. However, in other tasks, human performance was lower than that of the fixed AI model.
> In addition, the reliance metrics of Fig. 3 are not defined here, and the readers need to search the referenced papers for definitions.
We will revise the manuscript as suggested to include the definition of the reliance metric.
[1] Kerrigan, Gavin, Padhraic Smyth, and Mark Steyvers. "Combining human predictions with model probabilities via confusion matrices and calibration." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021): 4421-4434. | Summary: This paper proposes a novel method that manipulates human decision-making by manipulating AI explanations in human-AI interaction scenarios. By utilizing human behavior models and minimizing the cross-entropy function between human and AI agreement with constraint to generating the same AI recommendation outcomes, the authors investigate this method for adversarial and benign purposes. The results show that the manipulation in AI explanations significantly negatively affects human decisions in the four tasks with adversarial purpose and enhances human decision accuracy, over-reliances, and diminishes under-reliances. The paper also discusses how the human perception to the AI explanations varies with the manipulation. Overall, it provides a novel and practical way to intervene in human decision-making in human-AI interactions.
Strengths: - The paper formulates the AI explanation manipulation problems, as optimization problems to minimize human-AI decision disagreement, with constraint to keep the original AI outcomes. This can indeed be applied in both positive or negative ways (in respective to adversarial and benign purposes in the paper). The authors discuss both sides of the methods and provide an implication for society about such methods.
- The paper selects multiple AI explanation baselines and collects human data on multiple tasks, enhancing the robustness of the manipulation method and broadening potential social impacts in various scenarios. The paper also collects human perception, providing an extra view from human participants in subjective feelings.
Weaknesses: - Only particular features are selected in each task. This may weaken the effectiveness of the manipulation. For example, in the census task, the paper selects 'gender' as the dimension of manipulation; while 'degree of education' or 'ages' can possibly be biased and effect human decision-making. Thus, the authors may need to address such representativeness (or probably other dimensions do not exhibit significant effects in manipulations).
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: - My question is humans themselves may have a lot of biases, for example, peak and anchoring effects; or in risky decision-making, humans can have probability distortion. This is to say, for humans, the change of 'numerical values' may change their perception of certain things. Probably the manipulations here are not directly related to the importance. So how would the authors know whether the manipulation takes effect on the importance but not simple number perception? (For example, changing from positive to negative, or changing small numbers to large numbers; changing the rank in overall dimensions). This may require a baseline test, whether about the numerical values (in an irrelevant context) or about other measures of importance (e.g., relative rank, or a Likert scale on each dimension separately).
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: - The limitation of this paper as discussed, is only certain features in each task are selected to manipulate. It would reveal more about the societal impact if comprehensive features are considered. Moreover, the consideration of interactions between features is also helpful, though this does require a larger dataset.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for the review! Below, we address your questions.
> Only particular features are selected in each task. This may weaken the effectiveness of the manipulation.
- Thank you for your insightful feedback. Firstly, we’d like to clarify that in Section 5 (Evaluation I, when AI explanations are manipulated for adversarial purposes), the chosen “targeted” feature is only used for defining the goal of manipulation (i.e., whether the human decision makers’ decisions are “fair” or not is defined with respect to the chosen feature); it does not mean that we only manipulate the explanation for that feature. In Section 6 (Evaluation II, when AI explanations are manipulated for benign purposes), no feature is “selected” because the goal of the manipulation is to improve the accuracy of the human decision makers’ final decisions. Again, on each task instance, our manipulation can occur on any subset of the features.
- In addition, for Section 5, to validate the effectiveness of adversarial manipulation of AI explanations, conducting large-scale human experiments is essential; however, such experiments are both costly and resource-intensive. Therefore, for each type of decision making task, we focused on manipulating the most sensitive feature, which we hypothesized would have the most significant societal impact on decision making.
- To ensure the generalizability of our results , we conducted evaluations across four different types of decision making tasks. While we only selected one feature per task to define our fairness goal, we believe that similar manipulative effects could be observed if fairness is defined by other features. This belief is based on our successful manipulation of human behavior for both benign and adversarial purposes, where participants were unable to perceive any differences in the presented manipulated explanations.
> My question is humans themselves may have a lot of biases, for example, peak and anchoring effects; or in risky decision-making, humans can have probability distortion. This is to say, for humans, the change of 'numerical values' may change their perception of certain things.
- Human bias in decision making: Our manipulation is based on a learned human behavior model, which inherently captures the biases present in human decision-making, such as anchoring effects, probability distortion, and other cognitive biases (if they exist). Since these biases are integrated into the behavior model, our manipulation leverages them to nudge human decision makers to make the desired decisions.
- Human Interpretation of Number: During the tutorial phase of our experiment, we carefully followed established HCI research practices to educate participants on how to interpret AI explanations. We specifically instructed them that the numerical values or bar lengths associated with each feature explanation represent the feature's importance. A positive value indicates a positive contribution to the decision, while a negative value indicates a negative contribution. This framing ensured that participants understood the numbers as a direct reflection of feature importance, rather than as arbitrary values. Thus, in our study, the change of numerical values was directly tied to perceived feature importance as intended.
- Baseline Test Consideration: We appreciate your suggestion regarding a baseline test. To better understand your suggestion, could you please clarify whether you are suggesting that we conduct a study to determine if participants perceive features with larger numerical values as more important, irrespective of context? We are happy and prepared to conduct this test if it would help address any concerns about the study.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the clarification by the authors.
Regarding the last question, yes. The authors could possibly consider conducting a baseline test to probe how the selected participants generally perceive the numbers at the scale in the conducted formal experiment. This may help to control individual biases and provide a more accurate prediction.
I think the authors well addressed my concerns. But given the constraint of the overall scope, I will keep my current evaluation. | Summary: The authors show that by modeling a human decision maker they can manipulate the provided information in ways that reliable influence their decisions towards even non-benign outcomes.
Strengths: # originality
Manipulating Mturk works is a well studied area of research, but this is a unique approach and highlights the limitations of interpretability research using similar techniques.
# quality
The results are statistically significant and done across a range of tasks which strengthens their claims.
# clarity
Most of the plots are readable and I think I was mostly able to understand the results after reading a few time.
# significance
This is an interesting result, presenting an example of "attacking" these score based systems via manipulating the interpretably metrics is an important result for the XAI literature.
Weaknesses: # originality
Manipulating workers on digital platforms is a well studied area.
# quality
Reading the plots (fig 3) some of these results look to be supporting the null-hypothesis (all interventions have the same effect). Having a table giving the numbers and more details on the statistical tests would make the quality of the results much easier to judge. The results also are weak, in part this is due to a small sample size.
# clarity
If found the plots difficult to read either both being too small and the lack of numbers makes analyzing them tricky. Could the authors include the results as a table in the appendix with the error ranges clearly laid out so we don't have to eyeball tiny error bars.
I also had to refer to the appendix to understand the experimental procedure, making it clearer what exactly is happening in the experiments would greatly aid the readability of this paper.
# significance
Looking at figure B.2 it looks like the manipulation is mostly making the difference much more extreme and noticeable, this suggests these results could simply be due to the differences in the visual presentation between interventions.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Are the manipulations working possibly just due to the bar plots being being bigger, and numbers being clearer? So no behavioral model needed.
How should I read figure 1? It looks like it's saying the means 95% confidence intervals overlap, but that they are also below 5% to overlap (bias 1a)?
More generally I think this result is weak, if people could tell the models apart this would be more interesting. As it stands I'm not surprised the authors can manipulate the responses, but I'm not convinced their method is close to optimal.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: This is an area where ethics should be given additional scrutiny, but I do not see anything alarming in the paper, and the authors take the correct tone in the paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thanks for the review! Below, we address your questions.
> Are the manipulations working possibly just due to the bar plots being being bigger, and numbers being clearer? So no behavioral model needed.
- Our behavior model-based manipulation demonstrated that changing the bar length in some task instances—indicating a change in the perceived importance of a feature—indeed influences human decision making. This shift in behavior, captured by our human behavior model, aligns with previous research which showed that overstating model confidence can similarly impact decisions [1,2,3].
- However, our manipulation strategy goes beyond merely increasing the length of bars to make them more salient. In some cases, the manipulation also involves reducing the bar length or even reversing the direction of the bars to downplay or misrepresent a feature's importance. We observed that in many cases, especially when we manipulate explanations for adversarial purposes and AI models may actually be unfair, the model-based manipulation intentionally retains certain features as protective to mislead human decision making. For example, for the census prediction task, when predicting whether a person's income is below \\$50k, if the person is a female, the manipulated explanation might retain gender as a positive contributor to reaching the \\$50k threshold, whereas for males, gender might be depicted as a negative factor. By doing so, humans are more likely to make unfair decisions compared to those who got unmanipulated explanations based on our evaluation data.
Therefore, the manipulations based on behavior models are not solely about making bars longer but are tailored to strategically influence human perceptions in line with the model's understanding of decision making behavior.
> How should I read figure 1? It looks like it's saying the means 95% confidence intervals overlap, but that they are also below 5% to overlap (bias 1a)?
In Figure 1(a), the circle (or square or rectangular) represents the mean values, and the error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals. This plot is intended to illustrate how the average False Positive Rate Difference (FPRD) or False Negative Rate Difference (FNRD) of human decisions might be distributed within each of the three treatments (i.e., Manipulated, LIME, SHAP). The statistical significance between a pair of treatments is directly determined by the linear regressions, rather than relying on the visual check of the overlap of confidence intervals. Significance levels are based on the p-values from t-tests on the coefficients derived from these regression models.
> More generally I think this result is weak, if people could tell the models apart this would be more interesting. As it stands I'm not surprised the authors can manipulate the responses, but I'm not convinced their method is close to optimal.
If we understand your comment correctly, you are suggesting that the results would be more interesting if participants could tell that the explanations had been manipulated. Additionally, it seems you think that the current results might simply be due to the fact that the bars in the explanations were made longer, as mentioned in your earlier point.
- We would like to clarify that our manipulation is not simply about making the bars longer. Instead, as discussed in response to the first question, our approach is based on a human behavior model and is strategically tailored to influence human perceptions in alignment with the model's understanding of humans’ decision-making behavior (i.e., how humans will factor AI recommendations and explanations into their final decisions).
- Regarding whether people can tell if the explanations are manipulated, we find it is also interesting—and more concerning—that human behavior can be changed without participants detecting these manipulations, which indicates significant implications for secure and reliable human-AI collaboration. If participants are unaware of the subtle influences on their decision making, it raises important questions about the transparency and trustworthiness of AI systems, particularly in contexts where security and reliability are paramount.
> Paper clarity
Finally, we will revise the manuscript to enhance the readability of the figures by increasing their size and adding the corresponding labels. Additionally, we will include the linear regression results as tables in the appendix.
[1] Vodrahalli, Kailas, Tobias Gerstenberg, and James Y. Zou. "Uncalibrated models can improve human-ai collaboration." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022): 4004-4016.
[2] Zhang, Yunfeng, Q. Vera Liao, and Rachel KE Bellamy. "Effect of confidence and explanation on accuracy and trust calibration in AI-assisted decision making." Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 2020.
[3] Rechkemmer, Amy, and Ming Yin. "When confidence meets accuracy: Exploring the effects of multiple performance indicators on trust in machine learning models." Proceedings of the 2022 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 2022
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the clarification. I've read your response and the other reviews/responses. I still think this work is a marginal accept and maintain my score, but will check back if there is more discussion. | null | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Do's and Don'ts: Learning Desirable Skills with Instruction Videos | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper introduces "DoDont", an instruction-based skill discovery algorithm designed to learn desirable behaviors and avoid undesirable ones through unsupervised skill discovery (USD). The method uses instruction videos to train an instruction network that distinguishes between desirable (Do’s) and undesirable (Don’ts) behaviors. This network adjusts the reward function of the skill discovery algorithm to encourage desired behaviors. The authors validate their approach through experiments in complex continuous control tasks, demonstrating that DoDont can effectively learn desirable behaviors with minimal instruction videos.
Strengths: - The integration of instructional videos into the USD framework is innovative and addresses the challenge of learning desirable behaviors without predefined reward signals.
- This paper stands out for its practical value, offering a USD algorithm that effectively learns meaningful and complex behaviors rather than merely generating skills that are variations of simple actions/jittering.
- The paper provides thorough experimental validation on three tasks, showing that DoDont outperforms state-of-the-art methods in learning complex and desirable behaviors.
- The presentation, writing and clarity of the paper are great.
Weaknesses: - The instruction network is trained using in-domain video data, which might not always be readily available in real-world scenarios, but can be fairly easy to obtain.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: - What are the specific characteristics of the instruction videos required for effective training? For example, do they need to be of a certain length, resolution, or context?
- How does the quality and clarity of the instructional videos impact the performance of the DoDont algorithm?
- In Section 2.2, alongside DOMiNO, I think you should cite [1] and [2] that also balance a trade-off between intrinsic reward and task reward using constrained optimization.
- I am not clear on the state space for each tasks. Do you use exclusively visual pixel inputs or do you combine the visual input stream with proprioceptive data? For example, the labeled consecutive states $(s_t, s_{t+1})$ are only pixel values or combined with proprioceptive data?
[1] Skill-Conditioned Policy Optimization with Successor Features Representations\
[2] Quality-Diversity Actor-Critic: Learning High-Performing and Diverse Behaviors via Value and Successor Features Critics
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Yes, the authors adequately addressed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear reviewer DB1p,
Thank you for your insightful feedbacks and the positive support. We have provided a detailed response to your concerns below. If you have any further comments, please let us know.
>**Question 3.1**
The instruction network is trained using in-domain video data, which might not always be readily available in real-world scenarios, but can be fairly easy to obtain.
We agree. Using in-the-wild video datasets is an important direction for future work, which would expand our method's real-world applicability. This limitation has been discussed in detail in Section 6 of our paper; please refer to that section for further details.
>**Question 3.2**
What are the specific characteristics of the instruction videos required for effective training? For example, do they need to be of a certain length, resolution, or context\
How does the quality and clarity of the instructional videos impact the performance of the DoDont algorithm?
The most critical characteristic of instruction videos for effective training is visual consistency with the training environment. Specifically, the resolution and quality of the videos should closely match those of the training environment. If there's a significant discrepancy between the pixel characteristics in the instructional videos and the training environment, the network's predictive accuracy diminishes, resulting in less accurate human-aligned behaviors.
Regarding length, it's worth noting that our method trains the instruction network by sampling two consecutive frames from the videos. Therefore, the total duration of each video is not a crucial factor in the training process.
>**Question 3.3**
In Section 2.2, alongside DOMiNO, I think you should cite [1] and [2] that also balance a trade-off between intrinsic reward and task reward using constrained optimization.
Thank you very much. We will ensure that they are included in the final version.
>**Question 3.4**
I am not clear on the state space for each tasks. Do you use exclusively visual pixel inputs or do you combine the visual input stream with proprioceptive data? For example, the labeled consecutive states (st, st+1) are only pixel values or combined with proprioceptive data?
We apologize for the ambiguity regarding the state space for each task. We employ only pixel inputs for the instruction network in both state-based and pixel-based environments. For the policy and critic networks, we utilize state inputs in state-based environments and pixel inputs in pixel-based environments.
We will include a comprehensive explanation in the final version of the paper.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your detailed rebuttal. I will maintain my score. | Summary: Unsupervised skill discovery is an RL task to learn interesting behaviors without rewards from environments. However, since there is no specification of desired behavior either, a lot of learning is wasted on acquiring skills that people may not be interested in eventually. The paper studies a setting where a few demonstration video are provided as a minimal specification of desirable skills. Then the proposed method can train a GAN like loss as a distance measure for unsupervised skill discovery, so the skill learned is more desirable. Experiments on dmlab are shown with interesting analysis.
Strengths: 1. The paper is well written
2. The setup is well-motivated. It's indeed interesting to see something between complete unsupervised RL & imitation learning.
3. A lot of the ablation gives the readers good insights about the proposed method, which I find enjoyable to learn.
Weaknesses: 1. The idea of combining unsupervised RL with some form of task specification is not new. In the very early days of unsupervised RL, people already add intrinsic reward and extrinsic reward together. I hope the authors could justify their novelty
2. While the authors discusses USD, I feel a lot of works in RL exploration are not mentioned. e.g. Curiosity [1]. There are other works about using very high level information as guidance, such as DeepMimic [2]. I am curious to see whether the proposed method can be combined with general USD methods?
[1] Curiosity-driven Exploration by Self-supervised Prediction, Deepak Pathak, Pulkit Agrawal, Alexei A. Efros, Trevor Darrell
[2] DeepMimic: Example-Guided Deep Reinforcement Learning of Physics-Based Character Skills
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: 1. What's the camera angle for "Quadruped"? Clearly the acquired skill is more diverse than instruction video as shown in figure 3. I am wondering how, because intuitively those trajectories are equally out of distribution.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The paper discusses the limitation of scaling to in-the-wild videos. I think this is reasonable address. No ethics concerns.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewer oJKL,
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our paper. We have carefully considered your concerns and would like to address them as follows. Please let us know if you have further questions or feedbacks.
>**Question 2.1**
The idea of combining unsupervised RL with some form of task specification is not new. In the very early days of unsupervised RL, people already add intrinsic reward and extrinsic reward together. I hope the authors could justify their novelty
We appreciate the reviewer's comment about the existing work in combining intrinsic rewards with extrinsic rewards. While it's correct that there exist early approaches combined intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, DoDont's main contributions are in:
1. Modeling "human-aligned behaviors" (i.e., how to design human-aligned extrinsic rewards)
2. Integrating this reward into multiple-behavior learning (i.e., how to combine extrinsic and intrinsic rewards effectively)
Previous approach such as ICM [1] or SMERL [2] added intrinsic rewards with hand-crafted extrinsic rewards. However, as shown in Figure 6, designing hand-crafted extrinsic rewards for multiple human-aligned behaviors is very difficult. DoDont overcomes this challenge by:
1. Training a "human-aligned instruction network" using easily obtainable instruction videos
2. Employing this network as a "distance-metric in distance-maximizing skill discovery", thus facilitating the learning of diverse human-aligned skills
This approach effectively induces multiple human-aligned behaviors, allowing for diverse behavior learning without unsafe actions. We will emphasize these aspects in our revised manuscript to clarify our contribution.
>**Question 2.2**
While the authors discusses USD, I feel a lot of works in RL exploration are not mentioned. e.g. Curiosity [1]. There are other works about using very high level information as guidance, such as DeepMimic [2]. I am curious to see whether the proposed method can be combined with general USD methods?
For unsupervised RL methods (e.g., ICM[1], RND[3]), it's possible to combine these with DoDont (e.g., reward = r_ICM + r_DoDont). This would likely result in improved exploration while maintaining **single** human-aligned policy. However, our paper focuses on learning **multiple** human-aligned behaviors with a limited instruction dataset, we chose the USD algorithm (DSD) as our baseline.
For unsupervised skill discovery methods, as outlined in Section 4, DoDont involves two key components: (1) modeling human-aligned behaviors (extrinsic rewards) and (2) combining these extrinsic rewards with intrinsic rewards. The instruction network learned in step (1) can also be applied to other methods like DIAYN [4] and CIC [5] by combining our instruction-network reward with their intrinsic rewards (e.g., reward = r_DIAYN + r_DoDont). However, given that MI-based algorithms such as DIAYN and CIC face inherent pessimistic exploration challenges [6], we believe our approach would be most effective when applied to distance-maximizing skill discovery algorithms.
>**Question 2.3**
What's the camera angle for "Quadruped"?
For DMC Quadruped, we employ the standard camera angle as depicted in Figure 2.
>**Question 2.4**
Clearly the acquired skill is more diverse than instruction video as shown in figure 3. I am wondering how, because intuitively those trajectories are equally out of distribution.
This likely stems from the generalization capabilities of the instruction network. Instruction network is trained to classify behaviors, categorizing moving upright as '1' and rolling on the floor (i.e., random actions) as '0'. Consequently, even when faced with previously unseen directions of movement, the network tends to assign a high value to upright movements.
[1] Curiosity-driven Exploration by Self-supervised Prediction., Pathak et al., ICML 2017\
[2] One Solution is Not All You Need: Few-Shot Extrapolation via Structured MaxEnt RL., Kumar et al., NeurIPS 2020\
[3] Exploration by Random Network Distillation., Burda et al., ArXiv 2018\
[4] Diversity is All You Need: Learning Skills without a Reward Function., Eysenbach et al., ICLR 2019\
[5] CIC: Contrastive Intrinsic Control for Unsupervised Skill Discovery., Laskin et al., ArXiv 2022\
[6] Learning More Skills through Optimistic Exploration., Strouse et al., ICLR 2022\
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your rebuttal. I think an average score of slightly above 6 is fair to this paper. I will maintain my rating of 7. | Summary: This paper proposes a method, DoDont, to avoid hand-crafting reward functions in unsupervised skill discovery. DoDont first learns a reward function from labelled instruction videos that discriminates desired and undesired behaviors, and then use the reward function in unsupervised skill discovery. The authors evaluate the method in several experimental settings and find DoDont can learn more diverse and safer skills than the baselines.
Strengths: Clear motivation that hand-crafting rewards in unsupervised skill discovery is tedious. The proposed method makes sense and is presented fairly clearly.
Weaknesses: I think the major weakness here is using a implicit reward function instead of explicit hand-crafted rewards has been explored before while those baselines are missing in the paper. DoDont learn the reward on some labelled instruction videos. There are several other approaches of automatic reward design in the past, for example, using a LLM [1, 2] or a vision-language model [3], which the authors should compare DoDont to and explain the advantages of DoDont.
[1] Ma, Yecheng Jason, et al. "Eureka: Human-level reward design via coding large language models." arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12931 (2023).
[2] Kwon, Minae, et al. "Reward design with language models." arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00001 (2023).
[3] Fan, Linxi, et al. "Minedojo: Building open-ended embodied agents with internet-scale knowledge." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022): 18343-18362.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. According to Appendix C.1, the Do videos for DMC tasks is collected from a policy that's trained on ground truth reward functions. Does this mean DoDont still needs hand-crafting "ground-truth" rewards for a new task? If so then DoDont is not solving the motivating problem of USD that it needs hand-crafted rewards.
2. From the same section, it seems the Don't videos are collected from random action rollouts. Will these be enough for learning a reward that can teach the model to avoid hazardous behaviors? For example, walking into a hole is a bad behavior, but random action rollouts probably won't touch this kind of trajectory because random actions won't make an agent walk in the first place. Therefore, the reward module hasn't seen such bad behaviors during training and probably can't learn to assign a low reward value to this behavior.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: See above.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear reviewer AtB3,
Thank you for your constructive comments. We have provided a detailed response to your comments below. Please let us know if you have further questions or feedbacks.
>**Question 1.1**
I think the major weakness here is using a implicit reward function instead of explicit hand-crafted rewards [...], using a LLM [1, 2] or a vision-language model [3], which the authors should compare DoDont to and explain the advantages of DoDont.
We are grateful for your constructive feedback and the chance to elucidate aspects of our research.
We apologize for any ambiguity in defining the scope and objectives of our study.
We would like to emphasize the distinct scope and objectives of our research in comparison to the studies [1,2,3].
In our study, DoDont addresses the challenges inherent in unsupervised skill discovery (USD), specifically the inefficiencies and potential hazards of learning undesired behaviors. Our approach leverages instruction videos to guide the discovery of **diverse, desirable, and safe behaviors**, by applying *distance metric* learned from instruction videos to distance-maximizing skill discovery.
It's important to note that our approach is distinct from the objectives of the studies cited in the review [1, 2, 3], which predominantly focus on crafting a reward function for a **single** task using LLMs or VLMs. As such, a direct empirical comparison might not be readily feasible.
While our current approach doesn't directly utilize LLMs or VLMs, we recognize their potential as a viable "distance metric".
This could result in more human-aligned behaviors, for instance, by capturing the significant semantic distance between states such as "jumping to the right" and "remaining seated".
Nevertheless, adopting these models would introduce notable computational challenges and resource demands, which we outline as follows:
- **Eureka [1]** employs complex prompt tuning and multiple iterations of RL policy training, which can be resource-intensive.
- **Reward Design with Language Models [2]** necessitates frequent queries to LLMs during environment step, leading to high inference costs.
- **Minedojo [3]** depends on extensive image-text datasets for training VLMs, which are not always feasible to compile.
Given these considerations, and the constraints of the rebuttal period, we conducted preliminary tests using LLMs to establish distance metrics, specifically using [2] for the 5.2.2 experimental setting to avoid hazardous areas.
We would like to note that [2] employs the 'text-davinci-002' GPT-3 model as its LLM. However, querying the LLM at every environment step incurs high inference costs, so we opted for the open-source LLM, Llama-3-8B. To generate the distance metric, we used prompts such as:
"You will describe the consecutive x, y, z positions of a given robot moving on a plane. The robot's consecutive positions are given as: [x1, y1, z1], [x2, y2, z2]. If the x-coordinate value increases, the robot moves to the right. In this case, output the scalar value 1.0. If the x-coordinate value decreases, the robot moves to the left. In this case, output the scalar value 0.0."
As shown in the attached PDF file under "Global Response," the agent effectively incorporates human intention, avoiding hazardous areas while adequately covering the safe regions. However, even with an open-source LLM, inferring the 8B model at each environment step incurs high computational time and cost. Moreover, while creating prompts for basic tasks like "move to the right" is relatively simple, developing prompts for more complex desired behaviors becomes increasingly challenging. In comparison, DoDont operates efficiently with minimal data, typically requiring only one to four pairs of instructional videos. We believe that our methodology remains a simple and practical solution.
We appreciate your feedback and will incorporate this information into the appendix.
>**Question 1.2**
According to Appendix C.1, the Do videos for DMC tasks is collected from a policy that's trained on ground truth reward functions. [...] If so then DoDont is not solving the motivating problem of USD that it needs hand-crafted rewards.
We wish to clarify that instruction videos does not necessitate the availability of task-specific reward functions. These instruction videos can be acquired through several means.
For instance, as outlined in Section 5.2.4 (kitchen environment), they can be obtained from human-collected datasets.
Additionally, demonstration videos on platforms such as YouTube (e.g., Minecraft videos) can serve as instruction videos.
For humanoid robots, teleoperation techniques [1,2] offer another viable source for these videos.
These diverse examples illustrate that the DoDont algorithm is not constrained to the pre-defined task-specific rewards but can operate effectively when provided with suitable behavioral videos.
[1] HumanPlus: Humanoid Shadowing and Imitation from Humans., Fu et al., arXiv 2024\
[2] Open-TeleVision: Teleoperation with Immersive Active Visual Feedback., Cheng et al., arXiv 2024
>**Question 1.3**
From the same section, it seems the Don't videos are collected from random action rollouts. [...] probably can't learn to assign a low reward value to this behavior.
Addressing the reviewer's concern, it is important to clarify that our methodology for learning diverse skills while avoiding hazardous zones and unsafe behaviors does not merely use random actions as Don’t videos. Specifically, in our experimental setup outlined in Section 5.2.2, where we identify the left areas as hazardous, our Don't videos depict leftward movements rather than random actions (refer to lines 243-244). In Section 5.2.3, which deals with avoiding unsafe behaviors, we use videos depicting rolling or flipping as Don’t videos (refer to lines 267-268).
We acknowledge the omissions in Appendix C.1 and will provide a thorough explanation in the finalized version of the paper.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thank you for the response
Comment: I would like to thank the authors for the thoughtful response. I think my concerns about data are resolved. For the weakness, while the authors and Reviewer oJKL consider the related papers [1, 2, 3] having different objectives and thus not comparable, I still think at least one or two of them should serve as baselines to DoDont. The task DoDont is trying to solve is avoiding undesired and hazardous behaviors in unsupervised skill discovery and the main contribution of DoDont is avoiding hand-crafting reward functions in this task by introducing an implicit reward function that is learned on instruction videos. Since the main contribution of DoDont is removing hand-crafting reward function in this process and the listed papers also propose methods to replace hand-crafted rewards with automatic reward design, DoDont should compare to these methods to analyze what is the best practice for reward design in the area of unsupervised skill discovery. I see that the authors have some preliminary attempts on using LLM to generate rewards which I think is valuable and I encourage the authors to include more of such comparisons or ablations in a revised version of the paper. Given the additional comparison to LLM baselines and the concerns on data being addressed, I've increased my score to 5.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: I strongly agree with the authors that [1,2,3] in the review are of a distinct scope and shall not constitute the sole reason to reject this paper.
[1] Ma, Yecheng Jason, et al. "Eureka: Human-level reward design via coding large language models." arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12931 (2023).
[2] Kwon, Minae, et al. "Reward design with language models." arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00001 (2023).
[3] Fan, Linxi, et al. "Minedojo: Building open-ended embodied agents with internet-scale knowledge." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022): 18343-18362. | null | null | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Response to All Reviewers (General Response)**
We deeply appreciate the thoughtful feedback and valuable suggestions from all three reviewers. R1, R2, and R3 correspond to reviewer AtB3, reviewer oJKL, and reviewer DB1p, respectively.
The reviewers highlighted the following strengths in our submission:
- The main idea is intuitive and well-motivated (R1, R2, R3).
- The proposed method was evaluated against several methods in various domains, yielding promising empirical results (R2, R3).
However, the reviewers also suggested conducting several key experiments to enhance our paper:
- Comparison with previous automatic reward design approaches (R1).
- Justification of our novelty (How our approach differs from existing studies that combine extrinsic rewards with unsupervised RL) (R2).
We hope our responses address all the reviewers’ concerns, and we welcome any additional comments and clarifications.
Additionally, we have attached a PDF file containing the qualitative and quantitative evaluation results for R1.
Pdf: /pdf/4119229a1594728be33fd5c7172cf4736374cf05.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Progressive Entropic Optimal Transport Solvers | Accept (poster) | Summary: In this paper, the authors propose a new entropic optimal transport solver as an alternative to the commonly used Sinkhorn algorithm named ProgOT. This solver has three main properties:
(i) It is less sensitive to the choice of the entropy-regularized parameter than the Sinkhorn algorithm;
(ii) When computing couplings between point-clouds, the runtime of ProgOT is no longer than the Sinkhorn algorithm;
(iii) The resulting optimal transport map estimator is consistent and stable.
The authors provide both theoretical and empirical results to demonstrate the above claims.
Strengths: 1. The proposed ProgOT is a new entropic optimal transport solver built based on the McCann-type interpolation.
2. The theoretical results in the paper are sound, and provided with rigorous proofs.
3. The paper is well written and organized. The background section is very useful, particularly for readers who are not familiar with optimal transport.
Weaknesses: 1. Since the optimal transport map $T_0$ is unknown in practice, the assumption (A.2), which says that the inverse map $T^{-1}_0$ has at least three continuous derivatives, is quite strong.
2. In lines 33-36, when comparing the efficiency of the Sinkhorn algorithm to the linear programs for solving the EOT problems, the authors should make it more explicit by stating the computational complexity of both algorithms.
3. In lines 238-239, when initializing the entropy-regularized parameter $\varepsilon_0$, the authors should at least briefly present the intuition for setting it to be the average of the values in the cost matrix between sources and targets.
4. Minor issues: There are some undefined notations and grammatical mistakes:
- In line 141, I think the term $S^{(1)}$ should be $S^{(0)}$.
- In the inequality between lines 196-197, the notation $\lesssim_{\log(n),k}$ has not been defined yet.
- In line 167, the notation $\alpha(k)$ has not been defined. Is it a constant depending on $k$?
- In the assumption (A.3), what does the notation $D$ stand for?
- In line 204, $\mu^{(k)}$ is corresponds a location --> grammatical mistake.
5. The authors should add a discussion about the limitations of the proposed method as well as future directions. For instance, can we generalize the ProgOT so that it applies for entropic unbalanced optimal transport. I believe that such discussion would make the paper more complete.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Are there any chances that the assumption (A.2) can be reduced?
2. What is the computational complexity of the ProgOT algorithm (Algorithm 2)?
3. Could the authors please explain more clearly why line 3 in Algorithm 2 helps improve the runtime?
4. Are there any instructions on how to choose the number of steps $K$?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The limitations have not been discussed in the paper.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for taking the time to review our work. We have fixed the notation and typos issues, thank you for pointing them out.
> **Since the optimal transport map is unknown in practice, the assumption (A.2), which says that the inverse map has at least three continuous derivatives, is quite strong. Are there any chances that the assumption (A.2) can be reduced?**
We highlight that requiring up to second-order derivatives on the inverse map is a standard requirement, see [1, 2, 3, 4]. The additional derivative comes from the assumptions in [4], which is, to date, the only work that demonstrates that the entropic OT map can statistically estimate the OT map. It is largely believed that **the assumption is not superfluous**, and that the extra derivative is required to make this statistically viable [5]. Though there are restricted scenarios under which the 3rd derivative is unnecessary, e.g., if $\nu$ is a discrete measure [5]. One can hope that ultimately these results can be bridged, but for now this is outside the scope of this work.
> **What is the computational complexity of the ProgOT algorithm (Algorithm 2)? In lines 33-36, when comparing the efficiency of the Sinkhorn algorithm to the linear programs for solving the EOT problems, the authors should make it more explicit by stating the computational complexity of both algorithms.**
The exact computational complexity depends on the problem geometry, since $\varepsilon_i$ is data-driven.
We can specify the worst-case computational complexity of ProgOT compared to Sinkhorn. The algorithm runs the sinkhorn subroutine $K$ times, with a decreasing sequence of regularizations $\varepsilon_i$. ProgOT also performs linear interpolations, yielding a total of $\mathcal{O}(nd + \sum_{i=1}^K C_{\mathrm{Sink}}(\varepsilon_i))$ operations, where $n$ is the size of the input domain, $d$ the dimension and $C_{\mathrm{Sink}}(\varepsilon_i)$ denotes the worst-case complexity of Sinkhorn with regularization $\varepsilon_i$. We *added a paragraph to Appendix A* discussing this matter.
> **In lines 238-239, when initializing the entropy-regularized parameter $\varepsilon$, the authors should at least briefly present the intuition for setting it to be the average of the values in the cost matrix between sources and targets.**
We have *updated that paragraph and included a brief explanation*. This choice is not ours, but largely followed by the community. To avoid simple scaling effects (such as multiplying all features by a constant), cost matrices in entropic OT are rescaled, typically by their maximum value (as commonly done in POT [7]) or by mean-value (as done in OTT [6]). This rescaling is often absorbed into $\varepsilon$, and helps balance out cost/entropy in EOT optimization.
> **The authors should add a discussion about the limitations of the proposed method as well as future directions. For instance, can we generalize the ProgOT so that it applies for entropic unbalanced optimal transport. I believe that such discussion would make the paper more complete.**
This is indeed an interesting research direction. *We have updated the conclusions section* with a discussion on directions such as unbalanced OT. We note that such extension is far from being straightforward. Crucially, there is no equivalent of an “entropic potential map”, or McCann interpolation, that can be extended out of sample.
> **Could the authors please explain more clearly why line 3 in Algorithm 2 helps improve the runtime?**
Line 3 implements a warm-start for the Sinkhorn algorithm. The learned potentials at iterate $k$ might still be relevant for the next Sinkhorn subroutine. Our update is essentially a back-of-the-hand envelope: since the distances between point clouds decrease at each iteration by roughly a factor of $(1-\alpha_k)$, we decrease the dual potentials by a similar amount. We observe that this simple update works well across various costs. Warm-starting Sinkhorn is an active area of work [6, 7, 8, 9].
> **Are there any instructions on how to choose the number of steps?**
Intuitively, the number of steps should correlate positively with the distance between source and target, but for now, we do not have explicit instructions for this.
A simple solution can be choosing $K$ depending on the available compute. Choosing large $K$ typically does not affect performance negatively, but smaller $K$ may create a less stable algorithm (as we get back to Sinkhorn). In our experiments we have used K = 4, 8, 16, and noticed diminishing returns in increasing $K$.
## References
---
[1] Hutter and Rigollet. "Minimax estimation of optimal transport maps", (2021)
[2] Manole, et al. "Plugin estimation of smooth optimal transport maps", (2021)
[3] Muzellec, et al. "Near-optimal estimation of smooth transport maps with kernel sums-of-squares", (2021)
[4] Pooladian, Aram-Alexandre, and Jonathan Niles-Weed. "Entropic estimation of optimal transport maps." arXiv preprint (2021)
[5] Pooladian et al. “Minimax estimation of discontinuous optimal transport maps: The semi-discrete case” ICML (2023)
[6] Cuturi, Marco, et al. "Optimal transport tools (ott): A jax toolbox for all things wasserstein." arXiv preprint (2022)
[7] Flamary, Rémi, et al. "Pot: Python optimal transport." Journal of Machine Learning Research (2021)
[8] Amos, B., Cohen, S., Luise, G., & Redko, I. Meta optimal transport. arXiv preprint (2022)
[9] Thornton, James, and Marco Cuturi. "Rethinking initialization of the sinkhorn algorithm." AISTATS (2023)
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Dear the Authors,
I would like to thank you for your detailed response, which consolidates my positive evaluation of the paper. I highly encourage the authors to incorporate our discussion into the revision of the paper. This would help strengthen the paper substantially.
Best,
Reviewer 9mT1
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Many thanks for aknowledging our rebuttal.
Comment: We will integrate the discussion in our final version and we thank you for the many comments you have made.
Between our code implementation and significantly larger experiment, we believe the paper has indeed improved further, and this is one of the merits of the rebuttal process.
We humbly ask if, as you mention that the discussions has consolidated your positive opinion of the paper, and your soundness / presentation / contribution scores al stand at "3:good", if you would consider increasing your score? The acceptance threshold at neurips this year is likely going to be around 5.5. Hence a score of 5 is, relatively to all other papers, negative in this context.
the authors | Summary: This paper introduces a new class of entropic optimal transport (EOT) solvers called PROGOT. This work aims to address the challenges of selecting entropic regularization strength $\epsilon$ for original EOT. As we know $\epsilon$ is significant to the performance of EOT like computation time and convergence rate. PROGOT utilizes a progressive framework that interpolates the whole entropic transportation process into multiple steps by using dynamic OT formulations. This work proposed algorithms to set the parameters throughout the interpolation process. As it claimed, the new framework enhances the robustness and performance of EOT, and avoid the headache of tuning the value of $\epsilon$. Experimental results show that PROGOT surpasses classic EOT in both synthetic and real dataset.
Strengths: - The major contribution of this work is the proposal of a novel framework to estimate entropic transport plans. This framework addressed the challenge of selecting an appropriate entropic regularization strength $\varepsilon$ in traditional EOT algorithms.
- The mathematical notation and theoretical analysis are clear and easy to follow. And the theoretical analysis looks good to me.
- The convergence of PROGOT map is supported both in theoretical proof and experimental results.
- The methodology for selecting hyper-parameters (regularization and threshold schedule) and the corresponding justifications are well provided.
Weaknesses: - While the effort in setting the hyper-parameters and the justifications is acknowledged, from a broader perspective, to replace the selection of $\varepsilon$, PROGOT introduces a series of new hyper-parameters (step/regularization schedules and the length of the schedules, $K$) and theoretic assumptions on the inputs. One may find this less favorable, as it replaces one hyper-parameter with several others.
- Some of the experiments would be benefit from including of the real OT cost (or map) as a reference. For example, adding the real OT map in Figure 1 and adding the real OT cost data point in Figure 5 will be helpful.
- The gradient of PROGOT is missed, which is important for machine learning application.
- In Figure 5, could you provide the actual number of iterations instead of just indicating different marker sizes? For example, comparing the size of markers for $\beta=0.08$ vs. $K=8$ is difficult. Additionally, since all the sub-figures use the same legend, it should be clarified whether they run the same number of iterations for the same configuration.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - Line 141: do you mean $S^{(0)}$ instead of $S^{(1)}$ in the equation $\mu^{(1)}=S^{(1)}\mu$? The same issue in line 143.
- Figure 5, why does PROGOT with larger $K$ value has larger cost and appear closer to the original Sinkhorn point? Please correct my intuition if wrong: PROGOT with smaller $K$ runs fewer interpolation steps, leading to fewer number of iterations and closer to the original Sinkhorn cost. When $K=0$, PROGOT should be the same as EOT. In figure 5, the number of iteration results align with my intuition, but the "distances" to Sinkhorn results looks inconsistent.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: None
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Many thanks for your careful review, we thank you for your positive score, encouraging comments and questions. We did our best to answer them.
> **… One may find this less favorable, as it replaces one hyper-parameter with several others.**
While we certainly agree with this assessment, one message we want to convey is that having to choose a single variable $\varepsilon$ for everything (Sinkhorn, map estimation) holds too much sway over EOT. A "good" $\varepsilon$ can be difficult to nail right, notably for map estimation, and most practitioners want to bypass this. As it stands, this is likely one of the factors that limits usage of EOT.
Our goal is to "divide and conquer" $\varepsilon$ too, translating it into simpler quantities. In practice, a user *would only need to only choose the number of steps $K$*, according to the means of compute available to them, since we provide automatic routines for choosing the rest of the hyper-parameters: the step schedule is linear (a.k.a constant-speed), the threshold scaling log-linear, and the epsilon schedule is tuned as in Algo. 4.
> **The gradient of PROGOT is missed, which is important for machine learning application.**
Differentiability is an important point. We would like to provide a satisfactory answer by splitting the various meanings this could take in the context of ProgOT.
ProgOT can return three objects that a user may want to differentiate:
- “Wasserstein-like” OT transport cost between two point-clouds, equal to $t(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}):=\langle \mathbf{P}, [h(x_i-y_j)]_ij\rangle$ where $\mathbf{P}$ is the solution outputted by Algo.2. This is the quantity displayed in the `x-axis` of Fig. 5 (as well as in our new plots). We believe this is the quantity you have in mind when you mention a gradient. Differentiating this quantity w.r.t. $\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}$ is, in fact, very easy, since it amounts to using a “Danskin-like” linearization, i.e. use the chain rule to differentiate $t$ w.r.t. $\mathbf{X}$ or $\mathbf{Y}$ (or any other parameter), while keeping $\mathbf{P}$ fixed. We illustrate this in **Figure H** of the uploaded pdf, and also provided a `colab` link to the AC, who can share it with you.
- The Jacobian of the coupling matrix $\mathbf{P}$ returned by Algo.2. This can be achieved by differentiating chained Sinkhorn iterations. This is the strategy used, in a different context, when differentiating the optimal coupling obtained in Gromov-Wasserstein for instance. It is costly, but doable.
- The Jacobian of the ProgOT map (that returned by Algo. 3) at a given point $x$, w.r.t. Parameters. This is the same as above, and will require a chained differentiation of successive OT solutions.
Hence, it is very easy to use ProgOT to obtain descent directions to minimize OT-costs. Differentiating higher-order objects (couplings / map estimator) is more involved.
> **In Figure 5, could you provide the actual number of iterations instead of just indicating different marker sizes?**
We have updated the figures in the paper to show the number of iterations, see Figure **F** for the updated version of Figure 5 in the paper. We have also added 4 new figures to the appendix in new data configurations. **Fig G** in the upload PDF shows an example. To answer your question, We have prepared **Table E** with the exact number of iterations corresponding to Figure F, (the updated variant of Figure 5).
> **Line 141: do you mean $S^{(0)}$ instead of $S^{1)}$ in the equation $\mu^{(1)}=S^{(1)}\mu$? The same issue in line 143.
Thank you for pointing this typo out, we have updated the text.
>**Figure 5, why does PROGOT with larger $K$ value has larger cost and appear closer to the original Sinkhorn point? Please correct my intuition if wrong: PROGOT with smaller runs fewer interpolation steps, leading to fewer number of iterations and closer to the original Sinkhorn cost. When $K=0$, PROGOT should be the same as EOT. In figure 5, the number of iteration results align with my intuition, but the "distances" to Sinkhorn results looks inconsistent.**
Even if $K$ is small, the cost values might be different if the regularization parameter is different. We visualize Sinkhorn using different values $\beta$, and in many cases (c.f. **Fig F** and **Fig G**) ProgOT with $K=2$ lies close to a Sinkhorn instance. Perhaps your intuition is better reflected in the updated plots for this experiment.
We also highlight that the two axes of cost and entropy should be viewed together. One possible scenario is that by choosing a larger $K$, we target a smaller $\varepsilon$ in the last iteration, and gaining sharper entropy, at the price of having a larger cost.
Some of the results in Figure 5 in our initial draft were slightly off because we were using a maximum number of iterations when implementing Sinkhorn and ProgOT. While the overall message of these plots have not changed, this error sometimes contradicted with our claim that all methods were converging to target accuracy (**L.322**). We now set that maximum iterations to infinity, and therefore all solutions converge correctly within the desired threshold, irrespective of the number of iterations. See **Fig F** and **Fig G** in the uploaded PDF for an example.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for your response. I appreciate your effort in updating the figures and providing the Colab link to address my concerns. Your response addressed many of my questions, and I think your work is worth to be published.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Many thanks for acknowledging our rebuttal.
Comment: Many thanks for taking the time to read our rebuttal!
We take pride in hearing your concerns have been addressed, and that you think our work is worthy of being published.
The Authors. | Summary: The choice of appropriate entropic trade-off term is one of the main headaches for finding maps between data distributions with sample access when considering Optimal Transport (OT) with entropic regularization. While the selection of sufficiently small regularization terms leads to unstable learning, the picking of large ones causes biased solutions. Considering the EOT problem with Euclidean quadratic cost, the authors propose to divide the entropic problem to small sub-problems between intermediate distributions with their own regularization terms. The final entropic map between initial data distributions is a composition of maps from sub-problems. The authors provide the theoretical guarantees that the constructed map does not differ much from the true one. Moreover, the authors offer the algorithm for selecting appropriate regularization terms for each step as well as demonstrate the method’s performance on synthetic data and single-cell experiments.
