Synthesizing Programs for Images using Reinforced Adversarial Learning.
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
Advances in deep generative networks have led to impressive results in recent years. Nevertheless, such models can often waste their capacity on the minutiae of datasets, presumably due to weak inductive biases in their decoders. This is where graphics engines may come in handy since they abstract away low-level details and represent images as high-level programs. Current methods that combine deep learning and renderers are limited by hand-crafted likelihood or distance functions, a need for large amounts of supervision, or difficulties in scaling their inference algorithms to richer datasets. To mitigate these issues, we present SPIRAL, an adversarially trained agent that generates a program which is executed by a graphics engine to interpret and sample images. The goal of this agent is to fool a discriminator network that distinguishes between real and rendered data, trained with a distributed reinforcement learning setup without any supervision. A surprising finding is that using the discriminator's output as a reward signal is the key to allow the agent to make meaningful progress at matching the desired output rendering. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of an end-to-end, unsupervised and adversarial inverse graphics agent on challenging real world (MNIST, Omniglot, CelebA) and synthetic 3D datasets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it