Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

S EMI -S UPERVISED L EARNING WITH

C ONTEXT-C ONDITIONAL G ENERATIVE
A DVERSARIAL N ETWORKS
Remi Denton Sam Gross Rob Fergus
Dept. of Computer Science Facebook AI Research Facebook AI Research
Courant Institute, New York University New York New York
denton@cs.nyu.edu sgross@fb.com robfergus@fb.com
arXiv:1611.06430v1 [cs.CV] 19 Nov 2016

A BSTRACT
We introduce a simple semi-supervised learning approach for images based on
in-painting using an adversarial loss. Images with random patches removed are
presented to a generator whose task is to fill in the hole, based on the surrounding
pixels. The in-painted images are then presented to a discriminator network that
judges if they are real (unaltered training images) or not. This task acts as a reg-
ularizer for standard supervised training of the discriminator. Using our approach
we are able to directly train large VGG-style networks in a semi-supervised fash-
ion. We evaluate on STL-10 and PASCAL datasets, where our approach obtains
performance comparable or superior to existing methods.

1 I NTRODUCTION
Deep neural networks have yielded dramatic performance gains in recent years on tasks such as
object classification (Krizhevsky et al., 2012), text classification (Zhang et al., 2015) and machine
translation (Sutskever et al., 2014; Bahdanau et al., 2015). These successes are heavily dependent on
large training sets of manually annotated data. In many settings however, such large collections of
labels may not be readily available, motivating the need for methods that can learn from data where
labels are rare.
We propose a method for harnessing unlabeled image data based on image in-painting. A generative
model is trained to generate pixels within a missing hole, based on the context provided by surround-
ing parts of the image. These in-painted images are then used in an adversarial setting (Goodfellow
et al., 2014) to train a large discriminator model whose task is to determine if the image was real
(from the unlabeled training set) or fake (an in-painted image). The realistic looking fake examples
provided by the generative model cause the discriminator to learn features that generalize to the
related task of classifying objects. Thus adversarial training for the in-painting task can be used to
regularize large discriminative models during supervised training on a handful of labeled images.
1.1 R ELATED W ORK
Learning From Context: The closest work to ours is the independently developed context-encoder
approach of Pathak et al. (2016). This introduces an encoder-decoder framework, shown in Fig. 1(a),
that is used to in-paint images where a patch has been randomly removed. After using this as a
pre-training task, a classifier is added to the encoder and the model is fine-tuned using the labeled
examples. Although both approaches use the concept of in-painting, they differ in several important
ways. First, the architectures are different (see Fig. 1): in Pathak et al. (2016), the features for
the classifier are taken from the encoder, whereas ours come from the discriminator network. In
practice this makes an important difference as we are able to directly train large models such as
VGG (Simonyan & Zisserman, 2015) using adversarial loss alone. By contrast, Pathak et al. (2016)
report difficulties in training an AlexNet encoder with this loss. This leads to the second difference,
namely that on account of these issues, they instead employ an `2 loss when training models for
classification and detection (however they do use a joint `2 and adversarial loss to achieve impressive
in-painting results). Finally, the unsupervised learning task differs between the two models. The
context-encoder learns a feature representation suitable for in-painting whereas our model learns
a feature representation suitable for differentiating real/fake in-paintings. Notably, while we also
use a neural network to generate the in-paintings, this model is only used as an adversary for the

1
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

Figure 1: (a) Context-encoder of Pathak et al. (2016), configured for object classification task. (b)
Semi-supervised learning with GANs (SSL-GAN). (c) Semi-supervised learning with CC-GANs.
In (a-c) the blue network indicates the feature representation being learned (encoder network in the
context-encoder model and discriminator network in the GAN and CC-GAN models).

