Dataset Diversity Metrics and Impact on Classification Models

As language modeling technology matures, there is an increasing research focus on the composition and curation of datasets used to train these models. For instance, practitioners commonly seek to augment high-quality datasets with additional text to enhance the performance of models trained on that data. However, informed decisions about data augmentation require more nuanced assessments about data quality. We build on work measuring the precision and recall of generative models to develop a pair of metrics that quantify (1) fidelity, capturing how closely candidate text resembles reference data, and (2) diversity, capturing how well it covers the modes of the reference dataset. Our metrics are based on optimal transport divergence functionals between discrete text summaries. In experiments on M2D2 text datasets, we show that these metrics are able to disentangle a lack of fidelity from a lack of diversity in deficient candidate text. In further experiments, our metrics detect diversity deficits in synthetic GSM8K-style math datasets, which correlate with degradations in downstream accuracy of language models finetuned on this synthetic data.

Diversity is a critical property of text corpora, with direct implications for training data curation, test set design, and model generalization. However, its measurement remains fragmented and poorly understood. Existing embedding-based diversity measures vary widely in how they are computed and can yield substantially different diversity scores on the same data, yet no systematic comparison of their empirical behaviour exists. We make two contributions toward addressing this gap. First, we present a taxonomy of 21 embedding-based diversity measures, organizing them into four families based on their underlying computations. Second, we introduce EmbDivBench, a benchmark that evaluates these measures along three conceptually distinct components (variety, balance and disparity) on both simulated and natural text data. Although Mean Pairwise Distance is the most commonly used measure, our experiments show that it is outperformed by several alternatives on the three diversity components, with Graph Entropy being the best choice overall. Lastly, we distil these findings into practical recommendations for diversity measure selection.

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.