Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37888321›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging2023

Performance Comparison of Classical Methods and Neural Networks for Colour Correction.

Abdullah Kucuk, Graham D Finlayson, Rafal Mantiuk, Maliha Ashraf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Abdullah KucukSchool of Computing Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
Graham D FinlaysonSchool of Computing Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4040-0554
Rafal MantiukDepartment of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0FD, UK.
Maliha AshrafDepartment of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0FD, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8142-5611

Funding

Spectricity and EPSRC EP/S028730
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colour correction is the process of converting RAW RGB pixel values of digital cameras to a standard colour space such as CIE XYZ. A range of regression methods including linear, polynomial and root-polynomial least-squares have been deployed. However, in recent years, various neural network (NN) models have also started to appear in the literature as an alternative to classical methods. In the first part of this paper, a leading neural network approach is compared and contrasted with regression methods. We find that, although the neural network model supports improved colour correction compared with simple least-squares regression, it performs less well than the more advanced root-polynomial regression. Moreover, the relative improvement afforded by NNs, compared to linear least-squares, is diminished when the regression methods are adapted to minimise a perceptual colour error. Problematically, unlike linear and root-polynomial regressions, the NN approach is tied to a fixed exposure (and when exposure changes, the afforded colour correction can be quite poor). We explore two solutions that make NNs more exposure-invariant. First, we use data augmentation to train the NN for a range of typical exposures and second, we propose a new NN architecture which, by construction, is exposure-invariant. Finally, we look into how the performance of these algorithms is influenced when models are trained and tested on different datasets. As expected, the performance of all methods drops when tested with completely different datasets. However, we noticed that the regression methods still outperform the NNs in terms of colour correction, even though the relative performance of the regression methods does change based on the train and test datasets.

Indexed as

colour correctionexposure invarianceneural networkoptimisationpolynomialregression

Identifiers

PMID37888321
PMCPMC10607821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.