MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413147242 · doi:10.1109/cvpr52734.2025.02061

HyperNet Fields: Efficiently Training Hypernetworks without Ground Truth by Learning Weight Trajectories

2025· article· en· W4413147242 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Hedlin, Munawar Hayat, Fatih Porikli, Kwang Moo Yi, Shweta Mahajan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround truthArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceTraining (meteorology)Machine learningGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To efficiently adapt large models or to train generative models of neural representations, Hypernetworks have drawn interest. While hypernetworks work well, training them is cumbersome, and often requires ground truth optimized weights for each sample. However, obtaining each of these weights is a training problem of its own—one needs to train, e.g., adaptation weights or even an entire neural field for hypernetworks to regress to. In this work, we propose a method to train hypernetworks, without the need for any per-sample ground truth. Our key idea is to learn a Hypernetwork ‘Field’ and estimate the entire trajectory of network weight training instead of simply its converged state. In other words, we introduce an additional input to the Hypernetwork, the convergence state, which then makes it act as a neural field that models the entire convergence pathway of a task network. A critical benefit in doing so is that the gradient of the estimated weights at any convergence state must then match the gradients of the original task—this constraint alone is sufficient to train the Hypernetwork Field. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method through the task of personalized image generation and 3D shape reconstruction from images and point clouds, demonstrating competitive results without any per-sample ground truth.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207