MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FTASD - A Fine Tuning Approach for Stable Diffusion Models

2024· article· en· W4404033230 on OpenAlexaff
Sutirtha Roy, Moshfiq-Us-Saleheen Chowdhury, Pratishtha Pratishtha

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Mathematical Modeling in Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffusionComputer sciencePhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image generation is one of the critical tasks performed in today’s world for the expansion of research domains like computer vision and Generative Artificial Intelligence (Generative AI). Therefore, there is an ultimate need for 2-D image synthesis models, which are already introduced by the researchers in the form of stable diffusion models. Recently, various companies like OpenAI and Google AI introduced such models in the computer vision industry. The fundamental approach is to generate target images through a diffusion process. The various applications of stable diffusion include text-to-image generation, image restoration, image-to-image generation, video generation, and facial restoration. In recent years, multiple development plans have been incorporated for improving the image generation models. The improvements have been done in the form of improving the loss function, architecture designs and optimization method. In this paper, we propose a fine-tuning method for improving the performance of various image generation models using Stable Diffusion (SD). Our major focus is on various stable diffusion models which involve text (prompt) to image generation methodology for generating various synthetic images. In our fine tuning process, we leveraged the KerasCV and trained the pre-trained Stable Diffusion Model on a diversified POKEMON (BLIP caption generated) dataset fetched from the Hugging Face database. Our model outperformed the existing KerasCV stable diffusion model which is responsible for text to image generation. We also fine-tuned the model using our self collected Keji National Forest dataset and it produced outstanding application specific results.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Mathematical Modeling in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207