CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1,579Generative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningTopic Modeling

Adversarial Autoencoders

Open access
Makhzani, Alireza, Shlens, Jonathon, Jaitly, Navdeep, Goodfellow, Ian, Frey, Brendan·2015·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1511.05644arXiv 1511.05644
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this paper, we propose the "adversarial autoencoder" (AAE), which is a probabilistic autoencoder that uses the recently proposed generative adversarial networks (GAN) to perform variational inference by matching the aggregated posterior of the hidden code vector of the autoencoder with an arbitrary prior distribution. Matching the aggregated posterior to the prior ensures that generating from any part of prior space results in meaningful samples. As a result, the decoder of the adversarial autoencoder learns a deep generative model that maps the imposed prior to the data distribution. We show how the adversarial autoencoder can be used in applications such as semi-supervised classification, disentangling style and content of images, unsupervised clustering, dimensionality reduction and data visualization. We performed experiments on MNIST, Street View House Numbers and Toronto Face datasets and show that adversarial autoencoders achieve competitive results in generative modeling and semi-supervised classification tasks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1511.05644

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Güera and Delp's temporal-aware pipeline obtained an accuracy of greater than 97% using a dataset of 600 videos.

    “An accuracy of greater than 97% was obtained using a dataset of 600 videos”

    From Deep learning for deepfakes creation and detection: A survey (2022) · cites this paper as [112]

    Table 2 (Semi-Supervised Adversarial Autoencoders, p. 9) reports classification error rates on MNIST and SVHN, not accuracy for a temporal-aware video pipeline. Searches for Güera and Delp, 600 videos, and greater-than-97% video accuracy found no passage addressing the attributed result. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Deepfake videos contain intra-frame inconsistencies and temporal inconsistencies between frames.

    “Güera and Delp [112] highlighted that deepfake videos contain intra-frame inconsistencies and temporal inconsistencies between frames.”

    From Deep learning for deepfakes creation and detection: A survey (2022) · cites this paper as [112]

    The cited paper’s Likelihood Analysis section (pp. 6–7) evaluates adversarial autoencoders on image datasets; its mention of a video concerns a visualization of a learned face manifold. Searches for intra-frame and temporal inconsistencies in deepfake videos found no passage addressing the claim. Although the citing sentence names Güera and Delp, our copy does not identify their work as the source of this point. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Ruslan Salakhutdinov and Geoffrey E Hinton. Deep boltzmann machines. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 448-455, 2009.
  2. Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2014.
  3. Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Shakir Mohamed, and Daan Wierstra. Stochastic backpropagation and approximate inference in deep generative models. International Conference on Machine Learning , 2014.
  4. Yuri Burda, Roger Grosse, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Importance weighted autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.00519 , 2015. · arXiv
  5. Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 2672-2680, 2014.
  6. Yujia Li, Kevin Swersky, and Richard Zemel. Generative moment matching networks. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2015.
  7. Yoshua Bengio, Grégoire Mesnil, Yann Dauphin, and Salah Rifai. Better mixing via deep representations. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2013.
  8. Yoshua Bengio, Eric Thibodeau-Laufer, Guillaume Alain, and Jason Yosinski. Deep generative stochastic networks trainable by backprop. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2014.
  9. Lucas Theis, Aäron van den Oord, and Matthias Bethge. A note on the evaluation of generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.01844 , 2015. · arXiv
  10. Diederik P Kingma, Shakir Mohamed, Danilo Jimenez Rezende, and Max Welling. Semi-supervised learning with deep generative models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 3581-3589, 2014.
  11. Lars Maaløe, Casper Kaae Sønderby, Søren Kaae Sønderby, and Ole Winther. Auxiliary deep generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.05473 , 2016. · arXiv
  12. Yuval Netzer, Tao Wang, Adam Coates, Alessandro Bissacco, Bo Wu, and Andrew Y Ng. Reading digits in natural images with unsupervised feature learning. In NIPS workshop on deep learning and unsupervised feature learning , volume 2011, page 5. Granada, Spain, 2011.
  13. Jost Tobias Springenberg. Unsupervised and semi-supervised learning with categorical generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06390 , 2015. · arXiv
  14. Antti Rasmus, Mathias Berglund, Mikko Honkala, Harri Valpola, and Tapani Raiko. Semi-supervised learning with ladder networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 3532-3540, 2015.
  15. Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 9(2579-2605):85, 2008.
  16. Laurens Maaten. Learning a parametric embedding by preserving local structure. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 384-391, 2009.
  17. Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.03167 , 2015. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Makhzani, A., Shlens, J., Jaitly, N., Goodfellow, I., & Frey, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Google (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2015
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1511.05644
arXiv
1511.05644
OpenAlex
W3038022805
Cited by
1,579
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 158 · 2023: 205 · 2022: 187 · 2021: 254 · 2020: 276 · 2019: 222 · 2018: 133 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 8
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Nvidia
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
adversarial autoencoder, generative adversarial networks, variational inference, posterior matching, prior distributions, semi-supervised classification, unsupervised clustering, dimensionality reduction, data visualization, generative models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review