Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

arXiv:1703.02000v7 [cs.LG] 30 Jan 2018

ACTIVATION M AXIMIZATION G ENERATIVE A DVER SARIAL N ETS
Yuxuan Song, Kan Ren
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
songyuxuan,kren@apex.sjtu.edu.cn

Zhiming Zhou, Han Cai
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
heyohai,hcai@apex.sjtu.edu.cn

Shu Rong
Yitu Tech
shu.rong@yitu-inc.com

Jun Wang
University College London
j.wang@cs.ucl.ac.uk

Weinan Zhang, Yu Yong
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
wnzhang@sjtu.edu.cn, yyu@apex.sjtu.edu.cn

A BSTRACT
Class labels have been empirically shown useful in improving the sample quality
of generative adversarial nets (GANs). In this paper, we mathematically study the
properties of the current variants of GANs that make use of class label information.
With class aware gradient and cross-entropy decomposition, we reveal how class
labels and associated losses influence GAN’s training. Based on that, we propose
Activation Maximization Generative Adversarial Networks (AM-GAN) as an advanced solution. Comprehensive experiments have been conducted to validate our
analysis and evaluate the effectiveness of our solution, where AM-GAN outperforms other strong baselines and achieves state-of-the-art Inception Score (8.91)
on CIFAR-10. In addition, we demonstrate that, with the Inception ImageNet
classifier, Inception Score mainly tracks the diversity of the generator, and there is,
however, no reliable evidence that it can reflect the true sample quality. We thus
propose a new metric, called AM Score, to provide more accurate estimation on
the sample quality. Our proposed model also outperforms the baseline methods in
the new metric.

1

I NTRODUCTION

Generative adversarial nets (GANs) (Goodfellow et al., 2014) as a new way for learning generative
models, has recently shown promising results in various challenging tasks, such as realistic image
generation (Nguyen et al., 2016b; Zhang et al., 2016; Gulrajani et al., 2017), conditional image
generation (Huang et al., 2016b; Cao et al., 2017; Isola et al., 2016), image manipulation (Zhu et al.,
2016) and text generation (Yu et al., 2016).
Despite the great success, it is still challenging for the current GAN models to produce convincing
samples when trained on datasets with high variability, even for image generation with low resolution,
e.g., CIFAR-10. Meanwhile, people have empirically found taking advantages of class labels can
significantly improve the sample quality.
There are three typical GAN models that make use of the label information: CatGAN (Springenberg,
2015) builds the discriminator as a multi-class classifier; LabelGAN (Salimans et al., 2016) extends
the discriminator with one extra class for the generated samples; AC-GAN (Odena et al., 2016) jointly
trains the real-fake discriminator and an auxiliary classifier for the specific real classes. By taking
the class labels into account, these GAN models show improved generation quality and stability.
However, the mechanisms behind them have not been fully explored (Goodfellow, 2016).
In this paper, we mathematically study GAN models with the consideration of class labels. We derive
the gradient of the generator’s loss w.r.t. class logits in the discriminator, named as class-aware
gradient, for LabelGAN (Salimans et al., 2016) and further show its gradient tends to guide each
generated sample towards being one of the specific real classes. Moreover, we show that AC-GAN
(Odena et al., 2016) can be viewed as a GAN model with hierarchical class discriminator. Based on
1

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

the analysis, we reveal some potential issues in the previous methods and accordingly propose a new
method to resolve these issues.
Specifically, we argue that a model with explicit target class would provide clearer gradient guidance
to the generator than an implicit target class model like that in (Salimans et al., 2016). Comparing
with (Odena et al., 2016), we show that introducing the specific real class logits by replacing the
overall real class logit in the discriminator usually works better than simply training an auxiliary
classifier. We argue that, in (Odena et al., 2016), adversarial training is missing in the auxiliary
classifier, which would make the model more likely to suffer mode collapse and produce low quality
samples. We also experimentally find that predefined label tends to result in intra-class mode collapse
and correspondingly propose dynamic labeling as a solution. The proposed model is named as
Activation Maximization Generative Adversarial Networks (AM-GAN). We empirically study the
effectiveness of AM-GAN with a set of controlled experiments and the results are consistent with our
analysis and, note that, AM-GAN achieves the state-of-the-art Inception Score (8.91) on CIFAR-10.
In addition, through the experiments, we find the commonly used metric needs further investigation.
In our paper, we conduct a further study on the widely-used evaluation metric Inception Score
(Salimans et al., 2016) and its extended metrics. We show that, with the Inception Model, Inception
Score mainly tracks the diversity of generator, while there is no reliable evidence that it can measure
the true sample quality. We thus propose a new metric, called AM Score, to provide more accurate
estimation on the sample quality as its compensation. In terms of AM Score, our proposed method
also outperforms other strong baseline methods.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the notations and formulate
the LabelGAN (Salimans et al., 2016) and AC-GAN∗ (Odena et al., 2016) as our baselines. We
then derive the class-aware gradient for LabelGAN, in Section 3, to reveal how class labels help its
training. In Section 4, we reveal the overlaid-gradient problem of LabelGAN and propose AM-GAN
as a new solution, where we also analyze the properties of AM-GAN and build its connections to
related work. In Section 5, we introduce several important extensions, including the dynamic labeling
as an alternative of predefined labeling (i.e., class condition), the activation maximization view and
a technique for enhancing the AC-GAN∗ . We study Inception Score in Section 6 and accordingly
propose a new metric AM Score. In Section 7, we empirically study AM-GAN and compare it to the
baseline models with different metrics. Finally we conclude the paper and discuss the future work in
Section 8.

2

P RELIMINARIES

In the original GAN formulation (Goodfellow et al., 2014), the loss functions of the generator G and
the discriminator D are given as:
Lori
G = −Ez∼pz (z) [log Dr (G(z))] , −Ex∼G [log Dr (x)],
Lori
D = −Ex∼pdata [log Dr (x)] − Ex∼G [log(1 − Dr (x))],

(1)

where D performs binary classification between the real and the generated samples and Dr (x)
represents the probability of the sample x coming from the real data.
2.1

L ABEL GAN

The framework (see Eq. (1)) has been generalized to multi-class case where each sample x has
its associated class label y ∈ {1, . . ., K, K+1}, and the K+1th label corresponds to the generated
samples (Salimans et al., 2016). Its loss functions are defined as:
Llab
G = − Ex∼G [log
Llab
D

PK

, −Ex∼G [log Dr (x)],

(2)

= − E(x,y)∼pdata [log Dy (x)] − Ex∼G [log DK+1 (x)],

(3)

i=1 Di (x)]

where Di (x) denotes the probability of the sample x being class i. The loss can be written in the
form of cross-entropy, which will simplify our later analysis:
Llab
G = Ex∼G [H([1, 0], [Dr (x), DK+1 (x)])],

(4)

Llab
D

(5)

= E(x,y)∼pdata [H(v(y), D(x))] + Ex∼G [H(v(K+1), D(x))],

where D(x) = [D1 (x), D2 (x), ..., DK+1 (x)] and v(y) = [v1 (y), . . . , vK+1
P (y)] with vi (y) = 0 if i 6=
y and vi (y) = 1 if i = y. H is the cross-entropy, defined as H(p, q)=− i pi log qi . We would refer
the above model as LabelGAN (using class labels) throughout this paper.
2

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

AC-GAN∗

2.2

Besides extending the original two-class discriminator as discussed in the above section, Odena et al.
(2016) proposed an alternative approach, i.e., AC-GAN, to incorporate class label information, which
introduces an auxiliary classifier C for real classes in the original GAN framework. With the core
idea unchanged, we define a variant of AC-GAN as the following, and refer it as AC-GAN∗ :


