Quantitatively Evaluating GANs With Divergences Proposed for Training
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Generative adversarial networks (GANs) have been extremely effective in approximating complex distributions of high-dimensional, input data samples, and substantial progress has been made in understanding and improving GAN performance in terms of both theory and application. However, we currently lack quantitative methods for model assessment. Because of this, while many GAN variants are being proposed, we have relatively little understanding of their relative abilities. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of various types of GANs using divergence and distance functions typically used only for training. We observe consistency across the various proposed metrics and, interestingly, the test-time metrics do not favour networks that use the same training-time criterion. We also compare the proposed metrics to human perceptual scores.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 2 Mar 2018.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 0; 2023: 0; 2024: 0; 2025: 1.
4 papers.
- 2021How Faithful is your Synthetic Data? Sample-level Metrics for Evaluating and Auditing Generative Modelscited by 196
- 2021Divergence Frontiers for Generative Models: Sample Complexity, Quantization Effects, and Frontier Integralscited by 18
- 2025PolyGraph Discrepancy: a classifier-based metric for graph generationcited by 3
- 2021Are conditional GANs explicitly conditional?cited by 2
- 2025PolyGraph Discrepancy: a classifier-based metric for graph generation7 Oct 2025
- 2021Are conditional GANs explicitly conditional?28 Jun 2021
- 2021Divergence Frontiers for Generative Models: Sample Complexity, Quantization Effects, and Frontier Integrals15 Jun 2021
- 2021How Faithful is your Synthetic Data? Sample-level Metrics for Evaluating and Auditing Generative Models17 Feb 2021