Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper quantifies the hidden randomness in Frechet Inception Distance (FID) evaluations by analyzing its variance across multiple training and generation seeds in several hundred SiT networks trained on ImageNet. The authors reveal that retraining a model with a different seed can shift the FID by 3.2 times more than resampling from a fixed network, influenced by factors such as random initialization and data ordering. They propose a new FID evaluation protocol that emphasizes the importance of reporting error bars over multiple training seeds to better reflect the inherent variability in generative model assessments.
Retraining generative models with different seeds can shift FID scores dramatically more than merely resampling, revealing a hidden layer of randomness in model evaluation.
The Frechet Inception Distance (FID) is the de facto arbiter of image generation, yet most papers report just a single number from a single trained model using a single sampling seed. How reproducible is that number if we retrain the model, or merely resample from it? In this paper, we treat FID as a random variable on a two-axis panel of training and generation seeds, and measure its variance directly on several hundred SiT networks trained on class-conditional ImageNet 256x256. We report surprising findings: (a) Retraining the model using the same recipe with a different seed moves FID 3.2x more (in Inception feature space) than redrawing samples from a fixed network. (b) That gap is driven by three factors: random initialisation, data ordering, and the per-step Gaussian noise of the flow-matching loss. (c) Increasing compute or model size barely tightens the spread, holding the FID coefficient of variation (CoV) inside a 1-2% band. (d) Per-cell classifier-free-guidance tuning halves the spread but reshuffles which seeds work best, and a lucky training seed reaches the same FID with up to 2x less compute than an unlucky one. Based on these findings, we recommend a new FID evaluation protocol: evaluate under per-cell optimal guidance, treat any FID gap below the empirically measured ~1.3% CoV as inconclusive, and report an error bar over several training seeds rather than a single FID number.
BAIR