Subsampling Generative Adversarial Networks: Density Ratio Estimation in Feature Space With Softplus Loss
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Filtering out unrealistic images from trained generative adversarial networks (GANs) has attracted considerable attention recently. Two density ratio based subsampling methods-Discriminator Rejection Sampling (DRS) and Metropolis-Hastings GAN (MH-GAN)-were recently proposed, and their effectiveness in improving GANs was demonstrated on multiple datasets. However, DRS and MH-GAN are based on discriminator-based density ratio estimation (DRE) methods, so they may not work well if the discriminator in the trained GAN is far from optimal. Moreover, they do not apply to some GANs (e.g., MMD-GAN). In this paper, we propose a novel Softplus (SP) loss for DRE. Based on it, we develop a sample-based DRE method in a feature space learned by a specially designed and pre-trained ResNet-34, termed DRE-F-SP. We derive the rate of convergence of a density ratio model trained under the SP loss. Then, we propose three density ratio based subsampling methods for GANs based on DRE-F-SP. Our subsampling methods do not rely on the optimality of the discriminator and are suitable for all types of GANs. We empirically show our subsampling approach can substantially outperform DRS and MH-GAN on a synthetic dataset, CIFAR-10, MNIST and CelebA, using multiple GANs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it