Lac
G (x, y) = E(x,y)∼G H [1, 0], [Dr (x), Df (x)]


+ E(x,y)∼G H u(y), C(x) ,




Lac
+ E(x,y)∼G H [0, 1], [Dr (x), Df (x)]
D (x, y) = E(x,y)∼pdata H [1, 0], [Dr (x), Df (x)]


+ E(x,y)∼pdata H u(y), C(x) ,

(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)

where Dr (x) and Df (x) = 1 − Dr (x) are outputs of the binary discriminator which are the same as
vanilla GAN, u(·) is the vectorizing operator that is similar to v(·) but defined with K classes, and
C(x) is the probability distribution over K real classes given by the auxiliary classifier.
In AC-GAN, each sample has a coupled target class y, and a loss on the auxiliary classifier w.r.t. y is
added to the generator to leverage the class label information. We refer the losses on the auxiliary
classifier, i.e., Eq. (7) and (9), as the auxiliary classifier losses.
The above formulation is a modified version of the original AC-GAN. Specifically, we omit the
auxiliary classifier loss E(x,y)∼G [H(u(y), C(x))] which encourages the auxiliary classifier C to
classify the fake sample x to its target class y. Further discussions are provided in Section 5.3. Note
that we also adopt the − log(Dr (x)) loss in generator.

3

C LASS -AWARE G RADIENT

In this section, we introduce the class-aware gradient, i.e., the gradient of the generator’s loss w.r.t.
class logits in the discriminator. By analyzing the class-aware gradient of LabelGAN, we find that the
gradient tends to refine each sample towards being one of the classes, which sheds some light on how
the class label information helps the generator to improve the generation quality. Before delving into
the details, we first introduce the following lemma on the gradient properties of the cross-entropy
loss to make our analysis clearer.
Lemma 1. With l being the logits vector and σ being the softmax function, let σ(l) be the current
softmax probability distribution and p̂ denote the target probability distribution, then

−

∂H p̂, σ(l)
= p̂ − σ(l).
∂l

(10)

For a generated sample x, the loss in LabelGAN is Llab
G (x) = H([1, 0], [Dr (x), DK+1 (x)]), as
defined in Eq. (4). With Lemma 1, the gradient of Llab
(x)
w.r.t. the logits vector l(x) is given as:
G

 Dk (x)
∂H [1, 0], [Dr (x), DK+1 (x)] ∂lr (x)
∂Llab
G (x)
−
=−
= 1 − Dr (x)
, k ∈ {1, . . . , K},
∂lk (x)
∂lr (x)
∂lk (x)
Dr (x)


∂H [1, 0], [Dr (x), DK+1 (x)]
∂Llab
G (x)
−
=−
= 0 − DK+1 (x) = − 1 − Dr (x) .
(11)
∂lK+1 (x)
∂lK+1 (x)

With the above equations, the gradient of Llab
G (x) w.r.t. x is:
K

−

X ∂Llab (x) ∂lk (x)
∂Llab
∂Llab
G (x)
G (x) ∂lK+1 (x)
=
− G
−
∂x
∂lk (x) ∂x
∂lK+1 (x)
∂x
k=1

 K

X lab
 X
 K+1
Dk (x) ∂lk (x)
∂lK+1 (x)
∂lk (x)
= 1 − Dr (x)
−
= 1 − Dr (x)
αk (x)
,
Dr (x) ∂x
∂x
∂x
k=1

(12)

k=1

where
(D
αklab (x)

=

k (x)
Dr (x)

k ∈ {1, . . . , K}

−1

k = K+1

3

.

(13)

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

Class 1

Class 2

Final Gradient

Gradient 1

Gradient 2

Generated Sample

Figure 1: An illustration of the overlaid-gradient problem. When two or more classes are encouraged
at the same time, the combined gradient may direct to none of these classes. It could be addressed by
assigning each generated sample a specific target class instead of the overall real class.
From the formulation, we find that the overall gradient w.r.t. a generated example x is 1−Dr (x),
which is the same as that in vanilla GAN (Goodfellow et al., 2014). And the gradient on real classes
is further distributed to each specific real class logit lk (x) according to its current probability ratio
Dk (x)
Dr (x) .
As such, the gradient naturally takes the label information into consideration: for a generated sample,
higher probability of a certain class will lead to a larger step towards the direction of increasing the
corresponding confidence for the class. Hence, individually, the gradient from the discriminator for
each sample tends to refine it towards being one of the classes in a probabilistic sense.
That is, each sample in LabelGAN is optimized to be one of the real classes, rather than simply to be
real as in the vanilla GAN. We thus regard LabelGAN as an implicit target class model. Refining
each generated sample towards one of the specific classes would help improve the sample quality.
Recall that there are similar inspirations in related work. Denton et al. (2015) showed that the result
could be significantly better if GAN is trained with separated classes. And AC-GAN (Odena et al.,
2016) introduces an extra loss that forces each sample to fit one class and achieves a better result.

4

T HE P ROPOSED M ETHOD

In LabelGAN, the generator gets its gradients from the K specific real class logits in discriminator
and tends to refine each sample towards being one of the classes. However, LabelGAN actually
suffers from the overlaid-gradient problem: all real class logits are encouraged at the same time.
Though it tends to make each sample be one of these classes during the training, the gradient of each
sample is a weighted averaging over multiple label predictors. As illustrated in Figure 1, the averaged
gradient may be towards none of these classes.
In multi-exclusive classes setting, each valid sample should only be classified to one of classes by
the discriminator with high confidence. One way to resolve the above problem is to explicitly assign
each generated sample a single specific class as its target.
4.1

AM-GAN

Assigning each sample a specific target class y, the loss functions of the revised-version LabelGAN
can be formulated as:
Lam
G = E(x,y)∼G [H(v(y), D(x))],

(14)

Lam
D

(15)

= E(x,y)∼pdata [H(v(y), D(x))] + Ex∼G [H(v(K+1), D(x))],

where v(y) is with the same definition as in Section 2.1. The model with aforementioned formulation
is named as Activation Maximization Generative Adversarial Networks (AM-GAN) in our paper.
And the further interpretation towards naming will be in Section 5.2. The only difference between
AM-GAN and LabelGAN lies in the generator’s loss function. Each sample in AM-GAN has a
specific target class, which resolves the overlaid-gradient problem.
AC-GAN (Odena et al., 2016) also assigns each sample a specific target class, but we will show that
the AM-GAN and AC-GAN are substantially different in the following part of this section.
4

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

Figure 2: AM-GAN (left) v.s. AC-GAN∗ (right). AM-GAN can be viewed as a combination of
LabelGAN and auxiliary classifier, while AC-GAN∗ is a combination of vanilla GAN and auxiliary
classifier. AM-GAN can naturally conduct adversarial training among all the classes, while in
AC-GAN∗ , adversarial training is only conducted at the real-fake level and missing in the auxiliary
classifier.
4.2

L ABEL GAN + AUXILIARY C LASSIFIER

Both LabelGAN and AM-GAN are GAN models with K+1 classes. We introduce the following
cross-entropy decomposition lemma to build their connections to GAN models with two classes and
the K-classes models (i.e., the auxiliary classifiers).
PK
Lemma 2. Given v = [v1 , . . . , vK+1 ], v1:K , [v1 , . . . , vK ], vr ,
k=1 vk , R(v) , v1:K /vr and
F (v) , [vr , vK+1 ], let p̂ = [p̂1 , . . . , p̂K+1 ], p = [p1 , . . . , pK+1 ], then we have



H p̂, p = p̂r H R(p̂), R(p) + H F (p̂), F (p) .
(16)
With Lemma 2, the loss function of the generator in AM-GAN can be decomposed as follows:





Lam
+ H F v(x) , F D(x) .
G (x) = H v(x), D(x) = vr (x) · H R v(x) , R D(x)
|
{z
}
{z
}
|
Auxiliary Classifier G Loss

(17)

LabelGAN G Loss

The second term of Eq. (17) actually equals to the loss function of the generator in LabelGAN:


  

H F v(x) , F D(x) = H 1, 0 , Dr (x), DK+1 (x) = Llab
G (x).