Strengths: - The paper provides a new methodology for solving OT problems with entropy regularization which does not combine the ideas of prior works. The paper is well-written, well-organized and clear. The storyline is perfect and understandable through the paper.
- Since the method alleviates the tuning process for entropic regularization terms and allows to avoid unstable learning as well as finding primitive OT maps, this work might be interesting to the ML community. I am sure that other researchers might apply this methodology for Flow matching or Schroedinger bridge methods that aim to build interpolation from one dataset to another one.
- The ProgOT alleviates the tuning process for entropic regularization terms, thereby it does not suffer from unstable learning as well as primitive solutions.
Weaknesses: Although the paper offers a unique theoretical approach, a crucial shortcoming of this method is **scalability**. Indeed, the estimation, which is provided by Theorem 3, demonstrates poor scalability of the method since the rate of convergence to the true OT maps depends on the dimension $d$. From my point of view, this issue of the approach could not be ignored since it severely limits its practical usability.
This my concern is supported by the set of experiments considered in the paper. It seems that the authors avoid empirical evaluation of the method in high-dimensional problems (which might be useful for mitigating the concern). The performance of the method is tested only in low-dimensional ($d<=64$) synthetic data experiments using the benchmark with available ground-truth OT maps (Korotin et al, 2021), as well as biological experiments with no sufficiently large dimensionality ($d<=256$) of data. I am especially confused by the fact that the authors do not test their approach using the provided benchmark pairs for $d$ larger than 64 and at the same time apply the method to an important biological task in case of $d=256$. However, I believe that prior to adapting the algorithm to the tasks from single-cell biology (especially as important as prediction of cancer cells responses to drug perturbation), it should be thoroughly tested on synthetic tasks.
**Overall**, although the proposed approach is as fast as the Sinkhorn algorithm and demonstrates better performance in low dimensional problems, there is no guarantees and understanding of the method’s behavior in high dimensional problems as well as there are no comparisons with other EOT solvers in this case. This is the main reason of my current score. However, I am open to adjust the score based on the authors' answers.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - From intuition’s point of view, it is understandable that a sub-problem is easier and well-conditioned, than the initial problem. Anyway, could you provide a theoretical understanding why it is so? It seems that this fact depends on the step-size of the McCann interpolator.
- You probably use entropic OT formulation with Euclidean quadratic cost due to the convenient use of linear McCann interpolation between distributions. Is there generalization of the method for arbitrary transport cost function?
- Does the method’s algorithm need a pre-trained OT map between initial distributions that approximately matches one distribution to another?
- Is there intuition or methodology of picking a more appropriate step-size for McCann interpolator at step k?
- Why does the speed of convergence of the proposed algorithm compare to the speed of the Sinkhorn algorithm of EOT problem between initial distributions? Could you provide a theoretical explanation and plot of convergence, at least in a synthetic Gaussian example?
- In accordance with the developed methodology, the geodesic curves between initial distributions should be straight. Could you provide practical evidence that obtained OT curves are really straight, at least synthetic Gaussian experiments?
I suggest the authors to test their algorithm on benchmark with available ground-truth OT maps for bigger values of $d$.
**References.**
A. Korotin, L. Li, A. Genevay, J. M. Solomon, A. Filippov, and E. Burnaev. Do neural optimal transport solvers work? A continuous Wasserstein-2 benchmark. Advances in neural information processing systems, 2021.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: In accordance with the theorem 3 of the main text, the main limitation of the method is scalability. However, it seems that the authors did not mention this fact.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank you for your review, and for the many thought provoking questions you have asked. We did our best to answer all of them.
> **a crucial shortcoming of this method is scalability. […] severely limits its practical usability.**
There might be a confusion: Theorem 3 proves a theoretical recovery guarantee for ProgOT as a map estimator. This is a worst-case statistical analysis. This worst-case study has little impact on prediction performance on real tasks (e.g. Table 1), and no impact on computational aspects (Figure 5) or coupling estimation, which are all practically governed by other factors ($K, \alpha_k, \varepsilon_k, \tau_k$ for instance).
Theorem 3 guarantees the soundness of the ProgOT map. In contrast, **none** of the NN-based methods (e.g. those compared in the [Korotin et al. 21] benchmark) have a theoretical statistical guarantee. The fact that ProgOT has such a guarantee (even if pessimistic) cannot therefore be seen as a weakness. Their estimation is hard, because of non-convexity. In contrast, ProgOT is recovered as a sequence of convex problems.
> **the authors do not test their approach using the provided benchmark pairs for $d$ larger than 64 […] it should be thoroughly tested on synthetic tasks.**
Thanks for this suggestion. To demonstrate the scalability of ProgOT to larger $n$ and larger $d$, we have added **two new experiments**: MSE error on the Korotin benchmark for $d=128, 256$ (as you requested) and a new large scale experiment on *all* $n=60.000$ grayscale images ($d=1024$) of the CIFAR10 dataset.
**GMM Experiment**: We use the code from the [Korotin et al., 2021] benchmark to create high-$d$ synthetic problems, reaching the maximum dimension available $d=256$. **Tab. D** in the uploaded PDF presents the results. ProgOT (with default settings) dominates other baselines. This is remarkable, because: (1) this benchmark favors Neural OT solvers by design: the ground truth transport is itself generated as the gradient of an ICNN. (2) running ProgOT takes about 3 minutes, while Neural solvers take *10-20X longer* (about 30’ for ICNN and 60’ for the Monge Gap), all on a A100 GPU.
**CIFAR10 Experiment**: We designed a novel benchmark task, to match images and their blurred versions. As described in our general response, the ground truth OT coupling should be the diagonal. We only compare ProgOT to Sinkhorn (ICNN and Monge Gaps do not return couplings). See *Fig. A& Tab. B* in the uploaded PDF for the results and refer to the general response for more details.
Note that a sample size $n=60,000$ is, to our knowledge, unheard of for entropic OT for such high-$d$ (we overwhelmingly see $n\leq 10,000$ in papers). We achieve this through a tight implementation of ProgOT within OTT-JAX, and JAX, getting the immediate benefits of sharding across GPUs.
> **You use entropic OT formulation with Euclidean quadratic cost due to […] Is there generalization of the method for arbitrary transport cost function?**
This generalization is already in the paper: we defined ProgOT using arbitrary translation invariant (TI) costs, $c(x,y) = h(x-y)$ (see **L.81**). **Alg. 2 and 3** both use $h$ explicitly. We use a a $p$-norm (with $p=1.5$) in the bottom of Fig. 5. We only need $h$ to be $\tfrac12\|\cdot\|^2$ when proving map guarantees in Section 3.2, see **L.184**.
To complete the empirical overview on general costs, **we have added a new table to the appendix A**, which benchmarks map estimation with general costs (similar to Table 1).
> **it is understandable that a sub-problem is easier and well-conditioned, than the initial problem […] could you provide a theoretical understanding why it is so?**
Because the intermediate problems lie along the geodesic path, the distance/transport costs for them is smaller, **L. 154~163**. Calling Sinkhorn for problems with smaller transport costs is easier/more stable w.r.t. $\varepsilon$. This also allows warm-starting to recycle solutions from the previous step (**L.3** in **Algo. 2**.)
> **Does the method need a pre-trained OT map?**
No, ProgOT runs off-the-shelf using source/target data (see L.229, inputs to **Algo.2**) and is deterministic, as it relies on sub-Sinkhorn calls. Could you please clarify your question?
> **Is there intuition or methodology of picking a more appropriate step-size for McCann interpolator at step $k$?**
We investigated this thoroughly. We found out that scheduling the step-size does not seem to play a key role, neither theoretically nor empirically (see Fig 7 in the Appendix). We stick to the simplest choice, the constant-speed, a.k.a. linear, schedule.
> **Why does the speed of convergence of the proposed algorithm compare to the speed of the Sinkhorn algorithm of EOT[…]**
The convergence rates are comparable because ProgOT uses calls to local Sinkhorn problems as a subroutine. Theorem 3 guarantees theoretically that by using ProgOT we remain statistically sample efficient, while gaining a computational edge. Theorem 3 is illustrated empirically in Figure 4 (A), where we plot the MSE for various $n$, using the ground-truth OT map from [Korotin et al., 2021].
> **Could you provide practical evidence that obtained OT curves are really straight, at least synthetic Gaussian experiments?**
Using **Algo.2**, curves can be either obtained by sampling straight lines from the final coupling matrix $\mathbf{P}$ returned by ProgOT, or using the map (Alg. 3) out of sample. Sampling from coupling yields straight lines, by construction. This might be used in, e.g., flow-matching estimation. The "straightness" of lines sampled with Alg. 3 will hinge on the various $\varepsilon_i$, as represented schematically in Fig. 3.
> **I suggest the authors to test their algorithm on benchmark with available ground-truth OT maps for bigger values of $d$**
Many thanks for this suggestion. We hope our new results [**Tab. D**] assuage your concerns.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: References in the main Rebuttal
Comment: References
---
[1] Vacher, Adrien, and François-Xavier Vialard. "Parameter tuning and model selection in optimal transport with semi-dual Brenier formulation." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022): 23098-23108.
[2] Van Assel, Hugues, et al. "Optimal Transport with Adaptive Regularisation." arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02925 (2023).
[3] Scetbon, Meyer, Marco Cuturi, and Gabriel Peyré. "Low-rank sinkhorn factorization." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2021.
[4] Pooladian, Aram-Alexandre, and Jonathan Niles-Weed. "Entropic estimation of optimal transport maps." arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.12004 (2021).
[5] Hutter and Rigollet. "Minimax estimation of optimal transport maps", 2021
[6] Manole, et al. "Plugin estimation of smooth optimal transport maps", 2021
[7] Muzellec, et al. "Near-optimal estimation of smooth transport maps with kernel sums-of-squares", 2021
[8] Bunne, Charlotte, et al. "Learning single-cell perturbation responses using neural optimal transport." Nature methods 20.11 (2023): 1759-1768.]
[9] Dessein, Arnaud, Nicolas Papadakis, and Jean-Luc Rouas. "Regularized optimal transport and the rot mover’s distance. arXiv e-prints." arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.06447 (2016).
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Before the discussion period closes
Comment: Dear Reviewer `Z1nb`,
The discussion period is closing, and we will soon not be able to interact with you.
Still, we hope that you can consider our answers / additional material in coming days, during the reviewers-AC discussion.
Let us emphasize again that, while we have added results on the benchmark you requested, we have also designed and ran a large scale CIFAR-10 experiment ($n=60k, d=1024$) motivated in part by your comments on scalability and high dimensions. Such numbers are unheard of in the EOT literature. Hence, we are very grateful for your detailed feedback on the paper, which has triggered this exploration.
We have also provided a colab that illustrates that ProgOT is not only differentiable, but also ready to be used "off the shelf", as we claim in the paper.
You mentioned that you were `open to adjusting your score based on the authors' answers`. If these experiments seem convincing to you, we would of course be very grateful if you could so.
If you have any remaining questions, we might be able to answer them through the AC (in principle we should be able to communicate with the AC following the closing of the discussion period).
Respectfully,
The Authors
---
Rebuttal Comment 3.1:
Comment: I appreciate that the authors provide detailed responses and new experiments in order to address my concerns. The high-dimensional experiments on Wasserstein-2 benchmark dataset and CIFAR-10 dataset show that the method is applicable in high dimensions. After reading the entire discussion with other reviewers, I still have some concerns regarding the soundness and practical usability of the proposed approach. However, the authors have made a lot of work through the rebuttal phase, thus, I increase my score to 5.
---
Reply to Comment 3.1.1:
Title: thanks for acknowledging our rebuttal
Comment: We are very grateful for your score increase,
As we mentioned above, we are also thankful for your comments and for your time reviewing our work. Your insightful remarks led to this large scale CIFAR-10 experiment which we insist we have never seen elsewhere in EOT at these scales for `n` and `d`. This has definitely strengthened our paper.
We also want to highlight that users can already try our code, as showcased in the **colab** shared with you by the AC.
While we understand that you may have some remaining concerns, unfortunately, as the discussion period is closing in a few minutes, we won't have the time to discuss them. Still, if you have remaining concerns you would like to share with us, you might share them with the AC, who might relay them to us. We will then do our best to answer them.
Many thanks again for your time.
The Authors. | Summary: The authors proposed ProgOT, a method to solve a sequence of EOT problems so that practitioners do not have to tune the entropic regularizer parameter $\varepsilon$ and strike a good balance between computational and statistical complexity.
Strengths: The manuscript is well-written and it was easy to understand.
Weaknesses: I have several concerns about the contributions and the assumptions of this work:
- First of all, I think the contribution of this work is rather limited since the only benefit is to avoid the tuning of the parameter $\varepsilon$. In my experience, tuning $\varepsilon$ is usually not a big issue since Sinkhorn is rather robust. In addition, the work does not discuss any computational tradeoff in doing so. Tuning the parameter $\varepsilon$ only affects the accuracy of EOT, which is rather minor since the main bottleneck of large-scale Optimal Transport is the number of support $n$.
- Secondly, this work uses a lot of strong assumptions to establish theoretical guarantees. For example, it assumes Euclidean cost, convex, and compact condition and the inverse mapping has at least three continuous derivatives. These assumptions are very restrictive and would limit the applicability of the theoretical analysis.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: - How would $\nu_{min}, \nu_{max}$ affect the theoretical analysis?
- I would recommend the authors to consider quadratic regularized OT/UOT formulations [1], [2] and entropic-UOT [3].
- In addition, I would recommend the authors to cite and discuss the following works as well.
References:
[1] Smooth and Sparse Optimal Transport. Mathieu Blondel, Vivien Seguy, Antoine Rolet. In Proc. of AISTATS 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.06276
[2] "On Unbalanced Optimal Transport: Gradient Methods, Sparsity and Approximation Error". Quang Minh Nguyen, Hoang Huy Nguyen, Lam Minh Nguyen, Yi Zhou. Journal of Machine Learning Research, (JMLR), 2023
[3] Pham, K., Le, K., Ho, N., Pham, T., & Bui, H. (13--18 Jul 2020). On Unbalanced Optimal Transport: An Analysis of Sinkhorn Algorithm. In H. D. Iii & A. Singh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 7673–7682). Retrieved from https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/pham20a.html
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: See above.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Many thanks for your review and for your comments. Our response follows.
> **I think the contribution of this work is rather limited since the only benefit is to avoid the tuning of the parameter $\varepsilon$.**
In light of your comment, we will delete the sentence *“Setting $\varepsilon$ can be difficult, … and bias”* in our abstract, so that readers do not get confused on what constitutes our contribution.
Our paper is not “only about avoiding tuning $\varepsilon$” in Sinkhorn. While this was the main focus of other recent works, such as [1, 2], **L. 59**, this is not our goal.
Our solver blends McCann type interpolation, local Sinkhorn computations and entropic map estimation to yield both a coupling and map estimator (**L.12~18**). While easing the burden to pick $\varepsilon$, our solver does a lot more than that, as listed in *Contributions*, **L.65~76**, and demonstrated in Fig. 5 (computations, highlighting very different outputs compared to Sinkhorn), or Table 1 (out-of-sample prediction).
Please also take a look at our new experimental results [**Fig. A, Tab. B**] on the entire CIFAR-10 dataset.
> **In my experience, tuning is usually not a big issue since Sinkhorn is rather robust.**
Use cases for Sinkhorn vary a lot, and we do trust that you may not have run into such problems in the past. In practice, however, EOT solvers are widely used, for many tasks, impacting many user profiles.
In the simplest cases, e.g. when computing **couplings on normalized data** (e.g. embeddings on the sphere), we also observe that Sinkhorn's outputs can be fairly stable across various $\varepsilon$ values. On **real** data sources (such as the genomics point clouds), this is not necessarily the case. $\varepsilon$ has a considerable impact on stability and compute time.
$\varepsilon$ also impacts disproportionately the predictive performance for map estimation. Not tuning it often results in poor outcomes, which is why *all* Sinkhorn baselines in our draft use cross-validation. To convince you, we have added a line with "untuned Sinkhorn" (i.e. using the default given by OTT-JAX) to our benchmarks [see **Tab. D** in the PDF], showing that it performs significantly worse than cross-validated Sinkhorn and ProgOT.
Thank you for this suggestion.
> **In addition, the work does not discuss any computational tradeoff in doing so.**
We did target this tradeoff explicitly in Figure 5, see **L.314**. We have updated appendix A with more experimental results to highlight that tradeoff.
> **Tuning the parameter only affects the accuracy of EOT,...**
Can you clarify what you mean by accuracy of EOT? Do you mean proximity to the unregularized solution?
> **...which is rather minor since the main bottleneck of large-scale Optimal Transport is the number of support $n$**
Each Sinkhorn iteration has indeed a cost in $n^2$. However, **the number of iterations varies tremendously with $\varepsilon$**, e.g. from 10 iterations for large $\varepsilon$ to 10k for small ones, as shown e.g. in our paper, and [**Fig. F & Fig. G**].
To our knowledge, the only linear time RegOT solver is the low-rank (LRSink) approximation from [3]. That solver does not yield a map estimator, as it does not solve the dual OT problem. Exploring hybridizing ProgOT with LRSink is an interesting direction.
> **...this work uses a lot of strong assumptions to establish theoretical guarantees. For example, it assumes Euclidean cost, convex, and compact condition and the inverse mapping has at least three continuous derivatives. These assumptions are very restrictive and would limit the applicability of the theoretical analysis.**
To prove guarantees for estimators, the strength of assumptions should naturally be commensurate with the difficulty of the task.
Proving theoretical recovery of OT maps is hard, and to our knowledge, the entropic map estimator [4] that we build upon is the **only** tractable estimator that has such guarantees (**L. 126~129**). We follow their assumptions, and we do not see any alternatives now. The fact that the inverse mapping must have three continuous derivatives is a strong assumption, but we believe this is a fundamental issue, and not an artefact or our analysis. Other approaches (e.g., [5, 6, 7]) share many of the same regularity assumptions as we do.
Note that many OT map estimators are routinely used without any theoretical guarantees (e.g. all neural-OT approaches, flow-matching like formulations), even in biological settings [8]. Aside from the entropic map, ProgOT is the only other tractable map estimator that comes with convergence guarantees.
To summarize, apart from the entropic map estimator, ProgOT is the only currently known tractable OT map estimator with guarantees, and we show that it performs better in practice.
> **How would $\nu_{\min}, \nu_{\max}$ affect the theoretical analysis?**
$\nu_{\min}$ and $\nu_{\max}$ appear as constants in the bounds, as established by [4], which are just meant to be multiplicative constants in the bounds. The role is analogous in the other papers mentioned above
> **I would recommend the authors to consider quadratic regularized OT/UOT formulations [1], [2] and entropic-UOT [3]. In addition, I would recommend the authors to cite and discuss the following works as well.**
This is an interesting research direction. However, extending our work to the settings you mention (quadratic regularization/ unbalanced settings) is far from being straightforward. Crucially, there is no equivalent of an “entropic potential map”, that can be extended out of sample, for the dual solutions outputted from quadratic solvers (first proposed in [DPR16]), nor for the unbalanced case.
We have added references that you mentioned to the conclusion section, to highlight possible future work around ProgOT.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response to the authors
Comment: Thank you very much for your detailed and insightful responses. Though I'm still not very convinced of the significance of the work, the responses have addressed many of my concerns. I will increase the score.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Many thanks for acknowledging our rebuttal
Comment: We are very thankful for your various comments. With these clarifications and the first (to our knowledge) demonstration that ProgOT can run an EOT based solver at large scales (60,000 points, d=1024), and still return a meaningful coupling, we believe we have a significant and convincing contribution.
We are also grateful for your score increase.
While there is little time left in the dicussion, we remain available to answer any other questions you may have.
the authors | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank all reviewers for taking the time to read about our new method. We take pride in seeing many appreciative comments, notably from reviewers `Z1nb`, `mHCn` and `9mT1`:
> *I am sure that other researchers might apply this methodology for Flow matching or Schroedinger bridge methods that aim to build interpolation from one dataset to another one*.
> *The paper provides a new methodology for solving OT problems with entropy regularization which does not combine the ideas of prior works.*
> *The storyline is perfect and understandable through the paper*
> *The theoretical results in the paper are sound, and provided with rigorous proofs.*
> *The paper is well written and organized. The background section is very useful, particularly for readers who are not familiar with optimal transport.*
We enjoyed very much, during this past week, doing our best to come up with clarifications, given separately for each reviewer below.
A common thread found in Reviewers' `Agip` and `Z1nb` comments was about scalability and applicability. We have added various experiments in the pdf (notably higher-$d$ results from the [Korotin et al] benchmark, or a concrete example showing the importance of tuning $\varepsilon$ for vanilla Sinkhorn), but we would like to highlight in our general response a new experiment, on real data, that we designed to assuage specific concerns on scalability.
We wanted to provide an experiment that was large $n$, large $d$, challenging enough to be of interest, on real data to stay relevant, and for which some form of ground truth was known.
We propose an OT problem on the *entire* (grayscaled) **CIFAR10** dataset, that is, $n=60,000$ images, each of size $d=32\times32=1024$.
*The transport task we propose is the following*: The isotropic Gaussian blur operation on an image is a linear operator. Following notations from the textbook **[Peyre & Cuturi, 2019, Remark 4.17]**, for $N\times N$ sized-images (here $N=32$), writing
$$K=\left[\exp\left(-\frac{(i-j)^2}{N^2\sigma}\right)\right]\_{ij},$$
for $i,j\leq N$, the Gaussian blur operation takes an image stored in matrix form as $U\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$ and transforms it into
$$L(U) = KUK\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}.$$
**Crucially, the Gaussian blur linear map is *positive-definite*.**
**Proof**: Let $U_1, \dots, U_s$ be $s$ images, and form the kernel matrix $$A_{ij} = \langle U_i, L(U_j) \rangle.$$
Each entry can be re-written as $\langle U_i, L(U_j) \rangle = \langle U_i, K U_j K \rangle = \langle K U_i, K U_j \rangle$. This is a dot-product matrix (of all elements $KU_i$), and is therefore always psd. This proves that $L$ is a positive-definite linear operator.
As a result, following Brenier's theorem, $L$ is necessarily a $\ell_2^2$ OT Monge map in $R^{N\times N}$, from any family of images onto their blurred counterparts ($L$ is the gradient of $h(U)=\tfrac12\langle U, L(U) \rangle$, which is a convex potential, therefore an OT map, see **[Santambrogio 2015 S.1.3.1]**).
Practically, if one solves an assignment problem (with $\ell_2^2$ cost) between a family of $n$ images and their blurred $n$ counterparts, the optimal assignment is necessarily that which maps an image to itself, blurred, regardless of the value of $\sigma$ ⎯ the optimal permutation is the identity.
We create these two blurred datasets using a Gaussian kernel with $\sigma=2$ and $\sigma=4$ (visualized in **Figure A** of the uploaded PDF). We then use `ProgOT` and Sinkhorn to match the blurred dataset to the original CIFAR10 (de-blurring). We test various $\varepsilon$ and schedules, and, as always in our experiments, focus on relevant regimes for both methods.
As explained above, the ground-truth (unregularized) OT coupling matrix $\boldsymbol P^\star$ should be the diagonal matrix $q \boldsymbol{I}$, with $q=1/60000$.
We evaluate the performance of an OT solver by checking how close the trace of the recovered coupling $\mathrm{Tr}(\hat{\boldsymbol P})$ is to $1.0$, or with the KL divergence to the ground truth, that is: $\mathrm{KL}(\boldsymbol P^\star||\hat{\boldsymbol P}) = \log q -\tfrac1q\sum_{i} \log (\hat{\boldsymbol P}_{ii})$. **Table A** in the uploaded PDF shows the performance of `ProgOT` and Sinkhorn, along with the number of iterations needed to achieve this performance. Both Algorithms scale well and show high accuracy, while requiring a similar amount of computation.
We highlight that at this scale, simply storing the cost or coupling matrices would require `28.8Gb`. The experiment has to happen across multiple GPUs. Thanks to its integration in JAX, and OTT-JAX, `ProgOT` supports sharding by simply changing ~3 lines of code. The algorithms scales seamlessly and each run takes about 15 minutes, on a single node of 8 A100 GPUs.
We hope that this experiment sets a convincing example on how `ProgOT` scales to much larger (in $n$ and $d$) problems than considered previously. This ties with the comment from Reviewer `Z1nb` on guided generation or flow-matching, which could benefit from our implementation to handle very large batches.
We would be happy to answer all follow up questions.
the authors
Pdf: /pdf/519ad86fb71391e6d79abffcc0e2a9937f519644.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Derivatives of Stochastic Gradient Descent in parametric optimization | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper studies stochastic optimization problems where the objective depends on a parameter, and more specifically the derivatives w.r.t. that parameter of the SGD iterates. The paper makes various quite strong albeit common assumptions, and for various more specific settings concrete convergence rates are established. The proof relies on analysis via an inexact SGD sequence. Finally, the results are illustrated by some experiments.
Strengths: The paper is well-written and the technical flow of ideas is convincing. Especially the connection to inexact SGD seems quite novel.
Weaknesses: My main concern is of a motivational nature: why is the question set out inn ll. 35-36 interesting? I do not find ll. 37 sufficiently convincing. (I may not have understood that paragraph fully.)
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Can you elaborate on the motivation?
2. Why do you need that the gradient for the first iterates vanish (l. 194)? That appears to be an odd and strong assumption.
3. How restrictive are the assumptions? (I understand that they are mostly common in the literature.)
Confidence: 1
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Assumptions are discussed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Motivation:** We made a common response to all reviewers regarding the motivation. We will modify this section to include explicit references to works which consider differentiating SGD sequences or propose it as a relevent research venue.
**Vanishing derivative at initialization:** this remark was also made by reviwer **bPEV**, we will remove this assumption. This choice was only made for simplicity to avoid the term $\|\partial_\theta x_0(\theta)\|$ in the right hand side of the estimate in Lemma 2.1. This will be corrected in the revision, we will remove this assumption and explicit all the terms, including a dependency in the derivative of the initialization. This represents a very minor modification.
**Discussion of the assumptions:** The crucial assumption for our results is strong convexity. The rest of the assumptions are typically satisfied in applications such as hyper parameter tuning. We point out that both examples in the numerical section satisfy our assumtions and are implemented in the regime described by our main theorem. Our assumptions are classical, as described for example in the two general optimization references presented in the response to all reviewers regarding our step size choice. We will add this discussion in a revised version of the paper.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Dear Reviewer cZZE,
Thank you again for your detailed feedback on our paper. We hope that our rebuttal addressed the concerns you raised. If you have any further questions or require additional clarifications, we would be happy to provide them.
If you are satisfied with our responses, we kindly ask you _to consider_ raising your score in the light of our responses. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.
Best regards,
Authors
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: Thank you for your clarifications. The authors have addressed my points. In particular, I belief that the authors will be able to present a more convincing case for their motivation in a revision.
I belief my original assessment of the paper's impact is accurate. | Summary: The authors consider parametric stochastic optimization problems of the form $\min_x F(\theta,x)$ where $F(\theta,x)= \mathbb E_\xi [ f(x, \theta, \xi)]$ under the condition that $f$ is strongly convex in $x$ for any fixed $\theta, \xi$. This ensures that for fixed $\theta$, there exists a unique minimizer $x^*(\theta)$. The authors construct a sequence $x_k$ by gradient descent for $F(\theta, \cdot)$ and demonstrate that an associated sequence, denoted by $\partial_\theta x_k$, converges to the parameter derivative $\partial_\theta x^*(\theta)$ of the solution map $x^*(\theta)$. They explore various regimes of stochasticity and various learning rate schedules, obtaining rates in different settings. Strong continuity assumptions are placed on $f, \nabla f, D^2f$.
Strengths: The article is generally well-written and explains its results intuitively. The statements of results are precise, yet clear.
Weaknesses: * I find the title almost misleading. The authors do not consider derivatives (modifications) of the algorithm, but they consider the derivatives of iterates with respect to an additional parameter. I would propose something along the lines of "Derivatives in parametric optimization and their behavior along SGD iteration".
* I do not follow the numerical illustration in Section 4 at all. The independent parameter $\theta$ becomes a random quantity in this section, and it is unclear what stochastic gradient estimates the authors use: Only the deterministic objective function $F$ is specified (line 291), and $\xi$ is never mentioned in this section. I am not sure why the authors draw $\theta$ from a random distribution. I believe that the experiments either do not match the setting considered above or the presentation needs to be clarified considerably.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: * Is there a conflict between the statement in line 131 that "[...] the initialization of the algorithm $x_0(\theta)$ depend[s] on some parameter $\theta$" and the assumption that $\partial_\theta x_0(\theta) =0$ in Theorem 2.2?
* In Lemma 2.1, the restriction that $\eta_k \leq \mu/L^2$ is generally much more severe than the usual bound $\eta_k \leq 1/L$. Perhaps by considering the quadratic case, could the authors speculate whether it is necessary to ensure the convergence of derivatives or whether it could be relaxed?
* In Remark 2.3, if we use a lower estimate for $\mu$, this also changes the estimate for $\kappa$: The constants $c, u$ are not independent. In fact, $\eta_0 = 1/(4\mu \kappa^2) = \mu/(4L^2)$ satisfies the necessary condition above. If we increased $c$ without adjusting $u$, we may easily enter a regime where $\eta_0> \mu/L^2$. A more careful consideration appears to be needed.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **Title:** We propose to add ''in parametric optimization'' at the end of the title if you believe it better illustrates our results. An alternative would be to name it "Derivatives through Stochastic Gradient Descent".
**Numerical section:** Thanks for pointing out this possible confusion, we will provide a more precise description of the generation of synthetic problem and explicit the stochastic setting as follows:
- The randomness of $\theta$ corresponds to the choice of a specific $\theta$ and is secondary in the experiment. The dependency in $\theta$ of the objective through $b(\theta)$ is the most important one and we will put emphasis on this rather than the choice of a fixed $\theta$. In its current state, the presentation is indeed misleading
- The least squares objective has the structure of a finite sum and the randomness in SGD is the classical with replacement sampling, which fits our assumptions. The same comment holds for the second example. We will make this precise in the revision.
**Dependency on initial parameters** This remark was also made by reviewer **cZZE**. Indeed, we assume no dependency of the initialization on parameters $\theta$. This choice was only made for simplicity to avoid the term $\|\partial_\theta x_0(\theta)\|$ in the right hand side of the estimate in Lemma 2.1. This will be corrected in the revision, we will remove this assumption and explicit all the terms, including a dependency in the derivative of the initialization. This represents a very minor modification but should clarify the concern of the reviewer.
**Step size condition:** We made a common response to all reviewers regarding this restriction. We do not believe that our analysis is optimal, but conjecture that the dependency on $\mu$ is required. This is mostly related to the need to consider the specific strongly convex regime for which it is classical to require strong conditions on the step size.
**Remark 2.3:** The reviewer is right, this is presented in an incorrect way. The remark will be modified as follows:
The specific stepsize used to obtain the sublinear rate actually applies to any stepsize of the form $\eta_k = 2/(c k+8u)$ for given $c,u>0$ such that $0<c\leq \mu$ and $u \geq L^2/c$. One obtains the same result with $\mu, L$ respectively replaced in the expressions by $\mu' := c \leq \mu$ and $L' := \sqrt{ u c} \geq L$.
We would like to kindly ask the reviewer to take into account these responses and possibly reconsider his evaluation of our work.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the comprehensive answer. I believe that with minor corrections, my concerns can be addressed. I choose to raise my score to 7.
For strongly convex optimization, it should be noted that in general the learning rate is $1/L$, not $\mu/L^2$ when considering the convergence of the objective function rather than its derivatives. This is true for both gradient descent and Nesterov's method. Naturally, smaller step sizes have to be chosen in the stochastic case. I would be curious to see a broader exploration.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Dear reviewer bPEV,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback and for raising your score! You bring up an excellent point regarding the learning rate in the context of strongly convex optimization. Indeed, the distinction you mention between the convergence rates of the objective function and its derivatives is important. Exploring this aspect in more detail is indeed an interesting direction for future work.
Best,
Authors | Summary: The paper considers stochastic optimizations where the objective depends on some parameter. Instead of the SGD, the paper considers the derivatives of the iterates of the SGD with respect to that parameter in the context where the objective is strongly convex.
Convergence analysis is obtained for the derivatives of the iterates of SGD, which can be viewed as an inexact SGD on a different objective, perturbed by the convergence of the original SGD.
Strengths: (1) Convergence guarantees are obtained for derivatives of SGD under certain assumptions.
(2) Analysis seems to be rigorous and solid.
Weaknesses: (1) Derivatives of SGD are much less studied than SGD. As a result, it would be helpful to add more discussions about Assumption 1, Assumption 2, what kind of examples of interest satisfy these two assumptions (especially the part that is unique to the setting that involves the parameter).
(2) Numerical experiments are only synthetic. It would be nice if the paper can add an experiment on real data.
(3) I do not see adequate discussions whether the assumptions for the theoretical part can be satisfied for the examples considered
in the numerical section.
(4) Inexact SGD has been well studied in the literature. Since the paper views derivatives of SGD as an inexact SGD, it is not clear
what technical novelty and contributions arise from this context.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: (1) In Theorem 2.2, I understand that constant step-size is a popular choice in the SGD literature. But can you comment on the choice $\eta_{k}=\frac{1}{\mu}\frac{2}{k+8\kappa^{2}}$ for the sublinear rate regime, and moreover the interpolation regime, in which the assumption $\sigma=0$ seems to be super strong to me, and can you provide some examples of interest that satisfy this particular assumption?
(2) In the paragraph after equation (1), you wrote that the error term is of order... Please specify which term is the error term.
(3) To improve the readability of the paper, I suggest you state somewhere in the main paper how you view the derivatives of SGD as an inexact SGD. For example, in the proof of Theorem 2.2., you defined $e_{k+1}$, and I think you can define $e_{k+1}$, as well as $\nabla_{x}g(x_{k};\xi_{k+1})$ when you explain how you view the derivatives of SGD as an inexact SGD before you state the main results to help the readers understand better.
(4) Some of the journal names in the references should be capitalized. For example, for Robbins and Monro,
it should be The Annals of Mathematical Statistics.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: More discussions on limitations should be added.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ### Weaknesses:
**(1) Discussion of the assumptions:** The crucial assumption for our results is strong convexity. The rest of the assumptions are typically satisfied in applications such as hyper parameter tuning. We point out that both examples in the numerical section satisfy our assumtions and are implemented in the regime described by our main theorem. The rest of the assumptions are classical, as described for example in the two general optimization references presented in the response to all reviewers regarding our step size choice. We will add this discussion in a revised version of the paper.
**(2) Real data:** We will add experiments using the same models as in the numerical section, with real data, in the appendix. We provide in the attached PDF on OpenReview a numerical experiment for the derivatives of SGD on a logistic regression problem on the dataset IJCNN1 (~50k samples). The iterates of SGD are differentiated with respect to the L2 regularization parameter of the logistic regression loss. The observed behavior is very to close to the one observed in the synthetic experiments (see Fig. 2 of the paper), validating our approach. Note that non-strongly convex behaviours is out-of-the-scope of this paper, since we provide the theory necessary to study the strongly convex case.
**(3) Numerical section:** Both examples in the numerical section satisfy our assumtions and are implemented in the regime described by our main theorem. The numerical section will be reworked to state this explicitely.
**(4) Literature on inexact SGD:** Indeed, the paper misses this element. We base our discussion on the recent publication:
- *Demidovich, Malinovsky, Sokolov, Richtárik. A guide through the zoo of biased sgd. Neurips 2023*.
We provide a general mean squared error convergence analysis of inexact SGD which allows to handle random non stationary bias terms, whose magnitude depend on the iteration counter $k$. This is customary as our errors depend on the realization of the SGD iterate sequence, requiring a dedicated analysis not covered by existing literature on inexact SGD. We will add a paragraph about this discussion at the end of the introduction.
### Questions:
**(1) Step size and interpolation** Please see our common response to all reviewers regarding the choice of step size. The case $\sigma = 0$ is often used in optimization and ML literature as an idealized model to capture overparametrization with very large networks. It is indeed a very strong condition (note though that the absence of noise is _only_ true at the optimum). Such an interpolation regime was studied in various works, including (but not limited to):
- *Ma, Bassily, Belkin, (2018). The power of interpolation: Understanding the effectiveness of SGD in modern over-parametrized learning. ICML*. This paper studies linear convergence of SGD in the interpolation regime.
- *Varre, A. V., Pillaud-Vivien, L., & Flammarion, N. (2021). Last iterate convergence of SGD for Least-Squares in the Interpolation regime. Neurips*. This paper studies interpolation at the population level for linear regression.
- *Garrigos, G., & Gower, R. M. (2023). Handbook of convergence theorems for (stochastic) gradient methods. arXiv preprint*. The interpolation regime is mentioned in several places in this manuscript.
Although this looks like an edge case, we included this interpolation regime in the paper because we believe that it is of interest to the ML/OPT community and also because the theory sometimes predicts an surprising behavior: linear convergence of iterates, but not of derivatives, which we thought was interesting.
**(2)** Indeed, thanks for catching this, we will make it explicit in the revision.
**(3)** Indeed we will describe the error and notations right after equation (1).
**(4)** Thanks for catching this, we will correct this.
We believe that we brought relevant responses to the legitimate questions of the reviewer and we would like to ask the reviewer to reconsider his evaluation in light of the elements given above.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Dear Reviewer d938,
Thank you again for your detailed feedback on our paper. We hope that our rebuttal addressed the concerns you raised. If you have any further questions or require additional clarifications, we would be happy to provide them.
If you are satisfied with our responses, we kindly ask you _to consider_ raising your score in the light of our responses since your current rating leans toward a reject. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.
Best regards,
Authors | Summary: This is a theoretical paper on iterative process differentiation. The paper analyzes the behavior of the derivatives of the iterates of SGD (Stochastic Gradient Descent). Based on a set of assumptions, the paper establishes the convergence of the derivatives of SGD and conducts numerical experiments to validate its findings.
Strengths: The highlights of the paper are: (1) revealing that the behavior of the derivatives of the iterates is driven by an inexact/perturbed SGD recursion; (2) illustrating their theory with numerical experiments on synthetic tasks.
Weaknesses: I believe the main weaknesses of the paper are that the assumptions used to establish the theory are too strong; moreover, the practical significance of the theory is not clearly articulated, especially in relation to stochastic hyperparameter optimization.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: The smoothness assumption in Assumption 1(b) requires that the gradient are jointly L-Lipschitz continuous in $x$ and $\theta$ . Can this assumption be relaxed?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Not applicable.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **About the motivation in stochastic hyperparameter optimization and assumptions:** We made a common response to all reviewers regarding theses two points. We will modify the appropriate paragraphs to include explicit references to works which consider differentiating SGD sequences or propose it as a relevent research venue. We will also pay an extra attention to the reach and necessity of our assumptions.
**Jointly Lipschitz Gradient:**
> The smoothness assumption in Assumption 1(b) requires that the gradient are jointly L-Lipschitz continuous in $x$ and $\theta$. Can this assumption be relaxed?
Joint gradient Lipschicity is indeed a strong assumption, but its strength is mitigated as follows:
- $\Theta$ is an arbitrary open Euclidean subset, in particular, this could be a small ball around a given $\bar{\theta}$. In other words we do not require global Lipschicity with respect to $\theta$, only local Lipschicity which is a consequence of the $C^2$ assumption and is expressed here in a quantitative form. Global gradient Lipschicity is only required for the $x$ variable which is typical for the analysis of gradient schemes.
- We chose the same constant $L$ with respect to both $x$ and $\theta$ for simplicity. We prefered simple assumptions and fewer notations. The Lipschicity with respect to $\theta$ is only used in Lemma 2.1 which is in turn used to obtain estimates on the error in equation (4). These could be separated.
As requested by the reviewer, we will relax this assumption in the revision and separate $L_x$, the Lipschitz constant with respect to $x$ for fixed $\theta$, and $L_\theta$ with respect to $\theta$. This will only incur minor modifications of the estimate of Lemma 2.1, the constant $L_x$ being the crucial one in the rest of the analysis. We will also add a precise remark regarding the fact that the constant $L_\theta$ does not need to be a global Lipschitz constant in $\theta$.
We believe that this is a nice improvement to our set of assumptions and would like to ask the reviewer to reconsider his evaluation in light of this discussion.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Dear Reviewer mZD2,
Thank you again for your detailed feedback on our paper. We hope that our rebuttal addressed the concerns you raised. If you have any further questions or require additional clarifications, we would be happy to provide them.
If you are satisfied with our responses, we kindly ask you _to consider_ raising your score in the light of our responses. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.
Best regards,
Authors
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: Thanks for the clarification / explanation. Although I have not studied those future improvements in detail, I believe that relaxing the assumptions in this interesting theoretical issue could offer more valuable insights for practical work. For now, I would prefer to maintain my original rating. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear AC, dear reviewers,
We are sincerely grateful for your time and input. We reply to each of your questions and comments in a separate point-by-point thread below. We will of course integrate all applicable points in the next revision opportunity. We start with two general comments regarding motivations and step size constraints, which raised questions from several reviewers. We hope that the points developed below provide satisfactory answers to your concerns.
Kind regards,
The authors
## Motivation (common to several reviewers)
Several raised concerns about the motivation for our work. We would like to point four relevant bibliographic references which explicitely mention the idea of differentiation through SGD, among existing literature on the topic.
- *Maclaurin, Duvenaud, Adams (2015). Gradient-based hyperparameter optimization through reversible learning. ICML.* This paper is dedicated to an efficient implementation of reverse automatic differentiation for SGD to evaluate its derivatives. Our theory is about Jacobians, it applies to both forward and reverse mode automatic differentiation.
- *Pedregosa (2016). Hyperparameter optimization with approximate gradient. ICML.* This is an important paper in hyper parameter tuning which explicitely calls for the development of differentiation techniques for stochastic optimization algorithms and motivated many subsequent works in iterative differentiation.
- *Finn, Abbeel, Levine (2017). Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. ICML.* This is a landmark paper on meta learning which suggests to use differentiation through stochastic first order solvers.
- *Ji, Yang, Liang (2022). Theoretical convergence of multi-step model-agnostic meta-learning. JMLR.* Differentiation through SGD is explicitely described and studied in this reference motivated by meta learning applications.
Since the convergence of the derivatives of SGD is *not considered in the literature*, we believe that the elements above constitute sufficiently important motivation to study it more precisely. We will revise the introduction to let these elements appear more clearly. We kindly ask the reviewers to take these elements into consideration in their evaluation.
## Step size constraints and strong convexity (common to several reviewers)
Several reviewers expressed concerns regarding the fact that we do not have the usual $1/L$ step size limitation, but rather the smaller $\mu/L^2$. We emphasize that our study takes place in the strongly convex setting, and our rate is of the form $O(1/k)$ which is a fast rate for SGD and relies on *strong convexity*. Let us emphasize that obtaining such rates classically requires stronger step size conditions, see for example the following general references on stochastic optimization:
- Theorem 4.6 in *Bottou, Curtis, Nocedal (2018). Optimization methods for large-scale machine learning. SIAM review*. This features a constraint very similar to ours.
- Corollary 5.8 and Theorem 5.9 in *Garrigos, Gower (2023). Handbook of convergence theorems for (stochastic) gradient methods. arXiv preprint*. In particular Theorem 5.9 features a constraint very similar to ours.
- Moulines, Bach (2011). *Non-asymptotic analysis of stochastic approximation algorithms for machine learning. Neurips*. The discussion after Theorem 1 suggests that small step sizes are required to obtain meaningful non asymptotic bounds for SGD, as we obtain in our work.
We conjecture that the convergence of derivatives of SGD beyond the strongly convex setting is a very challenging issue. *This is not settled even for deterministic algorithms.* Our step size choice is certainly not optimal, especially in the interpolation regime, but we believe that the dependency on $\mu$ is required to obtain convergence of derivatives of SGD. This is due to the necessity to operate in the favorable strongly convex regime and the fact that this requires a possibly worse step size than the deterministic smooth case. This is aligned with the litterature on the convergence of SGD for strongly convex objectives and we will comment on these restriction and potential improvements in the revision.
## Additional experiment
One reviewer was uncomfortable with the fact that we only illustrated our findings on synthetic experiments. You will find attached on OpenRevew an additional experiment on regularised logistic regression on the ijcnn1 dataset, with the same conclusion as for the synthetic case.
Pdf: /pdf/f2cd24e61de10340ff032c42996d5a0a5ed2526d.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Human-3Diffusion: Realistic Avatar Creation via Explicit 3D Consistent Diffusion Models | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper presents a pipeline for creating a 3D model of a full body avatar given a single input image.
While the previous methods show a single image to 3D using a 2D diffusion model such as ImageDream, as a 2D model, they suffer from 2D inconsistencies. This paper combines the benefit of both the large-scale 2D pre-trained multiview image model as well as the 3D consistent generative model (here they used gaussian splatting as such a representation).
Given a single input image, the method first creates 4 orthogonal views of the input using 2D ImageDream. While this creates some realistic views, those views might be inconsistent. To create more consistent views, the method renoises the image and pass it to 3D generative model based on a gaussian representation to create a 3D consistent version of the 2D output. The output from the 3D generative model is 3D consistent but the texture might not be as good as the 2D one. So the model finally redecodes the 3D rendering with a 2D model to create the final 3D-aware rendering.
Both the 2D ImageDream and 3D gaussian-based generative models are trained jointly with a tightly coupled manner. To enable the tight coupling, the 3D generative model also takes a noisy image as well as a time step t, just like the 2D counterparts. The 3D generative model part is built on top of the U-Net decoder from LGM, which takes a 4-view image and produces gaussian splatting parameters.
The model is trained on a combined dataset of 6000 human scans, which are converted to rendering images via Blender.
The paper demonstrates convincing results on multiple challenging datasets (Sizer, IIT-Human, and GSO) with extensive numerical / qualitative comparisons.
Strengths: * Convincing results are demonstrated on challenging datasets of Sizer, IIT-Human, UBC Fashion and GSO (Google Scanned Objects)
* While the paper mostly focuses on humans, the method itself is fairly generic and could also work on general objects (some results are shown)
* extensive numerical and qualitative comparisons are provided and the proposed method performs better compared to the previous work
* While many previous methods used mostly 2D generative priors, the paper shows how to use both 2D and 3D generative models to create a better result.
* Paper is overall easy to follow and good amount of technical details are provided (but not all).
Weaknesses: * the paper provided most of the technical details but some key details are still missing such as the exact architecture of the noise conditioned gaussian based 3D generative model and the timing of how long it will take to process an image.
* the overall pipeline seems fairly complicated to need to train both 2D and 3D generative models and that they rely on 3D scans, which are fairly limited for humans (only 6000).
* the paper text has some English grammar errors and typos and could benefit from proofreading.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: * How long will it take to process an image?
* How is X^tgt_{t} exactly generated? In Fig2, it looks like the noisy images have some structured noise rather than a regular gaussian noise added. Why is that?
* The visualization of the used views in Figs9 and 10 are inconsistent. For some subjects only front views are shown and other subjects only back views are shown rather randomly. Please make them consistent or show both.
* The following papers are relevant for citation:
Generative Novel View Synthesis with 3D-Aware Diffusion Models (ICCV2023)
ReconFusion: 3D Reconstruction with Diffusion Priors (CVPR2024)
ZeroNVS: Zero-Shot 360-Degree View Synthesis from a Single Real Image
Typos
* line225: typo, extra period after "reconstruction"
* Figure 6: Visualization "of" intermediate sampling steps
* line781: Follow[ing] [71]
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The paper discusses both the broader impact and the limitations.
Some more limitations could be clarified:
* Currently, limited materials are supported (e.g., shiny green dress on the right col of Fig13).
* Fine-scale details such as stuffed toy furs (e.g., first image of Fig14) seems to have blobby 3D details likely from the 3DGS, which seem not just the problem of the low resolution generator.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer for recognition of our method’s strengths, **including its generalization, potential extensions, performance, and clarity**. We maximize our effort to answer every comment seriously and hope our response can address the reviewer’s concerns. If there are any remaining questions, we are more than happy to address them.
---
### **Q1: The paper provided most of the technical details but some key details are still missing such as the exact architecture of diffusion-based 3D-GS generative model**
A1: Thanks for pointing out this problem. We start with the asymmetric U-Net proposed by LGM for our 3D-GS generator. The key modifications we did are:
- Following stable diffusion we inject time embedding into the U-Net.
- We add additional clear context image in addition to the other 4 views.
- We add 3D-attention across views and the context view to inject condition information during the generation process.
We hope this clarifies the details, and we will add these details to our supplementary.
---
### **Q2: The overall pipeline seems fairly complicated to need to train both 2D and 3D generative models, and the method only rely on limited 6000 subjects scans**
A2: We agree that the number of human scans are small-scale compared to objects dataset such as Objaverse (800K to 10M objects). However, we empirically didn’t observe the overfitting. On opposite, we show that our approach generalizes well to unseen subjects with various type of clothing and appearance.
In our analysis, the pretrained Multiview diffusion model and initialization from LGM helps in preventing the overfitting.
Moreover, as reviewer mentioned, our proposed approach is generic. Thus, we can pretrain on large-scale objects dataset and finetune on limited human scan dataset. To validate this, we conduct an toy example:
We test to train the model jointly with only Thuman2.0 (500 subjects, simulate limited human data) and Thuman 2.0+ShapeNet (12K objects + 500subjets, simulate large-scale objects data + small scale human data). For both experiments, we adopt pretrained Imagedream and use LGM to initialize layer weights for 3D-GS generator.
We agree that the number of human scans is small-scale compared to object datasets such as Objaverse (800K to 10M objects). However, we empirically didn’t observe the overfitting. On the contrary, we show that our approach still generalizes well to unseen subjects with various types of clothing and appearance (supp. fig. 9-12) and also objects (Fig5, fig 14). In our analysis, the pretrained mult-iview diffusion model and initialization from LGM help in preventing overfitting.
Moreover, as the reviewer mentioned, our proposed approach is generic. Thus, we can pretrain on large-scale objects dataset and finetune on limited human scan dataset. To validate this, we finetune the model pretrained on Objaverse on Thuman (500 human scans). We don’t observe a significant drop in the performance, see more details in R2Q3.
---
### **Q3. Training requires 3D scans, which is limited for humans (only 6k).**
A3: We would like to point out that we do not rely on full 3D to train the model. Instead, we compute losses on the multi-view images only. Therefore, in principle, we can also train our model on multi-view images with good camera poses, which is much more abundant than 3D scan data. Future works can extend our method to **train on multi-view or video data**, and we believe there is a lot of potential in this direction.
---
### **Q4: How long will it take to process an image?**
A4: Thanks for the question. We also discuss this with other reviewers (KYnm, Q4) and reviewer (uByW, Q5). Please refer to Q2 in general rebuttal for the table. In summary, it takes around 22.5 seconds to process an image on one Nvidia A100. We further evaluate each key component inside of individual diffusion steps, and report the runtime of subcomponent here:
- each DDIM steps of 2D-3D joint diffusion: 0.46 seconds
- where 2D denoising step: 0.08 seconds
- where 3D denoising step: 0.38 seconds
---
### **Q5: How is X^tgt_{t} exactly generated? In Fig2, it looks like the noisy images have some structured noise rather than a regular gaussian noise added.?**
A5: X^tgt_{t} was initialized from Gaussian noise in reverse diffusion step T. We visualize the intermediate step results in Fig2, where the MVD predictions already have some structure. Visualization of more intermediate steps can be found in supp figure 6. We will clarify this better in Fig2.
---
### **Q6: The visualization of the used views in Figs9 and 10 are not all aligned. For some subjects only front views are shown and other subjects only back views are shown rather randomly. Please make them consistent or show both.**
A6: Thanks for pointing this out. We showed different views for each subject in order to showcase diverse viewing angles of our results. In our rebuttal pdf we show comparisons in consistent viewing angles. We will update Figure 9-12 with consistent viewing angles.
---
### **Q7: Some more imitations could be clarified**
A7: Thanks for the suggestion. We agree that these points are indeed the limitations of our method. They are also the unsolved problems in current sota multi-view diffusion models or 3D reconstruction methods. We will add this discussion to the limitations.
---
### **Q8. Typos and English grammar error**
A8: Thanks for pointing them out. We will correct them in the final manuscript.
---
### **Q9: Missing citations of relevant papers**
A9: Thanks for the additional reference, we will add paper [1] to L125, L767, paper [2] to L125, L767 and paper [3] to L74.
[1]. Generative Novel View Synthesis with 3D-Aware Diffusion Models (ICCV2023).
[2]. ReconFusion: 3D Reconstruction with Diffusion Priors (CVPR2024).
[3]. ZeroNVS: Zero-Shot 360-Degree View Synthesis from a Single Real Image.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: I read the entire rebuttals including all the reviews by other reviewers. The rebuttal sufficiently addressed most of my concerns and I did not find new concerns. I will keep my original rating. The figures (second Ninja turtle example) are still inconsistent though in terms of rendering poses in Figure 1 of the rebuttal PDF. | Summary: This paper proposed an image-conditioned 3D-GS generation model for human 3D reconstruction. 2D diffusion models fall short in offering 3D consistency for multi-view shape priors. To address this, the authors introduce a method that combines the strengths of 2D multi-view diffusion and 3D reconstruction models to create avatars with explicit 3D consistency. They propose an image-conditioned 3D Gaussian Splats model that uses 2D diffusion priors to enhance the 3D reconstruction and guide a 2D reverse sampling process, resulting in geometry and appearance. It’s capable of joint training a 3D generative model and a 2D multi-view diffusion model end-to-end.
Strengths: 1.The motivation and insight behind this paper are reasonable. I agree that only by obtaining 2D priors with good 3D consistency can one achieve high-quality 3D Gaussian reconstruction results.
2. An interesting idea of joint training 2D diffusion model and 3D Gaussian end-to-end.
3. The paper is well-written and easy to follow.
Weaknesses: 1. The resolution supported by the model is too low.
2. By observing the qualitative results, I don't think the method has superior performance in geometry or texture; it seems to have a significant gap compared to existing methods that were not compared. However, the quantitative metrics are surprisingly good, which puzzles me.
3. Comparative experiments lack comparisons with many other works. I suggest adding comparative experiments with the following studies:
1.TeCH: Text-guided Reconstruction of Lifelike Clothed Humans（3DV 2024）
2. HumanRef: Single Image to 3D Human Generation via Reference-Guided Diffusion（CVPR 2024）
3. Human-SGD: Single-Image 3D Human Digitization with Shape-Guided Diffusion（SIGGRAPH Asia 2023）
4. ECON: Explicit Clothed humans Optimized via Normal integration（CVPR 2023）
5. ICON: Implicit Clothed humans Obtained from Normals（CVPR 2022）
6. FOF: Learning Fourier Occupancy Field for Monocular Real-time Human Reconstruction（NIPS 2022）
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. How long is the training period? Is it possible to encounter the phenomenon of Gaussian overfitting before the diffusion model has converged? If it occurs, how is it resolved?
2. What is the inference speed like, and does it have an advantage compared to other methods?
3. The multi-view human generation results of your 2D Diffusion model should be displayed.
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Limited reconstruction quality and lack of comparison results with state-of-the-art methods.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank the reviewer for **recognizing our insight, motivation, and the interesting idea of the proposed framework**. We notice that the reviewer has concern about the performance comparisons with SOTA methods and thus looks forward to more comparison and results. We address these concerns here and are happy to take part in further discussions.
---
### **Q1: The supported resolution is low**
A1: The reviewer may refer We guess the reviewer refers to the resolution of our 2D Multi-view diffusion model. We adopt ImageDream pretrained multi-view diffusion model, where the resolution is already limited by (256x256). We denote it as a limitation (L288), and believe that it can be resolved by leveraging a more powerful high-resolution multi-view diffusion model such as SV3D (576x576).
We would like to emphasize that our proposed approach is not limited to the ImageDream. Our framework allows us to use any 2D multi-view diffusion models and further improve them with our proposed tight-coupling of 2D and 3D generation models. Even with low-resolution input, our method achieves sota results, highlighting the strength of our idea.
---
### **Q2: Qualitative results don't achieve superior performance than previous SOTA works but quantitative results are high**
A2: Thanks for raising this concern. Our examples shown in fig2. might not well represent the superiority of our method. We add 10 more comparison with SiTH, SiFU, ECON and ICON in our rebuttal. Furthermore, we randomly select 40 subjects from the test set and conducted asked 70 users to select which method has the best reconstruction quality. **Results suggest that our method is preferred by 80.3% of the users, which is aligned with the quantitative results we reported in the paper**.
We would like to point out that, even though ECON showed impressive results and robustness to diverse clothing and challenging poses, it heavily relies on SMPL estimations which can be inaccurate in challenging cases. As we shown in rebuttal pdf, inaccurate SMPL estimation leads to incorrect human shape and clothing geometry. In contrast, our method does not rely on SMPL and is **more flexible to represent different clothing, accessories, and children**. Therefore, we obtain better results in the test set IIIT, Sizer (initial submission) and Cape, CustomHuman (commonly used benchmarks).
---
### **Q3: Comparative experiments lack of baselines, suggest adding comparison with TeCH, HumanRef, HumanSGD, ICON, ECON, FoF**
A3: Thanks for pointing out this extensive list of comparable works. We compared with SiTH and SiFU, both are SOTA human reconstruction methods published at CVPR2024. Since they already outperform prior SoTA ECON/ICON, we omit the comparison in the initial submission. We do understand that thorough comparison with more baselines can strengthen the arguments. However, some of the listed baselines have either too long runtime (Tech, >6h per image and requires more than 48GB GPU), poorly maintained codebase (FoF, no instruction), released after NeurIPS (HumanRef released June 19, 2024), or no code release (HumanSGD). Therefore, we compare additionally only with ICON, ECON as they are the most popular baselines. The results are reported in the table below.
Method|Published at|SMPL prior|CD(cm)|NC|F-score
:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:
PiFU|ICCV2019|❌|2.83|0.769|0.333
ICON|CVPR2022|✅|4.06|0.728|0.230
ECON|CVPR2023|✅|3.52|0.749|0.278
SiTH|CVPR2024|✅|3.92|0.735|0.250
SiFU|CVPR2024|✅|3.60|0.739|0.235
LGM|ECCV2024|❌|3.29|0.562|0.275
TripoSR|03.2024|❌|2.59|0.771|0.360
InstantMesh|04.2024|❌|2.47|0.787|0.338
Our|-|❌|**1.35**|**1.38**|**1.31**
The quantitative results show that our approach outperforms all baselines. We include additional qualitative examples in the rebuttal PDF. We also conducted a user study to evaluate the qualitative results (see R1Q1). Overall, our method is preferred over ICON, ECON, SiTH, SiFU by approximately 80% of 70 users. This clearly shows that our method outperforms baselines.
---
### **Q4: How long is training period? Is it possible to encounter the phenomenon of Gaussian overfitting before the diffusion model has converged?**
A4: It takes 5 days on 8 A100@80GB to train our model (L213). Preventing large models from overfitting to small datasets is an open research question. In our setting we did not observe this problem as our model generalizes to subjects with diverse appearance and geometry(supp. fig. 9-12) and even general objects (Fig5, fig 14). We believe overfitting is mitigated due to these aspects:
- Pretraining on a large-scale 3D dataset. We reuse some model weights from ImageDream (pretrained on LAION5B, Objaverse) and LGM (pretrained on 80k Objaverse objects). This pretraining provides strong prior to reason 3D shapes even from very noisy multi-view and a single clean input image.
- Data augmentation for camera poses. We added small noise to the camera poses when first training the 3D-GS model alone. This helps align the 3D-GS generator to quickly adapt to 3D inconsistent multi-view images from 2D MVD model.
- Small learning rate for fine-tuning. As is common in the literature, we employ small learning rates to fine-tune the pretrained MVD (1e-5 with Cosine Annealling) and 3D-GS generator (5e-5).
---
### **Q5: What is the inference speed and does it have an advantage compared to other methods**
A5: Our generation time is **approximately 22 seconds**. In contrast, baseline methods depend on SMPL estimation and test-time optimization, which significantly slows down their performance, taking up to 2 to 5 times longers. For more details, please refer to general Rebuttal Q2.
---
### **Q6: The multi-view human generation results of your 2D Diffusion model should be displayed**
A6: A6: Thanks for the suggestion. We showed one example in fig. 6 last row and 2nd column. We include more examples of 2D diffusion outputs in **Rebuttal PDF** (figure 3). We will add these to the supplementary.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the clarifications and the rebuttal response. After reading the authors’ response and the comments of the other reviewers, I have the following concerns:
1. It's important to stress that a qualified paper needs to do a comprehensive comparison experiment with previous related works. I approve that it is difficult to make a detailed quantitative comparison with TeCH (high-quality geometry and texture), FOF (fast inference for high-quality geometry), and other works within a limited time. Still, I think it is unreasonable not to show the qualitative comparison results.
2. As stated by the reviewer uByW，"your model seems to perform poorer than SOTA baselines". Although the proposed approach has an advantage in large loose skirts, children, and anime characters as shown in the rebuttal PDF, the authors do not compare frontal face views.
So, I think this paper does not achieve the sota performance, and I will keep my rating.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.2:
Comment: Thanks for addressing my concerns about comparison methods. However, I still think the qualitative results are not good and the limitation for the input resolution of the propose method is not a valid reason, but rather a shortcoming of the method. Considering the results of the qualitative comparison, I will raise the rating to borderline reject and maintain the negative attitude.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: ### **Q1: comparison with TeCH and FoF**
We appreciate for the feedback.
As recommended by the reviewer, we test additional baselines TeCH and FoF.
We are happy to provide the additional results on FoF. We use the SMPL-X estimation from ECON to serve as body prior for FoF. We augment the quantitative evaluation tables as follows:
Method|Published at|SMPL prior|CD(cm)|NC|F-score
:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:
*FoF*|NeurIPS2022|Yes|5.36|0.685|0.195
ECON|CVPR2023|Yes|3.52|0.749|0.278
Our|-|No|**1.35**|**1.38**|**1.31**
It clearly shows that the FoF fails to reconstruct the clothed human accurately, and **further proves that our proposed approach achieves SOTA reconstruction performance quantitatively**.
For TeCH, despite the protracted and costly inference process, we consistently obtain textured meshes with extremely noisy surfaces. For visual examples, we kindly ask reviewers to check the result Fig. 6a) in PuzzleAvatar[1] which is produced by the same author of TeCH. **We have also consulted the authors of TeCH and they confirmed us that TeCH indeed struggles with producing smooth surface in lots of cases**. For quantitative comparison, we run TeCH on the same 8 unseen subjects on CustomHuman and report the results below. Testing TeCH on more datasets is not possible as it takes 6h/image and can only run on A100 with 80GB memory. It can be seen in the table that the the normal consistency score is significantly lower than our method, which is consistent with the visual results.
CustomHuman|Published at|SMPL prior|CD(cm)|NC|F-score
:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:
*TeCH*|3DV2024|Yes|3.37|0.64|0.31
Our|-|No|**1.03**|**0.85**|**0.66**
[1] PuzzleAvatar: Assembling 3D Avatars from Personal Albums
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: ### **Q2: your method has advantage in large loose skirts and children, but not compare frontal face views**
We understand the concern that the reviewer has about the performance on the facial features reconstruction. We regret our previous rebuttal in not including more direct frontal views in the rebuttal PDF. We hope the following explanation will satisfactorily address the reviewer's concerns:
Firstly, we wish to highlight that our user study, which included views from 45 degrees frontal right and front left, demonstrates a preference for our approach by **80.3%** of participants over SOTA baselines such as SiTH, SiFU, ICON, and ECON. Additionally, the side views provided in the rebuttal PDF illustrate that our method surpasses these baselines in facial appearance (facial color, hair, and helmets) and geometry (eyes, noses, and hairstyles).
We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding superior facial detail in some baseline models, especially as depicted in Figure 5 of the SiTH paper. In response, we offer the following clarifications:
1) *Input Resolution*: Unlike SiTH which uses 1024x1024 as input, our approach operates at a lower 256x256 resolution due to model capacity and training cost considerations. We believe that employing a **higher-resolution multi-view diffusion model** capable of processing images at 512x512 would significantly enhance detailed facial regions.
2) *Underlying SMPL prior*: Unlike baselines which estimates SMPL to provide the body shape prior, our method doesn't rely on the SMPL template. Thus, **our approach has no additional information regarding the detailed face and hand geometry from SMPL**. However, we argue that estimating SMPL accurately from real-world images is still an open challenge. As illustrated in rebuttal PDF Fig.1, the inaccurate SMPL template brings disadvantage in representing loose clothing.
3) *Training data*: The aforementioned methods rely on ground-truth geometry (SDF) information, providing significant supervision on face geometry reconstruction. We rely only on RGB information, which is more flexible and allows using multi-view image and video datasets.
In this paper, we propose a **general framework for monocular reconstruction** that can handle particularly challenging scenarios e.g. loose clothing, using flexible 3D-GS representation. Our framework elegantly combines 2D multi-view diffusion model with 3D-GS generation model. Reviewer iJQG highlights that our framework extends beyond human reconstruction, with the potential for generic object or 3D face reconstructions. We demonstrate that our framework obtains better overall human reconstruction but one could also apply our method to further improve face and hand reconstructions as well. We agree that accurate facial reconstruction is important for 3D human reconstruction, but we also want to emphasize that overall accuracy including clothing also is crucial for realistic avatar creation. **We hope reviewer could value our paper not only on the facial results but on the novelty and generality as well**.
Given the reviewer's positive feedback acknowledging the **reasonableness of our motivation**, the **interesting nature of our idea**, the **quality of our presentation**, and the **demonstrated performance advantages in scenarios involving large loose skirts, children, and anime characters**, we want to understand if there are any additional concerns that might prevent the acceptance of our paper. We are committed to addressing any further issues to ensure our research meets the high standards expected for publication.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: We are thankful for the feedback and the increased score of our submission.
Regarding the limited resolution of 2D multi-view diffusion model, we wish to highlight that the pre-trained 2D multi-view approach is designed to **ensure robust generalization**, a key advancement over prior baselines as demonstrated in Fig.1 of our rebuttal PDF.
Importantly, **our proposed framework is not bounded to any single model**; we initially utilized ImageDream[1] (256x256), the SOTA **pre-trained model available during our development phase**. This choice underscores our model's adaptability, not its limitation. As higher resolution models such as MVDiffusion++[2] and CAT3D[3] (both 512x512, not public yet) become available, our approach is fully capable of integrating these advancements, further enhancing its applicability and performance in future applications.
[1] ImageDream: Image-Prompt Multi-view Diffusion for 3D Generation\
[2] MVDiffusion++: A Dense High-resolution Multi-view Diffusion Model for Single or Sparse-view 3D Object Reconstruction\
[3] CAT3D: Create Anything in 3D with Multi-View Diffusion Models | Summary: The paper introduces a framework that combines 2D Multi-view Diffusion model and Gaussian Splatting to achieve the task of 3D clothed human body reconstruction from a single view. The focus of the paper is to deal with the 3D inconsistency present in 2D multi-view diffusion models.
Strengths: A novel framework that has reasonable motivations. The ablation studies support the various components introduced by the authors.
The method appears to be robust to various different input data.
Weaknesses: Point-to-surface (P2S) metric, widely used in established works like PIFu, PIFuHD, ICON, and ECON, is not used in this paper.
In terms of the resolution of the generated meshes (especially for facial features), the proposed model seems to perform poorer than what has been observed in SOTA like ECON or ICON. Can the authors provide a comparison of the proposed model with the SOTA methods but show only the geometry and not the texture?
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Are all the SOTA methods trained with the same training set (with the same human subjects) as your model?
What is the inference time required to generate each mesh, and how does that compare against the existing SOTA methods?
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: No potential negative societal impact.
I hope the authors address the aforementioned concerns during the rebuttal.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ### **Q1: Point-to-surface (P2S) metric not reported in the paper**
A1: Thanks for the question. We would like to point out that the chamfer distance (CD) reported in the paper is a bidirectional point-to-mesh distance. It measures the distance from both Point-to-Surface (P2S, reconstructed mesh to GT scan) and Surface-to-Point (S2P, GT scan to reconstructed mesh). We understand and agree with Reviewer that reporting the P2S and S2P separately helps analyze the performance. Hence we report the numbers for the reconstruction from table 1 below. We additionally report the results of ICON and ECON as suggested by R3 (RJbF). We will integrate these numbers into Table 1.
Accuracy|CD(cm)|S-to-P(cm)|P-to-S(cm)
-|:-:|:-:|:-:
Our|**1.35**|**1.38**|**1.31**
SiTH|3.92|4.18|3.66
SiFU|3.60|3.50|3.70
ECON|3.52|3.54|3.49
ICON|4.06|4.03|4.08
PiFU|2.83|2.94|2.70
LGM|3.29|2.83|3.775
TripoSR|2.59|2.65|2.52
InstantMesh|2.47|2.59|2.34
---
### **Q2: Geometry Reconstruction performance and comparison with SOTA methods like ICON and ECON**
A2: We have presented the results of geometry reconstruction using ICON and ECON in our **Rebuttal PDF** (Figure 1). Our model demonstrates superior performance compared to ICON and ECON. This advantage arises from the limitations of ICON and ECON in modeling **loose clothing**, **accessories**, and **children** due to their dependency on SMPL. In contrast, our model is not constrained by that. Additionally, we have further assessed the quality of the geometry through a user study. We use 20 subjects, randomly sampled from IIIT, Sizer, and CustomHumans, and conduct a user study involving 70 people.
In our user study, users chose the geometry reconstructed by our method over ICON and ECON 73.8% of the time.
Moreover, previous works like ECON uses Poisson reconstruction and Laplacian Smoothing as the post processing. It also directly replaces the reconstructed face with the facial part of SMPL-X, and stitches the face part using poisson reconstruction. Our method uses 3D-GS to represent human which is **flexible to represent diverse clothing geometry** but it is still an open question to extract high-quality meshes from 3D-GS. Nevertheless, **we do not have extensive post-processing to optimize the geometry but still obtain better reconstruction**. With the rapid advancement of remeshing for 3D-GS (e.g. ref. [1]), we believe our geometry can be even better and the advantage of our 3D-GS representation will prevail more in the future.
[1]. DN-Splatter: Depth and Normal Priors for Gaussian Splatting and Meshing.
---
### **Q3: Settings of SOTA baselines**
A3: Thanks for raising this question. We reuse some weights from LGM which was trained on Objaverse and fine-tune on 6k human scans. We also fine-tune LGM on the same human data (LGM_human in the paper). For human reconstruction baselines, we use the official released model from each baselines to evaluate the performance. This is a standard setting in most recent papers in this area (e.g. SiTH, SiFU). It is not possible to retrain all baselines due to compute limitation. Apart from compute, it is also impossible to train baselines like **SiTH, SiFU, ICON, ECON that requires GT SMPL fits to scans**, as it is very **difficult to fit SMPL for scans with wide clothing, clutter, children or missing parts**. No method currently achieves this reliably. This remains an open challenge and poses a limitation for methods dependent on SMPL GT. **Our method does not rely on SMPL hence allows us to train on 6k scans where only 1500 scans have GT SMPL fits**.
However, we fully understand that ablating the contribution of model design and data is important for future works. Thus, we trained our model on Thuman 2.0 only, which is the same training dataset of SiTH, SiFU, ICON, and ECON. We adopt pretrained 2D Multi-view diffusion (MVD) on objaverse and pretrained diffusion-based 3D-GS generator on ShapeNet. We report the performance as follows:
Accuracy|PSNR|SSIM|LPIPS|CD(cm)|S-to-P(cm)|P-to-S(cm)
:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:
SiTH|20.88|0.907|0.074|3.92|4.18|3.66
SiFU|20.39|0.896|0.085|3.60|3.50|3.70
Our (Thuman2.0 only)|21.21|0.907|0.066|1.60|1.66|1.63
Our|21.5|0.918|0.060|1.35|1.38|1.31
The results shows that our model trained on the same data (Thuman 2.0) still outperforms baselines and achieves SOTA performance. We would like to emphasize that the Thuman2.0 dataset is smaller (approximately 500 samples) and offers less diversity in terms of clothing, subjects, and poses compared to our full training dataset. **Despite this, our model outperforms SOTA methods and its performance is very close to that of our model trained on the full dataset**. This demonstrates the strength and effectiveness of our proposed model. We thank the reviewer for encouraging us for this experiment.
---
### **Q4: Inference Time of proposed approach**
A4: In the introduction section, we have compared our model's performance with other models in terms of memory and processing time. Although our method is based on a diffusion approach, which involves iterative sampling, it only requires 50 feedforward steps (DDIM), resulting in a generation time of **approximately 22 seconds**. In contrast, baseline methods depend on SMPL estimation and test-time optimization, which significantly slows down their performance, taking up to 2 to 5 times longer.
For more details and table, please refer to the introduction section.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Reviewer's Response to Rebuttal
Comment: Q1: Ok, that answered my question.
Q2: I looked at Rebuttal PDF (Figure 1). I appreciate the effort, but I actually asked to see facial features of the generated meshes. From what I can observe, I do believe that existing papers (e.g. SiTH, Fig. 5 from their paper) may be able to do this better. Nevertheless, Rebuttal PDF (Figure 1) does show the structural accuracy of your proposed method. Overall, I do not believe my concern here was well-addressed.
Q3: The table you showed do somewhat address my concern, but I do not agree with the reasons you cited for not doing this in the first place. In particular, you could have picked other methods that do not use SMPL as baselines. I am also not sure why the evaluation datasets are combined into one during quantitative evaluation. Overall, my concern is partially addressed here.
Q4: This is one of my more minor concerns, but I looked at your paper and did not find it. Please specify the line number and the table number.
Overall, I find your rebuttal response to be a good effort although I feel it was mixed in terms of convincing me. Hence, I feel it is appropriate for me to retain my original score.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: ### **Q1: additional P2S metric**
We are happy that we address reviewer's concern.
---
### **Q2: facial features comparison in Rebuttal PDF**
We understand the concern that the reviewer has about the performance on the facial features reconstruction. We regret our previous rebuttal in not including more direct frontal views in the rebuttal PDF. We hope the following explanation will satisfactorily address the reviewer's concerns:
Firstly, we wish to highlight that our user study, which included views from 45 degrees frontal right and front left, demonstrates a preference for our approach by **80.3%** of participants over SOTA baselines such as SiTH, SiFU, ICON, and ECON. Additionally, the side views provided in the rebuttal PDF illustrate that our method surpasses these baselines in facial appearance (facial color, hair, and helmets) and geometry (eyes, noses, and hairstyles).
We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding superior facial detail in some baseline models, especially as depicted in Figure 5 of the SiTH paper. In response, we offer the following clarifications:
1) *Input Resolution*: Unlike SiTH which uses 1024x1024 as input, our approach operates at a lower 256x256 resolution due to model capacity and training cost considerations. We believe that employing a **higher-resolution multi-view diffusion model** capable of processing images at 512x512 or even higher resolutions would significantly enhance the detail in the reconstructed facial regions.
2) *Underlying SMPL prior*: Unlike SiTH, SiFU, ICON, and ECON which estimates SMPL to provide the body shape prior, our method doesn't rely on the estimated SMPL template. Thus, **our approach has no additional information regarding the detailed face and hand geometry, which can be directly provided by SMPL**. However, we argue that estimating SMPL accurately from real-world images is still an open challenge. As illustrated in rebuttal PDF Fig.1, the inaccurate SMPL template can also bring disadvantage in representing loose clothing.
3) *Training data*: The aforementioned methods rely on ground-truth geometry (SDF) information, providing significant supervision on face geometry reconstruction. We rely only on RGB information, which is more flexible and allows using multi-view image and video datasets.
We believe this analysis and the discussion reported here will be beneficial for future works that will embrace our original proposed novel idea, combining 3DGS generation with 2D diffusion models. We also thank the reviewer for acknowledging our results on complex cases are never addressed by other methods, such as loose clothing and children. We agree that accurate facial reconstruction is important for 3D human reconstruction, but we also want to emphasize that **overall accuracy including clothing also is crucial for realistic avatar creation**.
In this paper, we propose a **general framework for monocular reconstruction** that can handle particularly challenging scenarios such as loose clothing, using the flexible 3D-GS representation. This framework elegantly combines 2D multi-view diffusion model with 3D-GS generation model. Reviewer iJQG highlights that our framework extends beyond human reconstruction, with the potential for generic object or 3D face reconstructions without altering the model's architecture. We demonstrate in this paper that our framework obtains better overall human reconstruction but one could also apply our method to further improve head, face, hair, and hand reconstructions as well. **We hope reviewer could value our paper not only on the facial results but on the novelty and generality as well**.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Comment: ### **Q3: setting as SOTA baselines**
As we provided the additional quantitative results of our approach trained on the same data as baseline works such as SiTH and SiFU, it clearly shows that our model design can outperforms baseline under the same number of seen subjects during training.
As requested by the reviewer, we report the evaluation datasets separately as follows:
|Sizer denoise|PSNR|SSIM|LPIPS|CD(cm)|S-to-P(cm)|P-to-S(cm)|
|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|
|SiTH|18.9|0.912|0.063|3.38|3.38|3.37|
|SiFU|18.0|0.912|0.068|2.69|2.56|2.80|
|Our (Thuman2.0 only)|20.54|0.916|0.060|1.52|1.63|1.41|
|Our|21.3|0.928|0.047|1.06|1.05|1.07|
|CAPE|PSNR|SSIM|LPIPS|CD(cm)|S-to-P(cm)|P-to-S(cm)|
|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|
|SiTH|22.2|0.908|0.082|3.76|3.75|3.76|
|SiFU|22.0|0.907|0.085|3.72|3.70|3.73|
|Our (Thuman2.0 only)|21.1|0.908|0.075|2.23|2.19|2.25|
|Our|21.5|0.916|0.064|1.89|1.86|1.91|
|CustomHuman|PSNR|SSIM|LPIPS|CD(cm)|S-to-P(cm)|P-to-S(cm)|
|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|
|SiTH|20.8|0.915|0.073|2.82|2.81|2.84|
|SiFU|20.1|0.899|0.087|3.10|3.08|3.11|
|Our (Thuman2.0 only)|21.61|0.909|0.069|2.08|2.08|2.09|
|Our|22.3|0.926|0.048|1.03|1.05|1.02|
|IIIT|PSNR|SSIM|LPIPS|CD(cm)|S-to-P(cm)|P-to-S(cm)|
|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|
|SiTH|22.7|0.906|0.077|3.31|3.54|3.08|
|SiFU|22.6|0.899|0.087|4.24|4.32|4.17|
|Our (Thuman2.0 only)|21.8|0.900|0.071|1.67|1.70|1.64|
|Our|22.1|0.905|0.065|1.44|1.49|1.39|
---
### **Q4: Inference time**
Sorry for the misunderstanding. We reported the comparison in the introduction section of general rebuttal, and we are happy to provide the details here:
Our Human-3Diffusion is a diffusion-based feed-forward approach, avoiding the SMPL estimation and test-time optimization required by models like ICON, ECON, SiTH, and SiFU. This approach significantly boosts our model’s inference speed. We provide a runtime comparison on an Nvidia A100 GPU below, detailing the inference time from an RGB image to the final 3D representation:
| |Our|SiTH|SiFU|ICON|ECON|
|-|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|
|Time(s)|22.6|106.2|48.9|60.5|45.3|
|VRAM(GiB)|11.7|22.0|12.0|6.3|5.9|
For mesh extraction, we use Gaussian Opacity Fields (11.5s, resolution=256) and TSDF-Fusion (14.8s, across 24 views, resolution=256). We will provide comprehensive details in the revised manuscript.
---
Rebuttal Comment 3.1:
Title: Reviewer's Follow-up Response to Rebuttal
Comment: Thank you for your clarifications, I have no further questions. I acknowledge the good quantitative performance and the limitations that you stated. Before the rebuttal, I was deliberating whether to downgrade or upgrade my initial score for your paper, but your rebuttal has helped me understand that the initial positive score is appropriate. | Summary: In this paper, the authors propose to create realistic avatar representations by coupling the 2D multi-view diffusion and 3D reconstruction models which complement each other. Specifically, the 3D Gaussian Splatting (3D-GS) reconstruction leverages the priors from 2D diffusion models and produces an explicit 3D representation. Meanwhile, the rendered images from 3D-GS representations further guide the reverse sampling of 2D diffusion models to improve 3D consistency. Experimental improvements on some examples are achieved to demonstrate the empirical effectiveness of the proposed method.
Strengths: + How to use one single image to infer 3D structure is an important problem, which can affect many down-streamed applications.
+ The **Human 3Diffusion** method improves the existing methods in some scenarios.
+ The paper is well written with nice figures. I can follow it easily.
Weaknesses: + In Figure 3, as for me, the outputs from Human 3Diffusion are similar to those of SiTH in terms of image quality. Actually, some examples in Figure 8 even show that SiTH can produce better results than the proposed method, such as the right hand is more reasonable on the 4th row.
+ Although the authors argue why they do not evaluate on the CAPE dataset, which is a standard testbed for previous methods, I think the Sizer and IIIT datasets are also not perfect. For example, as shown in Figure 7, some inputs contain the noisy ground part while the SiTH method produces cleaner background than Human 3Diffusion. I guess this also might yield worse metrics for SiTH in Table 1. So I suggest the authors additionally report the metrics on CAPE and CustomHuman datasets by following the evaluation settings of SiTH such that the readers can better perceive the empirical improvements from the proposed contribution.
+ Some wordings are a bit too strong. For example, in L198, the authors state that "guarantee the 3D consistency...". I understand that the developed 2D Multi-view Sampling could improve the 3D consistency, but it is hard to say it can fully address this problem.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: + In Table 4, why only using FID for evaluation? Could the authors provide the results with other metrics like PSNR, SSIM and LPIPS?
+ How many camera views and how many examples are used for evaluation? Will the authors release their exact evaluation settings in the future?
+ It seems that the results of Table 2, 3, 4 are performed under different settings. Could the authors align all ablated revisions with the settings used in Table 1? It can better help the readers to comprehend the importance of each key technical idea compared to previous baselines.
I am looking forward to hearing about these points from the authors.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors address the limitation and societal impact in the appendix.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the **importance of our task** and highlighting that our paper is **well written**, and our method **improves existing methods**. We address the concerns raised below and are open to further discussion and questions.
---
### **Q1: Performance of Human Reonctruction similar to SiTH**
A1: We acknowledge SiTH as a strong baseline (CVPR’24, code released in April). While our examples may not fully highlight our method's advantages, Table 1 shows quantitative superiority over SiTH. We provide further qualitative comparisons in the **Rebuttal PDF** (Figure 1). SiTH relies on the SMPL estimation which might produce good hands or faces, but cannot represent geometry, which deviates significantly from SMPL body. Our method offers **greater flexibility** in modeling challenging scenarios like **loose clothing**, **interaction**, and **children**, as demonstrated in Supplementary PDF Figures 9-12 and **Rebuttal PDF** Figure 1.
To further evaluate reconstruction quality, we conducted a user study detailed in the general rebuttal section. The results show that **86.6%** of participants prefer our reconstructions, clearly indicating superior quality over SiTH and other SOTA baselines.
---
### **Q2: Evaluation on new Datasets like CAPE and CustomHuman**
A2: Thank you for the suggestion. We've now included results for the CAPE and CustomHuman datasets under the same settings as IIIT and Sizer. Since some high-quality CustomHuman scans were used in training, we report only the results for unseen subjects (ID0636 - ID0641). The FID score is higher in this case because fewer examples were available to compute the image distribution. It can be seen that our method consistently outperforms SiTH and SiFU on both datasets. We will add these evaluations to Table 1.
CAPE|PSNR|SSIM|LPIPS|FID|CD(cm)|NC|F-score
:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:
Our|21.5|**0.916**|**0.064**|**16.40**|**1.89**|**0.80**|**0.49**
SiTH|**22.2**|0.908|0.082|28.46|3.76|0.78|0.27
SiFU|22.0|0.907|0.085|43.63|3.72|0.77|0.27
CustomHuman|PSNR|SSIM|LPIPS|FID|CD(cm)|NC|F-score
:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:
Our|**22.3**|**0.926**|**0.048**|**28.94**|**1.03**|**0.85**|**0.66**
SiTH|20.8|0.915|0.073|60.37|2.82|0.82|0.30
SiFU|20.1|0.908|0.081|87.09|3.10|0.81|0.31
We hope the additional experiments address the concern of reviewer.
### **Q3. Noise on the Sizer test set.**
A3: We agree that Sizer evaluation set is not perfect due to the noise on the ground. We remove the floor noise and redo the evaluation. Results are reported below and our method consistently outperforms baseline. We will release the evaluation dataset with rendered input images for more convenient benchmarking.
Sizer denoise|PSNR|SSIM|LPIPS|FID|CD(cm)|NC|F-score
:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:
Our|**21.3**|**0.928**|**0.047**|**10.01**|**1.06**|**1.06**|**0.63**
SiTH|18.9|0.912|0.063|21.87|3.38|0.75| 0.28
SiFU|18.0|0.912|0.068|36.64|2.69|0.78|0.33
---
### **Q4: Some wordings like 'guaranteed 3D consistency' are too strong.**
A4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that we should avoid over-claiming in the paper. However, we believe this might be due to misunderstanding of L198: here we meant the renderings of the predicted 3D-GS are guaranteed to be 3D consistent. This is true because we have an explicit 3D-GS representation. To help 2D diffusion model, we add noise to the renderings as the input to next step (L7, Alg.2). These noised renderings are indeed not 3D consistent. We will clarify this better in L198-200. We are open to have further discussion and obtain feedback from the reviewer to improve the manuscript.
---
### **Q5: Why only FID metric in Table 4? Can author provide other metrics like PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS?**
A5: Thank you for the suggestion. We provide the other metric below:
Ablation Tab.4|PSNR|SSIM|LPIPS|FID|CD(cm)|NC|F-score
:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:
Our w/o 2D prior|20.98|0.912|0.068|11.70|1.75|0.795|0.498
Our|21.49|0.918|0.060|9.57|1.35|0.798|0.550
In the original submission, the baseline was trained with relative camera system, which means the camera pose of the input and 3D reconstruction are unknown. This makes it difficult to compute PSNR and SSIM that require good image alignment. We retrain the baseline with a global camera system, which makes comparison possible and also explains the difference in FID compared to original table 4. But the conclusion is the same: 2D prior helps 3D reconstruction. We will update table 4 with the new numbers.
---
### **Q6:. Details about evaluation setting**
A6: We use 32 uniformly rendered views around the human with zero elevation angle (Supp. L840-844). The number of subjects evaluated in each datasets are: IIIT (155), Sizer (136), CAPE (107) and CustomHuman(8). **We will release the full evaluation setting**, including Blender rendering and metrics calculation scripts. To ensure the reproducibility, we will also **release the processed Sizer denoised dataset**.
---
### **Q7: Do Table 2, 3, 4 have same the setting as Table 1? What is the difference between these ablations?**
A7: Table 1, 3, 4 all have the same evaluation setting and the numbers of ours are aligned. Table 2 ablates the influence of our 3D model on 2D multi-view diffusion outputs. Hence we evaluate only on the 4 output images from MVD instead of 32 views used on other tables. this leads to different numbers for our method. We will move table 2 after table 3 and 4, making it easier for reader to connect the information across these tables.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: One more question
Comment: Thank the authors for offering a detailed response. I really appreciate it. Generally, the response addresses my most concerns. However, I am a bit confused why the scores of SiTH in **Q2: Evaluation on new Datasets like CAPE and CustomHuman** do not comply with Tab. 1 in SiTH's paper. Could the authors explain this a bit?
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: We are happy that most of the reviewer's concerns have been addressed.
---
### **Q1: Different SiTH numbers between our table and SiTH paper**
For the evaluation, we use the official inference pipeline from SiTH github repo to obtain the reconstruction and use the official alignment script to align with GT meshes before evaluation. The only difference is that our test images are rendered from **perspective cameras** while SiTH which uses **orthographic cameras**. Due to this difference, there is some pose offset from SMPL fitting results, leading to the gap. It is worth mentioning that estimating 3D SMPL on perspective Images can lead to less faithful 3D, as also discussed in CLIFF[1] and SPEC[2]. We also observe similar artifacts in the SMPL estimation, such as legs bending backwards, as shown in our **rebuttal pdf**. Moreover, we **rerun SiTH on orthographic renderings and reproduce similar numbers as reported in the SiTH paper**. We will clarify this in the experiment section. We really appreciate the great results produced by SiTH and SiTH's author for helping in figuring out the evaluation settings.
Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that **nearly all real-world images are captured using perspective cameras**. Thus, we argue that our evaluation setting, designed to handle perspective images, offers a more accurate reflection of performance in real-world conditions.
[1] CLIFF: Carrying Location Information in Full Frames into Human Pose and Shape Estimation, ECCV2022\
[2] SPEC: Seeing People in the Wild with an Estimated Camera, ICCV2021
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Title: Thank you
Comment: I thank the authors for providing the detailed explanations. Based on the current response, I would retain my positive attitude. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Dear Reviewers and Area Chairs,
We sincerely thank all reviews and ACs for their time and insightful feedback. We are glad that they found our work novel and addressing an important task (R1) and appreciating the technical contribution of of integrating 3D Gaussian Splatting generation (R3, R4) within 2D diffusion. Reviewers appreciated also our experiments, since we improve over existing methods (R1, R4), validate with a comprehensive ablation study (R2), and show robustness to different input (R2, R4) as well as general objects (R4).
The main concerns raised from the reviews are the evaluation and qualitative comparison with more baselines, and inference time cost. We address these by adding comparisons with ICON, ECON on our initial evaluation dataset and CAPE, CustomHuman. We also report the inference time and compare with baselines. Please see Q1 and Q2 below. We answer each questions in more details in the replies to each reviewer. We sincerely hope that ours replies could address all the concerns. We are also open for discussion and are happy to clarify or address any further questions.
---
### **Q1: the Qualitative Results are not outstanding compared to SOTA baselines, why is it?**
A1: We appreciate the reviewer’s assessment. However, we maintain that our results, as shown in Figure 3 of the main paper and Figures 7 and 8 in the supplementary material, indeed surpass current SOTA methods. To further support our position, we have included additional qualitative results as suggested by reviewers and a user study in our rebuttal.
We have included additional qualitative results (see Figure 1) in the **Rebuttal PDF**, where we compare our method against SiTH (CVPR2024), SiFU (CVPR2024), ICON (CVPR2022), and ECON (CVPR2023). Our results highlight the advantages of our approach in handling challenging scenarios such as **large loose skirts**, **children**, **anime characters**, and **diverse accessories**, where prior methods often struggle and sometimes completely fail to generate anything reasonable. SOTA methods rely on the SMPL template which might produce good hands or faces, but it is limited by the naked body shape. In contrast, our method does not rely on SMPL and is more flexible. We invite reviewers to examine Figures 9-12 in the supplementary materials and **Figure 1 in the Rebuttal PDF**. This flexibility is also evident in our quantitative results, where SOTA baselines falter due to SMPL estimation inaccuracies.
