MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Contrast‐aware Halftoning

2010· article· en· W2097511706 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

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicColor Science and Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPixelComputer scienceContrast (vision)Tone mappingArtificial intelligenceComputer visionRaster graphicsRandom walker algorithmRaster scanAlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)High dynamic rangeDynamic range

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper proposes two variants of a simple but efficient algorithm for structure‐preserving halftoning. Our algorithm extends Floyd‐Steinberg error diffusion; the goal of our extension is not only to produce good tone similarity but also to preserve structure and especially contrast, motivated by our intuition that human perception is sensitive to contrast. By enhancing contrast we attempt to preserve and enhance structure also. Our basic algorithm employs an adaptive, contrast‐aware mask. To enhance contrast, darker pixels should be more likely to be chosen as black pixels while lighter pixels should be more likely to be set as white. Therefore, when the positive error is diffused to nearby pixels in a mask, the dark pixels absorb less error and the light pixels absorb more. Conversely, negative error is distributed preferentially to dark pixels. We also propose using a mask with values that drop off steeply from the centre, intended to promote good spatial distribution. It is a very fast method whose speed mainly depends on the size of the mask. But this method suffers from distracting patterns. We then propose a variant on the basic idea which overcomes the first algorithm's shortcomings while maintaining its advantages through a priority‐aware scheme. Rather than proceeding in random or raster order, we sort the image first; each pixel is assigned a priority based on its up‐to‐date distance to black or to white, and pixels with extreme intensities are processed earlier. Since we use the same mask strategy as before, we promote good spatial distribution and high contrast. We use tone similarity, structure similarity, and contrast similarity to validate our algorithm. Comparisons with recent structure‐aware algorithms show that our method gives better results without sacrificing speed.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.237
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