A common evaluation metric for variational autoencoders (VAEs) is estimating the marginal likelihood of some held-out data, i.e. $p(x)$. This is difficult and often one can only get a lower bound. It's also complicated when using some reconstruction loss $R$ as a log-likelihood for some complex data-type. Balancing the KL term and $R$ is itself a challenge, and this issue is seemingly built into the use of $p(x)$. Theis et al, A Note on the Evaluation of Generative Models note some of these difficulties.
However, we can easily measure the likelihood of the generative model sampling the encoding of given data point $x$: it's just $p_z( E(x) )$, where $E$ is the encoder, and $p_z$ is the latent prior. However, this does not tell us if the output is good, i.e. if $\hat{x}=D(x)$ is close to $x$. In other words, we might be able to sample the encoded latent form of $x$, but this does not mean the reconstruction will be good. But we can use $R$ for that! In other words, if there is a good chance of sampling $E(x)$ under the prior AND the reconstruction performance is good, then (seemingly) we can say that the generative model is good.
So why not report the two values: the average $R(x)$ and $\log p_z(E(x))$ over the held-out set? Are there any papers that do this?