Moreover, we thoroughly assessed our results through quantitative analysis and a **user study with 70 participants**. This study compared 20 textured subjects against SiTH and SiFU, and 20 geometry-only subjects against ICON and ECON, using subjects from the IIIT, Sizer (w/o floor noise), Cape, and CustomHuman test sets. Participants were asked to select the best reconstruction among three options. Details and a demo of the study are provided in the **Rebuttal PDF**.
User Study|Our|SiTH|SiFU
---|:-:|:-:|:-:
Appearance & Geometry|**86.6%**|7.6%|5.8%
User Study|Our|ICON|ECON
---|:-:|:-:|:-:
Geometry only|**73.8%**|8.0%|18.2%
In summary, our model approach is preferred by **80.3%** of participants in our user study, indicating a significant preference over the baseline models.
We trust that our additional results comprehensively address the concerns raised. We remain open to further suggestions on how to better demonstrate the advantages of our approach over the baselines.
---
### **Q2: What is the runtime to infer one image? Does Human-3Diffusion have advantage in efficiency compared to other works?**
A2: Thanks for the question. Our Human-3Diffusion is a diffusion-based feed-forward approach, avoiding the SMPL estimation and test-time optimization required by models like ICON, ECON, SiTH, and SiFU. This approach significantly boosts our model’s inference speed. We provide a runtime comparison on an Nvidia A100 GPU below, detailing the inference time from an RGB image to the final 3D representation:
Model| Time (s) | VRAM (GiB)
:-:|:-:|:-:
SiTH | 106.2| 22.0
SiFU | 48.9 | 12.0
ICON | 60.5 | 6.3
ECON | 45.3 | **5.9**
Ours |**22.6**| 11.7
For mesh extraction, we use Gaussian Opacity Fields (11.5s, resolution=256) and TSDF-Fusion (14.8s, across 24 views, resolution=256). We will provide comprehensive details in the [updated version].
---
For other individual comments, we have addressed each within the respective sections assigned to each reviewer. We deeply appreciate all the effort and time invested by the reviewers and Area Chairs.
Best,\
Authors
Pdf: /pdf/85230b1c6c258fe0750d78231044a941e60e7e96.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Optimal, Efficient and Practical Algorithms for Assortment Optimization | Reject | Summary: This paper considers the Adaptive Optimal Assortment (AOA) problem a.k.a. Utility Maximization with Subset Choices. The goal of this problem is to find the optimal profit-maximizing subset of size up to m (Top-m-Objective) or its weighted variant (Wtd-Top-m-Objective). Given a selected subset, the feedback follows the Plackett-Luce (PL) choice model that returns an item from the subset or a "no-choice" option. The probability of choosing each item is proportional to their underlying score/utility values.
The paper proposes a new algorithm, AOA-RB, that is claimed to be practical, efficient, and optimal. Compared to previous works, this algorithm does not require sampling the same subset repeatedly nor assumes a strongest default item. Later, the authors extend this algorithm with adaptive pivots that further improves performance.
The theoretical analysis shows that AOA-RB obtains regret guarantees that build on a novel "Rank-Breaking" parameter estimation technique for the discrete choice model.
The performance of AOA-RB is further demonstrated in numerical experiments using synthetic datasets.
Strengths: Problem Statement
- Clear presentation and motivation. Easy-to-follow section.
Algorithm
- Clear strengths are the relaxation of previous assumptions, e.g., repeated sampling of the same subset or the assumption of a strong default item
- The algorithm is well-presented and easy-to-follow.
- The adaptive pivot extension of the AOA-RB is a clear improvement that provides significant improvements
Theoretical Analysis
- The new concentration lemmas in Section 3.2. are claimed to be novel by the authors.
- Regret guarantees are provided for both objectives. The main strength is Theorem 6 which analyses the regret of the adaptive pivot version of the algorithm and shows a regret bound that does not blow to $\infty$ in corner cases.
Experiments
- The numerical experiments section further demonstrates the performance improvement of AOA-RB over the state-of-the-art MNL-UCB algorithm. It highlights especially the benefits of the adaptive pivots.
Weaknesses: Introduction, Related Works, and Contribution
- Certain claims are not supported, e.g., Line 21 "Studies have shown that it is often easier..." but it lacks citation which studies the authors refer to.
- I found some citations to be misplaced or non-supportive of the claims it is used for, e.g., [11] is used in Line 62 as a reference for Battling Bandits while it is a survey of dueling bandits. Similarly, citations [45, 46] are used for dueling bandits while they are only two examples from the literature. It would be great if authors could use consistent citations, e.g., surveys when they refer to broader literature and individual publications when specifics are important.
- Table 1 is provided for the comparison of regret guarantees but the authors do not describe it. It would be great if they could comment on the differences between the algorithms.
Problem Setting
- Limitations are not mentioned in the problem statement. For example, how restrictive is the Plackett-Luce model, and whether the approach could be extended to other models? I see that it is mentioned in Remark 1 but could be commented on in Section 2 as well.
- Both Top-m and Wtd-Top-m consider the (weighted) utility optimization problem. However, for most of the applications used as motivation, e.g., assortment optimization and recommender systems, the utility of the user which dictates the selected feedback, and the utility/profit of the subset selection (platform) are misaligned. Could the authors comment on how to formulate these problems in their setting?
Algorithm
- The $argmax_{S\subseteq [K], |S|\leq m}$ optimization is non-trivial and could be computationally expensive for large values for $K$.
- The authors claim that AOA-RB is practical, efficient, and optimal. While the theoretical analysis supports the last two claims, I struggle to find the intuition behind the algorithm. Could the authors elaborate further on this point?
Experiments
- Numerical experiments demonstrate performance only in synthetic data. Given the clear application and motivation of the paper, I would like to see experiments that reflect these problems.
- I recommend the authors to use larger figures. Axes and titles are hardly visible in the printed version.
- Only one baseline is considered. It would be appreciated if the authors could include the other algorithms mentioned in Table 1 for numerical comparison besides the theoretical one.
While the paper is easy to read and follow even for readers not familiar with all the works in the area, the inconsistent citations and unsupported claims have to be addressed before the paper would reach publication standards.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: It would be appreciated if the authors could comment on the questions outlined in the Weaknesses section.
Some further questions are the following:
- It is not evident to me how the proposed framework applies to the application areas described in the Introduction section. Could the authors further comment on it and formulate some more rigorously for demonstration?
- The paper compares its performance closely to MNL-UCB [2]. Could the authors further elaborate on the similarities and differences between their proposed algorithms and the MNL-UCB?
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Limitations are mentioned in the paper, however, it is often not directly connected, e.g., the assumption of the PL model is only addressed in Remark 1. I would suggest the authors address limitations more clearly when they appear for easier readability.
The work is mainly theoretical without any immediate direct societal impact.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Title: Rebuttal by authors
Comment: Thanks for your review
## Weaknesses --
> Q1. Non supported claims in line 21
-- Sudies in brain, psychology and cognitive neuroscience corroborate the fact. We will add references such as:
- Kahneman and Tversky. The psychology of preferences. Scientific American 1982
- Musallam, Corneil, Greger, Scherberger, and Andersen. Cognitive control signals for neural prosthetics. 2004.
> Q2. Reference issues
- About [11]. We believe that [11] is a valid reference for Battling bandits (BB). First, DB is a special case of BB. More importantly, if you note Tables 8,9 of [11] that mentions BB algorithms in details, in general Sec 6 of [11] elaborately discusses BB.
- Note also that [45,46] are valid references for DB, in fact, we cited [41, 3, 45, 46, 44] as DB in Line 31, where we introduced DB for the first time.
- About using consistent citations. Thanks for the suggestion, will make sure to cite accordingly.
> Q3. Differences between the algorithms in Table 1
-- See global rebuttal
> Q4. Generalization to other models
-- See global rebuttal
> Q5. Misalignment between platform and user utilities
-- Please note we have a concept of revenue/weights ($r_i$ for each item $i \in [K]$) that captures the utility of the sellers, while $\theta_i$ captures the utility of the customers. So the MNL formulation does consider the utility of both users and the customers.
However, if the reviewer is asking how to develop an algorithm that simultaneously offers the `best-valued' assortment to the customers while maximizing the revenue of the sellers, that can be either (i) formulated as a multi-objective problem that balances the tradeoff between both utility notions or (ii) simply assume the seller weights/reviews ($w_i$s) are an increasing function of the customer scores/values ($\theta_i$s), in which case maximizing one notion will, in turn, maximize the other with our Wtd-Top-m ($Reg_T^{wtd}$) objective. Please let us know if you have any other questions in mind
> Q6. Computation cost of the argmax
-- Please note this step is efficient since it is just a static assortment optimization problem under MNL model with known parameters, as already established in the literature:
- Avadhanula, Bhandari, Goyal, Zeevi. 2016. On the tightness of an LP relaxation for rational optimization and its applications. Operations Research Letters.
- Rusmevichientong, Shen, DShmoys. 2010. Dynamic assortment optimization with a multinomial logit choice model and capacity constraint. Operations research.
Thanks for the comment, we will add the citations in the final draft.
> Q7. Intuition behind the algorithm
-- Please see the global rebuttal
> Q8. Experiments reflecting the problem
-- We are unaware of any open-source datasets suitable for validating our algorithms in this specific problem setting. The challenge lies in the inability to know the ground truth parameters \((\boldsymbol{\theta})\) of the MNL model, making it difficult to evaluate regret performance. This is why prior works, such as [1] and [24], either did not report experiments or only used synthetic data. While [2] claims to use the UCI Car Evaluation Dataset, they actually conducted a synthetic experiment by modifying item features and assigning synthetic scores to the PL parameters (see Sec 7.3 [2]).
Also our primary focus has been theoretical and experiments support our theory. If the reviewer knows of any suitable datasets, we would be happy to report comparative performance on those.
We will enlarge the figures. Thanks for the suggestions
> Q9. Other algorithms in the experiments
-- As we elaborated in the global rebuttal, the algorithms of [2] and [24] for our problem setting are the same. Further [1] is only a TS variant of [2] with an identical algorithm structure which thus suffers from the same issues. We will be however happy to add MNL-TS in our experiments.
## Questions --
> Q10. How the framework applies to the applications in the Intro?
As per the examples discussed in Sec1, e.g. Web search, online shopping
36 (Amazon, App stores, Google Flights), recommender systems (Youtube, Netflix, Google News/Maps, Spotify), typically involve users expressing preferences by choosing one result from a subset of offered items in terms of a purchase or click which we capture thought the MNL-choice model.
On the other hand, the system (algorithm) designer, which could be the platform or the seller, may want to converge to the ‘most-profitable’ or `revenue-maximizing' set, which is captured through our regret objective: Top-m ($Reg_T^{top}$) could be relevant for Google, Netflix, Spotify, News/Maps Recommendation etc (to maximize click through rates), while Wtd-Top-m ($Red_T^{wtd}$) could be relevant for Amazon, Walmart, Google Flights, App Stores where the objective is to maximize the total revenue.
> Q11. Comparing MNL-UCB [2]
-- Pls see Q3 or Global Rebuttal
----
We urge you to kindly reconsider the score based on the rebuttal
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Requesting your feedback
Comment: Dear Reviewer L6d3,
I am writing you to kindly request your feedback on our rebuttal. As the discussion phase is currently underway and we have a limited timeline, I am eager to address any remaining concerns you may have. We believe to have answered all your queries and are happy to provide any further clarifications in the hope of potentially raising your scores.
Requesting you to kindly engage in a discussion at your earliest convenience.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Thanks,
Authors
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Dear Authors,
Thank you for providing further details and answers to my questions.
Q7: In the general rebuttal, you refer to Q3 of R2 but I do not see the rebuttal for R2. Could you provide further details for me as well about the intuition behind $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$? As you claim in the rebuttal, your main contribution lies here therefore I would be curious.
---
Rebuttal 3:
Title: Follow-up clarification for Reviewer-L6d3 (Intuition behind ${\theta}_{i,t}^{ucb}$)
Comment: Dear Reviewer L6d3,
Thanks for considering our rebuttal and your question. We apologize for the confusion regarding Q3 or R2 (we meant "our answer of Q3 of Reviewer-mX9J"). We explain below the intuition behind $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ in detail:
Note we gave two algorithms, (**Alg1**) AOA-RBPL in Sec3, and (**Alg2**) AOA-RBPL-Adaptive, in Sec4, both of which use two different estimates of $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}, \forall i \in [K]$, $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ being the upper confidence bound (UCB) estimate of the MNL parameter $\theta_i$ at round $t$, for all $i \in [K]$. *Further note, due to the scale independence of the MNL model, we always assume that the parameter of the no-choice (NC) item is always $\theta_0 = 1$* (see Line153).
---
**How $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{ucb}$ was used in the regret analysis (Thm5, Thm 6):** We will explain the intuition of $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ for Alg1 and Alg2, but before that let us understand how $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ were used in the regret analysis of Thm5 and Thm3 (resp. for Alg1 and Alg2):
- (1) Towards this, an important observation to note is both our regret proofs (i.e. proof of Thm5 and Thm6) use a **key wtd-utility inequality** $\mathcal R(S^*, \boldsymbol{\theta}) \leq \mathcal R(S^*, \boldsymbol{\theta}^{ucb})$, where $\mathcal R(S^*, \boldsymbol{\theta})$ and $\mathcal R(S^*, \boldsymbol{\theta}^{ucb})$ respectively denote the weighted-utility of set $S^*$ under MNL parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{ucb}$ (see Eq2): Please see the inequalities used in the displays of Eq14 and Eq18, in proof of Thm5 and Thm6 resp., to note how we used the above key inequality to derive the final regret upper bound ($Reg_T^{wtd}$) for Alg1 and Alg2).
- (2) However, to achieve the above property we need to ensure, $\theta_i^{ucb} \geq \theta_i$ as we showed in Lem4: Essentially it shows if $\theta_i^{ucb}$ is a valid UCB of $\theta_i, ~\forall i \in [K]$, then the estimated wtd-utility $\mathcal R(S^*, \boldsymbol{\theta}^{ucb})$ is also a valid UCB of $\mathcal R(S^*, \boldsymbol{\theta})$.
- (3) Hence the question is how to assign the values of $\theta_i^{ucb}$ so that they represent a valid and tight UCB of the corresponding (true) MNL parameters $\theta_i$s?
We now justify our choice of $\theta_i^{ucb}$s for all $i \in [K]$ for which the above properties are satisfied, both for Alg1 and Alg2. But let us understand some important properties of the MNL model before that.
---
**$\boldsymbol{\theta}$ estimate from MNL pairwise preferences:**
- (1) We first note that $\textbullet $ for any two items $i, j \in [K]\cup \{0\}$, the pairwise preference of $i$ over $j$ is $p_{ij} = \frac{\theta_i}{\theta_i + \theta_j}$, by definition of MNL choice model (Eq1).
- (2) But since $\theta_0 = 1$ (Line153), this implies $\textbullet ~\theta_{i} = \frac{p_{i0}}{1 - p_{i0}}, ~\forall i \in [K]$.
- (3) *However $p_{i0}$ is unknown, but can we estimate it?* Here we have a **key idea** that by exploiting the *Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA)* property of MNL model once can indeed maintain unbiased pairwise preference estimates ($p_{ij}$s) of any pair $(i,j)$, $i,j \in [K]\cup\{0\}$ using Rank-Breaking (Please see our response to Q5 of Reviewer-dQv5 for details). We denoted them by $\hat p_{ij,t}$ at round $t$ (see Line171).
---
We first understand the rationale behind our choice of $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ for Alg1.
> $\boldsymbol{\theta}_t^{ucb}$ justification for Alg1 (uses the NC item as pivot):
- (1) Upon realizing $\theta_i = \frac{p_{i0}}{1 - p_{i0}}$ and having access to $\hat p_{i0,t}$, the unbiased estimates of $p_{i0}$ derived through rank breaking as described above, we first find a **good upper confidence bound** (UCB) estimate of $p_{i0}$, denoted by $p_{i0,t}^{ucb}$ as described in Eq3. Further, we derive the concentration rate (tightness) of the UCB estimate $p_{i0,t}^{ucb}$ in Lem8 (Appendix B.1).
- (2) The next idea was to use $p_{i0,t}^{ucb}$ to define a natural estimate of $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb} = \frac{ p_{i0,t}^{ucb} }{ (1 - p_{i0,t}^{ucb})\_{+}}$ (see the display after Eq3), drawing inspiration from $\theta_i = \frac{p_{i0}}{1 - p_{i0}}$. Further, Lem1 establishes the rate of concentration of the UCB estimate $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ using Lem8 (see proof of Lem1 and 8 in Appendix B.1, B.2).
This concludes our intuition behind our choice of $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ in Alg1, which provably yields a UCB estimate of the true MNL parameters $\theta_i$ for all $i \in [K]$, as desired.
---
Alg1 contributes to our basic intuition behind dynamically estimating $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{t}^{ucb}$s using the novel rank-breaking technique and alleviates the problem of repeatedly querying same subsets $S_t$ in consecutive rounds as used in the previous works to estimate MNL parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ along this line [1,2,24]. We detailed this in Line105-107 as well as in our Global Rebuttal (please see *Limitations of previous algorithms*).
---
Rebuttal 4:
Title: Contd. Follow-up clarification for Reviewer-L6d3 (Intuition behind $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$)
Comment: While the above discussion establishes the novelties of Alg1, we also observe a potential limitation of our Alg1 that paved the path for our final algorithm Alg2 (AOA-RBPL-Adaptive,Sec4). But it will be worth understanding the limitation of Alg1 first before we proceed to the intuition behind Alg2.
---
**Limitation of Alg1 (for certain realizations of MNL parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}$):** While Alg1 carves out the basic building block of our $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$, one caveat lies in its concentration rate which shrinks at the rate of $O(1/\sqrt{n_{i0,t}})$ --- as established is Lem8, $n_{i0,t}$ being the number of rank-broken pairs of $(i,0)$ till time $t$ (Line174-175). Thus ideally we would need $n_{i0,t}$ to grow fast for a fast and tight convergence of $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ to $\theta_i$. However, as Lem2 reflects, this might not be true unless either $0$ (NC) or $i$ is a `strong item' with sufficiently large MNL parameters (comparable to $\theta_{\max}$). This is since, as Lem2 shows $n_{i0,t}$ (roughly) grows proportional to $\frac{(\theta_i + \theta_0)}{\theta_{\max}}$ which could be *quite small* if both Item-i and 0 (NC) happens to be a "weak-items" in terms of their MNL scores, i.e. $\max\{\theta_i,\theta_0\} << \theta_{\max}$. If we think, this is also intuitive since, if both $\theta_i$ and $\theta_0 = 1$ are small compared to $\theta_{\max}$, chances are very low that either of them will be picked as a winner of any round $t$, even if $i \in S_t$ and as a result they will never be "rank-broken" against each other resulting in a very small value of $n_{i0,t}$, weaker UCB estimates $\theta_{i,0}^{ucb}$ and finally a weighted regret bound of $Reg_T^{wtd} = \tilde O(\sqrt{\theta_{\max} KT})$ (Thm5) which could be large when $\theta_{\max}$ is large!
---
Understanding the problem, we remedy this with Alg2 (AOA-RBPL-Adaptive) in Sec4, where we devised a smarter UCB estimate of $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, while still keeping the basic intuitions from Alg1 (AOA-RBPL) intact:
> $\boldsymbol{\theta}\_t^{ucb}$ justification for Alg2: As explained above, we realized "pivoting" on the NC for estimating $\theta_i$ could be a bad idea, especially if $1 = \theta_0 << \theta_{\max}$. Towards this, we made the following (seemingly interesting) observations:
- (1) We first note that: $\theta_i = \frac{\theta_i}{\theta_0} = \frac{\theta_i}{\theta_j} \frac{\theta_j}{\theta_0}$ for any $j \in [K] \setminus \\{i\\}$.
- (2) Then drawing motivation from the UCB estimates of Alg1, we further set $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb} = \gamma_{ij,t}^{ucb}\gamma_{j0,t}^{ucb}$, where $\gamma_{ij,t}^{ucb} = \frac{p_{ij,t}^{ucb}}{(1 - p_{ij,t}^{ucb})_+}, ~\forall i,j \in [K]\cup\{0\}$ (display after Line252).
- (3) The hope is **if we can find a "strong element j" and pivot our rank-broken pairwise estimates ($p_{ij,t}^{ucb}$s) around $j$ for all $i \in [K] \cup \{0\}$,** hopefully the that will remedy the caveat of Alg1 as detailed above.
- (4) To find such a "strong pivot j" (such that $\theta_j$ is comparable to $\theta_{\max}$), we set a dynamic $j = \arg\min_{j \in [K] \cup\{0\}} \gamma_{ij,t}^{ucb} \gamma_{j0,t}^{ucb}$ for each item $i \in [K]$ and time $t$, which by definition happens to be a relatively stronger item than Item-$i$ and 0 (NC).
- (5) Further, similar to Lem1, we also find the rate of concentration of our new UCB estimates $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ in Lem10 (see Appendix B.6), which, as intuitive, is shown to shrink at the rate of $O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n_{i,j,t}n_{j0,t}}})$. The *nice trick* was to note that this yields a sharp concentration for $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ owing to our clever choice of the *dynamic pivot j* as described in the point above -- this saves us from the caveat arose in Alg1 due to a poor choice of the static NC pivot (Item-0).
- (6) Finally the above sharp concentration of $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ in Lem10 ensures the final weighted regret of $Reg_T^{wtd} = \tilde O(\sqrt{\min\\{\theta_{\max},K\\} KT})$ (Thm6), which could be notably at most $\tilde O(K\sqrt T)$ even if $\theta_{\max} \to \infty$. Here lies the drastic improvement of our algorithm compared to [1,2,24] which either needs to assume $\theta_{\max} = \theta_0 = 1$ or their regret scales as $O(\sqrt{\theta_{\max}KT})$ which yields a trivia regret as $\theta_{\max} \to \infty$ or even if $\theta_{\max} = \Omega(T)$. We detailed this after Thm6, as well as empirically validated in Sec6.
---
---
We hope that was helpful and clarifies your doubts around our choice of UCB estimates $\boldsymbol{\theta}_t^{ucb}$ for both Alg1 (AOA-RBPL, Sec3) and Alg2 (AOA-RBPL-Adaptive, Sec4).
Finally, we would like to convey that, we have put considerable effort into developing our work as well as addressing the reviewers' questions. We hence urge you to kindly reconsider your scores based on the above clarifications if you find them useful. Please let us know if you need any further explanation or any remaining clarification you may require.
Thanks,
Authors
---
Rebuttal Comment 4.1:
Title: Follow up
Comment: Dear Reviewer L6d3,
We wanted to write you again to understand if we have clarified your question regarding the "intuition behind \theta_{i,t}^{ucb}" with inadequate detail. In summary:
- For both Alg1 (AOA-RBPL, Sec3) and Alg2 (AOA-RBPL-Adaptive, Sec4), our choice of $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ ensures that it's a *valid and tight upper confidence bound* (UCB) on $\theta_{i}, ~\forall i \in [K]$ (Lem1,2,4 for Alg1, and Lem9,10,11 for Alg2).
- This, in turn, ensures our improved regret guarantees (Thm6) in the worst case (for large $\theta_{\max} >> \theta_0 = 1$) compared to the vacuous $\infty$ regret bound of the existing works.
- Our new ideas behind $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ estimation gave a practical \& efficient algorithm with the *clever trick of rank-broken $\theta_i$ estimate* (instead of repeated querying of same subsets multiple times until NC, as used in all the previous works for the purpose [1,2,24]). Please see Sec1 for our contributions, our remarks after the main theorems, as well as Sec5.
We provided detailed clarifications of these points in our response above. Please let us know if we can clarify anything further.
We urge you to kindly consider your scores based on our response. Of course, we are happy to explain any remaining details you may require.
Thanks,
Authors
---
Reply to Comment 4.1.1:
Title: Few Hours Until the Author-Reviewer Discussion Ends
Comment: Dear Reviewer L6d3,
Thank you again for your time and insightful comments. Since we are only a few hours away from the end of the author-reviewer discussion phase, we wanted to check if we were able to clarify your question regarding $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ and if we can clarify any remaining concerns.
Please let us know and we would be happy to.
Sincerely,
The authors | Summary: The authors consider the online MNL assortment optimization problem, where the goal is to learn MNL parameters while suggesting assortments, with the goal of either learning the top-m highest utility items or learning the maximum revenue set with m items. They use a UCB-based approach on pairwise win rates to get a UCB for utilities, which can then be fed into a traditional assortment optimization algorithm. The authors show this approach achieves asymptotically optimal regret and does not require assumptions used by previous approached. The basic algorithm relies on comparisons between each item and the no-choice option, but they also introduce a more sophisticated adaptive pivot approach that works better when the no-choice option is rarely selected. In experiments on synthetic data, their assortment optimization approach performs significantly better than the previous state-of-the-art.
Strengths: 1. The problem studied is natural and important.
2. The presentation is generally clear.
3. The technical quality seems good, although I cannot attest to the correctness of all the proofs in the appendix.
4. The UCB approach on pairwise win rates is clever and appears original.
Weaknesses: 1. The algorithms and proofs could use some additional description/intuition. Some of the steps in the proofs take rather large leaps.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. The regret bounds in Table 1 for [2] (Thm 1) and [2] (Thm 4) don't seem to match up with the bounds actually in [2], which have some extra terms.
2. Eq. (1) is a multinomial logit, but it's referred to in the paper as Plackett-Luce. Plackett-Luce is the repeated-selection ranking version of MNL, so I think the model in this paper should be referred to as MNL. (Ah, I see that lines 294-300 use Placket-Luce, but I think it makes more sense to call the model MNL throughout the paper, since that's the focus.)
3. After line 253, what is the justification for defining $\hat \theta$ as that product of $\gamma$s? This definition seems to still depend on observations of comparisons between j and the no-choice option, doesn't it?
4. The title is quite general, but the paper is very specifically about online assortment optimization rather than the static problem. It would be good to make this clear from the title.
Minor comments:
1. The statement of Lemma 1 needs to be proofread and fixed
2. Line 196: shouldn't this be $\tilde O(\sqrt{KT})$?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: I think the limitations of the paper were adequately stated
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Title: Rebuttal by authors
Comment: Thanks for your positive detailed review and the insightful questions.
> Q1. Missing terms in the regret bounds in Table 1
-- You are right. We only included the main leading term for conciseness, ignoring logarithmic and constant terms. We will clarify this in the caption.
> Q2. Multinomial vs Plackett Luce
-- Thanks for the suggestion, we will call the model as MNL throughout the paper to avoid any confusion.
> Q3. Justification for defining $\theta^{ucb}$ (after line 253)
Since we compare i with 0 through j, when j is a "strong item" that is often selected as the winner, both $\gamma_{ij,t}^{ucb}$ (that estimates $\theta_i/\theta_j$ by above) and $\gamma_{j0,t}^{ucb}$ (that estimates $\theta_j/\theta_0$ by above) are sharp estimators. Hence, $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb} = \min_j \gamma_{ij,t}^{ucb} \gamma_{j0,t}^{ucb}$ is a sharp upper confidence bound for $\theta_i$.
This definition of $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ in turn satisfies the condition of Lem4, which requires $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb} \geq \theta_i$ for $Reg(S^*, \boldsymbol{\theta}) \leq Reg(S^*, \boldsymbol{\theta}^{ucb})$ to hold good. Lem 4 is further crucially used our final proof of Thm6 (see the inequality used in Eq18, Appendix B.6). This Lemma would not hold if we used $\gamma_{ij,t}^{ucb}$ directly without multiplying by $\gamma_{j0,t}^{ucb}$ since it would not be a valid upper bound of $\theta_i$.
> Q4. The title is quite general
-- We understand. We will be happy to include the term "online assortment optimization" and also "MNL model" to the title. Thanks for the suggestion.
> Minor: Line 196 which should be $\tilde O (\sqrt{KT})$
-- Yes, that is correct, thank you for noting the typo, will update accordingly.
---
We thank you again for your positive review, please let us know if we could clarify anything else.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the response! That answers my questions.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Dear Reviewer mX9J,
Thank you for taking the time to read our rebuttal, we appreciate your time and attention. We would also like to draw your attention to our "Follow-up clarification for Reviewer-L6d3 (Intuition behind $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$)" where we provide a very detailed explanation of the rationale behind our specific choices of $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$, both for Alg1 (AOA-RBPL, Sec3) and Alg2 (AOA-RBPL-Adaptive), from an intuitive viewpoint. If you have time, please go over it as you may find it useful for your Q3 as well.
Thanks again for your feedback,
Authors
Title: Thank you | Summary: The paper addresses the problem of active online assortment optimization problem with preference feedback, which has been extensively studied. The paper argues that the previous studies have some unrealistic assumptions such as: there is a ‘strong reference’ which is always included in the choice sets; the same assortments can be repeatedly selected. Without these assumptions, they propose some efficient algorithms for the problem of regret minimization in assortment selection with Plackett Luce (PL) based user choices.
Strengths: The paper proves the regret bounds of the proposed online learning algorithms. The regret bounds are proved based on some concentration guarantee for estimating the score parameters of the PL model using ‘Pairwise Rank-Breaking’.
Weaknesses: 1. I cannot fully understand the motivation of the paper. The paper says that two major drawbacks of the previous studies include: the existing algorithms assume that the ``no-choice’’ option is stronger than the other choices, and they may query the same set of items for multiple times. It seems that the focus of the paper is to address these drawbacks. However, I think that these ``drawbacks’’ may not be real. First, it is natural that most of the customers will not choose any product, so it is very reasonable to assume that no-choice option is stronger. Second, in the typical assortment optimization scenario where customers arrive online one by one, showing the same set of items to different customers for multiple times absolutely will not cause any problem. So I think that addressing these ``drawbacks’’ has very limited value.
2. The regret bounds proposed by the paper is actually K\sqrt{T}\log T. It seems that this regret bound is weaker than those of the previous studies such as [2] (at least by log factors on T). The authors may argue that their bounds are better when \theta_{max}\rightarrow \infty, but this depends on the assumptions made on specific application scenarios, which is questionable as explained in my last comment.
3. The experiments are conducted using some specific values of \theta and hence are not very convincing. I think that more experiments on more applications are necessary to demonstrate the superiority of the paper.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: 1. Since the feedbacks from the same customer may be correlated, how do you use concentration bounds to learn the underlying distributions?
2. The proposed algorithms seem to be UCB-style algorithms. Can you explain the key differences and novelties of your algorithm compared to the classic UCB algorithm?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: see the above
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Title: Rebuttal by authors
Comment: We thank the reviewer for the comments.
## Weaknesses --
> Q1. "Drawbacks may not be real. .. very limited value"
-- We respectfully but absolutely disagree. We strongly believe the comment 'the drawbacks may not be real' only depicts a very personal viewpoint of the reviewer which we believe should be considered unfair. Especially since the reviewer did not provide any justification behind such claims. The likelihood of "No Choice" (NC) varies by application. It may not always exist, and its preference depends on the context:
- In recommender systems like YouTube, Spotify or Netflix, users typically make choices.
- In news, music, flight, or Google Maps recommendations, NC is unlikely, almost never selected as the person needs to commute or book a flight nevertheless!
- Similarly, in many language models or chatbot applications, NC is improbable.
-- This is also the reason the original MNL-UCB paper tried to relax the assumption of $\theta_0 = \theta_\max$ but their regret bound stands vacuous in the regime of small $\theta_0$. A key motivation of our contribution is that our algorithm (Alg 2, AOA-RBPL-Adative) works in the $\theta_0 \to 0$ regime (equivalently $\theta_{\max} \to \infty$) (see Thm 7) where we achieved largely improved regret bound of $\tilde O()$ compared to the vacuous $\infty$ regret bound of Agrawal et al (2019). It is also supported by our experiments (please see Fig 2, Sec 5).
Thus we believe it is unfair to overlook the merits and nice ideas we offered in this work that help us to overcome the limitations of the previous works. Please also refer to the Global Rebuttal for a detailed comparison of our algorithm and results with that of state-of-the-art approaches (in Table1).
> Q2. "It seems that this regret bound is weaker ... last comment".
- Continuing from Q1, reviewers point of view and fairness is still on question. Firstly this statement "regret bounds proposed by the paper is actually $K\sqrt{T}\log T$" is **incorrect**. In the MNL bandit setting of [2] where $\theta_0 = 1 = \theta_{\max}$, our regret is actually $\tilde O(\sqrt{KT})$. Further in the limit of large $\theta_{\max}\rightarrow \infty$, our $\tilde O(K\sqrt{T})$ regret bound (Thm6) is **way too better** compared to the vacuous infinite regret bound of [2]. Despite the attempt of [2] to lift the assumption of $\theta_0 = 1 = \theta_{\max}$ (Sec6.2, [2]), they derived a vacuous bound and failed to achieve our regret bound of Thm6. It seems totally unfair and unjustified that the reviewer questions our improved bounds under relaxed assumptions, rather than appreciating the novel techniques we offered to achieve our results.
> Q3. Experiments conducted on specific values of $\theta$ and hence not very convincing
-- Again, we believe the comment is unreasonable. Synthetic experiments **have to be** reported for some specific choices of the parameters by virtue; same has been done in the [2,24] as well where they forcefully set $\theta_0 = 1$ which is specific to their problem assumption. If that is justified, we only relaxed that assumption in our experiments, adhering to our problem setting, as expected. And clearly, the previous work performs poorly in those regimes, due to their restrictive assumptions. This is the genuine way to corroborate the claims of any theoretical guarantees, we are completely unable to see the rationale behind the reviewer's point of content, once again!
## Questions ---
> Q4. Feedbacks from the same customer may be correlated
-- By definition of the MNL-AOA problem, it assumes at each round, given $S_t$ the choice-feedback is sampled independently from the underlying MNL$(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ choice-model. Assuming correlated feedback deviates from the MNL assumption, leads to a different choice model. There are several ways to model such dependencies including (but not limited to) taking cues from rotting/rising/restless/sleeping bandits theory. Each of these directions are an independent body of work and will lead to new research problems of AOA. But it simply lies beyond the scope of this work.
> Q5. Explain the differences and novelties of your algorithm compared to the classic UCB?
-- Please check our Global Rebuttal for a detailed discussion on our algorithmic and analytical novelties over classic UCB algorithms.
---
We understand the reviewer is inclined to reject the paper, but we do not see a single rationale or logical argument behind the decision. In particular, claiming that `generalizing a setting' will not be helpful (even with clear experimental backup) seems to be a personal viewpoint and unjustified. A personal view can not be pitted against facts that we presented through our examples, relaxing the limitations of the previous works, theorems, and experiments. We urge the reviewer to kindly clarify from a technical (and not a personal) viewpoint if there are any remaining concerns you may have or would you kindly reconsider the score, please?
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: thank you for your response.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Few Hours Until the Author-Reviewer Discussion Ends
Comment: Dear Reviewer 1RHQ,
Thank you for considering our rebuttal. Since we are only a few hours away from the end of the author-reviewer discussion phase, we wanted to check if we can clarify any remaining concerns. Please let us know and we would be happy to answer promptly.
Thank you,
The authors | Summary: The paper studies the problem of active assortment optimization in MNL model.
In the problem of assortment optimization, we have a large universe of products i=1,2,\dots N, each of which generates a given revenue r_i for the seller. In MNL model each product i has a value \theta_i to the customers and when customers are offered a subset of products they choose each item (including the no-choice option) with a probability proportional to their value. We also assume there is a no-choice option with revenue 0. The seller’s objective is to identify the assortment of products which generates maximum expected revenue.
In the active version of the problems, the values of items \theta_1, \theta_2,\dots , \theta_N, are not known to the seller. Thus, the seller shows a subset of items from the universe to the customers at rounds 1,2, \dots ,T and estimates \theta_i s based on the observations. After approximating these values, the seller may solve the problem in static setting and find the optimal assortment. This strategy is known as exploration and exploitation.
In active assortment optimization, the objective is to minimize the regret of the algorithm which is defined as the summation over rounds t=1,2,\dots T the difference of the expected revenue in each round from the optimal revenue.
Prior works for instance [2] provided an algorithm for this problem by estimating at each round a high probability upper bound for the values \theta_i, and then solve the static problem using the upper-bounds. In [2] the authors assume that \theta_0 (the value assigned to no-choice option and thus its probability ) is the highest among all items.
The submitted manuscript claims that they provide an algorithm with a similar regret bound to [2] which does not have the restriction of assuming the no-choice option has the highest value. Their suggested approach is similar to that of [2] (finding high probability upper bounds for the parameters) but it is hard to follow all details of obtaining the upper bound and how it removes the restriction imposed on the value of the no-choice option.
The result, if true, is interesting but I found the paper hard to read and got lost in section 3.1. I think that the paper will benefit greatly from rewriting and improving the presentation.
I will detail my confusions as follows:
- In Equation (3) on line 173 there is a variable x which is not defined up to this point. I understand that x appears to bound the probability of error in Lemma 1. But you have to introduce it before you use it the first time.
- Between line 176 and 177 what is the + sign on the denominator of the equation? you use this notation again in another equation between lines 252 and 253.
- In equation 3 you show an upper bound on \hat{p_ijt} which then turns to a bound on \theta_i s. But in Lemma 1 you have shown a different upper bound for \theta_i. Can you explain the connection of these two bounds.
A few minor typos:
Lemma 1. atleast-> at least
^ucb is sometimes with roman font and sometimes normal font.
[2] Shipra Agrawal, Vashist Avadhanula, Vineet Goyal, and Assaf Zeevi. Mnl-bandit: A dynamic learning approach to assortment selection. Operations Research, 67(5):1453–1485, 2019.
Strengths: - The problem of active assortment optimization is a fundamental problem in revenue management
- The result is interesting if correct, as it removes an important restriction from prior algorithms.
Weaknesses: - The results are poorly presented and it is hard to follow the paper. The paper lacks an explanation of main intuitions .
- The technique seems to be similar to [2] as both papers obtain high probability upper bounds for the parameters and then solve it in an static setting. An intuitive explanation of how the given different upper bound is obtained, why it is correct, and how it removed the restriction on no-choice option is not provided.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 1
Questions for Authors: I am mainly confused by the high probability upper bounds in Eq (3). Can you provide some intuition where is comes from and how it turns to an upper bound on \theta_i?
For instance in the introduction you mention you use Rank-Breaking technique. Can you explain in simple words what rank breaking is? how does this technique make your work (and in particular deriving the upper bound on \theta_i s ) different from [2] and how it shows up in equation (3)
-------------------------
My confusions were addresses after reading the rebuttal.
Confidence: 2
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 1
Contribution: 3
Limitations: limitations are not discussed but there are several future directions that have been discussed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Title: Rebuttal by authors
Comment: Thanks for your review. Please see our responses below. Please note the misunderstanding and we
tried our best to clarify it. We will be glad to clarify any further questions.
> Q1. Clarification of variable $x$ in In Eq3
-- $x$ is the input to the algorithm. It can be any positive number for which Lem1 holds good. In Thm1 we specifically mentioned the choice of $x = 2\log T$ for the regret bound of Alg1. We agree, we should not have used a forward reference and will add the line ``$x> 0$ can be any positive number as defined in Lem1" before Eq3 Thanks for noting this.
> Q2. What is the + sign between line 176 and 177
-- For any real number $a \in \mathbb R$, $a_+ := \max(a,0)$. We assumed the notation is standard in bandit literature, but we will certainly clarify this in the notation section to avoid any confusion.
> Q3. Upper bound on $\hat p_{ijt}$ in Eq3 and Lem1
-- Please **note there is a misunderstanding** as you seem to have confused definitions (Eq3) and concentration bounds (Lem1). Firstly, (a) By Eq3, you may mean the display after Eq.3 that defines $\theta\_{i,t}^{ucb} = p\_{i0,t}^{ucb}/(1-p\_{i0,t}^{ucb})\_+$. Please note this is the definition of $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$. Similarly, Eq3 gives the definition of $p_{ij,t}^{ucb}$. These turn out to be both upper bounds for $p_i$ and $\theta_i$ respectively as proved in the proof of Lem1 (AppB.2). Only the one of $\theta_i$ is important in the rest of the analysis and thus displayed in Lem1.
> Q4. Comparision with [2]
-- We describe the intuition of our algorithm in detail in the global rebuttal, as well as pinpoint our algorithm novelties and advantages over [2].
> Q5. Confusion about by the high probability upper bounds in Eq (3)
-- Please read Q3 above, as detailed, Eq3 does not provide any high probability upper bound but a definition of $p_{ij,t}^{ucb}$. Let us know if anything is not clear still.
> Q6. Explanation about rank-breaking (RB), how that make your work different from [2], and how it show up in Eq(3).
- Please note RB is described in Appendix A.2. It is the idea that involves extraction of consistent pairwise comparisons from (partial) ranking data, as obtained by treating each pairwise-comparison in the (partial)-ranking independently. E.g. in a set $S = {1,2,3,4}$ if 1 is the choice winner, then RB extracts the pairs $(1 \succ 2)$, $(1 \succ 3)$, $(1 \succ 4)$. Similarly for a full ranking feedback, e.g. $4 \succ 2 \succ 3 \succ 1$, RB extracts all the 6 pairwise comparisons $(4 \succ 2)$, $(4 \succ 3)$, $(4 \succ 1)$, $(2 \succ 3)$, $(2 \succ 1)$, $(3 \succ 1)$.
- RB is used to derive our empirical pairwise estimates $\hat p\_{ij,t} = w\_{ij,t}/n\_{ij,t}$ (Eq3), where $w_{ij,t}$ and $n_{ij,t}$ denotes the total pairwise win counts of item i over j after rank-breaking and total number of rank broken pairs of $(i,j)$ respectively, till time $t$. We will add these descriptions in the main draft (in Sec 3.1) for ease of exposition.
- Re. How RB is used and give us advantage over [2]: We figured the novel Rank-Breaking (RB) technique to derive an important key idea which (roughly) says that the empirical pairwise preferences of item pair $(i,j) \in [\tilde K]\times [\tilde K]$, see $\hat p_{ij,t}$ in Eq3, gives an unbiased estimate of the true pairwise preference $p_{i,j}: = \theta_i/(\theta_i + \theta_j)$. This leads to sharper and more efficient UCB estimator of $\theta_i$, given by $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb} = \min_{j \in [K] \cup \{0\}}\gamma_{ij,t}^{ucb}\gamma_{j0,t}^{ucb}$ where $\gamma\_{ij,t}^{ucb}:=p\_{i0,t}^{ucb}/(1-p\_{i0,t}^{ucb})\_+$ (Line 253). We further prove in Lem9 and Lem10 how $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ yields a much sharper and flexible UCB estimator of $\theta_i$ for each $i \in [K]$ without the requirement of $\theta_0 > \max_{i \in [K]}\theta_i$ unlike all the previous works. Please also see Q3 of R-mX9J to get more intuition of our $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ estimate --- Here really lies our main contribution that helps us to overcome the existing limitations of the previous works (see Table1) and leads to multiple advantages as listed in the global rebuttal.
Please also read the Global Rebuttal which summarizes the existing algorithms and how we overcome the limitations of the state of the art methods ([1,2,14], etc).
---
We believe we have answered all your questions, please let us know if you have further questions. Otherwise, kindly reconsider your scores in light of the clarifications.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: My confusions were addresses in the rebuttal. I think the results are interesting and probably valid. The presentation can still improve. Hence, I am updating my score to borderline accept.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thank you
Comment: Dear Reviewer dQv5,
Thank you for taking the time to go over our rebuttal, we appreciate your time and feedback.
We will make sure to add all the details clarified above in the final version, polish the writing in the remaining draft and add more intuitions of the proof details.
Please let us know if you have any remaining questions that we can clarify further.
Thanks
Authors.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Requesting your feedback
Comment: Dear Reviewer dQv5,
We are writing you to kindly request your feedback on our rebuttal. As the discussion phase is currently underway and we have a limited timeline, I am eager to address any remaining concerns you may have. We believe to have answered all your queries and are happy to provide any further clarifications in the hope of potentially raising your scores.
Requesting you to kindly engage in a discussion at your earliest convenience.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Thanks,
Authors | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank all the reviewers for their feedbacks. We make every effort to address any concerns raised and hope that our response will clarify any questions you may have. We emphasise here our contributions with respect to existing work.
**Description of existing algorithms [2,1,24] (as given in Table 1).**
- [2]: This is the classical MNL-UCB work, the idea is to estimate the true PL parameter $\boldsymbol \theta = (\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_K)$s. They estimate it by repeatedly querying the same set (i.e. assortment $S_t$) multiple times and keeping a count of the average number of times an item $i \in [K]$ is selected until no items (NC) are selected. They further maintain a UCB of the estimated PL parameters, $(\hat \theta_1,\ldots,\hat \theta_K)$, and the assortment of the next phase optimistically based on the UCB estimates. The process is repeated until time step T.
- [1]: This is another follow-up work of [1]. The algorithm MNL-TS is almost same as MNL-UCB above, with the exception being this paper uses Thompson Sampling (TS) with Beta posteriors, instead of the UCB estimates used in [2], to maintain the estimates of $\boldsymbol{\theta}$s.
- [24]: The objective of this work and preference model of this work is slightly different than that of [1,2] as their objective is `learning to rank' (LTR), i.e. to find the best *ordered* subset based on some position bias $\lambda_i > 0$ for position $i \in [m]$. Their algorithms are inspired by the one of [1,2] adapted to their model.
**Limitations of previous algorithm.** The key idea adapted in all of the above algorithms are same which essentially keeps playing a fixed assortment until no-choice (NC) is picked, upon which they update the estimated parameters. Hence the algorithms work under a semi-batch feedback model, and not in a fully active manner. Consequently, all the above algorithms heavily rely on the assumption that **NC item must be the strongest**, i.e. $\theta_0 > \theta_i, ~\forall i \in [K]$, as otherwise if $\theta_0$ is small, the NC item is (almost) never selected, and they never update their estimated parameters despite collecting new information from every customer. This essentially leads to the wastage of the collected information. It is hence not surprising that their regret analysis breaks otherwise (precisely the concentration bound of $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ breaks), as we detailed after Thm5 (Line 217-225) and Thm6 (Line 261-267), as well as corroborated in our experiments in Sec 5.
