• Laser & Optoelectronics Progress
  • Vol. 62, Issue 2, 0237002 (2025)
Yan Chen1,*, Ao Xiao1, Yun Li2, Xiaochun Hu2, and Peiguang Jing3
Author Affiliations
  • 1School of Computer, Electronics and Information, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, Guangxi , China
  • 2School of Big Data and Artificial Intelligence, Guangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanning 530003, Guangxi , China
  • 3School of Electrical and Information Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
  • show less
    DOI: 10.3788/LOP241036 Cite this Article Set citation alerts
    Yan Chen, Ao Xiao, Yun Li, Xiaochun Hu, Peiguang Jing. Multiplexed Fusion Deep Aggregate Learning for Underwater Image Enhancement[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2025, 62(2): 0237002 Copy Citation Text show less
    Structure of underwater image enhancement model with multiplexed fusion deep aggregate learning
    Fig. 1. Structure of underwater image enhancement model with multiplexed fusion deep aggregate learning
    Loss function curves of proposed method in different training sets
    Fig. 2. Loss function curves of proposed method in different training sets
    Treatment results of UIEB dataset images by different methods
    Fig. 3. Treatment results of UIEB dataset images by different methods
    Treatment results of LSUI dataset images by different methods
    Fig. 4. Treatment results of LSUI dataset images by different methods
    Comparison of image sharpness and edges by different methods on LSUI dataset
    Fig. 5. Comparison of image sharpness and edges by different methods on LSUI dataset
    Comparison of image details by different methods on UIEB dataset
    Fig. 6. Comparison of image details by different methods on UIEB dataset
    Effectiveness comparison of image segmentation and key point detection on UIEB dataset. (a1)‒(c1) Original images; (a2)‒(c2) segmentation images of original images; (a3)‒(c3) key point detection results of original images; (a4)‒(c4) enhanced images; (a5)‒(c5) segmentation images of enhanced images; (a6)‒(c6) key point detection results of enhanced images
    Fig. 7. Effectiveness comparison of image segmentation and key point detection on UIEB dataset. (a1)‒(c1) Original images; (a2)‒(c2) segmentation images of original images; (a3)‒(c3) key point detection results of original images; (a4)‒(c4) enhanced images; (a5)‒(c5) segmentation images of enhanced images; (a6)‒(c6) key point detection results of enhanced images
    DatasetTotal number of imageTraining setTest set
    UIEB890790100
    LSUI42793879400
    Table 1. Division of different underwater datasets
    MethodUIEBLSUI
    PSNR /dBSSIMPSNR /dBSSIM
    UDCP13.050.6212.680.63
    Fusion17.600.7714.580.76
    Water-Net19.110.7917.820.83
    UGAN20.170.7220.110.78
    Fuine-GAN20.680.8020.640.83
    Ucolor20.630.8421.660.84
    USUIR20.310.8621.920.85
    Proposed22.400.9023.010.86
    Table 2. PSNR and SSIM on UIEB and LSUI datasets by different methods
    MethodUIEBLSUI
    UCIQEEntropyUCIQEEntropy
    Fuine-GAN0.8113.820.8913.60
    Ucolor0.6714.180.6813.58
    USUIR0.8214.260.9113.48
    Proposed0.8314.330.9313.62
    Table 3. UCIQE and entropy on UIEB and LSUI datasets by different methods
    ModulePSNR /dBSSIM
    A20.870.82
    B22.830.85
    C14.610.44
    Proposed23.010.86
    Table 4. Results of ablation experiments
    MethodRuntime /sFPS /(frame·s-1
    Fuine-GAN4.2923.31
    Ucolor45.882.18
    USUIR47.412.11
    Proposed29.133.43
    Table 5. Runtime and FPS of different methods