Critique

Hi Ricky,

Great job. I appreciate your work on this topic although there are still many contents I do not understand. I have two suggesions for you.

• I hope you can reorganize the hierarchy of your page so that it is clear and coherent. For example, Section 1 and Section 3 have the same title. Maybe you can change one of them.

• I think you can add your own thoughts on how successful Laplacian Generative Adversarial Network was and how it can be improved.

Sincerely,

Ke Dai

Regarding the second bullet point, since this is a wiki I've tried to reduce the amount of subjective information that gets put on the page, and only include points that are either objective or that most people would agree about..

But my own thoughts are that the LAPGAN paper is a great read because it introduces a framework that uses independent (but structured) GAN models. The use of Laplacian pyramid is a great example of this structural idea, but it is only an example (too restrictive) and likely will not be developed much further. Further improvements would be to the GAN approach, with LAPGAN as a comparison/motivation.

For the first bullet point, GAN is more of a general idea rather than a concrete algorithm. It just turns out that the paper that introduces it is named GAN... I'm not quite sure what to change the titles to, but if I think of something good I'll do it.

Thanks!