discriminator, rather than as a feature extractor. In section 4, we compare the performance of our
model to the context-encoder on the PASCAL dataset.
Other forms of spatial context within images have recently been utilized for representation learning.
Doersch et al. (2015) propose training a CNN to predict the spatial location of one image patch
relative to another. Noroozi & Favaro (2016) propose a model that learns by unscrambling image
patches, essentially solving a jigsaw puzzle to learn visual representations. In the text domain,
context has been successfully leveraged as an unsupervised criterion for training useful word and
sentence level representations (Collobert et al., 2011; Mikolov et al., 2015; Kiros et al., 2015).
Deep unsupervised and semi-supervised learning: A popular method of utilizing unlabeled data
is to layer-wise train a deep autoencoder or restricted Botlzmann machine (Hinton et al., 2006) and
then fine tune with labels on a discriminative task. More recently, several autoencoding variants have
been proposed for unsupervised and semi-supervised learning, such as the ladder network (Rasmus
et al., 2015), stacked what-where autoencoders (Zhao et al., 2016) and variational autoencoders
(Kingma & Welling, 2014; Kingma et al., 2014).
Dosovitskiy et al. (2014) achieved state-of-the-art results by training a CNN with a different class
for each training example and introducing a set of transformations to provide multiple examples
per class. The pseudo-label approach (Lee, 2013) is a simple semi-supervised method that trains
using the maximumly predicted class as a label when labels are unavailable. Springenberg (2015)
propose a categorical generative adversarial network (CatGAN) which can be used for unsupervised
and semi-supervised learning. The discriminator in a CatGAN outputs a distribution over classes
and is trained to minimize the predicted entropy for real data and maximize the predicted entropy
for fake data. Similar to our model, CatGANs use the feature space learned by the discriminator for
the final supervised learning task. Salimans et al. (2016) recently proposed a semi-supervised GAN
model in which the discriminator outputs a softmax over classes rather than a probability of real vs.
fake. An additional ‘generated’ class is used as the target for generated samples. This method differs
from our work in that it does not utilize context information and has only been applied to datasets
of small resolution. However, the discriminator loss is similar to the one we propose and could be
combined with our context-conditional approach.
More traditional semi-supervised methods include graph-based approaches (Zhou et al., 2004; Zhu,
2006) that show impressive performance when good image representations are available. However,
the focus of our work is on learning such representations.
Generative models of images: Restricted Boltzmann machines (Salakhutdinov, 2015), de-noising
autoencoders (Vincent et al., 2008) and variational autoencoders (Kingma & Welling, 2014) opti-
mize a maximum likelihood criterion and thus learn decoders that map from latent space to image
space. More recently, generative adversarial networks (Goodfellow et al., 2014) and generative mo-

2
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

ment matching networks (Li et al., 2015; Dziugaite et al., 2015) have been proposed. These methods
ignore data likelihoods and instead directly train a generative model to produce realistic samples.
Several extensions to the generative adversarial network framework have been proposed to scale the
approach to larger images (Denton et al., 2015; Radford et al., 2016; Salimans et al., 2016). Our
work draws on the insights of Radford et al. (2016) regarding adversarial training practices and ar-
chitecture for the generator network, as well as the notion that the discriminator can produce useful
features for classification tasks.
Other models used recurrent approaches to generate images (Gregor et al., 2015; Theis & Bethge,
2015; Mansimov et al., 2016; van den Oord et al., 2016). Dosovitskiy et al. (2015) trained a CNN to
generate objects with different shapes, viewpoints and color. Sohl-Dickstein et al. (2015) propose a
generative model based on a reverse diffusion process. While our model does involve image gener-
ation, it differs from these approaches in that the main focus is on learning a good representation for
classification tasks.
Predictive generative models of videos aim to extrapolate from current frames to future ones and
in doing so learn a feature representation that is useful for other tasks. In this vein, Ranzato et al.
(2014) used an `2 -loss in pixel-space. Mathieu et al. (2015) combined an adversarial loss with `2 ,
giving models that generate crisper images. While our model is also predictive, it only considers
interpolation within an image, rather than extrapolation in time.

