Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is often the case that multiplications of whole spectra, component by component, must be carried out,for example when light reflects from or is transmitted through materials. This leads to particularly taxing calculations, especially in spectrally based ray tracing or radiosity in graphics, making a full-spectrum method prohibitively expensive. Nevertheless, using full spectra is attractive because of the many important phenomena that can be modeled only by using all the physics at hand. We apply to the task of spectral multiplication a method previously used in modeling RGB-based light propagation. We show that we can often multiply spectra without carrying out spectral multiplication. In previous work [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 1553 (1994)] we developed a method called spectral sharpening, which took camera RGBs to a special sharp basis that was designed to render illuminant change simple to model. Specifically, in the new basis, one can effectively model illuminant change by using a diagonal matrix rather than the 3 x 3 linear transform that results from a three-component finite-dimensional model [G. Healey and D. Slater, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 3003 (1994)]. We apply this idea of sharpening to the set of principal components vectors derived from a representative set of spectra that might reasonably be encountered in a given application. With respect to the sharp spectral basis, we show that spectral multiplications can be modeled as the multiplication of the basis coefficients. These new product coefficients applied to the sharp basis serve to accurately reconstruct the spectral product. Although the method is quite general, we show how to use spectral modeling by taking advantage of metameric surfaces, ones that match under one light but not another, for tasks such as volume rendering. The use of metamers allows a user to pick out or merge different volume structures in real time simply by changing the lighting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
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".