Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Grade Inflation in Generative Models

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that standard quality scores for generative models overrate fits that match only high-density regions, and introduces an 'equidensity' score, Eden, that avoids this grade inflation and better matches human judgment.

desk verdict The Eden score is a genuinely new idea and the paper is worth engaging, but the validation is weaker than the abstract implies. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00664 v3 pith:HFNACMIB submitted 2024-12-31 cs.AI cs.LGstat.ML

Phuc Nguyen , Miao Li , Alexandra Morgan , Rima Arnaout , Ramy Arnaout This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.LGstat.ML
keywords gradeinflationgenerativemodelsqualityscoresequipointequidensityEdenscoreKullback-LeiblerdivergenceRényientropy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that several widely used quality scores for comparing two-dimensional distributions—correlation, Jaccard, earth-mover's, and Kullback-Leibler—suffer 'grade inflation': they give high marks to generative models that only match the dense regions of the training data while missing the tails. The paper introduces a new 'equidensity' score, Eden, which weights every density contour equally and, in the paper's tests, avoids grade inflation and agrees with human raters better than the other scores. If correct, the finding would change how synthetic-data quality is measured: evaluations would reward models that capture the whole distribution, not just its peaks. The paper goes further to propose that any reasonable equidensity score will avoid grade inflation, connecting such scores to Rényi entropy of negative order.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the equipoint/equidensity distinction, instantiated in the Eden score. Eden compares two KDEs by slicing each into concentric density annuli from the outermost contour inward (five annuli in this study, with the lowest 5% of probability mass excluded) and computing, for each index $i$, the Jaccard-style intersection-over-union of the $i$-th annulus of one distribution with the $i$-th annulus of the other: $s_i = \operatorname{Area}(A_i^p \cap A_i^q) / \operatorname{Area}(A_i^p \cup A_i^q)$. The Eden score is the mean of these $s_i$ over all annuli. Because each annulus carries equal weight, a model must match peaks and foothills alike to score well; this equal-density weighting is what distinguishes Eden from equipoint scores and is the mechanism the paper credits for avoiding grade inflation.

What would settle it

Compute the Eden score with 2, 5, 10, and 20 annuli on the fits in Fig. 2; if the ranking between the low-quality and high-quality fits reverses at any setting, then the claimed immunity to grade inflation depends on the arbitrary contour count rather than on the equidensity principle itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the grade inflation seen in correlation, Jaccard, earth-mover's, and KL scores is not accidental but structural: any score that treats every datapoint equally ('equipoint') will systematically overrate fits that align high-density regions while mismatching low-density regions. As a remedy, the paper defines equidensity scores, in which each density contour contributes equally to the final score, and presents the Eden score as the first example. Eden computes, for each of five density annuli of two kernel density estimates, the intersection-over-union of the corresponding annuli and averages these per-annulus scores. In the paper's experiments, Eden was the only score among the five tested that consistently separated low-quality from high-quality fits, and in a blind study with 20 human raters it agreed with human judgment substantially better than the equipoint scores. The paper also proposes that any reasonable equidensity score will share Eden's immunity to grade inflation, and identifies a formal connection between equidensity weighting and Rényi entropy at negative order.

