MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410982446 · doi:10.1007/s42452-025-07163-2

Brightness adjustment and contrast matching in low-light underwater images using feedforward neural networks

2025· article· en· W4410982446 on OpenAlexaff
Zahra Raeisi, Reza Ahmadi Lashaki, Maryam Deldadehasl, Alireza Golkarieh, maral mirza mohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Applied Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Enhancement Techniques
Canadian institutionsBecton Dickinson (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrightnessContrast (vision)UnderwaterFeedforward neural networkMatching (statistics)Artificial intelligenceFeed forwardComputer visionComputer scienceArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)OpticsMathematicsGeologyPhysicsEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Access to high-resolution underwater images is crucial for the conservation and development of marine resources. Light scattering and light absorption are two fundamental issues in improving the quality of underwater images. Many of the captured images have severe degradation, which harms the systems and activities that rely on these images. To address this problem, we introduce an auxiliary network to enhance the contrast of underwater images. This network consists of three critical components. In the first step, a decoder network is used to recover gradient maps and enhance the brightness of the images. Then, we take the help of a brightness adjustment network to control the brightness of the hidden image, and finally, we use an adaptive contrast module to adjust the contrast. To improve the performance, we use a normalizer module to solve the problem of not paying attention to the increase in image contrast when increasing the brightness. Evaluation of the proposed method with public dataset images shows that our method can increase the resolution of underwater images. In addition, the proposed model can increase the resolution of images in complex images, low-light, and dark conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscover Applied SciencesSame topicImage Enhancement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207