UnShadowNet: Illumination Critic Guided Contrastive Learning for Shadow Removal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shadows are frequently encountered natural phenomena that significantly hinder the performance of computer vision perception systems in practical settings, e.g., autonomous driving. A solution to this would be to eliminate shadow regions from the images before the processing of the perception system. Yet, training such a solution requires pairs of aligned shadowed and non-shadowed images which are difficult to obtain. We introduce a novel weakly supervised shadow removal frameworkUnShadowNettrained using contrastive learning. It is composed of aDeShadowernetwork responsible for the removal of the extracted shadow under the guidance of anIlluminationnetwork which is trained adversarially by the illumination critic and aRefinementnetwork to further remove artefacts. We show thatUnShadowNetcan be easily extended to a fully-supervised set-up to exploit the ground-truth when available.UnShadowNetoutperforms existing state-of-the-art approaches on three publicly available shadow datasets (ISTD, adjusted ISTD, SRD) in both the weakly and fully supervised setups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".