A Feature-Based Quality Metric for Tone Mapped Images
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the development of high-dynamic-range images and tone mapping operators comes a need for image quality evaluation of tone mapped images. However, because of the significant difference in dynamic range between high-dynamic-range images and tone mapped images, conventional image quality assessment algorithms that predict distortion based on the magnitude of intensity or normalized contrast are not suitable for this task. In this article, we present a feature-based quality metric for tone mapped images that predicts the perceived quality by measuring the distortion in important image features that affect quality judgment. Our metric utilizes multi-exposed virtual photographs taken from the original high-dynamic-range images to bridge the gap between dynamic ranges in image feature analysis. By combining measures for brightness distortion, visual saliency distortion, and detail distortion in light and dark areas, the metric measures the overall perceptual distortion and assigns a score to a tone mapped image. Experiments on a subject-rated database indicate that the proposed metric is more consistent with subjective evaluation results than alternative approaches.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it