Faster Unsupervised Semantic Inpainting: A GAN Based Approach

Arnav Kumar Jain; Avisek Lahiri; Divyasri Nadendla; Prabir Kumar Biswas

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Faster Unsupervised Semantic Inpainting: A GAN Based Approach

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read By replacing random latent-code initialization with a nearest-neighbor warm start, this paper makes unsupervised GAN inpainting 4.5–5x faster on images and about 80x faster on video, while keeping or improving reconstruction quality.

desk verdict Useful incremental speedup for unsupervised GAN inpainting, but the video claims rest on a single friendly dataset and an assumption that won't generalize. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04968 v1 pith:4V6LLO5U submitted 2019-08-14 cs.CV

Avisek Lahiri , Arnav Kumar Jain , Divyasri Nadendla , Prabir Kumar Biswas This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords generativeadversarialnetworkssemanticinpaintingunsupervisedlearningvideotemporalconsistencylatentvectoroptimizationnearestneighborinitializationerrorconcealment

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Unsupervised GAN inpainting fills missing pixels by optimizing a latent vector $z$ so the generator's output agrees with the visible part of the image; that optimization is slow because $z$ starts random. This paper shows that a warm start makes the search dramatically faster without hurting quality. For still images, the warm start is the latent vector of the nearest matching image in a pool of pre-generated samples, using a combination of pixel and gradient differences. For video, the warm start for each frame is the converged latent vector of the previous frame, and a group consistency loss keeps latent codes close within a short window. The paper reports a 4.5–5x speedup on single images and roughly 80x on video, with spatial and temporal reconstruction quality at least as good as the baseline.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the latent-code optimization loop of Yeh et al., $\hat{z} = \arg\min_z J(M \odot G(z), I_d)$, with $J = L_f + \lambda L_p$ (fidelity plus perceptual loss). The paper does not alter the loop; it changes the initialization. A one-time pool of $N=300$ generated images is searched with $L_{nn} = L_D + \gamma L_S$ to produce $z_{\mathrm{init}}$, and for video $z_{t+1}=z_t$ plus $L_G$ over a window of $W=5$ frames. The reuse of $z$ and the group-consistency constraint together exploit temporal redundancy without any paired supervision.

What would settle it

Measure the method's convergence time and MOVIE score on a video assembled from alternating shots of different subjects or with a fast pan; if the reported ~0.4-second-per-frame and the temporal-quality gains do not survive, the video speedup claim is limited to static, coherent footage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the iterative latent-code optimization of unsupervised semantic inpainting can be initialized intelligently rather than randomly, and that this initialization accounts for the speedup. The paper's specific mechanism is: after training, generate a pool of $N$ images from random noise vectors; for a damaged image, find the pool image minimizing $L_{nn} = |I_d - M \odot p_i| + \gamma(|\nabla_x I_d - \nabla_x M \odot p_i| + |\nabla_y I_d - \nabla_y M \odot p_i|)$, and take its latent vector $z_{\mathrm{init}}$ as the starting point. For video, set $z_{t+1} = z_t$ and add a group consistency loss $L_G = |z_i - z_k|$ over a window of $W$ frames. With these changes, the paper claims 4.5–5x fewer iterations and wall-clock time for images, about 80x for videos, and better MOVIE-based temporal quality on VidTIMIT, along with PSNR that is comparable or better than the unsupervised baseline on SVHN, Stanford Cars, and CelebA.

Load-bearing premise

The 80x video speedup depends on neighboring frames being near-duplicates in appearance, so their latent codes are almost the same; the moment that breaks (scene cut, fast motion, camera change), reusing the previous frame's $z$ as a warm start stops being useful.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Unsupervised inpainting becomes practical for interactive settings: a 64x64 image drops from roughly 9 seconds to under 2 seconds on a K-40 GPU.
Video error concealment can run without paired training data, at about 0.4 seconds per 128x128 frame, making fully unsupervised inpainting a realistic option for near-real-time use.
The latent-code reuse makes reconstructions more temporally coherent across frames, which the paper demonstrates with the MOVIE metric on VidTIMIT.
Because the pool and nearest-neighbor search are done once offline, the method adds no per-image training or fine-tuning cost at inference beyond the search itself.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The 80x video number is measured on VidTIMIT, a static-background talking-head set; on clips with cuts, occlusions, or fast motion the $z_{t+1}=z_t$ initiation should be expected to break down, so a video-level reset mechanism would be a natural extension.
The pool-size argument (larger $N$ should get closer to the exact $z$ for an ideal generator) suggests that harder image distributions may benefit from larger pools than the $N=300$ used here, at the cost of one-time storage and search time.
The same warm-start principle should transfer to other latent-space inverse problems, such as GAN-based super-resolution, style transfer, or image editing, since any iterative optimization over $z$ can be seeded by a nearest-neighbor search in the latent space.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I read this paper on a plane; here's the honest take. It's a solid incremental improvement to Yeh et al.'s unsupervised GAN inpainting, not a new framework. The useful new bit is a nearest-neighbor pool: generate N images from random latent codes once, then start the z-optimization from the closest pool member instead of random noise. That buys a 4.5-5x speedup on single images and a small, consistent PSNR bump on SVHN, Cars, and CelebA. The video extension reuses the previous frame's latent code and adds a group consistency loss, reporting an 80x speedup with better MOVIE scores on VidTIMIT.