2 A PPROACH
We present a semi-supervised learning framework built on generative adversarial networks (GANs)
of Goodfellow et al. (2014). We first review the generative adversarial network framework and
then introduce context conditional generative adversarial networks (CC-GANs). Finally, we show
how combining a classification objective and a CC-GAN objective provides a unified framework for
semi-supervised learning.
2.1 G ENERATIVE A DVERSARIAL N ETWORKS
The generative adversarial network approach (Goodfellow et al., 2014) is a framework for training
generative models, which we briefly review. It consists of two networks pitted against one another
in a two player game: A generative model, G, is trained to synthesize images resembling the data
distribution and a discriminative model, D, is trained to distinguish between samples drawn from G
and images drawn from the training data.
More formally, let X = {x1 , ..., xn } be a dataset of images of dimensionality d. Let D denote a
discriminative function that takes as input an image x ∈ Rd and outputs a scalar representing the
probability of input x being a real sample. Let G denote the generative function that takes as input
a random vector z ∈ Rz sampled from a prior noise distribution pNoise and outputs a synthesized
image x̃ = G(z) ∈ Rd . Ideally, D(x) = 1 when x ∈ X and D(x) = 0 when x was generated from
G. The GAN objective is given by:
min max Ex∼X [log D(x)] + Ez∼pNoise (z) [log(1 − D(G(z)))] (1)
G D

The conditional generative adversarial network (Mirza & Osindero, 2014) is an extension of the
GAN in which both D and G receive an additional vector of information y as input. The conditional
GAN objective is given by:
min max Ex,y∼X [log D(x, y)] + Ez∼pNoise (z) [log(1 − D(G(z, y), x))] (2)
G D

2.2 C ONTEXT-C ONDITIONAL G ENERATIVE A DVERSARIAL N ETWORKS

We propose context-conditional generative adversarial networks (CC-GANs) which are conditional
GANs where the generator is trained to fill in a missing image patch and the generator and discrim-
inator are conditioned on the surrounding pixels.
In particular, the generator G receives as input an image with a randomly masked out patch. The
generator outputs an entire image. We fill in the missing patch from the generated output and then
pass the completed image into D. We pass the completed image into D rather than the context and
the patch as two separate inputs so as to prevent D from simply learning to identify discontinuities
along the edge of the missing patch.

3
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

More formally, let m ∈ Rd denote to a binary mask that will be used to drop out a specified portion
of an image. The generator receives as input m x where denotes element-wise multiplication.
The generator outputs xG = G(m x, z) ∈ Rd and the in-painted image xI is given by:
xI = (1 − m) xG + m x (3)

The CC-GAN objective is given by:

min max Ex∼X [log D(x)] + Ex∼X ,m∼M [log(1 − D(xI ))] (4)
G D

2.3 C OMBINED GAN AND CC-GAN

While the generator of the CC-GAN outputs a full image, only a portion of it (corresponding to the
missing hole) is seen by the discriminator. In the combined model, which we denote by CC-GAN2 ,
the fake examples for the discriminator include both the in-painted image xI and the full image xG
produced by the generator (i.e. not just the missing patch). By combining the GAN and CC-GAN
approaches, we introduce a wider array of negative examples to the discriminator. The CC-GAN2
objective given by:
min max Ex∼X [log D(x)] (5)
G D
+ Ex∼X ,m∼M [log(1 − D(xI ))] (6)
+ Ex∼X ,m∼M [log(1 − D(xG ))] (7)

2.4 S EMI - SUPERVISED LEARNING WITH CC-GAN S

A common approach to semi-supervised learning is to combine a supervised and unsupervised ob-
jective during training. As a result unlabeled data can be leveraged to aid the supervised task.
Intuitively, a GAN discriminator must learn something about the structure of natural images in order
to effectively distinguish real from generated images. Recently, Radford et al. (2016) showed that a
GAN discriminator learns a hierarchical image representation that is useful for object classification.
Such results suggest that combining an unsupervised GAN objective with a supervised classification
objective would produce a simple and effective semi-supervised learning method. This approach,
denoted by SSL-GAN, is illustrated in Fig. 1(b). The discriminator network receives a gradient from
the real/fake loss for every real and generated image. The discriminator also receives a gradient from
the classification loss on the subset of (real) images for which labels are available.
Generative adversarial networks have shown impressive performance on many diverse datasets.
However, samples are most coherent when the set of images the network is trained on comes from
a limited domain (eg. churches or faces). Additionally, it is difficult to train GANs on very large
images. Both these issues suggest semi-supervised learning with vanilla GANs may not scale well
to datasets of large diverse images. Rather than determining if a full image is real or fake, context
conditional GANs address a different task: determining if a part of an image is real or fake given
the surrounding context.
Formally, let XL = {(x1 , y 1 ), ..., (xn , y n )} denote a dataset of labeled images. Let Dc (x) denote
the output of the classifier head on the discriminator (see Fig. 1(c) for details). Then the semi-
supervised CC-GAN objective is:
min max Ex∼X [log D(x)] + Ex∼X ,m∼M [log(1 − D(xI ))] + λc Ex,y∼XL [log(Dc (y|x))] (8)
G D

