A Benchmark Dataset and Evaluation for Non-Lambertian and Uncalibrated Photometric Stereo
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
Classic photometric stereo is often extended to deal with real-world materials and work with unknown lighting conditions for practicability. To quantitatively evaluate non-Lambertian and uncalibrated photometric stereo, a photometric stereo image dataset containing objects of various shapes with complex reflectance properties and high-quality ground truth normals is still missing. In this paper, we introduce the 'DiLiGenT' dataset with calibrated Directional Lightings, objects of General reflectance with different shininess, and 'ground Truth' normals from high-precision laser scanning. We use our dataset to quantitatively evaluate state-of-the-art photometric stereo methods for general materials and unknown lighting conditions, selected from a newly proposed photometric stereo taxonomy emphasizing non-Lambertian and uncalibrated methods. The dataset and evaluation results are made publicly available, and we hope it can serve as a benchmark platform that inspires future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it