Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

C GAN S WITH

P ROJECTION D ISCRIMINATOR

Takeru Miyato1 , Masanori Koyama2
miyato@preferred.jp
koyama.masanori@gmail.com
1
Preferred Networks, Inc. 2 Ritsumeikan University

arXiv:1802.05637v1 [cs.LG] 15 Feb 2018

A BSTRACT
We propose a novel, projection based way to incorporate the conditional information into the discriminator of GANs that respects the role of the conditional
information in the underlining probabilistic model. This approach is in contrast
with most frameworks of conditional GANs used in application today, which use
the conditional information by concatenating the (embedded) conditional vector
to the feature vectors. With this modification, we were able to significantly improve the quality of the class conditional image generation on ILSVRC2012 (ImageNet) 1000-class image dataset from the current state-of-the-art result, and we
achieved this with a single pair of a discriminator and a generator. We were
also able to extend the application to super-resolution and succeeded in producing
highly discriminative super-resolution images. This new structure also enabled
high quality category transformation based on parametric functional transformation of conditional batch normalization layers in the generator. The code with
Chainer (Tokui et al., 2015), generated images and pretrained models are available
at https://github.com/pfnet-research/sngan_projection.

1

I NTRODUCTION

Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) (Goodfellow et al., 2014) are a framework to construct a
generative model that can mimic the target distribution, and in recent years it has given birth to arrays
of state-of-the-art algorithms of generative models on image domain (Radford et al., 2016; Salimans
et al., 2016; Ledig et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017; Reed et al., 2016). The most distinctive feature
of GANs is the discriminator D(x) that evaluates the divergence between the current generative
distribution pG (x) and the target distribution q(x) (Goodfellow et al., 2014; Nowozin et al., 2016;
Arjovsky et al., 2017). The algorithm of GANs trains the generator model by iteratively training
the discriminator and generator in turn, with the discriminator acting as an increasingly meticulous
critic of the current generator.
Conditional GANs (cGANs) are a type of GANs that use conditional information (Mirza & Osindero, 2014) for the discriminator and generator, and they have been drawing attention as a promising
tool for class conditional image generation (Odena et al., 2017), the generation of the images from
text (Reed et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017), and image to image translation (Kim et al., 2017; Zhu
et al., 2017). Unlike in standard GANs, the discriminator of cGANs discriminates between the generator distribution and the target distribution on the set of the pairs of generated samples x and its
intended conditional variable y. To the authors’ knowledge, most frameworks of discriminators in
cGANs at the time of writing feeds the pair the conditional information y into the discriminator
by naively concatenating (embedded) y to the input or to the feature vector at some middle layer
(Mirza & Osindero, 2014; Denton et al., 2015; Reed et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017; Perarnau et al.,
2016; Saito et al., 2017; Dumoulin et al., 2017a; Sricharan et al., 2017). We would like to however,
take into account the structure of the assumed conditional probabilistic models underlined by the
structure of the discriminator, which is a function that measures the information theoretic distance
between the generative distribution and the target distribution.
By construction, any assumption about the form of the distribution would act as a regularization on
the choice of the discriminator. In this paper, we propose a specific form of the discriminator, a form
motivated by a probabilistic model in which the distribution of the conditional variable y given x is
1

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

(a) cGANs,
input concat

(b) cGANs,
hidden concat

(Mirza & Osindero, 2014)

(Reed et al., 2016)

Adversarial
loss

Adversarial
loss

(c) AC-GANs

(d) (ours) Projection

(Odena et al., 2017)

Adversarial Classificaition
loss
loss

0

Adversarial
loss

Inner
product

y

y

Concat

y
Concat

x y

x

x

x

Figure 1: Discriminator models for conditional GANs

(a) Images generated with the projection model. (left) Tibetan terrier and (right) mushroom.

(b) (left) Consecutive category morphing with fixed z. geyser → Tibetan terrier → mushroom → robin. (right)
category morphing from Tibetan terrier to mushroom with different value of fixed z

Figure 2: The generator trained with the projection model can generate diverse set of images. For
more results, see the experiment section and the appendix section.
discrete or uni-modal continuous distributions. This model assumption is in fact common in many
real world applications, including class-conditional image generation and super-resolution.
As we will explain in the next section, adhering to this assumption will give rise to a structure of the
discriminator that requires us to take an inner product between the embedded condition vector y and
the feature vector (Figure 1d). With this modification, we were able to significantly improve the
quality of the class conditional image generation on 1000-class ILSVRC2012 dataset (Russakovsky
et al., 2015) with a single pair of a discriminator and generator (see the generated examples in
Figure 2). Also, when we applied our model of cGANs to a super-resolution task, we were able to
produce high quality super-resolution images that are more discriminative in terms of the accuracy
of the label classifier than the cGANs based on concatenation, as well as the bilinear and the bicubic
method.

