MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035441328 · doi:10.1109/tip.2020.2999855

MEF-GAN: Multi-Exposure Image Fusion via Generative Adversarial Networks

2020· article· en· W3035441328 on OpenAlexafffund
Han Xu, Jiayi Ma, Xiao–Ping Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Image Fusion Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Hubei ProvinceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDiscriminatorComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGenerator (circuit theory)Ground truthImage (mathematics)Code (set theory)Representation (politics)Distortion (music)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionLuminanceFusion rulesAdversarial systemImage fusionPower (physics)Detector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present an end-to-end architecture for multi-exposure image fusion based on generative adversarial networks, termed as MEF-GAN. In our architecture, a generator network and a discriminator network are trained simultaneously to form an adversarial relationship. The generator is trained to generate a real-like fused image based on the given source images which is expected to fool the discriminator. Correspondingly, the discriminator is trained to distinguish the generated fused images from the ground truth. The adversarial relationship makes the fused image not limited to the restriction of the content loss. Therefore, the fused images are closer to the ground truth in terms of probability distribution, which can compensate for the insufficiency of single content loss. Moreover, aiming at the problem that the luminance of multi-exposure images varies greatly with spatial location, the self-attention mechanism is employed in our architecture to allow for attention-driven and long-range dependency. Thus, local distortion, confusing results, or inappropriate representation can be corrected in the fused image. Qualitative and quantitative experiments are performed on publicly available datasets, where the results demonstrate that MEF-GAN outperforms the state-of-the-art, in terms of both visual effect and objective evaluation metrics. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/jiayi-ma/MEF-GAN.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations269
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicAdvanced Image Fusion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207