Two-stage object detection in low-light environments using deep learning image enhancement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a two-stage object detection system specifically tailored for low-light conditions. In the initial stage, supervised deep learning image enhancement techniques are utilized to improve image quality and enhance features. The second stage employs a computer vision algorithm for object detection. Three image enhancement algorithms-ZeroDCE++, Gladnet, and two-branch exposure-fusion network for low-light image enhancement (TBEFN)-were assessed in the first stage to enhance image quality. YOLOv7 was utilized in the object detection phase. The ExDark dataset, recognized for its extensive collection of low-light images, served as the basis for training and evaluation. No-reference image quality evaluators were applied to measure improvements in image quality, while object detection performance was assessed using metrics such as recall and mean average precision (mAP). The results indicated that the two-stage system incorporating TBEFN significantly improved detection performance, achieving a mAP of 0.574, compared to 0.49 for YOLOv7 without the enhancement stage. Furthermore, this study investigated the relationship between object detection performance and image quality evaluation metrics, revealing that the image quality evaluator NIQE exhibited a strong correlation with mAP for object detection. This correlation aids in identifying the features that influence computer vision performance, thereby facilitating its enhancement.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".