Group‐Theme Recoloring for Multi‐Image Color Consistency
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
Abstract Modifying the colors of an image is a fundamental editing task with a wide range of methods available. Manipulating multiple images to share similar colors is more challenging, with limited tools available. Methods such as color transfer are effective in making an image share similar colors with a target image; however, color transfer is not suitable for modifying multiple images. Approaches for color consistency for photo collections give good results when the photo collection contains similar scene content, but are not applicable for general input images. To address these gaps, we propose an application framework for achieving color consistency for multi‐image input. Our framework derives a group color theme from the input images′ individual color palettes and uses this group color theme to recolor the image collection. This group‐theme recoloring provides an effective way to ensure color consistency among multiple images and naturally lends itself to the inclusion of an additional external color theme. We detail our group‐theme recoloring approach and demonstrate its effectiveness on a number of examples.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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