Segmenting surface boundaries using luminance cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Segmenting scenes into distinct surfaces is a basic visual perception task, and luminance differences between adjacent surfaces often provide an important segmentation cue. However, mean luminance differences between two surfaces may exist without any sharp change in albedo at their boundary, but rather from differences in the proportion of small light and dark areas within each surface, e.g. texture elements, which we refer to as a luminance texture boundary. Here we investigate the performance of human observers segmenting luminance texture boundaries. We demonstrate that a simple model involving a single stage of filtering cannot explain observer performance, unless it incorporates contrast normalization. Performing additional experiments in which observers segment luminance texture boundaries while ignoring super-imposed luminance step boundaries, we demonstrate that the one-stage model, even with contrast normalization, cannot explain performance. We then present a Filter-Rectify-Filter model positing two cascaded stages of filtering, which fits our data well, and explains observers' ability to segment luminance texture boundary stimuli in the presence of interfering luminance step boundaries. We propose that such computations may be useful for boundary segmentation in natural scenes, where shadows often give rise to luminance step edges which do not correspond to surface boundaries.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".