Given the relevance and wide use of the Generative Adversarial (GA) methodology, this paper focuses on finite samples to better understand its benefits and pitfalls. We focus on its finite-sample properties from both statistical and numerical perspectives. We set up a simple and ideal “controlled experiment” where the input data are an i.i.d. Gaussian series where the mean is to be learned, and the discriminant and generator are in the same distributional family, not a neural network (NN), as in the popular GAN. We show that, even with the ideal discriminant, the classical GA methodology delivers a biased estimator while producing multiple local optima, confusing numerical methods. The situation worsens when the discriminator is in the correct parametric family but is not the oracle, leading to the absence of a saddle point. To improve the quality of the estimators within the GA method, we propose an alternative loss function, the alternative GA method, that leads to a unique saddle point with better statistical properties. Our findings are intended to start a conversation on the potential pitfalls of GA and GAN methods. In this spirit, the ideas presented here should be explored in other distributional cases and will be extended to the actual use of an NN for discriminators and generators.
Escobar‐Anel et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: