You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The Yes, but Did It Work?: Evaluating Variational Inference paper by Yao et al. proposes a less stringent diagnostic for variational inference than full SBC (as we know the approximation is almost always imperfect and SBC is thus eventually bound to fail). The main point is that we only test for bias, i.e. whether P(true_value < fitted_mean) = P(true_value > fitted_mean) across multiple simulations.
The implementation proposed in the paper seems specific to methods where we get exact mean, but the sample-based version should also work.
It might be neat to support this bias test, as it could be more generally useful in understanding if approximations are a problem or not.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The Yes, but Did It Work?: Evaluating Variational Inference paper by Yao et al. proposes a less stringent diagnostic for variational inference than full SBC (as we know the approximation is almost always imperfect and SBC is thus eventually bound to fail). The main point is that we only test for bias, i.e. whether
P(true_value < fitted_mean) = P(true_value > fitted_mean)
across multiple simulations.The implementation proposed in the paper seems specific to methods where we get exact mean, but the sample-based version should also work.
It might be neat to support this bias test, as it could be more generally useful in understanding if approximations are a problem or not.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: