1

Green Stability Assumption: Unsupervised Learning
for Statistics-Based Illumination Estimation

arXiv:1802.00776v1 [] 2 Feb 2018

Nikola Banić and Sven Lončarić

Abstract—In the image processing pipeline of almost every
digital camera there is a part dedicated to computational color
constancy i.e. to removing the influence of illumination on the
colors of the image scene. Some of the best known illumination
estimation methods are the so called statistics-based methods.
They are less accurate than the learning-based illumination
estimation methods, but they are faster and simpler to implement
in embedded systems, which is one of the reasons for their
widespread usage. Although in the relevant literature it often
appears as if they require no training, this is not true because
they have parameter values that need to be fine-tuned in order to
be more accurate. In this paper it is first shown that the accuracy
of statistics-based methods reported in most papers was not
obtained by means of the necessary cross-validation, but by using
the whole benchmark datasets for both training and testing. After
that the corrected results are given for the best known benchmark
datasets. Finally, the so called green stability assumption is proposed that can be used to fine-tune the values of the parameters of
the statistics-based methods by using only non-calibrated images
without known ground-truth illumination. The obtained accuracy
is practically the same as when using calibrated training images,
but the whole process is much faster. The experimental results
are presented and discussed. The source code is available at
http://www.fer.unizg.hr/ipg/resources/color constancy/.
Index Terms—Chromaticity, color constancy, Gray-edge, Grayworld, green, illumination estimation, Shades-of-Gray, standard
deviation, unsupervised learning, white balancing.

I. I NTRODUCTION

R

EGARDLESS of the influence of the scene illumination,
the human visual system can recognize object colors
through its ability known as color constancy [1]. In the image
processing pipeline of almost every digital camera there is
also a part dedicated to computational color constancy [2].
It first estimates the scene illumination and then uses it to
chromatically adapt the image i.e. to correct the colors. For
a more formal problem statement an often used image f
formation model written under Lambertian assumption is [3]
Z
fc (x) =
I(λ, x)R(λ, x)ρc (λ)dλ
(1)
ω

where c ∈ {R, G, B} is a color channel, x is a given image
pixel, λ is the wavelength of the light, ω is the visible spectrum, I(λ, x) is the spectral distribution of the light source,
This work has been supported by the Croatian Science Foundation under
Project IP-06-2016-2092.
Copyright (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted.
However, permission to use this material for any other purposes must be
obtained from the IEEE by sending a request to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
The authors are with the Image Processing Group, Department of Electronic Systems and Information Processing, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia (email:
nikola.banic@fer.hr; sven.loncaric@fer.hr).

R(λ, x) is the surface reflectance, and ρc (λ) is the camera
sensitivity of color channel c. Assuming uniform illumination
for the sake of simplicity makes it possible to remove x from
I(λ, x) and then the observed light source color is given as


Z
eR
e =  eG  =
I(λ)ρ(λ)dλ.
(2)
ω
eB
The direction of e provides enough information for successful chromatic adaptation [4]. Still, calculating e is an illposed problem because only image pixel values f are given,
while both I(λ) and ρ(λ) are unknown. The solution to this
problem is to make additional assumptions. Different assumptions have given rise to numerous illumiantion estimation
methods that can be divided into two main groups. First
of these groups contains low-level statistics-based methods
such as White-patch [5], [6] and its improvements [7], [8],
[9], Gray-world [10], Shades-of-Gray [11], Grey-Edge (1st
and 2nd order) [12], Weighted Gray-Edge [13], using bright
pixels [14], using bright and dark colors [15]. The second
group includes learning-based methods such as gamut mapping (pixel, edge, and intersection based) [16], using neural networks [17], using high-level visual information [18],
natural image statistics [19], Bayesian learning [20], spatiospectral learning (maximum likelihood estimate, and with gen.
prior) [21], simplifying the illumination solution space [22],
[23], [24], using color/edge moments [25], using regression
trees with simple features from color distribution statistics [26], performing various kinds of spatial localizations [27],
[28], using convolutional neural networks [29], [30], [31].
Statistics-based illumination estimation methods are less
accurate than the learning-based ones, but they are faster and
simpler to implement in embedded systems, which is one of
the reasons for their widespread usage [32]. Although in the
relevant literature it often appears as if they require no training,
this is not true because they have parameter values that need
to be fine-tuned in order to give higher accuracy. In this paper
it is first shown that in most papers on illumination estimation
the accuracy of statistics-based methods was not obtained by
means of the necessary cross-validation, but by using the
whole benchmark datasets for both training and testing, which
leads to an unfair comparison between the methods. After that
the corrected results are given for the best known benchmark
datasets by performing the same cross-validation framework as
for other learning-based methods. Finally, the so called green
stability assumption is proposed that can be used to fine-tune
the values of the parameters of the statistics-based methods by
using only non-calibrated images without known ground-truth
illumination. The obtained accuracy is practically the same as