2

T HE ARCHITECTURE OF THE C GAN DISCRIMINATOR WITH A
PROBABILISTIC MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

Let us denote the input vector by x and the conditional information by y 1 . We also denote the
cGAN discriminator by D(x, y; θ) := A(f (x, y; θ)), where f is a function of x and y, θ is the
parameters of f , and A is an activation function of the users’ choice. Using q and p to designate
the true distributions and the generator model respectively, the standard adversarial loss for the
1

When y is discrete label information, we can assume that it is encoded as a one-hot vector.

2

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

discriminator is given by:




L(D) = −Eq(y) Eq(x|y) [log(D(x, y))] − Ep(y) Ep(x|y) [log(1 − D(x, y))] ,

(1)

with A in D representing the sigmoid function. By construction, the nature of the ‘critic’ D significantly affects the performance of G. A conventional way of feeding y to D until now has been
to concatenate the vector y to the feature vector x, either at the input layer (Mirza & Osindero,
2014; Denton et al., 2015; Saito et al., 2017), or at some hidden layer (Reed et al., 2016; Zhang
et al., 2017; Perarnau et al., 2016; Dumoulin et al., 2017a; Sricharan et al., 2017) (see Figure 1a and
Figure 1b). We would like to propose an alternative to this approach by observing the form of the
optimal solution (Goodfellow et al., 2014) for the loss function, Eq. (1), can be decomposed into the
sum of two log likelihood ratios:
f ∗ (x, y) = log

q(x|y)q(y)
q(y|x)
q(x)
= log
+ log
:= r(y|x) + r(x).
p(x|y)p(y)
p(y|x)
p(x)

(2)

Now, we can model the log likelihood ratio r(y|x) and r(x) by some parametric functions f1 and
f2 respectively. If we make a standing assumption that p(y|x) and q(y|x) are simple distributions
like those that are Gaussian or discrete log linear on the feature space, then, as we will show, the
parametrization of the following form becomes natural:
f (x, y; θ) := f1 (x, y; θ) + f2 (x; θ) = y T V φ(x; θΦ ) + ψ(φ(x; θΦ ); θΨ ),

(3)

where V is the embedding matrix of y, φ(·, θΦ ) is a vector output function of x, and ψ(·, θΨ ) is
a scalar function of the same φ(x; θΦ ) that appears in f1 (see Figure 1d). The learned parameters
θ = {V, θΦ , θΨ } are to be trained to optimize the adversarial loss. From this point on, we will
refer to this model of the discriminator as projection for short. In the next section, we would like to
elaborate on how we can arrive at this form.

3

M OTIVATION BEHIND THE projection DISCRIMINATOR

In this section, we will begin from specific, often recurring models and show that, with certain
regularity assumption, we can write the optimal solution of the discriminator objective function
in the form of (3). Let us first consider the a case of categorical variable. Assume that y is a
categorical variable taking a value in {1, . . . , C}, which is often common for a class conditional
image generation task. The most popular model for p(y|x) is the following log linear model:
log p(y = c|x) := vcpT φ(x) − log Z(φ(x)),
(4)
P


L
C
pT
where Z(φ(x)) :=
is the partition function, and φ : x 7→ Rd is the
j=1 exp vj φ(x)
input to the final layer of the network model. Now, we assume that the target distribution q can also
be parametrized in this form, with the same choice of φ. This way, the log likelihood ratio would
take the following form;
r(y|x) = log

q(y = c|x)
= (vcq − vcp )T φ(x) − (log Z q (φ(x)) − log Z p (φ(x))) .
p(y = c|x)

(5)

If we make the values of (vcq , vcp ) implicit and put vc := (vcq − vcp ), we can write f1 (x, y = c) =
vcT φ(x). Now, if we can put together the normalization constant − (log Z q (φ(x)) − log Z p (φ(x)))
and r(x) into one expression ψ(φ(x)), we can rewrite the equation above as
f (x, y) := y T V φ(x) + ψ(φ(x)).

(6)

by using y to denote a one-hot vector of the label y and using V to denote the matrix consisting
of the row vectors vc . Most notably, this formulation introduces the label information via an inner
product, as opposed to concatenation. The form (6) is indeed the form we proposed in (3).
We can also arrive at the form (3) for unimodal continuous distributions p(y|x) as well. Let
y ∈ Rd be a d-dimensional continuous variable, and let us assume that conditional q(y|x)
and p(y|x) are both given by Gaussian distributions, so that q(y|x) = N (y|µq (x), Λ−1
q ) and
3

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

q
p
p(y|x) = N (y|µp (x), Λ−1
p ) where µq (x) := W φ(x) and µp (x) := W φ(x). Then the log
density ratio r(y|x) = log(q(y|x)/p(y|x)) is given by:
s
!
|Λq | exp(−(1/2)(y − µq (x))T Λq (y − µq (x)))
r(y|x) = log
(7)
|Λp | exp(−(1/2)(y − µp (x))T Λp (y − µp (x)))

