The recent, counter-intuitive discovery that deep generative models (DGMs) can frequently assign a higher likelihood to outliers has implications for both outlier detection applications as well as our overall understanding of generative modeling. In this work, we present a possible explanation for this phenomenon, starting from the observation that a model's typical set and high-density region may not conincide. From this vantage point we propose a novel outlier test, the empirical success of which suggests that the failure of existing likelihood-based outlier tests does not necessarily imply that the corresponding generative model is uncalibrated. We also conduct additional experiments to help disentangle the impact of low-level texture versus high-level semantics in differentiating outliers. In aggregate, these results suggest that modifications to the standard evaluation practices and benchmarks commonly applied in the literature are needed.

The recent, counter-intuitive discovery that deep generative models (DGMs) can frequently assign a higher likelihood to outliers has implications for both outlier detection applications as well as our overall understanding of generative modeling. In this work, we present a possible explanation for this phenomenon, starting from the observation that a model's typical set and high-density region may not conincide. From this vantage point we propose a novel outlier test, the empirical success of which suggests that the failure of existing likelihood-based outlier tests does not necessarily imply that the corresponding generative model is uncalibrated. We also conduct additional experiments to help disentangle the impact of low-level texture versus high-level semantics in differentiating outliers. In aggregate, these results suggest that modifications to the standard evaluation practices and benchmarks commonly applied in the literature are needed.

The recent, counter-intuitive discovery that deep generative models (DGMs) can frequently assign a higher likelihood to outliers has implications for both outlier detection applications as well as our overall understanding of generative modeling. In this work, we present a possible explanation for this phenomenon, starting from the observation that a model's typical set and high-density region may not conincide. From this vantage point we propose a novel outlier test, the empirical success of which suggests that the failure of existing likelihood-based outlier tests does not necessarily imply that the corresponding generative model is uncalibrated. We also conduct additional experiments to help disentangle the impact of low-level texture versus high-level semantics in differentiating outliers. In aggregate, these results suggest that modifications to the standard evaluation practices and benchmarks commonly applied in the literature are needed.

Hierarchical clustering based on pairwise similarities is a common tool used in a broad range of scientific applications. However, in many problems it may be expensive to obtain or compute similarities between the items to be clustered. This paper investigates the hierarchical clustering of N items based on a small subset of pairwise similarities, significantly less than the complete set of N(N-1)/2 similarities. First, we show that if the intracluster similarities exceed intercluster similarities, then it is possible to correctly determine the hierarchical clustering from as few as 3N log N similarities. We demonstrate this order of magnitude savings in the number of pairwise similarities necessitates sequentially selecting which similarities to obtain in an adaptive fashion, rather than picking them at random. We then propose an active clustering method that is robust to a limited fraction of anomalous similarities, and show how even in the presence of these noisy similarity values we can resolve the hierarchical clustering using only O(N log^2 N) pairwise similarities.