(18)

Similar analysis can be adapted to the first term and the discriminator. Note that vr (x) equals to
one. Interestingly, we find by decomposing the AM-GAN losses, AM-GAN can be viewed as a
combination of LabelGAN and auxiliary classifier (defined in Section 2.2). From the decomposition
perspective, disparate to AM-GAN, AC-GAN is a combination of vanilla GAN and the auxiliary
classifier.
The auxiliary classifier loss in Eq. (17) can also be viewed as the cross-entropy version of generator
loss in CatGAN: the generator of CatGAN directly optimizes entropy H(R(D(x))) to make each
sample have a high confidence of being one of the classes, while AM-GAN achieves this by the
first term of its decomposed loss H(R(v(x)), R(D(x))) in terms of cross-entropy with given target
distribution. That is, the AM-GAN is the combination of the cross-entropy version of CatGAN and
LabelGAN. We extend the discussion between AM-GAN and CatGAN in the Appendix B.
4.3

N ON -H IERARCHICAL M ODEL

With the Lemma 2, we can also reformulate the AC-GAN∗ as a K+1 classes model. Take the
generator’s loss function as an example:



Lac
G (x, y) = E(x,y)∼G H [1, 0], [Dr (x), Df (x)] + H u(y), C(x)


= E(x,y)∼G H v(y), [Dr (x) · C(x), Df (x)] .

(19)

In the K+1 classes model, the K+1 classes distribution is formulated as [Dr (x) · C(x), Df (x)].
AC-GAN introduces the auxiliary classifier in the consideration of leveraging the side information
5

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

of class label, it turns out that the formulation of AC-GAN∗ can be viewed as a hierarchical K+1
classes model consists of a two-class discriminator and a K-class auxiliary classifier, as illustrated in
Figure 2. Conversely, AM-GAN is a non-hierarchical model. All K+1 classes stay in the same level
of the discriminator in AM-GAN.
In the hierarchical model AC-GAN∗ , adversarial training is only conducted at the real-fake twoclass level, while misses in the auxiliary classifier. Adversarial training is the key to the theoretical
guarantee of global convergence pG = pdata . Taking the original GAN formulation as an instance, if
generated samples collapse to a certain point x, i.e., pG (x) > pdata (x), then there must exit another
pdata (x)
point x0 with pG (x0 ) < pdata (x0 ). Given the optimal D(x) = pG (x)+p
, the collapsed point x will
data (x)
get a relatively lower score. And with the existence of higher score points (e.g. x0 ), maximizing the
generator’s expected score, in theory, has the strength to recover from the mode-collapsed state. In
practice, the pG and pdata are usually disjoint (Arjovsky & Bottou, 2017), nevertheless, the general
behaviors stay the same: when samples collapse to a certain point, they are more likely to get a
relatively lower score from the adversarial network.
Without adversarial training in the auxiliary classifier, a mode-collapsed generator would not get any
penalties from the auxiliary classifier loss. In our experiments, we find AC-GAN is more likely to
get mode-collapsed, and it was empirically found reducing the weight (such as 0.1 used in Gulrajani
et al. (2017)) of the auxiliary classifier losses would help. In Section 5.3, we introduce an extra
adversarial training in the auxiliary classifier with which we improve AC-GAN∗ ’s training stability
and sample-quality in experiments. On the contrary, AM-GAN, as a non-hierarchical model, can
naturally conduct adversarial training among all the class logits.

5
5.1

E XTENSIONS
DYNAMIC L ABELING

In the above section, we simply assume each generated sample has a target class. One possible solution
is like AC-GAN (Odena et al., 2016), predefining each sample a class label, which substantially
results in a conditional GAN. Actually, we could assign each sample a target class according to its
current probability estimated by the discriminator. A natural choice could be the class which is of the
maximal probability currently: y(x) , argmaxi∈{1,...,K} Di (x) for each generated sample x. We
name this dynamic labeling.
According to our experiments, dynamic labeling brings important improvements to AM-GAN, and is
applicable to other models that require target class for each generated sample, e.g. AC-GAN, as an
alternative to predefined labeling.
We experimentally find GAN models with pre-assigned class label tend to encounter intra-class mode
collapse. In addition, with dynamic labeling, the GAN model remains generating from pure random
noises, which has potential benefits, e.g. making smooth interpolation across classes in the latent
space practicable.
5.2

T HE ACTIVATION M AXIMIZATION V IEW

Activation maximization is a technique which is traditionally applied to visualize the neuron(s) of
pretrained neural networks (Nguyen et al., 2016a;b; Erhan et al., 2009).
The GAN training can be viewed as an Adversarial Activation Maximization Process. To be more
specific, the generator is trained to perform activation maximization for each generated sample on
the neuron that represents the log probability of its target class, while the discriminator is trained to
distinguish generated samples and prevents them from getting their desired high activation.
It is worth mentioning that the sample that maximizes the activation of one neuron is not necessarily
of high quality. Traditionally people introduce various priors to counter the phenomenon (Nguyen
et al., 2016a;b). In GAN, the adversarial process of GAN training can detect unrealistic samples
and thus ensures the high-activation is achieved by high-quality samples that strongly confuse the
discriminator.
We thus name our model the Activation Maximization Generative Adversarial Network (AM-GAN).
6

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

5.3

AC-GAN∗+

Experimentally we find AC-GAN easily get mode collapsed and a relatively low weight for the
auxiliary classifier term in the generator’s loss function would help. In the Section 4.3, we attribute
mode collapse to the miss of adversarial training in the auxiliary classifier. From the adversarial
activation maximization view: without adversarial training, the auxiliary classifier loss that requires
high activation on a certain class, cannot ensure the sample quality.
That is, in AC-GAN, the vanilla GAN loss plays the role for ensuring sample quality and avoiding
mode collapse. Here we introduce an extra loss to the auxiliary classifier in AC-GAN∗ to enforce
adversarial training and experimentally find it consistently improve the performance:


Lac+
D (x, y) = E(x,y)∼G H u(·), C(x) ,

(20)

where u(·) represents the uniform distribution, which in spirit is the same as CatGAN (Springenberg,
2015).

Recall that we omit the auxiliary classifier loss E(x,y)∼G H u(y)] in AC-GAN∗ . According to our
experiments, E(x,y)∼G [H(u(y)] does improve AC-GAN∗ ’s stability and make it less likely to get
mode collapse, but it also leads to a worse Inception Score. We will report the detailed results in
Section 7. Our understanding on this phenomenon is that: by encouraging the auxiliary classifier also
to classify fake samples to their target classes, it actually reduces the auxiliary classifier’s ability on
providing gradient guidance towards the real classes, and thus also alleviates the conflict between the
GAN loss and the auxiliary classifier loss.