The hyperparameter λc balances the classification and adversarial losses. We only consider the CC-
GAN in the semi-supervised setting and thus drop the SSL notation when referring to this model.
2.5 M ODEL A RCHITECTURE AND T RAINING D ETAILS
The architecture of our generative model, G, is inspired by the generator architecture of the DCGAN
(Radford et al., 2016). The model consists of a sequence of convolutional layers with subsampling
(but no pooling) followed by a sequence of fractionally-strided convolutional layers. For the discrim-
inator, D, we used the VGG-A network (Simonyan & Zisserman, 2015) without the fully connected
layers (which we call the VGG-A’ architecture). Details of the generator and discriminator are given

4
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

Figure 2: Architecture of our context-conditional generative adversarial network (CC-GAN).

conv(64, 4x4, 2x2) denotes a conv layer with 64 channels, 4x4 kernels and stride 2x2. Each
convolution layer is followed by a spatial batch normalization and rectified linear layer. Dashed
lines indicate optional pathways.

in Fig. 2. The input to the generator is an image with a patch zeroed out. In preliminary experiments
we also tried passing in a separate mask to the generator to make the missing area more explicit but
found this did not effect performance.
Even with the context conditioning it is difficult to generate large image patches that look realis-
tic, making it problematic to scale our approach to high resolution images. To address this, we
propose conditioning the generator on both the high resolution image with a missing patch and a
low resolution version of the whole image (with no missing region). In this setting, the generators
task becomes one of super-resolution on a portion of an image. However, the discriminator does
not receive the low resolution image and thus is still faced with the same problem of determining
if a given in-painting is viable or not. Where indicated, we used this approach in our PASCAL
VOC 2007 experiments, with the original image being downsampled by a factor of 4. This provided
enough information for the generator to fill in larger holes but not so much that it made the task
trivial. This optional low resolution image is illustrated in Fig. 2(left) with the dotted line.
We followed the training procedures of Radford et al. (2016). We used the Adam optimizer (Kingma
& Ba, 2015) in all our experiments with learning rate of 0.0002, momentum term β1 of 0.5, and the
remaining Adam hyperparameters set to their default values. We set λc = 1 for all experiments.

5
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

Method Accuracy
Multi-task Bayesian Optimization (Swersky et al., 2013) 70.10 ± 0.6
Exemplar CNN (Dosovitskiy et al., 2014) 75.40 ± 0.3
Stacked What-Where Autoencoder (Zhao et al., 2016) 74.33
Supervised VGG-A’ 61.19 ± 1.1
SSL-GAN 73.81 ± 0.5
CC-GAN 75.67 ± 0.5
CC-GAN2 77.79 ± 0.8

Table 1: Comparison of CC-GAN and other published results on STL-10.