Load-bearing premise

The score assumes that matching the same-numbered density rings of two distributions is a fair way to compare local fit, which may not hold when the two distributions concentrate in very different ways.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, quality scores that count every datapoint equally will systematically overrate generative models that reproduce only the high-density core of the data; users of correlation, Jaccard, earth-mover's, or KL scores should expect such inflation and prefer equidensity scores when tail fidelity matters.
  • For medical and other applications where rare cases matter, equidensity scores like Eden would be a safer default for model selection, since they penalize mismatches in low-density regions as heavily as mismatches in peaks.
  • The proposed universality of the equipoint grade-inflation problem implies that other datapoint-weighted scores, such as multidimensional Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics or FID (being based on earth-mover's distance), are also likely to inflate, so caution is warranted in those settings.
  • The connection to negative-order Rényi entropy suggests that equidensity scores may be understood as a diversity measure with a negative viewpoint parameter, opening a possible formal framework for designing and comparing further equidensity scores.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One testable extension the paper leaves implicit: if the equal-weighting principle is correct, then a family of equidensity scores defined with different numbers of annuli should all rank fits identically in the limit of fine contouring; comparing the 5-annulus Eden with a 10-annulus version on the same fits would tell whether the ranking is robust.
  • The paper's human-validation result suggests but does not prove that human similarity judgments themselves are approximately equidensity; a direct psychophysics experiment varying whether peaks or tails are mismatched could test whether raters truly weight all contours equally.
  • The connection to negative-order Rényi entropy could be pushed further: if equidensity scores correspond to a negative viewpoint parameter, then the optimal number of annuli might be derivable from a desired tail-sensitivity, rather than chosen ad hoc.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that commonly used 'equipoint' scores (correlation, earth-mover's, Jaccard, and KL) suffer from grade inflation when evaluating two-dimensional synthetic-versus-real distributions, and proposes a new 'equidensity' score, Eden, which averages per-annulus intersection-over-union between matched KDE contour rings (Eqs. 8-9). It illustrates grade inflation with Anscombe's quartet and the Datasaurus Dozen, reports scores for five author-labeled fits in Table I, and validates against 20 human raters on 39 plot pairs in Section II-G. The authors conclude that Eden avoids grade inflation, agrees better with human perception of goodness-of-fit than the equipoint scores, and conjecture that any reasonable equidensity score will avoid grade inflation; they also draw a connection to negative-order Rényi entropy.

Significance. If the central claim held, Eden would be a useful tool for generative-model evaluation, particularly where tail fidelity matters; the paper also usefully documents how correlation-type scores can give near-perfect marks to badly fit models. The validation has genuine strengths: raters were blind to scores, each pair was repeated with rotations, color swaps, and order randomization, agreement was measured per-rater with Cohen's kappa, and the confidence-interval analysis in Section III-G is a thoughtful addition. However, the evidence is not yet strong enough for the abstract's claims: the quality labels in Table I are author-assigned, the validation set is selected and the rater instruction is contour-focused, and the generalization to 'any reasonable equidensity score' is unsupported. Reproducibility would also be improved by a code/data availability statement.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III, Table I] Grade inflation is never defined formally, and the only ground truth for 'deserved' scores in Table I is the authors' visual classification of Fig. 2a-e as very low, low, or high quality. This classification appears to be based on the same contour-overlap features that Eden is explicitly constructed to reward (Eqs. 8-9), so the demonstration that Eden is the only score with a consistent low/high gap lacks independence from the score's construction. Please provide a formal definition of grade inflation and an independent, pre-specified set of labeled fits, or otherwise separate the construction of Eden from the evaluation labels; as written, the central claim rests on five post hoc examples.
  2. [Section II-G, Fig. 4] The human validation does not support the population-level claim that Eden 'agrees better with human perception' because the 39 pairs were chosen so that the higher-Eden plot received a lower score on at least one other score (Section II-G), and raters were explicitly asked to choose the plot in which 'the contours matched better, considering all contours.' Both design choices favor Eden: the first enriches for Eden-versus-other disagreements, and the second directs attention to the contour-matching quantity Eden is built from. The reported 80% agreement and median kappa should be tested on randomly selected pairs and with a neutral task instruction (for example, 'which plot looks more like the real data?') before the abstract's claim can stand.
  3. [Abstract and Section IV-A] The statement that 'any reasonable equidensity score will avoid grade inflation' is a conjecture, not a demonstrated result: Eden is the only equidensity score tested, and 'unreasonable' scores are excluded by definition rather than by a formal criterion. A formal argument, or at least a second, differently constructed equidensity score, is required to support this generalization; as written, the Discussion states it as a conclusion despite the authors' own limitation note in Section IV-F that only a small number of scoring methods were investigated.
  4. [Section II-F and Section IV-C] The Eden score has several free parameters that are not tested for sensitivity: nannuli = 5 (inherited from seaborn's default), the exclusion of the lowest 5% of probability mass, the 0.1 likelihood threshold in the Jaccard definition, the EMD scaling k = 1, and the Monte Carlo sample size. Section IV-C discusses how to choose nannuli in general terms, but no experiments show that the Table I separation or the human-agreement result is stable across these choices; given that Eqs. 8-9 define the score, at least a coarse sensitivity analysis is needed.
  5. [Section II-F, Eq. (8)] The index-paired annulus construction assumes that the ith contour of p corresponds meaningfully to the ith contour of q. When the two distributions have very different concentrations or supports, the same index can pair a high-density region in one distribution with a low-density region in the other, so the averaged IoU no longer measures local density match in the intended way. The manuscript does not test this assumption or identify when it breaks; a synthetic experiment with distributions of different variances or supports would clarify the score's behavior and its limitations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-D, II-E, Discussion] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: 'the the two likelihoods' in Section II-D, 'Rényi diverence' in Section II-E, and 'perenially' in the Discussion.
  2. [References] Reference [24] is missing a title and journal information; the reference list should be completed.
  3. [Table I] Table I reports standard deviations only for stochastic scores, but the caption's wording could be misread as sampling variability; consider renaming the column 'Monte Carlo SD' or otherwise clarifying that these are not repeat-sampling intervals, which are only addressed in Section III-G and Fig. 6.
  4. [Reproducibility] The manuscript does not state whether code and data are available; given the number of implementation details (seaborn defaults, Monte Carlo sizes, pyemd settings, contour choices), a code and data availability statement would materially improve reproducibility.
  5. [Section IV-D] The connection to negative-order Rényi entropy is speculative and loosely defined; it would be clearer to label it explicitly as a hypothesis for future work rather than a definite finding.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Eden's claimed advantage is partly built in: per-annulus Jaccard immunity is asserted by definition, 'reasonable equidensity' is defined to exclude counterexamples, and the human gold standard was prompted to consider all contours.

