Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Quetions about the D out #27

Closed
yichuan9527 opened this issue Mar 17, 2017 · 3 comments
Closed

Quetions about the D out #27

yichuan9527 opened this issue Mar 17, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@yichuan9527
Copy link

D for real images output is always negative, for generated images, the output is always positive.
Why does this happen?
And, I find that training for a long time later, D's Loss tends to 0, and G's Loss also tends to 0.
I think if D and G to achieve game balance, G's Loss should tend to 0.5.
How do you see this question?
Thanks very much

@martinarjovsky
Copy link
Owner

This is not a classification problem, the loss of the discriminator should be negative (since outputting 0 would get a 0 loss and it's trying to minimize), see equation 3 of the paper.

The negative loss of the discriminator is an estimate for the Wasserstein distance, under a perfect generator the loss of the discriminator should be 0.

@yichuan9527
Copy link
Author

Thank you for your answer. I would like to know the value of the convergence of G‘s loss in your experiment. is 0.5?

@martinarjovsky
Copy link
Owner

I haven't plotted it. Note however that the loss of the generator doesn't have to be meaningful, only it's gradient. If you change the critif f(x) to be f(x) + a for some positive constant a, the generator loss would shift by a, even though the gradient of the generator and the critic's loss are unaffected.

That being said assuming E_gen[ f(x) ] is similar to - E_real[ f(x) ], the generator's loss should converge to 0.

Note that 0.5 is not really a meaningful number in here. It is in a normal gan setting since this would mean the discriminator assigns the same probability for examples to be real or fake, but in here the critic is not trained with a classification loss or with a sigmoid at the end, so a number like 0.5 shouldn't really appear (or as much as any other random number).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants