Probabilistic Embeddings

• Probabilistic embeddings are a representation framework that maps inputs into probability distributions, encoding both central tendency and uncertainty.
• They improve model calibration and robustness using Gaussian, mixture, or manifold-based approaches across tasks in NLP, vision, and structured data.
• These techniques enable advanced inference with metrics like the Expected Likelihood Kernel and KL-Divergence, providing richer expressiveness and practical performance gains.

Probabilistic embeddings are a class of representation learning techniques in which each object (e.g., word, curve, speaker segment, or data sample) is mapped not to a deterministic point in a latent space, but to a probability distribution—most commonly a Gaussian or a mixture of Gaussians. This probabilistic paradigm encodes both the central location (mean) and the uncertainty (variance or covariance structure) associated with the embedding, allowing models to capture ambiguity, data quality, and representational uncertainty. Probabilistic embeddings provide essential improvements in calibration, robustness, and expressiveness across a wide array of machine learning domains, from natural language and vision to structured knowledge graphs and time-series trajectory analysis.

1. Formal Models and Probabilistic Embedding Families

The defining feature of a probabilistic embedding is that the representation function maps each input $x$ to a distribution $p(z|x)$ in latent space $Z$. In most work, $p(z|x)$ is parametrized as a Gaussian or a mixture of Gaussians:

• Single Gaussian: $p(z|x) = \mathcal{N}(z; \mu(x), \Sigma(x))$ where $\mu(x) \in \mathbb{R}^d$ is the learned mean and $\Sigma(x) \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ is the (often diagonal) covariance.
• Gaussian Mixture: $$p(z|x) = \sum_{k=1}^K \pi_{x,k}\, \mathcal{N}(z; \mu_{x,k}, \Sigma_{x,k})$$, as in Probabilistic FastText for word-sense modeling (Athiwaratkun et al., 2018).
• Distributions on Manifolds: Multivariate von Mises–Fisher for directional data (Karpukhin et al., 2022), or Riemannian subspace Gaussians for contextual LLMs (Nightingale et al., 7 Feb 2025).
• Discrete/Bernoulli Vectors with Bayesian Priors: For binary latent codes informed by morphology (Bhatia et al., 2016).
• Box Lattices: Embedding each concept as a hyperrectangle in $\mathbb{R}^d$ with volumes encoding probabilities, capturing both positive and negative correlations for structured knowledge (Vilnis et al., 2018).

The selection of probabilistic family is typically dictated by the structure of the task, the requirements for uncertainty quantification, and computational scalability.

2. Training Objectives and Regularization

Probabilistic embeddings are trained via objectives that combine task likelihoods with regularization terms promoting uncertainty calibration and structural properties. The dominant paradigm is the variational (Evidence Lower Bound, ELBO) formulation:

$$\mathcal{L} = \mathbb{E}_{z \sim p(z|x)}[-\log q(y|z)] + \beta\, D_\text{KL}[p(z|x) \| r(z)],$$

where $q(y|z)$ models the downstream prediction and $r(z)$ is typically a standard normal prior (Huang et al., 12 Dec 2024).

Key regularizers and constraints include:

• KL-Divergence to Prior: Prevents variance collapse and overconfident embeddings.
• Graph Laplacian Priors: Enforce structure via $$-\frac{1}{2} \operatorname{Tr}(\Theta^T L_+ \Theta)$$ for incorporating side information like lexicons, groups, or temporal graphs (Yrjänäinen et al., 2022).
• Subspace Coherence: Enforces learned subspaces to be low-dimensional and orthonormal (Nightingale et al., 7 Feb 2025).
• Structural Entropy Penalties: Promote global organization and non-collapsed representations over the embedding graph (Huang et al., 12 Dec 2024).
• Variational Information Bottleneck: Explicitly trade off information retention with compressive minimality in self-supervised and supervised settings (Janiak et al., 2023, Huang et al., 12 Dec 2024).

Special-purpose losses appear in unsupervised metric learning as smooth probabilistic analogues to margin-based losses using logistic transforms to quantify violation probabilities (Dutta et al., 2019).

3. Similarity Functions and Inference

Retrieval and similarity in probabilistic embedding spaces require distribution-to-distribution metrics. Common choices:

• Expected Likelihood Kernel (ELK):

$$\text{ELK}(p, q) = \int p(z) q(z) dz = \mathcal{N}(\mu_p-\mu_q; 0,\, \Sigma_p+\Sigma_q)$$

for Gaussian $p$ and $q$ (Chun et al., 2021, Athiwaratkun et al., 2018, Pishdad et al., 2022).

• KL-Divergence / 2-Wasserstein:

$$\mathrm{sim}_{\mathrm{KL}}(p, q) = -D_{\mathrm{KL}}(p \| q), \hspace{1em} \mathrm{sim}_{W_2}(p, q) = -W_2(p, q)$$

All admit fast closed-form under diagonal covariance.

• Monte Carlo Match Probability: Empirically average soft contrastive scores between samples from the query and candidate distributions (Chun et al., 2021).
• Bhattacharyya Kernel: Used for instance similarity in point cloud segmentation (Zhang et al., 2019).
• Product of Experts for Composition: Multimodal probabilistic composition via product of Gaussians with closed-form posteriors (Neculai et al., 2022).

Inference for probabilistic embeddings may include mean-only "collapse" for efficiency, but full distributional metrics improve generalization and enable uncertainty-aware decision making.