2

when using calibrated training images, but the whole process
is much faster and it can be directly applied in practice.
The paper is structured as follows: Section II briefly describes the best known statistics-based methods, Section III
shows that their accuracy data should be revisited, Section IV
proposes the green stability assumption, Section V presents
the results, and finally, Section VI concludes the paper.
II. B EST KNOWN STATISTICS - BASED METHODS
Some of the best known statistics-based illumination estimation methods are centered around the Gray-world assumption
and its extensions. Under this assumption the average scene
reflectance is achromatic [10] and e is therefore calculated as
R
f(x)dx
R
= ke
(3)
dx
where k ∈ [0, 1] is the reflectance amount with 0 meaning
no reflectance and 1 meaning total reflectance. By adding
the Minkowski norm p to Eq. (3), the Gray-world method
is generalized into the Shades-of-Gray method [11]:
1
R
p
(f(x)) dx p
R
= ke.
(4)
dx
Having p = 1 results in Gray-world, while p → ∞ results
in White-patch [5], [6]. In [12] Eq. (4) was extended to the
general Gray-world by introducing local smoothing:
R σ
1
p
(f (x)) dx p
R
= ke
(5)
dx
where fσ = f ∗ Gσ and Gσ is a Gaussian filter with standard
deviation σ. Another significant extension is the Grey-edge
assumption, under which the scene reflectance differences
calculated with derivative order n are achromatic [12] so that
Z
 p1
p
∂ n (fσ (x))
dx
= ke.
(6)
∂nx
The described Shades-of-Gray, general Gray-world, and
Gray-edge methods have parameters and the methods’ accuracy depends on how the values of these parameters are tuned.
Nevertheless, in the literature it often appears as if they require
no training [3], [15], which is then said to be an advantage.
It may be argued that the parameter values are in most cases
the same, but this is easily disproved. In [15] for methods
mentioned in this section the best fixed parameter values were
given for ten different datasets. These values are similar for
some datasets, but overall they span two orders of magnitude.
With such high differences across different datasets in mind,
it is obvious that the parameter values have to be learned.
III. VALIDATION REVISITED
A. Angular error
Before recalculating the accuracy of the methods from the
previous section, some introduction to the used measures
is needed. From various proposed illumination estimation
accuracy measures [33], [34], [35], the angular error is most
commonly used. It represents the angle between the illumination estimation vector and the ground-truth illumination.