  1. self definitional [Section III-E (Eden score construction, Eqs. 8-9)]
    "Any reasonable method can be used for determining coincidence; we use the Jaccard score, since Jaccard exhibits grade inflation only when densities vary, which is definitionally not the case for equidensity regions; therefore unlike when comparing complete distributions, comparison of equidensity regions should not have this problem."

    The paper's immunity claim for per-annulus Jaccard is asserted from the definition of 'equidensity' rather than demonstrated. Eq. 8 computes IoU between contour-level annuli, and Eq. 9 averages them; the conclusion that this 'should not have' grade inflation follows from the author's stipulation that density does not vary within an equidensity region, not from an independent analysis of the score's behavior. Since the annuli are only intervals between KDE contour levels, density does vary within them, and averaging per-annulus IoUs does not by itself guarantee protection from the whole-distribution phenomenon the paper calls grade inflation.

  2. self definitional [Abstract and Section IV-A (Discussion)]
    "We propose that any reasonable equidensity score will avoid grade inflation. ... (We exclude 'unreasonable' equidensity scores from consideration, e.g. taking a trivially large nth root of Eden such that all scores end up arbitrarily close to 1.)"

    The universal claim is made unfalsifiable by the parenthetical: any equidensity score that fails to avoid grade inflation can be labelled 'unreasonable' and excluded. The abstract's conclusion is therefore equivalent to the definition of the class chosen by the authors, rather than a demonstrated property of all equidensity scores. No proof or systematic search is provided; the only equidensity exemplar is Eden itself.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section II-G (Validation)]
    "Each human rater was asked to choose the plot in which the contours matched better, considering all contours; the interpretation of 'better' was otherwise left up to the rater."

