Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 47 references

IGAF: Incremental Guided Attention Fusion for Depth Super-Resolution

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that incrementally fusing RGB and depth features with learned cross-modal attention outperforms all compared guided depth super-resolution models on four benchmarks.

desk verdict Incremental attention-fusion architecture for depth SR with a plausible module but an under-supported SOTA claim due to missing recent baselines and single-run metrics. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01723 v1 pith:LUUQEDRK submitted 2025-01-03 cs.CV

Athanasios Tragakis , Chaitanya Kaul , Kevin J. Mitchell , Hang Dai , Roderick Murray-Smith , Daniele Faccio This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords guideddepthsuper-resolutionmultimodalsensorfusionattentioncross-modalconvolutionalneuralnetworkszero-shotgeneralizationmapupsamplingRGB-D
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

Guided depth super-resolution takes a low-resolution depth map and a sharp RGB image and tries to reconstruct a high-resolution depth map; the paper argues that the fusion step between the two modalities is where prior methods fail. Its claim is that fusing RGB structure into depth in one shot lets irrelevant textures leak through, causing blur, depth bleeding, and misaligned edges, and that this can be avoided by fusing incrementally: a naive joint representation is refined through two stages of attention-weighted cross-fusion before the depth stream moves on. The proposed model, built from three repeating IGAF modules, reports the lowest RMSE on NYU v2 at x4, x8, and x16 upsampling, and, trained only on NYU v2, also reports the lowest RMSE when transferred without fine-tuning to the Middlebury, Lu, and RGB-D-D datasets. It further reports the best result on RGB-D-D's real-sensor pairs, where low- and high-resolution depth come from different devices rather than from downsampling. If the results hold, the work makes a concrete case that iterative attention fusion is the component that lets depth super-resolution generalize across sensors and scenes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the incremental guided attention fusion (IGAF) module, a fusion cell that consumes RGB and depth feature maps and returns refined versions of both. Inside, a filtered wide-focus block (FWF) first extracts multi-scale features: a channel-attention feature extractor is followed by three dilated-convolution branches with linearly increasing dilation rates, so the network sees both fine texture and broad structure. The actual fusion is done by two spatial attention fusion (SAF) blocks, each of which generates attention weights with a two-layer MLP from one input and applies those weights to the other input in a crosswise manner; the first SAF fuses RGB features with the element-wise product of the two streams, and the second fuses that joint representation with the depth stream. This two-step, weight-gated cross-multiplication is the mechanism that the paper credits for transferring only relevant RGB structure and suppressing depth bleeding.

What would settle it

Run the released model on low-resolution depth maps degraded with realistic sensor artifacts, such as randomly missing depth pixels, sensor noise, and slight RGB-depth misalignment, and compare RMSE against SUFT and JIIF; if IGAF no longer improves on those baselines under this degradation, the paper's claim of generalizable state-of-the-art performance fails. A simpler check is to retrain the model several times on NYU v2 with different random seeds and see whether the reported x4 RMSE of 1.12 is reproduced within a small margin.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a cross-modal attention mechanism applied in two sequential steps, not one, is what makes guided depth super-resolution work. The first spatial attention fusion block combines the element-wise product of RGB and depth features with the RGB features; the second takes that output, passes it through a convolutional layer, and fuses it with the depth features. Because each block creates two-layer MLP attention weights and applies them crosswise, the depth stream is updated by RGB structure only where the naive fusion indicates the two modalities agree. The authors show this design outperforms addition and concatenation fusion (x4 RMSE 1.12 versus 1.23 and 1.22 on NYU v2) and that each component, including wide-focus dilation, two-layer MLP weights, and skip placement, contributes to the final accuracy. Their conclusion is that incremental guided fusion gives sharper edges, less bleeding, and better zero-shot transfer than the single-stage fusion used by previous state-of-the-art methods.