6

E VALUATION M ETRICS

One of the difficulties in generative models is the evaluation methodology (Theis et al., 2015). In this
section, we conduct both the mathematical and the empirical analysis on the widely-used evaluation
metric Inception Score (Salimans et al., 2016) and other relevant metrics. We will show that Inception
Score mainly works as a diversity measurement and we propose the AM Score as a compensation to
Inception Score for estimating the generated sample quality.
6.1

I NCEPTION S CORE

As a recently proposed metric for evaluating the performance of generative models, Inception Score
has been found well correlated with human evaluation (Salimans et al., 2016), where a publiclyavailable Inception model C pre-trained on ImageNet is introduced. By applying the Inception
model to each generated sample x and getting the corresponding class probability distribution C(x),
Inception Score is calculated via

 
Inception Score = exp Ex KL C(x) k C̄ G
,

(21)

where Ex is short of Ex∼G and C̄ G = Ex [C(x)] is the overall probability distribution of the generated
samples over classes, which
 is judged by C,and KL denotes the Kullback-Leibler divergence. As
proved in Appendix D, Ex KL C(x) k C̄ G can be decomposed into two terms in entropy:




Ex KL(C(x) k C̄ G ) = H(C̄ G ) + (−Ex H C(x) ).

6.2

(22)

T HE P ROPERTIES OF I NCEPTION M ODEL

A common understanding of how Inception Score works lies in that a high score in the first term
H(C̄ G ) indicates the generated samples have high diversity (the overall class probability distribution
evenly distributed), and a high score in the second term −Ex [H(C(x))] indicates that each individual
sample has high quality (each generated sample’s class probability distribution is sharp, i.e., it can be
classified into one of the real classes with high confidence) (Salimans et al., 2016).
However, taking CIFAR-10 as an illustration, the data are not evenly distributed over the classes
under the Inception model trained on ImageNet, which is presented in Figure 4a. It makes Inception
Score problematic in the view of the decomposed scores, i.e., H(C̄ G ) and −Ex [H(C(x))]. Such as
that one would ask whether a higher H(C̄ G ) indicates a better mode coverage and whether a smaller
H(C(x)) indicates a better sample quality.
7

5.80
5.75
E[H(C(x))]

9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.00

H(C̄ G )

Inception Score

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

5.70
5.65
5.60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Iterations

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Iterations

(a)

4.1
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.40 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Iterations

(b)

(c)

200

400 600 800
ImageNet Classes

(a)

1000

2000

5000

1500

4000

Number of Samples

0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.000

Number of Samples

Avg Probability Density

Figure 3: Training curves of Inception Score and its decomposed terms. a) Inception Score, i.e.
exp(H(C̄ G ) − Ex [H(C(x))]); b) H(C̄ G ); c) Ex [H(C(x))]. A common understanding of Inception
Score is that: the value of H(C̄ G ) measures the diversity of generated samples and is expected to
increase in the training process. However, it usually tends to decrease in practice as illustrated in (c).

1000
500
00

1

2

3

4

5

6

H(C(x)) with ImageNet Classifier

7

(b)

airplane
automobile
bird
cat
deer
dog
frog
horse
ship
truck

3000
2000
1000

0
0.00
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
H(C(x)) with CIFAR-10 Classifier

(c)

Figure 4: Statistics of the CIFAR-10 training images. a) C̄ G over ImageNet classes; b) H(C(x))
distribution with ImageNet classifier of each class; c) H(C(x)) distribution with CIFAR-10 classifier
of each class. With the Inception model, the value of H(C(x)) score of CIFAR-10 training data is
variant, which means, even in real data, it would still strongly prefer some samples than some others.
H(C(x)) on a classifier that pre-trained on CIFAR-10 has low values for all CIFAR-10 training data
and thus can be used as an indicator of sample quality.

We experimentally find that, as in Figure 3b, the value of H(C̄ G ) is usually going down during
the training process, however, which is expected to increase. And when we delve into the detail of
H(C(x)) for each specific sample in the training data, we find the value of H(C(x)) score is also
variant, as illustrated in Figure 4b, which means, even in real data, it would still strongly prefer some
samples than some others. The exp operator in Inception Score and the large variance of the value of
H(C(x)) aggravate the phenomenon. We also observe the preference on the class level in Figure 4b,
e.g., Ex [H(C(x))]=2.14 for trucks, while Ex [H(C(x))]=3.80 for birds.
It seems, for an ImageNet Classifier, both the two indicators of Inception Score cannot work correctly.
Next we will show that Inception Score actually works as a diversity measurement.
6.3

I NCEPTION S CORE AS A D IVERSITY M EASUREMENT

Since the two individual indicators are strongly correlated, here we go back to Inception Score’s
original formulation Ex [KL(C(x) k C̄ G )]. In this form, we could interpret Inception Score as that it
requires each sample’s distribution C(x) highly different from the overall distribution of the generator
C̄ G , which indicates a good diversity over the generated samples.
As is empirically observed, a mode-collapsed generator usually gets a low Inception Score. In an
extreme case, assuming all the generated samples collapse to a single point, then C(x)=C G and we
would get the minimal Inception Score 1.0, which is the exp result of zero. To simulate mode collapse
in a more complicated case, we design synthetic experiments as following: given a set of N points
{x0 , x1 , x2 , ..., xN −1 }, with each point xi adopting the distribution C(xi ) = v(i) and representing
class i, where v(i) is the vectorization operator of length N , as defined in Section 2.1, we randomly
drop m points, evaluate Ex [KL(C(x) k C̄ G )] and draw the curve. As is showed in Figure 5, when
N − m increases, the value of Ex [KL(C(x) k C̄ G )] monotonically increases in general, which means
that it can well capture the mode dropping and the diversity of the generated distributions.
8

5

5

4

4

log (Inception Score)

log (Inception Score)

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

3
2
1
00

20
40
60
80
Number of Kept Classes

3
2
1
00

100

20
40
60
80
Number of Kept Classes

(a)

100

(b)

0.35

0.10

0.25

0.30

0.08

0.20

0.20
0.15

0.06

E[H(C(x))]

0.25

KL(C̄ T , C̄ G )

AM Score

Figure 5: Mode dropping analysis of Inception Score. a) Uniform density over classes; b) Gaussian
density over classes. The value of Ex [KL(C(x) k C̄ G )] monotonically increases in general as the
number of kept classes increases, which illustrates Inception Score is able to capture the mode
dropping and the diversity of the generated distributions. The error bar indicates the min and max
values in 1000 random dropping.

0.04

0.15

0.10

0.02

0.10

0.050 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Iterations

0.000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Iterations

0.050 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Iterations

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 6: Training curves of AM Score and its decomposed terms. a) AM Score, i.e. KL(C̄ train , C̄ G )+
Ex [H(C(x))]; b) KL(C̄ train , C̄ G ); c) Ex [H(C(x))]. All of them works properly (going down) in the
training process.
One remaining question is that whether good mode coverage and sample diversity mean high quality
of the generated samples. From the above analysis, we do not find any evidence. A possible
explanation is that, in practice, sample diversity is usually well correlated with the sample quality.
6.4

AM S CORE WITH ACCORDINGLY P RETRAINED C LASSIFIER

Note that if each point xi has multiple variants such as x1i , x2i , x3i , one of the situations, where x2i and
x3i are missing and only x1 is generated, cannot be detected by Ex [KL(C(x) k C̄ G )] score. It means
that with an accordingly pretrained classifier, Ex [KL(C(x) k C̄ G )] score cannot detect intra-class
level mode collapse. This also explains why the Inception Network on ImageNet could be a good
candidate C for CIFAR-10. Exploring the optimal C is a challenge problem and we shall leave it as a
future work.
However, there is no evidence that using an Inception Network trained on ImageNet can accurately
measure the sample quality, as shown in Section 6.2. To compensate Inception Score, we propose to
introduce an extra assessment using an accordingly pretrained classifier. In the accordingly pretrained
classifier, most real samples share similar H(C(x)) and 99.6% samples hold scores less than 0.05 as
showed in Figure 4c, which demonstrates that H(C(x)) of the classifier can be used as an indicator
of sample quality.
The entropy term on C̄ G is actually problematic when training data is not evenly distributed over
classes, for that argmin H(C̄ G ) is a uniform distribution. To take the C̄ train into account, we replace
H(C̄ G ) with a KL divergence between C̄ train and C̄ G . So that


AM Score , KL(C̄ train , C̄ G ) + Ex H C(x) ,

(23)

which requires C̄ G close to C̄ train and each sample x has a low entropy C(x). The minimal value of
AM Score is zero, and the smaller value, the better. A sample training curve of AM Score is showed
in Figure 6, where all indicators in AM Score work as expected. 1
1
Inception Score and AM Score measure the diversity and quality of generated samples, while FID (Heusel
et al., 2017) measures the distance between the generated distribution and the real distribution.