    The human gold standard is the main independent evidence that Eden 'agrees better with human perception' (Abstract, Section III-F). But Eden is constructed as the average IoU over all density contour annuli, so instructing raters to compare 'all contours' primes them to use the same multi-density contour-matching criterion that Eden computes. The blind presentation of scores is real protection against direct fitting, but the prompt makes the validation protocol partially concordant with the score's construction rather than an external check on it.

full rationale

The Eden score is not fit to the human ratings, and the raters were blind to all scores, so the validation contains genuine independent evidence; this is not a case of a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Neither is there a load-bearing self-citation chain: the authors' self-citations ([1], [2], [21], [44]) are software or checklist citations, not a uniqueness theorem or a prior derivation of Eden. However, three features of the paper's argument create partial circularity. First, per-annulus Jaccard immunity is asserted by definition (Section III-E) rather than shown; the claim that equidensity regions do not vary in density is stipulative, and the averaging step in Eq. 9 does not formally inherit immunity. Second, the universal claim about 'any reasonable equidensity score' is protected by excluding 'unreasonable' counterexamples (Section IV-A), making it unfalsifiable by construction. Third, the human-study prompt asked raters to compare 'all contours,' which aligns the gold standard with Eden's contour-annulus construction; the author-labeled Table I quality classes are also visual judgments on the same contour-overlap features that Eden is designed to reward. These concerns reduce the weight of the headline claim that Eden avoids grade inflation and matches human perception, but they do not eliminate it: the human raters' preferences are still empirical, and Eden's separation in Table I is not numerically fitted to the labels. The score reflects partial, not total, circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The Eden score's behavior depends on several hand-chosen settings (nannuli, contour levels, KDE defaults, Monte Carlo counts) and on domain assumptions about KDE fidelity and the human gold standard. These choices are not fitted to the human data, which limits circularity, but they are also not justified by sensitivity analyses.

free parameters (5)
  • nannuli (number of contour levels) = 5
    Chosen by hand in Section II-F; the Eden score averages per-annulus IoU over this many rings. The paper suggests a rule of thumb (at least 30 points per annulus) but does not implement it, and no sensitivity analysis is shown.
  • KDE contour levels = 5 (seaborn default)
    Section II-B: kdeplot with levels=5; the lowest 5% of probability mass is ignored. This shapes the annuli and affects scores, but is taken as a default rather than justified.
  • Jaccard intersection threshold = 0.1
    Section II-D Eq. 2: a real point is in the intersection if its likelihood under the synthetic KDE is greater than 10% of the max likelihood. This threshold is arbitrary and applies to the Jaccard score comparator.
  • EMD scaling factor k = 1
    Section II-C: earth-mover's score defined as exp(-k * EMD) with k=1; the paper notes other k cannot fix ordering but does not explore calibration.
  • Monte Carlo sample size for Eden and KL area estimates = unstated
    Section II-F: 'a bounding rectangle... is sprinkled with a large number of uniformly distributed points'; the number is not reported, introducing an uncontrolled stochastic element in reported scores.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Human visual inspection of KDE contour overlap is a valid gold standard for goodness-of-fit of 2D distributions.
    Section II-G: 20 expert raters were asked to choose the better-matching plot; this grounds the grade-inflation claim and the validation, but the instruction to 'consider all contours' biases the standard toward Eden's construction.
  • domain assumption Seaborn KDEs with Scott bandwidth and 5 contour levels faithfully represent the true distributions.
    Section II-B and II-F: all scores are computed from KDEs; if the KDE is a poor representation, the Eden score's annuli do not reflect true density regions.
  • ad hoc to paper The ith contour annulus of one distribution corresponds meaningfully to the ith annulus of the other.
    Section II-F Eq. 8: Eden compares annuli by index; this assumes comparable density quantiles across distributions, which may fail when supports or concentration differ.
  • standard math Rényi divergence and Hill diversity results used for interpretative claims.
    Section IV-D: the negative-order Rényi entropy discussion relies on standard definitions; the paper's proposed connection is exploratory, not derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Grade Inflation in Generative Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HFNACMIB

@misc{pith2026250100664,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Grade Inflation in Generative Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HFNACMIB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00664}
}
read the original abstract

