A comparison of computational color constancy Algorithms. II. Experiments with image data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We test a number of the leading computational color constancy algorithms using a comprehensive set of images. These were of 33 different scenes under 11 different sources representative of common illumination conditions. The algorithms studied include two gray world methods, a version of the Retinex method, several variants of Forsyth's gamut-mapping method, Cardei et al.'s neural net method, and Finlayson et al.'s Color by Correlation method. We discuss a number of issues in applying color constancy ideas to image data, and study in depth the effect of different preprocessing strategies. We compare the performance of the algorithms on image data with their performance on synthesized data. All data used for this study are available online at http://www.cs.sfu.ca/(tilde)color/data, and implementations for most of the algorithms are also available (http://www.cs.sfu.ca/(tilde)color/code). Experiments with synthesized data (part one of this paper) suggested that the methods which emphasize the use of the input data statistics, specifically color by correlation and the neural net algorithm, are potentially the most effective at estimating the chromaticity of the scene illuminant. Unfortunately, we were unable to realize comparable performance on real images. Here exploiting pixel intensity proved to be more beneficial than exploiting the details of image chromaticity statistics, and the three-dimensional (3-D) gamut-mapping algorithms gave the best performance.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".