Author Affiliations
1School of Computer Science and Technology, Harbin University of Science and Technology, Harbin 150080, Heilongjiang , China2Heilongjiang College of Business and Technology, Harbin 150025, Heilongjiang , Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Attention module
Fig. 2. Diagram of Inception mechanism
Fig. 3. Network framework
Fig. 4. Predictive transmission network
Fig. 5. Image processing process
Fig. 6. Comparison of indoor PSNR
Fig. 7. Comparison of indoor SSIM
Fig. 8. Comparison of outdoor PSNR
Fig. 9. Comparison of outdoor SSIM
Fig. 10. Comparison of algorithms in outdoor. (a) Foggy images; (b) CAP results; (c) DCP results; (d) Dehaze results; (e) MSCNN results; (f) results of proposed algorithm
Fig. 11. Comparison of PSNR
Fig. 12. Comparison of SSIM
algorithm 1 A&P-dehaze algorithm |
---|
input:Foggy image | output:Defogging image | 1)Input foggy imageI; 2)Use formula(7) to extract shallow features and get feature map ; 3)First, is downsampled by residual network,and attention mechanism is used to allocate weight , is the whole function of attention mechanism, is the residual; 4)Then the deconvolution residual network is used for upsampling to get ,; 5)The transmittance map is obtained by using the mapping function,; (6)Using Inception module,the atmospheric light value of foggy image is predicted ; (7)The defogging image can be obtained by using the atmospheric scattering model, ; 8)Using PantchGAN to judge whether it is true or false; 9)Further training the network,repeat formula(8) until the loss function of the network is optimal,and the training is completed; 10)Save the optimal model. |
|
Table 0. [in Chinese]
Algorithm | SSIM | PSNR |
---|
CAP | 0.8524 0.8705 0.8756 0.8069 0.8764 | 18.96 18.97 21.34 17.12 20.86 | DCP | Dehaze | MCSNN | Proposed algorithm |
|
Table 1. Comparison results on SOTS dataset
Algorithm | SSIM | PSNR |
---|
CAP | 0.7859 0.8095 0.8886 0.8632 0.8938 | 18.24 15.99 22.94 19.61 22.36 | DCP | Dehaze | MCSNN | Proposed algorithm |
|
Table 2. Comparison results on HSTS dataset
Algorithm | CAP | DCP | Dehaze | MSCNN | Proposed algorithm |
---|
Time /s | 1.42 | 9.86 | 1.78 | 1.70 | 0.93 |
|
Table 3. Comparison of average running time of different algorithms