3 E XPERIMENTS
3.1 STL-10 CLASSIFICATION
STL-10 is a dataset of 96×96 color images with a 1:100 ratio of labeled to unlabeled examples,
making it an ideal fit for our semi-supervised learning framework. The training set consists of
5000 labeled images, mapped to 10 pre-defined folds of 1000 images each, and 100,000 unlabeled
images. The labeled images belong to 10 classes and were extracted from the ImageNet dataset and
the unlabeled images come from a broader distribution of classes. We follow the standard testing
protocol and train 10 different models on each of the 10 predefined folds of data. We then evaluate
classification accuracy of each model on the test set and report the mean and standard deviation.
We trained our CC-GAN and CC-GAN2 models on 64×64 crops of the 96×96 image. The hole
was 32×32 pixels and the location of the hole varied randomly (see Fig. 3(top)). We trained for 100
epochs and then fine-tuned the discriminator on the 96x96 labeled images, stopping when training
accuracy reached 100%. As shown in Table 1, the CC-GAN model performs comparably to current
state of the art (Dosovitskiy et al., 2014) and the CC-GAN2 model improves upon it.
We also trained two baseline models in an attempt to tease apart the contributions of adversarial
training and context conditional adversarial training. The first is a purely supervised training of the
VGG-A’ model (the same architecture as the discriminator in the CC-GAN framework). This was
trained using a dropout of 0.5 on the final layer and weight decay of 0.001. The performance of this
model is significantly worse than the CC-GAN model.
We also trained a semi-supervised GAN (SSL-GAN, see Fig. 1(b)) on STL-10. This consisted of the
same discriminator as the CC-GAN (VGG-A’ architecture) and generator from the DCGAN model
(Radford et al., 2016). The training setup in this case is identical to the CC-GAN model. The SSL-
GAN performs almost as well as the CC-GAN, confirming our hypothesis that the GAN objective
is a useful unsupervised criterion.
3.2 PASCAL VOC CLASSIFICATION
In order to compare against other methods that utilize spatial context we ran the CC-GAN model on
PASCAL VOC 2007 dataset. This dataset consists of natural images coming from 20 classes. The
dataset contains a large amount of variability with objects varying in size, pose, and position. The
training and validation sets combined contain 5,011 images, and the test set contains 4,952 images.
The standard measure of performance is mean average precision (mAP).
We trained each model on the combined training and validation set for ∼5000 epochs and evaluated
on the test set once1 . Following Pathak et al. (2016), we train using random cropping, and then
evaluate using the average prediction from 10 random crops.
Our best performing model was trained on images of resolution 128×128 with a hole size of 64×64
and a low resolution input of size 32×32. Table 2 compares our CC-GAN method to other feature
learning approaches on the PASCAL test set. It outperforms them, beating the current state of the
art (Wang & Gupta, 2015) by 3.8%. It is important to note that our feature extractor is the VGG-
A’ model which is larger than the AlexNet architecture (Krizhevsky et al., 2012) used by other
approaches in Table 2. However, purely supervised training of the two models reveals that VGG-A’
1
Hyperparameters were determined by initially training on the training set alone and measuring performance
on the validation set.

6
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

Method mAP
Supervised AlexNet 53.3 %
Visual tracking from video (Wang & Gupta, 2015) 58.4%
Context prediction (Doersch et al., 2015) 55.3%
Context encoders (Pathak et al., 2016) 56.5%
Supervised VGG-A’ 55.2%
CC-GAN 62.2%
CC-GAN2 62.7%

Table 2: Comparison of CC-GAN and other methods (as reported by Pathak et al. (2016)) on PAS-
CAL VOC 2007.

Method Image size Hole size Low res size mAP

Supervised VGG-A’ 64×64 - - 52.97%
CC-GAN 64×64 32×32 - 56.79%
Supervised VGG-A’ 96×96 - - 55.22%
CC-GAN 96×96 48×48 - 60.38%
CC-GAN 96×96 48×48 24×24 60.98%
Supervised VGG-A’ 128×128 - - 55.2%
CC-GAN 128×128 64×64 - 61.3%
CC-GAN 128×128 64×64 32×32 62.2%

Table 3: Comparison of different CC-GAN variants on PASCAL VOC 2007.

