Gradient penalty from a maximum margin perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A popular heuristic for improved performance in Generative adversarial networks (GANs) is to use some form of gradient penalty on the discriminator. This gradient penalty was originally motivated by a Wasserstein distance formulation. However, the use of gradient penalty in other GAN formulations is not well motivated. We present a unifying framework of expected margin maximization and show that a wide range of gradient-penalized GANs (e.g., Wasserstein, Standard, Least-Squares, and Hinge GANs) can be derived from this framework. Our results imply that employing gradient penalties induces a large-margin classifier (thus, a large-margin discriminator in GANs). We describe how expected margin maximization helps reduce vanishing gradients at fake (generated) samples, a known problem in GANs. From this framework, we derive a new $L^\infty$ gradient norm penalty with Hinge loss which generally produces equally good (or better) generated output in GANs than $L^2$-norm penalties (based on the Fréchet Inception Distance).
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".