The Impact of Hole Geometry on Relative Robustness of In-Painting Networks: An Empirical Study

4 Mar 2020  ·  Masood S. Mortazavi, Ning Yan ·

In-painting networks use existing pixels to generate appropriate pixels to fill "holes" placed on parts of an image. A 2-D in-painting network's input usually consists of (1) a three-channel 2-D image, and (2) an additional channel for the "holes" to be in-painted in that image. In this paper, we study the robustness of a given in-painting neural network against variations in hole geometry distributions. We observe that the robustness of an in-painting network is dependent on the probability distribution function (PDF) of the hole geometry presented to it during its training even if the underlying image dataset used (in training and testing) does not alter. We develop an experimental methodology for testing and evaluating relative robustness of in-painting networks against four different kinds of hole geometry PDFs. We examine a number of hypothesis regarding (1) the natural bias of in-painting networks to the hole distribution used for their training, (2) the underlying dataset's ability to differentiate relative robustness as hole distributions vary in a train-test (cross-comparison) grid, and (3) the impact of the directional distribution of edges in the holes and in the image dataset. We present results for L1, PSNR and SSIM quality metrics and develop a specific measure of relative in-painting robustness to be used in cross-comparison grids based on these quality metrics. (One can incorporate other quality metrics in this relative measure.) The empirical work reported here is an initial step in a broader and deeper investigation of "filling the blank" neural networks' sensitivity, robustness and regularization with respect to hole "geometry" PDFs, and it suggests further research in this domain.

PDF Abstract
No code implementations yet. Submit your code now


Results from the Paper

  Submit results from this paper to get state-of-the-art GitHub badges and help the community compare results to other papers.


No methods listed for this paper. Add relevant methods here