High dynamic range image tone mapping by optimizing tone mapped image quality index
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
An active research topic in recent years is to design tone mapping operators (TMOs) that convert high dynamic range (H-DR) to low dynamic range (LDR) images, so that HDR images can be visualized on standard displays. Nevertheless, most existing work has been done in the absence of a well-established and subject-validated image quality assessment (IQA) model, without which fair comparisons and further improvement are difficult. Recently, a tone mapped image quality index (TMQI) was proposed, which has shown to have good correlation with subjective evaluations of tone mapped images. Here we propose a substantially different approach to design TMO, where instead of using any pre-defined systematic computational structure (such as image transformation or contrast/edge enhancement) for tone mapping, we navigate in the space of all images, searching for the image that optimizes TMQI. The navigation involves an iterative process that alternately improves the structural fidelity and statistical naturalness of the resulting image, which are the two fundamental building blocks in TMQI. Experiments demonstrate the superior performance of the proposed method.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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