user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Seeing is Not Necessarily Believing: Limitations of BigGANs for Data Augmentation

Paper content:
Recent advances in Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) – in architectural design,  training strategies,  and empirical tricks – have led nearly photorealistic samples on large-scale datasets such as ImageNet.
In fact, for one model in particular, BigGAN, metrics such as Inception Score or Frechet Inception Distance nearly match those of the dataset, suggesting that these models are close to match-ing the distribution of the training set.
Given the quality of these models,  it is worth understanding to what extent these samples can be used for data augmentation, a task expressed as a long-term goal of the GAN research project.
To that end, we train ResNet-50 classifiers using either purely BigGAN images or mixtures of ImageNet and BigGAN images, and test on the ImageNet validation set.
Our  preliminary  results  suggest  both a measured view of  state-of-the-art  GAN quality and highlight limitations of current metrics.
Using only BigGAN images, we find that Top-1 and Top-5 error increased by 120% and 384%, respectively, and furthermore, adding more BigGAN data to the ImageNet training set at best only marginally improves classifier performance.
Finally, we find that neither Inception Score, nor FID, nor combinations thereof are predictive of classification accuracy.
These results suggest that as GANs are beginning to be deployed in downstream tasks, we should create metrics that better measure downstream task performance.
We propose classification performance as one such metric that, in addition to assessing per-class sample quality, is more suited to such downstream tasks.
Recent years have witnessed a marked improvement in sample quality in Deep Generative Models.
One model class in particular, Generative Adversarial Networks BID7 , has begun to generate nearly photorealistic images.
While applications of adversarial training have found their way into image translation BID16 and style transfer BID5 , a typically discussed goal for such models, and in particular conditional ones, is data augmentation.
Such models have enjoyed limited success in these tasks thus far for large-scale datasets such as ImageNet, likely because existing models did not generate sufficiently high-quality samples.
Recently, however, BigGANs BID4 have generated photorealistic images of ImageNet data up to 512×512 resolution, and moreover, achieve Inception Scores and Frechet Inception Distances similar to the dataset on which they were trained.
Such results suggest, though do not prove, that BigGANs are indeed capturing the data distribution.
If this were true, then it seems plausible that these samples can be used in downstream tasks, especially in situations in which limited labelled data are available.In this work, we test the rather simple hypothesis that BigGANs are indeed useful for data augmentation, or more drastically, data replacement of the original data distribution.
To that end, we use BigGANs for two simple experiments.
First, we train ImageNet classifiers, replacing the original training set with one produced by BigGAN.
Second, we augment the original ImageNet training set with samples from BigGAN.
Our working hypothesis is that if BigGANs were indeed capturing the data distribution, then we could use those samples, instead of or in addition to the original training set, to improve performance on classification.
That it does not -on replacement, Top-5 classification Though a negative result, a more positive byproduct of the work is the introduction of a new metric that can better identify issues with GAN and other generative models.
In particular, training a classifier allows us to identify, for conditional generative models, which classes are particularly poor, either due to low quality samples or underrepresentation of dataset diversity.
In this work, we investigated to what extent BigGAN, the state-of-the-art GAN on ImageNet, captures the data distribution, and to what extent those samples can be used for data augmentation.
Our results demonstrate that despite excellent scores on traditional GAN metrics such as Inception Score and Frechet Inception Distance, current state-of-the-art GAN models do not capture the distribution for large-scale datasets such as ImageNet.
Moreover, we found only a modest improvement in classifier performance when the training set was augmented with BigGAN samples.
Finally, through classifier metrics outlined in the work, we can identify on which classes BigGAN performed well, and on which ones researchers should focus their future efforts.An open question in this work is how to create metrics predictive of performance on downstream tasks.
Even for the classifier metric, results on data replacement did not necessarily correlate with those on data augmentation.
Better evaluation metrics will help us understand to what extent GANs, or any other Deep Generative Models, can be used for downstream tasks.

assistant: text: BigGANs do not capture the ImageNet data distributions and are only modestly successful for data augmentation.