user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Improving image generative models with human interactions

Paper content:
GANs provide a framework for training generative models which mimic a data distribution.
However, in many cases we wish to train a generative model to optimize some auxiliary objective function within the data it generates, such as making more aesthetically pleasing images.
In some cases, these objective functions are difficult to evaluate, e.g. they may require human interaction.
Here, we develop a system for efficiently training a GAN to increase a generic rate of positive user interactions, for example aesthetic ratings.
To do this, we build a model of human behavior in the targeted domain from a relatively small set of interactions, and then use this behavioral model as an auxiliary loss function to improve the generative model.
As a proof of concept, we demonstrate that this system is successful at improving positive interaction rates simulated from a variety of objectives, and characterize s
Generative image models have improved rapidly in the past few years, in part because of the success of Generative Adversarial Networks, or GANs BID2 .
GANs attempt to train a "generator" to create images which mimic real images, by training it to fool an adversarial "discriminator," which attempts to discern whether images are real or fake.
This is one solution to the difficult problem of learning when we don't know how to write down an objective function for image quality: take an empirical distribution of "good" images, and try to match it.Often, we want to impose additional constraints on our goal distribution besides simply matching empirical data.
If we can write down an objective which reflects our goals (even approximately), we can often simply incorporate this into the loss function to achieve our goals.
For example, when trying to generate art, we would like our network to be creative and innovative rather than just imitating previous styles, and including a penalty in the loss for producing recognized styles appears to make GANs more creative BID1 .
Conditioning on image content class, training the discriminator to classify image content as well as making real/fake judgements, and including a loss term for fooling the discriminator on class both allows for targeted image generation and improves overall performance BID9 .However
, sometimes it is not easy to write an explicit objective that reflects our goals. Often
the only effective way to evaluate machine learning systems on complex tasks is by asking humans to determine the quality of their results (Christiano et al., 2017, e.g.) or by actually trying them out in the real world. Can we
incorporate this kind of feedback to efficiently guide a generative model toward producing better results? Can we
do so without a prohibitively expensive and slow amount of data collection? In this
paper, we tackle a specific problem of this kind: generating images that cause more positive user interactions. We imagine
interactions are measured by a generic Positive Interaction Rate (PIR), which could come from a wide variety of sources.For example, users might be asked to rate how aesthetically pleasing an image is from 1 to 5 stars. The PIR could
be computed as a weighted sum of how frequently different ratings were chosen. Alternatively
, these images could be used in the background of web pages. We can assess
user interactions with a webpage in a variety of ways (time on page, clicks, shares, etc.), and summarize these interactions as the PIR. In both of these
tasks, we don't know exactly what features will affect the PIR, and we certainly don't know how to explicitly compute the PIR for an image. However, we can
empirically determine the quality of an image by actually showing it to users, and in this paper we show how to use a small amount of this data (results on 1000 images) to efficiently tune a generative model to produce images which increase PIR. In this work we
focus on simulated PIR values as a proof of concept, but in future work we will investigate PIR values from real interactions.
Overall, our system appears to be relatively successful.
It can optimize a generative model to produce images which target a wide variety of objectives, ranging from low-level visual features such as colors and early features of VGG to features computed at the top layers of VGG.
This success across a wide variety of objective functions allows us to be somewhat confident that our system will be able to achieve success in optimizing for real human interactions.Furthermore, the system did not require an inordinate amount of training data.
In fact, we were able to successfully estimate many different objective functions from only 1000 images, several orders of magnitude fewer than is typically used to train CNNs for vision tasks.
Furthermore, these images came from a very biased and narrow distribution (samples from our generative model) which is reflective of neither the images that were used to pre-train the Inception model in the PIR estimator, nor the images the VGG model (which produced the simulated objectives) was trained on.
Our success from this small amount of data suggests that not only will our system be able to optimize for real human interactions, it will be able to do so from a feasible number of training points.These results are exciting -the model is able to approximate apparently complex objective functions from a small amount of data, even though this data comes from a very biased distribution that is unrelated to most the objectives in question.
But what is really being learned?
In the case of the color images, it's clear that the model is doing something close to correct.
However, for the objectives derived from VGG we have no way to really assess whether the model is making the images better or just more adversarial.
For instance, when we are optimizing for the logit for "magpie," it's almost certainly the case that the result of this optimization will not look more like a magpie to a human, even if VGG does rate the images as more "magpie-like."
On the other hand, this is not necessarily a failure of the system -it is accurately capturing the objective function it is given.
What remains to be seen is whether it can capture how background images influence human behavior as well as it can capture the vagaries of deep vision architectures.We believe there are many domains where a system similar to ours could be useful.
We mentioned producing better webpage backgrounds and making more aesthetic images above, but there are many potential applications for improving GANs with a limited amount of human feedback.
For example, a model could be trained to produce better music (e.g. song skip rates on streaming generated music could be treated as inverse PIRs).
We have described a system for efficiently tuning a generative image model according to a slow-toevaluate objective function.
We have demonstrated the success of this system at targeting a variety of objective functions simulated from different layers of a deep vision model, as well as from low-level visual features of the images, and have shown that it can do so from a small amount of data.
We have quantified some of the features that affect its performance, including the variability of the training PIR data and the number of zeros it contains.
Our system's success on a wide variety of objectives suggests that it will be able to improve real user interactions, or other objectives which are slow and expensive to evaluate.
This may have many exciting applications, such as improving machine-generated images, music, or art.
A OTHER ANALYSES
Because L P IR is just the expected value of the PIR, by looking at L P IR before and after tuning the generative model, we can tell how well the system thinks it is doing, i.e. how much it estimates that it improved PIR.
This comparison reveals the interesting pattern that the system is overly pessimistic about its performance.
In fact, it tends to underestimate its performance by a factor of more than 1.5 (β = 1.67 when regressing change in mean PIR on predicted change in mean PIR, see FIG3 ).
However, it does so fairly consistently.
This effect appears to be driven by the system consistently underestimating the (absolute) PIRs, which is probably caused by our change in the softmax temperature between training the PIR estimator and tuning the generative model (which we empirically found improves performance, as noted above).
This is in contrast to the possible a priori expectation that the model would systematically overestimate its performance, because it is overfitting to an imperfectly estimated objective function.
Although decreasing the softmax temperature between training and using the PIR obscures this effect, we do see some evidence of this; the more complex objectives (which the system produced lower effect sizes on) seem to both have lower estimated changes in mean PIR and true changes in PIR which are even lower than the estimated ones (see FIG3 ).
Thus although the system is somewhat aware of its reduced effectiveness with these objectives (as evidenced by the lower estimates of change in mean PIR), it is not reducing its estimates sufficiently to account for the true difficulty of the objectives (as evidenced by the fact that the true change in PIR is even lower than the estimates).
However, the system was generally still able to obtain positive results on these objectives (see FIG1 ).

assistant: text: We describe how to improve an image generative model according to a slow- or difficult-to-evaluate objective, such as human feedback, which could have many applications, like making more aesthetic images.