Lightness and brightness characterized via decision spaces, in real and rendered scenes
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
Lightness and brightness have extensive research literatures, but their relationship is controversial. We used decision spaces to characterize them and to test computational models. In Experiment 1, we used a custom-built apparatus where adjustable reflectance patches were visible through two apertures, and illumination at the two apertures could be set independently. On each trial, reflectance and illuminance at the reference aperture were set to one of three settings. Reflectance and illuminance at the test aperture were randomly set to +/- 50% of the values at the reference aperture. In the lightness and brightness conditions, observers judged which aperture had a higher reflectance or luminance, respectively. For each of the three reference stimuli, we plotted the probability that the observer judged the test stimulus as lighter (or brighter), as a function of test reflectance and illuminance. Each such decision space was approximately divided in two by a straight line whose orientation varied across conditions. In the lightness task, the decision spaces were consistent with partial lightness constancy, with Thouless ratios around 0.80. In the brightness condition, Thouless ratios were lower, but decision spaces still indicated judgements closer to reflectance than to luminance judgements. In Experiment 2, we repeated this procedure with a rendering of the same apparatus on a monitor. Decision spaces were similar to those in Experiment 1, but indicated judgements more strongly influenced by luminance. Finally, we simulated computational models of lightness and brightness: ODOG, a high-pass model, a contrast normalization model, and two retinex models. All models’ decision spaces were highly inconsistent with those from human observers. We conclude that (a) lightness and brightness judgements are more similar than expected from previous work, (b) brightness is nothing like an estimate of luminance, and (c) current computational models can fail on even simple lightness and brightness judgements.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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