PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Attribute Based Interpretable Evaluation Metrics for Generative Models

Dongkyun Kim, Mingi Kwon, Youngjung Uh

generative modelsEvaluation metric for generative models
30.20100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
30.30100
Mimo
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.45)
34.80100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

When the training dataset comprises a 1:1 proportion of dogs to cats, a generative model that produces 1:1 dogs and cats better resembles the training species distribution than another model with 3:1 dogs and cats. Can we capture this phenomenon using existing metrics? Unfortunately, we cannot, because these metrics do not provide any interpretability beyond “diversity". In this context, we propose a new evaluation protocol that measures the divergence of a set of generated images from the training set regarding the distribution of attribute strengths as follows. Single-attribute Divergence (SaD) measures the divergence regarding PDFs of a single attribute. Paired-attribute Divergence (PaD) measures the divergence regarding joint PDFs of a pair of attributes. They provide which attributes the models struggle. For measuring the attribute strengths of an image, we propose Heterogeneous CLIPScore (HCS) which measures the cosine similarity between image and text vectors with heterogeneous initial points. With SaD and PaD, we reveal the following about existing generative models. ProjectedGAN generates implausible attribute relationships such as a baby with a beard even though it has competitive scores of existing metrics. Diffusion models struggle to capture diverse colors in the datasets. The larger sampling timesteps of latent diffusion model generate the more minor objects including earrings and necklaces. Stable Diffusion v1.5 better captures the attributes than v2.1. Our metrics lay a foundation for explainable evaluations of generative models.

Author context

Most prolific author: 2 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 30)