Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite significant recent progress on generative models, controlled generation of images depicting multiple and complex object layouts is still a difficult problem. Among the core challenges are the diversity of appearance a given object may possess and, as a result, exponential set of images consistent with a specified layout. To address these challenges, we propose a novel approach for layout-based image generation; we call it Layout2Im. Given the coarse spatial layout (bounding boxes + object categories), our model can generate a set of realistic images which have the correct objects in the desired locations. The representation of each object is disentangled into a specified/certain part (category) and an unspecified/uncertain part (appearance). The category is encoded using a word embedding and the appearance is distilled into a low-dimensional vector sampled from a normal distribution. Individual object representations are composed together using convolutional LSTM, to obtain an encoding of the complete layout, and then decoded to an image. Several loss terms are introduced to encourage accurate and diverse generation. The proposed Layout2Im model significantly outperforms the previous state of the art, boosting the best reported inception score by 24.66% and 28.57% on the very challenging COCO-Stuff and Visual Genome datasets, respectively. Extensive experiments also demonstrate our method's ability to generate complex and diverse images with multiple objects.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".