1
= − y T (Λq − Λp ) y + y T (Λq W q − Λp W p )φ(x) + ψ(φ(x)),
2

(8)

where ψ(φ(x)) represents the terms independent of y. Now, if we assume that Λq = Λp := Λ, we
can ignore the quadratic term. If we further express Λq W q − Λp W p in the form V , we can arrive
at the form (3) again.
Indeed, however, the way that this regularization affects the training of the generator G is a little unclear in its formulation. As we have repeatedly explained, our discriminator measures the divergence
between the generator distribution p and the target distribution q on the assumption that p(y|x) and
q(y|x) are relatively simple, and it is highly possible that we are gaining stability in the training
process by imposing a regularity condition on the divergence measure. Meanwhile, however, the
actual p(y|x) can only be implicitly derived from p(x, y) in computation, and can possibly take
numerous forms other than the ones we have considered here. We must admit that there is a room
here for an important theoretical work to be done in order to assess the relationship between the
choice of the function space for the discriminator and training process of the generator.

4

C OMPARISON WITH OTHER METHODS

As described above, (3) is a form that is true for frequently occurring situations. In contrast, incorporation of the conditional information by concatenation is rather arbitrary and can possibly include
into the pool of candidate functions some sets of functions for which it is difficult to find a logical
basis. Indeed, if the situation calls for multimodal p(y|x), it might be smart not to use the model
that we suggest here. Otherwise, however, we expect our model to perform better; in general, it is
preferable to use a discriminator that respects the presumed form of the probabilistic model.
Still another way to incorporate the conditional information into the training procedure is to directly
manipulate the loss function. The algorithm of AC-GANs (Odena et al., 2017) use a discriminator
(D1 ) that shares a part of its structure with the classifier(D2 ), and incorporates the label information
into the objective function by augmenting the original discriminator objective with the likelihood
score of the classifier on both the generated and training dataset (see Figure 1c). Plug and Play
Generative models (PPGNs) (Nguyen et al., 2017) is another approach for the generative model that
uses an auxiliary classifier function. It is a method that endeavors to make samples from p(x|y)
using an MCMC sampler based on the Langevin equation with drift terms consisting of the gradient
of an autoencoder prior p(x) and a pretrained auxiliary classifier p(y|x). With these method, one
can generate a high quality image. However, these ways of using auxiliary classifier may unwittingly
encourage the generator to produce images that are particularly easy for the auxiliary classifier to
classify, and deviate the final p(x|y) from the true q(x|y). In fact, Odena et al. (2017) reports
that this problem has a tendency to exacerbate with increasing number of labels. We were able to
reproduce this phenomena in our experiments; when we implemented their algorithm on a dataset
with 1000 class categories, the final trained model was able to generate only one image for most
classes. Nguyen et al.’s PPGNs is also likely to suffer from the same problem because they are using
an order of magnitude greater coefficient for the term corresponding to p(y|x) than for the other
terms in the Langevin equation.

5

E XPERIMENTS

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of our newly proposed architecture for the discriminator,
we conducted two sets of experiments: class conditional image generation and super-resolution
on ILSVRC2012 (ImageNet) dataset (Russakovsky et al., 2015). For both tasks, we used the
ResNet (He et al., 2016b) based discriminator and the generator used in Gulrajani et al. (2017),
and applied spectral normalization (Miyato et al., 2018) to the all of the weights of the discriminator
to regularize the Lipschitz constant. For the objective function, we used the following hinge version
4

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

of the standard adversarial loss (1) (Lim & Ye, 2017; Tran et al., 2017)
h
h

ii


L(Ĝ, D) = Eq(y) Eq(x|y) [max(0, 1 − D(x, y)] + Eq(y) Ep(z) max(0, 1 + D Ĝ(z, y), y)
,
h
h
ii
L(G, D̂) = −Eq(y) Ep(z) D̂(G(z, y), y)) ,
(9)
where the last activation function A of D is identity function. p(z) is standard Gaussian distribution
and G(z, y) is the generator network. For all experiments, we used Adam optimizer (Kingma & Ba,
2015) with hyper-parameters set to α = 0.0002, β1 = 0, β2 = 0.9. We updated the discriminator
five times per each update of the generator. We will use concat to designate the models (Figure 1b)2 ,
and use projection to designate the proposed model (Figure 1d) .
5.1