9

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

Model
GAN
GAN∗
AC-GAN∗
AC-GAN∗+
LabelGAN
AM-GAN

Inception Score
CIFAR-10
Tiny ImageNet
dynamic
predefined
dynamic
predefined
7.04 ± 0.06 7.27 ± 0.07
7.25 ± 0.07 7.31 ± 0.10
7.41 ± 0.09 7.79 ± 0.08
7.28 ± 0.07 7.89 ± 0.11
8.56 ± 0.11 8.01 ± 0.09 10.25 ± 0.14 8.23 ± 0.10
8.63 ± 0.08 7.88 ± 0.07 10.82 ± 0.16 8.62 ± 0.11
8.83 ± 0.09 8.35 ± 0.12 11.45 ± 0.15 9.55 ± 0.11

AM Score
CIFAR-10
Tiny ImageNet
dynamic
predefined
dynamic
predefined
0.45 ± 0.00 0.43 ± 0.00
0.40 ± 0.00 0.41 ± 0.00
0.17 ± 0.00 0.16 ± 0.00 1.64 ± 0.02 1.01 ± 0.01
0.10 ± 0.00 0.14 ± 0.00 1.04 ± 0.01 1.20 ± 0.01
0.13 ± 0.00 0.25 ± 0.00 1.11 ± 0.01 1.37 ± 0.01
0.08 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.00 0.88 ± 0.01 0.61 ± 0.01

Table 1: Inception Score and AM Score Results. Models in the same column share the same network
structures & hyper-parameters. We applied dynamic / predefined labeling for models that require
target classes.

dynamic
predefined

AC-GAN∗
0.61
0.35

AC-GAN∗+
0.39
0.36

LabelGAN
0.35
0.32

AM-GAN
0.36
0.36

Table 2: The maximum value of mean MS-SSIM of various models over the ten classes on CIFAR-10.
High-value indicates obvious intra-class mode collapse. Please refer to the Figure 11 in the Appendix
for the visual results.

7

E XPERIMENTS

To empirically validate our analysis and the effectiveness of the proposed method, we conduct
experiments on the image benchmark datasets including CIFAR-10 and Tiny-ImageNet2 which
comprises 200 classes with 500 training images per class. For evaluation, several metrics are used
throughout our experiments, including Inception Score with the ImageNet classifier, AM Score with a
corresponding pretrained classifier for each dataset, which is a DenseNet (Huang et al., 2016a) model.
We also follow Odena et al. (2016) and use the mean MS-SSIM (Wang et al., 2004) of randomly
chosen pairs of images within a given class, as a coarse detector of intra-class mode collapse.
A modified DCGAN structure, as listed in the Appendix F, is used in experiments. Visual results of
various models are provided in the Appendix considering the page limit, such as Figure 9, etc. The
repeatable experiment code is published for further research3 .
7.1

E XPERIMENTS ON CIFAR-10

7.1.1

GAN WITH AUXILIARY C LASSIFIER

The first question is whether training an auxiliary classifier without introducing correlated losses to
the generator would help improve the sample quality. In other words, with the generator only with
the GAN loss in the AC-GAN∗ setting. (referring as GAN∗ )
As is shown in Table 1, it improves GAN’s sample quality, but the improvement is limited comparing
to the other methods. It indicates that introduction of correlated loss plays an essential role in the
remarkable improvement of GAN training.
7.1.2

C OMPARISON A MONG D IFFERENT M ODELS

The usage of the predefined label would make the GAN model transform to its conditional version,
which is substantially disparate with generating samples from pure random noises. In this experiment,
we use dynamic labeling for AC-GAN∗ , AC-GAN∗+ and AM-GAN to seek for a fair comparison
among different discriminator models, including LabelGAN and GAN. We keep the network structure
and hyper-parameters the same for different models, only difference lies in the output layer of the
discriminator, i.e., the number of class logits, which is necessarily different across models.
As is shown in Table 1, AC-GAN∗ achieves improved sample quality over vanilla GAN, but sustains
mode collapse indicated by the value 0.61 in MS-SSIM as in Table 2. By introducing adversarial
2
3

https://tiny-imagenet.herokuapp.com/
Link for anonymous experiment code: https://github.com/ZhimingZhou/AM-GAN

10

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

Model
Score ± Std.
DFM (Warde-Farley & Bengio, 2017)
7.72 ± 0.13
Improved GAN (Salimans et al., 2016)
8.09 ± 0.07
AC-GAN (Odena et al., 2016)
8.25 ± 0.07
WGAN-GP + AC (Gulrajani et al., 2017) 8.42 ± 0.10
SGAN (Huang et al., 2016b)
8.59 ± 0.12
AM-GAN (our work)
8.91 ± 0.11
Splitting GAN (Guillermo et al., 2017)
8.87 ± 0.09
Real data
11.24 ± 0.12

Table 3: Inception Score comparison on CIFAR-10. Splitting GAN uses the class splitting technique
to enhance the class label information, which is orthogonal to AM-GAN.
training in the auxiliary classifier, AC-GAN∗+ outperforms AC-GAN∗ . As an implicit target class
model, LabelGAN suffers from the overlaid-gradient problem and achieves a relatively higher per
sample entropy (0.124) in the AM Score, comparing to explicit target class model AM-GAN (0.079)
and AC-GAN∗+ (0.102). In the table, our proposed AM-GAN model reaches the best scores against
these baselines.
1
We also test AC-GAN∗ with decreased weight on auxiliary classifier losses in the generator ( 10
relative to the GAN loss). It achieves 7.19 in Inception Score, 0.23 in AM Score and 0.35 in MS-SSIM.
The 0.35 in MS-SSIM indicates there is no obvious mode collapse, which also conform with our
above analysis.

7.1.3

I NCEPTION S CORE C OMPARING WITH R ELATED W ORK

AM-GAN achieves Inception Score 8.83 in the previous experiments, which significantly outperforms
the baseline models in both our implementation and their reported scores as in Table 3. By further
enhancing the discriminator with more filters in each layer, AM-GAN also outperforms the orthogonal
work (Guillermo et al., 2017) that enhances the class label information via class splitting. As the
result, AM-GAN achieves the state-of-the-art Inception Score 8.91 on CIFAR-10.
7.1.4

DYNAMIC L ABELING AND C LASS C ONDITION

It’s found in our experiments that GAN models with class condition (predefined labeling) tend to
encounter intra-class mode collapse (ignoring the noise), which is obvious at the very beginning of
GAN training and gets exasperated during the process.
In the training process of GAN, it is important to ensure a balance between the generator and the
discriminator. With the same generator’s network structures and switching from dynamic labeling to
class condition, we find it hard to hold a good balance between the generator and the discriminator:
to avoid the initial intra-class mode collapse, the discriminator need to be very powerful; however, it
usually turns out the discriminator is too powerful to provide suitable gradients for the generator and
results in poor sample quality.
Nevertheless, we find a suitable discriminator and conduct a set of comparisons with it. The results
can be found in Table 1. The general conclusion is similar to the above, AC-GAN∗+ still outperforms
AC-GAN∗ and our AM-GAN reaches the best performance. It’s worth noticing that the AC-GAN∗
does not suffer from mode collapse in this setting.
In the class conditional version, although with fine-tuned parameters, Inception Score is still relatively
low. The explanation could be that, in the class conditional version, the sample diversity still tends to
decrease, even with a relatively powerful discriminator. With slight intra-class mode collapse, the
per-sample-quality tends to improve, which results in a lower AM Score. A supplementary evidence,
P
not very strict, of partial mode collapse in the experiments is that: the | ∂G(z)
∂z | is around 45.0 in
dynamic labeling setting, while it is 25.0 in the conditional version.
The LabelGAN does not need explicit labels and the model is the same in the two experiment settings.
But please note that both Inception Score and the AM Score get worse in the conditional version. The
only difference is that the discriminator becomes more powerful with an extended layer, which attests
11