**Description of our main algorithm.** We now describe our main algorithm AOA-RBPL-Adaptive (Sec4), which eliminates the above two limitations of [1,2,24]. We figured the novel Rank-Breaking (RB) technique (see Appendix A.2) used in the MNL choice literature to derive an important key idea which (roughly) says that the empirical pairwise preferences of item pair $(i,j)$, see $\hat p_{ij,t}$ in Eq3, gives an unbiased estimate of the true pairwise preference $p_{i,j}$. This leads us to come up with a much sharper and efficient UCB estimator of $\theta_i$. We further prove in Lem9 and Lem10 how $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ yields a sharper and flexible UCB estimator for all $\theta_i$ without the requirement of $\theta_0 > \max_{i} \theta_i$ unlike previous works. Please also see Q3 of R2 to get more intuition of our $\theta_{i,t}^{ucb}$ estimate --- Here really lies our main contribution that leads to the following advantages.
**How to generalize our approach to other models.**
We have mentioned in Rem1 how our algorithm AOA-RBPL-Adaptive generalizes nicely for any general RUM-based choice model [8,9]. This is owing to the fact that [37] shows how pairwise-preference estimates $(\hat p_{ij,t})$s can be used to estimate score parameters $(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ for general any RUM models. Using the RB based RUM-parameter estimation technique of [37], we can show a regret bound of $\tilde O(\sqrt{\min(\theta_{\max},K) KT}/c\_{rum})$ for our proposed algorithm AOA-RBPL, where $c_{rum}$ is the parameter associated to the minimum advantage ratio (min-AR) of the underlying RUM$(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ model, as defined in Thm6 of [37]. In particular, $c_{rum}$ can be shown to be a constant given a fixed RUM model, e.g. $c_{rum} = 1/4$ for Exp(1), Gamma(2, 1), $c_{rum} = 1/(4\sigma)$ for Gumbel$(\mu,\sigma)$, $c_{rum} = \lambda/4$ for Weibull$(\lambda, 1)$, $c_{rum} = 1/3$ for Gaussian$(0,1)$, etc (Cor5, [37]).
**Main contributions of our approach.**
- We overcome the limitations of existing algorithms (no-choice and mutliple queries) described above.
- Our concentration bounds (Lem9 and Lem10) are different than that of [2] as well as the main regret bound analysis (Thm6). See Appendix B.6 for the technical details.
- Our regret analysis results in a multiplicative improvement in $\theta_{\max}$ in the final regret performance, as discussed after Thm6 and shown in our experiments (Sec5).
- Our algorithms are general and could be extended to any RUM-based choice models including RUM with Gamma, Gaussian, Weibull, Gumbel noise (e.g. MNL is also a special case of RUM models for Gumbel noise, see [8,9]).
**In summary.** Our work substantially deviates from the standard MNL-UCB approach that directly tries to estimate $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ used in [1,2,24] and used an RB-based UCB estimate improving the existing results. | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Prediction-Powered Ranking of Large Language Models | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper studies uncertainty estimate in the LLM ranking problem, where the task is to rank LLMs based on their response quality. Ideally the labels should be from humans, but due to the cose, people use models such as GPT-4 as auto raters. There lacks a good study of uncertainty estimation in the problem. The paper applies prediction powered inference (PPI) to construct a rank set for each candidate LLMs. Experiments are conducted on the Chatbot Arena data. It is shown that the PPI approach work as intended to produce reasonable rank set size vs accuracy (when comparing with an oracle method using only human data) trade-offs.
Strengths: The application of PPI to constructing rank set from pairwise comparisons from LLM evaluators is an interesting and timely application to the reviewer.
The proposed algorithms look sound by following PPI.
Overall the experiments demonstrate some desired behaviors of the proposed approach. Some analysis, such as the structure of the rank-sets, are interesting.
Weaknesses: Overall I am positive of the paper as I feel the problem is important and applying PPI is a good proposal. However, the reviewer is not enthusiastic enough to give a higher rating due to the following concerns:
The paper is a more or less straightforward application of PPI to rank set construction. The theoretical properties shown in this paper mostly strictly follow those of PPI. Thus, the depth of this work is not substantial enough to warrant a higher rating in terms of novelty and technical depth.
The rank set is at dataset level, which may not be very useful in practice. For example, compared to a standard usage of PPI on a numeric metric, which will provide a concrete internal. For the paper, people end up with a discrete rank set for each candidate model. While it provides some uncertainty by looking at the set size, one may still end up wondering how useful that is. For example, if model 1 has rank 2,3,4, and model 2 has rank 3,4,5. It provides some information that model 1 seems better, but the reviewer is not sure how useful it really is (e.g., by how much? - as the guarantee is at the set level).
There are several points about the experimentation that the reviewer is not certain about
- As the authors acknowledged, only one dataset is used so the generalization is less clear. F
- The baseline / ground truth still needs some processing, such as a regression fit. This is different from standard tasks where human ground truth are given without the need to process anything. Thus the reviewer is not fully convinced how solid the conclusions are, e.g., “questioning the rationals used an extensive line of work that … (use LLM rankings for evaluation)”
- Figure 1 is not entirely convincing - at least the PRP methods do not achieve pareto frontier here. The reviewer understands the argument about the x axis, still, for a pareto problem, one may not really argue one method is better than the other if it is not pareto optimal.
The flow of the paper may be improved. The reviewer was puzzled about the methods and algorithm 1,2,3 when reaching to the experiments. Figure 1 is not very easy to interpret.
Some other minor limitations / future work, some are discussed in the paper: iid assumption - in practice, there could be a bias, e.g. using active learning to send data to human.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: See above.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors list several concrete limitations. Most are treated as future work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **[Application of PPI]** To the best of our knowledge, existing work has always applied PPI to construct confidence intervals for numerical quantities. In contrast, our work is the first to apply PPI to construct rank-sets and does so in a very timely domain, LLM evaluation.
**[Rank set vs numeric metric]** We would like to first point out that rank-sets have been used in the literature as measures of uncertainty in rankings (see, for example, [48, 50]). In our setting, we believe rank-sets may provide useful information—the rank-sets tell the practitioner to what extent the difference in win-rates across models, after taking into account the uncertainty summarized by the confidence ellipsoid, are sufficient for each model to be ranked above or below other models. That being said, a practitioner may decide to use our framework to obtain not only estimates of the rank-sets but also estimates of the win-rates, which is a numeric metric, and the confidence ellipsoid used to construct the estimates of the rank-sets. We will clarify this in the revised version of the paper.
**[One dataset / generalization]** Since our computational framework is rather generic, it is true that it could be readily applied to other benchmarks. However, this would require significant funding and time and, given the on-going discussions about the reliability of LLM evaluation, we believe the NeurIPS community may benefit more from our computational framework if published early. Further, given the rapid development of both new LLMs and benchmarks, we also feel that any claim of superiority of a LLM over others based on the estimated rank-sets on (static) benchmark data may be quickly outdated and thus have limited value.
**[Baselines]** Since the regression fit is just an empirical estimate of a set of means (the win-rates), we do not find any reason to raise doubts about the baseline. Nevertheless, during the rebuttal period, we have carried out an additional evaluation of our framework in a synthetic setting. Since in the synthetic setting, the ground truth ranking is known and given, we do not need to rely on any processing to validate the theoretical coverage guarantees. Refer to the (general) author rebuttal and attached pdf for more details. We will include this additional evaluation in an Appendix in the revised version of the paper.
**[Pareto frontier]** In the conclusions we have drawn from Figure 1 in lines 264-278, we do not (mean to) claim that the PPR methods achieve pareto frontier against all baselines. In lines 266-272, we claim that, **in terms of baseline intersection probability**, PPR methods are better than baseline methods using only (the same number of) comparisons by strong LLMs. In lines 273-278, we claim that PPR methods indeed achieve pareto frontier against a baseline method (HUMAN ONLY) using the same number of human comparisons as PPR methods since they are better both in terms of baseline intersection probability and size of the rank-sets. To avoid any misunderstanding, in the revised version of the paper, we will explicitly highlight that the baseline methods using only comparisons by strong LLMs GPT 4 and Claude 3 return smaller rank-sets than the PPR methods.
**[Flow of the paper]** Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we will improve the flow of the paper and the description of Figure 1 in the revised version of the paper.
**[Limitations]** Following the reviewer's suggestion, we will expand the discussions of the limitations and highlight that, in practice, active learning may be used to gather human pairwise comparisons. | Summary: This paper proposes a statistical framework to rank a collection of LLMs according to how well their output aligns with human preferences. This framework does this using a small set of human-obtained pairwise comparisons from LMSYS Chatbot Arena platform and a larger set of pairwise comparisons by a "strong" LLM and additionally provides an uncertainty estimate by giving a set of rankings for each LLM being compared. This study shows that, with at least probability threshold the user can set, the predicted rankings will eventually become increasingly likely to match the true order in which humans would prefer the models. The authors perform several experiments to empirically demonstrate the valitdity of the proposed framework.
Strengths: - The framework is clearly explained and the paper is easy to follow
- The paper studies an interesting problem that focuses on ranking LLM in the context of scarcity of gathered pairwise comparisons by humans
- The empirical evaluation is thorough
Weaknesses: - unless i misunderstood something, the small set of human pairwise comparisons has length = 1. Although, the potential bias and truthfulness of the human pairwise comparisons has been discussed in the limitation section, i think that it could be interesting to explore the potential error propagation in the rank sets from erroneous human comparisons.
- it is not clear to me, how the self-recognition [1] problem can be tackled with this framework. It has been shown that LLMs have non trivial capability of recognizing their own generation. Would this not be the case for one of the strong LLMs? wouldn't they tend to rank their generation higher? This fact combined with the previous question might affect the generazalization ability of this framework.
[1]: Panickssery, Arjun, Samuel R. Bowman, and Shi Feng. "Llm evaluators recognize and favor their own generations." arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13076 (2024).
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: see weaknesses.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: limitations have been discussed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **[Small set of human pairwise comparisons]** The small set of human pairwise comparisons has length = $n > 1$ and we evaluate the performance of our computational framework for different values of $n$ in Figure 2.
**[Erroneous human comparisons]** We agree that it would be interesting to explore the potential error propagation in the rank sets from erroneous human comparisons due to, e.g., bias, lack of truthfulness or strategic behavior, however, as pointed out in the limitation section, this is left as future work.
**[Self-recognition problem]** If the strong LLM tends to rank its generation higher due to self-recognition, this is corrected by our method, as PPR accounts for possible biases of the strong LLM using the small set of $n$ pairwise comparisons by humans. In fact, in our experiments, Claude 3 suffers from the self-recognition problem and our framework corrects for such bias. More specifically, in Figure 9 in Appendix D.3, LLM CL3 prefers to rank the two Claude 1 models higher than the baseline but PPR CL3 corrects for this bias.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response to rebuttal
Comment: I appreciate the authors' responses to my questions and additional clarifications. Overall, I would like to keep the current score rating. | Summary: - Focuses on uncertainty in rankings using a small set of human pairwise comparisons and a large set of model estimated comparisons using a concept of rank sets. A rank set is a set of ranks a specific model can take. A large rank set indicates high uncertainty in ranking position and vice-versa a small set implies a confident rank assessment. The method works by constructing a confidence ellipsoid which in turn using methods of prediction powered inferences (methods to estimate confidence intervals when you have a small set of labeled gold standard data and a large set of machine labeled data). The paper employs the methods to rank 12 LLMs using data from LMSYS Chatbot Arena.
Strengths: - Evaluations of LLMs is particularly challenging and estimating ranking of models for specific tasks an important area. This paper makes a good contribution towards this by investigating ranking uncertainty using prediction powered inferences. The overall setting (small set of human-annotated data and a large machine labeled dataset) is realistic and therefore the work lends itself to practical use as well.
- The methodological contributions are interesting in itself and the concept of using rank sets to characterize uncertainty intriguing.
- The exposition and presentation of material is good. Some of the plots are well structured and intuitive to grasp (Figure 3 in particular is well crafted).
Weaknesses: - The main weakness is on evaluation. The paper proposes two metrics: rank-set size and baseline intersection probability. Small rank-set sizes are better - presumably as the confidence in ranks is better, and baseline intersection probability - large is better as it supposes the baseline method is closer to the true ranking. First: The paper should really report more standard ranking metrics such as precision/recall @ k, RBO, MAP or Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG). To factor in rank sets, you could use most probable ranking from your rank sets to compute these. Second: the absence of true rankings makes the empirical aspects less convincing. A synthetic experiment where true rankings are known perhaps would make sense to empirically demonstrate the main claims.
- Use of machine labels just appear to widen the confidence bounds (e.g. Figure 3). The base conclusions on ranking appears to remain the same. In this instance, therefore, it remains unclear what the value of machine labeled information is.
- Some additional insights into rank sets would add to the paper. For instance, how stable are rank sets to minor changes in $\mathcal{M}$? Uncertainty in rank for one model depends the overall set of models being considered, so this would be interesting to study. There are possibly other facets, such as how rank sets can be used in practice or the quality of the machine labeled data.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: NA
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **[Evaluation metrics]** In our work, we focus on rank-sets as a measure of uncertainty in rankings and thus our experimental evaluation aims to assess the quality of the rank-sets estimated using our method and several baselines. In this context, we think that the ranking metrics proposed by the reviewer provide little information about the quality of the rank-sets. More importantly, we are unsure how to operationalize them in our setting. On the one hand, precision/recall @ k, MAP and NDCG are used in settings in which there is a set of items to be ranked and, for each item, one can measure whether an item is relevant or is not relevant. However, in our setting, it is difficult to measure whether a model is relevant or is not relevant based on win-rates. On the other hand, RBO is used in settings in which there is a ground-truth ranking. However, in our setting, we do not have access to a ground-truth ranking.
That being said, following up on the reviewer's comment, we have carried out an additional evaluation of our framework in a synthetic setting where the ground-truth ranking is known. Then, in this synthetic setting, we have computed RBO using the most probable ranking, as suggested by the reviewer, as well as the empirical coverage. Refer to the (general) author rebuttal and attached pdf for more details. We will include this additional evaluation in an Appendix in the revised version of the paper.
**[Synthetic experiments with true rankings]** As discussed in the previous response, during the rebuttal period, we have carried out an additional evaluation of our framework in a synthetic setting. Since in the synthetic setting, the true ranking is known, we have been able to validate the theoretical coverage guarantees without using a baseline. Refer to the (general) author rebuttal and attached pdf for more details. We will include this additional evaluation in an Appendix in the revised version of the paper.
**[Value of machine labeled information in Figure 3]** In Figure 3, note that, by using machine labeled information, PPR GPT4 allows us to draw the same conclusions as BASELINE using significantly fewer human comparisons ($n$ vs. $N+n$). In Figure 1, the value of the machine labeled information is perhaps more apparent. Therein, the results show that PPR GTP4 achieves narrower confidence bounds (y axis) and higher baseline intersection probability (x axis) than HUMAN ONLY, a baseline that uses the same number of human comparisons but no machine comparisons.
**[Additional insights]** In our work, we do not aim to make a comprehensive empirical evaluation of rank-sets as an uncertainty measure or the quality of machine labeled data. Therefore, we leave the study of the sensitivity of rank-sets to minor changes in $\mathcal{M}$, practical uses of rank-sets, and the quality of machine label data as interesting venues for future research. | Summary: The paper tackles an interesting problem of evaluating ranking large language models automatically using a strong LLM as alternative to human preference estimates. The work primarily focuses on modelling uncertainty in such a ranking generated when compared to the distribution of human preference rankings. Since, pairwise comparison by humans are cumbersome and pairwise comparisons by strong LLMs are not completely consistent with human preferences, the authors propose a framework that improves upon pairwise ranking by strong LLMs. The authors propose a prediction power inference based framework to construct rank sets that provide coverage guarantees with respect to the true ranking consistent with human preferences.
Strengths: 1. The work tackles an important problem concerning evaluation of ranking LLMs in an automated manner with respect to limited human preferences. The work discusses in details the drawbacks of existing ranking approaches and provides a statistically grounded framework (prediction powered inference) that works well in face of scarcity in human preference annotations.
2. The authors perform extensive evaluation on chatbot arena and propose two measures, namely rank set size and baseline intersection probability.
3. The proposed framework is useful for modelling uncertainty when using LLMs as judges and can also be applied to other scenarios such as modelling uncertainty in LLM driven relevance judgements for offline evaluation of retrieval.
Weaknesses: 1. While the authors perform extensive evaluation, it might be a good idea to also test on other benchmarks like MT-bench or AlpacaEval related to approximation of human judgements. While authors already discuss the generalization aspect in limitations with regards to this, I would like to add it would also help address the concern regarding selection bias of test set and evaluators. Additionally, due to input limitations the benchmark may also not be representative of tasks that require reasoning over long form inputs and specifically complex reasoning tasks. Hence the leaderboard may only weakly correlate with real-world performance on these tasks. Additionally a minor point is that the metrics considered for rating response “relevance , helpfulness , accuracy , creativity and level” as shown in prompt might also change depending on the task: For instance when evaluating on a benchmark akin to QA tasks where precise information is needed creativity may not be a valid metric anymore. Hence evaluating on more benchmarks would help give a clearer picture on usefulness of the proposed framework.
2. While it is appreciated that the work provides the proof for theoretical coverage guarantees, the claim regarding the coverage guarantees made in Introduction and beginning of section 4 should be revisited as true rank-sets (true probabilities unknown) cannot be computed for LLMs. The Baseline intersection probability is a weak approximation for coverage guarantees. Though the authors argue that baseline method approximates well the true rank sets due to being constructed from large number of human pairwise comparisons this might not necessarily hold due to selection bias, distribution shift and various other factors. Without further evidence the claim that Baseline intersection probability is a good approximation for true coverage measure is not well supported.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Did the authors also try few-shot prompting the strong LLMs by showing few examples on how to judge the responses ? Would be interesting to see if this leads to any change in final observation and insights.
For a small sample set would it be possible to empirically test coverage guarantees without the other metric being the proxy assumption?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Due to the inherent limitations of the benchmark, this work may also not be representative of tasks that require reasoning over long form inputs and specifically complex reasoning tasks.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **[Other benchmarks]** Since our computational framework is rather generic, it is true that it could be readily applied to other benchmarks. However, this would require significant funding and time, and given the on-going discussions about the reliability of LLM evaluation, we believe the NeurIPS community may benefit more from our computational framework if published early. Further, given the rapid development of both new LLMs and benchmarks, we also feel that any claim of superiority of an LLM over others based on the estimated rank-sets on (static) benchmark data may be quickly outdated and thus have limited value. Under **[Baseline method]**, we discuss selection bias of the test set and the evaluators.
**[Reasoning tasks]** The goal of our experiments is to showcase and validate our computational framework, and not to make a comprehensive evaluation of LLMs across different tasks. Therefore, we do not claim that the conclusions derived from the rank-sets estimated using data from the LMSYS Chatbot Arena platform correlate with real-world performance on reasoning over long form inputs or complex reasoning tasks. We will clarify this in the revised version of the paper.
**[Metrics and tasks]** We agree with the reviewer that each type of task may need to be evaluated using a different set of metrics. However, since our computational framework is generic and does not make any assumption about the metrics considered for rating each response, we do not find any reason for our framework not to be applicable. That said, as discussed under **[Other benchmarks]**, conducting experiments on other tasks and/or benchmarks would require significant funding and time and, given the on-going discussions about the reliability of LLM evaluation, we believe the NeurIPS community may benefit more from our computational framework if published early.
**[Baseline method]** We would like to clarify that our claim is that the baseline intersection probability is a reasonable proxy for the coverage with respect to the true rank-sets induced by the **distribution of queries used by users at LMSYS** and the **distribution of human preferences of the users at LMSYS**. In this context, we would further like to clarify that, in Appendix D.2, we have also verified that, using a more conservative baseline metric, our conclusions also hold.
Relatedly, we do acknowledge that, if the users at LMSYS are not representative of the target query distribution and distribution of human preferences, the estimated rank-sets both by our method and the baseline method may be inaccurate (due to selection bias and distribution shift). However, studying such a setting is left as future work. We will clarify this in the discussion of the limitations in the revised version of the paper.
**[Few-shot prompting]** We did not try few-shot prompting of the strong LLMs but instead used (almost) the same prompt used by Zheng et al. [12]. We agree with the reviewer that it would be interesting to investigate and optimize the type of prompting used to elicit pairwise comparisons by strong LLMs. However, this is a research question on its own and is also left as future work.
**[Empirically test coverage guarantees]** During the rebuttal period, we have carried out an additional evaluation of our framework in a synthetic setting. Since in the synthetic setting, the true ranking is known, we have been able to validate the theoretical coverage guarantees without using a proxy metric. Refer to the (general) author rebuttal and attached pdf for more details. We will include this additional evaluation in an Appendix in the revised version of the paper. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We would like to thank the reviewers for their careful and insightful comments, which will help improve our paper. We include point-by-point responses to each reviewer in individual rebuttals. Moreover, in what follows, we provide details of an additional evaluation of our framework using a synthetic setting, which we have conducted during the rebuttal period. We refer to this evaluation in responses to three of the reviewers in the individual rebuttals (dge6, G9Nw, Fevo). The results of this evaluation are attached as a one page pdf.
Since in the synthetic setting, the true ranking is known, we have been able to validate the theoretical coverage guarantees without using a proxy metric, and we have also computed rank-based overlap (RBO) using the most probable ranking, as suggested by reviewer G9Nw. We will include this additional evaluation in an Appendix in the revised version of the paper. In the following paragraphs, we elaborate on this synthetic experimentation.
Initially, we set the number of models to $k=8$. In each experiment, we generated a random vector of true win probabilities $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ (Eq. 1), which induces a true ranking of the models. To generate the win probabilities $\boldsymbol{\breve{\theta}}$ (Eq. 3), we added random noise to the vector $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, then re-normalized $\boldsymbol{\breve{\theta}}$. The noise was sampled from a $Uniform(-u,u)$ distribution, where $u \in (0,1)$ a parameter we manually set to simulate different alignment levels of strong LLMs to human preference. Intuitively, the larger the value of $u$, the larger the difference between $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ and $\boldsymbol{\breve{\theta}}$, and the less aligned the strong LLM is to human preference. In our experiments, we set $u=\\{0.05, 0.1, 0.3\\}$, simulating three different strong LLMs.
To draw reliable conclusions for each experiment, we created rank-sets $300$ times, each time using a different set of $N+n=50 000$ simulated pairwise comparisons by humans and the three strong LLMs, with an equal number of pairwise comparisons per pair of models.
Let $m_a$ and $m_b$ be the two models participating in a pairwise comparison, with $m_a$ being the model that gave the first response. We ensure that each model provides the first and second response to an equal number of pairwise comparisons. For each pairwise comparison, we generate uniformly at random a number $x \in (0,1)$. For the human outcome, if $x < 2 \theta_{m_a}$ then the response of model $m_a$ is preferred ($w=1$). Similarly, for the strong LLM outcome, if $x < 2 \breve{\theta}_{m_a}$ then the response of model $m_a$ is preferred ($\hat{w}=1$). In every comparison we set $w’ = \hat{w}' = 0$.
From the generated pairwise comparisons, we computed rank-sets in a similar manner as section 5 in our paper, using $\alpha=0.1$. Since the true ranking is known, we can compute the coverage, shown in Figure 1 in the attached pdf. The coverage increases with $n$, in agreement with our theoretical result in Theorem 4.1.
By sorting the models in descending order of the estimated $\boldsymbol{\hat{\theta}}$, we obtain the most probable ranking of each method and can compute the RBO of each method’s ranking with respect to the true ranking, shown in Figure 2 in the attached pdf. We can see that combining pairwise comparisons of humans and a strong LLM results in the highest RBO values.
Pdf: /pdf/ee71652f7c82b54e75cf0953caaa9978ea288a2b.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Interpreting CLIP with Sparse Linear Concept Embeddings (SpLiCE) | Accept (poster) | Summary: Whilst useful for many downstream tasks, CLIP’s vision-language representations are notoriously hard to interpret. The paper proposes to represent CLIP representations in a sparse, non-negative overcomplete basis of learnt interpretable directions using a standard dictionary learning technique. Not only is interpretability increased, but the core claim is that this does not harm the performance of the downstream applications significantly. Such a model would provide interpretability “for free”, in the sense that practitioners could opt for the interpretable version without any performance cost (which would constitute a significant achievement).
---
Post-rebuttal:
Following a productive discussion with the authors (who both clarified many experimental details and proposed revisions to the claims of the paper to better reflect its results), I think the paper will be of great value to the community and recommend its acceptance.
Strengths: - The work strives to address a vitally important task: to design models that offer interpretability at no cost to performance. Such an endeavor is particularly important practically in allowing practitioners to adopt interpretable models in practice (by not trading off performance).
- The paper is very well-written, the applied methodology is appropriate, and the focus on CLIP representations means the paper has potentially great relevance and reach to practitioners.
- Offering more than just transparency, I appreciate the method's multiple use cases--not only for discovering spurious correlations but also for model editing.
Weaknesses: # [W1] Sparsity/interpretability does trade-off accuracy
I was very excited about the paper’s bold claim in the introduction to `provide interpretability, at no cost to downstream performance` ([L6], but also at [L349]) upon a first read. Unfortunately, from what I came to understand later from the results of the proposed dictionary in yellow plots in Figure 3, this claim appears false.
There *is* a cost to zero-shot classification performance (which is arguably one of the most important downstream applications of CLIP). For example, small L0 norms lead to as much as ~10% accuracy drop on CIFAR100 (left-most plot), and what appears to be a ~20% performance drop on ImageNET1k using the raw dictionaries. A similar pattern of performance degradation for high sparsity is observed in Fig. 7 for retrieval tasks. Thus, it is simply not true that the method is at “no cost” to performance, and arguably it is not even at “minimal” cost (used later in [L52]). These results unfortunately do not support the paper’s core claims.
Crucially, if I correctly understand the x-axis as quantifying the number of non-zero coefficients, this is even more problematic. High sparsity is desirable for interpretability [L164]—but we see from the experiments that too small an L0 term trades-off accuracy, and sometimes rather significantly so. This fundamental trade-off is a clear critical limitation of the work (in conflict with the paper's core claims) and puts interpretability and accuracy at odds—but it is not ever stated or discussed as a key limitation of the work.
The authors should revise this core claim in light of the fact there is indeed a cost to performance increasing as a function of sparsity, and include a dedicated discussion of such limitation. Furthermore, I would expect to see many more experiments on the standard zero-shot datasets used in the original CLIP paper [1] to evaluate this core claim, not just on 3 (given this is zero-shot, these experiments are very fast to run with pre-trained dictionaries).
This weakness in particular swayed my rating of this paper negatively, and I am happy to consider revising my score accordingly, should an adequate answer be provided in response.
# [W2] Limited new technical contributions, but also lacking technical insights/comparisons to alternative existing solutions
The paragraph in [L229] is rather brief and states that sklean’s Lasso solver is used. In the concrete application of sparse dictionary learning for CLIP representations in the paper, a representative reader would be very interested to see a much richer exploration of alternative approaches to solving the model objective.
For example, in CLIP, how does this proposed solution compare to non-negative KSVD? How about NMF (with a sparsity penalty)? Or sparse autoencoders? Or learning this end-to-end with projected gradient descent (to project the coefficients onto the non-negative orthant), etc.
Given that the paper does not offer any novel technical contributions (which is okay!), I think the paper would have been much stronger if at least some technical insights (about existing techniques) as they pertain to representation learning with CLIP were provided. At a minimum, a *discussion* of some of the other techniques listed above (and why they might not be appropriate) would be desirable, and experiments comparing the results from each to validate the proposed solution would make the paper’s contributions even stronger through technical insight.
# [W3] Unnecessary mathematizing (minor)
As a reader very excited about this paper’s application, I feel the second half of Section 3. “When sparse decompositions exist” is an unnecessary formalization ([L141] onwards). I’m unconvinced of the need to introduce “Proposition 1”—at minimum, it feels like a distraction from the other interesting results in the paper. As far as I can see, this proposition is not used at all in the paper, and no experiments are conducted to show the 5 assumptions are reasonable (aside from Assumption 3).
The “assumptions” 1-5 listed do appear useful heuristics to reason about when Sparse decompositions are appropriate. As the authors also state [L133], concept linearity seems most crucial here. As a reader, what I care about is how these assumptions hold in CLIP in practice. As such, it would be much more useful to see instead the key experiment in Appendix B.5 discussed here in the main paper to support this critical assumption.
To summarize this final weakness: my impression is that the paper’s clarity could be improved by (a) considering deferring the formalizations to the supplementary material, or reducing their significance/length in the main paper and (b) considering making the critical experiments validating the key assumption in Appendix B.5 more prominent. I believe the paper would be much more impactful and have greater reach if the key results were better highlighted, and math that is not strictly necessary dropped.
---
* [1]: Radford, Alec et al. “Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision.” International Conference on Machine Learning (2021).
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: # [Q1] Vocabulary choice and dataset dependence
I’m not sure I would agree with the claim that the `efficacy of the decomposition is (in principle) independent of individual datasets`. Isn’t the vocabulary choice made in this work specific to LAION-400m? Perhaps using the WordNET nouns/adjectives as the vocabulary (and bigrams formed by common combinations) would be even more dataset/task agnostic?
# [Q2] Mean centering
As stated by the authors, the CLIP representations live on a hypersphere. Instead of taking the geometric mean in Euclidean space (as part of addressing the modality gap), did the authors explore taking the Frechet mean? This seems like it would better account for the geodesic distances between the points.
# [Q3] Zero-shot performance in the limit
What happens to the zero-shot performance in Fig. 5 in the limit of the l0 norm being equal to the dimensionality of the space? Shouldn’t we expect matching performance to the CLIP baseline? It would be insightful to extend the x-axis to observe how it performs in the limit.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 2
Limitations: No, limitations are not adequated addressed, and the current limited discussion should be placed prominently in the main paper rather than the supplementary material.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your comments! We appreciate your feedback and address your concerns below.
**Sparsity/interpretability-accuracy tradeoff.** We thank the reviewer for their detailed thoughts on the interpretability-accuracy tradeoff claims and for their willingness to increase their score if this issue is resolved. The reviewer is correct that Figure 3 highlights the existence of tradeoffs between interpretability and accuracy, and we will correct the language around these claims and address this limitation in the final version. However, we note that this tradeoff is small at desirable sparsity levels. For a sparsity level of 20-30 (chosen with respect to a prior human evaluation study [49]), we find a drop in zero-shot accuracy of less than 4% for the CIFAR100 dataset (Fig. 3). Furthermore, this drop is entirely recovered when classification is done via probing instead of zero-shot (please see Appendix C.1). Secondly, this tradeoff is not necessarily fundamental, as it is possible to retain downstream performance by using SPLiCE as a post-hoc concept explanation method. More specifically, we can add the residual error back into the reconstructed embedding to recreate the CLIP embedding before use in downstream applications (as suggested by reviewer Vxod). Thus, we can achieve interpretability without affecting performance. We do note that in this case, the residual will still remain uninterpretable, which is why we do not focus on this setting in the main paper. We will be sure to discuss this in more depth in the final version, including the key limitations of both of these settings.
As requested by the reviewer, we included experiments on four additional datasets from the CLIP paper [1] (Caltech-101, SUN397, STL10, VOC 2007) in the additional results, Table 1, for sparsities of 20-35. While there is a decrease in performance, we believe it to be relatively small and recoverable by probing or the technique discussed above.
**Technical contributions and exploration of alternative existing solutions.** Thank you for this interesting question. We note that we explored two alternative approaches in the main paper, including an alternative solver, ADMM, and a method for learning the dictionary, FISTA, but we will elaborate on this discussion further in the final version. In Appendix B.2, we discuss the use of Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) in place of scikit-learn's Lasso method to solve the SPLiCE objective with GPU/batched speedup. We present results in Figure 2 of the additional material, illustrating the equivalence of these methods in both cosine reconstruction and zero-shot accuracy for CIFAR100.
We also explore an alternative dictionary learning method, similar to those suggested by the reviewer (Sparse NMF, KSVD, Sparse Autoencoders, PGD), of sparse dictionary learning with nonnegative weight projection via Fast Iterative Shrinkage-Thresholding (FISTA) in Figures 3, 7. We note that FISTA and the other suggested methods all learn uninterpretable dictionaries that require post-hoc human labeling of the learned concept dictionary atoms. While existing literature such as [31] explores methods for visualizing concepts learned by NMF, PCA, k-Means, and Sparse Autoencoders, this process still requires manual labeling of concepts, which can be both data- and time-intensive. One of the key benefits of SpLiCE is that we fix the concept atoms a priori rather than having to analyze and label components post-hoc. Our results also demonstrate that a learned dictionary results in better reconstruction in terms of cosine similarity, as expected, but surprisingly underperforms our LAION dictionary on zero-shot classification, due to the lack of semantic structure within these learned dictionaries.
**Mathematizing.** Thank you for the comment. We plan to adopt your feedback, move the empirical validation found in Appendix B.5 to the main paper, and reduce the length of our formal analysis, deferring our theoretical results to the appendix. For further discussion, please see our general comment.
**Vocabulary choice.** This is an important point we intend to discuss in the final paper. While we considered WordNet, we preferred LAION as our source of concepts because it is the training dataset of Open-CLIP (the model used in this work), preventing us from including concepts in the dictionary that CLIP may not have learnt. Please see our general comment for a more thorough discussion of this point.
**Mean centering.** We did consider Frechet means, but we found it non-trivial to define a clear notion of mean-centering on the hypersphere. Because the surface of a unit sphere does not contain the “zero” element necessary to define an algebraic field, it is hard to define addition or subtraction on the sphere and, subsequently, mean-centering. We found that Euclidean mean-centering sufficiently closed the modality gap for our purposes; however, if the reviewer has specific suggestions regarding this, we would be happy to update our centering method.
**Zero shot in the limit.** We do expect to recover CLIP’s baseline performance in the limit when our sparsity constraint allows for a 512-dimensional solution, aside from shrinkage incurred by the L1 penalty. In our experiments, we find that sklearn’s Lasso algorithm does not converge with minimal L1 regularization, so we solve with Ridge regression and truncate to the top 512 coefficients. Table 2 in the additional material shows that at 512 coefficients we are indeed able to recover CLIP’s baseline performance. Note that this still provides interpretable decompositions and so is directly preferable over CLIP.
**Limitations.** We will be sure to move our limitations section up to the main body of the paper for our final submission and will elaborate on the accuracy-interpretability tradeoff you have mentioned above.
We again thank you for your feedback and hope these comments will encourage you to reconsider your score.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thanks to the authors; remaining question about probing in C.1
Comment: Thanks to the authors for their thorough reply! I appreciate the authors’ extra results, technical discussions, and re-organization of the paper based on the comments.
I like this paper and appreciate its goals. To be clear, I think it’s reasonable to expect such a performance degradation for high sparsity levels. But the fact this happens should be made crystal clear, or else the paper runs the risk of being inadvertently misleading through the current claims in the abstract (and main paper). Some responses to the authors’ rebuttal:
**Zero-shot performance**
It is indeed helpful to interpret the results of Figure 3 again with the understanding that a sparsity level of below 32 is preferable according to human studies—similar to how it already appears in the discussion of related work, it would be insightful to include a brief discussion of this previous papers’ result to help interpret Figure 3 inline.
I would respectfully disagree with the authors about the significance of the accuracy drop however: ~30 is near the upper bound of desirable levels of sparsity according to [49]. But this already brings a 4% drop in accuracy on a dataset as simple as cifar100--this seems to me a rather notable degradation. I don’t think one can use the word “small” to describe this.
**Probing experiments**
I do not quite understand the experimental setup in Appendix C.1. Wouldn’t “retaining performance” of CLIP mean that we match the performance of a linear probe trained on the CLIP embeddings’ training set and also evaluated on the CLIP embeddings’ test set? These are the capabilities we wish to retain.
**Re-adding the residual error**
This is indeed a smart idea for recovering performance. As the authors state though, the residual vector will remain uninterpretable. Therefore, I’m not convinced that this is a viable argument for the method offering interpretability whilst retaining performance.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Discussion of remaining questions
Comment: Thank you for taking the time to discuss our work! We sincerely appreciate your feedback and the improvements you have made to this work.
**Accuracy Interpretability Tradeoff.** We completely agree with your sentiment that communicating the accuracy-interpretability tradeoff needs to be crystal clear. To address this, we attach below the exact instances of how we will change the wording of our paper to avoid misleading readers.
In addition, we will move the limitations section up to the main paper and include the following. “We note that SpLiCE, similar to many other interpretability methods, presents a tradeoff between interpretability and performance. Previous work has shown that sparsity is necessary for human interpretability, but sparsity also results in information loss. While this work aims to limit such loss and provide users with the ability to choose what is suitable for their application, addressing this tradeoff still remains an open issue, and we hope that future work can build upon ours to address this.” Please let us know if this is satisfactory.
**Zero-shot.** In our results section 5.2, we can elaborate on the results of [49], explaining that “Ramaswamy et al. [49] conducted extensive user studies and found that most participants prefer up to 32 concepts in terms of catering to human preferences, by which point we can see the reconstructed embeddings have recovered significant performance.” Furthermore, in our figures, we can include a vertical dashed line in the final version indicating this human preference.
We agree for a simple dataset like CIFAR100 a 4% drop in accuracy may not be considered small to some readers. However, given the massive gain in interpretability offered by SpLiCE embeddings, others may view this trade-off as worth the cost. Furthermore, we offer a Pareto frontier of interpretability and accuracy options as a function of our sparsity penalty in our SpLiCE decomposition (Fig. 3). If a reader finds 4% to be unacceptable, they can decompose a lower penalty, resulting in a more accurate reconstruction and improved downstream performance. We acknowledge that this may contradict our prior point that a prescribed sparsity of 32 is ideal for human interpretability, but our main idea here is that a user can choose what level of interpretability and performance is suitable for their needs. We also note we include experiments across 7 datasets including those in the additional material showing similar results on varied and more complex datasets.
**Probing.** Our apologies for the confusion, we will clarify the experiment here. In Table 3 (CIFAR100) and 4 (MIT States), we train two probes, either on the SpLiCE reconstructed embeddings (top row) or the original CLIP embeddings (bottom row). Then, we test these two probes on SpLiCE reconstructed embeddings of various sparsities (left 4 columns for CIFAR, left 3 columns for MIT States) and also the original CLIP embeddings (rightmost column). Our baseline is the CLIP probe trained and evaluated on CLIP embeddings (bottom row, rightmost column), and our results show that when probing, SpLiCE decompositions preserve the performance of the CLIP probe (bottom row) and training a probe on SpLiCE reconstructions results in a minor performance drop when compared to training a probe on CLIP itself. We hope this clears up any confusion!
**Re-adding the residual.** We agree that this setup is not ideal for maintaining full interpretability, and thus we do not include it in our method and experiment design. We simply wanted to bring it up as an alternative if performance is of utmost importance to a user. We are happy to leave this out of the paper if desired.
Thank you again for all your comments and suggestions! We hope you find our responses satisfactory and will consider increasing your score. If not, please let us know of any remaining concerns and we will be happy to continue discussing. | Summary: This paper introduces a method for building sparse embeddings from CLIP in order to improve the interpretability of CLIP’s latent space. They formulate their objective as a sparse reconstruction problem, and under certain assumptions, demonstrate when finding a sparse representation is possible. Empirically, the authors show over three datasets that zero-shot accuracy and reconstruction errors are correlated, and performance is similar with sparse embeddings vs. without. They further illustrate the benefits of sparse embeddings for interpretability noting applications to reducing spurious correlation reliance on a Celeb-A benchmark, and identifying biases through representations.
Strengths: - This paper presents an important study toward understanding the latent space of vision-language models like CLIP which has become a very popular paradigm and backbone for many downstream tasks. This can help to improve the next generation of such models in training and downstream use. The use of text to interpret to solely understand the vision space and perform interventions is also important and makes the method relatively lightweight. It also makes the method extendable to researchers and practitioners outside of the space as only concept vocabulary is needed.
- The paper is overall well-written stating clearly the assumptions of the work in Section 3, and the proposed method is also clear and intuitive to implement.
Weaknesses: - The primary weakness of this paper is that it is unclear to me what improvements come from generating sparse CLIP embeddings. Results indicate that there is no improvement in zero-shot accuracy due to some outstanding reconstruction error. In contrast, when removing spurious correlations it is typically seen as an improvement to model performance as the model would typically in this case then be evaluated in the OOD setting where the correlation is not present. From this perspective, I think the authors might benefit from changing to a setting more similar to this, where the results are more aligned with benefits from having an interpretable tunable mechanism, rather than the more ID zero-shot performance settings. This is started in the model editing, however it doesn’t lead to much improvement from correlation reliance, only mitigation of the capability to classify another attribute. In contrast performance goes down indicating some capability but perhaps not the right evaluation setting.
- Similarly, I am uncertain about the case study evaluations for discovering spurious correlations. Results for the man-woman evaluation appear to only indicate the trend is present in 70/600. This seems like a relatively low number as the majority then do not have this bias. It is unclear what the impact would be in terms of downstream performance for classification on CIFAR-100, or a gender classifier trained on CLIP embeddings. The study seems inconclusive due to the results not being well contextualized 70 out of 600, and the lack of a downstream performance evaluation and improvement.
- Finally, in multiple places, the authors mention improved human interpretability such as 244, 277, etc. however the authors never conduct any human evaluations. If the authors claim improved human interpretability, the authors should conduct such a human evaluation, otherwise it is only hypothesized improved human interpretability.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Have the authors demonstrated an evaluation setting where having the more interpretable concept features would improve performance? I believe some OOD setting such as spurious correlation could improve, but there may be many setting this is worse, as you are reliant on the concept features and may be worse for settings such as fine-grained classification where the concepts were not covered.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: - An additional limitation of the work not discussed by the authors is the reliance on writing a set list of word-level concepts. The approach is reliant on this set list having the desired concept when detecting spurious correlations, etc. As the authors have pointed out this also limits the type of concepts.
- The authors have also not discussed how practical the assumptions proposed in Section 3 are, and whether they are correct in practice. This is important for demonstrating applicability of the proposed work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your comments! We appreciate your feedback and address your concerns below.
**Benefits of sparse CLIP embeddings.** Thank you for highlighting this confusion, we hope to clarify this in our response. The primary benefit of SpLiCE is the insight it provides into interpreting the semantic content of the underlying images encoded by ordinary CLIP embeddings. We show in the paper (in Section 6) that this additional insight opens up at least two applications: detecting biases in datasets and intervention on the concepts encoded, both of which are not possible with ordinary CLIP representations. SpLiCE provides a computationally efficient method for understanding the semantics of individual images (See Fig. 2 and additional results Fig 3) and for understanding the semantics of unstructured datasets, allowing for the exploration and summarization of data even without labels. We answer the specific questions that the reviewer has about the two applications below.
**OOD evaluation setting.** Thank you for bringing up this important evaluation setting. We kindly note that we already consider the OOD setting in the Appendix C.5 with the Waterbirds dataset, which has a spurious correlation in its train set and a distribution shift in its test set. SpLiCE allows us to identify distribution shifts in two ways: first, we can evaluate the similarity in distributions between decompositions of test images and validation images (as we did in Table 6 of the Appendix for Waterbirds), or we can assess the weights learned by a linear probe to better understand how correlations in the train and test data might differ. For example, we see that we can detect the spurious correlation of landbirds and land backgrounds in our probe trained on SpLiCE weights, and when intervening on the highly-weighted land-related concepts [“bamboo”, “forest”, “hiking”, “rainforest”, and any bigrams containing “forest”] by setting them to zero in the weights of our probe, we are able to increase accuracy for the subgroup “waterbirds on land” in the test distribution (Appendix Table 5). In other words, SpLiCE’s interpretable sparse decomposition admits the identification of OOD spurious correlations (e.g., landbirds and land backgrounds), and also provides an interpretable strategy for intervention by allowing for fine-grained control via semantic concepts.
**Significance of Woman-Swimwear bias.** Thank you for the question. This study shows that within the “swimwear” attribute, women are significantly overrepresented when compared to men. Another way to view this is that 10% of the images of women in CIFAR100 depict them in swimwear (generally referring to bikinis) or underwear. We believe this is a serious problem of bias in the dataset, and constitutes a “representational harm,” in that these stereotypes present in the dataset will be propagated with the use of this dataset to downstream tasks. This can result in downstream risks of bias such as 1) a generative model learns that when prompted for photos of women, it should generate this woman in revealing clothing or underwear, or 2) an image retrieval or generation algorithm failing to be representative when queried for “A photo of a CEO” by returning primarily men due to women being less likely to be depicted in corporate attire. While the reviewer points out the lack of downstream performance evaluation and improvement, we highlight that the goal of our work and this case study is not to develop a bias intervention but rather to propose an interpretability method and demonstrate its usefulness, and that this bias is a property of the dataset itself, which can result in different impacts for different models and tasks.
**Human evaluations.** We agree that user studies are an essential part of evaluating human interpretability, and we have thus included results for a small-scale human evaluation based on the user study presented in [23] in our additional results (Figure 1). We evaluate our method along with two baselines [22, 23] to assess how relevant the concept decompositions are to the input images, how relevant the concept decompositions are to the model’s prediction, and how informative the decompositions are. We find that users significantly prefer our method to the baselines for both relevance to the input images as well as informativeness, further validating the interpretability of our method. We direct the reviewer to our general comment for more information about the study setup and results.