C LASS -C ONDITIONAL I MAGE G ENERATION

The ImageNet dataset used in the experiment of class conditional image generation consisted of
1,000 image classes of approximately 1,300 pictures each. We compressed each images to 128×128
pixels. Unlike for AC-GANs3 we used a single pair of a ResNet-based generator and a discriminator.
Also, we used conditional batch normalization (Dumoulin et al., 2017b; de Vries et al., 2017) for
the generator. As for the architecture of the generator network used in the experiment, please see
Figure 14 for more detail. Our proposed projection model discriminator is equipped with a ‘projection layer’ that takes inner product between the embedded one-hot vector y and the intermediate
output (Figure 14a). As for the structure of the the concat model discriminator to be compared
against, we used the identical bulk architecture as the projection model discriminator, except that we
removed the projection layer from the structure and concatenated the spatially replicated embedded
conditional vector y to the output of third ResBlock. We also experimented with AC-GANs as the
current state of the art model. For AC-GANs, we placed the softmax layer classifier to the same
structure shared by concat and projection. For each method, we updated the generator 450K times,
and applied linear decay for the learning rate after 400K iterations so that the rate would be 0 at the
end. For the comparative experiments, we trained the model for 450K iterations, which was ample
for the training of concat to stabilize. AC-GANs collapsed prematurely before the completion of
450K iterations, so we reported the result from the peak of its performance ( 80K iterations). For all
experiments throughout, we used the training over 450K iterations for comparing the performances.
On a separate note, our method continued to improve even after 450K. We therefore also reported
the inception score and FID of the extended training (850K iterations) for our method exclusively.
See the table 1 for the exact figures.
We used inception score (Salimans et al., 2016) for the evaluation of the visual appearance of the
generated images. It is in general difficult to evaluate how ‘good’ the generative model is. Indeed,
however, either subjective or objective, some definite measures of ‘goodness’ exists, and essential two of them are ‘diversity’ and the sheer visual quality of the images. One possible candidate
for quantitative measure of diversity and visual appearance is FID (Heusel et al., 2017). We computed FID between the generated images and dataset images within each class, and designated the
values as intra FIDs. More precisely, FID (Heusel et al., 2017) measures the 2-Wasserstein distance between the two distributions qy and py , and is given by F (qy , py ) = kµqy − µpy k22 +

trace Cqy + Cpy − 2(Cqy Cpy )1/2 , where {µqy , Cqy }, {µpy , Cpy } are respectively the mean and
the covariance of the final feature vectors produced by the inception model (Szegedy et al., 2015)
from the true samples and generated samples of class y. When the set of generated examples have
collapsed modes, the trace of Cpy becomes small and the trace term itself becomes large. In order
to compute Cqy we used all samples in the training data belonging to the class of concern, and used
5000 generated samples for the computation of Cpy . We empirically observed in our experiments
that intra FID is, to a certain extent, serving its purpose well in measuring the diversity and the visual
quality.
To highlight the effectiveness of our inner-product based approach (projection) of introducing the
conditional information into the model, we compared our method against the state of the art ACGANs as well as the conventional incorporation of the conditional information via concatenation
2

in the preliminary experiments of the image geneation task on CIFAR-10 (Torralba et al., 2008) and
CIFAR-100 (Torralba et al., 2008), we confirmed that hidden concatenation is better than input concatenation
in terms of the inception scores. For more details, please see Table 3 in the appendix section.
3
For AC-GANs, the authors prepared a pair of discriminator and generator for each set classes of size 10.

5

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

35

500

Projection
Concat

20

Projection

25

300
200
100
0

15
10
0.0

400
Projection

inception score

30

1.0

2.0 3.0
iteration

0 100 200 300 400 500
Concat

600
500
400
300
200
100
0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600
ACGANs

4.04.5
1e5

(a) concat vs projection

(b) AC-GANs vs projection

Figure 3:
Learning curves of Figure 4: Comparison of intra FID scores for projection
cGANs with concat and projection concat, and AC-GANs on ImageNet. Each dot corresponds
to a class.
on ImageNet.
Table 1: Inception score and intra FIDs on ImageNet.
Method

Inception Score

Intra FID

AC-GANs
concat
projection

28.5±.20
21.1±.35
29.7±.61

260.0
141.2
103.1

*projection (850K iteration)

36.8±.44

92.4

at hidden layer (concat). As we can see in the training curves Figure 3, projection outperforms
inception score than concat throughout the training. Table 1 compares the intra class FIDs and the
inception Score of the images generated by each method. The result shown here for the AC-GANs is
that of the model at its prime in terms of the inception score, because the training collapsed at the end.
We see that the images generated by projection have lower intra FID scores than both adversaries,
indicating that the Wasserstein distance between the generative distribution by projection to the
target distribution is smaller. For the record, our model performed better than other models on the
CIFAR10 and CIFAR 100 as well (See Appendix A).
Figure 10a and 10b shows the set of classes for which (a) projection yielded results with better
intra FIDs than the concat and (b) the reverse. From the top, the figures are listed in descending
order of the ratio between the intra FID score between the two methods. Note that when the concat
outperforms projection it only wins by a slight margin, whereas the projection outperforms concat
by large margin in the opposite case. A quick glance on the cases in which the concat outperforms
the projection suggests that the FID is in fact measuring the visual quality, because both sets looks
similar to the human eyes in terms of appearance. Figure 5 shows an arbitrarily selected set of
results yielded by AC-GANs from variety of zs. We can clearly observe the mode-collapse on this
batch. This is indeed a tendency reported by the inventors themselves (Odena et al., 2017). ACGANs can generate easily recognizable (i.e classifiable) images, but at the cost of losing diversity
and hence at the cost of constructing a generative distribution that is significantly different from the
target distribution as a whole. We can also assess the low FID score of projection from different
perspective. By construction, the trace term of intra FID measures the degree of diversity within the
class. Thus, our result on the intra FID scores also indicates that that our projection is doing better
in reproducing the diversity of the original. The GANs with the concat discriminator also suffered
from mode-collapse for some classes (see Figure 6). For the set of images generated by projection,
we were not able to detect any notable mode-collapse.
Figure 7a shows the samples generated with the projection model for the classes on which the
cGAN achieved lowest intra FID scores (that is the classes on which the generative distribution
were particularly close to target conditional distribution), and Figure 7b the reverse. While most
of the images listed in Figure 7a are of relatively high quality, we still observe some degree of
mode-collapse. Note that the images in the classes with high FID are featuring complex objects
like human; that is, one can expect the diversity within the class to be wide. However, we note that
we did not use the most complicated neural network available for the experiments presented on this
paper, because we prioritized the completion of the training within a reasonable time frame. It is
very possible that, by increasing the complexity of the model, we will be able to further improve the
6

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

Figure 5: comparison of the images generated by (a) AC-GANs and (b) projection.

Figure 6: Collapsed images on the concat model.
visual quality of the images and the diversity of the distribution. In Appendix ??, we list images of
numerous classes generated by cGANs trained with our projection model.
Category Morphing With our new architecture, we were also able to successfully perform category morphism. When there are classes y1 and y2 , we can create an interpolated generator by
simply mixing the parameters of conditional batch normalization layers of the conditional generator
corresponding to these two classes. Figure 8 shows the output of the interpolated generator with
the same z. Interestingly, the combination is also yielding meaningful images when y1 and y2 are
significantly different.
Fine-tuning with the pretrained model on the ILSVRC2012 classification task. As we mentioned in Section 4, the authors of Plug and Play Generative model (PPGNs) (Nguyen et al., 2017)
were able to improve the visual appearance of the model by augmenting the cost function with that
of the label classifier. We also followed their footstep and augmented the original generator loss with
an additional auxiliary classifier loss. As warned earlier regarding this type of approach, however,
this type of modification tends to only improve the visual performance of the images that are easy
for the pretrained model to classify. In fact, as we can see in Appendix B, we were able to improve
the visual appearance the images with the augmentation, but at the cost of diversity.
5.2

S UPER - RESOLUTION

We also evaluated the effectiveness of (3) in its application to the super-resolution task. Put formally,
the super-resolution task is to infer the high resolution RGB image of dimension x ∈ RRH ×RH ×3
from the low resolution RGB image of dimension y ∈ RRL ×RL ×3 ; RH > RL . This task is very
much the case that we presumed in our model construction, because p(y|x) is most likely unimodal
even if p(x|y) is multimodal. For the super-resolution task, we used the following formulation for
discriminator function:
X
f (x, y; θ) =
(yijk Fijk (φ(x; θΦ ))) + ψ(φ(x; θΦ ); θΨ ),
(10)
i,j,k

where F (φ(x; θΦ )) = V ∗ φ(x; θΦ ) where V is a convolutional kernel and ∗ stands for convolution
operator. Please see Figure 15 in the appendix section for the actual network architectures we used
7

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

(a) Generated images on the class with ‘low’ FID scores.

(b) generated images on the class with ‘high’ FID scores.

Figure 7: 128×128 pixel images generated by the projection method for the classes with (a) bottom five FID scores and (b) top five FID scores. The string and the value above each panel are
respectively the name of the corresponding class and the FID score. The second row in each panel
corresponds to the original dataset.

for this task. For this set of experiments, we constructed the concat model by removing the module in
the projection model containing the the inner product layer and the accompanying convolution layer
altogether, and simply concatenated y to the output of the ResBlock preceding the inner product
module in the original. As for the resolutions of the image datasets, we chose RH = 128 and RL =
32, and created the low resolution images by applying bilinear downsampling on high resolution
images. We updated the generators 150K times for all methods, and applied linear decay for the
learning rate after 100K iterations so that the final learning rate was 0 at 150K-th iteration.
Figure 9 shows the result of our super-resolution. The bicubic super-resolution is very blurry, and
concat result is suffering from excessively sharp and rough edges. On the other hand, the edges
of the images generated by our projection method are much clearer and smoother, and the image
itself is much more faithful to the original high resolution images. In order to qualitatively compare
the performances of the models, we checked MS-SSIM (Wang et al., 2003) and the classification
accuracy of the inception model on the generated images using the validation set of the ILSVRC2012
dataset. As we can see in Table 2, our projection model was able to achieve high inception accuracy
and high MS-SSIM when compared to bicubic and concat. Note that the performance of superresolution with concat model even falls behind those of the bilinear and bicubic super-resolutions
8

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

Figure 8: Category morphing. More results are in the appendix section.

