First-principles Approach to Image Lightness Processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are a variety of computational formulations of retinex but it is the center/surround convolutional variant that is of interest to us here. In convolutional retinex, an image is filtered by a center/surround operator that is to designed to mitigate the effects of shading, which in turn compresses the dynamic range. The parameters that define the shape and extent of these filters are tuned to give the “best” results. In their 1988 paper, Hurlbert & Poggio showed that the problem can be formulated as a regression, where corresponding pairs of images with and without the effects of shading are related by a center/surround convolution filter that is found by solving an optimization. This paper starts with the observation that finding sufficiently large representative pairs of images with and without shading is difficult. This leads us to reformulate the Hurlbert & Poggio approach so that we analytically integrate over the whole sets of shadings and albedos, which means that no sampling is required. Rather nicely, the derived filters are found in closed form and have a smooth shape, unlike the filters derived by the prior art. Experiments validate our method.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".