Tell, Draw, and Repeat: Generating and Modifying Images Based on Continual Linguistic Instruction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conditional text-to-image generation is an active area of research, with many possible applications. Existing research has primarily focused on generating a single image from available conditioning information in one step. One practical extension beyond one-step generation is a system that generates an image iteratively, conditioned on ongoing linguistic input or feedback. This is significantly more challenging than one-step generation tasks, as such a system must understand the contents of its generated images with respect to the feedback history, the current feedback, as well as the interactions among concepts present in the feedback history. In this work, we present a recurrent image generation model which takes into account both the generated output up to the current step as well as all past instructions for generation. We show that our model is able to generate the background, add new objects, and apply simple transformations to existing objects. We believe our approach is an important step toward interactive generation. Code and data is available at: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/generative-neural-visual-artist-geneva/.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it