Automatic blended tone mapping through evolutionary optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tone mapping is the process of transforming high dynamic range images for display on low dynamic range devices. While many tone mapping operators have been proposed, there is no single operator that generates optimal results under all conditions. Blending the results from multiple operators with varying weights allows for leveraging the strengths of each of the operators considered. Prior work has used interactive evolution as a tool for blended tone mapping. In this paper, we build on recent progress in the development of objective quality measures for tone mapped images that allows us to automate the process of evolving blended tone mapped images. The quality measure used assesses tone mapped images in terms of brightness, visual saliency, and detail reproduction in bright and dark regions and assigns an overall score to each image. The blended tone mapping problem can then be solved as an optimization problem, where the operators' parameters and the weights that determine the relative influence of each operator are tuned to generate images with optimal perceptual quality. We show that the optimization can be accomplished with an evolutionary algorithm. Experiments with high dynamic range images demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".