Revisiting Image Fusion for Multi-Illuminant White-Balance Correction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
White balance (WB) correction in scenes with multiple illuminants remains a persistent challenge in computer vision. Recent methods explored fusion-based approaches, where a neural network linearly blends multiple sRGB versions of an input image, each processed with predefined WB presets. However, we demonstrate that these methods are suboptimal for common multi-illuminant scenarios. Additionally, existing fusion-based methods rely on sRGB WB datasets lacking dedicated multi-illuminant images, limiting both training and evaluation. To address these challenges, we introduce two key contributions. First, we propose an efficient transformer-based model that effectively captures spatial dependencies across sRGB WB presets, substantially improving upon linear fusion techniques. Second, we introduce a large-scale multi-illuminant dataset comprising over 16,000 sRGB images rendered with five different WB settings, along with WB-corrected images. Our method achieves up to 100\% improvement over existing techniques on our new multi-illuminant image fusion dataset.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".