Deep generative models have achieved great success in producing high-quality samples, making them a central tool across machine learning applications. Beyond sample quality, an important yet less systematically studied question is whether trained generative models faithfully capture the diversity of the underlying data distribution. In this work, we address this question by directly comparing the diversity of samples generated by state-of-the-art models with that of test samples drawn from the target data distribution, using recently proposed reference-free entropy-based diversity scores, Vendi and RKE. Across multiple benchmark datasets, we find that test data consistently attains substantially higher Vendi and RKE diversity scores than the generated samples, suggesting a systematic downward diversity bias in modern generative models. To understand the origin of this bias, we analyze the finite-sample behavior of entropy-based diversity scores and show that their expected values increase with sample size, implying that diversity estimated from finite training sets could inherently underestimate the diversity of the true distribution. As a result, optimizing the generators to minimize divergence to empirical data distributions would induce a loss of diversity. Finally, we discuss potential diversity-aware regularization and guidance strategies based on Vendi and RKE as principled directions for mitigating this bias, and provide empirical evidence suggesting their potential to improve the results.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Numerical evaluation of Vendi scores at different sample sizes (averaged over 100 independent random trials with confidence interval) for the validation set of ImageNet, the pre-trained latent diffusion model (LDM) of DiT-XL-2, and the SPRAKE-guided LDM with entropy diversity regularization proposed in ( Jalali et al., 2025 ) . The entropy regularization in the SPARKE Guidance not only improves the Vendi and Coverage diversity scores, but further improves the FD and KD overall evaluation scores.
Figure 2: Exponential of Shannon entropy vs. sample size N for varying alphabet sizes R . Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals calculated over 10 independent trials.
Figure 3: Vendi score curves (mean and confidence intervals over 10 independent sample sets) for ImageNet, FFHQ, and MSCOCO (sample size values of n≤20K ), computed using DINOv2 embeddings and a Gaussian (RBF) kernel with bandwidth σ=35 . The Vendi scores continue to increase at a significant rate across all sample sizes below the 20000-computational-feasible size limit for exact Vendi computation.
Figure 4: Comparison of Vendi scores of the test sample set (the dashed red curve) and the generated samples by pre-trained generative models across four datasets. The backbone embedding is DINOv2 embeddings using Gaussian (RBF) kernel with bandwidth σ=35 .
Figure 5: Entropy level sets in distribution space. Pn and Qθ∗ lie in a lower-entropy region; Pdata lies higher. Projection onto the entropy superlevel set yields Qθproj , closer to Pdata within the model family.
Figure 6: Vendi Score comparison across varying training set sizes. Results are shown for StyleGAN-XL (shaded red) and LDMs (shaded blue), with the training dataset baseline indicated by a dashed red line. Corresponding RKE, Recall, and Coverage metrics are also presented.
Figure 7: Comparison of the diffusion model (DDIM) with RKE regularized DDIM on an underlying 2D-Gaussian mixture model.
Figure 8: Vendi and RKE diversity scores vs. size N for N uniformly weighted generated samples and their post-hoc Vendi-projected reweighting. (Upper) LDM trained on FFHQ. (Lower) BigGAN trained on ImageNet. The Vendi-based projection yields higher diversity scores for the reweighted empirical distribution.
Model
Sampling
Vendi ↑
RKE ↑
KD ↓
FD ↓
FFHQ
ProjectedGAN
Uniform
193.64
9.31
1.958
586.43
Projected-Vendi
237.34
10.88
1.642
562.92
LDM
Uniform
210.32
10.21
0.587
223.32
Projected-Vendi
248.01
11.92
0.462
213.87
ImageNet
BigGAN
Uniform
885.68
32.56
0.539
403.57
Projected-Vendi
947.32
33.27
0.517
386.34
Table 1: Evaluated scores for comparison of Uniform sampling vs. Vendi-Projected sampling.
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 9: Vendi Score convergence for d -dimensional Gaussian Mixtures. The score is evaluated across varying sample sizes n for 2d isotropic Gaussians ( σstd=10−4 ) centered on the vertices of a d -dimensional cube. We set Gaussian kernel bandwidth σ to 0.1. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals calculated over 10 independent trials.
Figure 10: Vendi score curves (mean and 95% confidence intervals over 5 independent sample sets) for ImageNet, FFHQ, MSCOCO, LSUN Bedroom (sample size values of n≤20K ) and AFHQ-v2 (sample size values n≤16000 ), computed using DINOv2 embeddings and a Gaussian (RBF) kernel with bandwidth σ=35 .
Figure 11: Comparison of Vendi scores of the test sample set (the dashed red curve) and the generated samples by pre-trained generative models across three datasets. The backbone embedding is DINOv2 embeddings using Gaussian kernel with bandwidth σ=35 .
