MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W207622149

Modeling Color Constancy with Neural Networks

2015· article· en· W207622149 on OpenAlexaff
Vlad C. Cardei, Brian Funt, Kobus Barnard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicColor Science and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandard illuminantChromaticityArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkComputer visionComputer scienceImage (mathematics)Color constancyPixelPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsSet (abstract data type)Color space
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The many algorithms used for color correction make a series of assumptions that try to constrain the problem of finding the scene illuminant under which a given image was taken. In contrast, the neural network we have developed1 has no explicit constraints. All rules are implicitly learned from the training set, which contains a large number of artificially generated scenes. The network estimates the chromaticity of the illuminant under which the given image was taken. This allows for a diagonal transformation2 of the image to another illuminant. The neural network uses a binarized input of all the chromaticity values found in the image. First, each (R,G,B) pixel in the image is transformed into rg-chromaticity space (r=R/(R+G+B) and g=G/ (R+G+B)). Second, the chromaticity space is uniformly tessellated into bins and binarized so that the bins have values of either 0 or 1 indicating whether or not the bin's chromaticity range is present in the image. Although this binning has the disadvantage that it discards part of the color resolution, it has a big advantage, which is that it provides a permutation-independent input to the neural net. All variations due to the image geometry are eliminated and only the image colors are used. The network that we used is a Perceptron with two hidden layers. We experimented with many different architectures, but the one that yielded the best results had 3600-200-32-2 nodes. Because of the large size of the network, we added a new an adaptive technique to the existing network, which shortens the training time by almost an order of magnitude. The performance of the network remained unaffected. With the adaptive reconfiguration technique, the first hidden layer is not fully connected to the input layer. Instead only 150 connections are made to the input layer from any node in the first hidden layer. Initially, these connections are distributed at random. Since the gamut of all possible colors does not occupy the whole input space, the input space initially is not used efficiently − there will be many input neurons that will never receive any activation because their inputs map to colors outside the gamut. The adaptive technique consists of deleting those links to the input layer that were never active during one training epoch and replacing them with new links created at random. This process stabilizes after only three or four epochs, at which time all input links point to active areas in the input space. The network was trained using Back-propagation without momentum. Different learning rates were used for each layer, which improved the training speed and stability. The learning rates were 50 for the first hidden layer, 10 for the second one and 0.1 for the output layer. The Euclidean distance in the chromaticity space between the target output (r, g) and the estimated one (re, ge) defined the error function. The network was trained with a large number of automatically generated scenes, each with a random number of colors ranging from 2 to 80. The database of illuminants consists of 89 different natural illuminants that were measured with a spectroradiometer. The database of reflectances (surfaces) is composed of 260 surface reflectance functions. For each illuminant, the number of scenes ranged from 100 to 1000. Noise and specular reflectance were also modeled, in order to improve the performance when applied to real images. The network performed much better than the other conventional color constancy algorithms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicColor Science and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207