Benchmarking Counterfactual Image Generation

Counterfactual image generation is pivotal for understanding the causal relations of variables, with applications in interpretability and generation of unbiased synthetic data. However, evaluating image generation is a long-standing challenge in itself. The need to evaluate counterfactual generation compounds on this challenge, precisely because counterfactuals, by definition, are hypothetical scenarios without observable ground truths. In this paper, we present a novel comprehensive framework aimed at benchmarking counterfactual image generation methods. We incorporate metrics that focus on evaluating diverse aspects of counterfactuals, such as composition, effectiveness, minimality of interventions, and image realism. We assess the performance of three distinct conditional image generation model types, based on the Structural Causal Model paradigm. Our work is accompanied by a user-friendly Python package which allows to further evaluate and benchmark existing and future counterfactual image generation methods. Our framework is extendable to additional SCM and other causal methods, generative models, and datasets.

Should I try multiple optimizers when fine-tuning pre-trained Transformers for NLP tasks? Should I tune their hyperparameters?

NLP research has explored different neural model architectures and sizes, datasets, training objectives, and transfer learning techniques. However, the choice of optimizer during training has not been explored as extensively. Typically, some variant of Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) is employed, selected among numerous variants, using unclear criteria, often with minimal or no tuning of the optimizer's hyperparameters. Experimenting with five GLUE datasets, two models (DistilBERT and DistilRoBERTa), and seven popular optimizers (SGD, SGD with Momentum, Adam, AdaMax, Nadam, AdamW, and AdaBound), we find that when the hyperparameters of the optimizers are tuned, there is no substantial difference in test performance across the five more elaborate (adaptive) optimizers, despite differences in training loss. Furthermore, tuning just the learning rate is in most cases as good as tuning all the hyperparameters. Hence, we recommend picking any of the best-behaved adaptive optimizers (e.g., Adam) and tuning only its learning rate. When no hyperparameter can be tuned, SGD with Momentum is the best choice.