 training set, to evaluate the attribute generation performance, whose average precision on CelebA testing set is $91.7\%$, close to state-of-the-art performance. F1 score is reported as precision and recall may vary due to threshold setting.

We apply 3DA-GAN on the negative samples (without the target attribute) to generate the images with target attribute, serving as positive samples. Further, FID [@fid2017] is computed to evaluate the photo-realisticity of the attribute augmented images.

In Table \[tab:attr\_real\], we compare to several state-of-the-arts, FaderNet [@fadernet], AttGAN [@attgan], StarGAN [@stargan] and CycleGAN [@CycleGAN2017]. The last two are retrained on original celebA real data, real plus pose augmented data (“real-a”) as well as our UV texture and position data. For “Ours”, we apply our proposed loss instead of StarGAN or CycleGAN loss. The numbers in Table \[tab:attr\_real\] clearly show that our proposed 3DA-GAN consistently achieves higher F1 score than the state-of-the-arts. Moreover, our method also achieves consistently lower FID score. On CycleGAN (ResNet) model, our method FID score is close to the one trained on “real-a”, tie on $yaw < 45$ and slightly better on $yaw \ge 45$. However, our method achieves much higher F1 score (precision and recall), more than $10\%$ higher on “SM” and “BA”, compared to CyCleGAN trained on “real-a” across yaw $< 45$ and $\ge 45$.

**Identity Preserving Property:** we apply a state-of-the-art face recognition engine, ArcFace [@arcface] to provide the identity feature. For each verification pair, we randomly select one image without the target attribute, apply our method to generate the target attribute, and evaluate the similarity between the generated target attribute image and the not selected image. We independently run experiments for those 5 attributes. In Table \[tab:idp\_ijba\], “Original” means the original verification accuracy without any attribute generation, which serves as the upper bound for all methods. Compared to other methods, our 3DA-GAN achieves almost all higher verification accuracy while slightly worse on lipstick. Nevertheless, our
training set, to evaluate the attribute coevals operation, whose average precision on CelebA examination set is $ 91.7\%$, airless to state - of - the - artwork operation. F1 score is reported as precision and recall may vary due to threshold mount. 

 We apply 3DA - GAN on the negative sample distribution (without the prey attribute) to generate the images with target attribute, serve as positive samples. Further, FID   [ @fid2017 ] is calculate to evaluate the photo - realisticity of the property augmented image. 

 In Table   \[tab: attr\_real\ ], we compare to several state - of - the - arts, FaderNet   [ @fadernet ], AttGAN   [ @attgan ], StarGAN   [ @stargan ] and CycleGAN   [ @CycleGAN2017 ]. The last two are retrained on original celebA veridical data, real plus pose augmented data (“ real - a ”) as well as our UV texture and position data. For “ Ours ”, we apply our proposed loss instead of StarGAN or CycleGAN loss. The numbers in Table   \[tab: attr\_real\ ] clearly prove that our proposed 3DA - GAN consistently achieve eminent F1 sexual conquest than the state - of - the - arts. Moreover, our method also achieves consistently humble FID score. On CycleGAN (ResNet) model, our method FID score is close to the one trained on “ substantial - a ”, tie on $ yaw < 45 $ and slightly better on $ yaw \ge 45$. However, our method achieve much high F1 sexual conquest (precision and recall), more than $ 10\%$ higher on “ SM ” and “ BA ”, compared to CyCleGAN trained on “ veridical - a ” across yaw $ < 45 $ and $ \ge 45$. 

 * * Identity Preserving Property :* * we apply a state - of - the - artwork face realization engine, ArcFace   [ @arcface ] to provide the identity feature. For each verification pair, we randomly choose one image without the target attribute, apply our method to render the target property, and evaluate the similarity between the generated prey attribute image and the not choose image. We independently run experiments for those 5 attributes. In Table   \[tab: idp\_ijba\ ], “ Original ” means the original verification accuracy without any attribute generation, which serves as the upper bound for all methods. Compared to early methods, our 3DA - GAN achieves about all higher verification accuracy while slightly bad on lipstick. Nevertheless, our
 trwining set, to evaluate tme attribute gengrqtion 'erformznce, whore average precision on CeleuA twstint set is $91.7\%$, close to stage-of-the-arn performqnce. D1 score is reported as pdccisimi and recall mai vary due tm threshold sedtkny.

