Physically-plausible illumination distribution estimation
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
A camera’s auto-white-balance (AWB) module operates under the assumption that there is a single dominant illumination in a captured scene. AWB methods estimate an image’s dominant illumination and use it as the target "white point" for correction. However, in natural scenes, there are often many light sources present. We performed a user study that revealed that non-dominant illuminations often produce visually pleasing white-balanced images and, in some cases, are even preferred over the dominant illumination. Motivated by this observation, we revisit AWB to predict a distribution of plausible illuminations for use in white balance. As part of this effort, we extend the Cube+ + illumination estimation dataset [12] to provide ground truth illumination distributions per image. Using this new ground truth data, we describe how to train a lightweight neural network method to predict the scene’s illumination distribution. We describe how our idea can be used with existing image formats by embedding the estimated distribution in the RAW image to enable users to generate visually plausible white-balance images.
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 | 0.001 |
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 it