MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008866578 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2013.6637979

High dynamic range image tone mapping by maximizing a structural fidelity measure

2013· article· en· W2008866578 on OpenAlexaff
Hojatollah Yeganeh, Zhou Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Enhancement Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTone mappingHigh dynamic rangeComputer scienceFidelityRange (aeronautics)Measure (data warehouse)Image (mathematics)VisualizationHigh fidelityPoint (geometry)Computer visionImage qualityArtificial intelligenceDynamic rangeQuality (philosophy)MathematicsData miningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tone mapping operators (TMOs) that convert high dynamic range (HDR) images to standard low dynamic range (LDR) images are highly desirable for the visualization of these images on standard displays. Although many existing TMOs produce visually appealing images, it is until recently validated objective measures that can assess their quality have been proposed. Without such objective measures, the design of traditional TMOs can only be based on intuitive ideas, lacking clear goals for further improvement. In this paper, we propose a substantially different tone mapping approach, where instead of explicitly designing a new computational structure for TMO, we search in the space of images to find better quality images in terms of a recent objective measure that can assess the structural fidelity between two images of different dynamic ranges. Specifically, starting from any initial image, the proposed algorithm moves the image along the gradient ascent direction and stops until it converges to a maximal point. Our experiments show that the proposed algorithm reliably produces better quality images upon a number of state-of-the-art TMOs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Enhancement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207