Load-bearing premise

The experiments assume that a low-resolution depth map produced by bicubic downsampling of a high-resolution ground truth behaves like the output of a real depth sensor, so the reported state-of-the-art numbers may not transfer to the missing pixels, noise, and misalignment found in actual sensor data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On NYU v2 the model reports RMSE of 1.12 at x4, 2.48 at x8, and 5.00 at x16, each better than every baseline listed in the paper's comparison.
  • Because it is trained only on NYU v2, the Middlebury, Lu, and RGB-D-D results are zero-shot transfers; the paper's claim is that attention-based incremental fusion generalizes without retuning.
  • On RGB-D-D's real-world pairs, where the low- and high-resolution depth images come from different sensors, the model reports RMSE 7.01, lower than all compared baselines, suggesting the benefit is not an artifact of bicubic degradation alone.
  • The ablation replacing IGAF with addition or concatenation raises NYU v2 x4 RMSE to 1.23 or 1.22, and removing the wide-focus block, the two-layer MLP weights, or the chosen skip placement each worsens accuracy, so the paper attributes the gain to the fusion design rather than model scale.
  • The three repeated IGAF modules feed only the depth stream into the final refinement block after the last module, so the architecture also shows that the RGB stream can be dropped at the output stage once guidance has been applied.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Independently re-running the released code on NYU v2 with the same train/test split would settle whether the reported margins, such as 1.12 versus 1.14 for SUFT at x4, are reproducible under different random seeds; the paper gives mean RMSE without error bars.
  • A natural next experiment is to degrade low-resolution depth with sensor-realistic artifacts, including missing pixels, infrared speckle noise, and RGB-depth misalignment, and test whether the zero-shot advantage over SUFT and JIIF survives; if it does, the method is a stronger candidate for real robotics and augmented-reality pipelines.
  • Because the IGAF module is a generic fusion cell, it could be lifted into other guided restoration tasks such as disparity upsampling, normal-map refinement, or low-light image enhancement, where a high-resolution guide channel carries structure that must not be over-transferred.
  • The paper does not report latency, parameter count, or FLOPs against baselines, so a practical follow-up would measure whether the reported accuracy gain is worth the compute in real-time systems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes IGAF, a dual-stream convolutional architecture for guided depth super-resolution. An RGB stream and a bicubically upsampled LR depth stream are processed by three incremental guided attention fusion (IGAF) modules, each built from filtered wide-focus (FWF) feature extractors and two spatial attention fusion (SAF) blocks; the final output is a depth-refinement head added to a global residual connection. The model is trained on NYU v2 with an L1 loss and evaluated at x4, x8, and x16 on NYU v2, Middlebury, Lu, and RGB-D-D, including a real-world RGB-D-D setting with sensor-collected LR/HR pairs. The paper reports lower RMSE values than the included baselines in every configuration and provides ablations of the fusion module on NYU v2 x4.