9

1.0

8

0.8

7
6
50

10

20

30 40
Iterations

AM Score

Inception Score

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

AM-GAN
AC-GAN*+
AC-GAN*
LAB-GAN
GAN
GAN*

50

AM-GAN
AC-GAN*+
AC-GAN*
LAB-GAN
GAN
GAN*

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.00

60

(a) Inception Score training curves

10

20

30 40
Iterations

50

60

(b) AM Score training curves

Figure 7: The training curves of different models in the dynamic labeling setting.

that the balance between the generator and discriminator is crucial. We find that, without the concern
of intra-class mode collapse, using the dynamic labeling makes the balance between generator and
discriminator much easier.
7.1.5

T HE E(x,y)∼G [H(u(y), C(x))] LOSS

Note that we report results of the modified version of AC-GAN, i.e., AC-GAN∗ in Table 1. If we take
the omitted loss E(x,y)∼G [H(u(y), C(x))] back to AC-GAN∗ , which leads to the original AC-GAN
(see Section 2.2), it turns out to achieve worse results on both Inception Score and AM Score on
CIFAR-10, though dismisses mode collapse. Specifically, in dynamic labeling setting, Inception
Score decreases from 7.41 to 6.48 and the AM Score increases from 0.17 to 0.43, while in predefined
class setting, Inception Score decreases from 7.79 to 7.66 and the AM Score increases from 0.16 to
0.20.
This performance drop might be because we use different network architectures and hyper-parameters
from AC-GAN (Odena et al., 2016). But we still fail to achieve its report Inception Score, i.e., 8.25,
on CIFAR-10 when using the reported hyper-parameters in the original paper. Since they do not
publicize the code, we suppose there might be some unreported details that result in the performance
gap. We would leave further studies in future work.
7.1.6

T HE L EARNING P ROPERTY

We plot the training curve in terms of Inception Score and AM Score in Figure 7. Inception Score and
AM Score are evaluated with the same number of samples 50k, which is the same as Salimans et al.
(2016). Comparing with Inception Score, AM Score is more stable in general. With more samples,
Inception Score would be more stable, however the evaluation of Inception Score is relatively costly.
A better alternative of the Inception Model could help solve this problem.
The AC-GAN∗ ’s curves appear stronger jitter relative to the others. It might relate to the counteract
between the auxiliary classifier loss and the GAN loss in the generator. Another observation is that
the AM-GAN in terms of Inception Score is comparable with LabelGAN and AC-GAN∗+ at the
beginning, while in terms of AM Score, they are quite distinguishable from each other.
7.2

E XPERIMENTS ON T INY-I MAGE N ET

In the CIFAR-10 experiments, the results are consistent with our analysis and the proposed method
outperforms these strong baselines. We demonstrate that the conclusions can be generalized with
experiments in another dataset Tiny-ImageNet.
The Tiny-ImageNet consists with more classes and fewer samples for each class than CIFAR-10,
which should be more challenging. We downsize Tiny-ImageNet samples from 64×64 to 32×32
and simply leverage the same network structure that used in CIFAR-10, and the experiment result is
showed also in Table 1. From the comparison, AM-GAN still outperforms other methods remarkably.
And the AC-GAN∗+ gains better performance than AC-GAN∗ .
12

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

8

C ONCLUSION

In this paper, we analyze current GAN models that incorporate class label information. Our analysis
shows that: LabelGAN works as an implicit target class model, however it suffers from the overlaidgradient problem at the meantime, and explicit target class would solve this problem. We demonstrate
that introducing the class logits in a non-hierarchical way, i.e., replacing the overall real class logit in
the discriminator with the specific real class logits, usually works better than simply supplementing an
auxiliary classifier, where we provide an activation maximization view for GAN training and highlight
the importance of adversarial training. In addition, according to our experiments, predefined labeling
tends to lead to intra-class mode collapsed, and we propose dynamic labeling as an alternative. Our
extensive experiments on benchmarking datasets validate our analysis and demonstrate our proposed
AM-GAN’s superior performance against strong baselines. Moreover, we delve deep into the widelyused evaluation metric Inception Score, reveal that it mainly works as a diversity measurement. And
we also propose AM Score as a compensation to more accurately estimate the sample quality.
In this paper, we focus on the generator and its sample quality, while some related work focuses on
the discriminator and semi-supervised learning. For future work, we would like to conduct empirical
studies on discriminator learning and semi-supervised learning. We extend AM-GAN to unlabeled
data in the Appendix C, where unsupervised and semi-supervised is accessible in the framework of
AM-GAN. The classifier-based evaluation metric might encounter the problem related to adversarial
samples, which requires further study. Combining AM-GAN with Integral Probability Metric based
GAN models such as Wasserstein GAN (Arjovsky et al., 2017) could also be a promising direction
since it is orthogonal to our work.

R EFERENCES
Arjovsky, Martin and Bottou, Léon. Towards principled methods for training generative adversarial
networks. In ICLR, 2017.
Arjovsky, Martin, Chintala, Soumith, and Bottou, Léon.
arXiv:1701.07875, 2017.

Wasserstein gan.

arXiv preprint

Cao, Yun, Zhou, Zhiming, Zhang, Weinan, and Yu, Yong. Unsupervised diverse colorization via
generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint, 2017.
Che, Tong, Li, Yanran, Jacob, Athul Paul, Bengio, Yoshua, and Li, Wenjie. Mode regularized
generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.02136, 2016.
Denton, Emily L, Chintala, Soumith, Fergus, Rob, et al. Deep generative image models using a
laplacian pyramid of adversarial networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems,
pp. 1486–1494, 2015.
Erhan, Dumitru, Bengio, Yoshua, Courville, Aaron, and Vincent, Pascal. Visualizing higher-layer
features of a deep network. University of Montreal, 1341:3, 2009.
Goodfellow, Ian. Nips 2016 tutorial:
arXiv:1701.00160, 2016.

