Paper:
Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018 TRAINING GENERATIVE ADVERSARIAL NETWORKS VIA PRIMAL-DUAL SUBGRADIENT METHODS: A LAGRANGIAN PERSPECTIVE
We relate the minimax game of generative adversarial networks (GANs) to finding the saddle points of the Lagrangian function for a convex optimization problem, where the discriminator outputs and the distribution of generator outputs play the roles of primal variables and dual variables, respectively. This formulation shows the connection between the standard GAN training process and the primal-dual subgradient methods for convex optimization. The inherent connection does not only provide a theoretical convergence proof for training GANs in the function space, but also inspires a novel objective function for training. The modified objective function forces the distribution of generator outputs to be updated along the direction according to the primal-dual subgradient methods. A toy example shows that the proposed method is able to resolve mode collapse, which in this case cannot be avoided by the standard GAN or Wasserstein GAN. Experiments on both Gaussian mixture synthetic data and real-world image datasets demonstrate the performance of the proposed method on generating diverse samples.

Review:
This paper formulates GAN as a Lagrangian of a primal convex constrained optimization problem. They then suggest to modify the updates used in the standard GAN training to be similar to the primal-dual updates typically used by primal-dual subgradient methods.
Technically, the paper is sound. It mostly leverages the existing literature on primal-dual subgradient methods to modify the GAN training procedure. I think this is a nice contribution that does yield to some interesting insights. However I do have some concerns about the way the paper is currently written and I find some claims misleading.
Prior convergence proofs: I think the way the paper is currently written is misleading. The authors quote the paper from Ian Goodfellow: “For GANs, there is no theoretical prediction as to
whether simultaneous gradient descent should converge or not.”. However, the f-GAN paper gave a proof of convergence, see Theorem 2 here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.00709.pdf. A recent NIPS paper by (Nagarajan and Kolter, 2017) also study the convergence properties of simultaneous gradient descent. Another problem is of course the assumptions required for the proof that typically don’t hold in practice (see comment below).
Convex-concave assumption: In practice the GAN objective is optimized over the parameters of the neural network rather than the generative distribution. This typically yields a non-convex non-concave optimization problem. This should be mentioned in the paper and I would like to see a discussion concerning the gap between the theory and the practical algorithm.
Relation to existing regularization techniques: Combining Equations 11 and 13, the second terms acts as a regularizer that minimizes [\lapha f_1(D(x_i))]^2. This looks rather similar to some of the recent regularization techniques such as
Improved Training of Wasserstein GANs, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.00028.pdf
Stabilizing Training of Generative Adversarial Networks through Regularization, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.09367.pdf
Can the authors comment on this? I think this would also shed some light as to why this approach alleviates the problem of mode collapse.
Curse of dimensionality: Nonparametric density estimators such as the KDE technique used in this paper suffer from the well-known curse of dimensionality. For the synthetic data, the empirical evidence seem to indicate that the technique proposed by the authors does work but I’m not sure the empirical evidence provided for the MNIST and CIFAR-10 datasets is sufficient to judge whether or not the method does help with mode collapse. The inception score fails to capture this property. Could the authors explore other quantitative measure? Have you considered trying your approach on the augmented version of the MNIST dataset used in Metz et al. (2016) and Che et al. (2016)?
Experiments
Typo: Should say “The data distribution is p_d(x) = 1{x=1}”.