All angular errors obtained for a given method on a chosen
dataset are usually summarized by different statistics. Because
of the non-symmetry of the angular error distribution, the most
important of these statistics is the median angular error [36].
Angular errors below 3◦ are considered acceptable [37], [38].
The ground-truth illuminations of benchmark dataset images
are obtained by reading off calibration objects put in the image
scene, e.g. a gray ball or a color checker. When a method is
tested, these objects are masked out to prevent possible bias.
B. The need for cross-validation
When it comes to accuracy obtained on benchmark datasets,
the ones available in [3], at [39], and in [27] are the most
widely copied and referenced. If, for example, the results
obtained for Shades-of-Gray on the GreyBall dataset [40] are
checked [39], the reported mean and median angular errors of
6.1◦ and 5.3◦ , respectively, are obtained by setting p to 12 on
all 15 folds. However, by performing cross-validation i.e. by
looking for the best p on 14 training folds, applying this to
the test fold, and repeating it all 15 times clearly shows that p
differs for various training sets. Overall, the mean and median
errors for combined results of all test folds are 7.8◦ and 7.2◦ ,
respectively, which differs from the reported results. Similar
differences can be shown for other methods from Section II as
well. For the sake of fair comparison with other illumination
estimation methods, these accuracies are properly recalculated
and they are provided in Section V together with other results.
IV. T HE PROPOSED ASSUMPTION
A. Practical application
The methods mentioned in Section II are some of the most
widely used illumination estimation methods [32] and this
means that their parameters should preferably be appropriately
fine-tuned before putting them in production. The best way
to do this is to use a benchmark dataset, but because of
dependence of Eq. (2) on ρ(λ), a benchmark dataset would
be required for each used camera sensor. Since putting the
calibration objects into image scenes and later extracting the
ground-truth illumination is time consuming, it would be
better, if possible, to perform some kind of unsupervised
learning on non-calibrated images without known ground-truth
illumination. This would save time and be of practical value.
B. Motivation
When for a dataset the ground-truth illuminations are
unknown, an alternative is to make assumptions about the
nature of illumination estimations produced by statistics-based
methods when their parameters are fine-tuned and then to
meet the conditions of the assumptions. When considering the
nature of illumination estimations, a good starting point is the
observation that some statistics-based illumination estimations
appear ”to correlate roughly with the actual illuminant” [25].
Fig. 1 shows this for the images of the GreyBall dataset [40].
The points in Fig. 1 can be considered to occupy a space
around a line in the rb-chromaticity [22] which is connected

3

Fig. 1: The rb-chromaticities of the ground-truth
illuminations and Shades-of-Gray illumination estimations
for GreyBall dataset images [40] (best viewed in color).
to the fact that the green chromaticity of the ground-truth illuminations is relatively stable and similar for all illuminations.
For the GreyBall dataset the standard deviations of the red,
green, and blue chromaticity components of the ground-truth
illuminations are 0.0723, 0.0106, and 0.0750, respectively, and
similar results are obtained for all other datasets. For Shadesof-Gray illumination estimations shown in Fig. 1 the red,
green, and blue chromaticity components of the ground-truth
illuminations are 0.0842, 0.0253, and 0.0770, respectively,
which means that there is also a trend of green chromaticity
stability, although the standard deviation is greater than in the
case of ground-truth illumination. This means that if a set of
illumination estimations is to resemble the set of ground-truth
illuminations, the estimations’ green chromaticity standard
deviation should also be smaller and closer to the one of the
ground-truth. As a matter of fact, if for example the Shadesof-Gray illumination estimations for p = 2 and p = 15 shown
in Fig. 2 are compared, the standard deviations of their green
chromaticities are 0.0253 and 0.0158, respectively, while their
median angular errors are 6.2◦ and 5.3◦ , respectively. Similar
behaviour where lower green chromaticity standard deviation
is to some degree followed by lower median angular error can
be seen on all datasets and for all methods from Section II.

each method M ∈ M, where M contains all methods from
Section II, the Cartesian product of discrete sets of evenly
spread values for individual parameters of M was calculated
(i)
to get n tuples pM , i ∈ {1, 2, . . . , n}. Gray-world and Whitepatch have no parameters, but they were implicitly included as
(i)
special cases of Shades-of-Gray. Second, each pM was used
to set the parameter values of M and then M was applied to
all images of the GreyBall dataset to obtain an illumination
estimation for each of them. Third, for these illumination
estimations the standard deviation of their green chromaticities
σi and their median
angular error mi were calculated. Fourth,

for every of n2 possible pairs of indices i, j ∈ {1, 2, . . . , n}
such that i < j a new difference pair {∆σk , ∆mk } was
calculated such that ∆σk = σi − σj and ∆mk = mi − mj .
Finally, all such difference pairs created for all M ∈ M were
put together into set of pairs P. If members of pairs in P are
interpreted as coordinates, then their plot is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3: Relation between difference in standard deviations of
illumination estimations’ green chromaticity and the
difference in illumination estimations’ median angular error.

