Finite-Sample Sensitivity of Kernel Metrics for Generative Evaluation
Organizations: Institute of Computer Science Warsaw University of Technology Warsaw, Poland
Abstract
Kernel distances such as the Kernel Inception Distance (KID) and the Kernel Audio Distance (KAD) compare generated and reference samples in an embedding space, and model comparisons rest on their values. Each ships with one fixed kernel, and a reported value does not say which changes that kernel detects at the sample size used. We run each default as a permutation two-sample test on real embeddings of symbolic music, audio and images, comparing a sample with an independent sample changed by a mean shift, an isotropic contraction, or a rotation that keeps the mean and the covariance trace and is matched to the shift in transport distance. At 780 samples per side, both defaults rarely detect the rotations in five evaluation spaces, while they detect the shifts in every run. The median-bandwidth Gaussian kernel of KAD detects the contraction and regains power against rotations on image embeddings with an order of magnitude more samples. The cubic kernel of KID contains second- and third-moment information but misses the contraction in most runs, and our experiments do not establish a high-power rotation regime for it over the tested sample sizes. Narrower Gaussian bandwidths restore sensitivity in music and audio, an Laplace kernel does so for images, and aggregated tests combine both at nominal level. We recommend that a reported kernel distance state its sample budget and the changes its configuration detects at that budget.
Figures & tables
| Alternative | Spaces | median | cubic | window | MMDAgg | Fréchet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mean shift, | music, audio | 20/20 | 20/20 | 20/20 | – | 5–20/20 |
| Inception | 20/20 | 20/20 | 20/20 | 20/20 | 13/20 | |
| contraction, | music, audio | 20/20 | 0–3/20 | – | – | 5–20/20 |
| Inception | 20/20 | 4/20 | 20/20 | – | 13/20 | |
| rotation, | music, audio | 1–4/20 | 0–2/20 | 20/20 | 18/20–50/50 | 10–20/20 |
| Inception | 3/20 | 3/20 | 26/50 | 20/20 | 16/20 |
| Question | Quantity | Disclosure | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the distributions differ? | a two-sample test chosen in advance (MMDAgg at package defaults) | kernel collection, preprocessing, samples per side, calibration, -value | non-rejection is not equivalence; rejection does not measure quality |
| Do the locations differ? | mean displacement in embedding units | normalization, uncertainty | says nothing about spread or support |
| How do covariances differ? | Bures term on shrinkage covariances, or a normalized covariance difference | estimator, shrinkage, rank, uncertainty | hard to estimate when |
| Does spectral diversity differ? | effective rank and against the reference | matched sample sizes, reference definition | misses rotations and many coverage changes |
| Are training samples copied? | a dedicated copying test against held-out training data | reference and training sets, statistic, threshold, calibration | no detection is not proof of no memorization |
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Distortion | Space | med | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rotation | C2 | 1 | 6 | 20 | 20 | 15 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| VG | 4 | 17 | 20 | 18 | 11 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | |
| PN | 7 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| mean shift | C2 | 0 | 4 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| VG | 4 | 8 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | |
| PN | 4 | 16 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| CLaMP 2 | VGGish | PANNs | |
| cubic (KID): rotation | 1/20 | 2/20 | 0/20 |
| cubic: contraction | 4/20 | 2/20 | 2/20 |
| cubic: mean shift | 20/20 | 20/20 | 20/20 |
| cubic: control | 0/20 | 0/20 | 1/20 |
| MMDAgg (defaults): rotation | 18/20 | 50/50 | 20/20 |
| MMDAgg, Gaussian-only: rotation | 18/20 | 42/50 | 20/20 |
| MMDAgg | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.00 | 1.00 | .92 | .24 | .10 | .06 | .95 | ||
| 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | .96 | .46 | .24 | 1.00 | ||
| 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | .72 | 1.00 | ||
| 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | .96 | .66 | 1.00 | ||
| 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Space | Variant | median | cubic | window | MMDAgg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLaMP 2 | control | 1/20 | 1/20 | 2/20 | 1/20 |
| ( ) | clean, mean-matched | 4/50 | 2/50 | 34/50 | 24/50 |
| resampled, mean-matched | 15/50 | 4/50 | 50/50 | 50/50 | |
| duplicates only | 6/50 | 4/50 | 50/50 | 50/50 | |
| VGGish | control | 1/20 | 1/20 | 1/20 | 1/20 |
| ( ) | clean, mean-matched | 1/20 | 0/20 | 2/20 | 0/20 |
| Space | Alternative | median | cubic | window | MMDAgg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLaMP 2 | control | 1/20 | 0/20 | 2/20 | 1/20 |
| rank-2 rotation | 7/50 | 2/50 | 39/50 | 36/50 | |
| rank-5 rotation | 16/50 | 3/50 | 50/50 | 50/50 | |
| rank-1 inflation | 50/50 | 8/50 | 50/50 | 50/50 | |
| rank-1 deflation | 50/50 | 5/50 | 50/50 | 50/50 | |
| random direction | 2/20 | 1/20 | 1/20 | 1/20 |
| proj. | median | MMDAgg | shift | ctrl | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCA-16 | 18 | 16 | 11 | 4 | 18 | 19 | ||
| PCA-32 | 18 | 17 | 14 | 3 | 15 | 20 | ||
| PCA-64 | 13 | 16 | 13 | 3 | 12 | 20 | ||
| PCA-128 | 7 | 16 | 11 | 3 | 9 | 20 | ||
| PCA-256 | 4 | 13 | 12 | 3 | 10 | 20 | ||
| PCA-512 | 4 | 13 | 10 | 3 | 15 | 20 |
| Plain | Recentered | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pair | all four configs | median | cubic | window / MMDAgg |
| GPT-2 vs. training corpus | ||||
| FolkRNN vs. training corpus | ||||
| vs. | ||||
| vs. | ||||
| text2midi vs. MidiCaps (its training set) | ||||
| Space | Copies | Narrow | Median | FMD | MMDAgg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VGGish | |||||
| PANNs | |||||
| eff ratio | ratio | tr ratio | Vendi ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Generative AI Evaluation
Generative AI evaluation measures the quality, reliability, diversity, and real-world usefulness of generated outputs and AI-assisted workflows.
See all 311 papers