Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

how can we explain GAN works without I(X,Z) term? #3

Open
bojone opened this issue Jan 28, 2019 · 2 comments
Open

how can we explain GAN works without I(X,Z) term? #3

bojone opened this issue Jan 28, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@bojone
Copy link

bojone commented Jan 28, 2019

compared with wgan-gp or wgan-div, your new GAN has an additional I(X,Z) term on generator loss. This term may prevent generator from mode collapse.

As we known, wgan-gp or wgan-div can be trained successfully without I(X,Z). But as your derivation in your paper, I(X,Z) is indispensable.

Therefore, how can we understand the success of wgan-gp or wgan-div under your framework ?

@bojone
Copy link
Author

bojone commented Jan 28, 2019

In a word, I am really interested in your model but I want to make the whole derivation more naturally.

@ritheshkumar95
Copy link
Owner

I would not like for you to think about GANs (wgan-gp, wgan) in the first place.
The objective of this paper is to not find a new GAN.
It's to start from the theory of maximum-likelihood energy-based models and find a better way of learning / training energy-based models.

The connection to GANs is just an interesting coincidence.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants