MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Investigation the influence related to parameters configuration of Generative Adversarial Networks in face image generation

2024· article· en· W4393054557 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied and Computational Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace recognition and analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscriminatorComputer scienceAutoencoderGenerative grammarArtificial intelligenceGenerator (circuit theory)PaceFace (sociological concept)Function (biology)Convergence (economics)Adversarial systemEncoderImage (mathematics)Machine learningDeep learningPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the excellent performance of Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) for age regression on face images, it is particularly important to explore the effect of different parameters on model training. In this study, the origin and development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is first discussed, from which the concept and principles of GAN are derived. This is followed by a brief introduction of the UTKface dataset used in this research, and the Conditional Adversarial Autoencoder (CAAE) framework based on the GAN technique. The division of labor and roles of the encoder, generator, and the two discriminators in the model are described. The various learning rates as well as batch size combinations attempted in this study are then illustrated, and the training results of the model are shown in the form of graphs and plots of the loss value function. A situation where the model stops learning is highlighted in the results, which is similar to pattern descent in GAN, and is shown to be characterized by the inability of the discriminator to successfully recognize it. Ultimately, drawing from the acquired outcomes, it can be deduced that employing a larger batch size serves to enhance the pace of model training. It is advisable to concurrently elevate the learning rate by an equivalent factor when augmenting the batch size, thereby ensuring a consistent trajectory for model convergence.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.207
Teacher spread0.198 · 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