MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412436896 · doi:10.1101/2025.07.10.664065

Deep neural networks trained for estimating albedo and illumination achieve lightness constancy differently than human observers

2025· preprint· en· W4412436896 on OpenAlexafffund
Alban Flachot, Jaykishan Patel, Thomas S. A. Wallis, Marcus A. Brubaker, David H. Brainard, Richard Murray

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada First Research Excellence FundAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaEuropean CommissionYork University
KeywordsLightnessColor constancyAlbedo (alchemy)Artificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkDeep neural networksComputer visionComputer scienceRemote sensingMathematicsGeographyImage (mathematics)Art

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lightness constancy, the ability to create perceptual representations that are strongly correlated with surface albedo despite variations in lighting and context, is a challenging computational problem. Indeed, it has proven difficult to develop image-computable models of how human vision achieves a substantial degree of lightness constancy in complex scenes. Recently, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have been developed that are proficient at estimating albedo, but little is known about how they achieve this, or whether they are good models of human vision. We examined this question by training a CNN to estimate albedo and illumination in a computer-rendered virtual world, and evaluating both the CNN and human observers in a lightness matching task. In several conditions, we eliminated cues potentially supporting lightness constancy: local contrast, shading, shadows, and all contextual cues. We found that the network achieved a high degree of lightness constancy, outperforming three classic models, and substantially outperforming human observers as well. However, we also found that eliminating cues affected the CNN and humans very differently. Humans had much worse constancy when local contrast cues were made uninformative, but were minimally affected by elimination of shading or shadows. The CNN was unaffected by local contrast, but relied on shading and shadows. These results suggest that the CNN followed an effective strategy of integrating global image cues, whereas humans used a more local strategy. In a follow-up experiment, we found that the CNN could learn to exploit noise artifacts that were correlated with illuminance in ray-traced scenes, whereas humans did not. We conclude that CNNs can learn an effective, global strategy of estimating lightness, which is closer to an optimal strategy for the ensemble of scenes we studied than the computation used by human vision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207