A deep convolutional neural network trained to infer surface reflectance is deceived by mid-level lightness illusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A long-standing view is that lightness illusions are by-products of strategies employed by the visual system to stabilize its perceptual representation of surface reflectance against changes in illumination. Computationally, one such strategy is to infer reflectance from the retinal image, and to base the lightness percept on this inference. CNNs trained to infer reflectance from images have proven successful at solving this problem under limited conditions. To evaluate whether these CNNs provide suitable starting points for computational models of human lightness perception, we tested a state-of-the-art CNN on several lightness illusions, and compared its behaviour to prior measurements of human performance. We trained a CNN (Yu & Smith, 2019) to infer reflectance from luminance images. The network had a 30-layer hourglass architecture with skip connections. We trained the network via supervised learning on 100K images, rendered in Blender, each showing randomly placed geometric objects (surfaces, cubes, tori, etc.), with random Lambertian reflectance patterns (solid, Voronoi, or low-pass noise), under randomized point+ambient lighting. The renderer also provided the ground-truth reflectance images required for training. After training, we applied the network to several visual illusions. These included the argyle, Koffka-Adelson, snake, White’s, checkerboard assimilation, and simultaneous contrast illusions, along with their controls where appropriate. The CNN correctly predicted larger illusions in the argyle, Koffka-Adelson, and snake images than in their controls. It also correctly predicted an assimilation effect in White's illusion. It did not, however, account for the checkerboard assimilation or simultaneous contrast effects. These results are consistent with the view that at least some lightness phenomena are by-products of a rational approach to inferring stable representations of physical properties from intrinsically ambiguous retinal images. Furthermore, they suggest that CNN models may be a promising starting point for new models of human lightness perception.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".