PreprintCited by 1,026Generative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsImage and Signal Denoising Methods

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A note on the evaluation of generative models

Open access
Theis, Lucas, Oord, Aäron van den, Bethge, Matthias·2015·arXiv

Abstract

Probabilistic generative models can be used for compression, denoising, inpainting, texture synthesis, semi-supervised learning, unsupervised feature learning, and other tasks. Given this wide range of applications, it is not surprising that a lot of heterogeneity exists in the way these models are formulated, trained, and evaluated. As a consequence, direct comparison between models is often difficult. This article reviews mostly known but often underappreciated properties relating to the evaluation and interpretation of generative models with a focus on image models. In particular, we show that three of the currently most commonly used criteria---average log-likelihood, Parzen window estimates, and visual fidelity of samples---are largely independent of each other when the data is high-dimensional. Good performance with respect to one criterion therefore need not imply good performance with respect to the other criteria. Our results show that extrapolation from one criterion to another is not warranted and generative models need to be evaluated directly with respect to the application(s) they were intended for. In addition, we provide examples demonstrating that Parzen window estimates should generally be avoided.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1511.01844

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Bachman, P. and Precup, D. Variational Generative Stochastic Networks with Collaborative Shap- ing. Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1964-1972, 2015.
  2. Bengio, Y., Mesnil, G., Dauphin, Y., and Rifai, S. Better mixing via deep representations. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2013a.
  3. Bengio, Y., Thibodeau-Laufer, E., Alain, G., and Yosinski, J. Deep generative stochastic networks trainable by backprop, 2013b. arXiv:1306.1091. · arXiv
  4. Bishop, C. M. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Springer, 2006.
  5. Denton, E., Chintala, S., Szlam, A., and Fergus, R. Deep Generative Image Models using a Lapla- cian Pyramid of Adversarial Networks. arXiv.org, 2015.
  6. Dosovitskiy, A., Springenberg, J. T., and Brox, T. Learning to Generate Chairs with Convolutional Neural Networks. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, 2015.
  7. Dziugaite, G. K., Roy, D. M., and Ghahramani, Z. Training generative neural networks via maxi- mum mean discrepancy optimization, 2015. arXiv:1505.0390.
  8. Gatys, L. A., Ecker, A. S., and Bethge, M. Texture synthesis and the controlled generation of natural stimuli using convolutional neural networks, 2015. arXiv:1505.07376. · arXiv
  9. Gerhard, H. E., Wichmann, F. A., and Bethge, M. How sensitive is the human visual system to the local statistics of natural images? PLoS Computational Biology, 9(1), 2013.
  10. Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., and Bengio, Y. Generative adversarial nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27, 2014.
  11. Gregor, K., Danihelka, I., Graves, A., and Wierstra, D. DRAW: A recurrent neural network for image generation. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, 2015.
  12. Gretton, A., Borgwardt, K. M., Rasch, M., Schölkopf, B., and Smola, A. J. A kernel method for the two-sample-problem. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 20, 2007.
  13. Gutmann, M. and Hyvärinen, A. Noise-contrastive estimation: A new estimation principle for unnormalized statistical models. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2010.
  14. Hays, J. and Efros, A. A. Scene completion using millions of photographs. ACM Transactions on Graphics (SIGGRAPH), 26, 2007.
  15. Hyvärinen, A., Hurri, J., and Hoyer, P. O. Natural Image Statistics: A Probabilistic Approach to Early Computational Vision. Springer, 2009.
  16. Hyvärinen, A. Estimation of non-normalized statistical models using score matching. Journal of Machine Learning Research, pp. 695-709, 2005.
  17. Kingma, D. P., Rezende, D. J., Mohamed, S., and Welling, M. Semi-supervised learning with deep generative models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27, 2014.
  18. Lacoste-Julien, S., Huszar, F., and Ghahramani, Z. Approximate inference for the loss-calibrated Bayesian. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2011.
  19. Lasserre, J. A., Bishop, C. M., and Minka, T. P. Principled hybrids of generative and discriminative models. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, 2006.
  20. Li, Y., Swersky, K., and Zemel, R. Generative moment matching networks. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, 2015.
  21. Shannon, C. E. A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review, 5(1):3-55, 2001.
  22. Sohl-Dickstein, J., Battaglino, P., and DeWeese, M. R. Minimum Probability Flow Learning. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2011.
  23. Sohl-Dickstein, J., Weiss, E. A., Maheswaranathan, N., and Ganguli, S. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, 2015.
  24. Theis, L. and Bethge, M. Generative Image Modeling Using Spatial LSTMs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28, 2015.
  25. Uria, B., Murray, I., and Larochelle, H. RNADE: The real-valued neural autoregressive density- estimator. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26, 2013.
  26. van den Oord, A. and Dambre, J. Locally-connected transformations for deep GMMs, 2015. Deep Learning Workshop, ICML.
  27. van den Oord, A. and Schrauwen, B. Factoring Variations in Natural Images with Deep Gaussian Mixture Models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27, 2014.
  28. Wang, Z. and Bovik, A. C. Mean squared error: Love it or leave it? IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 2009.
  29. Welling, M. and Teh, Y. W. Bayesian Learning via Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2011.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,026

Metadata

Authors
Theis, L., Oord, A. V. D., & Bethge, M.
Affiliations
University of Tübingen (DE)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2015
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2099057450
Cited by
1,026
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 83 · 2023: 109 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 136 · 2020: 148 · 2019: 130 · 2018: 114 · 2017: 85 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 6
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Signal Denoising Methods
Keywords
generative model evaluation, probabilistic generative models, image models, visual fidelity, high-dimensional data, model comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review