Intrinsic Harmonization for Illumination-Aware Image Compositing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite significant advancements in network-based image harmonization techniques, there still exists a domain disparity between typical training pairs and real-world composites encountered during inference. Most existing methods are trained to reverse global edits made on segmented image regions, which fail to accurately capture the lighting inconsistencies between the foreground and background found in composited images. In this work, we introduce a self-supervised illumination harmonization approach formulated in the intrinsic image domain. First, we estimate a simple global lighting model from mid-level vision representations to generate a rough shading for the foreground region. A network then refines this inferred shading to generate a harmonious re-shading that aligns with the background scene. In order to match the color appearance of the foreground and background, we utilize ideas from prior harmonization approaches to perform parameterized image edits in the albedo domain. To validate the effectiveness of our approach, we present results from challenging real-world composites and conduct a user study to objectively measure the enhanced realism achieved compared to state-of-the-art harmonization methods.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".