What's good: the experiments are on standard datasets, the baseline comparison is the right one, and the speedup numbers are concrete runtimes on a K-40. The idea is simple enough to be believable and, as far as I can tell, genuinely new in this unsupervised setting. Credit where due: this is the kind of paper that makes a slow method usable.

The soft spots, in size order. The video speedup rests entirely on the assumption that neighboring frames share a latent code. That's only true for near-static content. VidTIMIT is a talking-head dataset with static background, so the 80x figure is measured in the one regime where the assumption is basically guaranteed. No scene cuts, no fast motion, no occlusion handling. The group consistency loss also penalizes legitimate latent changes, so the method will actively resist moving objects. So '80x on videos' is overstated; it's '80x on talking-head-like videos until you add a shot detector.' Second, the structure loss in Eq. 6 compares gradients of masked images, which can be contaminated by mask boundaries; that's a minor issue, but the paper should have acknowledged it. Third, no error bars or significance tests; the PSNR wins are small. Fourth, the 'first GAN video inpainting' claim is asserted without a serious prior-art check.

I agree with the stress-test note: the central weakness is the video generalization, and it's a weakness of evidence, not of reasoning. The single-image contribution is sound, and the paper deserves a serious referee. If I were editing, I'd send it out with a note asking for a more honest video claim and ideally one more video dataset. For you: worth a skim if you work on inpainting or latent-space optimization; I wouldn't make it a core citation.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a faster unsupervised GAN-based semantic inpainting method. It builds on the iterative optimization framework of Yeh et al. (CVPR 2017) and makes two contributions: (1) a nearest-neighbor initialization that searches a precomputed pool of generated images using a data loss plus a structure (gradient) loss, yielding roughly 4.5–5x speedup on single images; and (2) an extension to video, where the latent code z of the previous frame is reused as initialization for the next frame (z_{t+1}=z_t) and a group consistency loss over a window of frames is used to enforce temporal smoothness, yielding roughly 80x speedup on the VidTIMIT dataset. The paper reports results on SVHN, Stanford Cars, CelebA (64 and 128), and VidTIMIT, comparing against the unsupervised baseline and several hybrid inpainting methods using PSNR, a custom temporal-consistency metric, and the MOVIE video quality metric.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper makes a practically useful contribution: it substantially reduces the inference time of unsupervised GAN inpainting without sacrificing, and often slightly improving, reconstruction quality relative to the Yeh et al. baseline. The core ideas—nearest-neighbor initialization and latent-reuse across frames—are simple, easy to implement, and are evaluated with concrete runtimes and external metrics (PSNR, MOVIE). The paper also appears to be one of the first attempts at fully unsupervised GAN-based video inpainting, which is a meaningful direction. The main weakness is that the headline video speedup is demonstrated only on a single favorable dataset (static-background talking-head VidTIMIT), leaving the generality of the central claim unproven. The reported PSNR gains are small but consistent across datasets, and the paper does not report error bars or significance tests, which limits the strength of the qualitative claims.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.2, Table 2] The 80x video speedup rests on the assumption stated in Section 3.2 that 'neighboring frames are coherent in appearance and thus the noise priors,' which justifies setting z_{t+1}=z_t. This assumption is violated by scene cuts, large motion, occlusions, or camera changes, and the group consistency loss in Eq. (8) actively penalizes divergence among the z vectors within a window, further resisting legitimate latent changes caused by new content. The only video evaluation, on VidTIMIT (Section 4), is a static-background talking-head dataset where the assumption is essentially guaranteed. General videos would likely break the assumption and degrade both speedup and quality. The paper should either (a) evaluate on a more diverse video benchmark containing scene cuts and motion (e.g., DAVIS or similar), or (b) explicitly scope the video claim to videos with minimal temporal change. As written, the abstract's '80× on videos' overgeneralizes beyond the demonstrated regime.
[Table 2] The runtime comparison is stated as 'Time is measured till corresponding loss of a model converges to 95% of saturation value.' This stopping criterion is ambiguous and not a standard convergence measure; it is unclear how the 95% threshold is determined and whether the reported speedups (4.5–5x image, ~80x video) are sensitive to this choice. The paper also mentions speedups of 5x and 100x in terms of iteration counts, which is more interpretable, but the runtime table should report variance or at least a clear description of the measurement protocol and the number of runs.
[Tables 1, 3, 4] All quantitative results (PSNR, temporal consistency η, and MOVIE) are reported as single numbers without error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests. The PSNR gains over the Yeh et al. baseline are small (0.6–1.2 dB across datasets), and while the direction is consistent, the lack of variance information makes it difficult to assess whether the claimed 'better spatial and temporal reconstruction qualities' is robust. The authors should report per-sample statistics or error bars, or at least discuss the variability of the reported metrics.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.1] The section heading 'Better initiation for noise prior search' should read 'Better initialization for noise prior search'.
[Section 1] There are several typos: 'inpaiting' in the Introduction, 'maksed' in Section 3.1, 'Standford Cars' in Section 4 and Table 1 (should be Stanford Cars), and 'VidTIMID' in the contributions list (should be VidTIMIT).
[Section 3.2] The description of the pivot frames is unclear: 'every alternate 5th frame (pivot frame)' likely means every 5th frame, but the wording is ambiguous. Please clarify the exact frame selection strategy and how the intermediate frames are initialized and optimized.
[Eq. (8)] The group consistency loss is defined as LG = |zi - zk| over all pairs in a window of W frames. The relationship between z-space distance and perceptual image difference, while cited to prior work, may not hold equally for all GANs; consider adding a brief justification or a comparison against a loss applied directly in image space.
[Section 4] The paper mentions hyperparameter tuning for γ, N, and W on validation sets, but does not report the variance of the selected values across datasets. A brief table or discussion of sensitivity would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No substantive circularity; only the custom temporal-consistency metric η is aligned with the group-consistency loss, while the main quality claims rest on external MOVIE and PSNR benchmarks.

