Image Dehazing in Disproportionate Haze Distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Haze removal techniques employed to increase the visibility level of an image play an important role in many vision-based systems. Several traditional dark channel prior-based methods have been proposed to remove haze formation and thereby enhance the robustness of these systems. However, when the captured images contain disproportionate haze distributions, these methods usually fail to attain effective restoration in the restored image. Specifically, disproportionate haze distribution in an image means that the background region possesses heavy haze density and the foreground region possesses little haze density. This phenomenon usually occurs in a hazy image with a deep depth of field. In response, a novel hybrid transmission map-based haze removal method that specifically targets this situation is proposed in this work to achieve clear visibility restoration and effective information maintenance. Experimental results via both qualitative and quantitative evaluations demonstrate that the proposed method is capable of performing with higher efficacy when compared with other state-of-the-art methods, in respect to both background regions and foreground regions of restored test images captured in real-world environments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".