Do Deep Generative Models Know What They Don't Know? Do Deep Generative Models Know What They Don't Know?
Paper summary CNNs predictions are known to be very sensitive to adversarial examples, which are samples generated to be wrongly classifiied with high confidence. On the other hand, probabilistic generative models such as `PixelCNN` and `VAEs` learn a distribution over the input domain hence could be used to detect ***out-of-distribution inputs***, e.g., by estimating their likelihood under the data distribution. This paper provides interesting results showing that distributions learned by generative models are not robust enough yet to employ them in this way. * **Pros (+):** convincing experiments on multiple generative models, more detailed analysis in the invertible flow case, interesting negative results. * **Cons (-):** It would be interesting to provide further results for different datasets / domain shifts to observe if this property can be quanitfied as a characteristics of the model or of the input data. --- ## Experimental negative result Three classes of generative models are considered in this paper: * **Auto-regressive** models such as `PixelCNN` [1] * **Latent variable** models, such as `VAEs` [2] * Generative models with **invertible flows** [3], in particular `Glow` [4]. The authors train a generative model $G$ on input data $\mathcal X$ and then use it to evaluate the likelihood on both the training domain $\mathcal X$ and a different domain $\tilde{\mathcal X}$. Their main (negative) result is showing that **a model trained on the CIFAR-10 dataset yields a higher likelihood when evaluated on the SVHN test dataset than on the CIFAR-10 test (or even train) split**. Interestingly, the converse, when training on SVHN and evaluating on CIFAR, is not true. This result was consistantly observed for various architectures including [1], [2] and [4], although it is of lesser effect in the `PixelCNN` case. Intuitively, this could come from the fact that both of these datasets contain natural images and that CIFAR-10 is strictly more diverse than SVHN in terms of semantic content. Nonetheless, these datasets vastly differ in appearance, and this result is counter-intuitive as it goes against the direction that generative models can reliably be use to detect out-of-distribution samples. Furthermore, this observation also confirms the general idea that higher likelihoods does not necessarily coincide with better generated samples [5]. --- ## Further analysis for invertible flow models The authors further study this phenomenon in the invertible flow models case as they provide a more rigorous analytical framework (exact likelihood inference unlike VAE which only provide a bound on the true likelihood). More specifically invertible flow models are characterized with a ***diffeomorphism*** (invertible function), $f(x; \phi)$, between input space $\mathcal X$ and latent space $\mathcal Z$, and choice of the latent distribution $p(z; \psi)$. The ***change of variable formula*** links the density of $x$ and $z$ as follows: $$ \int_x p_x(x)d_x = \int_x p_z(f(x)) \left| \frac{\partial f}{\partial x} \right| dx $$ And the training objective under this transformation becomes $$ \arg\max_{\theta} \log p_x(\mathbf{x}; \theta) = \arg\max_{\phi, \psi} \sum_i \log p_z(f(x_i; \phi); \psi) + \log \left| \frac{\partial f_{\phi}}{\partial x_i} \right| $$ Typically, $p_z$ is chosen to be Gaussian, and samples are build by inverting $f$, i.e.,$z \sim p(\mathbf z),\ x = f^{-1}(z)$. And $f_{\phi}$ is build such that computing the log determinant of the Jacabian in the previous equation can be done efficiently. First, they observe that contribution of the flow can be decomposed in a ***density*** element (left term) and a ***volume*** element (right term), resulting from the change of variables formula. Experiment results with Glow [4] show that the higher density on SVHN mostly comes from the ***volume element contribution***. Secondly, they try to directly analyze the difference in likelihood between two domains $\mathcal X$ and $\tilde{\mathcal X}$; which can be done by a second-order expansion of the log-likelihood locally around the expectation of the distribution (assuming $\mathbb{E} (\mathcal X) \sim \mathbb{E}(\tilde{\mathcal X})$). For the constant volume Glow module, the resulting analytical formula indeed confirms that the log-likelihood of SVHN should be higher than CIFAR's, as observed in practice. --- ## References * [1] Conditional Image Generation with PixelCNN Decoders, van den Oord et al, 2016 * [2] Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes, Kingma and Welling, 2013 * [3] Density estimation using Real NVP, Dinh et al., ICLR 2015 * [4] Glow: Generative Flow with Invertible 1x1 Convolutions, Kingma and Dhariwal * [5] A Note on the Evaluation of Generative Models, Theis et al., ICLR 2016
arxiv.org
arxiv-sanity.com
scholar.google.com
Do Deep Generative Models Know What They Don't Know?
Eric Nalisnick and Akihiro Matsukawa and Yee Whye Teh and Dilan Gorur and Balaji Lakshminarayanan
arXiv e-Print archive - 2018 via Local arXiv
Keywords: stat.ML, cs.LG

more

[link]
Summary by ameroyer 5 months ago
Loading...
Your comment:


ShortScience.org allows researchers to publish paper summaries that are voted on and ranked!
About

Sponsored by: and