Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 50 references

LTCF-Net: A Transformer-Enhanced Dual-Channel Fourier Framework for Low-Light Image Restoration

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read LTCF-Net, a dual-channel LAB/YUV transformer network with a Fourier brightness module, claims state-of-the-art results on five low-light restoration benchmarks while remaining lightweight.

desk verdict Plausible lightweight architecture, but the SOTA claim rests on an unverifiable comparison table and some wrong equations; needs heavy revision before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15740 v1 pith:DVIPBCH5 submitted 2024-11-24 cs.CV cs.AI

Gaojing Zhang , Jinglun Feng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords low-lightimageenhancementdualcolorspaceLABYUVtransformerself-attentionFourierdomainprocessinglightweightnetworkobjectdetection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces LTCF-Net, a low-light image restoration network that processes illumination and color in separate LAB and YUV channels, applies transformer self-attention to luminance, denoises chromatic components with a U-shaped block, fuses streams with squeeze-and-excitation, and adjusts brightness in the Fourier domain. The aim is to outperform current state-of-the-art methods on standard benchmarks while staying lightweight (0.155M parameters, 10.37 GFLOPs). Across LOL-v2-real, SID, SMID, SDSD-indoor, and SDSD-outdoor, the paper reports the best PSNR/SSIM among compared methods, and it shows that its enhancement improves YOLOv4-tiny object detection mean AP on FiveK to 37.7. If the comparisons hold under identical evaluation protocols, LTCF-Net offers an efficient alternative to Retinex-based and diffusion-based approaches for low-light vision.

What carries the argument

The architecture is a dual-branch network. One branch converts RGB to LAB and the other to YUV; each branch processes the luminance-like channel (L or Y) with a multi-head self-attention block plus a Fourier Brightness Processing block, while the chroma channels pass through a four-scale U-shaped Channel Denoising block. A Multi-stage Squeeze-and-Excitation Fusion block then merges luminance and denoised chroma features, and a combined pixel-plus-perceptual loss trains the whole pipeline. The Fourier block splits the frequency-domain signal into real and imaginary parts, convolves them, and re-expands them—this is claimed to remove background noise and spread brightness evenly.

What would settle it

Re-run the Table 1 experiments from released code with identical splits and the paper's RAW conversion for SID/SMID; if LTCF-Net's PSNR on any dataset drops below the leading baseline (e.g., Retinexformer or DiffLL) by more than 0.4 dB, the central superiority claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that separating image processing into two color spaces—LAB and YUV—lets a single-stage end-to-end network decouple illumination from chrominance more effectively than Retinex-based decomposition, and that a Fourier-domain brightness module cleans residual noise while equalizing light distribution. On its evaluation, LTCF-Net achieves 29.76 dB PSNR / 0.92 SSIM on LOL-v2-real, 26.28 / 0.70 on SID, 29.63 / 0.86 on SMID, 29.98 / 0.89 on SDSD-indoor, and 30.14 / 0.87 on SDSD-outdoor, the highest among the methods listed in Table 1, while using two orders of magnitude fewer parameters than many competitors. The paper also reports that when enhanced images are fed to YOLOv4-tiny on FiveK, its mean AP of 37.7 exceeds the other enhancement baselines.

