Auto-encoders: reconstruction versus compression
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We discuss the similarities and differences between training an auto-encoder to minimize the reconstruction error, and training the same auto-encoder to compress the data via a generative model. Minimizing a codelength for the data using an auto-encoder is equivalent to minimizing the reconstruction error plus some correcting terms which have an interpretation as either a denoising or contractive property of the decoding function. These terms are related but not identical to those used in denoising or contractive auto-encoders [Vincent et al. 2010, Rifai et al. 2011]. In particular, the codelength viewpoint fully determines an optimal noise level for the denoising criterion.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 30 Mar 2014.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 0; 2024: 1.
3 papers.
- 2022Learning-Driven Lossy Image Compression; A Comprehensive Surveycited by 13
- 2024In-context learning and Occam's razorcited by 7
- 2022Reducing Redundancy in the Bottleneck Representation of the Autoencoderscited by 5
- 2024In-context learning and Occam's razor17 Oct 2024
- 2022Reducing Redundancy in the Bottleneck Representation of the Autoencoders9 Feb 2022
- 2022Learning-Driven Lossy Image Compression; A Comprehensive Survey23 Jan 2022