High Dynamic Range Image Compression by Optimizing Tone Mapped Image Quality Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tone mapping operators (TMOs) aim to compress high dynamic range (HDR) images to low dynamic range (LDR) ones so as to visualize HDR images on standard displays. Most existing TMOs were demonstrated on specific examples without being thoroughly evaluated using well-designed and subject-validated image quality assessment models. A recently proposed tone mapped image quality index (TMQI) made one of the first attempts on objective quality assessment of tone mapped images. Here, we propose a substantially different approach to design TMO. Instead of using any predefined systematic computational structure for tone mapping (such as analytic image transformations and/or explicit contrast/edge enhancement), we directly navigate in the space of all images, searching for the image that optimizes an improved TMQI. In particular, we first improve the two building blocks in TMQI—structural fidelity and statistical naturalness components—leading to a TMQI-II metric. We then propose an iterative algorithm that alternatively improves the structural fidelity and statistical naturalness of the resulting image. Numerical and subjective experiments demonstrate that the proposed algorithm consistently produces better quality tone mapped images even when the initial images of the iteration are created by the most competitive TMOs. Meanwhile, these results also validate the superiority of TMQI-II over TMQI.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".