Load-bearing premise

All state-of-the-art comparisons in Table 1 assume every baseline was evaluated under the same train/test splits, the same RAW-to-RGB conversion for SID and SMID, and the same metric code as LTCF-Net; the paper gives the conversion principle but not its exact pipeline or code, so protocol mismatches could change which method wins.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers reproduce, LTCF-Net becomes a practical lightweight module for real-time low-light enhancement on mobile or embedded vision systems.
  • The dual color-space design suggests that processing chrominance and luminance in different color encodings is a viable alternative to Retinex-based decomposition for end-to-end training.
  • Improved object detection AP on FiveK indicates that low-light enhancement can serve as a preprocessing step for night-time perception stacks.
  • Removing the Fourier block (LTCF-Net*) gives a smaller model with only slight loss of PSNR on some datasets, offering a speed-quality trade-off.
  • The use of LAB and YUV together raises the question of whether other color spaces or learnable transforms would yield further gains.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next test is a fair cross-dataset generalization check: train on SID and test on LOL-v2-real, since the paper's dual color-space separation should generalize better than Retinex-based unrolling if its decoupling claim is right.
  • The Fourier brightness module's noise-removal claim could be tested directly by adding synthetic Gaussian or Poisson noise to dark inputs and measuring PSNR before/after the FBP block; the paper only shows qualitative noise reduction.
  • The 0.155M parameter count is unusually low for a transformer-hybrid; if reproduced, it suggests the attention and Fourier modules are doing the heavy lifting rather than the convolutional denoiser.
  • Because the object detection test uses YOLOv4-tiny, the method's value as an image preprocessing step could differ with newer detectors; repeating the FiveK experiment with a modern detector would clarify whether the AP gain transfers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces LTCF-Net, a low-light image enhancement network built from dual LAB/YUV color-space branches, a multi-head self-attention module, a channel denoising U-shaped block, a multi-stage squeeze-and-excitation fusion block, and a Fourier brightness processing block. The authors report state-of-the-art PSNR/SSIM on five public benchmarks (LOL-v2-real, SID, SMID, SDSD-indoor, SDSD-outdoor) with only 0.155M parameters and 10.37 GFLOPs, along with a user study and an object detection evaluation on FiveK. The central claim is that this lightweight architecture outperforms existing methods while delivering more natural color and balanced brightness.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, the paper makes a useful contribution by demonstrating that a compact design combining color-space separation, attention, and frequency-domain processing can achieve competitive or leading performance on multiple low-light benchmarks. The ablation study (Table 3) isolates the contribution of each component, which is valuable. However, the significance hinges entirely on the comparability of the baseline numbers in Table 1 and on the availability of code and weights for independent verification. As submitted, the headline SOTA claim is not verifiable because the evaluation protocol appears to differ from that used to generate published baseline results, and no code or detailed preprocessing pipeline is provided.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 1] The comparability of the baseline results is not established. The SID row for the SID method reports a PSNR of 16.97 dB on the SID dataset, which is roughly 12 dB lower than the value reported in the original SID paper (around 28-29 dB) for its Sony benchmark. This large gap strongly suggests that the evaluation protocol used here (RAW-to-RGB conversion, image cropping, or test split) differs from the protocol under which the published baseline numbers were produced. The manuscript only states that RAW images are converted to RGB 'by applying the same in-camera signal processing as used in SID' and provides no code, no detailed pipeline, and no evidence that all baselines were recomputed under identical conditions. Since the claimed margins over the second-best methods are only 0.2-0.4 dB on most datasets, the central SOTA claim rests entirely on this unverified comparability. To support the claim, the authors must either release code/weights and a unified evaluation script that recomputes all baselines, or provide explicit, verifiable evidence that the figures in Table 1 were obtained with the same protocol for every method.
  2. [Section 2.6, Eq. (5)] The smooth L1 loss is defined as a sum over i in {x, y, w, h}, which are bounding-box coordinates, not image pixels. This directly contradicts the accompanying text, which states that the loss is applied between the predicted image y_pred and the ground-truth image y_true. The definition is internally inconsistent and cannot be used to reproduce the training loss. Please correct the index set or clarify the intended pixel-wise formulation.
  3. [Section 2.6, Eq. (7)] The LPSNR formula is dimensionally incorrect and uses a wrong constant. For 8-bit images, PSNR equals 20*log10(255) - 10*log10(MSE), approximately 48.13 dB - 10*log10(MSE). The expression 40.0 - sum_i 20*log10(1/sqrt(MSE)) evaluates to 40.0 + 10*log10(MSE) per term, which is inverted and offset incorrectly. Moreover, the summation index and the meaning of n are undefined. Please provide a correct formula and state clearly whether LPSNR is used as a loss or as a metric.
  4. [Section 3.2, Table 2] The user study scores and object detection AP results are reported without any measure of variance (error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical tests). Given that the claimed advantage in the user study is on the order of 0.15-0.5 points on a 0-5 scale, these results would be far more convincing with per-participant or per-image statistics and a significance test to rule out chance differences.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3.1] Typo: 'We eveluate' should be 'We evaluate'.
  2. [Section 3.2] Typo: 'conduced' should be 'conducted'.
  3. [References] References [12] and [13] are the same work (Dosovitskiy et al.), and references [42] and [43] are also the same work (Wei et al.). Please merge them or disambiguate to avoid confusion.
  4. [Figure 6 caption] The caption says 'Our LTCF performs better' but the model is named LTCF-Net; please use the full name consistently.
  5. [Section 3.4] The claim that the Fourier module 'reduces noise' is supported only by a PSNR/SSIM improvement of about 1 dB and a visual example. Please consider adding a noise-specific evaluation (e.g., on synthetic noisy low-light images or with a noise estimation metric) to substantiate the qualitative claim.
  6. [Table 1] The color coding (red/yellow/blue) for best, second-best, and third-best results is not explained in the caption, and it is unclear whether LTCF-Net* is a baseline or an ablation. Please clarify the annotation.
  7. [Section 3.2] The text says 'our model registers a slightly lower PSNR on the LOL-v1 dataset,' but according to Table 1, LTCF-Net (27.07 dB) is lower than both HVI-CIDNet (27.71 dB) and LYT-Net (27.23 dB), making it third, not just slightly lower than the best. Please rephrase to accurately describe the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LTCF-Net is an empirical architecture evaluated on external benchmarks; no claimed derivation reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper makes no first-principles derivation claim. LTCF-Net is an empirical deep-learning architecture whose components (MHSA, CD, MSEF, FBP, dual color spaces) are evaluated on external public benchmarks (LOL, SID, SMID, SDSD, FiveK). The central results in Table 1 are comparisons of PSNR/SSIM against previously published methods; they are not derived from the model's own assumptions. The loss function (Eq. 12) includes alpha1*LPSNR and alpha5*LSSIM, so the training objective overlaps with the evaluation metrics, but this is standard practice in supervised image restoration, the weights alpha1-alpha5 are fixed hyperparameters rather than fitted to the test set, and the reported gains are not forced by construction. There is no self-citation chain: the reference list contains no prior work by the authors. The Fourier module's noise-removal claim is supported by an ablation (Table 3), not by definition. Several textual inconsistencies (Eq. 5 using bounding-box coordinates for a pixel-wise loss, Eq. 7's nonstandard LPSNR formula, and the unverified RAW-to-RGB protocol equality in Section 3.1) are correctness and reproducibility concerns, not circularity, because they do not make a predicted quantity equal to an input by construction. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited with the required specificity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on paired low/normal-light datasets, consistent preprocessing, and standard image-quality metrics. The loss weights are hand-tuned free parameters. No new natural entities are introduced; the modules are computational components.

