This content originally appeared on HackerNoon and was authored by Photosynthesis Technology: It's not just for plants!
Table of Links
Appendix
D Complexity Filtering
As mentioned in Section 4, while testing our method alongside baseline methods, we reached ceiling performance for all our methods. Ellis et al. [11] got around this by creating a “hard” test case by sampling more objects. For us, when we increased the number of objects to increase complexity, we saw that it increased the probability that a large object would be sampled and subtract from the whole scene, resulting in simpler scenes. This is shown by Figure 11(b), which is our training distribution. Even though we sample a large number of objects, the scenes don’t look visually interesting. When we studied the implementation details of Ellis et al. [11], we noticed that during random generation of expressions, they ensured that each shape did not change more that 60% or less than 10% of the pixels in the scene. Instead of modifying our tree sampling method, we instead chose to rejection sample based on the compressibility of the final rendered image.
\
:::info Authors:
(1) Shreyas Kapur, University of California, Berkeley (srkp@cs.berkeley.edu);
(2) Erik Jenner, University of California, Berkeley (jenner@cs.berkeley.edu);
(3) Stuart Russell, University of California, Berkeley (russell@cs.berkeley.edu).
:::
:::info This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED license.
:::
\
This content originally appeared on HackerNoon and was authored by Photosynthesis Technology: It's not just for plants!
Photosynthesis Technology: It's not just for plants! | Sciencx (2025-09-26T18:15:03+00:00) Overcoming Ceiling Performance: Using Complexity Filtering for Harder Inverse Graphics Benchmarks. Retrieved from https://www.scien.cx/2025/09/26/overcoming-ceiling-performance-using-complexity-filtering-for-harder-inverse-graphics-benchmarks/
Please log in to upload a file.
There are no updates yet.
Click the Upload button above to add an update.