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
Banding or false contour is an annoying visual artifact whose impact negatively degrades the perceptual quality of visual content. Since users are increasingly expecting better visual quality from such content and banding leads to deteriorated quality-of-experience, the area of banding removal or debanding has taken paramount importance. Existing debanding approaches are mostly knowledge-driven, while data-driven debanding approaches remain surprisingly missing. In this work, we construct a large-scale dataset of 51,490 pairs of corresponding pristine and banded image patches, which enables us to make one of the first attempts at developing a deep learning based banding artifact removal method for images that we name deep debanding network (deepDeband). We also develop a bilateral weighting scheme that fuses patch-level debanding results to full-size images. Extensive performance evaluation shows that deepDeband is successful at greatly reducing banding artifacts in images, outperforming existing methods both quantitatively and visually. The proposed algorithm and dataset are made publicly available. <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup>
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it