free parameters (5)
  • α1 (PSNR loss weight) = 0.12
    Hand-set in Section 3.1; affects the training objective and hence all reported PSNR values.
  • α2 (color loss weight) = 0.05
    Hand-set in Section 3.1; weights the color fidelity term.
  • α3 (histogram loss weight) = 0.55
    Hand-set in Section 3.1; weights the histogram matching term.
  • α4 (perceptual loss weight) = 0.015
    Hand-set in Section 3.1; weights the VGG perceptual loss.
  • α5 (SSIM loss weight) = 0.25
    Hand-set in Section 3.1; weights the MS-SSIM loss.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Public paired low/normal-light datasets (LOL, SID, SMID, SDSD) are accurately aligned and representative of real low-light degradation.
    Section 3.1 uses these datasets for training and evaluation; if the pairs are misaligned or the degradation is not realistic, the learned mapping does not generalize.
  • domain assumption The RAW-to-RGB conversion applied to SID and SMID matches the in-camera signal processing used for the baseline results.
    Section 3.1 says the conversion uses 'the same in-camera signal processing as used in SID', but no code is provided to verify that the baselines used identical preprocessing.
  • domain assumption PSNR and SSIM adequately capture perceptual enhancement quality for the purpose of the comparison.
    The main quantitative claims rely on PSNR/SSIM (Table 1); the known limitations of these metrics for perceptual quality are not discussed.
  • standard math Standard mathematical tools: Fourier transform properties, color space conversion formulas, and softmax attention are correct and applicable.
    Used in Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.5 without proof; these are standard.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LTCF-Net: A Transformer-Enhanced Dual-Channel Fourier Framework for Low-Light Image Restoration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DVIPBCH5

