SAC-GAN: Structure-Aware Image Composition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce an end-to-end learning framework for image-to-image composition, aiming to plausibly compose an object represented as a cropped patch from an object image into a background scene image. As our approach emphasizes more on semantic and structural coherence of the composed images, rather than their pixel-level RGB accuracies, we tailor the input and output of our network with structure-aware features and design our network losses accordingly, with ground truth established in a self-supervised setting through the object cropping. Specifically, our network takes the semantic layout features from the input scene image, features encoded from the edges and silhouette in the input object patch, as well as a latent code as inputs, and generates a 2D spatial affine transform defining the translation and scaling of the object patch. The learned parameters are further fed into a differentiable spatial transformer network to transform the object patch into the target image, where our model is trained adversarially using an affine transform discriminator and a layout discriminator. We evaluate our network, coined SAC-GAN, for various image composition scenarios in terms of quality, composability, and generalizability of the composite images. Comparisons are made to state-of-the-art alternatives, including Instance Insertion, ST-GAN, CompGAN and PlaceNet, confirming superiority of our method.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it