Generative adversarial networks.

arXiv preprint

Goodfellow, Ian, Pouget-Abadie, Jean, Mirza, Mehdi, Xu, Bing, Warde-Farley, David, Ozair, Sherjil,
Courville, Aaron, and Bengio, Yoshua. Generative adversarial nets. In Advances in neural
information processing systems, pp. 2672–2680, 2014.
Guillermo, L. Grinblat, Lucas, C. Uzal, and Pablo, M. Granitto. Class-splitting generative adversarial
networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.07359, 2017.
Gulrajani, Ishaan, Ahmed, Faruk, Arjovsky, Martin, Dumoulin, Vincent, and Courville, Aaron.
Improved training of wasserstein gans. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00028, 2017.
Heusel, Martin, Ramsauer, Hubert, Unterthiner, Thomas, Nessler, Bernhard, Klambauer, Günter, and
Hochreiter, Sepp. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a nash equilibrium.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.08500, 2017.
13

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

Huang, Gao, Liu, Zhuang, Weinberger, Kilian Q, and van der Maaten, Laurens. Densely connected
convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.06993, 2016a.
Huang, Xun, Li, Yixuan, Poursaeed, Omid, Hopcroft, John, and Belongie, Serge. Stacked generative
adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.04357, 2016b.
Isola, Phillip, Zhu, Jun-Yan, Zhou, Tinghui, and Efros, Alexei A. Image-to-image translation with
conditional adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.07004, 2016.
Karras, Tero, Aila, Timo, Laine, Samuli, and Lehtinen, Jaakko. Progressive growing of gans for
improved quality, stability, and variation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10196, 2017.
Mao, Xudong, Li, Qing, Xie, Haoran, Lau, Raymond YK, Wang, Zhen, and Smolley, Stephen Paul.
Least squares generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint ArXiv:1611.04076, 2016.
Nguyen, Anh, Dosovitskiy, Alexey, Yosinski, Jason, Brox, Thomas, and Clune, Jeff. Synthesizing
the preferred inputs for neurons in neural networks via deep generator networks. In Advances in
Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 3387–3395, 2016a.
Nguyen, Anh, Yosinski, Jason, Bengio, Yoshua, Dosovitskiy, Alexey, and Clune, Jeff. Plug & play
generative networks: Conditional iterative generation of images in latent space. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1612.00005, 2016b.
Odena, Augustus, Olah, Christopher, and Shlens, Jonathon. Conditional image synthesis with
auxiliary classifier gans. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.09585, 2016.
Salimans, Tim, Goodfellow, Ian, Zaremba, Wojciech, Cheung, Vicki, Radford, Alec, and Chen, Xi.
Improved techniques for training gans. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems,
pp. 2226–2234, 2016.
Springenberg, Jost Tobias. Unsupervised and semi-supervised learning with categorical generative
adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06390, 2015.
Szegedy, Christian, Vanhoucke, Vincent, Ioffe, Sergey, Shlens, Jon, and Wojna, Zbigniew. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 2818–2826, 2016.
Theis, Lucas, Oord, Aäron van den, and Bethge, Matthias. A note on the evaluation of generative
models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.01844, 2015.
Wang, Zhou, Simoncelli, Eero P, and Bovik, Alan C. Multiscale structural similarity for image quality
assessment. In Signals, Systems and Computers, 2004. Conference Record of the Thirty-Seventh
Asilomar Conference on, volume 2, pp. 1398–1402. IEEE, 2004.
Warde-Farley, D. and Bengio, Y. Improving generative adversarial networks with denoising feature
matching. In ICLR, 2017.
Yu, Lantao, Zhang, Weinan, Wang, Jun, and Yu, Yong. Seqgan: sequence generative adversarial nets
with policy gradient. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.05473, 2016.
Zhang, Han, Xu, Tao, Li, Hongsheng, Zhang, Shaoting, Huang, Xiaolei, Wang, Xiaogang, and
Metaxas, Dimitris. Stackgan: Text to photo-realistic image synthesis with stacked generative
adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.03242, 2016.
Zhu, Jun-Yan, Krähenbühl, Philipp, Shechtman, Eli, and Efros, Alexei A. Generative visual manipulation on the natural image manifold. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 597–613.
Springer, 2016.

14

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

A
A.1

G RADIENT VANISHING & − log(Dr (x)) & L ABEL S MOOTHING
L ABEL S MOOTHING

Label smoothing that avoiding extreme logits value was showed to be a good regularization (Szegedy
et al., 2016). A general version of label smoothing could be: modifying the target probability of
discriminator)



[λ1 , 1 − λ1 ] x ∼ G
D̂r (x), D̂f (x) =
.
(24)
[1 − λ2 , λ2 ] x ∼ pdata
Salimans et al. (2016) proposed to use only one-side label smoothing. That is, to only apply label
smoothing for real samples: λ1 = 0 and λ2 > 0. The reasoning of one-side label smoothing is
applying label smoothing on fake samples will lead to fake mode on data distribution, which is too
obscure.
We will next show the exact problems when applying label smoothing to fake samples along with the
log(1−Dr (x)) generator loss, in the view of gradient w.r.t. class logit, i.e., the class-aware gradient,
and we will also show that the problem does not exist when using the − log(Dr (x)) generator loss.
A.2

T HE log(1−Dr (x)) GENERATOR LOSS

The log(1−Dr (x)) generator loss with label smoothing in terms of cross-entropy is


Llog(1-D)
= −Ex∼G H [λ1 , 1 − λ1 ], [Dr (x), DK+1 (x)] ,
G

(25)

with lemma 1, its negative gradient is
−

∂Llog(1-D)
(x)
G
= Dr (x) − λ1 ,
∂lr (x)


Dr (x) = λ1
D (x) < λ1
 r
Dr (x) > λ1

gradient vanishing
Dr (x) is optimized towards 0 .
Dr (x) is optimized towards 1

(26)

(27)

Gradient vanishing is a well know training problem of GAN. Optimizing Dr (x) towards 0 or 1 is
also not what desired, because the discriminator is mapping real samples to the distribution with
Dr (x) = 1 − λ2 .
A.3

T HE − log(Dr (x)) GENERATOR LOSS

The − log(Dr (x)) generator loss with target [1−λ, λ] in terms of cross-entropy is


L-log(D)
= Ex∼G H [1 − λ, λ], [Dr (x), DK+1 (x)] ,
G

(28)

the negative gradient of which is
−

∂L-log(D)
(x)
G
= (1 − λ) − Dr (x),
∂lr (x)


Dr (x) = 1 − λ stationary point
D (x) < 1 − λ Dr (x) towards 1 − λ .
 r
Dr (x) > 1 − λ Dr (x) towards 1 − λ

(29)

(30)

Without label smooth λ, the − log(Dr (x)) always∗ preserves the same gradient direction as
log(1−Dr (x)) though giving a difference gradient scale. We must note that non-zero gradient
does not mean that the gradient is efficient or valid.
The both-side label smoothed version has a strong connection to Least-Square GAN (Mao et al.,
2016): with the fake logit fixed to zero, the discriminator maps real to α on the real logit and maps
fake to β on the real logit, the generator in contrast tries to map fake sample to α. Their gradient on
the logit are also similar.
15

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

B

C AT GAN

The auxiliary classifier loss of AM-GAN can also be viewed as the cross-entropy version of CatGAN:
generator of CatGAN directly optimizes entropy H(R(D(x))) to make each sample be one class,
while AM-GAN achieves this by the first term of its decomposed loss H(R(v(x)), R(D(x))) in
terms of cross-entropy with given target distribution. That is, the AM-GAN is the cross-entropy
version of CatGAN that is combined with LabelGAN by introducing an additional fake class.
B.1

D ISCRIMINATOR LOSS ON FAKE SAMPLE

The discriminator of CatGAN maximizes the prediction entropy of each fake sample:


LCat’
D = Ex∼G − H D(x) .

(31)

In AM-GAN, as we have an extra class on fake, we can achieve this in a simpler manner by minimizing
the probability on real logits.


LAM’
(32)
D = Ex∼G H F (v(K+1)), F (D(x)) .
If vr (K+1) is not zero, that is, when we did negative label smoothing Salimans et al. (2016), we
could define R(v(K+1)) to be a uniform distribution.


LAM”
= Ex∼G H R(v(K+1)), R(D(x)) × vr (K+1).
(33)
D
As a result, the label smoothing part probability will be required to be uniformly distributed, similar
to CatGAN.

C

U NLABELED DATA

In this section, we extend AM-GAN to unlabeled data. Our solution is analogous to CatGAN
Springenberg (2015).
C.1

S EMI - SUPERVISED SETTING

Under semi-supervised setting, we can add the following loss to the original solution to integrate the
unlabeled data (with the distribution denoted as punl (x)):


Lunl’
(34)
D = Ex∼punl H v(x), D(x) .
C.2

U NSUPERVISED SETTING

Under unsupervised setting, we need to introduce one extra loss, analogy to categorical GAN
Springenberg (2015):

Lunl”
(35)
D = H pref , R(Ex∼punl [D(x)]) ,
where the pref is a reference label distribution for the prediction on unsupervised data. For example,
pref could be set as a uniform distribution, which requires the unlabeled data to make use of all the
candidate class logits.
This loss can be optionally added to semi-supervised setting, where the pref could be defined as the
predicted label distribution on the labeled training data Ex∼pdata [D(x)].

16

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

D

I NCEPTION S CORE

As a recently proposed metric for evaluating the performance of the generative models, the InceptionScore has been found well correlated with human evaluation (Salimans et al., 2016), where a
pre-trained publicly-available Inception model C is introduced. By applying the Inception model to
each generated sample x and getting the corresponding class probability distribution C(x), Inception
Score is calculated via


Inception Score = exp Ex KL C(x) k C̄ G ,
(36)
where Ex is short of Ex∼G and C̄ G = Ex [C(x)] is the overall probability distribution of the generated
samples over classes, which is judged by C, and KL denotes the Kullback-Leibler divergence which
is defined as
P
P
P
KL(p k q) = i pi log pqii = i pi log pi − i pi log qi = −H(p) + H(p, q).
(37)
An extended metric, the Mode Score, is proposed in Che et al. (2016) to take the prior distribution of
the labels into account, which is calculated via



Mode Score = exp Ex KL C(x) k C̄ train − KL(C̄ G k C̄ train ) ,
(38)
where the overall class distribution from the training data C̄ train has been added as a reference. We
show in the following that, in fact, Mode Score and Inception Score are equivalent.
Lemma 3. Let p(x) be the class probability distribution of the sample x, and p̄ denote another
probability distribution, then


Ex H p(x), p̄





 

= H Ex p(x) , p̄ .

(39)

With Lemma 3, we have
log(Inception Score)


= Ex KL(C(x) k C̄ G )




= Ex H C(x), C̄ G − Ex H C(x)





= H Ex C(x) , C̄ G − Ex H C(x)


= H(C̄ G ) + (−Ex H C(x) ),

(40)

log(Mode Score)


= Ex KL C(x) k C̄ train − KL(C̄ G k C̄ train )




= Ex H C(x), C̄ train − Ex H C(x) − H(C̄ G , C̄ train ) + H(C̄ G )


= H(C̄ G ) + (−Ex H C(x) ).

(41)

17

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

E

T HE L EMMA AND P ROOFS

Lemma 1. With l being the logits vector and σ being the softmax function, let σ(l) be the current
softmax probability distribution and p̂ denote any target probability distribution, then:


∂H p̂, σ(l)
−
= p̂ − σ(l).
∂l

(42)

Proof.
P


P
i)
∂ i p̂i log Pexp(l
∂H p̂, σ(l)
∂H p̂, σ(l)
∂ i p̂i log σ(l)i
j exp(lj )
=
=
−
=−
∂l
∂lk
∂lk
∂lk
k


P
P
P
P
∂ i p̂i li − log j exp(lj )
∂ log
∂ i p̂i li
exp(lk )
j exp(lj )
=
=
−
= p̂k − P
∂lk
∂lk
∂lk
j exp(lj )

∂H p̂, σ(l)
= p̂ − σ(l).
⇒−
∂l


PK
Lemma 2. Given v = [v1 , . . . , vK+1 ], v1:K , [v1 , . . . , vK ], vr ,
k=1 vk , R(v) , v1:K /vr and
F (v) , [vr , vK+1 ], let p̂ = [p̂1 , . . . , p̂K+1 ], p = [p1 , . . . , pK+1 ], then we have:



H p̂, p = p̂r H R(p̂), R(p) + H F (p̂), F (p) .

(43)

Proof.
H(p̂, p) = −

PK

k=1

p̂k log pk − p̂K+1 log pK+1 = −p̂r

p̂k
k=1 p̂r

= −p̂r

PK

= −p̂r

PK

p̂k
k=1 p̂r

(log

pk
pr

p̂k
k=1 p̂r

PK

p

log( pk pr ) − p̂K+1 log pK+1
r

+ log pr ) − p̂K+1 log pK+1

p

log pk − p̂r log pr − p̂K+1 log pK+1
r


= p̂r H R(p̂), R(p) + H F (p̂), F (p) .

Lemma 3. Let p(x) be the class probability distribution of the sample x that from a certain data
distribution, and p̄ denote the reference probability distribution, then


Ex H p(x), p̄





 

= H Ex p(x) , p̄ .

Proof.


 P

P
Ex H p(x), p̄ = Ex − i pi (x) log p̄i = − i Ex [pi (x)] log p̄i
X


 
=−
Ex [p(x)] i log p̄i = H Ex p(x) , p̄ .
i

18

(44)

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 8: H(C(x) of Inception Score in Real Images. a) 0<H(C(x)<1 ; b) 3<H(C(x)< 4; c)
6<H(C(x)<7.

F

N ETWORK S TRUCTURE & H YPER -PARAMETERS

Generator:
Operation

Kernel

Strides

Output Dims

Output Drop

Activation

Noise

N/A

N/A

100 | 110

0.0

N(0.0, 1.0)

Linear

N/A

N/A

4×4×768

0.0

Leaky ReLU

True

Deconvolution

3×3

2×2

8×8×384

0.0

Leaky ReLU

True

Deconvolution

3×3

2×2

16×16×192

0.0

Leaky ReLU

True

Deconvolution

3×3

2×2

32×32×96

0.0

Leaky ReLU

True

Deconvolution

3×3

1×1

32×32×3

0.0

Tanh

Kernel

Strides

Output Dims

Output Drop

Activation

Add Gaussian Noise

N/A

N/A

32×32×3

0.0

N(0.0, 0.1)

Convolution

3×3

1×1

32×32×64

0.3

Leaky ReLU

True

Convolution

3×3

2×2

16×16×128

0.3

Leaky ReLU

True

Convolution

3×3

2×2

8×8×256

0.3

Leaky ReLU

True

Convolution

3×3

2×2

4×4×512

0.3

Leaky ReLU

True

Convolution*

3×3

1×1

4×4×512

0.3

Leaky ReLU

True

AvgPool

N/A

N/A

1×1×512

0.3

N/A

Linear

N/A

N/A

10 | 11 | 12

0.0

Softmax

Discriminator:
Operation

The *layer was only used for class condition experiments
Optimizer: Adam with beta1=0.5, beta2=0.999; Batch size=100.
Learning rate: Exponential decay with stair, initial learning rate 0.0004.
We use weight normalization for each weight

19

BN

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

Figure 9: Random Samples of AM-GAN: Dynamic Labeling

Figure 10: Random Samples of AM-GAN: Class Condition

20

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

Figure 11: Random Samples of AC-GAN∗ : Dynamic Labeling

Figure 12: Random Samples of AC-GAN∗ : Class Condition

21

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

Figure 13: Random Samples of AC-GAN∗+ : Dynamic Labeling

Figure 14: Random Samples of AC-GAN∗+ : Class Condition

22

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

Figure 15: Random Samples of LabelGAN: Under Dynamic Labeling Setting

Figure 16: Random Samples of LabelGAN: Under Class Condition Setting

23

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

Figure 17: Random Samples of GAN: Under Dynamic Labeling Setting

Figure 18: Random Samples of GAN: Under Class Condition Setting

24