is less than 2% better than AlexNet. Furthermore, our model outperforms the supervised VGG-A’
baseline by a 7% margin (62.2% vs. 55.2%). This suggests that our gains stem from the CC-GAN
method rather than the use of a better architecture.
Table 3 shows the effect of training on different resolutions. The CC-GAN improves over the base-
line CNN consistently regardless of image size. We found that conditioning on the low resolution
image began to help when the hole size was largest (64×64). We hypothesize that the low resolution
conditioning would be more important for larger images, potentially allowing the method to scale to
larger image sizes than we explored in this work.
3.3 I NPAINTING
We now show some sample in-paintings produced by our CC-GAN generators. In our semi-
supervised learning experiments on STL-10 we remove a single fixed size hole from the image.
The top row of Fig. 3 shows in-paintings produced by this model. We can also explored different
masking schemes as illustrated in the remaining rows of Fig. 3 (however these did not improve clas-
sification results). In all cases we see that training the generator with the adversarial loss produces
sharp semantically plausible in-painting results.
Fig. 4 shows generated images and in-painted images from a model trained with the CC-GAN2
criterion. The output of a CC-GAN generator tends to be corrupted outside the patch used to in-
paint the image (since gradients only flow back to the missing patch). However, in the CC-GAN2
model, we see that both the in-painted image and the generated image are coherent and semantically
consistent with the masked input image.
Fig. 5 shows in-painted images from a generator trained on 128×128 PASCAL images. Fig. 6 shows
the effect of adding a low resolution (32×32) image as input to the generator. For comparison we
also show the result of in-painting by filling in with a bi-linearly upsampled image. Here we see the
generator produces high-frequency structure rather than simply learning to copy the low resolution
patch.

7
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

Figure 3: STL-10 in-painting with CC-GAN training and varying methods of dropping out the
image.

Figure 4: STL-10 in-painting with combined CC-GAN2 training.

Figure 5: PASCAL in-painting with CC-GAN.

Figure 6: PASCAL in-painting with CC-GAN conditioned on low resolution image. Top two rows
show input to generator. Third row shows inpainting my bilinear upsampling. Bottom row shows
inpainted image by generator.

8
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

4 D ISCUSSION
We have presented a simple semi-supervised learning framework based on in-painting with an adver-
sarial loss. The generator in our CC-GAN model is capable of producing semantically meaningful
in-paintings and the discriminator performs comparable to or better than existing semi-supervised
methods on two classification benchmarks.
Since discrimination of real/fake in-paintings is more closely related to the target task of object
classification than extracting a feature representation suitable for in-filling, it is not surprising that we
are able to exceed the performance of Pathak et al. (2016) on PASCAL classification. Furthermore,
since our model operates on images half the resolution as those used by other approaches (128×128
vs. 224×244), there is potential for further gains if improvements in the generator resolution can be
made. Our models and code are available at https://github.com/edenton/cc-gan.
Acknowledgements: Emily Denton is supported by a Google Fellowship. Rob Fergus is grateful
for the support of CIFAR.

R EFERENCES
D. Bahdanau, K. Cho, and Y. Bengio. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. In
The International Conference on Learning Representations, 2015.
R. Collobert, J. Weston, L. Bottou, M. Karlen, K. Kavukcuoglu, and P. Kuksa. Natural language processing
(almost) from scratch. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2011.
Remi Denton, Soumith Chintala, Arthur Szlam, and Rob Fergus. Deep generative image models using a
laplacian pyramid of adversarial networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28, 2015.
Carl Doersch, Abhinav Gupta, and Alexei A. Efros. Unsupervised visual representation learning by context
prediction. In International Conference on Computer Vision, 2015.
Alexey Dosovitskiy, Jost Tobias Springenberg, Martin Riedmiller, and Thomas Brox. Discriminative unsuper-
vised feature learning with convolutional neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing
Systems 27, 2014.
Alexey Dosovitskiy, Jost Tobias Springenberg, and Thomas Brox. Learning to generate chairs, tables and cars
with convolutional networks. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2015.
Gintare Karolina Dziugaite, Daniel M. Roy, and Zoubin Ghahramani. Training generative neural networks via
maximum mean discrepancy optimization. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 2015.
Ian J. 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 27, 2014.
Karol Gregor, Ivo Danihelka, Alex Graves, Danilo Jimenez Rezende, and Daan Wierstra. Draw: A recurrent
neural network for image generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2015.
G. E. Hinton, S. Osindero, and Y. Teh. A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets. Neural Computation, 18,
2006.
D.P. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In International Conference on Learning
Representations, 2015.
D.P. Kingma and M. Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes. In International Conference on Learning
Representations, 2014.
D.P. Kingma, D.J. Rezende, S. Mohamed, and M. Welling. Semi-supervised learning with deep generative
models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27, 2014.
Ryan Kiros, Yukun Zhu, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Richard S. Zemel, Antonio Torralba, Raquel Urtasun, and
Sanja Fidler. Skip-thought vectors. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28, 2015.
Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoff Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural
networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25, pp. 1106–1114, 2012.
D. H. Lee. Pseudo-label: The simple and efficient semi-supervised learning method for deep neural networks.
In Workshop on Challenges in Representation Learning, ICML, 2013.