Significance. If the reported improvements are statistically reliable, IGAF would be a competitive method for guided depth super-resolution, and the IGAF module could be a useful reusable cross-modal fusion component. The manuscript has concrete strengths: the code and trained models are promised on GitHub, the architecture is described at module level, zero-shot transfer is tested on three additional datasets, and a real-sensor RGB-D-D experiment partially addresses the synthetic-degradation concern. The main weakness is that the empirical evidence is not yet strong enough to support the headline state-of-the-art claim: recent methods cited in the paper itself are absent from all comparison tables, and no uncertainty or significance information is reported for any RMSE value.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, §5 (Tables 1–5)] The abstract and Section 5 claim state-of-the-art results compared to 'all baseline models', but the comparison tables include only a subset of the methods cited as relevant prior work. DCTNet (ref. 28) and the spherical-space feature decomposition method (ref. 29), both cited in Section 2, do not appear in any table, and other recent guided-DSR methods discussed in the survey [6] are likewise absent. Because these methods report results on the same benchmarks, their omission prevents the reader from verifying the central claim. Please add comparisons to these methods, or explicitly restate the claim as being with respect to the included baselines only.
  2. [§5, Tables 1–5] Every quantitative result is a single RMSE value with no standard deviation, number of seeds, or significance test. Several reported margins are very small, for example NYU v2 x4 (1.12 vs. SUFT 1.14), Lu x16 (4.14 vs. JIIF 4.16), and Middlebury x16 (3.24 vs. JIIF 3.31). Without repeated runs or error bars, these improvements cannot be distinguished from run-to-run variation, so the state-of-the-art conclusion is not statistically supported. Reporting mean +/- std over at least three seeds, or otherwise providing variance information, is necessary for the headline empirical claim.
  3. [§6, Tables 6–7] The ablation study is conducted only on NYU v2 at x4, and several component-wise differences in Table 7 are as small as 0.02 RMSE (for example, 1.14 vs. 1.12 between the relocated-skip variant and the full model). With single runs, the conclusion that each component is necessary is not supported. In addition, design choices such as N=10 in the FWF module and the number of IGAF modules are selected on NYU v2, so the zero-shot results should be interpreted as obtained with NYU-v2-tuned hyperparameters; the paper should either extend the ablation or qualify this point.
  4. [§4] The evaluation protocol uses LR depth maps produced by bicubic downsampling of HR ground truth, as stated in Section 4. Although this is consistent with prior work and the real-world RGB-D-D experiment mitigates the concern, the abstract's generalization claim for Middlebury, Lu, and RGB-D-D is stated without this qualification. Please explicitly qualify the state-of-the-art claim as holding under the bicubic-degradation protocol, or add experiments with sensor-realistic noise and missing pixels.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 1–4] The figures contain embedded 'Click to buy NOW!' and 'PDF-XChange Product' watermark text that should be removed from the published version.
  2. [§3.2.1, Eqs. (5)–(6)] The notation A_A1, b_A1, A_A2, and b_A2 is not defined; please specify the shapes and roles of these weight and bias tensors.
  3. [§4] The paper states that RMSE is the evaluation metric but does not give its formula or unit; a one-line definition would improve reproducibility.
  4. [§7] The concluding paragraph repeats 'in a zero-shot setting' twice; the sentence should be rephrased.
  5. [Tables 2 and 4] Some reference labels are shared between tables with different method names (for example DKN/FDKN and DJF/DJFR); please verify that each table entry points to the correct bibliography entry.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: IGAF's state-of-the-art claim rests on external benchmark evaluations; the only self-citations are component provenance and are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical state-of-the-art RMSE on NYU v2, Middlebury, Lu, and RGB-D-D. These numbers are produced by training on NYU v2 and evaluating on held-out benchmark test sets; they are not derived from the model's equations or from fitted parameters. The residual formulation (Eq. 1-2) and L1 training loss (Eq. 8) do not encode the reported RMSE values, and no parameter is fitted to the zero-shot test sets. The WF component is self-cited to [34,35] as a previously introduced building block, but the SOTA claim is supported by the paper's own ablations (Tables 6-7) and benchmark comparisons, not by the citation itself. There is no fitted input renamed as a prediction, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation. Concerns about omitted recent baselines such as DCTNet and SDFNet are about comparison completeness and correctness, not about circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the benchmark evidence, and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central performance claim rests on standard DSR domain assumptions: bicubic degradation as a proxy for sensor LR, alignment between RGB and depth edges, and cross-dataset generalization. The architecture hyperparameters (IGAF count, N=10, MLP depth, WF dilation schedule) are empirically chosen, and their values are part of the method. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of IGAF modules = 3
    Chosen empirically; ablation shows an extra module does not improve performance (Table 7).
  • Number of FE repeats N in FWF = 10
    Stated in Section 3.2.1: 'during training N = 10 was used.' No systematic study reported.
  • SAF MLP layers = 2
    Ablation comparing one vs two layers favors two (Table 7).
  • WF dilation rates = linearly increasing (exact values not given)
    The WF block uses increasing dilation rates to capture multi-scale features; the specific schedule is not stated.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Bicubic downsampling simulates real LR depth degradation
    Section 4: LR maps are 'simulated by bicubic downsampling which is consistent with other approaches.' The SOTA claim depends on this proxy.
  • domain assumption RGB edges align with depth boundaries and cross-modal attention can transfer structure without over-transfer
    Sections 1 and 3.2.1 motivate the IGAF module; if this fails, the fusion may transfer irrelevant textures.
  • domain assumption Training on NYU v2 generalizes zero-shot to other datasets
    The zero-shot evaluation in Section 5 assumes the learned RGB-depth relation transfers across sensors and scenes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of IGAF: Incremental Guided Attention Fusion for Depth Super-Resolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LUUQEDRK