Generative models hold great potential, but only if one can trust the evaluation of the data they generate. We show that many commonly used quality scores for comparing two-dimensional distributions of synthetic vs. ground-truth data give better results than they should, a phenomenon we call the "grade inflation problem." We show that the correlation score, Jaccard score, earth-mover's score, and Kullback-Leibler (relative-entropy) score all suffer grade inflation. We propose that any score that values all datapoints equally, as these do, will also exhibit grade inflation; we refer to such scores as "equipoint" scores. We introduce the concept of "equidensity" scores, and present the Eden score, to our knowledge the first example of such a score. We found that Eden avoids grade inflation and agrees better with human perception of goodness-of-fit than the equipoint scores above. We propose that any reasonable equidensity score will avoid grade inflation. We identify a connection between equidensity scores and R\'enyi entropy of negative order. We conclude that equidensity scores are likely to outperform equipoint scores for generative models, and for comparing low-dimensional distributions more generally.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00664 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The grade inflation problem. a: Two distributions from Anscombe’s quartet [13]. Both have a Pearson’s R of 0.82, meaning their correlation score is 1.00 despite their differences (which are appreciable in their KDEs, right). Black lines show least-squares regression fits, to illustrate indistinguishable slopes and intercepts. b: A highly non-random distribution from the Datasaurus Dozen [14] and (Gaussian-distribute… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fits scored in Table I. Left to right: real data (blue), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Eden score. The Eden score comparing the blue and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Oversampling affects scoring. a: Target (in-house “Stripes” dataset). b: Sample (orange) the same size as the target. Correlation, earth-mover’s, Jaccard, KL, and Eden scores: 0.993, 0.941, 1.000, 0.996, and 0.452, respectively. (c) Oversampling. Scores (same order): 0…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Confidence intervals. a: Score distributions from 5,000 repeat samples for the fit from Fig. 2a, a very low-quality fit; 5th- and 95th-percentile limits shown. Note, all 5,000 samples are from the same fit. b: Representative KDE plots for samples drawn (purple lines) f…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Minimum Information about CLinical Artificial Intelligence Checklist for Generative Modeling Research (MI-CLAIM-GEN)

    Brenda Y . Miao, Irene Y . Chen, Christopher YK Williams, Jaysón Davidson, Augusto Garcia-Agundez, Shenghuan Sun, Travis Zack, Suchi Saria, Rima Arnaout, Giorgio Quer, Hossein J. Sadaei, Ali Torkamani, Brett Beaulieu-Jones, Bin Yu, Milena Gianfrancesco, Atul J. Butte, Beau Norgeot, and Madhumita Sushil. The Minimum Information about CLinical Artificial In...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    lucie: An Improved Python Package for Loading Datasets from the UCI Machine Learning Repository, October 2024

    Kenneth Ge, Phuc Nguyen, and Ramy Arnaout. lucie: An Improved Python Package for Loading Datasets from the UCI Machine Learning Repository, October 2024. Pages: 2024.10.18.618994 Section: New Results

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Beaulieu-Jones, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Chris Williams, Ran Lee, Sanjeev P

    Brett K. Beaulieu-Jones, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Chris Williams, Ran Lee, Sanjeev P. Bhavnani, James Brian Byrd, and Casey S. Greene. Privacy-Preserving Generative Deep Neural Networks Support Clinical Data Sharing. Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes , 12(7):e005122, July 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Opportunities for synthetic data in nature and climate finance

    Nataliya Tkachenko. Opportunities for synthetic data in nature and climate finance. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence , 6:1168749, January 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Comprehensive Exploration of Synthetic Data Generation: A Survey, February 2024

    André Bauer, Simon Trapp, Michael Stenger, Robert Leppich, Samuel Kounev, Mark Leznik, Kyle Chard, and Ian Foster. Comprehensive Exploration of Synthetic Data Generation: A Survey, February 2024. arXiv:2401.02524

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Adapting vision-language AI models to cardiology tasks

    Rima Arnaout. Adapting vision-language AI models to cardiology tasks. Nature Medicine, 30(5):1245–1246, May 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Sengupta, Sanjiv J

    Damini Dey, Rima Arnaout, Sameer Antani, Aldo Badano, Louis Jacques, Huiqing Li, Tim Leiner, Edward Margerrison, Ravi Samala, Partho P. Sengupta, Sanjiv J. Shah, Piotr Slomka, Michelle C. Williams, W. Patricia Bandettini, and Vandana Sachdev. Proceedings of the NHLBI Workshop on Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Imaging: Translation to Patient Car...

