跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1072新增论文
+845其中 AI 相关
+94已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-09 13:24 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-09 13:22各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-08 14:24 — 2026-11-09 14:24(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-09 13:24最近发现新增版本:2026-11-09 13:22库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-07 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

18,172 已收录论文15,506 AI 相关4,527 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-09 13:22(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.36255

What Should an Information Bottleneck Encoder Learn? Separating Representation Learning from Rate Control

Hassan Tavakoli, Bella Bose

原文摘要

The information bottleneck (IB) trades compression of an input $X$ against prediction of a target $Y$ through a multiplier $β=1/λ$, yet each operating point is usually served by training, or fully conditioning, a new encoder. For jointly Gaussian data, we show that the IB solution factorizes as $A(β)=D(β)W$: the information-bearing directions $W$ do not depend on $β$, and $β$ acts only through scalar gains. We ask whether this separation of \emph{representation} from \emph{rate control} survives beyond Gaussian models, treating the budget as a given operating parameter rather than a quantity to be optimized. For a budget-free representation \(F(X)\), the \emph{separation gap} is controlled by the \emph{sufficiency deficit} $ε_F=I(X;Y\mid F(X))$: We show there is at least $ε_F$ in the worst case for finite inputs, and it is bounded uniformly in $λ$ by a function of $ε_F$ for finite label alphabets. The same certificate extends to a new target distribution and to pooled multi-domain data, where a conditional-alignment term appears. On MNIST, SVHN, CIFAR-10 and STL-10 (10 seeds, eight prespecified budgets), a frozen CNN representation with one compressor--decoder pair per budget reduces estimated training multiply--accumulate operations (MACs) by $7.7\times$ and wall-clock time by about $2\times$ relative to end-to-end VIBs, and attains higher budget-averaged accuracy ($65.6\%$ versus $57.3\%$ per domain; $67.1\%$ versus $57.1\%$ pooled), with the advantage concentrated at strong compression, where the VIBs collapse. At weak compression ($λ\le0.036$), VIB has higher cross-entropy and ECE; its surrogate Lagrangian is higher per domain, indistinguishable from the pooled VIB in the macro average, and lower on the pooled test set.

cs.LG · cs.IT