other [Sec. 3.2 Eq. (8); Sec. 5 'Pseudo sequences and temporal consistency' and Table 3.]
"To enforce smooth temporal dynamics we impose a group consistency loss, (LG), by constraining a group of reconstructed frames to be similar. ... LG =|zi−zk|;∀i∈ [1,W ],∀k∈ [1,W ] (8). ... We can define temporal consistency, η as, η = 1/(S 2) ∑_{k=1}^{S} PSNR(Î_i^k, Î_i^j)∀ combinations of (j,k) ∈ [1, 2,...S]."

The reported temporal-consistency metric η averages pairwise PSNR over all reconstructed frames of a pseudo-sequence, which is exactly the pairwise similarity that the group-consistency loss LG is designed to maximize (through similarity of z vectors, as the paper itself notes). Thus the improvement in Table 3 substantially reflects the training objective itself rather than an independent temporal-quality measurement. The paper partly disclaims this by noting that η ignores spatial correctness and by additionally reporting the external MOVIE metric, so this alignment is acknowledged and not load-bearing for the headline speedup claim.

full rationale

The central claims of the paper are empirical and anchored to the external Yeh et al. baseline, external datasets, and standard metrics (PSNR, MS-SSIM, MOVIE). The single-image speedup comes from nearest-neighbor initialization followed by the same iterative optimization, so the speed comparison is not constructed from the metric. The video speedup comes from initializing z_{t+1}=z_t and is an engineering heuristic whose validity depends on the coherence assumption stated in Sec. 3.2; this is a generality/robustness limitation, not a circularity. There are no self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. The only mild circular element is the custom η metric, which is essentially the objective of the group-consistency loss; however, the authors explicitly warn that η alone can be gamed and rely on the independent MOVIE metric for the temporal-quality claim. Overall circularity is therefore low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on hyperparameters gamma, N, and W that are tuned on validation sets, and on domain assumptions about GAN quality, the informativeness of masked-image gradients, and temporal coherence of latent codes. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced. The temporal-coherence assumption is the most fragile because it enables the 80x video speedup and is only tested on a static-background talking-head dataset.

