Training a video predictor with a least-square criterion yields blurry frames that average all possible futures.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
What would count as true or false
TRUE: the machine-learning literature as of 2019 establishes that video predictors trained with a squared-error (L2/least-squares) loss produce blurry predicted frames when the future is uncertain, because the loss-minimizing prediction is the conditional mean (an average) of the possible futures. MOSTLY TRUE: blurriness from L2 training is well established, but the 'average of all possible futures' explanation is a simplification (e.g., a pixel-wise conditional mean, not a literal average of every future) or does not apply to deterministic settings. MOSTLY FALSE: blurriness occurs only in narrow settings and is presented as general, or the evidence shows L2-trained predictors are often not blurry. FALSE: evidence shows least-squares training does not generally cause blurry predictions.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (4)
-
E1 Deep Multi-Scale Video Prediction Beyond Mean Square Error mlanthology.org (ICLR 2016 proceedings listing) · 2016 Own record
“To deal with the inherently blurry predictions obtained from the standard Mean Squared Error (MSE) loss function, we propose three different and complementary feature learning strategies”
-
E2 Folded Recurrent Neural Networks for Future Video Prediction Oliu, Selva and Escalera (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya / Universitat de Barcelona), ECCV 2018 · 2018
“Left unchecked, this results in blurry predictions averaging the space of possible futures.”
-
E3 Learning Multimodal Transition Dynamics for Model-Based Reinforcement Learning Moerland, Broekens and Jonker (TU Delft), arXiv · 2017
“The point prediction of the function approximator will be the conditional expectation of the outcome distribution”
-
E4 Learning Multimodal Transition Dynamics for Model-Based Reinforcement Learning Moerland, Broekens and Jonker (TU Delft), arXiv · 2017
“Oh et al. [25] shows MSE training does work well in high-dimensional, deterministic domains.”
Reasoning
Only E1, which is not independent of the subject, directly links MSE training to blurry video predictions. The independent items describe blurry predictions that average possible futures (E2) and point predictions equal to a conditional expectation (E3), but their quoted passages do not name least-squares training as the cause. E4 says only that MSE training works well in deterministic domains.
Cite this claim
Yann LeCun, “Training a video predictor with a least-square criterion yields blurry frames that average all possible futures.” (said 2019). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_1a24e97b1a1b, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_1a24e97b1a1b
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Yann LeCun
-
Mostly true
“For starters, transformers are equivariant to permutations.”
Transformers are equivariant to permutations, as ConvNets are equivariant to translations.
-
Mostly true
“If it were the case, we would have AI systems that could teach themselves to drive a car in 20 hours of practice, like any 17 year-old.”
-
Mostly true
“The architecture is good, the architecture of the encoder is good, but the fact that you train the system to reconstruct images does not lead it to produce to long, good generic features of images.”
-
Mostly true
“LLMs can do none of those or they can only do them in a very primitive way and they don’t really understand the physical world.”
-
Mostly true
“No, there’s one thing that autoregressive LLMs or that LLMs in general, not just the autoregressive one, but including the bird style bidirectional ones, are exploiting and its self supervised…”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.