A Multi-Armed Bandit Approach to Online Selection and Evaluation of Generative Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07451v3
• Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:55:52 GMT
• Title: A Multi-Armed Bandit Approach to Online Selection and Evaluation of Generative Models
• Authors: Xiaoyan Hu, Ho-fung Leung, Farzan Farnia,
• Abstract summary: In this work, we propose an online evaluation and selection framework to find the generative model that maximizes a standard assessment score.<n>Specifically, we develop the MAB-based selection of generative models considering the Fr'echet Distance (FD) and Inception Score (IS) metrics.<n>Our empirical results suggest the efficacy of MAB approaches for the sample-efficient evaluation and selection of deep generative models.
• Score: 23.91197677628145
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Existing frameworks for evaluating and comparing generative models consider an offline setting, where the evaluator has access to large batches of data produced by the models. However, in practical scenarios, the goal is often to identify and select the best model using the fewest possible generated samples to minimize the costs of querying data from the sub-optimal models. In this work, we propose an online evaluation and selection framework to find the generative model that maximizes a standard assessment score among a group of available models. We view the task as a multi-armed bandit (MAB) and propose upper confidence bound (UCB) bandit algorithms to identify the model producing data with the best evaluation score that quantifies the quality and diversity of generated data. Specifically, we develop the MAB-based selection of generative models considering the Fr\'echet Distance (FD) and Inception Score (IS) metrics, resulting in the FD-UCB and IS-UCB algorithms. We prove regret bounds for these algorithms and present numerical results on standard image datasets. Our empirical results suggest the efficacy of MAB approaches for the sample-efficient evaluation and selection of deep generative models. The project code is available at https://github.com/yannxiaoyanhu/dgm-online-eval.

Related papers

• Evaluating Sample Utility for Data Selection by Mimicking Model Weights [12.056542160711718]
  Foundation models are trained on large-scale web-crawled datasets, which often contain noise, biases, and irrelevant information. We propose an efficient, model-based approach using the Mimic Score, a new data quality metric. We develop Grad-Mimic, a framework that prioritizes samples for learning, creates effective filters, and automates data selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-12T04:28:14Z)
• Be More Diverse than the Most Diverse: Optimal Mixtures of Generative Models via Mixture-UCB Bandit Algorithms [33.04472814852163]
  We numerically show that a mixture of generative models on benchmark image datasets can indeed achieve a better evaluation score. We propose the Mixture Upper Confidence Bound (Mixture-UCB) algorithm that provably converges to the optimal mixture of the involved models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T14:48:17Z)
• Ranked from Within: Ranking Large Multimodal Models for Visual Question Answering Without Labels [64.94853276821992]
  Large multimodal models (LMMs) are increasingly deployed across diverse applications. Traditional evaluation methods are largely dataset-centric, relying on fixed, labeled datasets and supervised metrics. We explore unsupervised model ranking for LMMs by leveraging their uncertainty signals, such as softmax probabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T13:05:43Z)
• Supervised Score-Based Modeling by Gradient Boosting [49.556736252628745]
  We propose a Supervised Score-based Model (SSM) which can be viewed as a gradient boosting algorithm combining score matching. We provide a theoretical analysis of learning and sampling for SSM to balance inference time and prediction accuracy. Our model outperforms existing models in both accuracy and inference time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-02T07:06:53Z)
• Offline Model-Based Optimization by Learning to Rank [26.21886715050762]
  We argue that regression models trained with mean squared error (MSE) are not well-aligned with the primary goal of offline model-based optimization. We propose learning a ranking-based model that leverages learning to rank techniques to prioritize promising designs based on their relative scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T11:15:03Z)
• LiveXiv -- A Multi-Modal Live Benchmark Based on Arxiv Papers Content [62.816876067499415]
  We propose LiveXiv: a scalable evolving live benchmark based on scientific ArXiv papers. LiveXiv accesses domain-specific manuscripts at any given timestamp and proposes to automatically generate visual question-answer pairs. We benchmark multiple open and proprietary Large Multi-modal Models (LMMs) on the first version of our benchmark, showing its challenging nature and exposing the models true abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:51:23Z)
• PerturBench: Benchmarking Machine Learning Models for Cellular Perturbation Analysis [14.526536510805755]
  We present a comprehensive framework for predicting the effects of perturbations in single cells, designed to standardize benchmarking in this rapidly evolving field. Our framework, PerturBench, includes a user-friendly platform, diverse datasets, metrics for fair model comparison, and detailed performance analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T07:40:20Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• EvalCrafter: Benchmarking and Evaluating Large Video Generation Models [70.19437817951673]
  We argue that it is hard to judge the large conditional generative models from the simple metrics since these models are often trained on very large datasets with multi-aspect abilities. Our approach involves generating a diverse and comprehensive list of 700 prompts for text-to-video generation. Then, we evaluate the state-of-the-art video generative models on our carefully designed benchmark, in terms of visual qualities, content qualities, motion qualities, and text-video alignment with 17 well-selected objective metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T17:50:46Z)
• GMValuator: Similarity-based Data Valuation for Generative Models [41.76259565672285]
  We introduce Generative Model Valuator (GMValuator), the first training-free and model-agnostic approach to provide data valuation for generation tasks. GMValuator is extensively evaluated on various datasets and generative architectures to demonstrate its effectiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-21T02:02:02Z)
• Evaluating Representations with Readout Model Switching [19.907607374144167]
  In this paper, we propose to use the Minimum Description Length (MDL) principle to devise an evaluation metric. We design a hybrid discrete and continuous-valued model space for the readout models and employ a switching strategy to combine their predictions. The proposed metric can be efficiently computed with an online method and we present results for pre-trained vision encoders of various architectures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-19T14:08:01Z)
• Multidimensional Item Response Theory in the Style of Collaborative Filtering [0.8057006406834467]
  This paper presents a machine learning approach to multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) Inspired by collaborative filtering, we define a general class of models that includes many MIRT models. We discuss the use of penalized joint maximum likelihood (JML) to estimate individual models and cross-validation to select the best performing model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-03T00:56:27Z)
• Exploring validation metrics for offline model-based optimisation with diffusion models [50.404829846182764]
  In model-based optimisation (MBO) we are interested in using machine learning to design candidates that maximise some measure of reward with respect to a black box function called the (ground truth) oracle. While an approximation to the ground oracle can be trained and used in place of it during model validation to measure the mean reward over generated candidates, the evaluation is approximate and vulnerable to adversarial examples. This is encapsulated under our proposed evaluation framework which is also designed to measure extrapolation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-19T16:57:37Z)
• fETSmcs: Feature-based ETS model component selection [8.99236558175168]
  We propose an efficient approach for ETS model selection by training classifiers on simulated data to predict appropriate model component forms for a given time series. We evaluate our approach on the widely used forecasting competition data set M4 in terms of both point forecasts and prediction intervals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-26T13:52:43Z)
• Comparing Test Sets with Item Response Theory [53.755064720563]
  We evaluate 29 datasets using predictions from 18 pretrained Transformer models on individual test examples. We find that Quoref, HellaSwag, and MC-TACO are best suited for distinguishing among state-of-the-art models. We also observe span selection task format, which is used for QA datasets like QAMR or SQuAD2.0, is effective in differentiating between strong and weak models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T22:33:53Z)
• How Faithful is your Synthetic Data? Sample-level Metrics for Evaluating and Auditing Generative Models [95.8037674226622]
  We introduce a 3-dimensional evaluation metric that characterizes the fidelity, diversity and generalization performance of any generative model in a domain-agnostic fashion. Our metric unifies statistical divergence measures with precision-recall analysis, enabling sample- and distribution-level diagnoses of model fidelity and diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-17T18:25:30Z)
• COMBO: Conservative Offline Model-Based Policy Optimization [120.55713363569845]
  Uncertainty estimation with complex models, such as deep neural networks, can be difficult and unreliable. We develop a new model-based offline RL algorithm, COMBO, that regularizes the value function on out-of-support state-actions. We find that COMBO consistently performs as well or better as compared to prior offline model-free and model-based methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-16T18:50:32Z)
• Characterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective Labels [69.64662540443162]
  We develop a framework for characterizing predictive fairness properties over the set of models that deliver similar overall performance. We provide tractable algorithms to compute the range of attainable group-level predictive disparities. We extend our framework to address the empirically relevant challenge of selectively labelled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-02T02:11:37Z)

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.