@misc{pith2026250101723,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: IGAF: Incremental Guided Attention Fusion for Depth Super-Resolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LUUQEDRK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01723}
}
abstract

Accurate depth estimation is crucial for many fields, including robotics, navigation, and medical imaging. However, conventional depth sensors often produce low-resolution (LR) depth maps, making detailed scene perception challenging. To address this, enhancing LR depth maps to high-resolution (HR) ones has become essential, guided by HR-structured inputs like RGB or grayscale images. We propose a novel sensor fusion methodology for guided depth super-resolution (GDSR), a technique that combines LR depth maps with HR images to estimate detailed HR depth maps. Our key contribution is the Incremental guided attention fusion (IGAF) module, which effectively learns to fuse features from RGB images and LR depth maps, producing accurate HR depth maps. Using IGAF, we build a robust super-resolution model and evaluate it on multiple benchmark datasets. Our model achieves state-of-the-art results compared to all baseline models on the NYU v2 dataset for $\times 4$, $\times 8$, and $\times 16$ upsampling. It also outperforms all baselines in a zero-shot setting on the Middlebury, Lu, and RGB-D-D datasets. Code, environments, and models are available on GitHub.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01723 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed multi-modal architecture for the guided depth super resolution estimation. 2. Literature Review Depth Super-Resolution Architectures. DSR techniques are broadly categorized into those that use RGB or grayscale images as guidance, and those that do not. Non-guided DSR techniques [17,21,22] try to solve the task by only using an LR depth map. This results in a simplified data acquisition pipel… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The proposed multi-modal architecture utilizes information from both an LR depth map and an HR RGB image. Firstly, each modality passes through a convolutional layer followed by a LeakyReLU activation. The model utilizes the IGAF modules to combine information from the two modalities by fusing the relevant information on each stream and ignoring information that is unrelated to the depth maps. Finally, after the thi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The IGAF module. The module is responsible for both feature extraction and modality fusion. Each modality passes through a feature extraction stage (FWF) before the initial naive fusion by an element-wise multiplication. An SAF block follows, which fuses the result of the multiplication with the extracted features of the RGB stream creating an initial structural guidance. The second SAF block incrementally fuses thi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the FWF module. The two modules are separated and not combined into one larger module because the propagation of shallower features through the skip connections as seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison between our model and SUFT [24]. The visualizations shown are for the ×8 case. Our model creates more complete depth maps as seen in (c) for rows 1 and 2. In (c), row 3 shows that our model creates sharper edges with minimal bleeding. Also, in (c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Guided depth map super-resolution: A survey

    Zhong, Z.; Liu, X.; Jiang, J.; Zhao, D.; Ji, X. Guided depth map super-resolution: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 2023, 55, 1–36

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Visual odometry and mapping for autonomous flight using an RGB-D camera

    Huang, A.S.; Bachrach, A.; Henry, P .; Krainin, M.; Maturana, D.; Fox, D.; Roy, N. Visual odometry and mapping for autonomous flight using an RGB-D camera. In Proceedings of the Robotics Research: The 15th International Symposium ISRR, Flagstaff, Arizona, 28 August–1 September 2011; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 235–252

    work page 2011

  3. [2]

    Altitude control of a quadrotor helicopter using depth map from Microsoft Kinect sensor

    Stowers, J.; Hayes, M.; Bainbridge-Smith, A. Altitude control of a quadrotor helicopter using depth map from Microsoft Kinect sensor. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics, Istanbul, Turkey, 13–15 April 2011; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 358–362

    work page 2011

  4. [3]

    Collison avoidance using point cloud data fusion from multiple depth sensors: A practical approach

    Melchiorre, M.; Scimmi, L.S.; Pastorelli, S.P .; Mauro, S. Collison avoidance using point cloud data fusion from multiple depth sensors: A practical approach. In Proceedings of the 2019 23rd International Conference on Mechatronics Technology (ICMT), Salerno, Italy, 23–26 October 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 1–6

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    A fast and fully automatic method for cerebrovascular segmentation on time-of-flight (TOF) MRA image

    Gao, X.; Uchiyama, Y.; Zhou, X.; Hara, T.; Asano, T.; Fujita, H. A fast and fully automatic method for cerebrovascular segmentation on time-of-flight (TOF) MRA image. J. Digit. Imaging 2011, 24, 609–625

