MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Approach to Embedding a Style Transfer Model into a Mobile APP

2020· article· en· W3091712247 on OpenAlexaff
He Jiang, Mingyuan Du, Darren Whiteside, Omar Moursy, Yunzhu Yang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Enhancement Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkTransfer (computing)BitmapMobile deviceTransfer of learningMobile phoneProcess (computing)Artificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Artificial neural networkFeed forwardComputer visionReal-time computingComputer graphics (images)Parallel computingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of photo processing apps suggests the demands of picture editing. As an implementation of the convolutional neural network, style transfer has been deep investigated and there are supported materials to realize it on PC platform. However, few approaches are mentioned to deploy a style transfer model on the mobile and meet the requirements of mobile users. The traditional style transfer model takes hours to proceed, therefore, based on a Perceptual Losses algorithm [1], we created a feedforward neural network for each style and the proceeding time was reduced to a few seconds. The training data were generated from a pre-trained convolutional neural network model, VGG-19. The algorithm took thousandth time and generated similar output as the original. Furthermore, we optimized the model and deployed the model with TensorFlow Mobile library. We froze the model and adopted a bitmap to scale the inputs to 720×720 and reverted back to the original resolution. The reverting process may create some blur but it can be regarded as a feature of art. The generated images have reliable quality and the waiting time is independent of the content and pattern of input images. The main factor that influences the proceeding time is the input resolution. The average waiting time of our model on the mobile phone, HUAWEI P20 Pro, is less than 2 seconds for 720p images and around 2.8 seconds for 1080p images, which are ten times slower than that on the PC GPU, Tesla T40. The performance difference depends on the architecture of the 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Enhancement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207