Table of Links
Abstract and 1. Introduction
-
Background & Related Work
-
Method
3.1 Sampling Small Mutations
3.2 Policy
3.3 Value Network & Search
3.4 Architecture
-
Experiments
4.1 Environments
4.2 Baselines
4.3 Ablations
-
Conclusion, Acknowledgments and Disclosure of Funding, and References
Appendix
A. Mutation Algorithm
B. Context-Free Grammars
C. Sketch Simulation
D. Complexity Filtering
E. Tree Path Algorithm
F. Implementation Details
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.
:::
