MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124178031 · doi:10.15353/jcvis.v6i1.3536

Pal-GAN: Palette-conditioned Generative Adversarial Networks

2021· article· en· W3124178031 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Adam Balint, Graham W. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Vision and Imaging Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePalette (painting)Artificial intelligenceAdversarial systemGenerative grammarImage translationIntersection (aeronautics)Image (mathematics)Variety (cybernetics)SegmentationDiscriminative modelClass (philosophy)Machine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) have shown great progress on a large variety of tasks. A common technique used to yield greater diversity of samples is conditioning on class labels. Conditioning on high-dimensional structured or unstructured information has also been shown to improve generation results, e.g. Image-to-Image translation. The conditioning information is provided in the form of human annotations, which can be expensive and difficult to obtain in cases where domain knowledge experts are needed. In this paper, we present an alternative: conditioning on low-dimensional structured information that can be automatically extracted from the input without the need for human annotators. Specifically, we propose a Palette-conditioned Generative Adversarial Network (Pal-GAN), an architecture-agnostic model that conditions on both a colour palette and a segmentation mask for high quality image synthesis. We show improvements on conditional consistency, intersection-over-union, and Fréchet inception distance scores. Additionally, we show that sampling colour palettes significantly changes the style of the generated images.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Vision and Imaging SystemsSame topicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisFrench-language works237,207