On Sensor Bias in Experimental Methods for Comparing Interest-Point, Saliency, and Recognition Algorithms
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
Most current algorithm evaluation protocols use large image databases, but give little consideration to imaging characteristics used to create the data sets. This paper evaluates the effects of camera shutter speed and voltage gain under simultaneous changes in illumination and demonstrates significant differences in the sensitivities of popular vision algorithms under variable illumination, shutter speed, and gain. These results show that offline data sets used to evaluate vision algorithms typically suffer from a significant sensor specific bias which can make many of the experimental methodologies used to evaluate vision algorithms unable to provide results that generalize in less controlled environments. We show that for typical indoor scenes, the different saturation levels of the color filters are easily reached, leading to the occurrence of localized saturation which is not exclusively based on the scene radiance but on the spectral density of individual colors present in the scene. Even under constant illumination, foreshortening effects due to surface orientation can affect feature detection and saliency. Finally, we demonstrate that active and purposive control of the shutter speed and gain can lead to significantly more reliable feature detection under varying illumination and nonconstant viewpoints.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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