Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manipulated images lose believability if the user's edits fail to account for shadows. We propose a method that makes removal and editing of soft shadows easy. Soft shadows are ubiquitous, but remain notoriously difficult to extract and manipulate. We posit that soft shadows can be segmented, and therefore edited, by learning a mapping function for image patches that generates shadow mattes. We validate this premise by removing soft shadows from photographs with only a small amount of user input. Given only broad user brush strokes that indicate the region to be processed, our new supervised regression algorithm automatically unshadows an image, removing the umbra and penumbra. The resulting lit image is frequently perceived as a believable shadow-free version of the scene. We tested the approach on a large set of soft shadow images, and performed a user study that compared our method to the state-of-the-art and to real lit scenes. Our results are more difficult to identify as being altered and are perceived as preferable compared to prior work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it