**Reliance on set list of concepts.** Thank you for this comment. We agree that spurious correlation and bias detection are dependent on the spurious features being present in the concept vocabulary, thus posing a limitation. We note that we attempt to make our vocabulary as general as possible by constructing it from LAION, the training dataset of Open-CLIP, however it is true that this set may still not include the desired concepts for some downstream applications. In addition, we note that we find this vocabulary to be empirically sufficient for a variety of tasks (For more tasks see additional results). However, we will be sure to acknowledge this limitation in the paper and make this point more clear in the final version. For a more detailed discussion on our constructed vocabulary, please see our general comment.
**Practicality of Assumptions.** This is an insightful question. Our empirical evaluations all strive to validate the assumptions proposed in section 3. In addition, we include in Appendix B.5 an additional sanity check of CLIP’s linearity (Assumption 3). We note that we intend to de-emphasize these assumptions in the final version of the paper in favor of our empirical validation from Appendix B.5, as suggested by reviewer djnP. For further discussion of these assumptions, please refer to our general comment.
We again thank you for your feedback and hope these comments will encourage you to reconsider your score.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Reviewer Response to Author Rebuttal
Comment: Thank you for the comments and addressing many of my concerns. My primary concerns with the paper were the claims that (1) the representations and concepts were human interpretable, and (2) there was no decrease in performance. I see that concern (1) has been addressed, however I believe (2) has not been addressed sufficiently in the rebuttal and is still a clear limitation of the proposed work.
Nonetheless, I am increasing my score following the addition of (1) in the rebuttal pdf as well as the desired inclusion of a more thorough study in the final version. Regarding (2), I am satisfied with the wording proposed by the authors in Review djnP. I believe authors should also address this wording in the Abstract of the paper as well: "In this work, we show that the semantic structure of CLIP's latent space can be leveraged to provide interpretability, at **no cost** to downstream performance, by decomposing representations into semantic concepts." to reflect that there is at least a "small" cost.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Gentle reminder to reply to rebuttal
Comment: Dear Reviewer nCHL,
As the author-reviewer discussion period is about to close, I would like to know your thoughts on the author rebuttal. Especially since the other reviewers all currently leans towards acceptance, it would be extremely informative for me to know if you still maintain your original score following the rebuttal. I would very much appreciate if you could reply to the authors before the close of the discussion (Nov 13 11:59 pm AoE).
Gratefully,
AC
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Title: Thank you!
Comment: We sincerely appreciate your decision to raise your score after reviewing our rebuttal. Your feedback during the review process has improved our paper, and we will be sure to incorporate these changes into our final version. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to discuss with us. | Summary: This paper presents a method to explore semantic concepts in multimodal models of text and images. Specifically, the paper formulate semantic concept discovery problem as one of sparse recovery and build a novel method, Sparse Linear Concept Embeddings (SpLiCE), for transforming CLIP representations into sparse linear combinations of human-interpretable concepts.
Strengths: 1. The paper is well written and reads well.
2. The technical method is generally make sense .
3. The contribution is enough for covering text-image multi-model method to an interpretable model, and the research topic is worth pursuing.
4. Sufficient experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed simple method.
5. The experiment designed in the paper is make sense.
Weaknesses: see questions
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1 The connection and difference between your method with a multi model topic model? In my opinion, topic model is good at extracting interpretable concepts.
2 Although a lot of experiments were conducted in the paper, I think how to judge the concept discovery results is still not convincing enough. Whether to add manual evaluation experiments will be more convincing.
3. Why does negative concept weight perform better in Table 5? What does this mean?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: see weakness and question
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your comments! We appreciate your feedback and address your concerns below.
**Connection to Multi Modal Topic Models.** This is an interesting connection! MMTMs such as [A] are trained on a corpus of data and use tf-idf statistics to generate multimodal clusters of topics, such as clustering images with text topics. However, these models are designed to explain datasets and not individual samples like SpLiCE. Additionally, this means every image in a cluster gets the exact same image tag and score, which prevents any comparison or differentiation between samples in a dataset despite these images being unique. Furthermore, we could use SpLiCE as a MMTM by generating concept decompositions for each image and applying simple k-means clustering on our interpretable decompositions. Finally, we note that the goals of this work are not to explain a dataset but rather to study CLIP and leverage it to explain individual image embeddings. In doing so we unlock new use cases, one of which is the capability to explain a dataset. We thank you for pointing out this connection, and we will be sure to discuss this work in the final version of our paper.
**Manual evaluation experiments.** We agree that human evaluation studies are important for assessing the human interpretability of concept based explanations. We have included results from a small-scale human evaluation based on the user study presented in [22] in our additional results (Figure 1). We evaluate our method along with two baselines [22, 23] to assess how relevant the concept decompositions are to the input images, how relevant the concept decompositions are to the model’s prediction, and how informative the decompositions are. We find that users significantly prefer our method to the baselines for both relevance to the input images as well as informativeness, further validating the interpretability of our method. Please see our general comment for more information, where we elaborate on the setup and results of this evaluation.
**Negative concept weight performance.** Thank you for the observation. As part of our desiderata for interpretability, we impose a nonnegativity constraint on the concept weights, as user studies (including our own) highlight that humans find negative concepts and weights to be confusing and unintuitive. In our optimization problem (2), we try to find a set of weights that minimize our reconstruction error. Constraining this set of weights to be nonnegative will reduce the search space and thus result in a worse reconstruction. So, we see in Table 5 that removing the nonnegativity constraint results in a more accurate reconstruction, but we lose the interpretability of our decompositions.
We again thank you for your constructive feedback!
[A] Grootendorst, M. (2022). BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure. | Summary: This paper introduces a method to transform CLIP representations into sparse linear concept embeddings that are interpretable to humans. SpLiCE uses task-agnostic concept sets, demonstrating its versatility over prior works. SpLiCE provides interpretability without compromising zero-shot classification performance and shows further applications, including spurious correlation detection and model editing.
Strengths: SpLiCE suggests a novel method to interpret CLIP embeddings into semantic concepts, which could be a good way to understand the latent space of CLIP. As it is a task-agnostic approach, which does not constrain itself to a certain domain, it can be applied to various datasets to explore the CLIP embeddings. This task-agnostic concept shows its scalability across different datasets, including CIFAR100, MIT States, CelebA, MSCOCO, and ImageNetVal. Also, the authors demonstrate the efficacy of their method both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Weaknesses: [W1] I believe the choice of datasets is insufficient to show the efficacy of "task-agnostic" concpet sets. For example, how does SpLiCE work on bird identification dataset or CelebA? What are the top activated concepts in these datasets?
[W2] Adding class labels to concept dictionary seems inappropriate from the perspecive of "concept decomposition," as in the case of ImageNet. If the top concept is class label itself, what is the need for concept decomposition?
[W3] A user study on the interpretability of SpLiCE would be needed to quantify how interpretable this method is, as in [23].
[Miscellaneous] I think line 96's citation [22] should be changed to [23].
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: [Q1] Does the concept decomposition differ between correct and wrong samples (from the perspective of zero-shot classification) ?
[Q2] As the effectiveness of SpLiCE heavily relies on the quality and comprehensiveness of the concept dictionary derived from the LAION dataset, is there a possibility that limitations or biases in this dictionary could directly impact the performance and interpretability of the method?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Please refer to the weaknesses and questions part.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your comments! We appreciate your helpful feedback and address your concerns below. We will also correct the typo you mentioned.
**Efficacy of task-agnostic concept sets.** As requested by the reviewer, we include in the additional results concept decompositions of randomly chosen samples from Waterbirds and CelebA (Fig. 3b). We find that the decompositions include fine-grained and detailed concepts, such as the celebrity “Rihanna”, the brand “adidas” (in reference to a branded Adidas sweatband), and the species “pelican”. This shows qualitatively that our concept set is indeed task agnostic or at least broadly applicable to a variety of tasks. While we only include four in the additional rebuttal documents due to space constraints, we will include a more thorough set of examples in the final version. We also include quantitative results for a broader set of tasks from the original CLIP paper [1] in our Additional Materials (Table 1), as suggested by reviewer djnP. These results further indicate the wide applicability of our selected concept set. If the reviewer believes that the term “task-agnostic” is still inappropriate for this method, we are happy to change our language accordingly.
**Adding class labels to the concept set.** Thank you for this comment. For ImageNet, we find that the class names are often fine-grained animal species that are more than two words long (such as “European fire salamander”, “sulphur-crested cockatoo”, “red-backed sandpiper”, etc), making it difficult for one- and two-word concepts to capture. As such, these concepts can be added to the LAION dictionary to allow for full reconstruction, while maintaining the interpretability of all other concepts in the image. We include this augmented vocabulary in our experiments to demonstrate the efficacy of our sparse decomposition method, even if it highlights a limitation of the LAION vocabulary.
We also note that many images, including those in ImageNet, can be complex and contain semantic information outside of the class object. Even if the top concept is the class label, the rest of the decomposition may contain information relevant for prediction, especially if there are spurious correlations. Decompositions should include all of this information to allow for full understanding of the semantic content of the image, and more importantly to allow for use cases outside of prediction, such as editing. If you take the example of the Waterbirds dataset, we expect our decompositions to include both the class label and the land/water background concepts. Being able to edit the background concepts while maintaining the class label is useful for improved classification. Furthermore, this semantic information can be useful for other applications, such as dataset summarization, image tagging for retrieval, and exploration of unlabelled data. In summary, concept decompositions that include a combination of class concepts and other semantic information provide utility in a variety of settings beyond prediction; however, we will further clarify this in our final paper.
**User study.** We agree that user studies are important for assessing the human interpretability of concept based explanations. We have included results from a small-scale user study similar to that suggested by the reviewer in [23] (Task 2) in Figure 1 of the additional materials, where we present users with an image and two concept decompositions/explanations and ask the following questions:
* Which explanation is more relevant to the provided image?
* Which explanation is more relevant to the model’s prediction?
* Which explanation is more informative?
We benchmark against two other CLIP-interpretability methods: LF-CBMs [23] and IP-OMP [22]. We find that users significantly preferred SpLiCE to LF-CBMs for both (1) and (3), and significantly preferred SpLiCE to IP-OMP for (1, 2, 3). We also highlight that our method is able to produce similar/better concept decompositions, in terms of human interpretability, than the baselines without the need for class labels for concept mining and without training a classification probe, both of which are computationally expensive. For more discussion, please see the general rebuttal.
**Decomposition for correct/incorrect samples.** Thank you for the interesting question. In the additional material, Figure 3a, we include example SpLiCE decompositions for correctly and incorrectly classified samples using zero-shot with SpLiCE. We see that incorrect sample decompositions often contain correlated but slightly incorrect concepts that apply to other classes (“white dog” for an image of a white wolf) or concepts present in the image but not relevant to prediction (“baby toys” and “toddlers” for “abacus”). The former presents an instance where a practitioner might consider intervening on their predictor to improve performance, while the latter is simply an example of a difficult sample due to the noisiness of the image. In both cases, the explanation is useful for understanding the model’s reasoning and mistakes and can be used to intervene and improve performance.
**Limitations of LAION-based concept set.** This is an important limitation of our work. It is correct that limitations and biases in the dictionary will be reflected in downstream performance. We aimed to construct our dictionary to be as comprehensive as possible by using the training set of the model itself (as LAION was used to train Open-CLIP, the model used in this paper), so we are likely to include all concepts learned by the model. We also filtered out any unsafe or NSFW samples from LAION before constructing the dataset to limit harmful content. However, we acknowledge that this is a limitation and will be sure to make this point more clear in the final version. For more discussion please see the general comment.
We again thank you for your feedback and hope these comments will encourage you to reconsider your score.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Great thanks to the authors!
Comment: I appreciate the efforts the authors have made to address my concerns! Most of my concerns are well addressed, so I'll raise my support. I hope a more thorough user study will be conducted afterward. Thanks!
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thank you!
Comment: We sincerely appreciate your decision to raise your score after reviewing our rebuttal. Your feedback and engagement throughout the review and discussion process has improved our paper, and we will be sure to incorporate these changes into our final version. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to discuss with us. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We sincerely thank the reviewers for their thorough assessment of our paper and the AC for facilitating the discussion of our work. We appreciate the reviewers’ recognition that our paper is an “important study toward understanding the latent space of vision-language models like CLIP” and that it will “help to improve the next generation of such models in training and downstream use” [nCHL]. Furthermore, the reviewers note the paper “strives to address a vitally important task” [djnP], that “the research topic is worth pursuing” [jbkR], and that it “opens up the door to more intriguing work” [Vxod]. Finally, we are pleased to note that reviewers appreciated the novelty of the work [acbD, Vxod], the quality of the writing [all reviewers], and the clarity of the work [all reviewers]. In the following section we summarize the main points made by reviewers and respond to their comments. We also present additional experimental results, including results from a user study and evaluation on four additional benchmark datasets in the additional results section and in the body of our responses below.
**Human Evaluation.** Reviewers nCHL, acbD, and jbkR all asked for a human evaluation to validate our claims of improved interpretability. We present results from a small-scale user study in Fig. 1 of the additional results. We base our study off of that provided by reviewer acbD [23], benchmarking our method against two similar CLIP interpretability methods: LF-CBMs [23] and IP-OMP [22]. We provided users with twenty randomly chosen, correctly predicted images from ImageNet and two explanations comprising six concepts each for every image. We then asked users to evaluate the concept-based explanations for their relevance to the provided image inputs, their relevance to model predictions, and their informativeness. We find that users significantly preferred SpLiCE to the two baselines for relevance to the images and informativeness, with significance determined via a one-sample two-sided t-test and a threshold of p=0.01 (Additional material Figure 1). We also highlight that our method is able to produce similar/better concept decompositions, in terms of human interpretability, than the baselines without needing to train a classification probe or use class labels for concept mining, both of which are computationally expensive.
**Limitations of Concept Set.** Reviewers djnP, nCHL, abcD, and Vxod all mention the limitations of our LAION-based vocabulary, mainly related to its “task-agnosticity,” given that we construct this vocabulary using a specific dataset. While there certainly exist tasks that this vocabulary may fail at, it is intended to be a general purpose vocabulary that reflects the concepts learned by CLIP. We pick the LAION dataset because it is the training set of Open-CLIP (the model we use in this work) itself, but we acknowledge that it may still be a suboptimal dataset. Despite this, we find that this dataset performs well on a variety of tasks (CIFAR100, MIT States, WaterBirds, SUN397, Caltech 101, STL10, PASCAL VOC 2007). We agree with the reviewers that "task-agnostic" may be too strong, but it is accurate to state that our method is out-of-the-box applicable to a wide variety of tasks (owing to the generality and scale of LAION), and easily modified for others (i.e., simply listing additional concepts as opposed to labeling images and training a new model). Finally, we benchmark our vocabulary against the previous SOTA concept set, generated by GPT, in Figure 5, and explore other concept sets in Appendix C.10. We also note that our method can accommodate any user-defined vocabulary if the authors’ proposed one is insufficient for the application. We will be sure to acknowledge these limitations in the final version of our paper and highlight that selecting a proper dictionary is an open question.
**Necessity of Theoretical Analysis.** Reviewers djnP, nCHL, and Vxod were concerned about the practicality of the assumptions in our theoretical analysis in Section 3 and their necessity to the core results and message of our paper. The intent of Section 3 is to reason from first principles regarding which mathematical properties enable vision-language models to have a sparse decomposition. To this end, we identified five assumptions sufficient to derive Proposition 1, i.e., the sparse decomposition property, similar to past work theoretically characterizing the linear representation hypothesis [11] and word2vec behavior [10]. We did not mean to claim that CLIP always satisfies all these assumptions, but rather that given our empirical results indicating our ability to apply a sparse decomposition to CLIP, we can reasonably conclude that CLIP may approximately satisfy assumptions 1-5.
We empirically explore the extent to which these assumptions hold in Appendix B.5. Reviewer djnP noted that these “critical” experiments would be much more useful in the main body of the paper as evidence of the practicality of our claims, further improving the paper’s clarity. Based on this feedback, we will move our empirical investigation to Section 3 and transfer the bulk of our theoretical analysis to the appendix, instead writing a shorter paragraph summarizing the basic assumptions and behaviors of CLIP required to admit a sparse decomposition.
Pdf: /pdf/ea114c62ccfe1fc4134d714a805bcb13b99071c3.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | Summary: This paper proposes to decompose the representations of the CLIP model using dictionary learning; where the components of the dictionary are composed of human understandable concept directions. The procedure here is as follows: a concept list is constructed from a filtered set of unigrams and bigrams from the LAION-400m captions, the concept dictionary is set to be centered CLIP representations for each pre-specified concept in the list, and an optimization problem that minimizes the reconstruction loss (subject to an L-1 penalty) is specified. Solving that optimization problem results in a weight vector that indicates how the CLIP embedding can be decomposed along the pre-specified concept direction. Given this formulation, the paper solves the problem for the CLIP model and shows that it does not lead to a performance loss given thousands of concepts. In addition, the paper presents several case studies showing how the approach can be used to edit downsteam classifiers built on top of clip representations, and discover spurious correlations.
Strengths: **Originality**\
This paper is the first that I know to decompose the representations of CLIP with known concepts using dictionary learning. The work is well motivated.
**Quality and Clarity**\
The paper is well-written, and clear. The related work is also discussed, and each component of the workflow presented here is well-explained and clear.
**Significance**\
This work, in my opinion, indicates that CLIP type models can be easily debugged using post hoc supervised concept learning. Overall, I think this opens up the door to more intriguing work along similar lines for larger and more complicated models.
Weaknesses: Overall, I discuss some of the challenges that I see with this work. I have not much substantive qualms with this work; I just think the presentation could be tightened. However this is up to the authors to either accept or reject.
**Assumptions for the proposition not justified**: While the assumptions made to prove proposition 1 seem natural at first glance, it is not clear to me that we can claim that they should be true. One, there is a claim that CLIP captures 'semantic' concepts and not 'non-semantic' concepts (assumption 2). In Section 5.2, the authors even confirm experimentally that the assumption is not true. Of course, the model does capture some semantic concepts, but we cannot claim that CLIP cleanly partitions these concepts as described. This is because we know of failure cases where CLIP errs precisely because it does not just capture only semantic concepts. See this paper for example (https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.12105). The failures of the CLIP model that have been observed make it clear that this assumption is not true. Assumption 3 is somewhat problematic again because we have observed that CLIP representations indeed can be linear for *some* concepts, but it is not linear for all semantic concepts. In fact, how are we to know which concepts that CLIP considers to be semantic, and which it doesn't? Assumption 4 makes sense to me because CLIP is trained to 'align' both encoders. Assumption 5 also difficult to justify in my opinion, but I am willing to live with it. To summarize my challenge with this portion of the work, the proposition is correct, but we can't claim that CLIP behaves as described. I am bothered by these assumptions because the implication is essentially that CLIPs learns the data generating process defined here, which is not the case. This is actually a good thing because, as shown quite nicely in this work, the point of the concept dictionary 'layer' is to 'fix' the challenges with the original CLIP model. Overall, I don't think this section of the paper can be fully justified.
**task-agnostic and without concept datasets, training, or qualitative analysis of visualizations.**: The bolded phrase is one of the motivations for the approach described here. This is not quite true. First, you need to collect the concept dataset, the processing done with the LAION dataset is *exactly* the process of collecting a concept dataset. You do need to 'train', in the sense that you can see the process of optimizing to obtain $w$ as training. Lastly, the layer results in concept scores that can be visualized as depicted in Figure 4, so the approach here also allows us to inspect . Overall, I think this claim is hyperbolic and should be relaxed.
**Related Work and Discussion**: This work claims that it is not quite a concept bottleneck, but I disagree. It is exactly translating a concept bottleneck to CLIP. First, the methods does require annotations. To get the dictionary $C$, you need to collect a set of 10000 concepts, which are associated with particular images. The annotation process is exactly the process of manually constructing $C$. The concept list is supervised, meaning it is the authors that determine which concepts to include; of course, the process described here is not manual, but the authors should recognize that it is *still* a supervised process. The intervention procedure described in Section 6 is exactly how that is done in the CBM literature. In fact, the NMF formulation here is not new (see: CRAFT: Concept Recursive Activation FacTorization for Explainability for eg.). Overall, the approach described here is exactly what a CBM is, it is just not applied for classification. Having said all of this, I think it is fine to acknowledge the similarity.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: **Unsupervised or residual concepts**: I am surprised that there wasn't any significant loss in performance between the Splice representations and the original CLIP representations. Is it that 15000 concepts is enough to capture the variation? It seemed like one would want to account for the 'residual' directions in the original embedding that the reconstruction doesn't account for. Is this needed? Or do the authors think we can always get away with this kind of supervision?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Appendix A discusses some of the limitations of this work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your suggestions! We appreciate your feedback on how to improve this work and address your concerns below.
**Assumptions not justified.** Thank you for this comment. Regarding Assumption 2, it is true that our experiments demonstrate the presence of non-semantic concepts in our decomposition. We clarify this point further in our general rebuttal, but our intent with Section 3 and our listed assumptions was not to claim that CLIP always satisfies these assumptions, but instead to reason from first principles regarding which mathematical properties enable vision-language models to have sparse decompositions. We plan to clarify this, move our discussion of these assumptions to the Appendix, and highlight our empirical investigations of CLIP’s semantic linearity (Assumption 3, experiments in Appendix B.5.) to the main paper, as suggested by reviewer djnP. We direct the reviewer to our general comment for further discussion of this point.
**“Task-agnostic and concept datasets, training, or qualitative analysis”.** Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will be sure to update and relax our language as suggested, but we would also like to clarify our intent with this phrase here. We say that our method does not require concept datasets, in that traditional Concept Bottleneck Models (along with other methods such as tCAV) require training data that has both concept and class labels to train concept probes, whereas our method does not require a task and concept labeled image dataset. Instead, we construct our dictionary by parsing the text captions of LAION. As such, our method can be applied out of the box for a variety of tasks, without having to collect image datasets for each concept or task.
Second, while we do need to optimize for our concept weights, we do not need to train any concept probes or classifiers and accordingly do not need any training data, as SpLiCE decompositions perform sufficiently in zero-shot applications. This is where our work differs from many other similar works, such as [22, 23], which require training a sparse linear layer to obtain both explanations and predictions. This also permits SpLiCE to be used post-hoc and in low-data regimes.
Third, our point here was to say that we do not require qualitative analysis to label dictionary elements and thus generate explanations. More specifically, in prior work such as Sparse Autoencoders or neuron analysis in mechanistic interpretability research, dictionary elements are learned, uninterpretable vectors. As such, they require additional analysis to understand the semantics contained by each dictionary element, such as the auto-interpretation done in SAE literature, which involves decomposing large quantities of data, measuring correlations in the decompositions, and then qualitatively describing what each atom encodes. One of the benefits of SpLiCE is that we fix our concepts a priori rather than having to learn and then manually label them post-hoc which can result in errors. However, you are correct that we can use our resulting concept scores in downstream qualitative analysis by inspecting them and visualizing them.
For a detailed discussion of task-agnosticity, please see our general comment.
**Related work.** The connection you draw between our work and CBMs is very insightful. Our intent in claiming that we are not simply creating a concept-bottleneck model is to distinguish ourselves from works that require training classifier probes and that only consider the predictive case, as noted by the reviewer. We believe that this is a significant contribution of our work, as CLIP is frequently used in many non-predictive settings (retrieval, generation, etc), and because these decompositions allow for dataset summarization for data that is not labeled or does not have an associated task (e.g. unstructured web-scraped data). We agree that our work creates a concept bottleneck to represent CLIP embeddings, and we will discuss this further in the final version. Similarly, we agree that the vocabulary construction process is overseen by the authors, but it is not “supervised” in the traditional ML sense of the word, in that there are no labels or tasks it is optimized for. We also attempted to impose as minimal oversight and constraints on the dictionary as possible, simply ensuring that it was human-interpretable by using only 1- and 2- word concepts and safe by filtering NSFW content. Finally, we thank the reviewer for the provided citation and kindly note that we compare our work to the follow-up work by Fel et al, [31], in our submitted paper, noting that methods such as CRAFT and traditional NMF require feature visualization to understand each concept. We will be sure to clarify this comparison further.
**Residual Concepts.** This is an interesting question and future direction! Given that our dictionary has 15000 elements in 512 dimensions, our problem is very overcomplete, so it is reasonable to assume we can reconstruct CLIP embeddings with little loss even under a sparsity constraint. One way we could account for this residual error is to add it back into our decompositions and return the original CLIP representations. However, doing so results in a component of the representations being unexplained. For example, 98% of an embedding may be explained by our sparse decomposition, but there is a risk that the 2% residual which remains unexplained contains important information for downstream tasks. Depending on the application, one may wish to incur this loss to ensure that all information remains interpretable, or they may add the residual back in for applications that require perfect performance. We find this discussion to be similar in nature to the comparisons between post-hoc explanations and inherently interpretable models, and we believe the choice should be left to the user. We will include this discussion in our final version. Thank you!
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Understood
Comment: **Theoretical Analysis**: "we can reasonably conclude that CLIP may approximately satisfy assumptions 1-5." I think even this point about sparse decompositions is probably not true, but I have no way to refute it. I think what you have showed here is that given a pre-specified basis, then you can find a decomposition of CLIP's representation in that basis. Is one with 10k directions sparse? I don't know. Overall, I think the appeal to the linear representation hypothesis stuff is not quite clear to me. I still think even the experiments in this paper show that you can't make the claim that you seem to be making here. However, I am willing to let this go since paper reviews are public, and the community can evaluate the claim itself.
**CRAFT et al/NMF**: I don't agree with the point that you require feature visualization for CRAFT or NMF in general. I am not sure about CRAFT, but for traditional NMF there is no explicit need for feature visualization unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by feature visualization. One could argue that Fig. 4 is exactly the type of visualization most NMF methods use, which you also use here.
Overall, I'll be keeping my score as is.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Discussion Follow-Up
Comment: Thank you for your feedback and taking the time during the discussion period to help improve our work! We hope to answer your remaining questions below.
**Theoretical Analysis.** Thank you for raising these questions regarding our theoretical analysis. As noted in the general rebuttal, we will attempt to address your concerns by moving much of the theoretical analysis section to the appendix and clearly describing its limitations and applicability in practice. We can also change our language regarding these assumptions in the Appendix and reframe them as hypotheses we have for why SpLiCE works. We appreciate your perspective on this section of the paper, and we believe your public discussion on OpenReview will be informative for future readers in the community.
**CRAFT et al./NMF.** We apologize for any confusion in our response, and if we are not understanding your question correctly. Our use of the term visualization may have been unclear. We are referring to the process of interpreting concept atoms by visualizing and manually analyzing examples that activate the atom, whether generated or from a dataset. We were not referring to visualizations created with an explanation method and summarizations of explanations, such as Fig. 4 of our paper.
We will focus specifically on NMF in the CRAFT paper to further elaborate on this. In CRAFT [A], the authors take image sets of examples and use NMF to learn a “concept bank” and set of coefficients. The resultant concept bank is a learned set of basis vectors, and therefore each element does not have any semantic or conceptual significance on its own. To label each atom in this concept bank (C1, C2, …), the paper states that they must “be interpreted by looking at crops that maximize the NMF coefficient” and consider “new sets of images containing [the concept]” (see captions of Fig. 2, 4 of [A]). By feature visualization, we refer to this process of labeling atoms by visualizing either test set exemplars and crops (as done in CRAFT and Sparse Autoencoder analysis) or synthetic, generated images (as is common in mechanistic interpretability neuron analysis) that highly activate each atom and describing these sets of images qualitatively [B, C (section “Manual Human Analysis”)]. **This is a key difference between SpLiCE and CRAFT/NMF:** for CRAFT/NMF, describing or interpreting dictionary atoms requires a qualitative summary of the images that activate said atom. In contrast, SpLiCE’s dictionary atoms are automatically interpretable because they inherently correspond to text phrases, thus not requiring this qualitative analysis. For more discussion of how our method relates to NMF and other dictionary learning methods, we kindly point the reviewer to our discussion with reviewer djnP.
We hope this cleared up any confusion our terminology may have caused.
Thank you again for your engagement and support of the paper, and please let us know if you have any remaining questions!
[A] Fel, T., Picard, A., Bethune, L., Boissin, T., Vigouroux, D., Colin, J., ... & Serre, T. (2023). Craft: Concept recursive activation factorization for explainability. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
[B] Olah, C., Mordvintsev, A., & Schubert, L. (2017). Feature visualization. Distill
[C] Bricken, T., Templeton, A., Batson, J., Chen, B., Jermyn, A., Conerly, T., ... & Olah, C. (2023). Towards monosemanticity: Decomposing language models with dictionary learning. Transformer Circuits Thread | null | null | null | null | null | null |
SMART: Towards Pre-trained Missing-Aware Model for Patient Health Status Prediction | Accept (poster) | Summary: The paper presents SMART, a self-supervised representation learning approach that tries to tackle the problem of missingness in EHR data. It proposes a novel self-supervised pre-training approach which is able to reconstruct missing data representations in the input space and makes use of both temporal and variable attention mechanisms to achieve that. The pre-trained encoder can be further fine-tuned with a label-specific decoder for different downstream classification tasks. Through multiple datasets, comparisons with baselines, and comprehensive ablation studies, the authors show the effectiveness of their method at generalization and robustness to missing data.
Strengths: 1. Missingness is an important issue in medical domain, especially in EHR data, so having a ML model that is missing-aware and can still create meaningful representations is impactful
2. Even though the two-stage training process may not be new, the creation of the MART blocks and the pre-training paradigm seems novel
3. The proposed method is able to comprehensively beat the previous baselines across all datasets that were tested, both in performance and in training times
4. Multiple ablations showcase the effectiveness of different components of the model architecture
5. The paper is well-written and code is provided
Weaknesses: 1. During the pre-training stage, since it is based on reconstruction, access to the full dataset with all observations is required. The method would not work if the training data had missing values as well.
2. During fine-tuning, only the label decoder is updated during the first few epochs of training but it is unclear as to why this is needed. It is mentioned that the pre-trained parameters are reserved, but a more quantitative explanation or an ablation would help.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: 1. Are there any evaluations done just for the pre-training task? How good is the model at reconstruction and imputing missing values?
2. Were there any constraints placed on the imputed values during training? It might happen that the model imputes missing variables with unrealistic values.
3. Can this model be extended to incorporate multiple modalities like images or text (clinical notes), perhaps by learning separate missing-aware encoders for each of them? Something like this is done in [1].
4. How does this model compare against a fully-supervised method where all of the data is available?
[1] Wu, Zhenbang, et al. "Multimodal patient representation learning with missing modalities and labels." The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. 2024.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: N/A
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for recognizing the strengths of SMART, especially its novelty and effectiveness. We address your concerns and answer your questions below.
---
**W1: During the pre-training stage, since it is based on reconstruction, access to the full dataset with all observations is required. The method would not work if the training data had missing values as well.**
Thank you for your concern about data integrity. It appears there may be a misunderstanding regarding the task at hand. We have mentioned in lines 122-128 that the EHR data we use contains a lot of missingness. The goal of this work is to endow the model with the ability to perceive missing data. In the pre-training stage, we sample missingness based on probability on the basis of existing missing data as our learning target, rather than on fully observed data. The missing-aware method we proposed effectively enhances the model's ability to learn missing data and improves the predictive performance in clinical tasks.
**W2: During fine-tuning, only the label decoder is updated during the first few epochs of training but it is unclear as to why this is needed. It is mentioned that the pre-trained parameters are reserved, but a more quantitative explanation or an ablation would help.**
Thank you for your interest in the fine-tuning experiment settings. We hope that the model can retain the pre-trained parameters in the first several epochs instead of updating all parameters, so that the initial optimization goal of the model is to improve the classifier's adaptation to the embedding. Assigning different learning rates or schedulers to various parameters is a common strategy in the fine-tuning process. To further resolve your doubts, we provide the experimental results of not freezing parameters in fine-tuning as follows.
|Model|Cardiology AUPRC(\%)|F1(\%)|Sepsis AUPRC(\%)|F1(\%)|In-hospital Mortality AUPRC(\%)|F1(\%)|
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
|w/o freeze|51.46$\pm$2.38|46.89$\pm$3.19|79.81$\pm$3.15|74.29$\pm$3.11|50.81$\pm$1.47|42.85$\pm$2.63|
|SMART|53.84$\pm$2.24|47.53$\pm$2.33|81.67$\pm$0.84|75.37$\pm$2.62| 53.30$\pm$0.12|44.23$\pm$2.03|
The ablation results show that if the parameters are not frozen, the model performance will degrade, which may be caused by the large initial learning rate, resulting in the pre-trained parameters not being fully retained.
**Q1: Are there any evaluations done just for the pre-training task? How good is the model at reconstruction and imputing missing values?**
Thank you for your interest in pre-training evaluation. Our model is not specifically designed to solve the imputation problem, but to improve performance on clinical prediction tasks. Thus, it can only complete the reconstruction in the latent space.
For better understanding, we give a detailed explanation and we will add the explanation in our future submission. The observed value in the input space can be viewed as a composed signal. The learned encoder can be viewed as a signal filter that decomposes the observed composed signal over a learned "dictionary". The "dictionary" is the affine transformation(s) shared by all the time series that transforms the input-composed signal to learned decomposed embeddings. The learned embeddings can be regarded as the decomposition of the "dictionary". Our reconstruction in the latent space is essentially a reconstruction of the decomposed filtered signals of different entries. On the one hand, this reduces the noise in the original input-composed signal. On the other hand, this pursues the consensus of different time series that converge to the underlying expectation. Thus, reconstruction in the latent space achieves better performance than reconstruction in the input space. When it comes to evaluation, although the loss can be calculated, this loss may be meaningless and cannot be compared with existing imputation methods.
**Q2: Were there any constraints placed on the imputed values during training? It might happen that the model imputes missing variables with unrealistic values.**
Thank you for your concern about the imputed values. Because our learning rate is relatively small and the pre-training process is data-driven, there will be no imputation outside the data distribution. Thus, no explicit constraints are required. Although the model may provide incorrect imputed representations, they still reflect some objective reality learned by the model. On the other hand, since our model reconstructs in the missing in the latent space, we cannot really confirm whether it will provide unrealistic imputed values.
**Q3: Can this model be extended to incorporate multiple modalities like images or text (clinical notes)?**
Thank you for your curiosity about the potential of the model to handle multimodal data. The work you provided is a very good reference for handling multimodal data, and we will cite it in future versions. The method we proposed has the potential to be extended to more modalities. It can support other modalities by masking part of the image or text and restoring them in pre-training, so that the model can better learn high-order representations and complete prediction tasks. However, since multimodal data is more complex, multi-task learning brought by pre-training may be one of the challenges, which can be used as a future exploration direction.
**Q4: How does this model compare against a fully-supervised method where all of the data is available?**
Thank you for your curiosity about the results of full data training. The fine-tuning phase of our method and all baseline methods are fully supervised and trained on the full data, although they contain a large amount of missing data. The results show that SMART is significantly ahead of these methods, verifying the effectiveness of our work on the full data.
We hope these explanations adequately address your concerns.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response to Rebuttal
Comment: I thank the authors for providing responses to the questions and for the additional experiments. The rebuttal has clarified most of my concerns; a few points to note:
- Regarding the W1 clarification, I think the Figure 1 caption should be updated which could be misunderstood. Currently, it states that **'We randomly mask EHR data...'** but it should say something along the lines of **'The EHR data already contains missing values and we randomly mask existing observations...'**.
- In the introduction, it is stated in lines 41 and 42 that **"By masking certain observations to serve as targets for imputation, a portion of the data is withheld from the model and cannot be fully utilized for predicting patient"**. However, if I am understanding correctly, the pre-training stage does this as well, as stated on line 195: **"generate a mask $\hat{m}$ to remove the existing observations partially"** which will have the same weaknesses. If this is true, the introduction should be reworded.
- Algorithm 1 should be updated to clearly define the inputs and the outputs.
- Please update the manuscript to specify why it is difficult to evaluate the reconstruction (since it is happening in the latent space).
Overall, I am satisfied with the rebuttal and will raise my score accordingly.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Thank you!
Comment: We are delighted that our responses have addressed most of your concerns, and we greatly appreciate your thoughtful suggestions. We will incorporate these additional revisions to further enhance the clarity and quality of our manuscript. Below, we address each of your remaining points.
---
**The Figure 1 caption should be updated.**
Thank you very much for your suggestion! We will take steps to describe our problem and data more clearly, including revising the caption to more accurately describe our data and methodology.
**The should be reworded since the pre-training stage masks certain observations to serve as targets for imputation as well.**
Thank you for your concern. You are correct in noting that the pre-training stage involves masking observations for imputation. However, we would like to clarify that during the fine-tuning stage, SMART leverages the complete dataset for clinical task training, thereby mitigating the limitations associated with training on incomplete data. This two-stage approach, also used by Primenet [1] (as referenced in lines 110-112), helps to address the concerns related to training on incomplete data.
[1] Primenet: Pre-training for irregular multivariate time series. AAAI 2023.
**Algorithm 1 should be updated to clearly define the inputs and the outputs.**
Thank you for this suggestion. We will revise Algorithm 1 to clearly define the inputs and outputs, thereby improving the clarity of the problem description.
**Please update the manuscript to specify why it is difficult to evaluate the reconstruction (since it is happening in the latent space).**
We appreciate your suggestion and will update the manuscript to include an explanation. Evaluating the reconstruction in latent space is challenging due to the model-dependent nature of the reconstruction and the absence of ground truth, making direct evaluation difficult.
Thank you once again for your insightful feedback and for your willingness to raise the score. We are committed to making these revisions to ensure our work is presented as clearly as possible. | Summary: This paper presents SMART, a novel model designed to tackle the challenges of missing and irregular data in electronic health records (EHRs). Utilizing a two-stage training strategy, SMART first pre-trains to handle missing data in the latent space and then fine-tunes for specific clinical tasks. The model's innovative masked attention recurrent transformer (MART) block captures temporal and variable interactions, significantly improving prediction accuracy across various clinical tasks. Evaluated on three EHR datasets, SMART outperformed existing models, demonstrating robust performance and versatility. Despite its strengths, including handling missing data and achieving superior prediction accuracy, the model's complexity and limited dataset variety highlight areas for further exploration and improvement.
Strengths: One of the notable strengths of this paper is its originality in addressing the pervasive issue of missing and irregular data in electronic health records (EHRs). By introducing the SMART model with its innovative masked attention recurrent transformer (MART) block, the authors present a novel approach that captures temporal and variable interactions more effectively than traditional methods. The paper excels in explaining the complex mechanisms of the SMART model and its components, making it accessible even to those not deeply familiar with the intricacies of machine learning models.
Weaknesses: (1) the lack of comparative analysis with state-of-the-art models beyond the specific baseline models mentioned. While SMART outperformed these baselines, a broader comparison with the latest advancements in EHR prediction models would provide a clearer benchmark of its superiority. This omission could leave readers questioning how SMART fares against the most cutting-edge approaches in the field.
(2) the paper could benefit from a more in-depth discussion on the computational efficiency of the SMART model, particularly regarding inference time and resource requirements. Given the increasing emphasis on real-time decision support in clinical settings, understanding the model's computational demands is crucial for practical implementation.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: I'd like for the authors to respond to below questions if they can: -
(1) Could you elaborate on why you chose to reconstruct latent representations during pre-training rather than imputing missing values in the input space?
(2) Which component of SMART do you believe contributes the most to its superior performance, and why?
(3) Given the quadratic complexity of temporal attention in SMART, how scalable is the model when applied to EHR datasets with varying lengths of patient records? Have you explored strategies to mitigate computational costs without compromising performance?
(4) The ablation study provides insights into the importance of different components within SMART. What specific findings surprised you the most during these experiments, and how did they influence the design or interpretation of the final model?
(5) Could you discuss any challenges or limitations encountered during the implementation of SMART in real-world clinical settings?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: There is a notable focus on performance across various datasets, but the generalizability of the model to different healthcare systems or diverse patient populations remains unclear. It would be beneficial for the authors to discuss potential ethical concerns or unintended consequences their approach might introduce, such as biases in predictions or challenges in interpretability that could affect clinical decision-making.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for recognizing the strengths of SMART, especially its effectiveness and novel designs. We address your concerns and answer your questions below.
---
**W1: Lack of comparative analysis with state-of-the-art models beyond the specific baseline models mentioned.**
Thank you for your question about the latest baseline methods. We would like to clarify that we have used the latest methods, including SAFARI and RainDrop in 2022, Warpformer and Primenet in 2023, and PPN in 2024. If we missed any latest methods, please remind us and we will include them in our comparison.
**W2: The paper could benefit from a more in-depth discussion on the computational efficiency of the SMART model, particularly regarding inference time and resource requirements.**
Thank you for your concern about the computational efficiency. We would like to clarify that we have compared the computational efficiency of the models in 4.3, and SMART has achieved the best balance among all methods in the comparison of training time performance. As for inference time, SMART can complete the inference of patients in a very short time (within 1 second), which can meet the needs of clinical scenarios.
**Q1: Could you elaborate on why you chose to reconstruct latent representations during pre-training?**
Thank you for your question about why we reconstruct in the input space. As we explained in lines 59-60 in the introduction, imputation in the input space may cause the model to get stuck in unnecessary details instead of learning more high-level semantic features that are beneficial to downstream tasks. More specifically, the imputation models pursue more accurate interpolation at each missing sample point, while this work pursues performance on clinical tasks, that is, completing tasks based on the overall information of the sequence. The optimization directions of these two goals are different. Therefore, we did not impute missingness in the input space during pre-training. For more explanation, please refer to our global response.
**Q2: Which component do you believe contributes the most to its superior performance, and why?**
Thank you for your curiosity about the effectiveness of SMART. We conducted ablation experiments on each design of the model in Section 4.2.2, and the results show that the information from the missing mask is the most important. Without it, the temporal and spatial attention we proposed cannot work properly, and the model cannot perceive the missing data. In addition, as described in lines 287-310, the ablation experiment verifies that each innovative design (including pre-training, temporal attention, variable attention, and CLS Vector) is very important and can bring performance improvement.
**Q3: Given the quadratic complexity of temporal attention in SMART, how scalable is the model when applied to EHR datasets with varying lengths of patient records? Have you explored strategies to mitigate computational costs without compromising performance?**
Thank you for your question about scalability. The length of patients in our dataset is variable, and SMART is scalable for them. However, due to the lack of corresponding datasets, we did not conduct experiments on longer series. The focus of our work is to combine missing awareness to improve performance on clinical predictions, so we have not explored strategies to reduce computational costs without affecting performance. There are some existing methods, such as Linformer [1], RWKV [2], etc., which reduce the computational complexity of the attention mechanism. They can be utilized to accelerate this method, which can be a future work.
[1] Linformer: Self-attention with linear complexity. arXiv 2020.
[2] RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the Transformer Era. EMNLP 2023.
**Q4: What specific findings surprised you the most during ablation studies, and how did they influence the design or interpretation of the final model?**
Thank you for your question about the ablation experiment. In the ablation experiment, we found that compared with the method of imputing in the input space, the improvement of SMART is obvious, so we are very glad to see that the proposed method is verified in the experiment. In addition, the effectiveness of the CLS vector also surprised us since it brought a very large improvement. The introduction of the CLS vector also provides direction and insights for the future development of models for time series.
**Q5: Could you discuss any challenges or limitations during the implementation in real-world clinical settings?**
Thank you for your interest in the application of SMART in real clinical scenarios. We have mentioned the challenges of SMART in real-world application scenarios in Appendix B *Broader Impact*, including the possibility of making unfair predictions for patients and potential ethical issues. In particular, we would like to emphasize that the model is only a tool to assist physicians in making decisions. The model should be used together with physicians to make the best decision for patients.
**Limitations: The generalizability of the model to different healthcare systems or diverse patient populations remains unclear. It would be beneficial for the authors to discuss potential ethical concerns or unintended consequences their approach might introduce, such as biases in predictions or challenges in interpretability that could affect clinical decision-making.**
Thank you for your concern about ethical issues. We have mentioned the possible ethical issues of SMART in *Broader Impact*. We acknowledge that SMART may make unfair predictions for patients, leading to potential ethical issues. However, the model cannot make any decisions on behalf of physicians. The model is only a tool to help physicians understand the patient's condition. How to improve the fairness of the model is one of the possible research directions in the future.
We hope these explanations adequately address your concerns.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Dear Reviewer Hfjo, I am a NeurIPS 2024 Area Chair of the paper that you reviewed.
This is a reminder that authors left rebuttals for your review. We need your follow up responses on that. Please leave comment for any un-answered questions you had, or how you think about the author's rebuttal.
The author-reviewer discussion is closed on Aug 13 11:59pm AoE.
Best regards, AC
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: I appreciate the authors for taking the time to provide clarification. In general, I feel that most of my concerns have been addressed in the rebuttal, and my review of the paper is now complete.
---
Reply to Comment 2.1.1:
Title: Thank you!
Comment: We are pleased to hear that your questions have been satisfactorily answered! Your questions are insightful and valuable. We will ensure to incorporate these additional specifics in our final revision, aiming to enhance the clarity of the presentation. | Summary: The authors propose a novel approach to handling missing data in an attention-based module in a method that is geared for predicting downstream health-related outcomes given multivariate time series patient data in EHR settings. Specifically, the proposed module, termed as the MART block, biases the attention across the temporal dimension using a heuristic which favors time steps with observations. In quantitative benchmarks involving six different disease-like outcomes, the method obtains the highest accuracy among several other methods that are also designed to learn patient representations given time series data in an EHR setting.
Strengths: The paper is clearly written. The functionality of the proposed module was described in a straightforward way. I believe that the MIMC pipeline adhered to is quite standard and if the quantitative results are reliable then the amount of improvement attained by the approach deserves recognition.