C. Green stability assumption
The value of Person’s linear correlation coefficient for the
points in Fig. 3 is 0.7408, which indicates a strong positive
linear relationship [41]. In other words, the difference between
the standard deviations of green chromaticities of illumination
estimations produced by the same method when using different
parameter values is strongly correlated to the difference between median angular errors of these illumination estimations.
The same correlations for NUS datasets [15] are in Table I.
TABLE I: Correlation between difference in green
chromaticity standard deviation and difference in median
angular errors for NUS datasets [15].
Dataset
Correlation

Fig. 2: The rb-chromaticities of different Shades-of-Gray
illumination estimations for GreyBall dataset images [40]
(best viewed in color).
For a deeper insight into this behaviour, another experiment was conducted on the GreyBall dataset [40]. First, for

C1
0.9255

C2
0.6381

Fuji
0.8977

N52
0.9443

Oly
0.8897

Pan
0.9644

Sam
0.8902

Sony
0.9095

Based on this empirical results and observations, it is
possible to introduce the green stability assumption: the parameter values for which a method’s illumination estimations’
green chromaticity standard deviation is lower simultaneously
lead to lower illumination estimation errors. Like many other
assumptions, this assumption does not always hold, but it can
still be useful in cases when the ground-truth illuminations for

4

a set of images taken with a given sensor are not available.
These images should also be taken under similar illuminations
as the mentioned datasets that were used for empirical results.
For a specific case when the parameter values of a chosen
method are fine-tuned and only non-calibrated images are
available, the green stability assumption can be expressed more
formally. If n is the number of images in the training set, pi
is the i-th vector of parameter values, ei,j is the method’s
illumination estimation obtained for the j-th image when pi
is used for parameter values, ei,j
G is the green component of
ei,j , and eiG is the mean green component of illumination
estimations for all images obtained with parameters pi , then
under the green stability assumption the index i∗ of such pi∗
that should result in minimal angular errors is obtained as
v

2
uP
i,j
u n
i
e
−
e
t
G
G
j=1
.
(7)
i∗ = arg min
n
−
1
i
Since Eq. (7) performs minimization of standard deviation,
it can also be written without the square and the denominator.
TABLE II: Combined accuracy on eight NUS dataset (lower
Avg. is better). The used format is the same as in [28].
Algorithm

Mean Med. Tri.

Originally reported results
Shades-of-Gray [11]
3.67 2.94 3.03
General Gray-World [4]
3.20 2.56 2.68
1st-order Gray-Edge [12]
3.35 2.58 2.76
2nd-order Gray-Edge [12]
3.36 2.70 2.80
Revisited results
Shades-of-Gray [11]
3.48 2.63 2.81
General Gray-World [4]
3.37 2.49 2.61
1st-order Gray-Edge [12]
3.12 2.19 2.39
2nd-order Gray-Edge [12]
3.15 2.23 2.42
Green stability assumption results
Shades-of-Gray [11]
3.44 2.65 2.81
General Gray-World [4]
3.40 2.63 2.76
1st-order Gray-Edge [12]
3.29 2.36 2.55
2nd-order Gray-Edge [12]
3.29 2.44 2.59

Best Worst Avg.
25% 25%
0.98
0.85
0.79
0.89

7.75
6.68
7.18
7.14

3.01
2.63
2.67
2.76

0.81
0.73
0.71
0.74

7.62
7.58
7.11
7.13

2.76‘
2.61
2.42
2.46

0.83
0.77
0.79
0.83

7.41
7.42
7.36
7.30

2.75
2.69
2.58
2.63

TABLE III: Accuracy on the original GreyBall dataset
(lower median is better).
method

mean (◦ )

median (◦ )

