analiza aiqbench
This research introduces a lightweight, ground-truth-free diagnostic method for detecting "mode collapse" in neural samplers before deployment. By leveraging energy function derivatives rather than retraining or relying on flawed internal metrics like ESS, the technique identifies missing target mass at a fraction of the cost of traditional correction methods. This advancement is critical for practitioners deploying complex generative models where silent sampling failures can lead to significant downstream errors.
Mode Collapse Is Cheap to Detect: A Ground-Truth-Free Pre-Flight Check for Neural Samplers
arXiv:2609.26272v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Neural samplers are trained against an unnormalised target $\tilde\pi=e^{-E}$ with no samples from $\pi$, which leaves the practitioner with no way to tell whether an expensive training run has silently dropped part of the target. The diagnostics in common use are computed from the model's own draws and are therefore confined to the model's support: we exhibit a sampler whose self-normalised effective sample size is $0.99$ while it misses $87\%$ of the target mass. We argue that \emph{detecting} missing mass is a strictly easier problem than sampling it: detection needs one point per missed basin plus a local curvature estimate, whereas correction needs the sampler retrained. We turn this into a pre-flight check that consumes a few percent of the sampler's own training budget and uses only $E$, $\nabla E$ and $\nabla^2 E$. On Gaussian-mixture, Many-Well and rotated anisotropic Many-Well targets with exactly computable ground truth, the check estimates the missing mass to within $10^{-3}$ at $2.7\%$ of training cost, where a tuned annealed SMC reference needs $70$--$280\%$ of training cost to do worse. It also applies unchanged to a controlled-SDE sampler that has no tractable density, where ESS and the ELBO cannot be formed at all. The estimator carries a \emph{self-diagnostic} that, without ground truth, is conservative in the safe direction: across $60$ configurations it clears $16$, of which $15$ are accurate to $10^{-2}$ or better. We are explicit about what this does and does not license: the check cheaply produces evidence of missing mass, and sometimes evidence that the search has stabilised, but it cannot certify a run, and its thresholds are heuristic. We then map the boundary of the method on a real physical landscape, LJ-13, and report where it fails and why.
Abstract:Neural samplers are trained against an unnormalised target $\tilde\pi=e^{-E}$ with no samples from $\pi$, which leaves the practitioner with no way to tell whether an expensive training run has silently dropped part of the target. The diagnostics in common use are computed from the model's own draws and are therefore confined to the model's support: we exhibit a sampler whose self-normalised effective sample size is $0.99$ while it misses $87\%$ of the target mass. We argue that \emph{detecting} missing mass is a strictly easier problem than sampling it: detection needs one point per missed basin plus a local curvature estimate, whereas correction needs the sampler retrained. We turn this into a pre-flight check that consumes a few percent of the sampler's own training budget and uses only $E$, $\nabla E$ and $\nabla^2 E$. On Gaussian-mixture, Many-Well and rotated anisotropic Many-Well targets with exactly computable ground truth, the check estimates the missing mass to within $10^{-3}$ at $2.7\%$ of training cost, where a tuned annealed SMC reference needs $70$--$280\%$ of training cost to do worse. It also applies unchanged to a controlled-SDE sampler that has no tractable density, where ESS and the ELBO cannot be formed at all. The estimator carries a \emph{self-diagnostic} that, without ground truth, is conservative in the safe direction: across $60$ configurations it clears $16$, of which $15$ are accurate to $10^{-2}$ or better. We are explicit about what this does and does not license: the check cheaply produces evidence of missing mass, and sometimes evidence that the search has stabilised, but it cannot certify a run, and its thresholds are heuristic. We then map the boundary of the method on a real physical landscape, LJ-13, and report where it fails and why.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.26272 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.26272v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.26272 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 380 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · 17 oct. 2026

[AINews] Reality Checks on AI News (Yegge shuts down Gas Town, Databricks’ +60% Astra cost)
Latent Space · 17 sept. 2026
How to build a cancer vaccine, and whether they will work this time
LessWrong · 8 iun. 2026

The death of humanity
Fortune · 16 oct. 2026