Skip to main content


Learn About Our Meetup

5000+ Members



Join our meetup, learn, connect, share, and get to know your Toronto AI community. 



Browse through the latest deep learning, ai, machine learning postings from Indeed for the GTA.



Are you looking to sponsor space, be a speaker, or volunteer, feel free to give us a shout.

[Discussion] Is MINE(Mutual Information Neural Estimation) also helpful for reducing Mutual Information problem?

Hello, i got a old-fashioned but confused question about Mutual Information Neural Estimation(MINE), 2018 ICML.

In the paper, the lower bound of mutual information is estimated with neural-net-parameterized function (what is called as statistics network), and various experiments were held including information bottleneck, which reduces I(X; Z).

It’s very well-written with theoretical background, but i’m stucked with reimplement the IB results; Unfortunately the paper doesn’t provides full details about IB section; So if you have any kind of experience with employing MINE to reducing mutual information, it’d be a big pleasure if you share the experience. I made a statistics network following the paper, and optimize the statistics network while employ its estimated MI lower bound to the I(X; Z) regularizer. But it seems very volatile to initial value of exponential_moving_average(exp(t)). My error rate is hang around 1.5% which is even worse than vanila FCN.

Also, i’m not fully convinced how such MI lower-bound estimating models are greatful to reducing MI problems; Is reducing the ‘approximated’ lower bound of MI guarantee the practical reduction of MI? I think optimizing the MI estimator while also reducing such estimated MI lower bound might be not stable; as GAN, it may be kind of minmax training. On the otherhand, if we are consistent with both statistics network(increase lowerbound) and our designed loss(also increasing lowerbound), i think there is no problem. How do you think about it?

submitted by /u/pky3436
[link] [comments]