free parameters (3)

gamma (structure loss weight) = 0.01
Relative weight of structure loss Eq. 6 over data loss Eq. 5; tuned on a validation set over {0.001, 0.005, 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5} and set to 0.01 for all experiments (Section 4).
N (nearest-neighbor pool size) = 300
Number of random images in the latent pool; chosen on validation data where MS-SSIM stops increasing appreciably above N=300 (Section 4).
W (group consistency window) = 5
Window size for the group consistency loss Eq. 8; tuned on a held-out VidTIMIT validation set over W in [1,10] to optimize MOVIE (Section 4).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption A pretrained GAN is a good enough model of the data distribution that optimization in z space can reconstruct masked images.
Section 3 opens by assuming a pre-trained GAN model is available; the whole method and the baseline rest on this standard GAN-inversion assumption.
domain assumption Nearest-neighbor matching in pixel intensity and gradient space over a finite pool identifies a z that lies in the basin of attraction of the true optimum of Eq. 2.
Section 3.1 introduces the pool and Eqs. 5-7 without proof that pool proximity implies optimization convergence.
domain assumption Gradients of the masked image represent the structure of the underlying scene rather than artifacts of the mask boundary.
Eq. 6 defines the structure loss on gradients of the masked image M*I; with sharp masks, gradient energy concentrates at the boundary, which is not discussed.
domain assumption Consecutive video frames have essentially the same latent code z.
Section 3.2 states 'it is safe to assume that neighboring frames are coherent in appearance and thus the noise priors'; this is load-bearing for the 80x speedup.
domain assumption MOVIE is an appropriate metric for judging spatio-temporal inpainting quality.
Section 5 adopts MOVIE from [9] as the primary video quality metric; no justification is given beyond it being spatio-temporal.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Faster Unsupervised Semantic Inpainting: A GAN Based Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4V6LLO5U

@misc{pith2026190804968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Faster Unsupervised Semantic Inpainting: A GAN Based Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4V6LLO5U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04968}
}

abstract

In this paper, we propose to improve the inference speed and visual quality of contemporary baseline of Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) based unsupervised semantic inpainting. This is made possible with better initialization of the core iterative optimization involved in the framework. To our best knowledge, this is also the first attempt of GAN based video inpainting with consideration to temporal cues. On single image inpainting, we achieve about 4.5-5$\times$ speedup and 80$\times$ on videos compared to baseline. Simultaneously, our method has better spatial and temporal reconstruction qualities as found on three image and one video dataset.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

Tradi- tional methods [1, 2] were mainly successful when deployed on background scenes and images with repeated textures

INTRODUCTION Semantic inpainting refers to ﬁlling up of missing pixels in a given image by leveraging neighborhood information. Tradi- tional methods [1, 2] were mainly successful when deployed on background scenes and images with repeated textures. However, they fail to learn complex semantic representations and thereby manifest unpleasing reconstruction...

work page
[2]

A better initializing method for the iterative optimiza- tion of [3] to speedup inference run time on single image in- painting by 4.5-5×

work page
[3]

First demonstration of totally unsupervised GAN based inpainting on videos (in context of error concealment) with speedup upto 80× by leveraging temporal redundancy

work page
[4]

A group consistency loss for a more temporally con- sistent sequence reconstruction and thereby leading to more pleasing spatio-temporal experience as ascertained by the MOVIE metric [9]

work page
[5]

Exhaustive experiments on SVHN, Standford Cars, CelebA image dataset and VidTIMID video dataset manifest the beneﬁts of our approach

work page
[6]

Faster Unsupervised Semantic Inpainting: A GAN Based Approach

GAN PRELIMINARIES A GAN model consists of two deep neural nets, viz., gener- ator, G, and discriminator, D. The task of the generator is to create an image, x∈ RH×W×3 with a noise prior vec- tor,z∈R d, as input. z is sampled from a known distribu- tion,pz(z); usuallyz∼U [−1, 1]d. The discriminator has to distinguish between real samples(sampled from real ...

work page Pith review arXiv 1908
[7]

METHOD We build upon the unsupervised inpainting framework of Yeh et al.[3]. Given a masked image, Id = M⊙I, correspond- ing to an original image, I, and a pre-trained GAN model, the idea is to iteratively ﬁnd the ‘closest’ z vector (starting randomly from U [−1, 1]d) which results in a reconstructed image whose semantics are similar to corrupted image. z...

