MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229368211 · doi:10.3390/s22093533

Single Image Video Prediction with Auto-Regressive GANs

2022· article· en· W4229368211 on OpenAlexaff
Jiahui Huang, Yew Ken Chia, Samson Yu, Kevin Yee, Dennis Küster, Eva G. Krumhuber, Dorien Herremans, Gemma Roig

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionAutoregressive modelComputer graphics (images)MathematicsEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we introduce an approach for future frames prediction based on a single input image. Our method is able to generate an entire video sequence based on the information contained in the input frame. We adopt an autoregressive approach in our generation process, i.e., the output from each time step is fed as the input to the next step. Unlike other video prediction methods that use "one shot" generation, our method is able to preserve much more details from the input image, while also capturing the critical pixel-level changes between the frames. We overcome the problem of generation quality degradation by introducing a "complementary mask" module in our architecture, and we show that this allows the model to only focus on the generation of the pixels that need to be changed, and to reuse those that should remain static from its previous frame. We empirically validate our methods against various video prediction models on the UT Dallas Dataset, and show that our approach is able to generate high quality realistic video sequences from one static input image. In addition, we also validate the robustness of our method by testing a pre-trained model on the unseen ADFES facial expression dataset. We also provide qualitative results of our model tested on a human action dataset: The Weizmann Action database.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207