Comparison of Affine and Rational Quadratic Spline Coupling and Autoregressive Flows through Robust Statistical Tests
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Normalizing flows have emerged as a powerful brand of generative models, as they not only allow for efficient sampling of complicated target distributions but also deliver density estimation by construction. We propose here an in-depth comparison of coupling and autoregressive flows, both based on symmetric (affine) and non-symmetric (rational quadratic spline) bijectors, considering four different architectures: real-valued non-Volume preserving (RealNVP), masked autoregressive flow (MAF), coupling rational quadratic spline (C-RQS), and autoregressive rational quadratic spline (A-RQS). We focus on a set of multimodal target distributions of increasing dimensionality ranging from 4 to 400. The performances were compared by means of different test statistics for two-sample tests, built from known distance measures: the sliced Wasserstein distance, the dimension-averaged one-dimensional Kolmogorov--Smirnov test, and the Frobenius norm of the difference between correlation matrices. Furthermore, we included estimations of the variance of both the metrics and the trained models. Our results indicate that the A-RQS algorithm stands out both in terms of accuracy and training speed. Nonetheless, all the algorithms are generally able, without too much fine-tuning, to learn complicated distributions with limited training data and in a reasonable time of the order of hours on a Tesla A40 GPU. The only exception is the C-RQS, which takes significantly longer to train, does not always provide good accuracy, and becomes unstable for large dimensionalities. All algorithms were implemented using textscTensorFlow2 and textscTensorFlow Probability and have been made available on hrefhttps://github.com/NF4HEP/NormalizingFlowsHDGitHub.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 28 of its 89 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Feb 2023.
Builds on
28 of 89 references.
References · 28
- 2015Variational Inference with Normalizing Flowscited by 2,161
- 2016Density estimation using Real NVPcited by 2,029
- 2019Normalizing Flows for Probabilistic Modeling and Inferencecited by 1,315
- 2014NICE: Non-linear Independent Components Estimationcited by 1,052
- 2017Masked Autoregressive Flow for Density Estimationcited by 680
- 2016Improving Variational Inference with Inverse Autoregressive Flowcited by 636
- 2019Neural Spline Flowscited by 590
- 2017Wasserstein Auto-Encoderscited by 371
- 2022Flow Annealed Importance Sampling Bootstrapcited by 124
- 2020Anomaly Detection with Density Estimationcited by 71
- 2022Continual Repeated Annealed Flow Transport Monte Carlocited by 66
- 2018Mining gold from implicit models to improve likelihood-free inferencecited by 60
16 more
- 2021CaloFlow: Fast and Accurate Generation of Calorimeter Showers with Normalizing Flowscited by 46
- 2015Neural Adaptive Sequential Monte Carlocited by 34
- 2021CaloFlow II: Even Faster and Still Accurate Generation of Calorimeter Showers with Normalizing Flowscited by 34
- 2016Inference Compilation and Universal Probabilistic Programmingcited by 31
- 2020i-flow: High-dimensional Integration and Sampling with Normalizing Flowscited by 26
- 2020Complete parameter inference for GW150914 using deep learningcited by 25
- 2021Generative Networks for Precision Enthusiastscited by 21
- 2022Learning new physics efficiently with nonparametric methodscited by 20
- 2022An unfolding method based on conditional Invertible Neural Networks (cINN) using iterative trainingcited by 20
- 2016Inference Networks for Sequential Monte Carlo in Graphical Modelscited by 19
- 2020Gravitational-wave parameter estimation with autoregressive neural network flowscited by 19
- 2022Testing the boundaries: Normalizing Flows for higher dimensional data setscited by 7
- 2021HMC with Normalizing Flowscited by 6
- 2021Machine Learning Trivializing Maps: A First Step Towards Understanding How Flow-Based Samplers Scale Upcited by 5
- 2020Exhaustive Neural Importance Sampling applied to Monte Carlo event generationcited by 3
- 2022Normalizing Flows for Hierarchical Bayesian Analysis: A Gravitational Wave Population Studycited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 2; 2026: 2.
5 papers.
- 2025Learning to Validate Generative Models: a Goodness-of-Fit Approachcited by 4
- 2023The NFLikelihood: an unsupervised DNNLikelihood from Normalizing Flowscited by 2
- 2025Variational Transdimensional Inferencecited by 2
- 2026Generative Models and Statistical Validationcited by 2
- 2026BUSSARD: Normalizing Flows for Bijective Universal Scene-Specific Anomalous Relationship Detectioncited by 0
- 2026Generative Models and Statistical Validation28 May 2026
- 2026BUSSARD: Normalizing Flows for Bijective Universal Scene-Specific Anomalous Relationship Detection17 Mar 2026
- 2025Learning to Validate Generative Models: a Goodness-of-Fit Approach12 Nov 2025
- 2025Variational Transdimensional Inference5 Jun 2025
- 2023The NFLikelihood: an unsupervised DNNLikelihood from Normalizing Flows18 Sep 2023