Weaknesses: I felt there was not enough motivation in the introduction in terms of why handling imputation in the latent space is expected to be a better approach than prior approaches, other than that it is possibly a novel approach. Is the intuition supposed to be similar to how latent diffusion works well? Some background or citations would further in convince the reader.
Does the work have any considerations for MAR, MCAR, MNAR, and structured missingness cases (all of which are present in EHR data); are MART blocks supposed to work well for all such types of missing data patterns? Due to some of these questions, I was not convinced upon a first read that biasing pairwise missing value statuses in a monotonically increasing scale (Eq 1) should intuitively be beneficial; although the quantitative results speak for themselves.
Were there any results on measuring how well the imputation methods impute missing observations in the actual time series data? eg. This could be done through a simulation. It seemed that all benchmarks were based on downstream tasks. I assume the proposed method also does well in this case, or there was an assessment that it does not matter in the perspective of improving downstream performance. It would be nice to understand if the contribution of the method is mainly in improving prediction of downstream tasks, or if it also imputes the data well.
The quantitative result obtained by SMART was encouraging, but I did not feel that the benchmark fully encompassed the breadth of methods which are available. Firstly, it seemed lacking in terms of basic baselines using logistic regression and gradient boosting methods to provide a good intuition on how easy or difficult the downstream tasks are; I believe these are important for studies that employ their own benchmarking pipeline on MIMIC.
I also personally wished to see more baselines which are commonly explored in the imputation literature (or at least mention them at all). To list some, there is softImpute, MissForest, MICE, and a Joint low-rank model from Sportisse et al. (2020).
Among more recent works, there is HI-VAE, GP-VAE, and notMIWAE. It is true that many of these works do not handle time series data or may not have been designed with EHR in mind, but there are straightforward ways to process the data such that they can be applied.
Furthermore, there are a few recent works that also use an attention model and claimed sota at the time of their release in terms of time series imputation. Some words on how they are related or why or why not they are a good fit for these tasks would add to the comprehensiveness of the work.
[1] Zhang et al 2023 “Improving Medical Predictions by Irregular Multimodal Electronic Health Records Modeling“
[2] SAITS from Du et al 2023 “SAITS: Self-Attention-based Imputation for Time Series”
[3] GRIN from Cini et al 2022 “Filling the G_AP_S: Multivariate Time Series Imputation by Graph Neural Networks”
[4] Marisca et al 2022 “Learning to Reconstruct Missing Data from Spatiotemporal Graphs with Sparse Observations”
Since the representation learning part of the approach is emphasized in a few parts of the work, I was surprised not to see any visualizations of the embeddings learned (per patient or per variable), and how if any it differs significantly from those obtained from prior works.
A minor point, but for first time readers it would be nice to have citations in lines 257 to 259 for SAFARI, PPN, and GRASP despite they might have been mentioned & cited elsewhere.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Is the CLS token involved in the pre-training stage at all similarly BERT? If so, what does it predict in the pre-training stage?
I just want to confirm that it would be true for a reader to interpret that even when the model is ablated in any which way (no mask, no temporal or variable attention, no cls), it would still be a top 1 or 2 ranking method in the benchmarks? Was there any ablation which degraded the model beyond this ballpark?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The work discusses some limitations in the final section. I did not assess that this work could have a potentially negative societal impact.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: **W1: Why handling imputation in the latent space is expected to be a better approach than prior approaches?**
Thank you for your insightful questions about why our approach works. We have shown in lines 59-60 that reconstruction in the latent space can help it better learn higher-order data patterns instead of focusing on trivial details. For more explanation, please refer to our global response.
**W2: Are MART blocks supposed to work well for all types of missing patterns? Why biasing in a monotonically increasing scale in Eq 1 is beneficial?**
Missingness in EHR is usually considered to be MNAR [5]. Whether to check an indicator is determined by physicians, and the reason is not reflected in the data. Whether a particular indicator is assessed is informative, as the absence could suggest that the condition with it is not severe. The performance gains with mask also verify that MART is well suited for MNAR data. However, since it is impossible to model the cause of missingness, we randomly sample missing data in pre-training.
For the question in Eq 1, we intended to endow the perception of the degree of missingness (both, only one, or none). It did not matter whether it was manually set or learnable since the weight matrices in the attention will adapt to them. We also conducted a simple experiment by replacing 1 and 2 in Eq 1 with two learnable parameters (w/ learnable bias), as shown in the rebuttal PDF.
The experimental results show that the results of the manual value are better, so we finally used the manual setting of the monotonically increasing values.
[5] A Bayesian latent class approach for EHR-based phenotyping. Statistics in Medicine 2019.
**W3: Were there any results on measuring how the imputation methods impute missingness?**
Since the goal of pre-training is to improve performance on clinical tasks, SMART is not designed to provide an imputed series. For further exploration, we added a decoder at the same level as the embedding decoder in the pre-training, which is used to impute in the input space, and evaluated the performance after fine-tuning (w/ both imputation), as shown in the rebuttal PDF.
We found that with this decoder, the performance declined and was even worse than w/o Pre-training, which indicates that there may be a trade-off between imputation in the latent and input space, and the pursuit of accurate imputation may lead to poor performance in downstream tasks. (We did not add special designs on this ablation, so the conclusion may be inaccurate.)
**W4: It seemed lacking in terms of basic baselines.**
We have shown the results of the basic methods GRU and Transformer in Appendix A.6, and they are worse than most of the baselines, showing the difficulty of tasks. Since LR and tree models (XGBoost, etc.) are not recursive, they do not apply to our datasets composed of variable-length series.
**W5: I wished to see more baselines commonly explored in the imputation literature.**
Thank you for providing a lot of literature. We are delighted to read them and will discuss them to enrich our paper. However, most methods, including [3,4], are not designed for completing clinical tasks. There are also some imputation models combined with tasks, such as [1,2] you mentioned, but [1] does not essentially use any supervision related to imputation, similar to Warpformer[6].
[2] does not apply to time series with varying lengths, so it cannot be evaluated on our dataset. In addition, although it is not designed to complete downstream tasks, their authors compare the results of these tasks by using GRU to model the imputed series. Nevertheless, training [2] for imputation will remove some of the sampled data as imputation supervision, which potentially reduces the performance on downstream tasks, as we mentioned in lines 107-109.
[6] Warpformer: A multi-scale modeling approach for irregular clinical time series. KDD 2023.
**W6: Were there any visualizations of the embeddings learned?**
Thanks for your reminder. We are sorry that we overlooked it. We have uploaded the embedding visualization comparison by t-SNE of the patients in the test set from the Cardiology dataset in the rebuttal PDF. We can find that the embedding learned by SMART is more discriminative, which qualitatively verifies its effectiveness.
**W7: It would be nice to have more citations of baselines.**
Thanks for your suggestion. We will add them in future versions, which will improve the quality and readability.
**Q1: Is the CLS vector in the pre-training similar to BERT? What does it predict?**
The CLS vector is somewhat similar to [CLS] in BERT, but they are not the same. The mention of BERT is just for ease of understanding. In the Next-Sentence-Prediction task of BERT, [CLS] is used for prediction to explicitly encourage it to express the information of the entire sequence, while there is no such supervision in the pre-training of SMART. In the pre-training, the encoding of the CLS vector position is not calculated in the loss (because its $\hat{m}$ is False), because our original intention is to calculate the hidden representation of the removed sample points, and including it in the loss may bring slight performance changes.
But similar to [CLS], the CLS vector does not represent any time step but learns the overall representation, which is a bridge between the pre-training and fine-tuning, as mentioned in line 308. It provides a location to store the overall information (because its mask is always True), and using it as a query in Variable Attention encourages this.
**Q2: Would SMART be a top-ranking method without novel designs?**
Thank you for your question about the performance. However, this idea may be incorrect. Without all the unique designs, the model will degenerate into a Transformer. As shown in Appendix A.6, it is significantly weaker than most baselines, and the gains brought by pre-training obviously cannot make up for such a large gap.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the thorough response, overall I believe most of my concerns have been addressed.
The responses to W1,W3, W5, W7, Q1, Q2 seem reasonable.
**W2: We also conducted a simple experiment by replacing 1 and 2 in Eq 1 with two learnable parameters (w/ learnable bias), as shown in the rebuttal PDF.**
The addition of this experiment is appreciated. I think there is enough evidence to support that the original idea is reasonable and should be shared with others who might be interested in using the attention mechanism in similar settings with missing data. For future works it would be interesting to investigate the quite large variance with the learnable bias (+-3, so on the high end it can surpass the fixed bias?) and similarly check if the bias learned from scratch aligns at all with the intuition of the proposed bias strategy in this case.
Also would it be advantageous at all to have a pairwise bias that is separate depending on which side of the attention you are processing (ie. upper vs lower triangle)? Just a thought, I believe the work so far is sufficient.
Small note that maybe the F1 score of 75.50±2.75 should be bolded instead of 75.37±2.62 if the intent was to bold the highest obtained score if the table will make it into the final paper.
**W4: It seemed lacking in terms of basic baselines.**
Even though some of the methods are not recursive temporally, the prediction of the downstream task is not time specific (it is an outcome prediction) so I personally find the lack of basic processing -> baseline method for outcome prediction not satisfactory. For instance, a feature vector with counts of observed conditions & prescriptions (or means and standard deviations for continuous measures) could be generated summarizing the entire time series of each patient (eg [1]). I would not further ask for this analysis though as no other reviewer has raised a similar concern and it seems very few prior works in the area do this.
For the reasons above I would be willing to raise the score.
[1] EHRSHOT: An EHR Benchmark for Few-Shot Evaluation of Foundation Models
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Thank you!
Comment: We are pleased to hear that your questions have been satisfactorily answered! Your suggestions including adding more literature on imputation models are indeed valuable. We will ensure to incorporate these additional specifics in our final revision, aiming to enhance the clarity of the presentation.
For more concerns about **W2** and **W4**, we answer below.
**W2: We also conducted a simple experiment by replacing 1 and 2 in Eq 1 with two learnable parameters (w/ learnable bias), as shown in the rebuttal PDF.**
We're glad the additional experiment with learnable parameters provided sufficient evidence. We agree that exploring the variance observed with the learnable bias and introducing a separate pairwise bias depending on the attention side (upper vs. lower triangle) are promising avenues for future research. The attention side approach, in particular, may help address low-rank issues in vanilla attention.
Thank you for pointing out the F1 score in the table. We will ensure that the correct value, 75.50±2.75, is bolded in the final version to reflect the highest obtained score.
**W4: It seemed lacking in terms of basic baselines.**
Thank you for your feedback. We recognize the importance of including basic baselines and have conducted two ablations to illustrate the performance of Logistic Regression (LR) and XGBoost:
- Classify the last observation directly: This approach may introduce significant missingness.
- Classify the last observation with a front-fill strategy: Here, missing values are imputed using the latest available values from past observations.
|Model| Cardiology AUPRC(%)| F1(%)| Sepsis AUPRC(%)| F1(%)| In-hospital Mortality AUPRC(%)| F1(%)|
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
|LR(Direct)|30.67$\pm$0.33|14.13$\pm$0.88|14.05$\pm$0.67|0.47$\pm$0.33|30.29$\pm$0.85|10.85$\pm$2.25|
|XGBoost(Direct)|32.29$\pm$2.48|21.69$\pm$1.70|21.26$\pm$1.90|13.78$\pm$0.14|30.76$\pm$1.36|21.80$\pm$2.53|
|LR(Front-fill)|47.31$\pm$3.47|35.98$\pm$0.32|18.92$\pm$1.84|3.79$\pm$0.41|46.45$\pm$2.51|32.09$\pm$1.85|
|XGBoost(Front-fill)|45.41$\pm$3.31|35.38$\pm$0.36|27.31$\pm$0.39|17.39$\pm$0.33|47.55$\pm$1.76|38.00$\pm$2.06|
|SMART|53.84$\pm$2.24|47.53$\pm$2.33|81.67$\pm$0.84|75.37$\pm$2.62| 53.30$\pm$0.12|44.23$\pm$2.03|
We were surprised to find that the front-fill strategy outperformed some of the baseline methods on the Cardiology dataset. This may be due to the specific characteristics of the Cardiology dataset, which could be more amenable to basic baseline approaches. Please note that the front-fill strategy was not applied in the experiments in our manuscript.
We appreciate your willingness to raise the score and thank you again for your thoughtful suggestions.
---
Rebuttal Comment 2.1:
Comment: Thank you for providing the additional baselines; I believe they provide a great deal of intuition on the difficulty of the tasks, especially for those not familiar with the domain or the methods. The continued work by the authors is appreciated. | Summary: The paper presents a strategy to account for missing data in EHR called SMART. This is broken down in 2 stages: pretraining and fine tuning. Pretraining learns a hidden state representation which is done by randomly making the input and predicting the label, while fine tuning uses this hidden state representation and is tuned for specific down stream tasks. The authors demonstrate the efficacy on multiple datasets and on high impact areas: cardiology, sepsis and in-hospital mortality. The methodology is also quite light weight as demonstrated in Fig3 and the authors also capture some of the limitations of the modified attention mechanism.
Strengths: Enough experiments to convince of initial efficacy
New attention mechanism is quite light weight
Latent representations are being learnt effectively to handle missing data
Weaknesses: Can show more areas of impact by looking at conditions where the missing data can cause more problems to look at the limit of SMART
Quadratic attention mechanism is also a problem (although approximations have shown to reduce that cost)
Can the authors show: projecting the hidden state representation back to the data level what the model is learning by using the masks? To present us an idea of what the model deems important to learn when the data is missing
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: Can the authors show: projecting the hidden state representation back to the data level what the model is learning by using the masks? To present us an idea of what the model deems important to learn when the data is missing
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: Yes they have addressed it.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for recognizing the strengths of SMART, especially its effectiveness and novel designs. We address your concerns and answer your questions below.
---
**W1: Can you discuss the limitations of SMART by showing more areas of impact by looking at conditions where missing data could cause more problems?**
Thank you for your question about the limitations of SMART. We have discussed the limitations in clinical scenarios in the *Conclusions and Limitations* section and the *Broader Impact* in the Appendix. Missing vital signs or lab results can lead to incorrect prediction or delayed diagnoses. SMART can be aware of the missingness in the time series and enhance its prediction performance, avoiding potential delayed diagnoses due to lack of observations. However, we recognize the necessity for more precise methods in future research.
For non-clinical fields, such as finance, electricity, meteorology, etc., where missingness are common in time series, SMART has the potential to play a role in these fields. However, for ECG/EEG or other high-frequency data, the quadratic computational complexity may limit the usability of SMART.
**W2: The quadratic attention mechanism is also a problem (although approximations have been shown to reduce that cost).**
Thank you for your concern about the computational complexity. Our contribution lies in proposing a missing-aware EHR model to better accomplish clinical prediction tasks. Although the quadratic computational complexity may limit the use of SMART on very long time series, it is applicable to EHR data, given the limited length of time series. In addition, there are some methods compatible with SMART, such as model compression or linear attention [1,2], which can reduce overhead and improve scalability, but this is beyond the scope of this paper and can be further explored in future work.
[1] Linformer: Self-attention with linear complexity. arXiv 2020.
[2] RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the Transformer Era. EMNLP 2023.
**W3&Q1: Can you project the hidden state representation back to the data level and show what the model is learning by using the masks?**
Thank you for your question about how the model imputes the missingness. We focus on reconstructing missing data in the latent space, so the imputed data cannot be mapped back to the input space. In particular, because our goal is to improve the accuracy of clinical tasks when designing the method, we encourage the model to learn as much information as possible about the entire sequence in the pre-training stage and learn task-related embeddings in fine-tuning, rather than simply imputing.
For better understanding, we give a detailed explanation and we will add the explanation in our future submission. The observed value in the input space can be viewed as a composed signal. The learned encoder can be viewed as a signal filter that decomposes the observed composed signal over a learned "dictionary". The "dictionary" is the affine transformation(s) shared by all the time series that transforms the input-composed signal to learned decomposed embeddings. The learned embeddings can be regarded as the decomposition of the "dictionary". Our reconstruction in the latent space is essentially a reconstruction of the decomposed filtered signals of different entries. On the one hand, this reduces the noise in the original input-composed signal. On the other hand, this pursues the consensus of different time series that converge to the underlying expectation. Thus, reconstruction in the latent space achieves better performance than reconstruction in the input space.
We hope these explanations adequately address your concerns.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Response to rebuttal
Comment: Thanks for the response. Some of the responses point to the efficacy of the method and I’d like to keep the score the same.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thank you!
Comment: We are pleased to hear that your questions have been satisfactorily answered! Your questions are insightful and valuable. We will ensure to incorporate these additional specifics in our final revision, aiming to enhance the clarity of the presentation.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Comment: Dear Reviewer, I am a NeurIPS 2024 Area Chair of the paper that you reviewed.
This is a reminder that authors left rebuttals for your review. We need your follow up responses on that.
Please leave comment for any un-answered questions you had, or how you think about the author's rebuttal.
The author-reviewer discussion is closed on Aug 13 11:59pm AoE.
Best regards, AC | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We thank all reviewers for their high-quality comments and for recognizing the strengths of SMART. We have addressed all the concerns and answered questions in the rebuttal.
Here, for the commonly asked question of why reconstruction in latent space is more effective than imputation in input space, we give a detailed explanation and we will add the explanation in our future submission. The observed value in the input space can be viewed as a composed signal. The learned encoder can be viewed as a signal filter that decomposes the observed composed signal over a learned "dictionary". The "dictionary" is the affine transformation(s) shared by all the time series that transforms the input-composed signal to learned decomposed embeddings. The learned embeddings can be regarded as the decomposition of the "dictionary". Our reconstruction in the latent space is essentially a reconstruction of the decomposed filtered signals of different entries. On the one hand, this reduces the noise in the original input-composed signal. On the other hand, this pursues the consensus of different time series that converge to the underlying expectation. Thus, reconstruction in the latent space achieves better performance than reconstruction in the input space.
---
In the rebuttal PDF, we uploaded more ablation experiments and the embedding visualization comparison by t-SNE of SMART and baseline methods on the Cardiology dataset mentioned by Reviewer MRHA. By observation, we can find that the embedding learned by SMART is more discriminative, which qualitatively verifies the effectiveness of our method.
Pdf: /pdf/5620455f9b8880402f64a079d2b0b1122ccc37ed.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Towards Harmless Rawlsian Fairness Regardless of Demographic Prior | Accept (poster) | Summary: Although importance of group fairness appreciated, most existing works have required demographic information for debiasing. The paper introduces a novel method, VFair, to achieve fairness with minimum sacrifice of the utility under no prior demographic information scenario. VFair aims to achieve harmless Rawlsian fairness via minimizing variance of losses, which is pertinent to disparity of utility across subgroups.
Strengths: 1. The paper is easy to read.
2. Considering important topic.
Weaknesses: 1. Comparison in the experimental results is not comprehensive.
2. Motivation is less highlighted. It is unclear why the proposed method is unique and how it addresses limitations of previous methods.
Also, please see the question section below.
Technical Quality: 1
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: - Why does the paper referring to Dirac delta distribution instead of uniform distribution when demonstrating Figure 1? If the indices (x-axis) are sorted by loss value, wouldn’t a uniform distribution be more appropriate for an optimal scenario?
- The paper suggests that MUD (Maximum Utility Disparity) or accuracy parity across groups are implicitly connected to a uniform or Dirac delta distribution of instance-wise losses. Could the authors clarify this connection? Intuitively, these concepts do not seem necessarily interchangeable.
- (line:137-141) The paper mentions overfitting and low variance at the same time, which seems counter-intuitive. Could the authors clarify how they propose to mitigate this apparent conflict?
- How is the proposed method of “harmless fairness” differentiated from the previous work by Zhang et al. (2018)[1] on mitigating unwanted biases with adversarial learning?
- The empirical results do not perfectly align with the TUD (Total Utility Disparity) and variance metrics presented. Could the authors explain these discrepancies?
- There should be a comparison with more state-of-the-art methods to provide a comprehensive evaluation. Could the authors include or discuss more recent and relevant methods in their comparison?
[1] B. H. Zhang, B. Lemoine, and M. Mitchell, “Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learning,” AAAI/ACM Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Society, 2018.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 1
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 2
Limitations: Please see questions and weakness parts.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 4
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Reply to weakness
1. Experimental results. We compared the regression and classification performance among six benchmark methods across six datasets. Additionally, we discussed the results of using F1-score as utility metric, randomly splitting groups, methods using demographic prior during the training phase, and different $lambda$ settings. By thoroughly examining various scenarios and conditions, we have ensured that our analysis and conclusions are well-founded and credible.
2. Novelty and effectiveness. We studied Rawlsian harmless fairness without demographic information in both classification and regression tasks, which has not been studied before. Moreover, as supported by reviewer kaxC in the 'Strengths' section, our idea is incredibly novel and impressive. Besides one weakly related reference, they were unable to find occurrences of this idea in prior work.
# Reply to questions
1. Explanation for Dirac delta distribution. Please refer to Figure 1 in the newly uploaded supplementary PDF, where we provide a more detailed description of the Dirac delta distribution. We speculate that your misunderstanding may stem from confusion regarding the meaning of the x-axis of Figure 1 in our paper. The x-axis represents the index of sorted losses, rather than the actual loss values, which is different from Figure 1 in the supplementary PDF.
2. From MUD to loss distribution. (1) MUD is a group-level metric. When demographic information is inaccessible, we strive to minimize MUD across all possible group divisions. (2) From the perspective of individual instances, when the loss for each example is as similar as possible, MUD will approximate zero regardless of the group division. (3) If the loss for each example approximates zero, the loss distribution will resemble a Dirac delta distribution. If the loss for each example approximates $\mu$ (e.g. $\mu$=0.25 in a 0-1 regression task), the model will behave like a uniform regressor or classifier. Note that this does not imply that the loss distribution itself is uniform; rather, the model's performance is uniformly poor across instances.
3. Confusion caused by the term 'overfit'. Sorry for any confusion on this point. This section was intended to introduce the derivation of the instance-level loss, which bypasses the unobserved sensitive attributes, rather than implying that our model would overfit. The logic is as follows: (1) We aim for MUD=0 for fairness. (2) Oracle model achieves zero loss for each sample, and thus MUD=0. (3) A loss of 0 on the training set indicates overfitting risks in practice.
And aiming for MUD=0 does not necessarily lead to overfitting in our method.
4. Difference with [1]. We study different problems. They focus on achieving fairness with access to demographic information. However, our task is more challenging as we aim to achieve fairness without demographic information.
5. Consistency of TUD and VAR in experimental results. In our experimental results, TUD and VAR consistently outperform other methods in most cases, except for some classification cases. As discussed in lines 298-301, under discrete utility metrics, even if our method has smaller loss disparities at the instance level, fairness metrics may still not improve.
6. Comparison with SOTA. Our method uniquely addresses Rawlsian harmless fairness without requiring demographic information in both classification and regression tasks, a topic that has not been extensively studied before. Existing works not included in this comparison generally struggle to adapt to this specific setting. Besides the employed baselines (which were carefully modified for harmless fairness), to the best of our knowledge, no other recent work targets this same research problem.
[1] B. H. Zhang, B. Lemoine, and M. Mitchell, “Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learning,” AAAI/ACM Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Society, 2018.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the detailed explanation. However, I am still conservative about its novelty. So I updated my score accordingly.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript and provide your valuable feedback. However, we would like to reiterate the novelty of our approach:
1. **Novel Problem**: We highlight the setting of harmless Rawlsian fairness regardless of demographic prior in both classification and regression tasks. Previous works either more or less require direct or implicit demographic information (e.g., FairRF[9]), do not meet the harmless requirement (e.g., DRO[13]), or can only be applied to classification or regression tasks (e.g., MPFR[15], FKL[36]).
2. **Novel Fairness Proxy**: As recognized by reviewer kaxC in the “Strengths” section, we propose minimizing the variance of prediction losses as a straightforward yet effective fairness proxy. To emphasize its novelty, in lines 169-173, we show the differences between our method and variance-bias research[27,28].
3. **Novel Update Approach**: We have developed a novel dynamic approach for conducting harmless updates, which operates at both the loss and gradient levels. Compared to ordinary bi-objective optimization approaches[26], our approach further designs $\lambda_2$ from the sample-reweighting perspective to guarantee the weight of each training example is non-negative, making our method connect with the up-weighting concept used in recent worst-case fairness methods[13,12,21].
4. **Novel Analysis**: For the first time, we challenge and validate the necessity of the group ratio in both classification and regression problems. Our analysis highlights that regardless of any prior, harmless Rawlsian fairness is achievable in regression tasks but not in classification tasks. As shown in Fig. 3, due to the discrete metric and unchanged group partition, the accuracy-based metrics' values remain unchanged even with a smaller sample disparity. Therefore, the improvement in fairness in classification tasks is still bound by the overall utility. However, regression problems using a discrete metric are not limited by this and can achieve significant fairness improvement under our setting.
We hope this clarifies the novelty and significance of our contributions. We are always willing to address any further questions you may have. | Summary: The authors propose VFair: an approach to Rawlsian, demographics-agnostic fairness where the variance over each data point's loss term is minimized together with the mean loss during training. These objectives are clearly often at odds with eachother, so they include a principled dynamic weighting scheme for the multi-objective optimization, making use of the mathematical relationship between the sample mean and variance. In experiments, this appears to outperform other baselines that are agnostic to demographics information.
Strengths: The authors effectively propose an incredibly simple idea: instead of only minimizing the mean loss, we also minimize the sample variance over all individual loss terms. It strikes me as an idea that must have been investigated before, but besides one weakly related references that were missed (Spady and Stouli, 2018), I was unable to find occurrences of this idea in prior work.
The dynamic weighting for the objectives is intriguing, as it combines a lower bound based on black-box optimization (apparently not original), with a second, more stable lower bound that is well-motivated by exploiting the relation between the sample variance and mean.
Spady, Richard, and Sami Stouli. "Simultaneous mean-variance regression." arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.01631 (2018).
Weaknesses: W1. The motivation for using the variance of as a second objective is found in Prop. 1, which reads "For any s that splits data into a number of groups, u ⊥ s holds if and only if the loss ℓ is (approximately) independent of the training example z, i.e., ℓ ⊥ z.". The first condition is either very unclearly phrased or simply incorrect. It seems to say that *for any split*: it holds that u ⊥ s iff ℓ ⊥ z. This clearly cannot be true: the mean accuracies of all groups can be equal while the individual losses within the groups can vary. Instead, Prop. 1 should read "u ⊥ s holds for any s that splits data into a number of groups, if and only if the loss ℓ is (approximately) independent of the training example z, i.e., ℓ ⊥ z.".
Also, Prop. 1 only holds if $u$ is a fully decomposable sum over all individual data samples (just like ℓ is).
W2. The extra motivation for minimizing the variance given in L169-L180 lacks rigour. First, Bennett's inequality uses the actual variance and not the sample variance (which VFair is optimizing), and it is unclear how they are related in the bound. Second, why care about this bound? We care about the actual mean, but not about so much about the gap between the actual and the empirical mean.
W3. Related to W1, I more broadly wonder whether this approach even fits in the popular ML fairness literature. The idea of formalizing discrimination as a problematic bias in ML is that there is some unethical pattern in whom is being disadvantaged by an algorithm. If we are looking at the utility for each data point individually, disregarding demographics, are we still talking about an approach that "does not require demographic information to be fair"? It seems like we are now just saying that we don't *care* about the demographics. This doesn't make the proposed definition of fairness uninteresting, but it does take away the societal motivation for this work (in relation to discrimination law).
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: Q1. Could you explain why the 'training losses exhibit a Dirac delta distribution'? Because you are stripping the variance?
Q2. The derivation of Eq. 8 can be more intuitively explained: the Z-score of a random variable $\geq 0$ is always lower-bounded by $-\frac{\mu}{\sigma}$, so $\lambda$ must be lower-bounded by $\frac{\mu}{\sigma}$ for $w_i$ to be positive.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: No, for societal impact, please refer to papers that more broadly discuss the problems with a technical approach to algorithmic fairness and the problematic assumptions we need to make (e.g. relating to the measurability of the utility).
The limitations were not discussed in detail.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Reply to weakness
1. Rigor of expression. Thank you for your careful reading and rigorous derivation. We will update Proposition 1 and the assumptions regarding u as you suggested.
2. Confusion caused by lines 169-180. Sorry for any confusion on this point. Lines 169-180 offer a deeper reflection on our method and do not serve as extra motivation. After deriving Equation (2), we further considered the commonalities and differences between our method and existing works. Equation (3) illustrates the fundamental difference between our method and bias-variance research, while Equation (4) demonstrates the essential similarity between our method and DRO.
3. About demographic prior. We believe that demographic prior is meaningful, for demographic prior is still used during the evaluation stage. Table 7 shows a comparison between VFair and methods using demographic prior during the training stage. Results indicate that demographic prior does indeed provide some improvement.
# Reply to questions
1. Explanation for Dirac delta distribution. Please refer to Figure 1 in the newly uploaded supplementary PDF, where we provide a more detailed description of the Dirac delta distribution.
2. More concise explanation. Thank you for your suggestion. We will improve the clarity and logic of Remark 2 following your comments.
# Reply to limitations
We will add a Limitations section to discuss the additional computational costs of the proposed method. Briefly, our method, VFair, requires two backward propagations, resulting in approximately double the computation time compared to ERM. Please also refer to our detailed responses to reviewer cPfu.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the clarifications. I read the other reviewers' comments and still really like the paper, so I'll continue to advocate for its acceptance (with my current score).
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you so much for your recognition of our work. Once again, we sincerely appreciate the time and effort you spent reviewing our paper. Your valuable suggestions and insights have greatly contributed to improving our manuscript. | Summary: The authors suggest a framework aimed at enhancing the fairness guarantees of classifiers in scenarios where sensitive information is unavailable. Their approach seeks to identify a classification rule that minimizes the variance in losses from the training sample, while ensuring that the overall average utility does not significantly decline from the maximum possible utility.
Strengths: S1 - The paper successfully validates all the claims outlined in the abstract and introduction. Each assertion is supported with empirical evidence and detailed analysis. The authors have meticulously followed through on their initial promises, providing a cohesive and comprehensive study that aligns well with the stated objectives.
S2 - The problem addressed in this paper is of high relevance in reality. Ensuring the fairness of classifiers, especially in the absence of sensitive information, is a crucial issue with significant practical implications.
S3 - The authors effectively address the issues and challenges posed by the general methodology when applied in practical scenarios. For instance, the insightful analysis on gradient alignment enhances the practical applicability of their approach.
S4 - This analysis offers valuable insight into an important finding in the field of algorithmic fairness: the distinctions between achieving fairness in classification and regression tasks.
S5 - The abstract and the introduction effectively substantiate all the claims made, including the contributions put forth by the authors. These assertions find validation through the description of the methodology employed and the experiments conducted. The method section elaborates on the techniques and approaches considered, demonstrating how they align with the stated objectives. Furthermore, the experimental results provide empirical evidence that supports the claims made in the introduction.
Weaknesses: W1 - Reproducibility issues. The experimental setting lacks detail regarding critical aspects such as the employed learning rate, the number of epochs, and the hyperparameters or tuning procedures for different methods. Additionally, the authors do not report how the dataset is split. Providing this information is essential for enabling others to replicate the study and verify its findings.
W2 - The paper overlooks an important body of work from the field of algorithmic fairness that operates without knowledge of demographic information: [1]. This work constitutes a significant contribution to the field and could provide valuable context and support for the current study. Besides, including and considering such an approach in the experimental section would enhance the quality and informativeness of the provided results and derived conclusions.
W3 - The proposed fairness criteria operate at the instance level, thus can be viewed as an individual fairness strategy. However, the authors do not highlight this similarity or discuss their approach in relation to other existing works based on individual fairness. It would be beneficial to include this information, reference these works, and incorporate some comparisons in the experimental section.
W4 - The discussion of the results includes several overstatements. For example, on lines 307-310, the authors claim that VFair yields superior performance. However, this is an exaggeration. While VFair may exhibit higher utility in some cases, it comes with a substantial cost to fairness. Moreover, even when VFair demonstrates higher overall utility, the improvement is marginal, less than 1%, which does not substantiate the claim of superiority.
W5 - The paper lacks insight into the computational cost of the proposed method. There is no empirical validation to determine whether it is more costly than existing methods and, if so, to what extent. Providing this information would be valuable, as it would illuminate whether a trade-off exists between computational cost and the results obtained without demographic information. Understanding this balance is crucial for assessing the practical applicability and efficiency of the proposed approach.
W6 - The authors claim in line 256 that DRO needs the identification of the worst-off group through a bound of group ratio, but as far as I am aware the latter is not true. The method only requires defining the value of $\eta$ but has nothing to do with the demographic information.
W (minor) - The section titles should only contain upper case letters at the start of the first word, and not at the beginning of every word in the title.
W (minor) - In equation 5 you employ the parameter $\eta$, which is also used in equation 4 but to refer to a completely different parameter. I would recommend using different letters for each of the parameters to avoid confusion.
[1] Martinez, N. L., Bertran, M. A., Papadaki, A., Rodrigues, M., & Sapiro, G. (2021, July). Blind pareto fairness and subgroup robustness. In International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 7492-7501). PMLR.
Technical Quality: 2
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: Q1 - Why don't you bold the DRO results in Table 1 when they outperform the results of your proposed method?
Q2 - What are the Z-scores?
Q3 - How well does it scale with the increasing number of instances?
Q4 - In line 141 the authors talk about the risk of overfitting, however they do not provide a deep insight into the issue. How likely is it that it happens? Under which circumstances?
Q5 - What happens to the method when outlier instances are present? These outliers could significantly complicate the optimization of the classification rule or even result in a trivial classification rule.
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 2
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors do not clearly state the limitations of their proposed method.
As a suggestion, it would be interesting to address potential issues such as overfitting, scalability, and susceptibility to outliers.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Reply to weakness
1. Reproducibility issues. We will provide more training details in the appendix. (1) Throughout experiments, all methods are set with a batch size of 32 and a learning rate of 0.01. As for the training epoch, as mentioned in lines 555-559, to ensure all baselines comply with the harmless fairness setting, we terminate each training process at the epoch with the nearest loss value to a well-converged ERM. (2) The datasets are randomly split in a 7:3 ratio following ARL's experimental implementation.
2. Comparison with BPF. We have discussed the relationship between our method and BPF, referenced as [12] in our paper. BPF, as an improved version of DRO, also utilizes group ratio prior. Considering your comments, we added BPF as another baseline. However, as shown in Table 1 in the newly uploaded supplementary PDF, VFair still outperforms BPF on all metrics.
3. Connection with Individual Fairness. Although VFair operates at the instance level, it differs from Individual Fairness. (1) Individual Fairness requires that if two individuals are close on the similarity metric, they should be close on the treatment metric, resulting in a continuous treatment metric outcome. (2) VFair falls in (Rawlsian) group fairness, which does not consider the similarity between individuals but focuses on performance disparities between different groups, pursuing close treatment (utility in this paper) metric outcomes. (3) As mentioned in line 145, group fairness pursues $\ell\perp z$, while Individual Fairness pursues $\ell\sim f(z)$, where $f()$ represents a similarity metric. (4) The similarity metric $f()$ also serve as a form of prior. In contrast, VFair does not call for any form of prior.
4. Analysis of results. We have strived to present our findings accurately and objectively and we believe there is no exaggeration of effects. Note that we study harmless fairness; therefore, only methods that do not compromise much on overall utility will be finally ranked. (1) Regarding Table 2, DRO turns out a uniform regressor with low utility. In this context, our method outperforms other methods on all metrics except for DRO. (2) Note that lines 307-310 mention that Table 2 aims to show the limited improvement on UCI but significant improvement on CelebA (except for DRO). We acknowledged the limited improvement on UCI and analyzed the reason.
5. Computational costs. Thank you for this suggestion. (1) Our proposed method requires two rounds of back-propagation, which thus leads to more computation cost compared to ERM or DRO. (2) Since the backward pass is the bottleneck of the total computation, we found that VFair requires approximately twice the computation time compared to the ERM method, as shown in Table 1 with the Law School dataset as an example. (3) Note that ARL, an adversarial method, requires a comparable wall-clock time to VFair due to its inner and outer optimization nature.
Table 1: Comparison of four methods' wall-clock time on Law School with the same experimental setup.
|Method|Time|
|-|-|
|ERM|349.4s|
|DRO|243.5s|
|ARL|640.1s|
|VFair|677.6s|
6. Eta in DRO. When applying DRO, using a defined eta can be interpreted as using some group ratio. As evidenced in the official code of DRO in dual_robust_opt.py, the calculation of eta is achieved by bi-search with group ratio eps as input of the get_rho() function.
7. Minor weakness. Thank you for this suggestion. We will edit the section title and the symbol expressions according to your advice.
# Reply to questions
1. Presentation of DRO results. Similar to W4, we study harmless fairness. As mentioned in lines 270-273 and lines 65-68, DRO turns out a uniform regressor with low utility.
2. Explanation of Z-Score. We use Z-score as it is a fundamental statistical measure. It is calculated by subtracting the mean from the individual value and then dividing it by the standard deviation. In our context, the Z-score of each example's loss is calculated as $\frac{\ell - \hat{\mu}}{\hat{\sigma}}$.
3. Adaptation on larger datasets. As shown in Appendix D, our method adopts a stochastic optimization strategy, from which one can see the complexity will be linear to the number of training samples. Note that baseline methods MPFR and FKL are not designed with stochastic updates and suffer from out-of-memory issues, as shown in Table 6.
4. Confusion caused by the term 'overfit'. Sorry for any confusion on this point. This section was intended to introduce the derivation of the instance-level loss, which bypasses the unobserved sensitive attributes, rather than implying that our model would overfit. The logic is as follows: (1) We aim for MUD=0 for fairness. (2) Oracle model achieves zero loss for each sample, and thus MUD=0. (3) A loss of 0 on the training set indicates overfitting in practice.
Aiming for MUD=0 does not necessarily lead to overfitting.
5. Discussion about outliers. (1) We agree that the outlier problem has been studied in Fairness problem. We have also investigated some works in this direction, such as DORO[1], ARL, and GRASP[2]. However, these methods have different strategies to solve the outlier problem, and there is no general, representative method. (2) According to our analysis in the Loss view on page 5, we can simply cap the value of Z-score, preventing the model from excessively concentrating on outliers that produce large losses. As shown in Table 5, on the COMPAS dataset whose labels are found to be noisy [3], VFair achieves the best performance (except for FairRF which leverages feature correlations prior). We will leave a thorough comparison with other existing strategies in future work.
# Reply to limitations
Refer to the above answers.
[1] Zhai R, et al. Doro: Distributional and outlier robust optimization.
[2] Y. Zeng, et al. Outlier-robust group inference via gradient space clustering.
[3] Preethi L, et al. Fairness without demographics through adversarially reweighted learning. | Summary: The paper proposes a novel view of Rawlsian fairness for scenarios where no demographic information is provided. The core proposal of the paper is VFair, a method for reducing the variance of the predictive loss across a dataset, with the core tenet that a well-concentrated loss distribution would assign similarly-beneficial outcomes to all participants. They also discuss connections and differences with exisiting 'worst-case' approaches such as Distributionally Robust Optimization and Blind Pareto Fairness.
Strengths: The motivation behind the proposed VFair is easily understood as a constrainted optimization objective of minimizing predictive loss variance subject to a performance constraint. This is implemented via a simple Lagrange multiplier approach which essentially weights the standard loss minimization objective with an additional (empirical) loss variance objective .
The multiplier itself is actually not optimized for exactly, rather its lower bounded to ensure two reasonable conditions on the update:
A) The overall loss gradient points towards (mean) loss reduction (i.e., the variance reduction component does not overpower the mean loss reduction component)
B) The per-sample effective loss is positively weighted (i.e., no sample is encouraged to increase its loss value)
The resulting method relies on a simple exponential moving average of the overall predictive loss of the dataset and a few simple computations.
Weaknesses: my main concerns with this paper are the following:
A) Computational costs. Steps 8/9 in Algorithm 1 require the independent computation of the gradient wrt the mean objective and the gradient wrt the std objective. While not egregious, this would require two backwards passes through the network so the method is computationally more intensive than some of the discussed alternatives like DRO-BPF
B) Although the motivation of VFair is shown in Eq 1, the loss constraint $E_z[\ell(z,\theta)]\le \delta$ (in particular the delta parameter) does not end up playing a role in the final method. It is not immediately apparent what the equivalent delta value would be for the proposed method
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: See point B in weaknesses
Confidence: 5
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: # Reply to weaknesses
1. Computational costs. Your comment on two backward passes is correct. We will include this extra computation cost as one of the limitations of our work. Since the backward pass is the bottleneck of the total computation, we found that VFair requires approximately twice the computation time compared to the ERM method, as shown in Table 1 with the Law School dataset as an example. Note that ARL, an adversarial method, requires a comparable wall-clock time to VFair due to its inner and outer optimization nature.
Table 1: Comparison of four methods' wall-clock time on Law School with the same experimental setup.
| Method | Time |
| ------ | ------ |
| ERM | 349.4s |
| DRO | 243.5s |
| ARL | 640.1s |
| VFair | 677.6s |
2. Delta value. Sorry for any confusion on this point. (1) When presenting the optimization steps in the paper, we considered VFair to be executed independently, so we might not know the appropriate delta value beforehand. In this sense, the final delta value a trained model can achieve will be mainly determined by the maximal number of epochs, assuming it is well-converged. (2) In the experiments, to ensure all baselines comply with the harmless fairness setting, we terminate each training process at the epoch with the nearest loss to the delta derived from a converged ERM (See lines 555-559).
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thank you for the response. I will keep my score
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you so much for your recognition of our work. Once again, we sincerely appreciate the time and effort you spent reviewing our paper. Your valuable suggestions and insights have greatly contributed to improving our manuscript. | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate the valuable comments from the reviewers. In response to some issues that required additional experiments and illustrations, we added new experiments and figures in the supplementary PDF.
Pdf: /pdf/6169aeed5762831275d7eff402da966f250a40e4.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Randomized Exploration in Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning | Accept (poster) | Summary: This paper presents the first result on provably efficient randomized exploration in cooperative multi-agent RL. This paper focuses on parallel MDP where the transition kernel assumes an approximately linear structure. To this end, two Thompson-sampling-type algorithms are propose which leverages the perturbed-history exploration and Langevin Monte Carlo exploration strategies, respectively. When applied to linear MDPs, both algorithms provaly achieve $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(d^{3/2} H^2 \sqrt{MK})$ regret bound with $\tilde{\mathcal{O}} (d H M^2)$ communication complexity, where $H$ is the horizon length, $M$ is the number of agents and $d$ is the parameter dimension, marking the first-ever non-trivial theoretical results for randomized exploration in cooperative multi-agent RL. To evaluate the proposed methods, experiments on multiple parallel environments, including $N$-chain, a video game, and an energy system control problem, are conducted. The results show the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms, even under certain misspecified transitions.
Strengths: **Significance**:
**1.** The paper proposed the first meaningful theoretical result for randomized exploration in multi-agent cooperative RL.
**2.** The algorithms are not only theoretically meaningful, but also easy to implement and has various advantages such as computational efficiency and avoidance of sampling bias.
**Quality**: this paper is high-quality.
**1.** The theory part of this paper is very solid.
First a unified framework is introduced which has wide applicability and can incorporate various specific settings. Then detailed application to linear MDP with theoretical guarantees is given. The paper further considers the misspecified setting where the transition kernel is slightly misspecified in a certain way, which can be common in practice. This helps extend the applicability of the proposed method.
**2.** The experimental result of this paper is extensive. Results on both video games and realistic energy control are provided.
**Clearity**: This paper is clearly written.
**1.** The theory of this paper is very clear, with the help of well-chosen terms and notations, unambiguous definitions and clear description of theorems.
**2.** A detailed table comparing all necessary related works is provided, helping readers quickly grasp the pros and cons of the proposed methods.
**3.** In section 3.1 and 3.2, a thorough description of the interpretation behind the PHE and LMC strategy is given. The rationale behind the synchronization rules is explained.
**4.** For all the experiments in section 5, the necessary implementation detail is given.
Weaknesses: I do not detect any technical or major weakness in the paper. I think this paper does make a novel theoretical contribution to a meaningful problem in RL. It is also well-written.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: I do not have specific confusion regarding the major content of this paper since it is clearly written. Still I am interested in the following and any thoughts from the authors would be great.
This paper reports theoretical guarantees on linear MDPs. I am just wondering if randomized exploration in cooperative RL can be extended to richer MDP classes. It seems that the current algorithm design is very suitable for linear MDPs. However, the possibility and path of extending to other MDP classes is less clear.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: Yes.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable time and providing positive feedback on our work. We hope our response addresses your question.
---
### Q1. Extension of the algorithm beyond linear MDP setting
Empirically, we would like to clarify that our algorithm is designed for general function approximation. For general MDPs, we could simply utilize a more powerful and expressive function class to approximate the value function and then directly apply our proposed algorithms since their update rules ((3.5) and (3.7) in the paper) can work with any function classes. This is in contrast with UCB and vanilla TS based algorithms [1, 2] which need to precisely compute the exploration bonus term based on the linear structure of the reward or value function.
Theoretically, when the transition is a linear MDP, it is equivalent to assuming the value function is linear and thus we can apply linear function classes with our algorithms. However, if we want to extend the theoretical results to richer MDPs beyond linear MDPs, it would require us to be able to analyze the convergence of the randomized strategies to the true posterior distribution which might be non-log-concave. We suspect this could be done by following some rigorous analyses in the approximate sampling literature for non-log-concave distributions [3]. Nevertheless, these results tend to have exponential dependency on the dimension or depend on specific assumptions on the properties of the posterior distributions, which could complicate the analysis and make the regret analysis vacuous without developing dedicated techniques. Thus we leave these interesting and challenging topics for future study.