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    Time-of- flight 3-D endoscopy

    Penne, J.; Höller, K.; Stürmer, M.; Schrauder, T.; Schneider, A.; Engelbrecht, R.; Feußner, H.; Schmauss, B.; Hornegger, J. Time-of- flight 3-D endoscopy. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Marrakesh, Morocco, 7–11 October 2009; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2009; pp. 467–474

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Spatial-depth super resolution for range images

    Yang, Q.; Yang, R.; Davis, J.; Nistér, D. Spatial-depth super resolution for range images. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 17–22 June 2007; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 1–8

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Multistep joint bilateral depth upsampling

    Riemens, A.; Gangwal, O.; Barenbrug, B.; Berretty, R.P . Multistep joint bilateral depth upsampling. In Proceedings of the Visual Communications and Image Processing, San Jose, CA, USA, 20–22 January 2009; SPIE: 2009; Volume 7257, pp. 192–203

    work page 2009

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Joint geodesic upsampling of depth images

    Liu, M.Y.; Tuzel, O.; Taguchi, Y. Joint geodesic upsampling of depth images. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Portland, OR, USA, 23–28 June 2013; pp. 169–176

    2013

  2. [10]

    Edge-preserving depth map upsampling by joint trilateral filter

    Lo, K.H.; Wang, Y.C.F.; Hua, K.L. Edge-preserving depth map upsampling by joint trilateral filter. IEEE T rans. Cybern. 2017, 48, 371–384

    2017

  3. [11]

    Weighted guided image filtering with steering kernel

    Sun, Z.; Han, B.; Li, J.; Zhang, J.; Gao, X. Weighted guided image filtering with steering kernel. IEEE T rans. Image Process. 2019, 29, 500–508

    2019

  4. [12]

    Fast, High-Quality Hierarchical Depth-Map Super-Resolution

    Qiao, Y.; Jiao, L.; Li, W.; Richardt, C.; Cosker, D. Fast, High-Quality Hierarchical Depth-Map Super-Resolution. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Virtual Event, 20–24 October 2021; pp. 4444–4453

    2021

  5. [13]

    An application of markov random fields to range sensing

    Diebel, J.; Thrun, S. An application of markov random fields to range sensing. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2005, 18, 291–298

    2005

  6. [14]

    Image guided depth upsampling using anisotropic total generalized variation

    Ferstl, D.; Reinbacher, C.; Ranftl, R.; Rüther, M.; Bischof, H. Image guided depth upsampling using anisotropic total generalized variation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Sydney, Australia, 1–8 December 2013; pp. 993–1000

    2013

  7. [15]

    Dynamicfusion: Reconstruction and tracking of non-rigid scenes in real-time

    Newcombe, R.A.; Fox, D.; Seitz, S.M. Dynamicfusion: Reconstruction and tracking of non-rigid scenes in real-time. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Boston, MA, USA, 7–12 June 2015; pp. 343–352

    2015

  8. [16]

    High-quality depth map upsampling and completion for RGB-D cameras

    Park, J.; Kim, H.; Tai, Y.W.; Brown, M.S.; Kweon, I.S. High-quality depth map upsampling and completion for RGB-D cameras. IEEE T rans. Image Process. 2014, 23, 5559–5572

    2014

  9. [17]

    Atgv-net: Accurate depth super-resolution

    Riegler, G.; Rüther, M.; Bischof, H. Atgv-net: Accurate depth super-resolution. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 11–14 October 2016; Proceedings, Part III 14; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 268–284

    2016

  10. [18]

    Deep edge map guided depth super resolution

    Jiang, Z.; Yue, H.; Lai, Y.K.; Yang, J.; Hou, Y.; Hou, C. Deep edge map guided depth super resolution. Signal Process. Image Commun. 2021, 90, 116040

    2021

  11. [19]

    Deep depth super-resolution: Learning depth super-resolution using deep convolutional neural network

    Song, X.; Dai, Y.; Qin, X. Deep depth super-resolution: Learning depth super-resolution using deep convolutional neural network. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision–ACCV 2016: 13th Asian Conference on Computer Vision, Taipei, Taiwan, 20–24 November 2016; Revised Selected Pap...