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction, September 2020

    Leland McInnes, John Healy, and James Melville. UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction, September 2020. arXiv:1802.03426

    arXiv 2020

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Visualizing Data using t-SNE

    Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing Data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 9(86):2579–2605, 2008

    2008

  2. [10]

    Jolliffe and Jorge Cadima

    Ian T. Jolliffe and Jorge Cadima. Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 374(2065):20150202, April 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    How Good Is My GAN? In Vittorio Ferrari, Martial Hebert, Cristian Sminchisescu, and Yair Weiss, editors, Computer Vision – ECCV 2018 , pages 218–234, Cham, 2018

    Konstantin Shmelkov, Cordelia Schmid, and Karteek Alahari. How Good Is My GAN? In Vittorio Ferrari, Martial Hebert, Cristian Sminchisescu, and Yair Weiss, editors, Computer Vision – ECCV 2018 , pages 218–234, Cham, 2018. Springer International Publishing

    2018

  4. [12]

    Synthetic Data Metrics , 12 2024

    DataCebo, Inc. Synthetic Data Metrics , 12 2024. Version 0.11.0

    2024

  5. [13]

    F. J. Anscombe. Graphs in Statistical Analysis. The American Statistician, 27(1):17–21, February 1973

    1973

  6. [14]

    Same Stats, Different Graphs: Generating Datasets with Varied Appearance and Identical Statistics through Simulated Annealing

    Justin Matejka and George Fitzmaurice. Same Stats, Different Graphs: Generating Datasets with Varied Appearance and Identical Statistics through Simulated Annealing. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages 1290–1294, Denver Color...

    2017

  7. [15]

    Rediscovering the power of pairwise interactions, December 2007

    William Bialek and Rama Ranganathan. Rediscovering the power of pairwise interactions, December 2007. arXiv:0712.4397

    2007 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Berry, Ronen Segev, and William Bialek

    Elad Schneidman, Michael J. Berry, Ronen Segev, and William Bialek. Weak pairwise correlations imply strongly correlated network states in a neural population. Nature, 440(7087):1007–1012, April 2006

    2006

  9. [17]

    The Estimation of Copulas: Theory and Practice

    Arthur Charpentier, Jean-David Fermanian, and Olivier Scaillet. The Estimation of Copulas: Theory and Practice. THEORY AND PRACTICE, 2006

    2006

  10. [18]

    Modeling Tabular data using Conditional GAN, October

    Lei Xu, Maria Skoularidou, Alfredo Cuesta-Infante, and Kalyan Veera- machaneni. Modeling Tabular data using Conditional GAN, October

  11. [19]

    Synthesizing tabular data using conditional GAN

    Lei Xu. Synthesizing tabular data using conditional GAN . Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    norm- flows: A pytorch package for normalizing flows

    Vincent Stimper, David Liu, Andrew Campbell, Vincent Berenz, Lukas Ryll, Bernhard Schölkopf, and José Miguel Hernández-Lobato. norm- flows: A pytorch package for normalizing flows. Journal of Open Source Software, 8(86):5361, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Scaling Monte-Carlo- Based Inference on Antibody and TCR Repertoires, December 2023

    Josiah Couch, Rohit Arora, Jasper Braun, Joesph Kaplinsky, Elliot Hill, Anthony Li, Brett Altschul, and Ramy Arnaout. Scaling Monte-Carlo- Based Inference on Antibody and TCR Repertoires, December 2023. arXiv:2312.12525

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    seaborn: statistical data visualization

    Michael Waskom. seaborn: statistical data visualization. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(60):3021, April 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    JooSeuk Kim and Clayton D. Scott. L2 kernel classification. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 32(10):1822– 1831, October 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    Kullback and R

    S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler. On information and sufficiency. 22(1):79– 86

  17. [25]

    Fast and robust earth mover’s distances

    Ofir Pele and Michael Werman. Fast and robust earth mover’s distances. In 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 460–467. IEEE, September 2009

    2009

  18. [26]

    THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FLORA IN THE ALPINE ZONE.1

    Paul Jaccard. THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FLORA IN THE ALPINE ZONE.1. New Phytologist, 11(2):37–50, February 1912

    1912

  19. [27]

    Markov processes over denumerable products of spaces, describing large systems of automata

    Leonid Nisonovich Vaserstein. Markov processes over denumerable products of spaces, describing large systems of automata. Problemy Peredachi Informatsii, 5(3):64–72, 1969

    1969

  20. [28]

    L. V . Kantorovich. Mathematical Methods of Organizing and Planning Production. Management Science, 6(4):366–422, July 1960

    1960

  21. [29]

    Rubner, C

    Y . Rubner, C. Tomasi, and L.J. Guibas. A metric for distributions with applications to image databases. In Sixth International Conference on Computer Vision (IEEE Cat. No.98CH36271) , pages 59–66, Bombay, India, 1998. Narosa Publishing House

    1998

  22. [30]

    C. L. Mallows. A Note on Asymptotic Joint Normality. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 43(2):508–515, April 1972

    1972

  23. [31]

    GANs Trained by a Two Time-Scale Update Rule Converge to a Local Nash Equilibrium, January 2018

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. GANs Trained by a Two Time-Scale Update Rule Converge to a Local Nash Equilibrium, January 2018. arXiv:1706.08500 [cs]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Étude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des Alpes et du Jura

    Paul Jaccard. Étude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des Alpes et du Jura. 1901

    1901

  25. [33]

    Entropy and Diversity: The Axiomatic Approach, December 2024

    Tom Leinster. Entropy and Diversity: The Axiomatic Approach, December 2024. arXiv:2012.02113

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Six (and a half) intuitions for KL divergence

    CallumMcDougall. Six (and a half) intuitions for KL divergence. October 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Greene, Nicholas R

    Ashley L. Greene, Nicholas R. Eaton, Miriam K. Forbes, Eiko I. Fried, Ashley L. Watts, Roman Kotov, and Robert F. Krueger. Model fit is a fallible indicator of model quality in quantitative psychopathology research: A reply to Bader and Moshagen. Journal of Psychopathology and...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Page Version ID: 1262760765

    Grade inflation — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, December 2024. Page Version ID: 1262760765

    2024

  29. [37]

    Validation of Bayesian posterior distributions using a multidimensional Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, May 2015

    Diana Harrison, David Sutton, Pedro Carvalho, and Michael Hobson. Validation of Bayesian posterior distributions using a multidimensional Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, May 2015. arXiv:1404.7735

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Goodness of Fit

    T. W. Anderson and D. A. Darling. Asymptotic Theory of Certain "Goodness of Fit" Criteria Based on Stochastic Processes. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23(2):193–212, June 1952. Publisher: Institute of Mathematical Statistics

    1952

  31. [39]

    M. O. Hill. Diversity and Evenness: A Unifying Notation and Its Consequences. Ecology, 54(2):427–432, March 1973

    1973

  32. [40]

    Entropy and diversity

    Lou Jost. Entropy and diversity . Oikos, 113(2):363–375, May 2006

    2006

  33. [41]

    Berger and Frances L

    Wolfgang H. Berger and Frances L. Parker. Diversity of Planktonic Foraminifera in Deep-Sea Sediments. Science, 168(3937):1345–1347, June 1970

    1970

  34. [42]

    Yingzhen Li and Richard E. Turner. Rényi Divergence Variational Inference, October 2016. arXiv:1602.02311

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Cobbold, Jill Thompson, Neil Brummitt, Sonia N

    Richard Reeve, Tom Leinster, Christina A. Cobbold, Jill Thompson, Neil Brummitt, Sonia N. Mitchell, and Louise Matthews. How to partition diversity, December 2016. arXiv:1404.6520

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

    greylock: A python package for measuring 11 the composition of complex datasets

    Phuc Nguyen, Rohit Arora, Elliot D Hill, Jasper Braun, Alexandra Morgan, Liza M Quintana, Gabrielle Mazzoni, Ghee Rye Lee, Rima Arnaout, and Ramy Arnaout. greylock: A python package for measuring 11 the composition of complex datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00102 , 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.