Originally reported results
Shades-of-Gray [11]
6.14
5.33
General Gray-World [4]
6.14
5.33
1st-order Gray-Edge [12]
5.88
4.65
2nd-order Gray-Edge [12]
6.10
4.85
Revisited results
Shades-of-Gray [11]
7.80
7.15
General Gray-World [4]
7.61
6.85
1st-order Gray-Edge [12]
6.14
5.32
2nd-order Gray-Edge [12]
6.89
5.84
Green stability assumption results
Shades-of-Gray [11]
6.80
5.30
General Gray-World [4]
6.80
5.30
1st-order Gray-Edge [12]
5.97
4.64
2nd-order Gray-Edge [12]
6.69
5.17

TABLE IV: Accuracy on the linear GreyBall dataset (lower
median is better).
method

mean (◦ )

median (◦ )

Originally reported results
Shades-of-Gray [11]
11.55
9.70
General Gray-World [4]
11.55
9.70
1st-order Gray-Edge [12]
10.58
8.84
2nd-order Gray-Edge [12]
10.68
9.02
Revisited results
Shades-of-Gray [11]
13.32
11.57
General Gray-World [4]
13.69
12.11
1st-order Gray-Edge [12]
11.06
9.54
2nd-order Gray-Edge [12]
10.73
9.21
Green stability assumption results
Shades-of-Gray [11]
12.68
10.50
General Gray-World [4]
12.68
10.50
1st-order Gray-Edge [12]
13.41
11.04
2nd-order Gray-Edge [12]
12.83
10.70

trimean (◦ )
10.23
10.23
9.18
9.40
12.10
12.55
9.81
9.49
11.25
11.25
11.87
11.44

newly calculated accuracy results for methods mentioned in
Section II and to test the effectiveness of the proposed green
stability assumption: the GreyBall dataset [40], its approximated linear version, and eight linear NUS dataset [15]. The
ColorChecker dataset [20], [42] was not used because of
its confusing history of wrong usage despite warnings from
leading experts [43]. Except the original GreyBall dataset,
all other contain linear images, which is preferred because
illumination estimation is in cameras usually performed on
linear images [2] similar to the model described by Eq. (1).
The tested methods include all the ones from M. During
cross-validation on all datasets the same folds were used as in
other publications. The source code for recreating the numerical results given in the following subsection is publicly available at http://www.fer.unizg.hr/ipg/resources/color constancy/.
B. Accuracy
Tables II, III, and IV show the previously reported accuracies, the newly recalculated accuracies, and the accuracies
obtained by using the green stability assumption. The results
clearly confirm the potential and the practical applicability
of the green stability assumption. This also demonstrates the
success of unsupervised learning for illumination estimation.

trimean (◦ )
5.51
5.51
5.11
5.28
7.21
6.92
5.49
6.06
5.77
5.77
5.10
5.72

V. E XPERIMENTAL RESULTS
A. Experimental setup
The following benchmark datasets have been used to
demonstrate the difference between previously reported and

VI. C ONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
In most relevant papers the accuracy results for some of
the most widely used statistics-based methods were calculated without cross-validation. Here it was shown that crossvalidation is needed and the accuracy results were revisited.
When statistics-based methods are fine-tuned, the best way to
do this is by using images with known ground-truth illumination. Based on several observations and empirical evidence,
the green stability assumption has been proposed that can be
successfully used to fine-tune the parameters of statistics-based
methods when only non-calibrated images without groundtruth illumination are available. This makes the whole finetuning process much simpler, faster, and more practical. It is
also an unsupervised learning approach to color constancy.
In future, other similar bases for further assumptions for
unsupervised learning for color constancy will be researched.

