mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The frame-level leakage trap: rethinking evaluation protocols for intrinsic image decomposition, with source-separable uncertainty as a case study

arXiv 2605.06359 ↗First posted 7 May 2026eess.SP cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Evaluation protocols for learned intrinsic image decomposition on MPI Sintel have been inconsistent. Several prior works split the dataset by frames, which allows spatially similar frames of the same scene to appear in both train and test partitions. We quantify this leakage effect for the first time, across three architectures: a frame-level split inflates test R_PSNR by 1.6 to 2.0 dB (p less than 0.01 for all three, paired t-test across 3 seeds) relative to a scene-level split, confirming an architecture-independent protocol effect. A three-point gradient (random/temporal/scene) shows the gap is continuous, and under extended training the frame-level inflation exceeds 10 dB. We advocate scene-level splits as the community standard and provide reference numbers for six representative models under this protocol. As a case study within the corrected protocol, we present a physics-informed decomposition I = R composed with S + N with a source-separable three-way heteroscedastic uncertainty head. We empirically verify channel specialization: the non-Lambertian uncertainty channel shows r = 0.67 cross-correlation with non-Lambertian residual error, more than 4 times the texture channel's correlation. We further demonstrate downstream utility: filtering out the 75% highest-uncertainty pixels reduces reconstruction MSE by 77% on retained pixels, whereas random filtering produces no improvement. The specialization also holds on out-of-distribution real photographs. We report negative results for a more elaborate variant combining frequency decomposition, cross-task supervision, evidential learning, contrastive loss, and test-time adaptation. Our method reaches 15.98 plus or minus 0.41 dB R_PSNR, within 0.8 dB of a 5-member Deep Ensemble at one-fifth the cost, with the unique capability of source-separated uncertainty.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 May 2026.

Builds on

12 of 25 references.

References · 12

  1. 2015U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 19,604
  2. 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,416
  3. 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,888
  4. 2017What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?cited by 2,335
  5. 2015Weight Uncertainty in Neural Networkscited by 554
  6. 2020On the uncertainty of self-supervised monocular depth estimationcited by 182
  7. 2018Uncertainty Estimates and Multi-Hypotheses Networks for Optical Flowcited by 135
  8. 2018InverseRenderNet: Learning single image inverse renderingcited by 100
  9. 2018CGIntrinsics: Better Intrinsic Image Decomposition through Physically-Based Renderingcited by 85
  10. 2023Intrinsic Image Decomposition via Ordinal Shadingcited by 53
  11. 2018Joint Learning of Intrinsic Images and Semantic Segmentationcited by 26
  12. 2017Shading Annotations in the Wildcited by 19

Built on by

Not cited yet.