We approach generative adversarial network (GAN) training from its original real-versus-fake classification viewpoint, replacing the cross-entropy discriminator objective with an upper bound on the Bayes error rate (BER). Using the Bayes optimal learning threshold (BOLT) loss, we formulate an adversarial game in which the discriminator tightens this bound and the generator maximizes it. We characterize the unrestricted optimal discriminator and show that, under balanced class priors, the population game is equivalent to minimizing total variation between the data and generator distributions. Restricting the bounded discriminator to be 1-Lipschitz yields BOLT-GAN. For balanced priors and the full discriminator class, we establish upper and lower bounds relating its population discrepancy to Wasserstein-1 distance on bounded domains. Controlled experiments on four image-generation benchmarks show improved sample quality and coverage over WGAN-GP under matched architectures, optimization settings, and gradient penalties. At a common 20-epoch budget, BOLT-GAN reduces Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) from 60.0 to 44.2 on CIFAR-10 and from 102.5 to 28.4 on LSUN Bedroom-64.
Figures & tables
Figure 1
(a) Unconstrained versus GP-regularized BOLT
Dataset
Max-BER FID
BOLT-GAN FID
CIFAR-10
>300
44.2
CelebA-64
>300
9.2
LSUN Bedroom-64
>400
28.4
(b) Real/fake prior sensitivity
Prior π
FID at 20 epochs
FID at 100 epochs
Table 1: Discriminator-continuity and hyperparameter comparisons, separated by purpose. Lower FID is better. Panel (a) uses the same 20 -epoch budget; panels (b,c) use CIFAR-10. Panel (b) reports mean ± SD over three seeds. The default λGP=10 is retained in Table 2 , independently of the sweep optimum.
(a) Common architecture, optimizer, schedule, and GP
FID ( ↓ )
P ( ↑ )
R ( ↑ )
Dataset
WGAN-GP
BOLT-GAN
WGAN-GP
BOLT-GAN
WGAN-GP
BOLT-GAN
CIFAR-10
60.0
44.2
.714
.763
.183
.352
LSUN Church-64
43.5
14.8
.681
.750
.176
.411
LSUN Bedroom-64
102.5
28.4
.388
.598
.098
.450
CelebA-64
10.3
9.2
.672
.840
.104
.548
Table 2: Fixed-budget comparisons at 20 epochs. Panel (a) holds GP and its coefficient λGP=10 fixed. Precision (P) and Recall (R) use n=2000 , k=3 . Panel (b) presents HINGE-GAN with spectral normalization (SN). Entries are point estimates.
(a) Discriminator changes: FID ( ↓ )
Dataset
Discriminator
WGAN-GP
BOLT-GAN
Tiny ImageNet
Residual CNN
74.8
68.9
Tiny ImageNet
ViT-style
70.6
64.1
STL-10
Residual CNN
49.7
44.8
STL-10
ViT-style
45.5
40.9
Table 3: Additional experiments separated by purpose. Arrows specify the preferred metric direction. Entries are point estimates unless marked otherwise. The conditional results use the final checkpoint at epoch 50 ; the best checkpoints are reported separately in Appendix G.7 .
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Representative BOLT-GAN samples after 20 epochs on CIFAR-10, CelebA-64, LSUN Bedroom-64, and LSUN Church-64.
Figure 4: Gradient-penalty sensitivity for BOLT-GAN . Curves show mean FID trajectories for different λGP .
Figure 5: Synthetic 25-Gaussians: mode-coverage and histogram-discrepancy trajectories with representative samples. A mode is counted when at least one generated sample lies within radius 0.15 of its center; the histogram discrepancy compares empirical bin masses.
Grid
Mean histogram TV
Sample SD
Central 95% of null draws
20×20
0.0556
0.0060
[0.0442,0.0680]
40×40
0.0829
0.0060
[0.0714,0.0948]
80×80
0.1368
0.0061
[0.1252,0.1494]
160×160
0.2445
0.0061
[0.2330,0.2570]
Appendix
Table 5: Null histogram-TV diagnostic for identical target distributions. SD is computed across 1,000 repetitions; the range contains the central 95% of simulated values.
Ratio
M
Empirical mean
MVar
MVar
M bound
Oracle ratio
128
0.15902
0.03417
0.03292
0.06250
Oracle ratio
512
0.15872
0.03259
0.03292
0.06250
Oracle ratio
2048
0.15872
0.03200
0.03292
0.06250
Oracle ratio
8192
0.15866
0.03267
0.03292
0.06250
1.2U
128
0.17314
0.03401
0.03495
0.06250
1.2U
512
0.17353
0.03546
0.03495
0.06250
Appendix
Table 6: Gaussian plug-in experiment: 4,000 independent evaluation repetitions per row, with each ratio held fixed. Empirical variance uses the sample-variance convention. Exact moments and the theorem bound are shown separately.
