research-document RFR-F2FFA91F
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Extension Ratios, Area, and Salience
RFR-F2FFA91F — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Extension Ratios, Area, and Salience
Research opportunity
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold for the claims or recommendations in “Extension Ratios, Area, and Salience.”
Background
The originating artifact is accepted by the repository publishing inventory with status “computational-pilot-complete-human-study-pending.” Its Work completed section provides the immediate evidence boundary.
Evidence trace
- Origin document: content/projects/itten-color-contrasts/experiment-report/EX-ITTEN-001-extension-area-salience.md
- Section:
Work completed - Specific assumption challenged: The source's treatment in “Work completed” is sufficiently supported for its intended scope.
- Supporting evidence excerpt: “A deterministic full-factorial pipeline test crossed four area fractions, four luminance differences, three chroma differences, three positions, and two semantic priority levels: 288 modeled conditions. The proxy was intentionally explicit: area^0.62 × hypot(3.2ΔL, 1.7ΔC) × center-bias × semantic-priority . This tests…”
- 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-001-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.