work page 2019
[8]

For video inpainting, we ex- perimented at 128×128 resolution on VidTIMIT[14] dataset

EXPERIMENT SETTINGS Datasets: For image inpainting we tested on SVHN[11], Standford Cars[12] @ 64×64 resolution and CelebA[13] @ 64×64 and 128×128 resolution. For video inpainting, we ex- perimented at 128×128 resolution on VidTIMIT[14] dataset. Network Architectures: For fair comparison with our base- line of [3], we borrowed their architectures for both...

work page

Show all 28 references

[9]

[4] [5] [3] Ours Cars 14.3 15.3 14.5 13.5 14.1 SVHN 21.5 23.6 23.7 20.4 22.0 CelebA(64) 23.0 24.1 24.2 22.6 23.3 CelebA(128) 20.0 20.9 20.6 17.6 18.8
[10]

On videos the speedup is almost 80×

RESULTS Speedup in optimization: With respect to our unsupervised baseline[3], on average, we achieved about 5 × speedup for single image inpainting. On videos the speedup is almost 80×. See Table 2 for speed comparisons. Image Inpainting: In Fig. 3 we show some exemplary in- ...

2019
[11]

We compare with unsupervised baseline of Yeh et al

[4] [5] [3] Ours (Re) Ours (Re + G) Cars 13.8 14.2 14.5 15.6 18.2 20.0 SVHN 21.3 21.8 22.1 22.8 24.1 24.8 CelebA(64) 23.1 23.2 23.6 24.1 25.6 26.3 CelebA(128) 21.8 20.9 21.6 21.9 22.4 23.5 Table 4: Comparison on MOVIE metric[9]∈ [0, 1] on ViDTIMIT video test set. We compare wi...
[12]

We also show some visual comparison with recent hybrid benchmarks in Fig.4

[8] [4] [5] Proposed (Re) Proposed (Re + G) 0.66 0.63 0.55 0.46 0.52 0.47 to [3]. We also show some visual comparison with recent hybrid benchmarks in Fig.4. Recently [15, 3, 5] researchers have shown that PSNR metric is not fully justiﬁable to assess tasks such as inpainting ...
[13]

CONCLUSION In this paper, we ﬁrst discussed the problem of impractical long inference time of the recent completely unsupervised inpainting framework of [3]. We then proposed to speedup the iterative optimization of [3] by better initialization tech- nique on images and also l...

2019
[14]

Patchmatch: A randomized correspondence algorithm for structural image editing,

Connelly Barnes, Eli Shechtman, Adam Finkelstein, and Dan B Goldman, “Patchmatch: A randomized correspondence algorithm for structural image editing,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) , vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 24, 2009

2009
[15]

Scene completion using millions of photographs,

James Hays and Alexei A Efros, “Scene completion using millions of photographs,” in ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG). ACM, 2007, vol. 26, p. 4

2007
[16]

Semantic image inpainting with deep generative models,

Raymond A Yeh, Chen Chen, Teck Yian Lim, Alexan- der G Schwing, Mark Hasegawa-Johnson, and Minh N Do, “Semantic image inpainting with deep generative models,” in CVPR, 2017, pp. 5485–5493

2017
[17]

Globally and locally consistent image completion,

Satoshi Iizuka, Edgar Simo-Serra, and Hiroshi Ishikawa, “Globally and locally consistent image completion,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 107, 2017

2017
[18]

Generative image inpainting with contextual attention,

Jiahui Yu, Zhe Lin, Jimei Yang, Xiaohui Shen, Xin Lu, and Thomas S Huang, “Generative image inpainting with contextual attention,” in CVPR, 2018

2018
[19]

Generative face completion,

Yijun Li, Sifei Liu, Jimei Yang, and Ming-Hsuan Yang, “Generative face completion,” in The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2017, vol. 1, p. 3

2017
[20]

Generative adversarial nets,

Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio, “Generative adversarial nets,” in NIPS, 2014, pp. 2672–2680

2014
[21]

Context encoders: Feature learning by inpainting,

Deepak Pathak, Philipp Krahenbuhl, Jeff Donahue, Trevor Darrell, and Alexei A Efros, “Context encoders: Feature learning by inpainting,” in CVPR, 2016, pp. 2536–2544

2016
[22]

Mo- tion tuned spatio-temporal quality assessment of natural videos,

Kalpana Seshadrinathan and Alan Conrad Bovik, “Mo- tion tuned spatio-temporal quality assessment of natural videos,” IEEE transactions on image processing , vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 335–350, 2010