Ratio
Exact conditional mean
Absolute bias
q1ε0
Oracle ratio
0.158655
0.000000
0.000000
1.2U
0.173419
0.014764
0.100000
Fitted Gaussian ratio
0.160628
0.001972
0.100141
Appendix
Table 7: Exact conditional bias and the q1ε0 bound in the same Gaussian study. Ratio errors are evaluated analytically for these exponential-affine Gaussian models.
Regularizer (BOLT objective fixed)
FID@10k ↓
None ( Max-BER )
∼380 (diverges)
Weight clipping
96.4
SN only
51.2
GP only (paper default)
43.7
SN + GP ( λGP=2 )
44.0
Appendix
Table 8: CIFAR-10 ablation of Lipschitz enforcement with the BOLT objective fixed. FID@10k is measured after 30 epochs and averaged over 3 seeds; lower is better.
Figure 6: Class-conditional CIFAR-10 with a projection discriminator. Panel (a) shows that BOLT-GAN reaches a lower FID@10k than HINGE-GAN . Panels (b) and (c) show class-conditional samples from the same projection-discriminator architecture, with one row per class. WGAN-GP is omitted because it diverges under matched hyperparameters (D loss →−106 ; see text).
Semi-supervised generative adversarial networks (SSL-GANs) can exploit large unlabeled datasets while retaining a classifier in the discriminator, but their training is often unstable. This paper proposes a population-based evolutionary training strategy in which discriminator learning is formulated as a multi-objective optimization problem. Instead of aggregating the supervised and unsupervised components of the SSL objective into a single scalar loss, the method maintains a population of discriminators ranked by Pareto dominance, enabling the exploration of different trade-offs between classification accuracy and real/fake discrimination. This formulation aims to improve both roles of SSL-GANs: learning accurate classifiers and training generators capable of producing realistic samples. We analyze several variants, including an elitist strategy and a mono-objective ablation, to assess the role of multi-objective selection. Experiments on MNIST with limited labels show improved training robustness compared to SSL-GAN and CE-SSL-GAN state-of-the-art baselines, while the elitist variant consistently achieves the highest classification accuracy.
Francisco Sedeño, Francisco Chicano, Jamal Toutouh
ITIS Software, University of Malaga Malaga, Spain · CSAIL MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA
Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) have demonstrated strong performance in generating high-quality synthetic data. However, they are limited by no formal guarantees regarding convergence and the effectiveness of the learning process. In practice, this leads to training instability, mode collapse, and sensitivity to hyperparameters. To address this, we propose EmbeddGAN, a novel adversarial training framework based on a dependence-based objective. Instead of relying on a discriminator that classifies samples as real or fake, EmbeddGAN introduces an embedding network that learns a representation in which statistical dependence between samples and their real/fake labels is maximized, while the generator is trained to minimize this dependence. This objective is implemented using the Gini distance correlation (gCor), which equals zero if and only if the embeddings are statistically independent of the real/fake label. Minimizing this objective therefore encourages real and generated samples to become statistically indistinguishable in the learned embedding space. The embedding network projects both real and generated data into a shared low-dimensional space, where distributional discrepancies can be measured directly through pairwise distances. We adopt a minimax training strategy: the embedding network maximizes the Gini distance correlation (maximizing dependence), while the generator minimizes it (minimizing dependence). Experiments on the MNIST, CIFAR-10, and CelebA datasets demonstrate that EmbeddGAN achieves competitive performance relative to established baselines while exhibiting notably stable training dynamics on the evaluated datasets.
MaTais Caldwell, Yixin Chen, Xin Dang +1
Department of Computer and Information Science University of Mississippi Oxford, MS 38677 USA · Department of Mathematics University of Mississippi Oxford, MS 38677 USA
Modern data science increasingly gives rise to hypothesis-testing problems that are not naturally formulated in terms of parameters within prespecified statistical models. One important example is the dynamic evaluation of optimization algorithms, where decisions must be made during training about whether further updates remain beneficial or the algorithm should switch to a different phase. This issue is particularly relevant in stochastic min-max optimization. Generative adversarial networks (GANs) provide a canonical example, as their training requires repeated decisions about when to switch between discriminator and generator updates, yet existing methods typically rely on fixed update ratios or heuristic criteria. We formulate this switching problem as sequential hypothesis testing and develop an e-process-based adaptive training procedure. During discriminator updates, one e-process tests the null that the discriminator-induced separation between the empirical data distribution and the generator law remains below a target level. During generator updates, with the discriminator fixed, a second e-process tests the reverse null that this separation remains above a refresh level. Conditional on the observed training sample, we prove that fresh empirical indices and latent draws yield conditional e-values that can be accumulated into e-processes, providing anytime-valid Type I error control under adaptive model updates and data-dependent switching. Across multimodal synthetic distributions and image benchmark datasets, the proposed method matches or outperforms the best fixed-ratio baselines under several widely used GAN objectives.
Hyunjoo Kim, Sicheng Wu, Agastya Venkatraman +2
Department of Statistics, Ewha Womans University · Department of Mathematics, Purdue University · Department of Computer Science, Purdue University