Deep Learning Techniques for Object Detection in Underwater Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The degradation of image quality caused by things like light absorption, scattering, and distortion makes object detection in underwater environments a unique challenge. Applications like marine research, environmental monitoring, and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) are restricted in their effectiveness by traditional image processing techniques, which often struggle with these complexities. Recent years have seen the rise of deep learning techniques as a potent weapon in the fight against these obstacles. In order to accurately detect objects underwater, this paper investigates the use of deep learning models, specifically convolutional neural networks (CNNs). We explore cutting-edge models and methods like attention mechanisms, transfer learning, and hybrid deep learning architectures to improve detection performance in challenging underwater environments. Furthermore, we utilize data augmentation techniques and synthetic dataset generation to tackle the critical issue of limited labeled underwater datasets. From a detection accuracy and robustness perspective, the experimental results show that our suggested deep learning method is light years ahead of the competition. Marine exploration, autonomous underwater vehicle navigation, and underwater surveillance systems can all benefit from this study's new insights into how to better detect objects in real time while submerged.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".