Why is $q(\mathbf{z})$ chosen to be the posterior distribution in the EM algorithm?

Question

In the CS229 Lecture Notes on the EM algorithm by Tengyu Ma and Andrew Ng (2019), the authors write that $$ \log(p(\mathbf{x};\theta)) = \log\left(\mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{z})}\left[\frac{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}{q(\mathbf{z})}\right]\right) \geq \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{z})}\left[\log\left(\frac{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}{q(\mathbf{z})}\right)\right] $$ They also write that this inequality applies to all possible choices of $q(\mathbf{z})$, which means that we should choose the $q(\mathbf{z})$ that makes the right-hand side of this inequality equal to the left-hand side. This happens when $$ \frac{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}{q(\mathbf{z})} = c $$ for some constant $c$. The authors then write

This is easily accomplished by choosing $$ q(\mathbf{z}) \propto p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta) $$ Actually, since we know $\sum_{\mathbf{z}} q(\mathbf{z}) = 1$, this further tells us that \begin{align} q(\mathbf{z}) &= \frac{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}{\sum_{\mathbf{z}} p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)} \\ &= \frac{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}{p(\mathbf{x};\theta)} \\ &= p(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x};\theta) \end{align}

However, I am not sure how they reasoned that $$ q(\mathbf{z}) = \frac{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}{\sum_{\mathbf{z}} p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)} $$ so would appreciate some clarification on this.

Answer 1

Another way to make the evidence lower-bound $$ \log(p(\mathbf{x};\theta)) = \log\left(\mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{z})}\left[\frac{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}{q(\mathbf{z})}\right]\right) \geq \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{z})}\left[\log\left(\frac{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}{q(\mathbf{z})}\right)\right] $$ as tight as possible with respect to $q(\mathbf{z})$ is to minimize the difference $$ \log(p(\mathbf{x};\theta)) - \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{z})}\left[\log\left(\frac{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}{q(\mathbf{z})}\right)\right] $$ with respect to $q(\mathbf{z})$. Since \begin{align} \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{z})}\left[\log\left(\frac{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}{q(\mathbf{z})}\right)\right] &= \int_{\mathbf{z}} q(\mathbf{z}) \cdot \log\left(\frac{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}{q(\mathbf{z})}\right) \text{d}\mathbf{z} \\ &= \int_{\mathbf{z}} q(\mathbf{z}) \cdot \log\left(\frac{p(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x};\theta) \cdot p(\mathbf{x};\theta)}{q(\mathbf{z})}\right) \text{d}\mathbf{z} \\ &= \int_{\mathbf{z}} q(\mathbf{z}) \cdot \log\left(\frac{p(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x};\theta)}{q(\mathbf{z})}\right) \text{d}\mathbf{z} + \int_{\mathbf{z}} q(\mathbf{z}) \cdot \log\left(p(\mathbf{x};\theta)\right) \text{d}\mathbf{z} \\ &= \int_{\mathbf{z}} q(\mathbf{z}) \cdot \log\left(\frac{p(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x};\theta)}{q(\mathbf{z})}\right) \text{d}\mathbf{z} + \log\left(p(\mathbf{x};\theta)\right) \cdot \int_{\mathbf{z}} q(\mathbf{z}) \text{d}\mathbf{z} \\ &= -D_{\text{KL}}(q(\mathbf{z}) \mid\mid p(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x};\theta)) + \log\left(p(\mathbf{x};\theta)\right) \end{align} where $D_{\text{KL}}(q(\mathbf{z}) \mid\mid p(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x};\theta))$ is the Kullback–Leibler divergence between $q(\mathbf{z})$ and $p(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x};\theta)$, then \begin{align} \log(p(\mathbf{x};\theta)) - \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{z})}\left[\log\left(\frac{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}{q(\mathbf{z})}\right)\right] &= \log(p(\mathbf{x};\theta)) + D_{\text{KL}}(q(\mathbf{z}) \mid\mid p(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x};\theta)) - \log\left(p(\mathbf{x};\theta)\right) \\ &= D_{\text{KL}}(q(\mathbf{z}) \mid\mid p(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x};\theta)) \end{align} Since $D_{\text{KL}}(q(\mathbf{z}) \mid\mid p(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x};\theta)) = 0$ if $q(\mathbf{z}) = p(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x};\theta)$, then the difference $$ \log(p(\mathbf{x};\theta)) - \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{z})}\left[\log\left(\frac{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}{q(\mathbf{z})}\right)\right] $$ is minimized when $q(\mathbf{z}) = p(\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{x};\theta)$, which in turn means that the inequality $$ \log(p(\mathbf{x};\theta)) = \log\left(\mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{z})}\left[\frac{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}{q(\mathbf{z})}\right]\right) \geq \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{z})}\left[\log\left(\frac{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}{q(\mathbf{z})}\right)\right] $$ becomes an equality.

Answer 2

Referring to the note you posted, the choice of $q(\mathbf{z})$ is dictated by the strategy they use to prove/illustrate the method. So basically you want to choose $q(\mathbf{z})$ proportional to $p(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{z}; \theta)$, because you want the lower bound to be strict, that is your inequality above should hold with equality. When does this happen? When you are integrating something that is a constant with respect to $\mathbf{z}$.

Indeed, note that:

• $ \log (\mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{z})} c)=\log \sum_z c P(Z=z)=\log c \sum_z P(Z=z) = \log c $;
• $\mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{z})} \log ( c)=\sum_z (\log c) P(Z=z)=\log c \sum_z P(Z=z) = \log c $.

Thus, we want $\left[\frac{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}{q(\mathbf{z})}\right]$ to be equal to a constant (with respect to $\mathbf{z})$. The general way to achieve this is taking $q(\mathbf{z})$ to be proportional to $p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)$, that is: $$q(\mathbf{z})=c\cdot p(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{z}; \theta).$$

Now, we also want $q(\mathbf{z})$ to be a proper distribution over $\mathbf{z}$, and to ensure this, you want it to integrate to $1$, that is: $$\sum_z q(\mathbf{z})=1\implies \sum_z c\cdot p(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{z}; \theta)=1 $$ Rearranging the above leads to define $c$: $$\sum_z c\cdot p(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{z}; \theta)=1 \iff c =\frac{1}{\sum_z p(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{z}; \theta)}$$ which in turn gives: $$q(\mathbf{z})=\frac{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}{\sum_z p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z};\theta)}.$$

On page 5 of the notes it is showed that plugging this in attains the bound with equality. (Exactly same reasoning applies with continuous distributions.)