MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059657882 · doi:10.1142/s0219467806002379

REINFORCED CONTRAST ADAPTATION

2006· article· en· W2059657882 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Image and Graphics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContrast (vision)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceObserver (physics)Image (mathematics)Reinforcement learningHistogramComputer visionIdeal (ethics)Adaptation (eye)Transformation (genetics)Point (geometry)AlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional image enhancement algorithms do not account for the subjective evaluation of human operators. Every observer has a different opinion of an ideally enhanced image. Automated Techniques for obtaining a subjectively ideal image enhancement are desirable, but currently do not exist. In this paper, we demonstrate that Reinforcement Learning is a potential method for solving this problem. We have developed an agent that uses the Q-learning algorithm. The agent modifies the contrast of an image with a simple linear point transformation based on the histogram of the image and feedback it receives from human observers. The results of several testing sessions have indicated that the agent performs well within a limited number of iterations.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.255 · 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