Reference-Free Quadrature Filters For The Sine Benchmark

Deterministic quadrature ADF and Power-EP baselines showed that much of the nonlinear filtering gap was algorithmic, not just amortization.

Series: VBF Experiments, April 2026

The last part of the week stepped away from amortized training and asked a sharper question:

How far can a deterministic, reference-free filtering update go if it directly integrates the known nonlinear likelihood and projects the result back to a strict family?

That produced the quadrature ADF and Power-EP suite. These rows used only the known transition, known observation model, and observed \(x,y\). They did not train on grid posterior moments or latent states. The update locally formed a tilted distribution and projected it back to a Gaussian or Gaussian mixture.

Quadrature state NLL and predictive-y comparison

The figure compares the deterministic quadrature rows from the committed sweep code against the grid-reference metrics. The left panel shows state-density quality; the right panel shows the pre-update predictive score, where the alias-heavy state update was less well calibrated.

Baseline Quadrature ADF

The first suite compared a Gaussian ADF update, K2 ADF, K4 spread ADF, and K4 Power-EP with alpha 0.5.

PatternGrid ref NLLGaussian ADFK4 ADF spreadK4 Power-EP alpha 0.5
sinusoidal2.6916.0546.8402.867
weak2.6922.7492.6482.638
intermittent2.6952.7692.6742.528
zero2.6932.6932.7362.736
random normal2.6988.8348.9765.002

The result was uneven but important. K4 Power-EP closed most of the state-density gap in clean, weak, intermittent, and zero-observation settings. Random-normal observations remained difficult.

Alias-Indexed Components

The sine likelihood creates alias modes. The next variants indexed mixture components by \(2\pi\)-spaced aliases and then tested prior weighting, top-k pruning, moment shrinkage, and entropy gates.

The prior-weighted K5 alias Power-EP row improved random-normal state NLL from 5.002 to 2.717, close to the grid reference 2.698, but it inflated variance and damaged predictive-y NLL:

PatternK5 alias state NLLref state NLLcov90var ratiopred-y NLLref pred NLL
sinusoidal2.6022.6910.9241.5330.7100.457
weak2.7502.6920.9681.5620.3340.301
intermittent2.7392.6950.9621.5490.3930.351
zero2.7582.6930.9691.5850.2600.260
random normal2.7172.6980.8882.0110.8270.530

Shrink variants fixed some overdispersion. For weak, intermittent, and zero observations, shrink 0.85 brought variance ratio near one:

Patternshrink state NLLcov90var ratio
weak2.6870.9130.998
intermittent2.6830.9090.994
zero2.6950.9161.016

The tradeoff was that shrink hurt sinusoidal and random-normal state NLL. That made it a calibration variant, not the overall promotion row.

State-Predictive Pareto Split

The final quadrature Pareto suite separated a state-density leg from a predictive leg. It paired the prior-weighted K5 alias state update with the K4 Power-EP predictive scorer:

PatternPareto state NLLPareto pred-y NLLcov90var ratio
sinusoidal2.6020.5060.9241.533
weak2.7500.3210.9681.562
intermittent2.7390.3620.9621.549
zero2.7580.2600.9691.585
random normal2.7170.5610.8882.011

This was not a single perfect filter. It was a useful decomposition: the state-density update and predictive normalizer wanted different approximations. That matched the later predictive-decomposition report, where K4 state-density rows had strong state NLL but still lagged the particle-filter predictive likelihood on clean and random-normal patterns.

What This Says About The Week

The week started with an amortized VBF implementation question and ended with a stronger algorithmic diagnosis:

The remaining research target is not just “make the posterior bigger.” It is to align state-density quality with the pre-update predictive normalizer, while preserving the strict online filter.

Source artifacts: