A Systematic Literature Review on the Applications, Models, Limitations, and Future Directions of Generative Adversarial Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generative adversarial networks (GANs), a subset of deep learning, have demonstrated breakthrough performance in domains such as computer vision (CV) and natural language processing (NLP), particularly in surveillance, autonomous driving, and automated programing assistance. Based on game theory principles, GANs utilize a generator–discriminator architecture to produce high‐quality synthetic data. This study conducts a systematic literature review (SLR) to comprehensively assess the development, applications, limitations, and security‐related advancements of GANs. It examines foundational models and key architectural variants, providing a critical evaluation of their roles in NLP and CV. This research explores the integration of GANs into the domain of security, highlighting their applications in information security, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence (AI)‐driven defense mechanisms. The study also discusses prominent evaluation metrics such as inception score (IS), Fréchet inception distance (FID), structural similarity index measure (SSIM), and peak signal‐to‐noise ratio (PSNR) to assess GAN performance. Key strengths of GANs, including their ability to generate high‐resolution data and support domain adaptation, are emphasized as driving factors for their continued evolution and adoption.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".