MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975385554 · doi:10.1117/12.473897

Non-von-Kries 3-parameter color prediction

2003· article· en· W1975385554 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Funt, Hao Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicColor Science and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandard illuminantChromatic adaptationMathematicsMatrix (chemical analysis)Transformation (genetics)Basis (linear algebra)Color constancyAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceGeometryImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chromatic adaptation transforms generally rely on a variant of the von Kries transformation-method to account for changes in the LMS cone signals that occur when changing from one illuminant to another. Von Kries adaptation also often referred to as the coefficient rule method or the diagonal transformation method-adjusts the 3 color channels by independent scale factors. Since there generally are only 3 known quantities available, namely the ratio of the cone signals of the two adapting illuminants, a crucial aspect of the von Kries method is that it requires only 3 parameters to be specified. A 9-parameter, 3x3 matrix transformation would be more accurate, but it is generally not possible to determine the extra parameters. This paper presents a novel method of predicting the effect a change of illumination has on the cone signals, while still relying on only 3 parameters. To begin, we create a large set of 3x3 matrices representing illuminant changes based on a sizable database of typical illuminant spectra and surface spectral reflectances. Representing these 3x3 matrices as points in a 9-dimensional space, we then apply principal components analysis to find a 3-dimensional basis which best approximates the original matrix space. To model an illumination change, a 3x3 matrix is constructed using a weighted combination of the 3 basis matrices. The relative weights can be calculated based on the 3 standard cone ratios obtained from the illuminant pair. Tests show that the new method yields better results than von Kries adaptation with or without sensor sharpening.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicColor Science and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207