发现生成模型评估中普遍存在评分虚高问题，提出新评分方法更贴近人类判断。

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 Rényi 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.