Figure 9: 32x32 to 128x128 super-resolution by different methods

in terms of the inception accuracy. Also, we used projection model to generate multiple batches of
images with different random values of z to be fed to the generator and computed the average of the
logits of the inception model on these batches (MC samples). We then used the so-computed average
logits to make prediction of the labels. With an ensemble over 10 seeds (10 MC in Table 2), we were
able to improve the inception accuracy even further. This result indicates that our GANs are learning
the super-resolution as an distribution, as opposed to deterministic function. Also, the success with
the ensemble also suggests a room for a new way to improve the accuracy of classification task on
low resolution images.
9

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

Table 2: Inception accuracy and MS-SSIM on different super-resolution methods. We picked up
dataset images from the validation set.

6

Method

biliear

bicubic

concat

projection

projection (10 MC)

Inception Acc.(%)
MS-SSIM

23.1
0.835

31.4
0.859

11.0
0.829

35.2
0.878

36.4
-

C ONCLUSION

Any specification on the form of the discriminator imposes a regularity condition for the choice for
the generator distribution and the target distribution. In this research, we proposed a model for the
discriminator of cGANs that is motivated by a commonly occurring family of probabilistic models.
This simple modification was able to significantly improve the performance of the trained generator
on conditional image generation task and super-resolution task. The result presented in this paper is
strongly suggestive of the importance of the choice of the form of the discriminator and the design
of the distributional metric. We plan to extend this approach to other applications of cGANs, such
as semantic segmentation tasks and image to image translation tasks.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the members of Preferred Networks, Inc., especially Richard Calland, Sosuke
Kobayashi and Crissman Loomis, for helpful comments. We would also like to thank Shoichiro
Yamaguchi, a graduate student of Kyoto University, for helpful comments.

10

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

(a) Images better with projection than concat.

(b) Images better with concat than projection.

Figure 10: Comparison of concat vs. projection. The value attached above each panel represents
the achieved FID score.

11

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

R EFERENCES
Martin Arjovsky, Soumith Chintala, and Léon Bottou. Wasserstein generative adversarial networks. In ICML,
pp. 214–223, 2017.
Harm de Vries, Florian Strub, Jérémie Mary, Hugo Larochelle, Olivier Pietquin, and Aaron C Courville. Modulating early visual processing by language. In NIPS, pp. 6576–6586, 2017.
Emily Denton, Soumith Chintala, Arthur Szlam, and Rob Fergus. Deep generative image models using a
laplacian pyramid of adversarial networks. In NIPS, pp. 1486–1494, 2015.
Vincent Dumoulin, Ishmael Belghazi, Ben Poole, Alex Lamb, Martin Arjovsky, Olivier Mastropietro, and
Aaron Courville. Adversarially learned inference. In ICLR, 2017a.
Vincent Dumoulin, Jonathon Shlens, and Manjunath Kudlur. A learned representation for artistic style. In
ICLR, 2017b.
Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron
Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. In NIPS, pp. 2672–2680, 2014.
Ishaan Gulrajani, Faruk Ahmed, Martin Arjovsky, Vincent Dumoulin, and Aaron Courville. Improved training
of wasserstein GANs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00028, 2017.
Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In
CVPR, 2016a.
Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Identity mappings in deep residual networks. In
European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 630–645. Springer, 2016b.
Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, Günter Klambauer, and Sepp
Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a nash equilibrium. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1706.08500, 2017.
Taeksoo Kim, Moonsu Cha, Hyunsoo Kim, Jungkwon Lee, and Jiwon Kim. Learning to discover cross-domain
relations with generative adversarial networks. In ICML, pp. 1857–1865, 2017.
Diederik Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In ICLR, 2015.
Christian Ledig, Lucas Theis, Ferenc Huszár, Jose Caballero, Andrew Cunningham, Alejandro Acosta, Andrew
Aitken, Alykhan Tejani, Johannes Totz, Zehan Wang, and Wenzhe Shi. Photo-realistic single image superresolution using a generative adversarial network. In CVPR, 2017.
Jae Hyun Lim and Jong Chul Ye. Geometric GAN. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.02894, 2017.
Mehdi Mirza and Simon Osindero. Conditional generative adversarial nets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.1784,
2014.
Takeru Miyato, Toshiki Kataoka, Masanori Koyama, and Yuichi Yoshida. Spectral normalization for generative
adversarial networks. In ICLR, 2018.
Anh Nguyen, Jeff Clune, Yoshua Bengio, Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Jason Yosinski. Plug & play generative
networks: Conditional iterative generation of images in latent space. In CVPR, 2017.
Sebastian Nowozin, Botond Cseke, and Ryota Tomioka. f-GAN: Training generative neural samplers using
variational divergence minimization. In NIPS, pp. 271–279, 2016.
Augustus Odena, Christopher Olah, and Jonathon Shlens. Conditional image synthesis with auxiliary classifier
GANs. In ICML, pp. 2642–2651, 2017.
Guim Perarnau, Joost van de Weijer, Bogdan Raducanu, and Jose M Álvarez. Invertible conditional gans for
image editing. In NIPS Workshop on Adversarial Training, 2016.
Alec Radford, Luke Metz, and Soumith Chintala. Unsupervised representation learning with deep convolutional
generative adversarial networks. In ICLR, 2016.
Scott Reed, Zeynep Akata, Xinchen Yan, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Bernt Schiele, and Honglak Lee. Generative
adversarial text to image synthesis. In ICML, pp. 1060–1069, 2016.
Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej
Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, Alexander C. Berg, and Li Fei-Fei. ImageNet Large Scale
Visual Recognition Challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV), 115(3):211–252, 2015.
doi: 10.1007/s11263-015-0816-y.
Masaki Saito, Eiichi Matsumoto, and Shunta Saito. Temporal generative adversarial nets with singular value
clipping. In ICCV, 2017.
Tim Salimans, Ian Goodfellow, Wojciech Zaremba, Vicki Cheung, Alec Radford, and Xi Chen. Improved
techniques for training GANs. In NIPS, pp. 2226–2234, 2016.
Kumar Sricharan, Raja Bala, Matthew Shreve, Hui Ding, Kumar Saketh, and Jin Sun. Semi-supervised conditional GANs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.05789, 2017.
Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing Jia, Pierre Sermanet, Scott Reed, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan,
Vincent Vanhoucke, and Andrew Rabinovich. Going deeper with convolutions. In CVPR, pp. 1–9, 2015.
Seiya Tokui, Kenta Oono, Shohei Hido, and Justin Clayton. Chainer: a next-generation open source framework
for deep learning. In Proceedings of workshop on machine learning systems (LearningSys) in the twentyninth annual conference on neural information processing systems (NIPS), 2015.
Antonio Torralba, Rob Fergus, and William T Freeman. 80 million tiny images: A large data set for nonparametric object and scene recognition. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 30
(11):1958–1970, 2008.

12

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

Dustin Tran, Rajesh Ranganath, and David M Blei. Deep and hierarchical implicit models. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1702.08896, 2017.
Zhou Wang, Eero P Simoncelli, and Alan C Bovik. Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment. In Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, pp. 1398–1402, 2003.
Han Zhang, Tao Xu, Hongsheng Li, Shaoting Zhang, Xiaolei Huang, Xiaogang Wang, and Dimitris Metaxas.
Stackgan: Text to photo-realistic image synthesis with stacked generative adversarial networks. In ICCV,
2017.
Jun-Yan Zhu, Taesung Park, Phillip Isola, and Alexei A Efros. Unpaired image-to-image translation using
cycle-consistent adversarial networks. In ICCV, 2017.

13

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

A

R ESULTS OF CLASS CONDITIONAL IMAGE GENERATION ON CIFAR-10
AND CIFAR-100

As a preliminary experiment, we compared the performance of conditional image generation on
CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 3. For the discriminator and the generator, we reused the same architecture used in Miyato et al. (2018) for the task on CIFAR-10. For the adversarial objective functions,
we used (9), and trained both machine learners with the same optimizer with same hyper parameters
we used in Section 5. For our projection model, we added the projection layer to the discriminator in
the same way we did in the ImageNet experiment (before the last linear layer). Our projection model
achieved better performance than other methods on both CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100. Concatenation
at hidden layer (hidden concat) was performed on the output of second ResBlock of the discriminator. We tested hidden concat as a comparative method in our main experiments on ImageNet,
because the concatenation at hidden layer performed better than the concatenation at the input layer
(input concat) when the number of classes was large (CIFAR-100).
To explore how the hyper-parameters affect the performance of our proposed architecture, we conducted hyper-parameter search on CIFAR-100 about the Adam hyper-parameters (learning rate α
and 1st order momentum β1 ) for both our proposed architecture and the baselines. Namely, we
varied each one of these parameters while keeping the other constant, and reported the inception
scores for all methods including several versions of concat architectures to compare. We tested with
concat module introduced at (a) input layer, (b) hidden layer, and at (c) output layer. As we can see
in Figure 11, our projection architecture excelled over all other architectures for all choice of the
parameters, and achieved the inception score of 9.53. Meanwhile, concat architectures were able
to achieve all 8.82 at most. The best concat model in term of the inception score on CIFAR-100
was the hidden concat with α = 0.0002 and β1 = 0, which turns out to be the very choice of the
parameters we picked for our ImageNet experiment.
Table 3: The performance of class conditional image generation on CIFAR-10 (C10) and CIFAR100 (C100).
Method

Inception score
C10
C100

C10

FID
C100

(Real data)

11.24

14.79

7.60

8.94

8.22
8.25
8.14
8.62

8.80
7.93
8.82
9.04

19.7
19.2
19.2
17.5

25.4
31.4
24.8
23.2

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0.0001

Inception score

Inception score

AC-GAN
input concat
hidden concat
(ours) projection

Projection
Input concat
Hidden concat
Output concat
AC-GANs
0.0002

0.0005

(a) Varying α (fixing β1 = 0)

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Projection
Input concat
Hidden concat
Output concat
AC-GANs
0.0

0.5
1

0.9

(b) Varying β1 (fixing α = 0.0002)

Figure 11: Inception scores on CIFAR-100 with different discriminator models varying hyperparameters (α and β1 ) of Adam optimizer.

