Skip to content

Mode Collapse Is Cheap to Detect: A Ground-Truth-Free Pre-Flight Check for Neural Samplers

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 30 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

It is argued that detection of 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, whereas correction needs the sampler retrained.

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.

View source

Similar papers

#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

The Price of Self-Calibration: Exact Evidence Budgets and Manufactured Blind Sets in Adaptive Monitoring

Self-calibrating monitors adapt their threshold online to guarantee a prescribed long-run false-alarm rate under arbitrary drift. We compute the price of that guarantee, stating every law with its exact domain of validity. First, the guarantee is an accounting identity, insensitive to what the monitor is meant to detec...

Abdou-Raouf Atarmla · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

Replicating TRACE: A Practitioner's Guide to Its Threshold and Particle Budget

TRACE (Math&Lienhart, arXiv:2602.01135) reads causal graphs over event types out of a pretrained autoregressive sequence model by thresholding a per-position conditional-mutual-information estimate at a fixed tau, and distill five practitioner rules.

A.V. Chadyuk, Alicia Zhang, Roy Kucukates · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Oct 2026

Learning Decision-Stump Thresholds in Context: Dynamics of Softmax Attention

Estimating a decision threshold requires locating observations near an unknown boundary. We study how gradient-based pretraining learns this statistical rule in a two-parameter softmax-attention model with a fixed feature and inequality direction. Pretraining uses labeled contexts and their true thresholds; a fresh thr...

H. Lệ, Jackie Lok, Atsushi Nitanda et al. · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Oct 2026

$\sigma$Transfer: Uncertainty Transfer from Small to Large Networks under $\mu\mathrm{P}$

Reliable predictive uncertainty in Laplace approximations depends critically on the prior precision, yet selecting it requires a posterior sweep that is prohibitively expensive for neural networks with billions of parameters. Under the Maximal Update Parametrization ($\mu\mathrm{P}$), we derive a rescaling of the prior...

Richard Bergna, Fernando Ruiz Mazo, Nicolò Felicioni et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

Signal-Routed Temperature Scaling: Low-Capacity Risk-Conditioned Calibration for Small Validation Budgets

When a classifier is recalibrated from only a few thousand held-out examples, the capacity of the calibration map becomes a statistical design choice rather than a purely architectural one: a scalar map can underfit structured residual miscalibration, while a highly adaptive map can be hard to estimate reliably from so...

Wenhao Liang, L. Zheng, Lin Yue et al. · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Oct 2026

Detecting a Shift Is Not Enough: Exact Minimax Limits of Linear Representation Repair

A mean shift between two data sources can be easy to detect but hard to remove without substantially changing their representations. We cast its removal as a statistical decision problem: from noisy differences between paired calibration measurements in $\mathbb{R}^d$, learn one linear map, applied to both sources unde...

Anuar Aimoldin, Yan-Kai Chen, Ayana Mussabayeva et al. · 0 citations

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 23, 2026

Q&A: How AI came to model the “messy” human mind

Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.