Parametric Adversarial Divergences are Good Task Losses for Generative Modeling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generative modeling of high dimensional data like images is a notoriously difficult and ill-defined problem. In particular, how to evaluate a learned generative model is unclear. In this position paper, we argue that adversarial learning, pioneered with generative adversarial networks (GANs), provides an interesting framework to implicitly define more meaningful task losses for generative modeling tasks, such as for generating visually realistic images. We refer to those task losses as parametric adversarial divergences and we give two main reasons why we think parametric divergences are good learning objectives for generative modeling. Additionally, we unify the processes of choosing a good structured loss (in structured prediction) and choosing a discriminator architecture (in generative modeling) using statistical decision theory; we are then able to formalize and quantify the intuition that weaker losses are easier to learn from, in a specific setting. Finally, we propose two new challenging tasks to evaluate parametric and nonparametric divergences: a qualitative task of generating very high-resolution digits, and a quantitative task of learning data that satisfies high-level algebraic constraints. We use two common divergences to train a generator and show that the parametric divergence outperforms the nonparametric divergence on both the qualitative and the quantitative task.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it