MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385849361 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.07233

A Unifying Generator Loss Function for Generative Adversarial Networks

2023· preprint· en· W4385849361 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Justin Veiner, Fady Alajaji, Bahman Gharesifard

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGenerator (circuit theory)Divergence (linguistics)DiscriminatorFunction (biology)MathematicsMNIST databaseAlpha (finance)CombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsApplied mathematicsPure mathematicsTopology (electrical circuits)Artificial neural networkComputer sciencePhysicsPower (physics)Artificial intelligenceQuantum mechanicsOpticsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A unifying $α$-parametrized generator loss function is introduced for a dual-objective generative adversarial network (GAN), which uses a canonical (or classical) discriminator loss function such as the one in the original GAN (VanillaGAN) system. The generator loss function is based on a symmetric class probability estimation type function, $\mathcal{L}_α$, and the resulting GAN system is termed $\mathcal{L}_α$-GAN. Under an optimal discriminator, it is shown that the generator's optimization problem consists of minimizing a Jensen-$f_α$-divergence, a natural generalization of the Jensen-Shannon divergence, where $f_α$ is a convex function expressed in terms of the loss function $\mathcal{L}_α$. It is also demonstrated that this $\mathcal{L}_α$-GAN problem recovers as special cases a number of GAN problems in the literature, including VanillaGAN, Least Squares GAN (LSGAN), Least $k$th order GAN (L$k$GAN) and the recently introduced $(α_D,α_G)$-GAN with $α_D=1$. Finally, experimental results are conducted on three datasets, MNIST, CIFAR-10, and Stacked MNIST to illustrate the performance of various examples of the $\mathcal{L}_α$-GAN system.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.125 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningFrench-language works237,207