How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Variational autoencoders and pathwise training — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Absolute and Conditional Convergence; Rearrangement; Products
- Areas of Elementary Plane Figures
- Bayesian models, priors, and posterior laws
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Brownian Motion Construction and Continuity
- Central Limit Theorems
- Compactness
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Completeness, Completion, and Uniform Continuity
- Computational foundations: factorization, KL, and optimization
- Conditional Distributions and Regular Conditional Probability
- Conditional Expectation
- Conjugate families and Gaussian conditioning
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Continuity, IVT, EVT, and Uniform Continuity
- Convexity
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Countability Axioms and Cardinal Functions
- Darboux, L'Hôpital, and Taylor's Theorem
- Detection and quantification limits
- Determinants of Matrices over a Commutative Ring
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Domination and Likelihood Ratios
- Filters and Ultrafilters
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Finite Probability and the Probabilistic Method
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Fubini and Change of Variables
- Fundamental Trigonometric Identities
- Gaussian Elimination, Elementary Matrices and Reduced Row Echelon Form
- Group Actions, Orbits, Stabilisers and Cayley's Theorem
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Improper and Parameter-Dependent Multiple Integrals
- Improper Integrals
- Independence Borel Cantelli and Zero One Laws
- Lebesgue Measure on Euclidean Space
- Limits of Real Functions
- limsup, liminf, and Subsequential Limits
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- Matrices, the Matrix of a Linear Map, and Change of Basis
- Measurable Functions and Simple Approximation
- Measures and Their Basic Properties
- Metric Spaces
- Minimax Lower Bounds
- Monotone Functions, Discontinuities, and Continuity Sets
- Monotone Sequences, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy Completeness
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Outer Measure and the Caratheodory Extension Theorem
- Pointwise Extended-Real Function Products
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Posterior propriety and dominated Bayes formula
- Power Series and Real-Analytic Functions
- Probability Spaces Random Variables and Expectation
- Product Measures and the Fubini Tonelli Theorems
- Properties of the Integral and the Working FTC
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Rⁿ as a Normed Space; Vector-Valued Functions
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Sequences and Limits
- Sequences and Series of Functions; Uniform Convergence
- Series: Convergence and the Nonnegative Tests
- Sigma Algebras and Borel Sets
- Signed and Complex Measures Hahn and Jordan
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Sine, Cosine, and the Definition of Pi
- Statistical Experiments, Models and Identifiability
- Subspaces, Products, and Quotients
- Suprema and Infima
- Symmetric Groups, Cycle Decomposition and the Sign Homomorphism
- The Derivative and the Mean Value Theorems
- The Exponential Function
- The Integral Logarithm and the Equivalence of Its Characterisations
- The Inverse and Implicit Function Theorems
- The Lebesgue and Riemann Integrals Compared
- The Lebesgue Integral and the Convergence Theorems
- The Logarithm and General Powers
- The Lᵖ Spaces Holder Minkowski and Riesz Fischer
- The Radon Nikodym Theorem and Lebesgue Decomposition
- The Riemann Integral in Rᵐ and Jordan Content
- The Riemann Integral: Definition and Integrability
- The Topology of Euclidean Space
- The Total Derivative in ℝᵐ → ℝⁿ
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topological Spaces and Continuity
- Topology of ℝ
- Variational autoencoders and pathwise training
- Variational inference and the evidence lower bound
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
- Weak Convergence Tightness and Representation
2 · Logical flowchart
3 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
4 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
A Gaussian model with a positive inference gap and a collapsed latent
Example
Assume AC and use Lebesgue measure for the latent densities. In the first model, a scalar latent variable has prior , and conditional on the observation is with IID . At the observed value , the evidence is finite and positive and the posterior is . Restrict the encoder family to for and choose . This encoder is admissible and its reverse-KL gap, with , is , so its ELBO is exactly below the log evidence.
In a second model, let and use the standard normal density for , independent of . For every observation , the evidence is and the posterior equals the prior. Choose the constant encoder for every . Its reverse-KL gap is zero and its ELBO equals the log evidence on every fibre. Thus for all , a posterior-collapse configuration in which the decoder ignores the latent variable; this is one model configuration, not a claim that VAE training always collapses.
Example references
The VAE densities, posterior and ELBO conventions.
The evidence–ELBO–reverse-KL identity under AC.
The exact Normal-Normal posterior and positive evidence.
The directional reverse-KL convention.
Johnson, Ott, and Dogucu, Bayes Rules!, Chapter 5.
Kingma and Welling, Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes, arXiv v1.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC; the two stated latent-variable models and observations; the restricted encoder family in the first model; and the definitions of evidence, posterior, admissibility and ELBO.
The Axiom of Choice: every family of nonempty sets has a choice function; AC is used by the Gaussian density suppliers and the library KL branch.
Variational autoencoder model, encoder, and ELBO: for positive finite evidence, ; an encoder is admissible when it is a probability density supported where is positive with the stated absolute log-integrability; its ELBO is the integral of under .
Known-variance Normal-Normal conjugate update: with prior , positive known variance , and IID observations from , the evidence is finite and positive and the posterior has variance and mean equal to that variance times .
Standard normal and normal laws and A positive-variance normal law has its location-scale density: is a probability law with density , and for , has density .
Location-scale normal laws have their stated mean and variance: a variable with law has mean and finite variance .
Kullback–Leibler divergence: for probability measures with densities and relative to one reference measure and , the reverse divergence is .
The VAE evidence equals the ELBO plus reverse KL: for each admissible fixed observation under AC, log evidence equals ELBO plus the library reverse-KL divergence.
Verification
Given: The hypotheses in the Example and Facts & Assumptions.
In the first model set , , , , and . By [F2], the posterior variance is and its mean is ; the evidence is finite and positive.
The chosen lies in the family because , while the posterior mean is outside that interval. Both Gaussian densities are strictly positive, so is supported where the posterior is positive. Their logarithms are quadratic and has finite second moment by [F4], so the absolute log-integrability required in [F1] holds. Using the common-variance density formula [F3], Taking -expectations and using [F4] gives by the directional convention [F5].
Applying [F6] to the first model, the log-evidence minus ELBO is exactly this reverse-KL value , which is strictly positive.
In the second model, write and let be the prior density. For every , [F3] gives and , so has evidence and posterior . The constant encoder has full support and finite second moment by [F4]; its log density and are integrable under by [F1]. Thus its reverse-KL is zero and [F6] gives ELBO equal to log evidence on every fibre. The decoder density is independent of , so for all , which is posterior collapse.
Sources
- Alicia A. Johnson, Miles Q. Ott, and Mine Dogucu, Bayes Rules!, Chapter 5
- Diederik P. Kingma and Max Welling, Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes, arXiv:1312.6114v1
- Junxian He, Daniel Spokoyny, Graham Neubig, and Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, Lagging Inference Networks and Posterior Collapse in Variational Autoencoders