5

R EFERENCES
[1] M. Ebner, Color Constancy, ser. The Wiley-IS&T Series in Imaging
Science and Technology. Wiley, 2007.
[2] S. J. Kim, H. T. Lin, Z. Lu, S. Süsstrunk, S. Lin, and M. S. Brown, “A
new in-camera imaging model for color computer vision and its application,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,
vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 2289–2302, 2012.
[3] A. Gijsenij, T. Gevers, and J. Van De Weijer, “Computational color constancy: Survey and experiments,” Image Processing, IEEE Transactions
on, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 2475–2489, 2011.
[4] K. Barnard, V. Cardei, and B. Funt, “A comparison of computational
color constancy algorithms. i: Methodology and experiments with synthesized data,” Image Processing, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 11, no. 9,
pp. 972–984, 2002.
[5] E. H. Land, The retinex theory of color vision. Scientific America.,
1977.
[6] B. Funt and L. Shi, “The rehabilitation of MaxRGB,” in Color and
Imaging Conference, vol. 2010, no. 1. Society for Imaging Science
and Technology, 2010, pp. 256–259.
[7] N. Banić and S. Lončarić, “Using the Random Sprays Retinex Algorithm
for Global Illumination Estimation,” in Proceedings of The Second
Croatian Computer Vision Workshopn (CCVW 2013). University of
Zagreb Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, 2013, pp. 3–
7.
[8] ——, “Color Rabbit: Guiding the Distance of Local Maximums in
Illumination Estimation,” in Digital Signal Processing (DSP), 2014 19th
International Conference on. IEEE, 2014, pp. 345–350.
[9] ——, “Improving the White patch method by subsampling,” in Image
Processing (ICIP), 2014 21st IEEE International Conference on. IEEE,
2014, pp. 605–609.
[10] G. Buchsbaum, “A spatial processor model for object colour perception,”
Journal of The Franklin Institute, vol. 310, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 1980.
[11] G. D. Finlayson and E. Trezzi, “Shades of gray and colour constancy,” in
Color and Imaging Conference, vol. 2004, no. 1. Society for Imaging
Science and Technology, 2004, pp. 37–41.
[12] J. Van De Weijer, T. Gevers, and A. Gijsenij, “Edge-based color
constancy,” Image Processing, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 16, no. 9,
pp. 2207–2214, 2007.
[13] A. Gijsenij, T. Gevers, and J. Van De Weijer, “Improving color constancy by photometric edge weighting,” Pattern Analysis and Machine
Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 918–929, 2012.
[14] H. R. V. Joze, M. S. Drew, G. D. Finlayson, and P. A. T. Rey,
“The Role of Bright Pixels in Illumination Estimation,” in Color and
Imaging Conference, vol. 2012, no. 1. Society for Imaging Science
and Technology, 2012, pp. 41–46.
[15] D. Cheng, D. K. Prasad, and M. S. Brown, “Illuminant estimation for
color constancy: why spatial-domain methods work and the role of the
color distribution,” JOSA A, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1049–1058, 2014.
[16] G. D. Finlayson, S. D. Hordley, and I. Tastl, “Gamut constrained illuminant estimation,” International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 67,
no. 1, pp. 93–109, 2006.
[17] V. C. Cardei, B. Funt, and K. Barnard, “Estimating the scene illumination
chromaticity by using a neural network,” JOSA A, vol. 19, no. 12, pp.
2374–2386, 2002.
[18] J. Van De Weijer, C. Schmid, and J. Verbeek, “Using high-level visual
information for color constancy,” in Computer Vision, 2007. ICCV 2007.
IEEE 11th International Conference on. IEEE, 2007, pp. 1–8.
[19] A. Gijsenij and T. Gevers, “Color Constancy using Natural Image
Statistics.” in CVPR, 2007, pp. 1–8.
[20] P. V. Gehler, C. Rother, A. Blake, T. Minka, and T. Sharp, “Bayesian
color constancy revisited,” in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,
2008. CVPR 2008. IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 2008, pp. 1–8.
[21] A. Chakrabarti, K. Hirakawa, and T. Zickler, “Color constancy with
spatio-spectral statistics,” Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 1509–1519, 2012.

