cebeuq commited on
Commit
76b1406
·
verified ·
1 Parent(s): ca824b6

Update README.md

Browse files
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. README.md +5 -12
README.md CHANGED
@@ -22,8 +22,7 @@ maximum likelihood** — the marginal over *all* derivation trees, computed by a
22
  inside dynamic program (log-semiring DP). No noise process, no adversary, no
23
  ELBO, no token ordering.
24
 
25
- This is **v0.1 at 64×64**: a proof-of-concept for the mechanism. It is honest
26
- about what works and what does not (see the scorecard). ~16M trainable
27
  parameters on top of a frozen T5-base caption encoder.
28
 
29
  <p align="center"><img src="samples.jpg" width="360" alt="SPRIG v0.1 samples"></p>
@@ -41,10 +40,7 @@ Because analysis and synthesis are the *same* grammar run in two directions, the
41
  model can also **parse** a real image (infer its most likely derivation) — see
42
  `parses.png`. This is the strongest, most novel capability and it works well.
43
 
44
- ## Honest scorecard (v0.1, 50k steps, held-out procedural scenes)
45
-
46
- Success criteria were fixed in advance. **Passes 1 of 5** — but the failures are
47
- localized and understood, not diffuse.
48
 
49
  | Gate | Target | Result | |
50
  |---|---|---|---|
@@ -58,15 +54,12 @@ localized and understood, not diffuse.
58
  | Compositional holdout (unseen combos) | ≥ 0.60 | 0.01 | ❌ |
59
  | Grammar health (S_eff / alive texels) | ≥256 / ≥50% | 968 / 43% | ⚠️ texels over-pruned |
60
 
61
- **What this means.** The architecture's structural claims are proven: it models
62
  data far better than a no-grammar baseline, routes caption information, recovers
63
  scene structure by parsing, and (after a targeted fix) paints real objects. The
64
  open problem is **caption→object binding**: the model can draw objects and binds
65
- *size* perfectly, but does not yet reliably paint the *specific* object a prompt
66
- asks for, and places too many per scene. That is a conditioning/architecture
67
- issue targeted by v0.2 — not a matter of more training. The full story
68
- (including a failure diagnosis that traced an earlier version's blank object
69
- vocabulary to an emission-weighting/tempering interaction) is in the code repo.
70
 
71
  ## Usage
72
 
 
22
  inside dynamic program (log-semiring DP). No noise process, no adversary, no
23
  ELBO, no token ordering.
24
 
25
+ The current release is **v0.1 at 64×64**: a proof-of-concept for the mechanism. ~16M trainable
 
26
  parameters on top of a frozen T5-base caption encoder.
27
 
28
  <p align="center"><img src="samples.jpg" width="360" alt="SPRIG v0.1 samples"></p>
 
40
  model can also **parse** a real image (infer its most likely derivation) — see
41
  `parses.png`. This is the strongest, most novel capability and it works well.
42
 
43
+ ## Scorecard (v0.1, 50k steps, held-out procedural scenes)
 
 
 
44
 
45
  | Gate | Target | Result | |
46
  |---|---|---|---|
 
54
  | Compositional holdout (unseen combos) | ≥ 0.60 | 0.01 | ❌ |
55
  | Grammar health (S_eff / alive texels) | ≥256 / ≥50% | 968 / 43% | ⚠️ texels over-pruned |
56
 
57
+ The architecture's structural claims proves that it models
58
  data far better than a no-grammar baseline, routes caption information, recovers
59
  scene structure by parsing, and (after a targeted fix) paints real objects. The
60
  open problem is **caption→object binding**: the model can draw objects and binds
61
+ size perfectly, but does not yet reliably paint the *specific* object a prompt
62
+ asks for, and places too many per scene.
 
 
 
63
 
64
  ## Usage
65