Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intrinsic image decomposition separates an image into a reflectance layer and a shading layer. Automatic intrinsic image decomposition remains a significant challenge, particularly for real-world scenes. Advances on this longstanding problem have been spurred by public datasets of ground truth data, such as the MIT Intrinsic Images dataset. However, the difficulty of acquiring ground truth data has meant that such datasets cover a small range of materials and objects. In contrast, real-world scenes contain a rich range of shapes and materials, lit by complex illumination. In this paper we introduce Intrinsic Images in the Wild , a large-scale, public dataset for evaluating intrinsic image decompositions of indoor scenes. We create this benchmark through millions of crowdsourced annotations of relative comparisons of material properties at pairs of points in each scene. Crowdsourcing enables a scalable approach to acquiring a large database, and uses the ability of humans to judge material comparisons, despite variations in illumination. Given our database, we develop a dense CRF-based intrinsic image algorithm for images in the wild that outperforms a range of state-of-the-art intrinsic image algorithms. Intrinsic image decomposition remains a challenging problem; we release our code and database publicly to support future research on this problem, available online at http://intrinsic.cs.cornell.edu/.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
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".