@misc{pith2026241115740,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LTCF-Net: A Transformer-Enhanced Dual-Channel Fourier Framework for Low-Light Image Restoration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DVIPBCH5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15740}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce LTCF-Net, a novel network architecture designed for enhancing low-light images. Unlike Retinex-based methods, our approach utilizes two color spaces - LAB and YUV - to efficiently separate and process color information, by leveraging the separation of luminance from chromatic components in color images. In addition, our model incorporates the Transformer architecture to comprehensively understand image content while maintaining computational efficiency. To dynamically balance the brightness in output images, we also introduce a Fourier transform module that adjusts the luminance channel in the frequency domain. This mechanism could uniformly balance brightness across different regions while eliminating background noises, and thereby enhancing visual quality. By combining these innovative components, LTCF-Net effectively improves low-light image quality while keeping the model lightweight. Experimental results demonstrate that our method outperforms current state-of-the-art approaches across multiple evaluation metrics and datasets, achieving more natural color restoration and a balanced brightness distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15740 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Model Pipeline. Our main models are Multi-header Self-attention (MHSA) Block, Channel Denoising (CD) Block, Multi-stage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Submodules in our model. (a) Multi-headed Self-attention (MHSA) Block use multi-head attention mechanism to acquire [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results on LOL-v1[42](top) and LOL-v2-real[49](bottom). Our method effectively enhances the visibility and preserves the color. LPSNR measures and optimizes image quality by assess￾ing the mean squared error between (ypred) and (ytrue). It is designed to enhance pixel accuracy, as detailed in Eq. 7. LPSNR = 40.0 − Xn i=1 20 · log10  1 √ MSE (7) The LColor ensures color fidelity by minimizing color discrepancies be… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results on SID[8](top) and SMID[7](bottom). Previous methods either output incorrect colors or have strong noise. Our method effectively improves the visibility of the image and preserves the rich details. image pairs. The dataset provides 18789 pairs for training and …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results on SDSD-indoor [39](top) and SDSD-outdoor [39](bottom). Benchmark methods either output incorrect colors or have strong noise, while the proposed method effectively improves the visibility of the image and preserves the rich details. Methods L-v1 L-v2 SID SMID …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visual results on the LIME [18], NPE [40], MEF [31], DICM [26], and VV [36] datasets. Our LTCF performs better [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visual comparison of object detection in low-light (left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A detailed comparison between our two models shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A dynamic his- togram equalization for image contrast enhancement

    Mohammad Abdullah-Al-Wadud, Md Hasanul Kabir, M Ali Akber Dewan, and Oksam Chae. A dynamic his- togram equalization for image contrast enhancement. IEEE transactions on consumer electronics, 53(2):593–600, 2007. 1

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Yolov4: Optimal speed and accuracy of object detection

    Alexey Bochkovskiy, Chien-Yao Wang, and Hong- Yuan Mark Liao. Yolov4: Optimal speed and accuracy of object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.10934, 2020. 7

    arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    The fourier transform

    Ronald N Bracewell. The fourier transform. Scientific Amer- ican, 260(6):86–95, 1989. 4

    work page 1989

  4. [4]

    Lyt-net: Lightweight yuv transformer-based net- work for low-light image enhancement

    Alexandru Brateanu, Raul Balmez, Adrian Avram, and CC Orhei. Lyt-net: Lightweight yuv transformer-based net- work for low-light image enhancement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15204, 2024. 1, 6

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Learning photographic global tonal adjustment with a database of input/output image pairs

    Vladimir Bychkovsky, Sylvain Paris, Eric Chan, and Fr ´edo Durand. Learning photographic global tonal adjustment with a database of input/output image pairs. InCVPR 2011, pages 97–104. IEEE, 2011. 5, 6, 7, 8

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Retinexformer: One-stage retinex- based transformer for low-light image enhancement

    Yuanhao Cai, Hao Bian, Jing Lin, Haoqian Wang, Radu Tim- ofte, and Yulun Zhang. Retinexformer: One-stage retinex- based transformer for low-light image enhancement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 12504–12513, 2023. 1, 6, 7

