MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617393214 · doi:10.1109/tip.2017.2708841

Single Image Rain Streak Decomposition Using Layer Priors

2017· article· en· W2617393214 on OpenAlexaff
Yu Li, Robby T. Tan, Xiaojie Guo, Jiangbo Lu, Michael S. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Enhancement Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Research Foundation Singapore
KeywordsStreakComputer sciencePrior probabilityVisibilityArtificial intelligenceComputer visionImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmOpticsBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rain streaks impair visibility of an image and introduce undesirable interference that can severely affect the performance of computer vision and image analysis systems. Rain streak removal algorithms try to recover a rain streak free background scene. In this paper, we address the problem of rain streak removal from a single image by formulating it as a layer decomposition problem, with a rain streak layer superimposed on a background layer containing the true scene content. Existing decomposition methods that address this problem employ either sparse dictionary learning methods or impose a low rank structure on the appearance of the rain streaks. While these methods can improve the overall visibility, their performance can often be unsatisfactory, for they tend to either over-smooth the background images or generate -images that still contain noticeable rain streaks. To address the problems, we propose a method that imposes priors for both the background and rain streak layers. These priors are based on Gaussian mixture models learned on small patches that can accommodate a variety of background appearances as well as the appearance of the rain streaks. Moreover, we introduce a structure residue recovery step to further separate the background residues and improve the decomposition quality. Quantitative evaluation shows our method outperforms existing methods by a large margin. We overview our method and demonstrate its effectiveness over prior work on a number of examples.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations84
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicImage Enhancement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207