EAD-GAN: a generative adversarial network for disentangling affine transforms in images

This article proposes a generative adversarial network called explicit affine disentangled generative adversarial network (EAD-GAN), which explicitly disentangles affine transform in a self-supervised manner. We propose an affine transform regularizer to force the InfoGAN to have explicit properties...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Liu, Letao, Jiang, Xudong, Saerbeck, Martin, Dauwels, Justin
Other Authors: School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: 2023
Subjects:
Online Access:https://hdl.handle.net/10356/164532
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Nanyang Technological University
Language: English
Description
Summary:This article proposes a generative adversarial network called explicit affine disentangled generative adversarial network (EAD-GAN), which explicitly disentangles affine transform in a self-supervised manner. We propose an affine transform regularizer to force the InfoGAN to have explicit properties of affine transform. To facilitate training an affine transform encoder, we decompose the affine matrix into two separate matrices and infer the explicit transform parameters by the least-squares method. Unlike the existing approaches, representations learned by the proposed EAD-GAN have clear physical meaning, where transforms, such as rotation, horizontal and vertical zooms, skews, and translations, are explicitly learned from training data. Thus, we set different values of each transform parameter individually to generate specifically affine transformed data by the learned network. We show that the proposed EAD-GAN successfully disentangles these attributes on the MNIST, CelebA, and dSprites datasets. EAD-GAN achieves higher disentanglement scores with a large margin compared to the state-of-the-art methods on the dSprites dataset. For example, on the dSprites dataset, EAD-GAN achieves the MIG and DCI score of 0.59 and 0.96 respectively, compared to 0.37 and 0.71, respectively, for the state-of-the-art methods.