Calculating surface reflectance using a single-bounce model of mutual reflection
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light reflected from one surface onto a second surface changes both the intensity and spectral power distribution of light leaving the second surface. Similarly, light from the second surface illuminates the first. This mutual reflection effect can be exploited by examining pixels where interreflection is and is not present. From these measurements several intrinsic properties can be determined: the reflectance of each surface, the spectral power distribution of the incident illumination, and some constraints on the physical configuration of the two surfaces. The authors use finite dimensional linear models for the ambient illumination and for surface spectral reflectance, with m basis functions for illumination and n for surfaces. Examining p sensor values (e.g. RGB values) they find that if p satisfies the condition p>or=(2n+m)/3 they can solve for finite dimensional model descriptors of both surfaces and of the ambient illumination, as well as for a form-factor stemming from the surface configuration. With n=m=3, p can also be 3. A single-bounce model of mutual reflection accounts for the most important contribution to light intensity in an interreflecting geometry.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">></ETX>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it