Image Inpainting Based on Generative Adversarial Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Image inpainting aims to fill missing regions of a damaged image with plausibly synthesized content. Existing methods for image inpainting either fill the missing regions by borrowing information from surrounding areas or generating semantically coherent content from region context. They often produce ambiguous or semantically incoherent content when the missing region is large or with complex structures. In this paper, we present an approach for image inpainting. The completion model based on our proposed algorithm contains one generator, one global discriminator, and one local discriminator. The generator is responsible for inpainting the missing area, the global discriminator aims evaluating whether the repair result has global consistency, and the local discriminator is responsible for identifying whether the repair area is correct. The architecture of the generator is an auto-encoder. We use the skip-connection in the generator to improve the prediction power of the model. Also, we use Wasserstein GAN loss to ensure the stability of training. Experiments on CelebA dataset and LFW dataset demonstrate that our proposed model can deal with large-scale missing pixels and generate realistic completion results.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".