[22] N. Banić and S. Lončarić, “Color Cat: Remembering Colors for Illumination Estimation,” Signal Processing Letters, IEEE, vol. 22, no. 6, pp.
651–655, 2015.
[23] ——, “Using the red chromaticity for illumination estimation,” in Image
and Signal Processing and Analysis (ISPA), 2015 9th International
Symposium on. IEEE, 2015, pp. 131–136.
[24] N. Banić and S. Lončarić, “Color Dog: Guiding the Global Illumination
Estimation to Better Accuracy,” in VISAPP, 2015, pp. 129–135.
[25] G. D. Finlayson, “Corrected-moment illuminant estimation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2013,
pp. 1904–1911.
[26] D. Cheng, B. Price, S. Cohen, and M. S. Brown, “Effective learningbased illuminant estimation using simple features,” in Proceedings of the
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2015,
pp. 1000–1008.
[27] J. T. Barron, “Convolutional Color Constancy,” in Proceedings of the
IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2015, pp. 379–387.
[28] J. T. Barron and Y.-T. Tsai, “Fast Fourier Color Constancy,” in Computer
Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2017. CVPR 2017. IEEE Computer
Society Conference on, vol. 1. IEEE, 2017.
[29] S. Bianco, C. Cusano, and R. Schettini, “Color Constancy Using CNNs,”
in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition Workshops, 2015, pp. 81–89.
[30] W. Shi, C. C. Loy, and X. Tang, “Deep Specialized Network for
Illuminant Estimation,” in European Conference on Computer Vision.
Springer, 2016, pp. 371–387.
[31] Y. Hu, B. Wang, and S. Lin, “Fully Convolutional Color Constancy
with Confidence-weighted Pooling,” in Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, 2017. CVPR 2017. IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 2017, pp.
4085–4094.
[32] Z. Deng, A. Gijsenij, and J. Zhang, “Source camera identification using
Auto-White Balance approximation,” in Computer Vision (ICCV), 2011
IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2011, pp. 57–64.
[33] A. Gijsenij, T. Gevers, and M. P. Lucassen, “Perceptual analysis of
distance measures for color constancy algorithms,” JOSA A, vol. 26,
no. 10, pp. 2243–2256, 2009.
[34] G. D. Finlayson and R. Zakizadeh, “Reproduction angular error: An
improved performance metric for illuminant estimation,” perception, vol.
310, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 2014.
[35] N. Banić and S. Lončarić, “A Perceptual Measure of Illumination
Estimation Error,” in VISAPP, 2015, pp. 136–143.
[36] S. D. Hordley and G. D. Finlayson, “Re-evaluating colour constancy
algorithms,” in Pattern Recognition, 2004. ICPR 2004. Proceedings of
the 17th International Conference on, vol. 1. IEEE, 2004, pp. 76–79.
[37] G. D. Finlayson, S. D. Hordley, and P. Morovic, “Colour constancy
using the chromagenic constraint,” in Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, 2005. CVPR 2005. IEEE Computer Society Conference on,
vol. 1. IEEE, 2005, pp. 1079–1086.
[38] C. Fredembach and G. Finlayson, “Bright chromagenic algorithm for
illuminant estimation,” Journal of Imaging Science and Technology,
vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 40 906–1, 2008.
[39] T. G. A. Gijsenij and J. van de Weijer. (2017) Color Constancy
— Research Website on Illuminant Estimation. [Online]. Available:
http://colorconstancy.com/
[40] F. Ciurea and B. Funt, “A large image database for color constancy
research,” in Color and Imaging Conference, vol. 2003, no. 1. Society
for Imaging Science and Technology, 2003, pp. 160–164.
[41] D. J. Rumsey, U Can: statistics for dummies. John Wiley & Sons,
2015.
[42] B. F. L. Shi. (2015, May) Re-processed Version of the Gehler
Color Constancy Dataset of 568 Images. [Online]. Available:
http://www.cs.sfu.ca/colour/data/
[43] S. E. Lynch, M. S. Drew, and k. G. D. Finlayson, “Colour Constancy
from Both Sides of the Shadow Edge,” in Color and Photometry in
Computer Vision Workshop at the International Conference on Computer
Vision. IEEE, 2013.

