REVIEW 1 cited by
Autoregressive Models: What Are They Good For?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Autoregressive (AR) models have become a popular tool for unsupervised learning, achieving state-of-the-art log likelihood estimates. We investigate the use of AR models as density estimators in two settings -- as a learning signal for image translation, and as an outlier detector -- and find that these density estimates are much less reliable than previously thought. We examine the underlying optimization issues from both an empirical and theoretical perspective, and provide a toy example that illustrates the problem. Overwhelmingly, we find that density estimates do not correlate with perceptual quality and are unhelpful for downstream tasks.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
An Evaluation of Large Language Models on Text Summarization Tasks Using Prompt Engineering Techniques
A broad benchmark of six open-weights LLMs shows prompt design and chunking affect summarization quality more than model size alone.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.