You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Was the reproducibility of these new metrics checked with the official repo's results? I tested with my mode-collapsed generative model that produces nearly the same images as below:
We can see that precision is nearly zero and recall is close to 1. Recall is supposed to measure the diversity of generated samples; it should be close to zero in this case. Also, it seems that the car lies on the true data manifold, meaning that precision should be close to one. Results seem to be flipped.
I used 50000 generated samples. This is the command I used:
Was the reproducibility of these new metrics checked with the official repo's results? I tested with my mode-collapsed generative model that produces nearly the same images as below:
and got these results:
inception_score_mean: 1.12824
inception_score_std: 0.0006825597
kernel_inception_distance_mean: 0.239309
kernel_inception_distance_std: 0.002847237
precision: 4e-05
recall: 0.99084
f_score: 7.999677e-05
We can see that precision is nearly zero and recall is close to 1. Recall is supposed to measure the diversity of generated samples; it should be close to zero in this case. Also, it seems that the car lies on the true data manifold, meaning that precision should be close to one. Results seem to be flipped.
I used 50000 generated samples. This is the command I used:
fidelity --prc --isc --kid --input1 ${dir}/${iteration}-50k/samples --input2 cifar10-train --gpu 0 | tee ${dir}/${iteration}-50k/fidelity.txt
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: