Generating Compositional Color Representations from Text
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the cross-modal task of producing color representations for text phrases. Motivated by the fact that a significant fraction of user queries on an image search engine follow an (attribute, object) structure, we propose a generative adversarial network that generates color profiles for such bigrams. We design our pipeline to learn composition - the ability to combine seen attributes and objects to unseen pairs. We propose a novel dataset curation pipeline from existing public sources. We describe how a set of phrases of interest can be compiled using a graph propagation technique, and then mapped to images. While this dataset is specialized for our investigations on color, the method can be extended to other visual dimensions where composition is of interest. We provide detailed ablation studies that test the behavior of our GAN architecture with loss functions from the contrastive learning literature. We show that the generative model achieves lower Fr\'echet Inception Distance than discriminative ones, and therefore predicts color profiles that better match those from real images. Finally, we demonstrate improved performance in image retrieval and classification, indicating the crucial role that color plays in these downstream tasks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".