Redirecting to original paper in 30 seconds...
Click below to go immediately or wait for automatic redirect
📄 Abstract
Abstract: Generative models have achieved remarkable success across a range of
applications, yet their evaluation still lacks principled uncertainty
quantification. In this paper, we develop a method for comparing how close
different generative models are to the underlying distribution of test samples.
Particularly, our approach employs the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence to
measure the distance between a generative model and the unknown test
distribution, as KL requires no tuning parameters such as the kernels used by
RKHS-based distances, and is the only $f$-divergence that admits a crucial
cancellation to enable the uncertainty quantification. Furthermore, we extend
our method to comparing conditional generative models and leverage Edgeworth
expansions to address limited-data settings. On simulated datasets with known
ground truth, we show that our approach realizes effective coverage rates, and
has higher power compared to kernel-based methods. When applied to generative
models on image and text datasets, our procedure yields conclusions consistent
with benchmark metrics but with statistical confidence.
Submitted
January 31, 2025
Key Contributions
This paper develops a principled method for comparing generative models using KL divergence, enabling uncertainty quantification. It extends the method to conditional models and uses Edgeworth expansions for limited-data settings, demonstrating higher power and effective coverage rates compared to kernel-based methods.
Business Value
Provides a more reliable and statistically sound way to evaluate and compare generative models, crucial for selecting the best models for applications and understanding their limitations.