Measuring Disentanglement: A Review of Metrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning to disentangle and represent factors of variation in data is an important problem in artificial intelligence. While many advances have been made to learn these representations, it is still unclear how to quantify disentanglement. While several metrics exist, little is known on their implicit assumptions, what they truly measure, and their limits. In consequence, it is difficult to interpret results when comparing different representations. In this work, we survey supervised disentanglement metrics and thoroughly analyze them. We propose a new taxonomy in which all metrics fall into one of the three families: intervention-based, predictor-based, and information-based. We conduct extensive experiments in which we isolate properties of disentangled representations, allowing stratified comparison along several axes. From our experiment results and analysis, we provide insights on relations between disentangled representation properties. Finally, we share guidelines on how to measure disentanglement.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".