We consider the problem of training generative models with deep neural networks as generators, i.e. to map latent codes to data points. Whereas the dominant paradigm combines simple priors over codes with complex deterministic models, we argue that it might be advantageous to use more flexible code distributions. We demonstrate how these distributions can be induced directly from the data. The benefits include: more powerful generative models, better modeling of latent structure and explicit control of the degree of generalization.
Finally, we note that the importance of using an appropriate prior for GAN models has also been discussed in @cite_10 which suggested to infer the continuous latent factors in order to maximize the data log-likelihood. However this approach still makes use of a simple fixed prior distribution over the latent factors and does not use the inferred latent factors to construct a prior as suggested by our approach.
@cite_10
2083712543
Three Bayesian related approaches, namely, variational Bayesian (VB), minimum message length (MML) and Bayesian Ying-Yang (BYY) harmony learning, have been applied to automatically determining an appropriate number of components during learning Gaussian mixture model (GMM). This paper aims to provide a comparative investigation on these approaches with not only a Jeffreys prior but also a conjugate Dirichlet-Normal-Wishart (DNW) prior on GMM. In addition to adopting the existing algorithms either directly or with some modifications, the algorithm for VB with Jeffreys prior and the algorithm for BYY with DNW prior are developed in this paper to fill the missing gap. The performances of automatic model selection are evaluated through extensive experiments, with several empirical findings: 1) Considering priors merely on the mixing weights, each of three approaches makes biased mistakes, while considering priors on all the parameters of GMM makes each approach reduce its bias and also improve its performance. 2) As Jeffreys prior is replaced by the DNW prior, all the three approaches improve their performances. Moreover, Jeffreys prior makes MML slightly better than VB, while the DNW prior makes VB better than MML. 3) As the hyperparameters of DNW prior are further optimized by each of its own learning principle, BYY improves its performances while VB and MML deteriorate their performances when there are too many free hyper-parameters. Actually, VB and MML lack a good guide for optimizing the hyper-parameters of DNW prior. 4) BYY considerably outperforms both VB and MML for any type of priors and whether hyper-parameters are optimized. Being different from VB and MML that rely on appropriate priors to perform model selection, BYY does not highly depend on the type of priors. It has model selection ability even without priors and performs already very well with Jeffreys prior, and incrementally improves as Jeffreys prior is replaced by the DNW prior. Finally, all algorithms are applied on the Berkeley segmentation database of real world images. Again, BYY considerably outperforms both VB and MML, especially in detecting the objects of interest from a confusing background.