MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034419329 · doi:10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00753

Contextual Residual Aggregation for Ultra High-Resolution Image Inpainting

2020· article· en· W3034419329 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zili Yi, Qiang Tang, Shekoofeh Azizi, Daesik Jang, Zhan Xu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInpaintingComputer scienceResidualArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkInferenceImage (mathematics)Computer visionDeep learningImage resolutionPattern recognition (psychology)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently data-driven image inpainting methods have made inspiring progress, impacting fundamental image editing tasks such as object removal and damaged image repairing. These methods are more effective than classic approaches, however, due to memory limitations they can only handle low-resolution inputs, typically smaller than 1K. Meanwhile, the resolution of photos captured with mobile devices increases up to 8K. Naive up-sampling of the low-resolution inpainted result can merely yield a large yet blurry result. Whereas, adding a high-frequency residual image onto the large blurry image can generate a sharp result, rich in details and textures. Motivated by this, we propose a Contextual Residual Aggregation (CRA) mechanism that can produce high-frequency residuals for missing contents by weighted aggregating residuals from contextual patches, thus only requiring a low-resolution prediction from the network. Since convolutional layers of the neural network only need to operate on low-resolution inputs and outputs, the cost of memory and computing power is thus well suppressed. Moreover, the need for high-resolution training datasets is alleviated. In our experiments, we train the proposed model on small images with resolutions 512 × 512 and perform inference on high-resolution images, achieving compelling inpainting quality. Our model can inpaint images as large as 8K with considerable hole sizes, which is intractable with previous learning-based approaches. We further elaborate on the light-weight design of the network architecture, achieving real-time performance on 2K images on a GTX 1080 Ti GPU. Codes are available at: https://github. com/Ascend-Huawei/Ascend-Canada/tree/ master/Models/Research_HiFIll_Model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations381
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207