You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Agreed, but the problem is that more and more papers are coming out, especially with the recorrection with https://github.com/nightrome/really-awesome-gan
Is it possible to judge a paper based on the amount of times it get referenced by other papers (assume metrics by SemanticScholar and ResearchGate)?
Agreed, but the problem is that more and more papers are coming out, especially with the recorrection with https://github.com/nightrome/really-awesome-gan
Is it possible to judge a paper based on the amount of times it get referenced by other papers (assume metrics by SemanticScholar and ResearchGate)?
reference count usually is a good metric for judging the paper, but in case of purpose of this repo, is not as i think!
so, not recommending all of GAN papers, but the paper what i and others think it is good to read ( based on my and others experiences).
In that case, besides popularity, there should be a "uniqueness" factor, since many GANs can be abstracted away to having the same meta-structure. See #18 for some examples.
Of course I would hope that more varieties of meta-structures would lead to more innovation, but then again that is just hope if implementing all GANs are impossible.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: