research-document RFR-AFDA3197
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Color-Difference Metric Validation
RFR-AFDA3197 — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Color-Difference Metric Validation
Research opportunity
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold for the claims or recommendations in “Color-Difference Metric Validation.”
Background
The originating artifact is accepted by the repository publishing inventory with status “computational-stress-test-complete-ground-truth-study-pending.” Its Work completed section provides the immediate evidence boundary.
Evidence trace
- Origin document: content/projects/itten-color-contrasts/experiment-report/EX-ITTEN-008-color-metric-validation.md
- Section:
Work completed - Specific assumption challenged: The source's treatment in “Work completed” is sufficiently supported for its intended scope.
- Supporting evidence excerpt: “Three thousand fixed-seed random sRGB pairs were compared with Euclidean Lab and Oklab before and after a simple gamut-compression transform. Rank stability and relation to luminance difference were recorded.”
- Reason this opportunity exists: How competing methods or implementations compare on a common corpus with explicit utility, safety, and cost thresholds.
Unknowns
- How competing methods or implementations compare on a common corpus with explicit utility, safety, and cost thresholds.
Dependencies
Suggested REP and methodology
- Suggested REP:
REP-EX-ITTEN-008-BENCHMARK - Methodology: Curate representative cases, blind ground truth where possible, define baselines and uncertainty-aware metrics, and run reproducible benchmark evaluations.
- Expected outputs: Versioned benchmark, baseline implementations, scoring harness, datasheet, and adoption decision rule.
- Success criteria: Independent teams can reproduce scores and the benchmark discriminates meaningful quality differences without rewarding proxy gaming.
- Recommended agent:
research-engineering-agent - Estimated effort: Medium
- Expected knowledge gained: How competing methods or implementations compare on a common corpus with explicit utility, safety, and cost thresholds.
Evaluation
| Dimension | Score (1–5) |
|---|---|
| Knowledge gain | 4 |
| Potential impact | 4 |
| Cross-project reuse | 5 |
| Scientific importance | 5 |
| Dependency cost | 5 |
| Implementation difficulty | 3 |
| Frontier score | 392 |
Confidence in this opportunity: moderate. Status: Open.