Next Article in Journal
A New Surrogating Algorithm by the Complex Graph Fourier Transform (CGFT)
Next Article in Special Issue
Learnability for the Information Bottleneck
Previous Article in Journal
Exergy Analysis of Fluidized Desiccant Cooling System
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Gaussian Mean Field Regularizes by Limiting Learned Information

Entropy 2019, 21(8), 758; https://doi.org/10.3390/e21080758
by Julius Kunze 1,*, Louis Kirsch 1,2, Hippolyt Ritter 1 and David Barber 1,3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Entropy 2019, 21(8), 758; https://doi.org/10.3390/e21080758
Submission received: 14 June 2019 / Revised: 25 July 2019 / Accepted: 1 August 2019 / Published: 3 August 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Information Bottleneck: Theory and Applications in Deep Learning)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper explains the regularizing effects observed in Gaussian mean field approaches from an information-theoretic perspective. The overall presentation is clear and the topic seems pretty interesting. However, the scientific significance of this work is not adequate. I, thus, suggest to decline the publication.


I agree the factorized Gaussian posterior is used in some work. But this assumption itself introduces model error in most applications. From an applied point of view, adopting this method is totally fine. However, in the content of quantifying the mutual information and other types of information, should a more careful analysis by taking into account both the model error and useful information be implemented? There is no discussion about the potential model error here.


I also suggest to perform some simple experiments, in particular some perfect model experiments, in order to explain with more details the mutual information and the error.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attached file for specific comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I don't think the authors addressed my previous comments, which admittedly are not easy to address. But given the current self-contained description and study of the content, I think the paper worth publication. 

Reviewer 2 Report

My concerns have been addressed and I recommend the manuscript for publication.

Back to TopTop