Objective Quality Assessment of Tone-Mapped Images
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
Tone-mapping operators (TMOs) that convert high dynamic range (HDR) to low dynamic range (LDR) images provide practically useful tools for the visualization of HDR images on standard LDR displays. Different TMOs create different tone-mapped images, and a natural question is which one has the best quality. Without an appropriate quality measure, different TMOs cannot be compared, and further improvement is directionless. Subjective rating may be a reliable evaluation method, but it is expensive and time consuming, and more importantly, is difficult to be embedded into optimization frameworks. Here we propose an objective quality assessment algorithm for tone-mapped images by combining: 1) a multiscale signal fidelity measure on the basis of a modified structural similarity index and 2) a naturalness measure on the basis of intensity statistics of natural images. Validations using independent subject-rated image databases show good correlations between subjective ranking score and the proposed tone-mapped image quality index (TMQI). Furthermore, we demonstrate the extended applications of TMQI using two examples-parameter tuning for TMOs and adaptive fusion of multiple tone-mapped images.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 |
| 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