MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166502676 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2006.18

On the removal of shadows from images

2006· article· en· W2166502676 on OpenAlexaff
Graham D. Finlayson, S. D. Hordley, Cheng Lu, Mark S. Drew

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionStandard illuminantShadow (psychology)PixelShadow mappingComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)Image (mathematics)GrayscaleImage restorationMathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Image processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is concerned with the derivation of a progression of shadow-free image representations. First, we show that adopting certain assumptions about lights and cameras leads to a 1D, gray-scale image representation which is illuminant invariant at each image pixel. We show that as a consequence, images represented in this form are shadow-free. We then extend this 1D representation to an equivalent 2D, chromaticity representation. We show that in this 2D representation, it is possible to relight all the image pixels in the same way, effectively deriving a 2D image representation which is additionally shadow-free. Finally, we show how to recover a 3D, full color shadow-free image representation by first (with the help of the 2D representation) identifying shadow edges. We then remove shadow edges from the edge-map of the original image by edge in-painting and we propose a method to reintegrate this thresholded edge map, thus deriving the sought-after 3D shadow-free image.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations660
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine IntelligenceSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207