---
We hope we have addressed all of your questions/concerns. If you have any further questions, we would be more than happy to answer them.
### References:
[1] Chu, Wei, et al. "Contextual bandits with linear payoff functions." Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2011.
[2] Jin, Chi, et al. "Provably efficient reinforcement learning with linear function approximation." Conference on learning theory. PMLR, 2020.
[3] Dalalyan, Arnak S. "Theoretical guarantees for approximate sampling from smooth and log-concave densities." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 79.3 (2017): 651-676.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Dear authors,
Thank you for the response and insights on the extension beyond linear MDP! I have read all the reviews, and I will take all the reviews and responses into consideration during the discussion session among reviewers. I maintain my positive rating for the manuscript. I would suggest add the discussion on the extension beyond linear MDP and the technical novelty during the paper revision.
Best,
Reviewer
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your further positive feedback! We will revise our paper according to your constructive reviews.
Best,
Authors | Summary: This paper studies provably efficient randomized exploration in parallel MDPs setting. The authors consider the linear setting, and propose two Thompson Sampling-style algorithms and establish the regret guarantees and communication cost. After that, they also conduct some experiments for evaluation.
Strengths: The authors contribute some new algorithms in this cooperative learning setting, and derive their regret bounds. The paper writing is also easy to follow. The experiments results are provided to verify the performance of algorithms.
Weaknesses: 1. I'm not convinced that the setting considered in this paper should be called "multi-agent RL". I think it would be better to regard it as a multi-task RL setting (or maybe consider the terminology the authors used in paper: the "parallel MDP setting"), because the transition and reward functions for each agent here does not depend on the behavior of other agents, which I believe the key feature of MARL setting is missing.
2. The comparison with previous work is not precise and misleading:
Line 210-211: "... matches the existing best single-agent results ...", which is not true. [1] considers a more general linear function approximation seeting and its regret only have $O(d)$ dependence on the dimension. I would also suggest to include the comparison with it in Table 1.
3. The setting requires more description. It seems to me there are two objectives: regret and communication complexity. It is unclear to me how the authors decide to trade-off them. I would suggest the authors to make it more clear. For the current version, it is unclear whether the regret bounds or the communication cost are optimized to optimal (or one of them are optimal while the other is better than previous).
Besides, it seems that the agents can feel free to decide when to synchronize with the other agents to optimize the communication cost, which seems not practical in most of the times.
4. The authors motivated the randomized exploration by pointing out that the UCB style algorithms can be computational intractable beyond the linear setting. However, the objective in Eq. (3.5) and update rule Eq.(3.7) seem not easy to be generalized beyond linear setting. Besides, all the theoretical results are also limited in the linear setting. So the motivation of this paper seems not convincing to me.
[1] Zanette et al., Learning Near Optimal Policies with Low Inherent Bellman Error
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: 1. Can you highlight a bit more about the technique novelty of the proposed methods?
2. In Page 26, line 877, can you explain in details why the inequality holds?
3. In Page 28, line 891, I didn't find the definition of $w^{1,0}, \hat{w}^{1,0}, \Lambda^1, b^1$ in Algorithm 3. Can you explain it?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: N.A.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable time and providing positive feedback on our work. We hope our response will fully address all of your points.
### Q1. Discussion on multi-task RL and multi-agent RL
Our work focuses on parallel MDPs, which have been categorized as multi-agent RL in the literature [1, 2, 4, 5]. While there are similarities with multi-task RL, especially in our extension to handle heterogeneity [6], our primary goal is to accelerate learning of individual MDPs by leveraging shared transition structures. This differs from multi-task RL, which involves solving multiple distinct tasks [7-9]. We will include relevant multi-task RL literature in the final version.
---
### Q2. The comparison with previous work [3]
Thank you for your suggestion! We would like to make our statement more accurate and concise. We intended to mean in line 221 that our result matches the existing best single-agent result using randomized exploration [10, 11]. We will polish our writing in our revision. [3] proposed ELEANOR, an optimistic generalization of the popular LSVI algorithm and derived the regret bound $\widetilde{O}(d H^2 \sqrt{K})$ under the same setting of ours. We will also add the comparison of [3] in Table 1 in the final version.
---
### Q3. Trade off between regret and communication complexity
We first individually derive the regret bound (Theorem 4.2 and 4.3) and communication complexity with respect to $\gamma$. Then we choose a proper $\gamma=O(K/dM)$ to match the regret with other multi-agent results [1, 2]. Then we find our communication complexity matches the result of [2] and is better than [1]. We also further discuss the differences between synchronous and asynchronous settings in Remark 4.7.
---
### Q4. Concerns about synchronization
We would like to clarify that our synchronization framework is a general setting and one main contribution of this work is to present how to incorporate random exploration strategies into this framework from both theoretical and experimental perspectives. Specifically, the synchronization condition in (3.3) contributes to the theoretical derivation of both regret and communication complexity. On the other hand, we mention in line 142 that we investigate three types of synchronization rules in the experiments. Although the synchronization rule from (3.3) still results in the most competitive performance, we show that other synchronization rules’ performance is also closer. We consider incorporating domain knowledge with criteria for specific tasks to constrain the synchronization in future work.
---
### Q5. Generalization beyond linear setting & Q6. About technical novelty of the proposed method
Please refer to our **General Response** for all reviewers due to space limit.
---
### Q7. Proof explanation for the inequality in page 26, line 877
This inequality holds because: 1. $(I+A_i)^{-1} \preccurlyeq \frac{2}{3} I$ (directly obtain from (F.2)) 2. we have set $\beta_{m, i}=\beta_K$ for all $i \in[k]$ and $m \in \mathcal{M}$ 3. $A_i^{2 J_i}(\Lambda_{m, h}^i)^{-1} = A_i^{J_i}(\Lambda_{m, h}^i)^{-1} A_i^{J_i}$ because $A_i=I-2 \eta_{m, i} \Lambda^i_{m, h}$.
---
### Q8. Explanation for the definition in page 28, line 891
First, we would like to emphasize again that to simplify the notations in the proof for CoopTS-LMC, we eliminate the index $n$ (the multi-sampling number) before Lemma E.7 because the previous lemmas have nothing to do with multi-sampling. This has been mentioned at the beginning of the proof (line 779).
So $w_{m, h}^{1,0}$ is $w_{m, h}^{k, j, n}$ with $k=1,j=0$ and eliminated $n$, here we initialize $w^{1,0}_{m, h}=0$.
Moreover, $\widehat{w}^1_{m, h}, \Lambda^1_{m, h}, b^1_{m, h}$ is defined in line 640-642 with $k=1$.
---
We hope we have addressed all of your questions. If you have any further questions, we would be happy to answer them and if you don’t, would you kindly consider increasing your score?
### References:
[1] Dubey, Abhimanyu, and Alex Pentland. "Provably efficient cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning with function approximation." arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.04972 (2021).
[2] Min, Yifei, et al. "Cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning: Asynchronous communication and linear function approximation." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2023.
[3] Zanette, Andrea, et al. "Learning near optimal policies with low inherent bellman error." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2020.
[4] Lidard, Justin, et al. “Provably Efficient Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning with Fully Decentralized Communication.” IEEE American Control Conference (ACC), 2022.
[5] Cisneros-Velarde, Pedro, et al. “One Policy is Enough: Parallel Exploration with a Single Policy is Near-Optimal for Reward-Free Reinforcement Learning.” International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2023
[6] Zhang, Chicheng, et al. “Provably efficient multi-task reinforcement learning with model transfer.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021)
[7] Shi, Chengshuai, et al. “Provably Efficient Offline Reinforcement Learning with Perturbed Data Sources.” International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2023.
[8] Sodhani, Shagun, et al. "Multi-Task Reinforcement Learning with Context-based Representations." Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine
Learning, 2021.
[9] Amani, Sanae, et al . “Scaling Distributed Multi-task Reinforcement Learning with Experience Sharing.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05834 (2023).
[10] Ishfaq, Haque, et al. "Provable and Practical: Efficient Exploration in Reinforcement Learning via Langevin Monte Carlo." International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
[11] Ishfaq, Haque, et al. "Randomized exploration in reinforcement learning with general value function approximation." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2021.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Comment: Thanks for the detailed feedback. I do not have further questions and I will take the responses into consideration during the decision period.
I would suggest include the discussion regarding comparison with [3], trade-off between regret and communication complexity, and clarification on the synchronization framework during the paper revision.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Comment: Thank you very much for your positive feedback! We will add all these discussions to our final version.
Best,
Authors | Summary: This paper considers randomized exploration in a multi-agent reinforcement learning setting called parallel MDPs. Two Thompson sampling-type algorithms are provided with a regret bound and communication complexity bound. The algorithms are empirically validated in multiple environments.
Strengths: * The paper is well-written and easy to follow.
* Theoretical analysis is provided and it can match the performance of the state-of-the-art results with the potential to generalize to deep RL.
* Experiment validation is provided.
Weaknesses: * The technical novelty and contribution seem limited. Can authors elaborate on the challenges in the analysis?
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: * What is the tradeoff between using perturbed history exploration and Langevin Monte Carlo exploration?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 2
Limitations: I didn't see potential negative societal impact of this work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable time and effort in providing feedback on our work. We hope our response will fully address all of your points.
---
### Q1. Detailed explanation about challenges in theoretical analysis.
We explain the specific improvements we made in our theoretical analysis here.
1. In our theoretical analysis, compared with UCB exploration, randomized exploration encounters more challenges to prove the lemma of optimism (Lemma E.10 and Lemma H.5) and the lemma of error bound (Lemma E.9 and Lemma H.6). For UCB type of algorithms, the property that the optimistic estimated value function is larger than the optimal value function can be directly guaranteed because of the added UCB bonus term. While for randomized exploration (TS-based exploration here), our optimism lemma is to prove a negative model prediction error (defined in Definition E.1). This can not be directly guaranteed because it can only be achieved with a probability. To ensure a high probability result, we use multi-sampling (such as line 3 in Algorithm 3), which causes some difficulty in analysis.
2. The multi-agent setting and the communications from synchronization in our algorithms further increase the challenges in our analysis compared to randomized exploration in the single-agent setting [2, 3]. To upper bound the self-normalized term summation in the multi-agent setting, we prove Lemma E.12, which is a modified and refined version compared with [4].
3. One big theoretical challenge is that we find and fix a non-negligible error in the regret decomposition that previous work ignored (we discuss this in Remark 4.5). To be specific, in proofs for both CoopTS-LMC and CoopTS-PHE we use a new $\varepsilon$-covering technique to prove that the optimism lemma holds for all $(s, a) \in \mathcal{S} \times \mathcal{A}$ instead of just the state-action pairs encountered by the algorithm, which is essential for the regret analysis. This was ignored by previous works [1] that use the same regret decomposition technique in the single-agent setting. Several following works using the same regret decomposition technique also ignore this error.
4. Additionally, in Appendix C, we also provide a refined analysis of communication complexity and achieve the state-of-the-art result. This is an improvement compared with previous work [4] under the same setting. This result matches the asynchronous setting result [5] and we discuss some interesting phenomena in Remark 4.7.
We hope these illustrations could show our contributions on the theoretical analysis to you more clearly.
---
### Q2. The tradeoff between using perturbed history exploration and Langevin Monte Carlo exploration
We discuss the comparisons between PHE and LMC in the following three aspects: algorithm design, theoretical results and experiments.
1. Algorithm design: For PHE, we add i.i.d. random Gaussian noise to perturb reward and regularizer to realize randomized exploration. This requires a large number of i.i.d. Gaussian noise when the total episode $K$, the horizon length $H$ and the multi-sampling number $N$ are large. For LMC, we do the randomized exploration by performing noisy gradient descent. This requires the convergence of the LMC to the target distribution.
2. Theoretical results: Under linear MDP setting, we notice that CoopTS-PHE (Theorem 4.2) and CoopTS-LMC (Theorem 4.4) have the same order of regret, which is mentioned in Remark 4.5. While under the misspecified setting where the transition functions $P_{m,h}$ and the reward functions $r_{m,h}$ are heterogeneous across MDPs, by comparing Theorems D.3 and D.5, we find the result of CoopTS-LMC has an extra $\sqrt{d}$ factor worse than that of CoopTS-PHE, causing the chosen $\zeta$ in CoopTS-PHE has an extra $\sqrt{d}$ order over that in CoopTS-LMC. This indicates that CoopTS-PHE has better performance tolerance for the misspecified setting (we have discussed in Remark D.6).
3. Experiments: Based on our experimental results, it is hard to say which one exactly outperforms the other one. For example, in Figure 1, we find that CoopTS-LMC performs better in Mario tasks and CoopTS-PHE performs better in N-chain tasks.
---
We hope we have addressed all of your questions/concerns. If you have any further questions, we would be more than happy to answer them and if you don’t, would you kindly consider increasing your score?
### References:
[1] Cai, Qi, et al. "Provably efficient exploration in policy optimization." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2020.
[2] Ishfaq, Haque, et al. "Provable and Practical: Efficient Exploration in Reinforcement Learning via Langevin Monte Carlo." International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
[3] Ishfaq, Haque, et al. "Randomized exploration in reinforcement learning with general value function approximation." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2021.
[4] Dubey, Abhimanyu, and Alex Pentland. "Provably efficient cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning with function approximation." arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.04972 (2021).
[5] Min, Yifei, et al. "Cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning: Asynchronous communication and linear function approximation." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2023. | Summary: This paper investigates multi-agent reinforcement learning in cooperative scenarios. The main contribution is the extension of randomized exploration methods, including perturbed-history exploration and Langevin Monte Carlo exploration, to the multi-agent cooperative setting. The authors offer a regret analysis for the linear MDP case and present empirical results to validate the proposed method.
Strengths: - Although the results of this paper are not entirely new, as they extend randomized exploration methods from the single-agent to the cooperative multi-agent setting, the authors effectively highlight the technical challenges and their contributions (line 227-236).
- The algorithm proposed in this paper have better communication complexity than the UCB-type algorithm in the synchronous setting.
- Extensive experiments are conducted to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method, which is an advantage for a theoretically oriented paper.
Weaknesses: - About the contenders in experiments: It is unclear to me how the contenders DQN, Double DQN, and others were implemented. Are they running independently in multi-agent environments, with the average reward reported? If not, since Algorithm 1 provides a unified framework for parallel MDPs, the empirical comparison might be more complete if other contenders are also equipped with the synchronized steps. Besides, It is unclear why the performance of Bootstrapped DQN deteriorated significantly in the $N$-chain problem.
- Discrepancy between theory and empirical results: As shown by Theorem 4.3 and Theorem 4.4, the average performance of the proposed method improves with the growth of $M$. However, in Figure 1 and Figure 4 in the appendix, a slower convergence rate is observed when $m$ is larger. Additionally, the scaling of the x-axis in Figure 1(a) and Figure 1(b) is different, which can be misleading since the convergence rate in Figure 1(b) is actually slower than in Figure 1(a).
- Parameter setting: It appears that setting the threshold $\gamma$ requires knowledge of $K$. How should this parameter be set in practice?
Overall, this paper makes solid progress in developing randomized algorithms for cooperative multi-agent RL. However, I am concerned about the discrepancy between theory and experiment. I would raise my score if these concerns are adequately addressed.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 2
Questions for Authors: - Could you provide a more detailed explanation for the configuration of the contenders?
- Could you provide a more detailed explanation for the discrepancy between the theoretical guarantees and the experimental results?
- How should the parameter $\gamma$ be set in practice?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 2
Contribution: 3
Limitations: I do not find the negative societal impact of this work.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 5
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: Thank you for your valuable time and effort in providing detailed feedback on our work. We hope our response will fully address all of your points.
---
### Q1. Explanation for the configuration of the contenders
All the baselines as well as our two proposed methods are run under the unified framework in Algorithm 1 for fair comparison. The only difference is how they explore. For example, the vanilla DQN follows $\epsilon$-greedy exploration strategy, but it is still equipped with the synchronized steps in your suggestion. We will emphasize this more in our final version of the manuscript. In addition to using a unified framework for all DQN baselines and our exploration strategies, the architecture for all of them remains consistent. Specifically, we detail the number of neural networks and layers for each task, as well as our hyper-parameter tuning process in Appendix Section L: Additional Experimental Details.
It is generally observed that performance drops in a multi-agent parallel learning setting compared to a single-agent setting for all DQN-based approaches, including our two proposed strategies. This phenomenon is anticipated, as Theorems 4.2 and 4.4 indicate that regret increases with $\sqrt{M}$. Consequently, the single-agent performance serves as an upper bound for multi-agent parallel learning. In other words, empirical performance may decline with increasing $M$, regardless of the exploration strategy, as demonstrated by Bootstrapped DQN in this specific task. Our empirical results corroborate our theoretical findings.
We would like to emphasize that the goal of our unified framework is to solve a single task efficiently when computational resources are limited. In this context, multiple agents can share the computational burden and accelerate training within our framework. CoopTS-PHE and CoopTS-LMC, combined with our synchronization conditions, facilitate efficient synchronization with minimal communication complexity.
---
### Q2. Explanation of the experimental results
First, we clarify that both Theorem 4.2 (CoopTS-PHE) and Theorem 4.4 (CoopTS-LMC) show that the cumulative regret has the order of $\sqrt{M}$. Thus the average regret (defined as the cumulative regret divided by the number of agents) has the order of $\sqrt{1/M}$, meaning the average regret decreases when $M$ is larger, which indicates that the average performance improves when $M$ is larger. We would like to clarify that the plots in Figure 1 and Figure 4 in the original manuscript do not directly imply a convergence rate comparison between different numbers of agents due to the x-axis scaling.
In particular, we appreciate the reviewer's observation regarding the x-axis scaling in the figures. These differing scales were intended to present comprehensive results. Specifically, our x-axis indicates the comparison from a sample efficiency perspective, which represents the total number of episodes shared among all agents, as mentioned in Line 274. Therefore, we can have a better understanding of how different RL algorithms perform with the same number of agents. To compare the convergence rate across settings with different numbers of agents, we should divide the x-axis by the number of agents involved in training. Please refer to Figure 1 in the attached PDF, where the y-axis is the average reward among all agents and the x-axis is the number of training episodes per agent. From this perspective, the convergence rate in Figure 1(b) is not slower than in Figure 1(a), especially that CoopTS-LMC has a significantly faster convergence rate when $n=3$ in Figure 1 (b). This indicates consistency with our theoretical results. We will update the plots in the final manuscript to ensure consistent scaling and enhance clarity.
---
### Q3. Practical setting of parameter $\gamma$
We agree that there may be additional hyper-parameter tuning for $\gamma$ selection. There are prior works in the single-agent setting for all the experiments we conduct. Therefore, we set the initial total number of episodes among all agents $K$ based on prior works in single-agent settings. This initial setting of $K$ is used to decide our $\gamma$, followed by further fine-tuning of $K$ depending on the initial performance. We acknowledge that generalizing the synchronization rule from equation (3.3) to varying tasks may require more effort, despite its simple theoretical proof. As mentioned in Line 142, we actually investigated three types of synchronization rules in our experiments, including the rule from equation (3.3). Figure 6 demonstrates the results on the $N$-chain problem, indicating that all three synchronization rules perform consistently when $N=10$. Furthermore, Figure 11 shows a relatively better performance using the synchronization condition from equation (3.3) shown as the green curve when $N=25$. However, we recognize the practical value of the simplicity of other synchronization rules, which do not require knowledge of $K$ and result in closer performance. This flexibility highlights the practical utility of our unified framework.
---
We hope we have addressed all of your questions/concerns. If you have any further questions, we would be more than happy to answer them and if you don’t, would you kindly consider increasing your score? | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: ## General response
We would like to thank all reviewers for your insightful and detailed reviews and comments. We have addressed your comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. In the following, we would like to provide general responses to several common questions raised by reviewers.
---
### Q1. Generalization beyond linear setting
Empirically, we would like to clarify that our algorithm is designed for general function approximation. For general MDPs, we could simply utilize a more powerful and expressive function class to approximate the value function and then directly apply our proposed algorithms since their update rules ((3.5) and (3.7) in the paper) can work with any function classes. This is in contrast with UCB and vanilla TS based algorithms [6] which need to precisely compute the exploration bonus term based on the linear structure of the reward or value function.
Theoretically, when the transition is a linear MDP, it is equivalent to assuming the value function is linear and thus we can apply linear function classes with our algorithms. However, if we want to extend the theoretical results to richer MDPs beyond linear MDPs, it would require us to be able to analyze the convergence of the randomized strategies to the true posterior distribution which might be non-log-concave. We suspect this could be done by following some rigorous analyses in the approximate sampling literature for non-log-concave distributions [5]. Nevertheless, these results tend to have exponential dependency on the dimension or depend on specific assumptions on the properties of the posterior distributions, which could complicate the analysis and make the regret analysis vacuous without developing dedicated techniques. Thus we leave these interesting and challenging topics for future study.
---
### Q2. About technical novelty of the proposed method
1. Our work is the first study on provably efficient randomized exploration in cooperative multi-agent RL, with both theory and empirical evidence. No prior work has implemented provable randomized exploration in this multi-agent setting, there have been even no experiments involving UCB exploration in the multi-agent setting in previous studies.
2. We conduct extensive experiments on various benchmarks with comprehensive ablation studies, including $N$-chain that requires deep exploration, Super Mario Bros task in a misspecified setting, and a real-world problem in thermal control of building energy systems. Through empirical evaluation, we demonstrate that our proposed framework with synchronous communication scheme has a better performance and also compare different synchronization conditions (which we showed in Figure 6 and discuss in Appendix J). Our experiments also support that our randomized exploration strategies outperform existing deep $Q$ network (DQN)-based baselines. By proposing Algorithm 4, we also show that our random exploration strategies in cooperative MARL can be adapted to the existing federated RL framework when data transitions are not shared. We believe that our empirical results have enough contributions and provide solid support for relevant theoretical analysis.
3. In the linear Parallel MDPs setting, we give the first theoretical result for randomized exploration. Both our regret upper bound and communication complexity match the currently best results of UCB-type of algorithms in the same setting. Moreover, we extend our theoretical analysis to the misspecified setting where the transition and the reward functions are heterogeneous across different MDPs, which is more general than the previous work (we discuss in Remark D.2 in Appendix D). In Remark D.6, we also discuss that CoopTS-PHE has better performance tolerance than CoopTS-LMC for the misspecified setting, which is aligned with our experimental results in Figure 1(b).
4. In the theoretical analysis, we also fixed a non-negligible error in the regret decomposition that previous work ignored (we discuss this in Remark 4.5). To be specific, in proofs for both CoopTS-LMC and CoopTS-PHE we use a new $\varepsilon$-covering technique to prove that the optimism lemma holds for all $(s, a) \in \mathcal{S} \times \mathcal{A}$ instead of just the state-action pairs encountered by the algorithm, which is essential for the regret analysis. This was ignored by previous work [1] and its follow-up work [2] that use the same regret decomposition technique. Furthermore, the multi-agent setting and the communications from synchronization in our algorithms also increase the challenges in our analysis compared to randomized exploration in the single-agent setting [2, 3]. In Appendix C, we also provide a refined analysis of communication complexity and get the currently best regret bound. This is an improvement compared with previous work [4].
### References:
[1] Cai, Qi, et al. "Provably efficient exploration in policy optimization." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2020.
[2] Ishfaq, Haque, et al. "Provable and Practical: Efficient Exploration in Reinforcement Learning via Langevin Monte Carlo." International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
[3] Ishfaq, Haque, et al. "Randomized exploration in reinforcement learning with general value function approximation." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2021.
[4] Dubey, Abhimanyu, and Alex Pentland. "Provably efficient cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning with function approximation." arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.04972 (2021).
[5] Dalalyan, Arnak S. "Theoretical guarantees for approximate sampling from smooth and log-concave densities." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 79.3 (2017): 651-676.
[6] Jin, Chi, et al. "Provably efficient reinforcement learning with linear function approximation." Conference on learning theory. PMLR, 2020.
Pdf: /pdf/fd83c45c59fbe130a7cc7f213bcfab434782da8c.pdf | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Stable Minima Cannot Overfit in Univariate ReLU Networks: Generalization by Large Step Sizes | Accept (spotlight) | Summary: This paper studies the implicit regularization of large learning rates in gradient descent. The setting is univariate linear regression with two-layer ReLU neural networks. The authors show that, if GD converges to a local minimum, then the function implemented by the neural network at this local minimum has a bounded first-order total variation. This regularity avoids overfitting, as quantified by a generalization bound. Numerical experiments validate the results.
Strengths: Understanding the implicit regularization of optimization algorithms for deep learning is a key topic. This paper studies a fairly realistic setting, which does not necessitate interpolation. To my knowledge, the results are novel and go beyond what was already known on the impact of large learning rates (edge of stability, minima stability). Most previous works focus on parameter space and not function space. The interpretation in terms of function space proposed in the present paper is interesting. The paper is very clearly-written. While I have not read the proofs, the mathematical presentation of the results in the main text is very precise.
Weaknesses: The paper considers a univariate case, some comments on the extension to the multivariate case are given at the end of Section 1.1.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: Do the authors have any insight on the role of overparameterization in the setting they consider? It does not seem to have a large influence on the generalization bounds, but perhaps it would help the optimization (e.g., via a PL inequality)?
Minor remarks:
- lines 132: the connection between stepsize and L1/L2 regularization has been thoroughly analysed for diagonal linear networks in [2].
- lines 147-153: a relevant theoretical paper on the Edge of Stability is [1].
[1] Damin, Nichani, Lee, Self-Stabilization: The Implicit Bias of Gradient Descent at the Edge of Stability, ICLR 2023.
[2] Even, Pesme, Gunasekar, Flammarion. (S)GD over Diagonal Linear Networks: Implicit Regularisation, Large Stepsizes and Edge of Stability. NeurIPS 2023.
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 4
Limitations: Limitations are properly addressed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate your high quality review and the positive score. Below we will reply to your comments.
**The paper considers a univariate case, some comments on the extension to the multivariate case are given at the end of Section 1.1.**
Since this is the first paper to consider minima stability without the assumption of interpolation, we start with the univariate case. The generalization to multivariate functions includes deriving a similar weighted TV(1) bound (with $f^{\prime\prime}(x)$ replaced by the Laplacian $\Delta(f)$). Based on the analysis for the multivariate case with interpolation [Nacson et al 2022], the additional term about approximation error needs to be handled as in this submission. With a TV(1) bound, the learned function belongs to a Radon TV class, and the remaining analysis is based on the metric entropy of such a function class. We believe this to be an interesting and promising future direction.
**Do the authors have any insight on the role of overparameterization in the setting they consider? It does not seem to have a large influence on the generalization bounds, but perhaps it would help the optimization (e.g., via a PL inequality)?**
This is a very good question.
Overparameterization ensures that the neural network is able to ''approximate'' the underlying function $f_0$, i.e., there exist neural networks such that the training loss can be smaller than $\sigma^2$. It is also generally believed that overparameterization makes optimization easy. In our numerical experiments, we found that underparameterized NNs (with just a few knots) are more likely to get stuck at solutions with knots in awkward locations. On the other hand, when the NNs are overparameterized, even at initialization, there are already candidate basis functions with "knots" near every input data point, thus making it much easier to find good solutions that are ''optimized''. This is a hypothesis that our experiments (in Figure 4,5) supports.
Our generalization bounds work for both overparameterized and underparameterized NNs. The theoretical insight is that, when trained with GD, overparameterization does not cause overfitting, which offers new theoretical justifiction to how GD-trained overparameterized NN works even though there are more than enough parameters to overfit the noise.
As for the PL condition: it will be very interesting if one can obtain PL condition (or any approximate variant of that). Existing work on the optimization of overparameterized NN focuses on the ''interpolation'' regime which does not apply to our problem.
**Regarding the references.**
Thanks for pointing us to these references. We will add discussions about these papers in the next version.
Thanks again for the high-quality review. We hope our response could address your main concerns and we are happy to answer any further questions.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Thank you for the rebuttal.
Comment: I thank the authors for their rebuttal and keep my score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.1.1:
Title: Thank you!
Comment: Thanks for acknowledging our response and for your continued support! | Summary: This paper studies the generalization properties of two-layer ReLU neural networks in a univariate nonparametric regression problem with noisy labels. It proposes a new theory for local minima to which gradient descent (GD) with a fixed learning rate $\eta$ stably converges. The paper shows that GD with a constant learning rate can only find stable local minima whose weighted TV(1) is bounded by $1/\eta-1/2+\tilde{O}(\sigma+\sqrt{\mathrm{MSE}})$. With this property of local minimas, they prove the generalization bound for univariate nonparametric regression. The theoretical results are validated by extensive simulations demonstrating that large learning rate training induces sparse linear spline fits.
Strengths: This paper gives an end-to-end analysis of the generalization of two layer ReLU networks on learning nonparametric univariate functions. The completeness of the work is significant. The theoretical analysis is solid and the proof is well-organized. The authors also present extensive experiments to support their theoretical findings. In general, it is a good paper.
Weaknesses: 1. The analysis in this paper has little focus on optimization. There is no rigorous theoretical evidence that GD will find the solutions that satisfies the assumptions (though I know this is an open problem in the literature).
2. This paper is limited to univariate functions, which is not important in practice. The authors claims that the technique can be generated to multivariate functions but they did not show that.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: How large is the family of target functions satisfying the BV(1) condition?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have addressed some limitations of their work, acknowledging that their analysis is only for full batch gradient descent and univariate nonparamatric regression.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 8
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate your high quality review and the positive score. Below we will reply to your comments.
**The analysis in this paper has little focus on optimization. There is no rigorous theoretical evidence that GD will find the solutions that satisfies the assumptions (though I know this is an open problem in the literature).**
We agree with your point. Line 94-105 in the paper was written with the hope of avoiding the confusion w.r.t. the optimization.
Our results focus on the generalization of the neural nets GD can stably find. We do not have new computational guarantees on GD convergence. Convergence of GD for training a neural network in non-interpolating regime (to an ''optimized'' solution) is an open problem that would probably require additional assumptions.
To the defense of our paper, almost all statistical learning theory is about ERM or regularized ERM which does not deal with optimization at all. The interesting discovery from our paper is that we not only do not require ERM, we showed that ERMs are very bad.
While we cannot show that GD finds good solutions, we proved that (1) GD cannot converge to interpolating solutions (unless the learning rate is tiny) (2) all solutions GD can converge to cannot overfit. These are, in our opinion, strong and new theoretical results about ''optimization'' even though they are not about computation but rather about ''optimization-induced'' solutions.
Moreover, we find that our bounds hold for a wider range of cases in the sense that the convergence of GD is not necessary. The weighted TV(1) bound of $f_\theta$ is valid as well as the corresponding $\theta$ has a flat landscape (i.e. the $\lambda_{\max}$ of Hessian is bounded by $\frac{2}{\eta}$). In this way, our results actually apply to all flat points found along the learning process of GD and the ''Edge of Stability'' regime. We will make this more general implication of our result clearer in the next version.
**This paper is limited to univariate functions, which is not important in practice. The authors claims that the technique can be generated to multivariate functions but they did not show that.**
Since this is the first paper to consider minima stability without the assumption of interpolation, we start with the univariate case. The generalization to multivariate functions includes deriving a similar weighted TV(1) bound (with $f^{\prime\prime}(x)$ replaced by the Laplacian $\Delta(f)$). Based on the analysis for the multivariate case with interpolation [Nacson et al 2022], the additional term about approximation error needs to be handled as in this submission. With a TV(1) bound, the learned function belongs to a Radon TV class, and the remaining analysis is based on the metric entropy of such a function class. We believe this to be an interesting and promising future direction.
**How large is the family of target functions satisfying the BV(1) condition?**
The BV(1) function class includes a wide range of well-known functions, including the more familiar first-order Holder class functions (functions with Lipschitz derivatives) and Sobolev class functions (functions where the second derivatives are square-integrable), but also cover more spatial heterogeneous functions such as linear splines with a small number of knots. For a few examples, see Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and Fig 4 of (Mammen and Van De Geer, 1997)
It is a natural function class that ReLU neural networks represent. It is also a well-studied function class in the non-parameteric regression literature (e.g., Mammen and Van De Geer, 1997; Donoho and Johnstone, 1998).
Enno Mammen and Sara van de Geer, Locally adaptive regression splines.
David L. Donoho and Iain M. Johnstone, Minimax estimation via wavelet shrinkage.
Thanks again for the high-quality review. We hope our response could address your main concerns and we are happy to answer any further questions.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Any further questions?
Comment: Thanks again for your time in reviewing our paper! We have addressed your technical questions above and shared some perspectives. Could you kindly let us know if our rebuttal satisfactorily resolved your concerns?
We would love an opportunity to address any further questions and comments you may have before the author discussion period expires.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.2:
Comment: I thank the authors for their rebuttal and I will keep my score.
---
Reply to Comment 1.2.1:
Title: Thank you
Comment: Thanks for acknowledging our response and for your continued support! | Summary: The paper studies uni-variate regression with two layer networks and builds on the following observation: If the basin (derived form a quadratic approximation) around a given minimum is too narrow, gradient descent with a fixed step size $\eta$ will escape it, only sufficiently wide basins can capture the iterates of GD with large step sizes. It is thus reasonable to restrict the function space attainable by GD to the set of functions that can be expressed by a minimum with a wide basin. By extending a previous result to the noisy-label setting, they show that the width of the basin (or the hessian of the loss) relates to a (weighted) measure of the TV norm of the function encoded by the minimum. The function space of interest thus becomes a space functions with low TV norm. By computing covering numbers of this space, uniform generalization bounds are derived for this restricted space of functions.
Strengths: The paper is very well written. The proofs in the appendix section are also well written and easy to follow. The minima studied are non-interpolating, unlike the minima studied by a large portion of prior literature (although this work is in the univariate setting). Moreover, although the fact that large stepsizes bias towards solutions with fewer knots appears in prior work, this paper explores this interesting fact further in the noisy-label setting. The paper provides some avenues to understanding generalization when over-fitting is not benign.
Weaknesses: - *The "optimized" assumption*: This assumption which effectively assumes that there exists wide and low minima is somewhat justified in lines 267-270, but I believe it is reasonable to disagree with the statement that it is mild. The experiments provided as evidence for the assumption are conducted with really large noise levels sigmas that are of the same order as $f$. The authors empirical argument could be strengthened by considering noise levels that do not dwarf the signal. It seems difficult to believe that a smooth $f$ can attain a training loss that is lower than $f_0$ when no assumption on the smoothness of $f_0$ is made. The authors should clarify why a condition on $f_0$ is not necessary for this assumption to be mild.
- The refined bounds with underparametrization: The bounds are refined by considering under parametrized settings with the width $k$ being smaller than the number of data points but the authors do not discuss its impact on the "optimized" assumption. Why would an underparametrized network be able to attain train losses smaller than a ground truth on which no assumptions are made ? I believe there are trade-offs between $\eta$, the level of underparametrization and the attained train loss that are not mentioned sufficiently by the authors.
- A final minor weakness: The work extends [Mulayoff et al 2021] in limited ways but does not exploit the added generalization to derive new conclusions. That stepsize affects the number of knots was explored before. There is now a sigma appearing in the smoothness bounds and an MSE term, yet there are no comments on what is added by their extension. The interplay between sigma and eta is not discussed, for instance, does having a large eta but high noise means that stable functions need no have a low TV norm or is the upper bound loose? I believe such discussions could strengthen their work as some results, namely Thm 4.3, are straightforward applications of generalization bounds for spaces with known metric entropy.
Technical Quality: 4
Clarity: 4
Questions for Authors: The weight function $g$ is inherited from [Mulayoff et al 2021] but would really benefit from some more clarifications, even for completeness. It is clear that the interval $\mathcal{I}$ must be introduced to remove the weighing and allow the authors to use covering numbers for bounded TV norm spaces. Could the authors explain why it arises in theorem 4.1 ?
Confidence: 3
Soundness: 4
Presentation: 4
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The limitations are discussed.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 6
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate your high quality review and the positive score. Below we will reply to your comments.
**Regarding the ''optimized'' assumption.**
First of all, we politely point out that we actually made some assumptions on the smoothness of $f_0$. In line 312 of Theorem 4.4, we assume an upper bound on the TV(1) norm of $f_0$ (dependent on the learning rate $\eta$), which further implies that $f_0$ is inside the possible output function class learned by GD. Therefore, the ''optimized'' assumption can be satisfied if GD finds some smooth function that is near-optimal (in training loss) inside the possible output function class. Lastly, we will conduct experiments with smaller noise scale to check the assumption.
**Regarding the refined bounds with underparametrization.**
This is a very good point. Our generalization bound holds as well as the learned function is ''optimized'', while the result can be improved if a refined MSE bound could be derived. The case of underparametrization is therefore mentioned as an example for a refined MSE. In this case, the ''optimized'' assumption is not guaranteed, and we agree that it is harder for an underparameterized NN to perform better than the ground truth (compared to the overparameterized case). The relationship between whether the ''optimized'' assumption is satisfied and the number of neurons in the network is a very interesting problem, and we will think about experiments to showcase the relationship.
**Regarding the interplay between $\sigma$ and $\eta$.**
Thanks for the comment mentioning the interplay between $\sigma$ and $\eta$. The current bound scales as $O(\frac{1}{\eta}+\sigma)$, which means that either a small $\eta$ or a large $\sigma$ would lead to a larger TV(1) bound. The empirical evidence of such argument would require trying out different noise scales (similar to the first weakness you mentioned), and we leave these to the next version of the draft.
**Regarding the weight function $g$.**
The choice of $g$ is mainly due to technical reasons. Based on inequality (41), the key idea is to bound the TV(1) norm of the output function by $\lambda_{\max}(\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \nabla_i \nabla_i^T)$ (the term ($\star$)). Therefore, the $g$ function is generated in the middle-step inequalities to lower bound the $\lambda_{\max}$ term by $\int |f^{\prime\prime}(x)|g(x)dx$. For more proof details, please refer to our Lemma F.1 or Lemma 4 of [Mulayoff et al 2021]. Lastly, some properties of $g(x)$ and its implication on the learned function $f$ can be found in Appendix B.
Thanks again for the high-quality review. We hope our response could address your main concerns and we are happy to answer any further questions.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Any follow-up questions before discussion period expires?
Comment: Thanks again for your time in reviewing our paper! We have addressed your technical questions above. Could you kindly let us know if our rebuttal satisfactorily resolved your concerns?
We would love an opportunity to address any further questions and comments you may have before the author discussion period expires.
---
Rebuttal 2:
Title: Thanks a lot! We understand what you mean now!
Comment: Thanks for the follow-up questions!
> In Corollary 4.2, the optimized assumption, as far as I understand, is just assumed to be attainable without $f_0$ belonging to a BV space. My issue is that this assumption is unrealistic without constraints on $f_0$ and I believe it reasonable to disagree with your paragraph 267.
I see! You are right that Corollary 4.2 is a valid statement without assuming regularity on f_0. In fact, for Corollary 4.2 to be valid, all we need is MSE = $\tilde{O}(\sigma^2)$. The "optimized" condition was only used for convenience because we can bound $$\sqrt{MSE} = \\|f - f_0\\| \\leq \\|f - y\\| + \\|y - f_0\\| \leq 2\sigma.$$
We can instead just use $$\sqrt{MSE} \leq \sigma + \sqrt{\text{TrainingLoss}}$$ so Corollary 4.2 does not need the "optimized" assumption. TrainingLoss being a constant is relatively mild, because all 0 initialization already have a training loss of $\frac{1}{2n}\sum_i y_i^2 = O(1)$ if label $y_i$ are all bounded. If gradient descent does not diverge, then it should find solutions with lower loss than initialization.
It is indeed unnatural to assume "optimized" for Corollary 4.2 and the discussion about it there is out of place. We propose to defer that to Section 4.3 where it is actually used --- for solving a nonparametric regression task under the assumptions of the regularity of f_0.
> The interplays between $\sigma$ and $\eta$ (and underparametrization discussions): I believe it is very essential to include these discussions and experiments.
Good call. We can add these experiments and discussions. We focused on discussing the regime when $\sigma$ is a constant because such a low signal-to-noise ratio setting is the conventional setting for nonparametric regression.
Our theorems are not asymptotic and they work for all $\eta>0, \sigma>0$. One more technical result we can explicitly state about the interplay between $\sigma$ and $\eta$ is to expose $\sigma$ as a parameter in Theorem 3.2. The updated statement will say that interpolation is not possible unless $\eta < 1/(\sigma n^2)$. | Summary: This paper studies the generalizability of stable local minima in univariate regression with shallow ReLU networks. Along the way, the authors provide a bound on a weighted total variation norm of networks corresponding to stable solutions which in turn provide a tighter generalization bound.
Strengths: The paper is well written and provides a novel way to obtain generalization bounds using minima stability theory.
Weaknesses: It is not clear to me why the experiments (e.g. figure 3) corroborate the theoretical results in the paper.
To illustrate my point, suppose for a given $\eta > 0$, a solution $\theta^*$ is linearly stable.
Now suppose one trains a ReLU NN with a different learning rate $\alpha > 0$ and it converges to $\theta^*$. When considering the generalization gap of the solution $\theta^*$ (e.g. theorem 4.4), only the constant $\eta$ is relevant. The point is that the actual learning rate of GD that was used to find stable solutions is irrelevant to the generalizability of the solution (at least in the context of theorem 4.4) . Hence, I feel that more compelling experiments would study generalization errors of stable local minima that are stable for varying $\eta$.
In this vein, I feel that the statement, “Meanwhile, the dependence $\frac 1 {\eta}$ ...” (line 296 -298) to be inexact as it is only supported by the experiments.
Technical Quality: 3
Clarity: 3
Questions for Authors: In the context of theorem 4.3 and 4.4, should $n_I$ be the number of data points belonging to the interval $I \subset [-x_{max}, x_{max}|$ instead of the length of the interval $|I|$? Otherwise, the RHS of the bound in theorem 4.4 seems to be non-vanishing as $x_{max} $ is at least on the order of the length of the interval $|I|$.
Can the authors also provide some intuition on how the weight function $g$ was chosen?
Confidence: 4
Soundness: 3
Presentation: 3
Contribution: 3
Limitations: The authors have adequately addressed the limitations.
Flag For Ethics Review: ['No ethics review needed.']
Rating: 7
Code Of Conduct: Yes | Rebuttal 1:
Rebuttal: We appreciate your high quality review and the positive score. Below we will reply to your comments.
**It is not clear to me why the experiments (e.g. figure 3) corroborate the theoretical results in the paper. ... The point is that the actual learning rate of GD that was used to find stable solutions is irrelevant to the generalizability of the solution (at least in the context of theorem 4.4).**
The reviewer is right that our generalization bounds work for all ``flat'' solutions when the sharpness is measured in terms of the $\lambda_{\max}$ of the Hessian, and it may appear to be slightly indirect to expose only the learning rate $\eta$ in the theorems.
The sharpness and learning rate $\eta$ is connected in two ways. First, from the linear stability-theory, gradient descent with learning rate $>\eta$ cannot stably converge to solutions with $\lambda_{\max}$ larger than $2/\eta$, thus ruling out those solutions at the steady-state of GD dynamics. Second, it has been observed that gradient descent training of neural networks finds solutions on the edge-of-stability.
To say it differently, the choice of learning rate $\eta$ controls the maximum ``sharpness'' of the solutions that GD converges to --- an implicit constraint that helps with generalization. Figure 3 clearly demonstrates this effect. Also, see the middle panel of Figure 2. We believe these results do corroborate our theoretical findings.
In the example you gave, let $\theta^*$ be a solution that GD with learning rate $\eta$ converges to. It is true that GD with an even smaller learning rate $\alpha < \eta$ can possibly converge to $\theta^*$ too, there are many other lower-loss solutions that GD with the smaller learning rate $\alpha$ can find more easily, thus do not converge to $\theta^*$.
Note that even if GD with learning rate $\alpha$ does converge to $\theta^*$, it does not invalidate our theorem (replacing $\eta$ with $\alpha$ makes the bound more relaxed).
**In the context of theorem 4.3 and 4.4, should $n_I$
be the number of data points belonging to the interval $I\subset[-x_{\max},x_{\max}]$ instead of the length of the interval $|I|$?**
Yes, you are correct. This is a typo we found after the submission of the draft. Indeed, $n_I$ should be the number of data points such that $x_i\in I$. Therefore, the RHS is vanishing for a fixed $x_{\max}$ and increasing number of data points. Thanks for pointing this out, we will correct this in the next version.
**Can the authors also provide some intuition on how the weight function $g$ was chosen?**
The weight function $g(x)$ is inherited from [Mulayoff et al 2021] and its choice is mainly due to technical reasons. Based on inequality (41), the key idea is to bound the TV(1) norm of the output function by $\lambda_{\max}(\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \nabla_i \nabla_i^T)$ (the term ($\star$)). Therefore, the $g$ function is generated in the middle-step inequalities to lower bound the $\lambda_{\max}$ term by $\int |f^{\prime\prime}(x)|g(x)dx$. For more proof details, please refer to our Lemma F.1 or Lemma 4 of [Mulayoff et al 2021].
Note that this is not an artifact of the proof. The weighting function $g$ correctly describes the implicit bias due to minima stability. The implicit smoothness regularity near the boundary of the distribution support is weaker than that in the center.
Thanks again for the high-quality review. We hope our response could address your main concerns and we are happy to answer any further questions.
---
Rebuttal Comment 1.1:
Title: Any further questions / comments?
Comment: Thanks again for your time in reviewing our paper! We have addressed your technical questions above. Could you kindly let us know if our rebuttal satisfactorily resolved your concerns?
We would love an opportunity to address any further questions and comments you may have before the author discussion period expires. | null | NeurIPS_2024_submissions_huggingface | 2,024 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.