4. Theoretical Properties and Distortion Bounds

A rigorous feature of probabilistic embeddings is the ability to analyze their distortion, expressiveness, and failure cases relative to deterministic or structured alternative embeddings:

• Random Projection Distortion: For Frechet distance between curves projected into random lines, the distortion is upper-bounded by $O(ct)$ in $c$-packed cases with constant probability, but worst-case degradation is $\Omega(t)$ (Driemel et al., 2018).
• Order and Lattice Structures: Probabilistic box lattice models uniquely allow negative, zero, and positive correlations among concepts, unlike conic embeddings that only yield positive dependence (Vilnis et al., 2018).
• Information Bottleneck Limitations: Too much compression (e.g., setting $\beta$ large) can result in loss of informative signal, as shown in trade-off curves for self-supervised representation models (Janiak et al., 2023, Huang et al., 12 Dec 2024).

These properties dictate which application regimes probabilistic embeddings are most suitable for and where deterministic models may still be more reliable.

5. Calibration, Uncertainty, and Robustness

A principal use of probabilistic embeddings is the explicit quantification and propagation of epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty:

• Per-Instance Uncertainty: Typically quantified as $\mathrm{Tr}(\Sigma(x))$ or $\log \det \Sigma(x)$ (Chun et al., 2021, Pishdad et al., 2022).
• Calibration Metrics: Correlation between uncertainty and failure rates in retrieval and classification tasks, as in VLM retrieval and visual question answering (Venkataramanan et al., 8 May 2025).
• Adversarial Robustness: Probabilistic subspaces in LLMs yield superior consistency and resistance to perturbations (Nightingale et al., 7 Feb 2025).
• Data Quality Assessment: Embedding magnitude or variance provides a signal that tracks input quality (e.g., speech SNR, image crop occlusion) (Kuzmin et al., 2022, Karpukhin et al., 2022).
• Out-of-Distribution Detection: Embedding variance-based statistics (SigmaMean/SigmaStd) enable label-free OOD detection in SSL frameworks (Janiak et al., 2023).
• Diarization and Speaker Quality: Segment-level embedding variances propagate uncertainty through clustering and scoring to improve calibration and diarization performance (Silnova et al., 2020, Kuzmin et al., 2022).

High-confidence regions in the embedding space are associated with high-quality, familiar inputs, while uncertain, ambiguous, or OOD samples exhibit higher variance or lower embedding norm.

6. Applications and Empirical Impact

Probabilistic embeddings have yielded strong results in several application domains:

• Trajectory and Shape Analysis: Probabilistic projection enables approximate nearest-neighbor queries for Fréchet distance with controlled distortion (Driemel et al., 2018).
• Word Embeddings and Lexical Semantics: Models like Probabilistic FastText, Gibbs-sampled word2vec, and PELP outperform deterministic baselines in rare-word similarity and cross-lingual tasks while quantifying uncertainty for low-resource scenarios (Athiwaratkun et al., 2018, Yrjänäinen et al., 4 Aug 2025, Yrjänäinen et al., 2022).
• Cross-Modal and Multimodal Retrieval: Probabilistic models dominate in ambiguous-image/caption matching, multi-query retrieval, and compositional search (Chun et al., 2021, Pishdad et al., 2022, Neculai et al., 2022).
• Self-Supervised Representation Learning: Bottlenecked stochastic \emph{z}-projections enable state-of-the-art OOD detection and information compression (Janiak et al., 2023).
• Point Cloud Segmentation: Gaussian spatial embeddings yield superior instance clustering in part segmentation (Zhang et al., 2019).
• Speaker and Face Recognition: Magnitude-aware speaker embeddings and PLDA scoring with propagated uncertainty improve both verification error rates and diarization accuracy (Kuzmin et al., 2022, Silnova et al., 2020).
• Knowledge Graph and Taxonomy Modeling: Probabilistic box representations provide algebraic support for marginals, joints, negatives, and arbitrary correlations, giving improved performance on WordNet/Flickr entailment (Vilnis et al., 2018).

In most such applications, probabilistic embeddings not only outperform deterministic benchmarks in accuracy, but provide critical auxiliary signals for confidence and robust, interpretable modeling.

7. Open Problems, Limitations, and Scalability

The adoption of probabilistic embeddings introduces both computational and modeling challenges:

• Computational Overhead: Full covariance models or high-dimensional mixtures can be expensive in both memory and compute. Diagonal or low-rank structures alleviate some cost but reduce flexibility (Nightingale et al., 7 Feb 2025).
• Non-Identifiability: Bayesian embedding models are often non-identifiable up to invertible linear transformations. Constraining context-vectors or fixing a basis renders posteriors interpretable and sampling-diagnostics valid (Yrjänäinen et al., 4 Aug 2025).
• Mean-Field vs. Exact Inference: Variational (mean-field) inference underestimates uncertainty. Gibbs sampling (Polya–Gamma), Laplace, or HMC are preferable for accurate variance quantification at moderate scale (Yrjänäinen et al., 4 Aug 2025).
• Storage and Parametric Efficiency: MMbeddings and related techniques solve the $O(qd)$ parameter scaling for categorical embeddings, but more work remains for dense/high-rank applications (Simchoni et al., 25 Oct 2025).
• Interpretability: Understanding high-dimensional uncertainty structures (covariances, box intersections) is nontrivial, suggesting future work on sparsity or hierarchical constraints (Nightingale et al., 7 Feb 2025, Vilnis et al., 2018).
• Representation Collapse and Overcompression: In excessively constrained IB settings, informative directions can be lost, impacting downstream accuracy (Janiak et al., 2023).

A plausible implication is that most practical systems should select a probabilistic embedding flavor and inferential approximation that are matched to the application's uncertainty, expressiveness, and throughput requirements, using mean-field only where scalability is paramount and uncertainty-quantification is secondary.

---

In summary, probabilistic embeddings unify a spectrum of methods across metric learning, representation learning, and structured knowledge modeling. They extend classical embedding techniques by encoding uncertainty, flexibility, and richer compositionality, leading to improved accuracy, better calibration, and new capabilities in real-world systems across modalities and domains.