14

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

Figure 12: Effect of the finetuning with auxiliary classifier loss. Same coordinate in panel (a) and
(b) corresponds to same value of z
Table 4: Inception score and intra FIDs on ImageNet with a pretrained model on classification tasks
for ILSVRC2012 dataset. ‡Nguyen et al. (2017)
Method

Inception Score

Intra FID

‡

47.4
210

N/A
54.2

PPGNs
projection(finetuned)

B

O BJECTIVE FUNCTION WITH AN AUXILIARY CLASSIFIER COST

In this experiment, we followed the footsteps of Plug and Play Generative model (PPGNs) (Nguyen
et al., 2017) and augmented the original generator loss with an additional auxiliary classifier loss. In
particular, we used the losses given by :


h
h
ii
L G, D̂, p̂pre (y|x) = −Eq(y) Ep(z) D̂(G(z, y), y) − LC (p̂pre (y|G(z, y))) ,
(11)
where p̂pre (y|x) is the fixed model pretrained for ILSVRC2012 classification task. For the actual
experiment, we trained the generator with the original adversarial loss for the first 400K updates,
and used the augmented loss for the last 50K updates. For the learning rate hyper parameter, we
adopted the same values as other experiments we described above. For the pretrained classifier,
we used ResNet50 model used in He et al. (2016a). Figure 12 compares the results generated by
vanilla objective function and the results generated by the augmented objective function. As we
can see in Table 4, we were able to significantly outperform PPGNs in terms of inception score.
However, note that the images generated here are images that are easy to classify. The method
with auxiliary classifier loss seems effective in improving the visual appearance, but not in training
faithful generative model.

15

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

C

M ODEL A RCHITECTURES

BN

Conv 3x3
ReLU

ReLU
Conv 3x3

Conv 3x3
BN

ReLU
ReLU
Conv 3x3
(a) ResBlock architecture for the
discriminator. Spectral normalization (Miyato et al., 2018) was
applied to each conv layer.
(b) ResBlock for the generator.

Figure 13: Architecture of the ResBlocks used in all experiments. For the generator generator’s
Resblock, conditional batch normalization layer (Dumoulin et al., 2017b; de Vries et al., 2017) was
used in place of the standard batch normalization layer. For the ResBlock in the generator for the
super resolution tasks that implements the upsampling, the random vector z was fed to the model by
concatenating the vector to the embedded low resolution image vector y prior to the first convolution
layer within the block. For the procedure of downsampling and upsampling, we followed the implementation by Gulrajani et al. (2017). For the discriminator, we performed downsampling (average
pool) after the second conv of the ResBlock. For the generator, we performed upsampling before
the first conv of the ResBlock. For the ResBlock that is performing the downsampling, we replaced
the identity mapping with 1x1 conv layer followed by downsampling to balance the dimension. We
did the essentially same for the Resblock that is performing the upsampling, except that we applied
the upsampling before the 1x1 conv.

16

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

Linear

z

Inner product

Linear, 1024x4x4

Global sum pooling

Embed
ResBlock, Up, 1024

ReLU

y

ResBlock, Up, 512

ResBlock, 1024
ResBlock, Up, 256

ResBlock, Down, 1024
ResBlock, Up, 128

ResBlock, Down, 512

ResBlock, Up, 64

ResBlock, Down, 256

BN, ReLU, Conv 3x3

ResBlock, Down, 128

Tanh

ResBlock, Down, 64

x

x

(b) Generator
(a) Discriminator

Figure 14: The models we used for the conditional image generation task.

17

y

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

y

Linear
Global sum pooling
ReLU

ResBlock, 256

ResBlock, 1024

ResBlock, 256

ResBlock, Down, 1024

ResBlock, 256

ResBlock, Down, 512

ResBlock, 256

ResBlock, Down, 128

ResBlock, Up, 128

Inner product

ResBlock, Down, 256

ResBlock, 128

Conv 3x3

y

ResBlock, 128

ResBlock, Up, 64
ResBlock,64

ResBlock, Down, 128
BN, ReLU, Conv 3x3

ResBlock, 64
Tanh

ResBlock, Down, 64

x

x

(b) Generator
(a) Discriminator

Figure 15: The models we used for the super resolution task.

18

z

z’

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

D

R ESULTS OF C ATEGORY M ORPHING

(a) to Persian cat

(b) to Electric locomotive

(c) to Alp

(d) to Castle

(e) to Chiffonier

Figure 16: Dog (Lhasa apso) to different categories

19

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

(a) Hip to Yellow lady’s slipper

(b) Pirate ship to Yawl

(c) Yurt to Castle

(d) Chiffonier to Chinese cabinet

(e) Valley to Sandbar

Figure 17: Morphing between different categories

20

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

E

M ORE R ESULTS WITH SUPER - RESOLUTION

Figure 18: 32x32 to 128x128 super-resolution results

21

