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
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.
:::
\

