Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Quantitatively Evaluating GANs With Divergences Proposed for Training

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1803.01045 v2 pith:7NHJSY3N submitted 2018-03-02 cs.LG

Quantitatively Evaluating GANs With Divergences Proposed for Training

classification cs.LG
keywords proposedgansmetricsbeennetworksperformancetrainingunderstanding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Generative adversarial networks (GANs) have been extremely effective in approximating complex distributions of high-dimensional, input data samples, and substantial progress has been made in understanding and improving GAN performance in terms of both theory and application. However, we currently lack quantitative methods for model assessment. Because of this, while many GAN variants are being proposed, we have relatively little understanding of their relative abilities. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of various types of GANs using divergence and distance functions typically used only for training. We observe consistency across the various proposed metrics and, interestingly, the test-time metrics do not favour networks that use the same training-time criterion. We also compare the proposed metrics to human perceptual scores.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Justifying Diagnosis Decisions by Deep Neural Networks

    cs.LG 2019-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A multi-task deep learning model maps frontal X-rays to continuous text for producing diagnoses, textual justifications, and alternative images, with expert study showing better justification than saliency maps.