We propose a new method to evaluate GANs, namely EvalGAN. EvalGAN relies on a test set to directly measure the reconstruction quality in the original sample space (no auxiliary networks are necessary), and it also computes the (log)likelihood for the reconstructed samples in the test set. Further, EvalGAN is agnostic to the GAN algorithm and the dataset. We decided to test it on three state-of-the-art GANs over the well-known CIFAR-10 and CelebA datasets.

A growing number of threats to Android phones creates challenges for malware detection. Manually labeling the samples into benign or different malicious families requires tremendous human efforts, while it is comparably easy and cheap to obtain a large amount of unlabeled APKs from various sources. Moreover, the fast-paced evolution of Android malware continuously generates derivative malware families. These families often contain new signatures, which can escape detection when using static analysis. These practical challenges can also cause traditional supervised machine learning algorithms to degrade in performance. In this paper, we propose a framework that uses model-based semi-supervised (MBSS) classification scheme on the dynamic Android API call logs. The semi-supervised approach efficiently uses the labeled and unlabeled APKs to estimate a finite mixture model of Gaussian distributions via conditional expectation-maximization and efficiently detects malwares during out-of-sample testing. We compare MBSS with the popular malware detection classifiers such as support vector machine (SVM), $k$-nearest neighbor (kNN) and linear discriminant analysis (LDA). Under the ideal classification setting, MBSS has competitive performance with 98\% accuracy and very low false positive rate for in-sample classification. For out-of-sample testing, the out-of-sample test data exhibit similar behavior of retrieving phone information and sending to the network, compared with in-sample training set. When this similarity is strong, MBSS and SVM with linear kernel maintain 90\% detection rate while $k$NN and LDA suffer great performance degradation. When this similarity is slightly weaker, all classifiers degrade in performance, but MBSS still performs significantly better than other classifiers.