Generative models have made immense progress in recent years, particularly in their ability to generate high quality images. However, that quality has been difficult to evaluate rigorously, with evaluation dominated by heuristic approaches that do not correlate well with human judgment, such as the Inception Score and Fr\'echet Inception Distance. Real human labels have also been used in evaluation, but are inefficient and expensive to collect for each image. Here, we present a novel method to automatically evaluate images based on their quality as perceived by humans. By not only generating image embeddings from Inception network activations and comparing them to the activations for real images, of which other methods perform a variant, but also regressing the activation statistics to match gold standard human labels, we demonstrate 66% accuracy in predicting human scores of image realism, matching the human inter-rater agreement rate. Our approach also generalizes across generative models, suggesting the potential for capturing a model-agnostic measure of image quality. We open source our dataset of human labels for the advancement of research and techniques in this area.
With success on controlled tasks, generative models are being increasingly applied to humanitarian applications [1,2]. In this paper, we focus on the evaluation of a conditional generative model that illustrates the consequences of climate change-induced flooding to encourage public interest and awareness on the issue. Because metrics for comparing the realism of different modes in a conditional generative model do not exist, we propose several automated and human-based methods for evaluation. To do this, we adapt several existing metrics, and assess the automated metrics against gold standard human evaluation. We find that using Fr\'echet Inception Distance (FID) with embeddings from an intermediary Inception-V3 layer that precedes the auxiliary classifier produces results most correlated with human realism. While insufficient alone to establish a human-correlated automatic evaluation metric, we believe this work begins to bridge the gap between human and automated generative evaluation procedures.
Generative models often use human evaluations to determine and justify progress. Unfortunately, existing human evaluation methods are ad-hoc: there is currently no standardized, validated evaluation that: (1) measures perceptual fidelity, (2) is reliable, (3) separates models into clear rank order, and (4) ensures high-quality measurement without intractable cost. In response, we construct Human-eYe Perceptual Evaluation (HYPE), a human metric that is (1) grounded in psychophysics research in perception, (2) reliable across different sets of randomly sampled outputs from a model, (3) results in separable model performances, and (4) efficient in cost and time. We introduce two methods. The first, HYPE-Time, measures visual perception under adaptive time constraints to determine the minimum length of time (e.g., 250ms) that model output such as a generated face needs to be visible for people to distinguish it as real or fake. The second, HYPE-Infinity, measures human error rate on fake and real images with no time constraints, maintaining stability and drastically reducing time and cost. We test HYPE across four state-of-the-art generative adversarial networks (GANs) on unconditional image generation using two datasets, the popular CelebA and the newer higher-resolution FFHQ, and two sampling techniques of model outputs. By simulating HYPE's evaluation multiple times, we demonstrate consistent ranking of different models, identifying StyleGAN with truncation trick sampling (27.6% HYPE-Infinity deception rate, with roughly one quarter of images being misclassified by humans) as superior to StyleGAN without truncation (19.0%) on FFHQ. See https://hype.stanford.edu for details.