Determining scalar illuminance from cubic illuminance data. Part 2: Tests in real lighting environments and an approach to improve its accuracy
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
Scalar illuminance, which describes the constant illumination from all directions, is an important indicator of the abundance of light for a lit object and the adequacy of illumination perceived. This paper proposes a more reliable method to recover scalar illuminance based on tests in natural complex lighting environments. The performance of Cuttle’s Approach 1, Mangkuto’s Approach 2 and Approach 3, together with Xia et al.’s potential Approach 4, were tested under a total of 610 high dynamic range (HDR) panoramic maps of real scenes. The relationships between predicted scalar illuminance and normalised diffuseness levels were checked. The results indicate that the potential Approach 4 is more robust to the cubic meter’s postures, and the predicted scalar illuminance has a regular relationship with normalised diffuseness levels. Approach 4 was corrected, together with Approach 1, formulating a new method named Approach 5S. Later, the proposed Approach 5S was evaluated under 205 indoor and 2233 outdoor panoramas from the Laval HDR databases, and it was shown to recover more reliable scalar illuminance with an average error within 5% in general. This study has provided a practical solution to more accurate vector illuminance-based metrics in real lighting environments. This algorithm can be further integrated into the development of cubic illumination meter instruments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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