Learning of Image Dehazing Models for Segmentation Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate their performance, existing dehazing approaches generally rely on distance measures between the generated image and its corresponding ground truth. Despite its ability to produce visually good images, using pixel-based or even perceptual metrics does not guarantee, in general, that the produced image is fit for being used as input for low-level computer vision tasks such as segmentation. To overcome this weakness, we are proposing a novel end-to-end approach for image dehazing, fit for being used as input to an image segmentation procedure, while maintaining the visual quality of the generated images. Inspired by the success of Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN), we propose to optimize the generator by introducing a discriminator network and a loss function that evaluates segmentation quality of dehazed images. In addition, we make use of a supplementary loss function that verifies that the visual and the perceptual quality of the generated image are preserved in hazy conditions. Results obtained using the proposed technique are appealing, with a favorable comparison to state-of-the-art approaches when considering the performance of segmentation algorithms on the hazy images.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".