Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generative Adversarial Nets (GANs) and Conditonal GANs (CGANs) show that using a trained network as loss function (discriminator) enables to synthesize highly structured outputs (e.g. natural images). However, applying a discriminator network as a universal loss function for common supervised tasks (e.g. semantic segmentation, line detection, depth estimation) is considerably less successful. We argue that the main difficulty of applying CGANs to supervised tasks is that the generator training consists of optimizing a loss function that does not depend directly on the ground truth labels. To overcome this, we propose to replace the discriminator with a matching network taking into account both the ground truth outputs as well as the generated examples. As a consequence, the generator loss function also depends on the targets of the training examples, thus facilitating learning. We demonstrate on three computer vision tasks that this approach can significantly outperform CGANs achieving comparable or superior results to task-specific solutions and results in stable training. Importantly, this is a general approach that does not require the use of task-specific loss functions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".