Generative adversarial networks (GAN) are a powerful subclass of generative models. Despite a very rich research activity leading to numerous interesting GAN algorithms, it is still very hard to assess which algorithm(s) perform better than others. We conduct a neutral, multi-faceted large-scale empirical study on state-of-the art models and evaluation measures. We find that most models can reach similar scores with enough hyperparameter optimization and random restarts. This suggests that improvements can arise from a higher computational budget and tuning more than fundamental algorithmic changes. To overcome some limitations of the current metrics, we also propose several data sets on which precision and recall can be computed. Our experimental results suggest that future GAN research should be based on more systematic and objective evaluation procedures. Finally, we did not find evidence that any of the tested algorithms consistently outperforms the original one.

这篇论文通过对多个GAN算法的大规模实验研究得出，大多数模型在经过足够的超参数优化和随机重启后可以达到类似的分数，建议未来的GAN研究应该基于更系统和客观的评估程序，同时提出了一些可用于计算精度和召回率的数据集。

GAN是否平等？ 大规模研究

GAN是否平等？大规模研究