On the difference between building and extracting patterns: a causal analysis of deep generative models.
Generative models are important tools to capture and investigate the properties of complex empirical data. Recent developments such as Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) and Variational Auto-Encoders (VAEs) use two very similar, but 	extit{reverse}, deep convolutional architectures, one to generate and one to extract information from data. Does learning the parameters of both architectures obey the same rules? We exploit the causality principle of independence of mechanisms to quantify how the weights of successive layers adapt to each other. Using the recently introduced Spectral Independence Criterion, we quantify the dependencies between the kernels of successive convolutional layers and show that those are more independent for the generative process than for information extraction, in line with results from the field of causal inference. In addition, our experiments on generation of human faces suggest that more independence between successive layers of generators results in improved performance of these architectures.
 This work exploits the causality principle to quantify how the weights of successive layers adapt to each other. Some interesting results are obtained, such as "enforcing more independence between successive layers of generators may lead to better performance and modularity of these architectures" . Generally, the result is interesting and the presentation is easy to follow. However, the proposed approach and the experiments are not convincible enough. For example, it is hard to obtain the conclusion "more independence lead to better performance" from the experimental results. Maybe more justifications are needed.
You are a member of the scientific community tasked with peer review. Review the following paper title and abstract.
### Title + Abstract
On the difference between building and extracting patterns: a causal analysis of deep generative models.
Generative models are important tools to capture and investigate the properties of complex empirical data. Recent developments such as Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) and Variational Auto-Encoders (VAEs) use two very similar, but 	extit{reverse}, deep convolutional architectures, one to generate and one to extract information from data. Does learning the parameters of both architectures obey the same rules? We exploit the causality principle of independence of mechanisms to quantify how the weights of successive layers adapt to each other. Using the recently introduced Spectral Independence Criterion, we quantify the dependencies between the kernels of successive convolutional layers and show that those are more independent for the generative process than for information extraction, in line with results from the field of causal inference. In addition, our experiments on generation of human faces suggest that more independence between successive layers of generators results in improved performance of these architectures.
user
<think>Okay, to do a decent peer review, I should start with summarizing what the work is about. This includes novelty, contributions, clarity, and impact. I might include suggestions to issues that I find critical to the usefulness of the work. Starting with novelty, there are different types of novelty. The first aspect of novelty is scope and scale. Is the work covering a broader perspective than previous works? The second aspect is methodology. Is the proposed methodology novel compared to previous methods? Do they provide any significant advantage over previous methodologies? The third aspect is results. Are the results different compared previous work? Does this lead to any novel theories or an extension of current theories? Next is clarity, I will be reading the work in depth and analyze if any sentences can be potentially ambiguous or misleading. If any sentences are ambiguous, I will state them and give a suggestion on how to rephrase such sentence or how to make more clear to the audience. Lastly, impact is important. I will attempt to predict how such work will impact the scientific community. This might include the applications of such work and how the work might transform the way we study a certain topic. Finally, I will might only mention issues that are critical. This is to keep the review as concise and helpful as possible.</think>



 This work exploits the causality principle to quantify how the weights of successive layers adapt to each other. Some interesting results are obtained, such as "enforcing more independence between successive layers of generators may lead to better performance and modularity of these architectures" . Generally, the result is interesting and the presentation is easy to follow. However, the proposed approach and the experiments are not convincible enough. For example, it is hard to obtain the conclusion "more independence lead to better performance" from the experimental results. Maybe more justifications are needed.
assistant
 This work exploits the causality principle to quantify how the weights of successive layers adapt to each other. Some interesting results are obtained, such as "enforcing more independence between successive layers of generators may lead to better performance and modularity of these architectures" . Generally, the result is interesting and the presentation is easy to follow. However, the proposed approach and the experiments are not convincible enough. For example, it is hard to obtain the conclusion "more independence lead to better performance" from the experimental results. Maybe more justifications are needed.