Figure 12: Comparison of Vendi scores of the test sample set (the dashed red curve) and the generated samples by pre-trained generative models across three datasets. The backbone embedding is CLIP embeddings using Gaussian kernel with bandwidth σ=8.0 .
Figure 13: Comparison of Vendi scores of the test sample set (the dashed red curve) and the generated samples by pre-trained generative models across three datasets. The backbone embedding is InceptionV3 embeddings using Gaussian kernel with bandwidth σ=9.0 .
Figure 14: Comparison of Vendi scores of the test sample set (the dashed red curve) and the generated samples by pre-trained generative models across three datasets. The backbone embedding is DINOv3-ViTS16 embeddings using Gaussian kernel with bandwidth σ=8.0 .
Figure 15: Comparison of generative model architectures across four datasets. We evaluate models on ImageNet, FFHQ, LSUN Bedroom, and MSCOCO using DINOv2 embeddings with cosine similarity kernel.
Method
Recall ↑
Coverage ↑
RKE ↑
Vendi ↑
Dataset
-
-
36.82
2533.93
ADM Dhariwal and Nichol [2021]
0.79
0.89
29.74
2279.73
BigGAN Brock et al. [2018]
0.44
0.57
26.91
1655.41
GigaGAN Kang et al. [2023]
0.74
0.70
30.59
2174.02
LDM Rombach et al. [2022]
0.76
0.93
34.13
2155.19
RQ-Transformer Lee et al. [2022]
0.76
0.59
29.23
2214.47
Appendix
Table 2: Comparison of RKE, Coverage, and Recall across different model architectures trained on ImageNet. Coverage and Recall metrics were computed using Stein et al. [2023] implementation. Best model scores are underlined.
Method
Recall ↑
Coverage ↑
RKE ↑
Vendi ↑
Dataset
-
-
14.46
512.84
LDM Rombach et al. [2022]
0.44
0.74
10.21
295.47
Eff. vdVAE Hazami et al. [2022]
0.14
0.52
7.21
153.45
InsGen Yang et al. [2021]
0.14
0.51
10.38
291.21
Projected GAN Sauer et al. [2021]
0.07
0.30
9.34
260.41
StyleGAN XL Sauer et al. [2022]
0.42
0.61
10.53
343.63
Appendix
Table 3: Comparison of RKE, Coverage, and Recall across different model architectures trained on FFHQ. Coverage and Recall metrics were computed using Stein et al. [2023] implementation. Best model scores are underlined.
Method
Recall ↑
Coverage ↑
RKE ↑
Vendi ↑
Dataset
-
-
11.60
274.90
ADMNet Dropout Dhariwal and Nichol [2021]
0.75
0.90
10.23
226.85
DDPM Ho et al. [2020]
0.61
0.68
9.61
239.00
Diffusion-Projected GAN Wang et al. [2022]
0.28
0.28
8.31
204.06
iDDPM Nichol and Dhariwal [2021]
0.64
0.76
9.61
224.55
Projected GAN Sauer et al. [2021]
0.22
0.24
8.12
199.45
Appendix
Table 4: Comparison of RKE, Coverage, and Recall across different model architectures trained on LSUN-Bedroom. Coverage and Recall metrics were computed using Stein et al. [2023] implementation. Dataset scores are bolded, best model scores are underlined.
Figure 16: Vendi Score comparison for UNet, StyleGAN-XL, LDM. The models were trained on varying subsets of ImageNet, ImageNet, FFHQ respectively (indicated by fraction of the original size). Dashed red line represents score of the corresponding training dataset. The evaluation results are done using DINOv2 with σ=35 .
Figure 17: Vendi Score comparison for UNet, StyleGAN-XL, LDM. The models were trained on varying subsets of ImageNet, ImageNet, FFHQ respectively (indicated by fraction of the original size). Dashed red line represents score of the corresponding training dataset. The evaluation results are done using CLIP with σ=8.0 .
Method
Recall ↑
Coverage ↑
RKE ↑
Vendi ↑
Dataset
-
-
36.82
2533.93
StyleGAN-XL: full dataset
0.74
0.96
31.27
2203.39
StyleGAN-XL: 1/2 dataset
0.59
0.94
20.80
1432.20
StyleGAN-XL: 1/10 dataset
0.42
0.93
14.95
255.44
Appendix
Table 5: Comparison of RKE, Coverage, and Recall across StyleGAN-XL models trained on varying sizes of ImageNet.
Method
Recall ↑
Coverage ↑
RKE ↑
Vendi ↑
Dataset
-
-
14.46
514.02
LDM: full dataset
0.44
0.74
10.21
294.60
LDM: 1/2 dataset
0.22
0.74
9.17
260.64
LDM: 1/4 dataset
0.03
0.52
7.06
170.44
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison of RKE, Coverage, and Recall across LDM models trained on varying sizes of FFHQ.