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Learning to see in the dark

    Chen Chen, Qifeng Chen, Jia Xu, and Vladlen Koltun. Learning to see in the dark. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 3291–3300, 2018. 5, 6

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Seeing motion in the dark

    Chen Chen, Qifeng Chen, Minh N Do, and Vladlen Koltun. Seeing motion in the dark. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International conference on computer vision , pages 3185– 3194, 2019. 2, 5, 6, 8

    work page 2019

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Pre-trained image processing transformer

    Hanting Chen, Yunhe Wang, Tianyu Guo, Chang Xu, Yiping Deng, Zhenhua Liu, Siwei Ma, Chunjing Xu, Chao Xu, and Wen Gao. Pre-trained image processing transformer. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 12299–12310, 2021. 6

    2021

  2. [10]

    A simple and effective his- togram equalization approach to image enhancement

    Heng-Da Cheng and XJ Shi. A simple and effective his- togram equalization approach to image enhancement. Digi- tal signal processing, 14(2):158–170, 2004. 1

    2004

  3. [11]

    A study and modifica- tion of the local histogram equalization algorithm

    R Dale-Jones and Tardi Tjahjadi. A study and modifica- tion of the local histogram equalization algorithm. Pattern Recognition, 26(9):1373–1381, 1993. 1

    1993

  4. [13]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020. 1

    2010 arXiv

  5. [14]

    You only need one color space: An efficient network for low-light image enhancement

    Yixu Feng, Cheng Zhang, Pei Wang, Peng Wu, Qingsen Yan, and Yanning Zhang. You only need one color space: An efficient network for low-light image enhancement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05809, 2024. 6, 7

    2024 arXiv

  6. [15]

    A weighted variational model for simul- taneous reflectance and illumination estimation

    Xueyang Fu, Delu Zeng, Yue Huang, Xiao-Ping Zhang, and Xinghao Ding. A weighted variational model for simul- taneous reflectance and illumination estimation. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR), pages 2782–2790, 2016. 1

    2016

  7. [16]

    Le-gan: Unsupervised low-light image enhancement network using attention module and identity invariant loss

    Ying Fu, Yang Hong, Linwei Chen, and Shaodi You. Le-gan: Unsupervised low-light image enhancement network using attention module and identity invariant loss. Knowledge- Based Systems, 240:108010, 2022. 1

    2022

  8. [17]

    Zero-reference deep curve estimation for low-light image enhancement

    Chunle Guo, Chongyi Li, Jichang Guo, Chen Change Loy, Junhui Hou, Sam Kwong, and Runmin Cong. Zero-reference deep curve estimation for low-light image enhancement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 1780–1789, 2020. 1

    2020

  9. [18]

    Lime: Low-light im- age enhancement via illumination map estimation

    Xiaojie Guo, Yu Li, and Haibin Ling. Lime: Low-light im- age enhancement via illumination map estimation. IEEE Transactions on image processing, 26(2):982–993, 2016. 6, 8

    2016

  10. [19]

    International standards for color television

    Jack W Herbstreit and H Pouliquen. International standards for color television. IEEE spectrum, 4(3):104–111, 1967. 2

    1967

  11. [20]

    Squeeze-and-excitation net- works

    Jie Hu, Li Shen, and Gang Sun. Squeeze-and-excitation net- works. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7132–7141, 2018. 4

    2018

  12. [21]

    Efficient contrast enhancement using adaptive gamma cor- rection with weighting distribution

    Shih-Chia Huang, Fan-Chieh Cheng, and Yi-Sheng Chiu. Efficient contrast enhancement using adaptive gamma cor- rection with weighting distribution. IEEE transactions on image processing, 22(3):1032–1041, 2012. 1

    2012

  13. [22]

    Low-light image enhancement with wavelet-based diffusion models

    Hai Jiang, Ao Luo, Haoqiang Fan, Songchen Han, and Shuaicheng Liu. Low-light image enhancement with wavelet-based diffusion models. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 42(6):1–14, 2023. 6, 7

    2023

  14. [23]

    Enlightengan: Deep light enhancement without paired supervision

    Yifan Jiang, Xinyu Gong, Ding Liu, Yu Cheng, Chen Fang, Xiaohui Shen, Jianchao Yang, Pan Zhou, and Zhangyang Wang. Enlightengan: Deep light enhancement without paired supervision. IEEE transactions on image processing, 30:2340–2349, 2021. 6

    2021

  15. [24]

    Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization

    Diederik P Kingma. Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. 6

    2014 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Edwin H. Land. The retinex theory of color vision: A retina- and-cortex system (retinex) may treat a color as a code for a three-part report from the retina, independent of the flux of radiant energy but correlated with the reflectance of objects,

  17. [26]

    Contrast en- hancement based on layered difference representation of 2d histograms

    Chulwoo Lee, Chul Lee, and Chang-Su Kim. Contrast en- hancement based on layered difference representation of 2d histograms. IEEE transactions on image processing, 22(12): 5372–5384, 2013. 6, 8

    2013

  18. [27]

    Retinex-inspired unrolling with cooperative prior architecture search for low-light image enhancement

    Risheng Liu, Long Ma, Jiaao Zhang, Xin Fan, and Zhongx- uan Luo. Retinex-inspired unrolling with cooperative prior architecture search for low-light image enhancement. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10561–10570, 2021. 1

    2021

  19. [28]

    Ll- net: A deep autoencoder approach to natural low-light image enhancement

    Kin Gwn Lore, Adedotun Akintayo, and Soumik Sarkar. Ll- net: A deep autoencoder approach to natural low-light image enhancement. Pattern Recognition, 61:650–662, 2017. 1

    2017

  20. [29]

    Sgdr: Stochas- tic gradient descent with warm restarts

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Sgdr: Stochas- tic gradient descent with warm restarts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.03983, 2016. 6

    2016 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Fourier 9 priors-guided diffusion for zero-shot joint low-light enhance- ment and deblurring

    Xiaoqian Lv, Shengping Zhang, Chenyang Wang, Yichen Zheng, Bineng Zhong, Chongyi Li, and Liqiang Nie. Fourier 9 priors-guided diffusion for zero-shot joint low-light enhance- ment and deblurring. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogn...

    2024

  22. [31]

    Perceptual quality assessment for multi-exposure image fusion

    Kede Ma, Kai Zeng, and Zhou Wang. Perceptual quality assessment for multi-exposure image fusion. IEEE Trans- actions on Image Processing , 24(11):3345–3356, 2015. 6, 8

    2015

  23. [32]

    U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, pa...

    2015

  24. [33]

    Image enhancement using local and global histogram equalization technique and their comparison

    Simran Somal. Image enhancement using local and global histogram equalization technique and their comparison. In First International Conference on Sustainable Technologies for Computational Intelligence: Proceedings of ICTSCI 2019, pages 739–753. Springer, 2020. 1

    2019

  25. [34]

    Colorimetry-part 4: Cie 1976 l* a* b* colour space

    CIE Standard et al. Colorimetry-part 4: Cie 1976 l* a* b* colour space. International Standard, pages 2019–06, 2007. 2

    1976

  26. [35]

    Attention is all you need

    A Vaswani. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017. 1, 2

    2017

  27. [36]

    On the evaluation of illumination compensation algorithms

    Vassilios V onikakis, Rigas Kouskouridas, and Antonios Gasteratos. On the evaluation of illumination compensation algorithms. Multimedia Tools and Applications , 77:9211– 9231, 2018. 6, 8

    2018

  28. [37]

    Low-light image enhancement using generative adversarial networks

    Litian Wang, Liquan Zhao, Tie Zhong, and Chunming Wu. Low-light image enhancement using generative adversarial networks. Scientific Reports, 14(1):18489, 2024. 1

    2024

  29. [38]

    Underexposed photo enhance- ment using deep illumination estimation

    Ruixing Wang, Qing Zhang, Chi-Wing Fu, Xiaoyong Shen, Wei-Shi Zheng, and Jiaya Jia. Underexposed photo enhance- ment using deep illumination estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019. 6

    2019

  30. [39]

    Seeing dynamic scene in the dark: A high-quality video dataset with mechatronic alignment