We apply 3DA-GAN on the negative sampjes (witnokt the target wttrpbtte) fo generate the images with target attriblte, serving as poxitive samples. Further, FID [@vid2017] ls computed to evapuate the pyoto-wwalisticity uf the attgnbute augmehted images.

In Table \[tab:attr\_real\], de cokpare to sgrwrap state-of-the-erts, FwderNet [@faderkvt], AttGDN [@attgam], StarGAN [@stargsn] end XycleGAN [@CycleGAN2017]. The nast two are retrayned on osiyinal celebA real datq, eeal klus [ose qugoenued dzta (“rewl-a”) as well aa our UV tezture and position caeq. For “Ours”, we apply otr proposed loss instead of StarGAN or ByclsGAN loss. The numbers ib Table \[tab:attr\_real\] clgarly show that our proposed 3DA-GAN consistently achieves hicher H1 rcoxc gyaj the state-of-the-arts. Moreover, our method also zcnivves consistently lower FID xclrr. On CycleGAN (TesNet) modsl, our method FID dcore if clowe to the one trained on “real-a”, tie on $yaq < 45$ and sligktlt better on $yaw \ge 45$. However, obr metnod avhieves much higher F1 seore (pdecision anf recall), jure than $10\%$ higher on “SK” and “BA”, compared to CyCleDAN trainxd on “real-a” xcroxs yaw $< 45$ and $\ge 45$.

**Ldentldy Preserving Propfrty:** ce ap[ly a statf-of-the-art face recognition engiix, ArcFace [@arcfsca] tm providz the ldentity featurq. For each vernficatiou pair, we randommy selert one image without the dwrget attribnte, apply our metyod to ednerate the tatget attrpbbte, and ecaluate the similavity cstween the genexcttd target attribite imwgv aid thq not selecteg imxge. Ee inaependently fun rxperiments for thosa 5 aftributes. In Table \[yan:idp\_ijba\], “Iriginal” means the oroginal verificatioj accnracy xithouy agy attribute generation, which aerves as thc upper bound for all methods. Compared to other methods, our 3DA-GAN aciieves almost all highgr verification accurccn while sligitly wjrse on lhpstick. Nevertheless, our
training set, to evaluate the attribute generation average on CelebA set is $91.7\%$, score reported as precision recall may vary to threshold setting. We apply 3DA-GAN the negative samples (without the target attribute) to generate the images with target serving as positive samples. Further, FID [@fid2017] is computed to evaluate the photo-realisticity the augmented In \[tab:attr\_real\], we compare to several state-of-the-arts, FaderNet [@fadernet], AttGAN [@attgan], StarGAN [@stargan] and CycleGAN [@CycleGAN2017]. The two are retrained on original celebA real data, plus pose augmented data as well as our UV and data. For we our loss instead of or CycleGAN loss. The numbers in Table \[tab:attr\_real\] clearly show that our proposed 3DA-GAN consistently achieves higher score than Moreover, our also consistently FID score. On model, our method FID score is one trained on “real-a”, tie on $yaw < and slightly on $yaw \ge 45$. However, our achieves much higher F1 score (precision and recall), than $10\%$ higher on “SM” and “BA”, compared to CyCleGAN trained on “real-a” across yaw and $\ge 45$. **Identity Property:** we apply state-of-the-art recognition ArcFace to provide identity feature. For each verification pair, we randomly select one image the target attribute, apply our method to generate the target evaluate similarity between the target attribute image and not image. We independently run those attributes. “Original” the verification accuracy without any generation, which serves as the bound for all methods. 3DA-GAN achieves almost all higher verification accuracy while worse on lipstick. Nevertheless, our
 training set, to evaluate the aTtribute geNeratIon PerFoRmanCe, whOse average precISion On CelebA testing set is $91.7\%$, clOse to StATe-of-THe-Art peRformanCE. F1 SCOre Is RePorTeD As PreciSioN and recAll may vary Due To Threshold setTInG.

We apply 3DA-gAN On the negativE saMples (wItHouT The taRgeT attrIbute) tO GeneraTe the imagEs WIth tarGEt attriBUTe, ServIng as positive sampLEs. fUrther, FID [@fid2017] is ComputEd TO eVALuaTe tHe photo-reaLiSticiTY of the aTTrIBUTe aUGmented images.

in Table \[tab:aTTr\_rEal\], we cOmParE To seveRal stAtE-Of-tHe-arts, Fadernet [@fAdernet], AtTGAN [@atTGan], StargaN [@stargAn] and CYclEGAn [@CycLEGaN2017]. the LaST twO ArE reTRaiNed on oriGiNaL celeBA reAL DATa, reAl pLus pOse auGmented data (“reAl-a”) As weLL as Our UV TextuRe anD pOsitiOn data. for “OuRs”, We apply our propoSed lOss insteaD of stArGaN Or CycLEGAN loSs. THe nUmbers iN Table \[tAB:atTr\_REAL\] cLearly show that our pRoPOSeD 3DA-GAN coNsisteNTlY aCHieves hiGhEr F1 ScorE THan thE staTE-oF-the-arts. moreovER, oUr Method aLsO achieVeS coNsiStentLY lowEr FID sCore. On CyCleGAn (resNet) model, our MEthod FID score IS cLOSe TO the One Trained on “reAl-a”, tIE on $yAw < 45$ anD SlIghTLy betTer on $YaW \Ge 45$. hOwever, our method achiEvEs much HigheR F1 score (precisIon and recaLL), MOre than $10\%$ hIgheR On “sm” and “BA”, compared To CyCLeGAN trainED on “real-a” AcrosS yaw $< 45$ and $\gE 45$.

**Identity pREserving proPerTy:** wE apPLY a State-of-the-art FACe reCoGnition EngIne, ArcFAce [@ArcFacE] to PrOvide the iDentity fEaTuRe. foR eaCh verIFication PaIr, wE rAndOmly sELect onE imagE witHoUt THe tArget atTRiBUTe, apPlY oUr meThoD tO geneRate THe tArget atTribute, anD evALuatE tHe SimilarIty between the GeNerated tarGeT atTributE IMage and tHe not selected image. We indEPendentLy rUn expErimEnts for thOse 5 AttribUteS. in TablE \[tab:idP\_ijba\], “orIgiNAL” meanS THe OriGiNal verificATIon AccurAcY witHout any Attribute generatioN, WhiCh serves as the UppEr boUND fOr aLL mEThoDs. cOmpAREd to other methodS, our 3DA-GAN aChIEvEs almost alL HigHeR verifiCation aCcuraCY while sLightly woRse on lipsTiCk. NeVERthEless, our
 training set, to evaluate  the attri butegen era ti on p erfo rmance, whosea vera ge precision on CelebA  test in g  set is  $91. 7\%$, c l os e tost at e-o f- t he -artper formanc e. F1 scor e i sreported asp re cision and  re call may var y d ue toth res h old s ett ing.
We ap p ly 3DA -GAN on t he negati v e sampl e s  ( with out the target at t ri b ute) to genera te the  i m ag e s  wi thtarget att ri bute, serving as p o sit i ve samples. F urther, FID [@f id2017 ]isc ompute d toev a lua te the phot o-re alisticit y of t h e attri b ute aug mented  im age s.
I nTa ble  \ [ tab : at tr\ _ rea l\], weco mp are t o se v e r a l st ate -of- the-a rts, FaderNet  [@ fade r net ], At tGAN[@at tg an],StarGA N [@s ta rgan] and Cycle GAN[@CycleGA N20 17 ].Th e las t  two a reret rainedon orig i nal  c e l e bA  real data, real p lu s po se augme nted d a ta  ( “ real-a”)  a s w ella s  ourUV t e xt ure andpositi o nda ta. For  “ Ours”,  w e a ppl y our prop osed l oss inst ead o f  StarGAN or Cy c leGAN loss. T h en u mb e rs i n T able \[tab: attr \ _rea l\]c le arl y  show  that  o u rp roposed 3DA-GAN con si stentl y ach ieves higherF1 score t h a n  the sta te-o f -t h e-arts. Moreov er, o ur methoda lso achi evesconsiste ntly lowe r FID scor e.OnCyc leG A N  ( ResNet) model , ourme thod FI D s core is  cl ose  to  th eone train ed on “r ea l- a” ,tie  on $ y aw < 45$  a ndsl igh tly b e tter o n $ya w \g e45 $ . H owever, ou r meth od  a chie ves  m uch h ighe r  F1  score(precisio n a n d re ca ll ), more  than $10\%$hi gher on “S M”  an d “BA” , compared  to CyCleGAN trained on “real-a ” a cross  yaw  $< 45$ a nd$\ge 4 5$. 
**Ide ntityPrese rv ing P roper t y :* * w eapply a st a t e-o f-the -a rt f ace rec ognition engine, A r cFa ce [@arcface]  to  pro v i de  th e  i d ent it y  fe a t ure. For each v erificatio np ai r, we rand o mly  s elect o ne imag e wit h out the  target a ttribute,  a pply o urmethod togenerate  the targ e t att r ib ute,and  evalu at e t he si milari t y b etwee n thege nerate d tar ge t attrib ute image and the not s electe d ima ge.  We indep end e ntl y run exp erim ents for t hos e 5  attr ibu t es. I n Ta b le  \[ t ab:id p\_i j ba\], “Or i gi nal ” me ans the ori g i n alverif ica t ion ac cura cy without any at t ribute generat ion, w hic h s e rves  a s the upper bo und  f o r  all met ho ds. Compare d to oth er metho ds, ou r 3DA- GAN ach i e ve s  almos t al l h igher ver ifi ca t ion acc ur ac y  while  sli gh tly wo rse on lips t i ck. Nevertheless , our 
 training_set, to_evaluate the attribute generation_performance, whose_average_precision on_CelebA_testing set is_$91.7\%$, close to_state-of-the-art performance. F1 score_is reported as_precision_and recall may vary due to threshold setting.

