pith. sign in

arxiv: 2411.03936 · v2 · pith:BOAJLIRRnew · submitted 2024-11-06 · 💻 cs.LG · stat.ML

GUIDE-VAE: Advancing Data Generation with User Information and Pattern Dictionaries

Kutay B\"olat , Simon Tindemans This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 17:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG stat.ML
keywords GUIDE-VAEvariational autoencoderuser embeddingspattern dictionarydata generationmissing data imputationmulti-user datasetsconditional generative model
0
0 comments X

The pith

GUIDE-VAE conditions a VAE on user embeddings and composes covariances from a shared pattern dictionary to generate realistic user-specific data.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper sets out to show that adding user embeddings to a variational autoencoder, together with a pattern dictionary for covariance structure, produces synthetic data and imputes missing values more effectively than standard VAEs when records are unevenly distributed across users. Conventional models either treat all points as interchangeable or over-smooth outputs; GUIDE-VAE separates user identity from shared patterns so that scarce users still benefit from the dictionary while rich users do not dominate. The approach is demonstrated on a smart-meter collection where household data volumes differ sharply. If the claim holds, controlled generation becomes feasible for any collection of entities that share latent patterns but differ in observed volume.

Core claim

GUIDE-VAE is a conditional generative model that feeds learned user embeddings into the decoder and assembles feature covariances from a shared pattern dictionary via PDCC. On a multi-user smart-meter dataset with large imbalance, the model yields higher-quality synthetic records and more accurate missing-record imputations than baselines that lack user conditioning or pattern sharing, while qualitative checks confirm reduced noise and over-smoothing.

What carries the argument

User embeddings plus pattern dictionary-based covariance composition (PDCC) inside a conditional VAE

If this is right

  • Data points can be generated for any chosen user by supplying that user's embedding.
  • Performance on generation and imputation remains stable under large differences in the number of records per user.
  • PDCC reduces the noise and over-smoothing typical of VAE outputs by explicitly modeling feature dependencies through shared patterns.
  • The same architecture supports both unconditional synthetic generation and conditional imputation of missing entries.
  • The method applies to any multi-user collection where entities share latent patterns but differ in data richness.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The separation of user-specific and shared components offers a route to personalization in other generative tasks that currently ignore identity.
  • A learned pattern dictionary may surface recurring structures that domain experts could inspect or reuse across different user cohorts.
  • The framework suggests a general template for conditional generation whenever data arrives from multiple sources with unequal sampling rates.

Load-bearing premise

User embeddings together with a shared pattern dictionary can extract user-specific structure even when data volume varies sharply across users, rather than the model simply memorizing the few users who contribute most records.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment on a synthetic multi-user dataset with extreme imbalance (most users having only a handful of records) in which GUIDE-VAE's generation or imputation metrics fall to the level of a standard VAE without user embeddings or PDCC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.03936 by Kutay B\"olat, Simon Tindemans.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Conventional generative models disregard user information during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The user embedding framework for multi-user time-series datasets. Users’ time-series data are segmented into profiles and clustered using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overall computational diagram of GUIDE-VAE. GUIDE-VAE is a CVAE-based model enhanced with a learnable pattern dictionary for PDCC, which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The pmf of beta-binomial distribution (n=365, a=0.85) in logarithmic scale for different b values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The data splitting scheme used in experimentation. A full dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distributions of (a) measurements (in Wh) in the dataset and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The neural network architecture used both for encoder and decoder. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A learned user dictionary Γ with K=20. Please note that the conventional sample comparison-based performance metrics are inadequate for this task since they require preferably a larger sample population to represent the distribution to compare. Unfortunately, the number of samples for a given condition tends to be very limited when the conditions get plenty. For instance, the dataset used in this study has… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Pattern dictionaries U from two trained GUIDE-VAE models with (a) V =25 and (b) V =100, sorted according to L1-norm of the pattern vectors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The effect of pattern dictionary size V on the sample quality. A selected user’s missing time series measurements (in blue) and the 10 closest imputations (in red) out of 1000 generated time series (50 of which are in orange) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The effect of user vector size K on the modelling performance. K=0 means no conditioning on users [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The effect of wording granularity W on the modelling performance. W=0 means no conditioning on users. On the other hand, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: As can be seen, increasing the dictionary size results in a decrease both in reconstruction and Kullback-Leibler divergence. It indicates that the pattern dictionary undertakes the representation burden from the latent space. This can also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The effect of expected missing days (controlled by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_16.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Generative modelling of multi-user datasets has become prominent in science and engineering. Generating a data point for a given user requires employing user information, and conventional generative models, including variational autoencoders (VAEs), often ignore this. This paper introduces GUIDE-VAE, a novel conditional generative model that leverages user embeddings to generate user-guided data. By leveraging shared patterns across users, GUIDE-VAE improves performance in multi-user settings, even under significant data imbalance. In addition to integrating user information, GUIDE-VAE incorporates a pattern dictionary-based covariance composition (PDCC) to improve the realism of generated samples by capturing complex feature dependencies. While user embeddings drive performance gains, PDCC addresses common issues such as noise and over-smoothing typically seen in VAEs. The proposed GUIDE-VAE was evaluated on a multi-user smart meter dataset characterised by substantial data imbalance across users. Quantitative results show that GUIDE-VAE performs effectively on both synthetic data generation and missing-record imputation tasks, while qualitative evaluations indicate that it produces more plausible and less noisy data. These results establish GUIDE-VAE as a promising tool for controlled, realistic data generation in multi-user datasets, with potential applications across domains that require user-informed modelling.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces GUIDE-VAE, a conditional VAE that incorporates user embeddings for user-guided generation and a pattern dictionary-based covariance composition (PDCC) to capture complex feature dependencies and reduce noise/over-smoothing. It claims improved performance on synthetic data generation and missing-record imputation tasks for a multi-user smart meter dataset with substantial imbalance across users, with qualitative results showing more plausible outputs.

Significance. If substantiated, the approach could advance conditional generative modeling for imbalanced multi-user datasets by explicitly handling user-specific structure. However, the absence of reported metrics, baselines, or ablations in the presented claims limits its immediate impact.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'quantitative results show that GUIDE-VAE performs effectively' and improves performance 'even under significant data imbalance' is unsupported by any reported metrics, baselines, statistical tests, error bars, or dataset statistics, making the performance assertions impossible to evaluate.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract/Evaluation: The assumption that user embeddings combined with the shared pattern dictionary reliably capture user-specific structure under imbalance lacks any ablation isolating low-data users, stratified reconstruction error by user data volume, or analysis of embedding behavior when rich-user data is held out or down-weighted; without this, gains could be artifacts of memorization rather than the claimed mechanism.
  3. [Methods] Methods: No equations, derivations, or explicit formulation are shown for the PDCC covariance composition or the precise integration of user embeddings into the VAE encoder/decoder, preventing assessment of whether these components are load-bearing or tautological.
minor comments (2)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from explicit mathematical definitions of the user embedding conditioning and PDCC operation, including how the pattern dictionary is learned and composed.
  2. [Evaluation] Evaluation is limited to a single domain (smart meters); broader testing or discussion of generalizability would strengthen the claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment point-by-point below and commit to revisions that directly resolve the identified gaps in the abstract, evaluation, and methods sections.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'quantitative results show that GUIDE-VAE performs effectively' and improves performance 'even under significant data imbalance' is unsupported by any reported metrics, baselines, statistical tests, error bars, or dataset statistics, making the performance assertions impossible to evaluate.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract's performance claims require supporting quantitative details to be evaluable. In the revised manuscript we will expand the abstract to report key metrics (reconstruction and generation errors), the specific baselines used, statistical tests with error bars from repeated runs, and dataset statistics quantifying the user imbalance. This will allow direct assessment of the claimed improvements. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract/Evaluation: The assumption that user embeddings combined with the shared pattern dictionary reliably capture user-specific structure under imbalance lacks any ablation isolating low-data users, stratified reconstruction error by user data volume, or analysis of embedding behavior when rich-user data is held out or down-weighted; without this, gains could be artifacts of memorization rather than the claimed mechanism.

    Authors: We acknowledge the value of these targeted ablations for substantiating the mechanism. The revised version will include new experiments that isolate performance on low-data users, provide stratified reconstruction errors by user data volume, and analyze embedding behavior under hold-out or down-weighting of rich-user data. These additions will help distinguish the proposed user-embedding and pattern-dictionary contributions from potential memorization effects. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Methods] Methods: No equations, derivations, or explicit formulation are shown for the PDCC covariance composition or the precise integration of user embeddings into the VAE encoder/decoder, preventing assessment of whether these components are load-bearing or tautological.

    Authors: We agree that explicit mathematical formulations are essential. The revised methods section will present the full equations for the pattern-dictionary-based covariance composition (PDCC), including how dictionary atoms are selected and combined, as well as the precise conditioning of the VAE encoder and decoder on user embeddings. Derivations and implementation details will be added to clarify the role of each component. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: architecture and claims are independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper defines GUIDE-VAE as a conditional VAE augmented with user embeddings and a pattern dictionary-based covariance composition (PDCC). These are presented as architectural additions whose value is assessed via empirical evaluation on a smart-meter dataset (synthetic generation and imputation tasks). No equations, derivations, or self-citations are invoked that reduce the claimed performance gains to a fitted quantity defined by the same data or to a prior result by the same authors. The abstract and model description treat user embeddings and PDCC as mechanisms whose effectiveness is tested rather than assumed by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

Review based on abstract only; ledger entries are inferred from standard VAE usage plus the two new components named in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard VAE modeling assumptions (Gaussian latent variables, evidence lower bound optimization)
    Implicit in any VAE-based method; not stated explicitly but required for the framework.
invented entities (1)
  • Pattern dictionary-based covariance composition (PDCC) no independent evidence
    purpose: Capture complex feature dependencies to reduce noise and over-smoothing
    New component introduced in the paper to address VAE limitations; no independent evidence provided in abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5743 in / 1284 out tokens · 42815 ms · 2026-05-23T17:16:18.704255+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Synthetic data for privacy-preserving clinical risk prediction,

    Z. Qian, T. Callender, B. Cebere, S. M. Janes, N. Navani, and M. van der Schaar, “Synthetic data for privacy-preserving clinical risk prediction,” medRxiv, pp. 2023–05, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Pocket2mol: Effi- cient molecular sampling based on 3d protein pockets,

    X. Peng, S. Luo, J. Guan, Q. Xie, J. Peng, and J. Ma, “Pocket2mol: Effi- cient molecular sampling based on 3d protein pockets,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2022, pp. 17 644–17 655

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Anonymization through data synthesis using generative adversarial networks (ads-gan),

    J. Yoon, L. N. Drumright, and M. Van Der Schaar, “Anonymization through data synthesis using generative adversarial networks (ads-gan),” IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics , vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 2378–2388, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes

    D. P. Kingma, “Auto-encoding variational bayes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Learning structured output represen- tation using deep conditional generative models,

    K. Sohn, H. Lee, and X. Yan, “Learning structured output represen- tation using deep conditional generative models,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 28, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Explicitly minimizing the blur error of variational autoencoders,

    G. Bredell, K. Flouris, K. Chaitanya, E. Erdil, and E. Konukoglu, “Explicitly minimizing the blur error of variational autoencoders,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05939, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Defining ‘good’: Evaluation framework for synthetic smart meter data,

    S. Chai, G. Chadney, C. Avery, P. Grunewald, P. Van Hentenryck, and P. L. Donti, “Defining ‘good’: Evaluation framework for synthetic smart meter data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11785 , 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Generating synthetic personal health data using conditional generative adversarial networks combining with differential privacy,

    C. Sun, J. van Soest, and M. Dumontier, “Generating synthetic personal health data using conditional generative adversarial networks combining with differential privacy,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics , vol. 143, p. 104404, 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Deep learning based recommen- der system: A survey and new perspectives,

    S. Zhang, L. Yao, A. Sun, and Y . Tay, “Deep learning based recommen- der system: A survey and new perspectives,” ACM computing surveys (CSUR), vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–38, 2019

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Constructing dynamic residential energy lifestyles using latent dirichlet allocation,

    X. Chen, C. Zanocco, J. Flora, and R. Rajagopal, “Constructing dynamic residential energy lifestyles using latent dirichlet allocation,” Applied Energy, vol. 318, p. 119109, 2022

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Padpaf: Partial disentan- glement with partially-federated gans,

    A. J. Almansoori, S. Horv ´ath, and M. Tak ´aˇc, “Padpaf: Partial disentan- glement with partially-federated gans,” 2022

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Latent dirichlet allocation,

    D. M. Blei, A. Y . Ng, and M. I. Jordan, “Latent dirichlet allocation,” Journal of machine Learning research , vol. 3, no. Jan, pp. 993–1022, 2003

    work page 2003

  13. [13]

    Decaf: Generating fair synthetic data using causally-aware generative networks,

    B. Van Breugel, T. Kyono, J. Berrevoets, and M. Van der Schaar, “Decaf: Generating fair synthetic data using causally-aware generative networks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 22 221–22 233, 2021

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Tabular data synthesis with gans for adaptive ai models,

    S. Hans, A. Sanghi, and D. Saha, “Tabular data synthesis with gans for adaptive ai models,” in Proceedings of the 7th Joint International Conference on Data Science & Management of Data , 2024, pp. 242– 246

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Structured uncertainty prediction networks,

    G. Dorta, S. Vicente, L. Agapito, N. D. F. Campbell, and I. Simpson, “Structured uncertainty prediction networks,” inProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2018

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Structured uncertainty in the observation space of variational autoen- coders,

    J. Langley, M. Monteiro, C. Jones, N. Pawlowski, and B. Glocker, “Structured uncertainty in the observation space of variational autoen- coders,” Transactions on Machine Learning Research , 2022

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Kernel mean embedding of distributions: A review and beyond,

    K. Muandet, K. Fukumizu, B. Sriperumbudur, B. Sch ¨olkopf et al. , “Kernel mean embedding of distributions: A review and beyond,” Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning , vol. 10, no. 1-2, pp. 1–141, 2017

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    An electricity smart meter dataset of spanish households: insights into consumption patterns,

    C. Quesada, L. Astigarraga, C. Merveille, and C. E. Borges, “An electricity smart meter dataset of spanish households: insights into consumption patterns,” Scientific Data, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 59, 2024

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Generating contextual load profiles using a conditional variational autoencoder,

    C. Wang, S. H. Tindemans, and P. Palensky, “Generating contextual load profiles using a conditional variational autoencoder,” in 2022 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe), 2022, pp. 1–6

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization

    D. P. Kingma, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. APPENDIX A PROOFS Theorem 1. Any positive definite matrix can be constructed using PDCC at least in V (V − T ) + 1 different ways. Proof. Let M ∈ RT ×T be a positive definite matrix with eigenvalues λt > 0, ∀t. Then, the Cholesky decomposition of (M−ξI) resul...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014