3.8 Proceedings Paper

Wasserstein GAN with Quadratic Transport Cost

出版社

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/ICCV.2019.00493

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [CNS-1718014, IIS-1763981, 1762287, 1418255, 1737812, DMS 1737876]
  2. Partner University Fund
  3. SUNY2020 Infrastructure Transportation Security Center
  4. NSFC [61772105, 61720106005, 61432003]
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  6. Division Of Mathematical Sciences [1737812] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Directorate For Engineering
  8. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [1762287] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  9. Division Of Mathematical Sciences
  10. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1418255] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wasserstein GANs are increasingly used in Computer Vision applications as they are easier to train. Previous WGAN variants mainly use the l(1) transport cost to compute the Wasserstein distance between the real and synthetic data distributions. The l(1) transport cost restricts the discriminator to be 1-Lipschitz. However, WGANs with l(1) transport cost were recently shown to not always converge. In this paper, we propose WGAN-QC, a WGAN with quadratic transport cost. Based on the quadratic transport cost, we propose an Optimal Transport Regularizer (OTR) to stabilize the training process of WGAN-QC. We prove that the objective of the discriminator during each generator update computes the exact quadratic Wasserstein distance between real and synthetic data distributions. We also prove that WGAN-QC converges to a local equilibrium point with finite discriminator updates per generator update. We show experimentally on a Dirac distribution that WGAN-QC converges, when many of the l(1) cost WGANs fail to [22]. Qualitative and quantitative results on the CelebA, CelebA-HQ, LSUN and the ImageNet dog datasets show that WGAN-QC is better than state-of-art GAN methods. WGAN-QC has much faster runtime than other WGAN variants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据