Figure 18: Comparison of DDIM with and without RKE regularization in two 2D GMM distributions: (1) modes are placed in a circular pattern, (2) modes are placed in a grid.
Method
Vendi
RKE
KD × 10 2
FD
Precision
Recall
Density
Coverage
Dataset
16.49
12.86
-
-
-
-
-
-
JS-GAN+RKE Reg.
15.20
12.18
0.098
0.081
0.98
0.89
1.02
0.78
JS-GAN
12.61
10.92
0.767
0.654
0.98
0.83
0.99
0.49
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison of Vendi scores, RKE, KD, and FD across different sampling settings. on 2D Gaussian Mixtures with 10 components.
Figure 19: Comparison of JS-GAN generated GMM modes with and without diversity regularization during training. We show two mode placement examples: (1) modes are in a circular pattern, (2) modes are in the 4×4 grid pattern.
Figure 20: Qualitative Comparison of samples generated by DiT-XL-2 and DiT-XL-2 with Vendi guidance (entropy regularization).
Method
Vendi ↑
RKE ↑
KD ↓
FD ↓
Precision ↑
Recall ↑
Density ↑
Coverage ↑
Dataset
1747.60
36.37
-
-
-
-
-
-
Vendi guidance
672.24
33.94
0.1628
328.16
0.95
0.15
1.63
0.73
RKE guidance
751.09
34.50
0.1629
319.56
0.96
0.16
1.54
0.74
No guidance
603.68
33.71
0.2174
422.15
0.94
0.11
1.50
0.64
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison of Vendi scores, RKE, KD, and FD across different sampling settings. on DiT (trained on ImageNet) using DINOv2 feature embeddings. ( σ=35 )
Modern generative models produce high-quality individual outputs but struggle to sample diversely, even when explicitly instructed to do so. We introduce MINE-SAMPLE-RENDER (MSR), a test-time approach that externalizes the diversity into an explicit, corpus-derived sampling procedure. Our pipeline (i) mines an interpretable categorical schema from a corpus of real artifacts and supplies statistics for sampling; (ii) samples attribute configurations from the corpus-derived statistics; (iii) uses a generative model purely as a conditional renderer of a sampled configuration. Across weather report generation, user simulation, webpage design, text-to-image generation, and agent-generated 3D assets, we evaluate the diversity and output quality of MSR-guided generation and show that MSR improves alignment with corpus distributions and diversity of generated outputs.
Generative models guided by text prompts are widely evaluated for fidelity and prompt alignment, yet their ability to produce diverse outputs remains underexplored. Existing diversity metrics such as Vendi and RKE, which are based on the von Neumann and Rényi entropies of kernel matrices, were developed for unconditional models and cannot distinguish prompt-induced from model-induced variability. We address this gap by introducing Conditional-Vendi and Conditional-RKE, diversity measures derived from the conditional entropy of positive semidefinite matrices. These scores isolate model-induced diversity in prompt-guided generation, with Conditional-RKE enjoying an O(1/n) convergence rate. For Conditional-Vendi, we introduce a truncated-spectrum approximation that yields scalable and consistent estimates. Experiments on text-to-image, image-captioning, and LLM tasks show that the conditional scores recover ground-truth diversity orderings and can also guide diffusion models toward more diverse samples. The codebase is available at https://github.com/mjalali/conditional-vendi.
Mohammad Jalali, Azim Ospanov, Amin Gohari +1
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Department of Information Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Generative AI models are primarily designed to imitate the data distribution, an objective that neither corrects diversity lost by a learned generator nor defines how generation should extend beyond the diversity of the data itself. We introduce Imaginative Generative AI (IGA), a framework that makes diversity part of the target-distribution design problem: among distributions close to a reference, IGA selects one whose spectral diversity reaches a prescribed level. Diversity is measured by the von Neumann entropy of the generated distribution's kernel covariance operator in a fixed representation space, providing a reference-free representation-guided measure of how broadly probability mass occupies embedding directions. The spectral entropy of the population data distribution defines an Entropy Wall. Below the wall, IGA performs diversity repair, recovering variation that a learned generator has lost while remaining within the diversity level of the data. Beyond the wall, the data distribution itself becomes infeasible, and IGA deliberately departs from it to produce distributions with greater representation-relative spectral diversity, an operational notion of imaginative generation. These regimes form a single regularization path from imitation to imagination and define an i.i.d. target distribution at each prescribed diversity level. We develop the theory of this entropy-constrained projection and show that, under a KL anchor to a pretrained generator, the optimum satisfies a self-consistent exponential-tilt relation. This characterization leads to IGA Guidance, a retraining-free inference-time method for score-based and diffusion models, including DDPM and DDIM samplers. Experiments on synthetic and vision benchmarks demonstrate diversity repair below the Entropy Wall and controlled spectral extrapolation beyond it.
Farzan Farnia, Hossein Goli, Amin Gohari
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Department of Information Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong