MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117104107 · doi:10.1109/mcg.2007.30

Editing Soft Shadows in a Digital Photograph

2007· review· en· W2117104107 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

VenueIEEE Computer Graphics and Applications · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsScience North
FundersNorthwestern UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)Computer graphicsComputer visionMultimediaHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceEngineering drawingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we develop tools for shadow modification in images where a shadowed region is characterized by soft boundaries with varying sharpness along the shadow edges. Modeling shadow edges presents an interesting challenge because they can vary from infinitely sharp edges for shadows produced by a point light source to extremely soft edges for shadows produced by large area light sources. We propose an entirely image-based shadow editing tool for a single-input image. This technique for modeling, editing, and rendering shadow edges in a photograph or a synthetic image lets users separate the shadow from the rest of the image and make arbitrary adjustments to its position, sharpness, and intensity. These machine-adjustable photographs can offer interactivity that might improve images' expressiveness and help us investigate the influence of boundary sharpness on the perception of object-to-object contact, as well as understand how humans assess shadows to estimate object height above a ground plane

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.294 · 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