Exemplar-Based Color Constancy and Multiple Illumination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exemplar-based learning or, equally, nearest neighbor methods have recently gained interest from researchers in a variety of computer science domains because of the prevalence of large amounts of accessible data and storage capacity. In computer vision, these types of technique have been successful in several problems such as scene recognition, shape matching, image parsing, character recognition, and object detection. Applying the concept of exemplar-based learning to the problem of color constancy seems odd at first glance since, in the first place, similar nearest neighbor images are not usually affected by precisely similar illuminants and, in the second place, gathering a dataset consisting of all possible real-world images, including indoor and outdoor scenes and for all possible illuminant colors and intensities, is indeed impossible. In this paper, we instead focus on surfaces in the image and address the color constancy problem by unsupervised learning of an appropriate model for each training surface in training images. We find nearest neighbor models for each surface in a test image and estimate its illumination based on comparing the statistics of pixels belonging to nearest neighbor surfaces and the target surface. The final illumination estimation results from combining these estimated illuminants over surfaces to generate a unique estimate. We show that it performs very well, for standard datasets, compared to current color constancy algorithms, including when learning based on one image dataset is applied to tests from a different dataset. The proposed method has the advantage of overcoming multi-illuminant situations, which is not possible for most current methods since they assume the color of the illuminant is constant all over the image. We show a technique to overcome the multiple illuminant situation using the proposed method and test our technique on images with two distinct sources of illumination using a multiple-illuminant color constancy dataset. The concept proposed here is a completely new approach to the color constancy problem and provides a simple learning-based framework.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".