9
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2017

Yujia Li, Kevin Swersky, and Richard Zemel. Generative moment matching networks. In ICML, 2015.
Elman Mansimov, Emilio Parisotto, Jimmy Ba, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Generating images from captions
with attention. In The International Conference on Learning Representations, 2016.
Michaël Mathieu, Camille Couprie, and Yann LeCun. Deep multi-scale video prediction beyond mean square
error. arXiv 1511.05440, 2015.
T. Mikolov, I. Sutskever, K. Chen, G. S. Corrado, and J. Dean. Distributed representations of words and phrases
and their compositionality. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28, 2015.
Mehdi Mirza and Simon Osindero. Conditional generative adversarial nets. CoRR, abs/1411.1784, 2014.
Mehdi Noroozi and Paolo Favaro. Unsupervised learning of visual representations by solving jigsaw puzzles.
CoRR, abs/1603.09246, 2016.
Deepak Pathak, Philipp Krahenbuhl, Jeff Donahue, Trevor Darrell, and Alexei A. Efros. Context encoders:
Feature learning by inpainting. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016.
Alec Radford, Luke Metz, and Soumith Chintala. Unsupervised representation learning with deep convolutional
generative adversarial networks. In The International Conference on Learning Representations, 2016.
Marc’Aurelio Ranzato, Arthur Szlam, Joan Bruna, Michaël Mathieu, Ronan Collobert, and Sumit Chopra.
Video (language) modeling: a baseline for generative models of natural videos. arXiv 1412.6604, 2014.
Antti Rasmus, Mathias Berglund, Mikko Honkala, Harri Valpola, and Tapani Raiko. Semi-supervised learning
with ladder network. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28, 2015.
Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Learning deep generative models. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 2:
361–385, 2015.
Tim Salimans, Ian Goodfellow, Wojciech Zaremba, Vicki Cheung, Alec Radford, and Xi Chen. Improved
techniques for training gans. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29, 2016.
K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. In The
International Conference on Learning Representations, 2015.
Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric A. Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning
using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. CoRR, abs/1503.03585, 2015.
Jost Tobias Springenberg. Unsupervised and semi-supervised learning with categorical generative adversarial
networks. arXiv 1511.06390, 2015.
Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc Le. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Advances
in Neural Information Processing Systems 27, 2014.
Kevin Swersky, Jasper Snoek, and Ryan P. Adams. Multi-task bayesian optimization. In Advances in Neural
Information Processing Systems 26, 2013.
L. Theis and M. Bethge. Generative image modeling using spatial lstms. In Advances in Neural Information
Processing Systems 28, 2015.
Aaron van den Oord, Nal Kalchbrenner, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. Pixel recurrent neural networks. In ICML,
2016.
P. Vincent, H. Larochelle, Y. Bengio, and P.A. Manzagol. Extracting and composing robust features with
denoising autoencoders. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2008.
Xiaolong Wang and Abhinav Gupta. Unsupervised learning of visual representations using videos. In ICCV,
2015.
Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28, 2015.
Junbo Zhao, Michael Mathieu, Ross Goroshin, and Yann LeCun. Stacked what-where auto-encoders. In
International Conference on Learning Representations, 2016.
D. Zhou, O. Bousquet, T. Lal, J. Weston, and B. Schoelkopf. Learning with local and global consistency. In
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systemsi 17, 2004.
Xiaojin Zhu. Semi-supervised learning literature survey, 2006.

10