MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2957477838 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2019.2919824

Providing a Single Ground-Truth for Illuminant Estimation for the ColorChecker Dataset

2019· article· en· W2957477838 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicColor Science and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilApple
KeywordsStandard illuminantGround truthArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Ranking (information retrieval)AlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ColorChecker dataset is one of the most widely used image sets for evaluating and ranking illuminant estimation algorithms. However, this single set of images has at least 3 different sets of ground-truth (i.e., correct answers) associated with it. In the literature it is often asserted that one algorithm is better than another when the algorithms in question have been tuned and tested with the different ground-truths. In this short correspondence we present some of the background as to why the 3 existing ground-truths are different and go on to make a new single and recommended set of correct answers. Experiments reinforce the importance of this work in that we show that the total ordering of a set of algorithms may be reversed depending on whether we use the new or legacy ground-truth data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it