    Ruixing Wang, Xiaogang Xu, Chi-Wing Fu, Jiangbo Lu, Bei Yu, and Jiaya Jia. Seeing dynamic scene in the dark: A high-quality video dataset with mechatronic alignment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 9700–9709, 2021. 2, 5, 6, 7

    2021

  31. [40]

    Nat- uralness preserved enhancement algorithm for non-uniform illumination images

    Shuhang Wang, Jin Zheng, Hai-Miao Hu, and Bo Li. Nat- uralness preserved enhancement algorithm for non-uniform illumination images. IEEE transactions on image process- ing, 22(9):3538–3548, 2013. 6, 8

    2013

  32. [41]

    Gladnet: Low-light enhancement network with global awareness

    Wenjing Wang, Chen Wei, Wenhan Yang, and Jiaying Liu. Gladnet: Low-light enhancement network with global awareness. In 2018 13th IEEE international conference on automatic face & gesture recognition (FG 2018), pages 751–

    2018

  33. [43]

    Deep retinex decomposition for low-light enhancement

    Chen Wei, Wenjing Wang, Wenhan Yang, and Jiaying Liu. Deep retinex decomposition for low-light enhancement. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.04560, 2018. 1, 6

    2018 arXiv

  34. [44]

    Cvt: Introduc- ing convolutions to vision transformers

    Haiping Wu, Bin Xiao, Noel Codella, Mengchen Liu, Xiyang Dai, Lu Yuan, and Lei Zhang. Cvt: Introduc- ing convolutions to vision transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 22–31, 2021. 1

    2021

  35. [45]

    Uretinex-net: Retinex-based deep unfolding network for low-light image enhancement

    Wenhui Wu, Jian Weng, Pingping Zhang, Xu Wang, Wen- han Yang, and Jianmin Jiang. Uretinex-net: Retinex-based deep unfolding network for low-light image enhancement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 5901–5910, 2022. 1, 6, 7

    2022

  36. [46]

    Learning to restore low-light images via decomposition-and- enhancement

    Ke Xu, Xin Yang, Baocai Yin, and Rynson WH Lau. Learning to restore low-light images via decomposition-and- enhancement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 2281– 2290, 2020. 6

    2020

  37. [47]

    Snr-aware low-light image enhancement

    Xiaogang Xu, Ruixing Wang, Chi-Wing Fu, and Jiaya Jia. Snr-aware low-light image enhancement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 17714–17724, 2022. 1, 6

    2022

  38. [48]

    Band representation-based semi-supervised low- light image enhancement: Bridging the gap between signal fidelity and perceptual quality

    Wenhan Yang, Shiqi Wang, Yuming Fang, Yue Wang, and Ji- aying Liu. Band representation-based semi-supervised low- light image enhancement: Bridging the gap between signal fidelity and perceptual quality. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30:3461–3473, 2021. 6

    2021

  39. [49]

    Sparse gradient regularized deep retinex network for robust low-light image enhancement

    Wenhan Yang, Wenjing Wang, Haofeng Huang, Shiqi Wang, and Jiaying Liu. Sparse gradient regularized deep retinex network for robust low-light image enhancement. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30:2072–2086, 2021. 2, 5, 6

    2021

  40. [50]

    Dmfourllie: Dual-stage and multi-branch fourier network for low-light image enhancement

    Tongshun Zhang, Pingping Liu, Ming Zhao, and Haotian Lv. Dmfourllie: Dual-stage and multi-branch fourier network for low-light image enhancement. In ACM Multimedia 2024 ,

    2024

  41. [51]

    Kindling the darkness: A practical low-light image enhancer

    Yonghua Zhang, Jiawan Zhang, and Xiaojie Guo. Kindling the darkness: A practical low-light image enhancer. In Pro- ceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on mul- timedia, pages 1632–1640, 2019. 1, 6, 7

    2019

  42. [52]

    Led- net: Joint low-light enhancement and deblurring in the dark

    Shangchen Zhou, Chongyi Li, and Chen Change Loy. Led- net: Joint low-light enhancement and deblurring in the dark. In European conference on computer vision, pages 573–589. Springer, 2022. 1 10

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.