Recently, autoencoders (AEs) have gained interest for creating parametric and invertible projections of multidimensional data. Parametric projections make it possible to embed new, unseen samples without recalculating the entire projection, while invertible projections allow the synthesis of new data instances. However, existing methods perform poorly when dealing with out-of-distribution samples in either the data or embedding space. Thus, we propose DE-VAE, an uncertainty-aware variational AE using differential entropy (DE) to improve the learned parametric and invertible projections. Given a fixed projection, we train DE-VAE to learn a mapping into 2D space and an inverse mapping back to the original space. We conduct quantitative and qualitative evaluations on four well-known datasets, using UMAP and t-SNE as baseline projection methods. Our findings show that DE-VAE can create parametric and inverse projections with comparable accuracy to other current AE-based approaches while enabling the analysis of embedding uncertainty.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: We show the encoder output μ for all test data of the learned UMAP projection of MNIST and the t-SNE projection of KMNIST. The uncertainty modeling, expressed by three Gaussian distribution types, allows for varying levels of expressiveness through their differing degrees of freedom. These are shown as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd standard deviations, depicted as ellipses around the class medoids.
None
Isotropic
Diagonal
Full
Parametric projection: Average projection loss \altmathcalLproj (lower is better)
HAR (UMAP)
.675±.685
.525±.257
.447±0.166
.404±.079
MNIST (UMAP)
.402±.064
.400±.077
.418±.162
.428±0.07
Fashion-MNIST (UMAP)
.263±.034
.293±.069
.306±.059
.298±0.05
KMNIST (t-SNE)
30.4±4.68
32.3±3.98
31.6±6.23
33.0±5.27
Inverse Projection: Average reconstruction loss \altmathcalLrecon (lower is better)
Table 1: Average losses and standard deviations (after ± ) of the parametric and inverse projections on test data for 10 runs each, as well as average number of training epochs to compare training time.
Figure 2: For each approach (a-e), we inverse project 25 samples from an evenly spaced 5×5 grid on a UMAP projection of the MNIST dataset and show the results of the inverse projections ( P−1 ). Our models (c-e) show higher quality and more diverse outputs.
1MOX Laboratory, Department of Mathematics, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy · Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands