Predictive-Consistent Mixture Objectives, May 2026

Source artifact rendered for reading.

This report asks whether explicitly scoring predictive normalizers can improve the K2 mixture frontier without sacrificing filtering-state density.

Runs

Family Summary

model state NLL pred-y NLL cov90 state RMSE var ratio
K2 IWAE + pre-update predictive scoring 4.548 0.998 0.602 3.072 0.928
K2 IWAE h4 k32 4.557 0.987 0.601 3.070 0.907
K2 IWAE + late predictive-y w0.3 4.925 1.001 0.577 3.275 0.904
K2 IWAE + detached pre-update predictive scoring 4.988 1.002 0.578 3.351 0.890
K2 IWAE h4 k16 + local ADF projection w0.3 5.456 0.916 0.586 3.099 0.800
K2 generic Power-EP alpha 0.5 6.764 0.841 0.640 2.838 0.507

Stressor Summary

model state NLL pred-y NLL cov90 state RMSE var ratio
K2 IWAE h4 k16 + local ADF projection w0.3 4.382 0.431 0.588 3.972 0.249
K2 IWAE h4 k32 6.044 0.428 0.444 4.511 0.156
K2 IWAE + pre-update predictive scoring 6.077 0.427 0.442 4.519 0.155
K2 generic Power-EP alpha 0.5 8.366 0.394 0.670 3.905 0.362

Interpretation

Pre-update predictive scoring ties the baseline on the family grid, but it does not improve predictive-y and slightly regresses the stressor state NLL. Detached and late predictive-y variants are worse on family state density. The local ADF hybrid remains interesting on stressors, but it is not a simple predictive consistency fix for the family grid.

Decision

Do not promote a predictive-consistent objective from this pass. The predictive normalizer gap is real, but direct predictive-y pressure mostly moves the model along the same tradeoff rather than resolving it.