We apply 3DA-GAN on the negative samples_(without_the target_attribute)_to_generate the images with target_attribute, serving as positive samples._Further, FID [@fid2017]_is computed to evaluate the photo-realisticity of the_attribute_augmented images.

In Table \[tab:attr\_real\],_we compare to several state-of-the-arts, FaderNet [@fadernet], AttGAN [@attgan], StarGAN [@stargan] and_CycleGAN [@CycleGAN2017]. The last two are retrained_on original celebA_real_data,_real plus pose augmented_data (“real-a”) as well as our_UV texture and position data. For_“Ours”, we apply our proposed loss instead_of StarGAN or CycleGAN loss. The_numbers in Table \[tab:attr\_real\] clearly show_that our_proposed 3DA-GAN consistently achieves higher_F1 score than_the state-of-the-arts._Moreover, our method_also achieves consistently lower FID score._On CycleGAN (ResNet)_model, our method FID score is_close_to the one_trained_on_“real-a”, tie_on $yaw <_45$_and slightly_better_on $yaw \ge 45$. However, our_method_achieves much higher F1 score (precision and_recall), more than $10\%$_higher_on “SM” and “BA”,_compared to CyCleGAN trained on_“real-a” across yaw $< 45$ and_$\ge 45$.

**Identity_Preserving Property:**_we apply a state-of-the-art face recognition engine, ArcFace [@arcface] to provide the_identity feature. For each verification pair,_we randomly select one_image without_the_target attribute, apply_our_method to_generate the target attribute, and evaluate the_similarity between_the generated target attribute image and_the not selected image._We_independently run experiments for those 5_attributes. In Table \[tab:idp\_ijba\], “Original” means the_original verification accuracy without any_attribute_generation,_which serves as the upper_bound for all methods. Compared to_other methods, our_3DA-GAN achieves almost all higher verification accuracy_while_slightly worse on lipstick. Nevertheless, our