The spectacular success ofdeep generativemodels calls forquantitativetools to measure their statistical performance. Divergence frontiers have recently been proposed as an evaluation framework for generative models, due to their ability to measure the quality-diversity trade-off inherent to deep generative modeling. We establish non-asymptotic bounds on the sample complexity of divergence frontiers.

The spectacular success of deep generative models calls for quantitative tools to measure their statistical performance. Divergence frontiers have recently been proposed as an evaluation framework for generative models, due to their ability to measure the quality-diversity trade-off inherent to deep generative modeling. We establish non-asymptotic bounds on the sample complexity of divergence frontiers. We also introduce frontier integrals which provide summary statistics of divergence frontiers. We show how smoothed estimators such as Good-Turing or Krichevsky-Trofimov can overcome the missing mass problem and lead to faster rates of convergence. We illustrate the theoretical results with numerical examples from natural language processing and computer vision.

As major progress is made in open-ended text generation, measuring how close machine-generated text is to human language remains a critical open problem. We introduce Mauve, a comparison measure for open-ended text generation, which directly compares the learnt distribution from a text generation model to the distribution of human-written text using divergence frontiers.

The spectacular success of deep generative models calls for quantitative tools to measure their statistical performance. Divergence frontiers have recently been proposed as an evaluation framework for generative models, due to their ability to measure the quality-diversity trade-off inherent to deep generative modeling.

The spectacular success of deep generative models calls for quantitative tools to measure their statistical performance. Divergence frontiers have recently been proposed as an evaluation framework for generative models, due to their ability to measure the quality-diversity trade-off inherent to deep generative modeling.

The spectacular success of deep generative models calls for quantitative tools to measure their statistical performance. Divergence frontiers have recently been proposed as an evaluation framework for generative models, due to their ability to measure the quality-diversity trade-off inherent to deep generative modeling. We establish non-asymptotic bounds on the sample complexity of divergence frontiers. We also introduce frontier integrals which provide summary statistics of divergence frontiers. We show how smoothed estimators such as Good-Turing or Krichevsky-Trofimov can overcome the missing mass problem and lead to faster rates of convergence.

As major progress is made in open-ended text generation, measuring how close machine-generated text is to human language remains a critical open problem. We introduce Mauve, a comparison measure for open-ended text generation, which directly compares the learnt distribution from a text generation model to the distribution of human-written text using divergence frontiers. Through an extensive empirical study on three open-ended generation tasks, we find that Mauve identifies known properties of generated text, scales naturally with model size, and correlates with human judgments, with fewer restrictions than existing distributional evaluation metrics.

We introduce a novel evaluation framework for Large Language Models (LLMs) such as \textsc{Llama-2} and \textsc{Mistral}, focusing on importing Precision and Recall metrics from image generation to text generation. This approach allows for a nuanced assessment of the quality and diversity of generated text without the need for aligned corpora. By conducting a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art language models, the study reveals new insights into their performance on open-ended generation tasks, which are not adequately captured by traditional benchmarks. The findings highlight a trade-off between the quality and diversity of generated samples, particularly when models are fine-tuned on instruction dataset or with human feedback. This work extends the toolkit for distribution-based NLP evaluation, offering insights into the practical capabilities and challenges that current LLMs face in generating diverse and high-quality text. We release our code and data.

Generative artificial intelligence has made significant strides, producing text indistinguishable from human prose and remarkably photorealistic images. Automatically measuring how close the generated data distribution is to the target distribution is central to diagnosing existing models and developing better ones. We present MAUVE, a family of comparison measures between pairs of distributions such as those encountered in the generative modeling of text or images. These scores are statistical summaries of divergence frontiers capturing two types of errors in generative modeling. We explore three approaches to statistically estimate these scores: vector quantization, non-parametric estimation, and classifier-based estimation. We provide statistical bounds for the vector quantization approach. Empirically, we find that the proposed scores paired with a range of $f$-divergences and statistical estimation methods can quantify the gaps between the distributions of human-written text and those of modern neural language models by correlating with human judgments and identifying known properties of the generated texts. We demonstrate in the vision domain that MAUVE can identify known properties of generated images on par with or better than existing metrics. In conclusion, we present practical recommendations for using MAUVE effectively with language and image modalities.