Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exemplar-based learning or, equally, nearest neighbour methods have recently gained interest from researchers in a variety of computer science domains because of the prevalence of large amounts of accessible data and storage capacity. In computer vision, these types of technique have been successful in several problems such as scene recognition, shape matching, image parsing, character recognition and object detection. Applying the concept of exemplar-based learning to the problem of colour constancy seems odd at first glance since, in the first place, similar nearest neighbour images are not usually affected by precisely similar illuminants and, in the second place, gathering a dataset consisting of all possible real-world images, including indoor and outdoor scenes and for all possible illuminant colours and intensities, is indeed impossible. In this paper we instead focus on surfaces in the image and address the colour constancy problem by unsupervised learning of an appropriate model for each training surface in training images. We find nearest neighbour models for each surface in a test image and estimate its illumination based on comparing the statistics of pixels belonging to nearest neighbour surfaces and the target surface. The final illumination estimation results from combining these estimated illuminants over surfaces to generate a unique estimate. The proposed method has the advantage of overcoming multi-illuminant situations, which is not possible for most current methods. The concept proposed here is a completely new approach to the colour constancy problem. We show that it performs very well, for standard datasets, compared to current colour constancy algorithms.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".