A deep convolutional neural network trained for lightness constancy is susceptible to lightness illusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Human viewers are able to perform tasks that depend on accurate estimates of surface reflectance, even across large changes in illumination and context. This is a remarkable ability, and successful image-computable models of how the visual system achieves this have remained elusive. Recently, deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have been developed that are adept at estimating surface reflectance. Here we evaluated one such network as a starting point for a new model of human lightness perception by testing whether it was susceptible to a range of classic lightness illusions. We implemented a CNN and trained it via supervised learning to estimate surface reflectance at each pixel in grayscale, rendered images of geometric objects. We examined the network’s output on several illusions, including the argyle, Koffka, snake, simultaneous contrast, White’s, and checkerboard illusions, as well as control figures. We included variants where low-luminance regions important to the illusions were generated either by low reflectance or by cast shadows. For comparison, we carried out a lightness matching experiment with human observers using the same stimuli, and also examined the outputs of three classic lightness and brightness models. The CNN largely removed lighting effects such as shading and shadows, and produced good reflectance estimates on a test set. It also qualitatively predicted the illusions perceived by humans in most cases, the exceptions being White’s and checkerboard illusions. The CNN outperformed classical models, both at estimating reflectance and at tracking human lightness matches. These findings support a normative view of lightness perception and highlight the promise of deep learning models in this area.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".