Evaluation of Categorical Generative Models -- Bridging the Gap Between Real and Synthetic Data

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.16405v1
• Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 21:05:25 GMT
• Title: Evaluation of Categorical Generative Models -- Bridging the Gap Between Real and Synthetic Data
• Authors: Florence Regol, Anja Kroon, Mark Coates
• Abstract summary: We introduce an appropriately scalable evaluation method for generative models. We consider increasingly large probability spaces, which correspond to increasingly difficult modeling tasks. We validate our evaluation procedure with synthetic experiments on both synthetic generative models and current state-of-the-art categorical generative models.
• Score: 18.142397311464343
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The machine learning community has mainly relied on real data to benchmark algorithms as it provides compelling evidence of model applicability. Evaluation on synthetic datasets can be a powerful tool to provide a better understanding of a model's strengths, weaknesses, and overall capabilities. Gaining these insights can be particularly important for generative modeling as the target quantity is completely unknown. Multiple issues related to the evaluation of generative models have been reported in the literature. We argue those problems can be avoided by an evaluation based on ground truth. General criticisms of synthetic experiments are that they are too simplified and not representative of practical scenarios. As such, our experimental setting is tailored to a realistic generative task. We focus on categorical data and introduce an appropriately scalable evaluation method. Our method involves tasking a generative model to learn a distribution in a high-dimensional setting. We then successively bin the large space to obtain smaller probability spaces where meaningful statistical tests can be applied. We consider increasingly large probability spaces, which correspond to increasingly difficult modeling tasks and compare the generative models based on the highest task difficulty they can reach before being detected as being too far from the ground truth. We validate our evaluation procedure with synthetic experiments on both synthetic generative models and current state-of-the-art categorical generative models.

Related papers

• Forte : Finding Outliers with Representation Typicality Estimation [0.14061979259370275]
  Generative models can now produce synthetic data which is virtually indistinguishable from the real data used to train it. Recent work on OOD detection has raised doubts that generative model likelihoods are optimal OOD detectors. We introduce a novel approach that leverages representation learning, and informative summary statistics based on manifold estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T08:26:37Z)
• When is an Embedding Model More Promising than Another? [33.540506562970776]
  Embedders play a central role in machine learning, projecting any object into numerical representations that can be leveraged to perform various downstream tasks. The evaluation of embedding models typically depends on domain-specific empirical approaches. We present a unified approach to evaluate embedders, drawing upon the concepts of sufficiency and informativeness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T18:13:46Z)
• Learning Defect Prediction from Unrealistic Data [57.53586547895278]
  Pretrained models of code have become popular choices for code understanding and generation tasks. Such models tend to be large and require commensurate volumes of training data. It has become popular to train models with far larger but less realistic datasets, such as functions with artificially injected bugs. Models trained on such data tend to only perform well on similar data, while underperforming on real world programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-02T01:51:43Z)
• Fantastic Gains and Where to Find Them: On the Existence and Prospect of General Knowledge Transfer between Any Pretrained Model [74.62272538148245]
  We show that for arbitrary pairings of pretrained models, one model extracts significant data context unavailable in the other. We investigate if it is possible to transfer such "complementary" knowledge from one model to another without performance degradation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:59:46Z)
• On the Stability of Iterative Retraining of Generative Models on their own Data [56.153542044045224]
  We study the impact of training generative models on mixed datasets. We first prove the stability of iterative training under the condition that the initial generative models approximate the data distribution well enough. We empirically validate our theory on both synthetic and natural images by iteratively training normalizing flows and state-of-the-art diffusion models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-30T16:41:04Z)
• Utility Theory of Synthetic Data Generation [12.511220449652384]
  This paper bridges the practice-theory gap by establishing relevant utility theory in a statistical learning framework. It considers two utility metrics: generalization and ranking of models trained on synthetic data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T07:49:16Z)
• Synthetic data, real errors: how (not) to publish and use synthetic data [86.65594304109567]
  We show how the generative process affects the downstream ML task. We introduce Deep Generative Ensemble (DGE) to approximate the posterior distribution over the generative process model parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-16T07:30:29Z)
• Synthetic Model Combination: An Instance-wise Approach to Unsupervised Ensemble Learning [92.89846887298852]
  Consider making a prediction over new test data without any opportunity to learn from a training set of labelled data. Give access to a set of expert models and their predictions alongside some limited information about the dataset used to train them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-11T10:20:31Z)
• HyperImpute: Generalized Iterative Imputation with Automatic Model Selection [77.86861638371926]
  We propose a generalized iterative imputation framework for adaptively and automatically configuring column-wise models. We provide a concrete implementation with out-of-the-box learners, simulators, and interfaces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-15T19:10:35Z)
• Learnability of Competitive Threshold Models [11.005966612053262]
  We study the learnability of the competitive threshold model from a theoretical perspective. We demonstrate how competitive threshold models can be seamlessly simulated by artificial neural networks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-08T01:11:51Z)
• Amortized Bayesian model comparison with evidential deep learning [0.12314765641075436]
  We propose a novel method for performing Bayesian model comparison using specialized deep learning architectures. Our method is purely simulation-based and circumvents the step of explicitly fitting all alternative models under consideration to each observed dataset. We show that our method achieves excellent results in terms of accuracy, calibration, and efficiency across the examples considered in this work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-22T15:15:46Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.