MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

In2Out: Fine-Tuning Video Inpainting Model for Video Outpainting Using Hierarchical Discriminator

2025· article· en· W4413278267 on OpenAlexaff
Minji Lee, N. Park, Yeji Jeon, Taeyoung Na

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscriminatorInpaintingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer graphics (images)Image (mathematics)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Video outpainting presents a unique challenge of extending the borders while maintaining consistency with the given content. In this paper, we suggest the use of video inpainting models that excel in object flow learning and reconstruction in out-painting rather than solely generating the background as in existing methods. However, directly applying or fine-tuning inpainting models to outpainting has shown to be ineffective, often leading to blurry results. Our extensive experiments on discriminator designs reveal that a critical component missing in the outpainting fine-tuning process is a discriminator capable of effectively assessing the perceptual quality of the extended areas. To tackle this limitation, we differentiate the objectives of adversarial training into global and local goals and introduce a hierarchical discriminator that meets both objectives. Additionally, we develop a specialized outpainting loss function that leverages both local and global features of the discriminator. Fine-Tuning on this adversarial loss function enhances the generator’s ability to produce both visually appealing and globally coherent outpainted scenes. Our proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art methods both quantitatively and qualitatively. Supplementary materials including the demo video and the code are available in SigPort.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisFrench-language works237,207