Shadow Harmonization for Realistic Compositing
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
Compositing virtual objects into real background images requires one to carefully match the scene’s camera parameters, surface geometry, textures, and lighting to obtain plausible renderings. Recent learning approaches have shown many scene properties can be estimated from images, resulting in robust automatic single-image compositing systems, but many challenges remain. In particular, interactions between real and synthetic shadows are not handled gracefully by existing methods, which typically assume a shadow-free background. As a result, they tend to generate double shadows when the synthetic object’s cast shadow overlaps a background shadow, and ignore shadows from the background that should be cast onto the synthetic object. In this paper, we present a compositing method for outdoor scenes that addresses these issues and produces realistic cast shadows. This requires identifying existing shadows, including soft shadow boundaries, then reasoning about the ambiguity of unknown ground albedo and scene lighting to match the color and intensity of shaded areas. Using supervision from shadow removal and detection datasets, we propose a generative adversarial pipeline and improved composition equations that simultaneously handle both shadow interaction scenarios. We evaluate our method on challenging, real outdoor images from multiple distributions and datasets. Quantitative and qualitative comparisons show our approach produces more realistic results than existing alternatives. Our code, datasets, and trained models are publicly available at https://lvsn.github.io/shadowcompositing.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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