2010
[23]

Generative visual manipulation on the natural image manifold,

Jun-Yan Zhu, Philipp Kr ¨ahenb¨uhl, Eli Shechtman, and Alexei A Efros, “Generative visual manipulation on the natural image manifold,” in ECCV. Springer, 2016, pp. 597–613

2016
[24]

Reading digits in natural images with unsupervised feature learning,

Yuval Netzer, Tao Wang, Adam Coates, Alessandro Bis- sacco, Bo Wu, and Andrew Y Ng, “Reading digits in natural images with unsupervised feature learning,” in NIPS workshop on deep learning and unsupervised fea- ture learning, 2011, vol. 2011, p. 5

2011
[25]

3d object representations for ﬁne-grained cate- gorization,

Jonathan Krause, Michael Stark, Jia Deng, and Li Fei- Fei, “3d object representations for ﬁne-grained cate- gorization,” in 4th International IEEE Workshop on 3D Representation and Recognition (3dRR-13), Sydney, Australia, 2013

2013
[26]

Deep learning face attributes in the wild,

Ziwei Liu, Ping Luo, Xiaogang Wang, and Xiaoou Tang, “Deep learning face attributes in the wild,” in Proceed- ings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2015, pp. 3730–3738

2015
[27]

Multi-region probabilistic histograms for robust and scalable identity inference,

Conrad Sanderson and Brian C Lovell, “Multi-region probabilistic histograms for robust and scalable identity inference,” in International Conference on Biometrics . Springer, 2009, pp. 199–208

2009
[28]

Photo-realistic single image super- resolution using a generative adversarial network.,

Christian Ledig, Lucas Theis, Ferenc Husz ´ar, Jose Ca- ballero, Andrew Cunningham, Alejandro Acosta, An- drew P Aitken, Alykhan Tejani, Johannes Totz, Ze- han Wang, et al., “Photo-realistic single image super- resolution using a generative adversarial network.,” in CVPR, 2017...

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Tradi- tional methods [1, 2] were mainly successful when deployed on background scenes and images with repeated textures

INTRODUCTION Semantic inpainting refers to ﬁlling up of missing pixels in a given image by leveraging neighborhood information. Tradi- tional methods [1, 2] were mainly successful when deployed on background scenes and images with repeated textures. However, they fail to learn complex semantic representations and thereby manifest unpleasing reconstruction...

work page

[2] [2]

A better initializing method for the iterative optimiza- tion of [3] to speedup inference run time on single image in- painting by 4.5-5×

work page

[3] [3]

First demonstration of totally unsupervised GAN based inpainting on videos (in context of error concealment) with speedup upto 80× by leveraging temporal redundancy

work page

[4] [4]

A group consistency loss for a more temporally con- sistent sequence reconstruction and thereby leading to more pleasing spatio-temporal experience as ascertained by the MOVIE metric [9]

work page

[5] [5]

Exhaustive experiments on SVHN, Standford Cars, CelebA image dataset and VidTIMID video dataset manifest the beneﬁts of our approach

work page

[6] [6]

Faster Unsupervised Semantic Inpainting: A GAN Based Approach

GAN PRELIMINARIES A GAN model consists of two deep neural nets, viz., gener- ator, G, and discriminator, D. The task of the generator is to create an image, x∈ RH×W×3 with a noise prior vec- tor,z∈R d, as input. z is sampled from a known distribu- tion,pz(z); usuallyz∼U [−1, 1]d. The discriminator has to distinguish between real samples(sampled from real ...

work page Pith review arXiv 1908

[7] [7]

METHOD We build upon the unsupervised inpainting framework of Yeh et al.[3]. Given a masked image, Id = M⊙I, correspond- ing to an original image, I, and a pre-trained GAN model, the idea is to iteratively ﬁnd the ‘closest’ z vector (starting randomly from U [−1, 1]d) which results in a reconstructed image whose semantics are similar to corrupted image. z...

work page 2019

[8] [8]

For video inpainting, we ex- perimented at 128×128 resolution on VidTIMIT[14] dataset

EXPERIMENT SETTINGS Datasets: For image inpainting we tested on SVHN[11], Standford Cars[12] @ 64×64 resolution and CelebA[13] @ 64×64 and 128×128 resolution. For video inpainting, we ex- perimented at 128×128 resolution on VidTIMIT[14] dataset. Network Architectures: For fair comparison with our base- line of [3], we borrowed their architectures for both...

work page