Bibliographic record
Abstract
The poor performance of the MaxRGB illuminationestimation method is often used in the literature as a foil when promoting some new illumination-estimation method. However, the results presented here show that in fact MaxRGB works surprisingly well when tested on a new dataset of 105 high dynamic range images, and also better than previously reported when some simple pre-processing is applied to the images of the standard 321 image set [1]. The HDR images in the dataset for color constancy research were constructed in the standard way from multiple exposures of the same scene. The color of the scene illumination was determined by photographing an extra HDR image of the scene with 4 Gretag Macbeth mini Colorcheckers at 45 degrees relative to one another placed in it. With preprocessing, MaxRGB’s performance is statistically equivalent to that of Color by Correlation [2] and statistically superior to that of the Greyedge [3] algorithm on the 321 set (null hypothesis rejected at the 5% significance level). It also performs as well as Greyedge on the HDR set. These results demonstrate that MaxRGB is far more effective than it has been reputed to be so long as it is applied to image data that encodes the full dynamic range of the original scene.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
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".