The two limiting-case names in the printed bullets are reversed. Fully reparameterized continuous choices give a reparameterization gradient; non-reparameterized discrete choices give a score-function gradient estimator. Here are both reductions, including the extra term that vanishes only after taking an expectation.
When all choices are reparameterized with parameter-independent base noise, and . The expression in part (c) becomes
Differentiating along the sampled transformation is precisely the pathwise gradient, also called the reparameterization gradient. There is no score function of the parameter-independent base law.
When all choices are discrete and left untransformed, and . Set and . Since has no variational parameter, the integrand in part (c) is
Normalization gives the zero-mean score function identity
Thus
The first expression is the usual score-function gradient estimator; the second has a constant score baseline of one. The two random integrands are generally different even though their expectations agree. A suitable constant score baseline can reduce variance, but one is not universally the optimal baseline.[ref]
For a concrete check, take with and , and a fixed target . Direct integration gives
Using , , the combined integrand has components , and . Their expectations are respectively , and , matching direct differentiation. Dropping the discrete score function term would incorrectly give zero for the first component. This calculation checks the combination without accepting the printed reversal.