    2016

  12. [20]

    Channel attention based iterative residual learning for depth map super-resolution

    Song, X.; Dai, Y.; Zhou, D.; Liu, L.; Li, W.; Li, H.; Yang, R. Channel attention based iterative residual learning for depth map super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Seattle, DC, USA, 14–19 June 2020; pp. 5631–5640

    2020

  13. [21]

    Depth super-resolution via deep controllable slicing network

    Ye, X.; Sun, B.; Wang, Z.; Yang, J.; Xu, R.; Li, H.; Li, B. Depth super-resolution via deep controllable slicing network. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Virtual Event, 12–16 October 2020; pp. 1809–1818

    2020

  14. [22]

    Pyramid-structured depth map super-resolution based on deep dense-residual network

    Huang, L.; Zhang, J.; Zuo, Y.; Wu, Q. Pyramid-structured depth map super-resolution based on deep dense-residual network. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 2019, 26, 1723–1727

    2019

  15. [23]

    Towards fast and accurate real-world depth super-resolution: Benchmark dataset and baseline

    He, L.; Zhu, H.; Li, F.; Bai, H.; Cong, R.; Zhang, C.; Lin, C.; Liu, M.; Zhao, Y. Towards fast and accurate real-world depth super-resolution: Benchmark dataset and baseline. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Virtual, 19–25 J...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Symmetric Uncertainty-Aware Feature Transmission for Depth Super-Resolution

    Shi, W.; Ye, M.; Du, B. Symmetric Uncertainty-Aware Feature Transmission for Depth Super-Resolution. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Lisboa, Portugal, 10–14 October 2022; pp. 3867–3876

    2022

  17. [25]

    Joint implicit image function for guided depth super-resolution

    Tang, J.; Chen, X.; Zeng, G. Joint implicit image function for guided depth super-resolution. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Virtual, 20–24 October 2021; pp. 4390–4399. Sensors 2024, 1, 0 12 of 12

    2021

  18. [26]

    Learning scene structure guidance via cross-task knowledge transfer for single depth super-resolution

    Sun, B.; Ye, X.; Li, B.; Li, H.; Wang, Z.; Xu, R. Learning scene structure guidance via cross-task knowledge transfer for single depth super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Virtual, 19–25 June 2021; pp. 7792–7801

    2021

  19. [27]

    Bridgenet: A joint learning network of depth map super-resolution and monocular depth estimation

    Tang, Q.; Cong, R.; Sheng, R.; He, L.; Zhang, D.; Zhao, Y.; Kwong, S. Bridgenet: A joint learning network of depth map super-resolution and monocular depth estimation. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Virtual, 20–24 October 2021; pp. 2148–2157

    2021

  20. [28]

    Discrete cosine transform network for guided depth map super-resolution

    Zhao, Z.; Zhang, J.; Xu, S.; Lin, Z.; Pfister, H. Discrete cosine transform network for guided depth map super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 18–24 June 2022; pp. 5697–5707

    2022

  21. [29]

    Spherical space feature decomposition for guided depth map super-resolution

    Zhao, Z.; Zhang, J.; Gu, X.; Tan, C.; Xu, S.; Zhang, Y.; Timofte, R.; Van Gool, L. Spherical space feature decomposition for guided depth map super-resolution. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2303.08942

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Multiscale Attention Fusion for Depth Map Super-Resolution Generative Adversarial Networks

    Xu, D.; Fan, X.; Gao, W. Multiscale Attention Fusion for Depth Map Super-Resolution Generative Adversarial Networks. Entropy 2023, 25, 836

    2023

  23. [31]

    Depth Map Super-Resolution Reconstruction Based on Multi-Channel Progressive Attention Fusion Network

    Wang, J.; Huang, Q. Depth Map Super-Resolution Reconstruction Based on Multi-Channel Progressive Attention Fusion Network. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 8270

    2023

  24. [32]

    WAFP-Net: Weighted Attention Fusion Based Progressive Residual Learning for Depth Map Super-Resolution

    Song, X.; Zhou, D.; Li, W.; Dai, Y.; Liu, L.; Li, H.; Yang, R.; Zhang, L. WAFP-Net: Weighted Attention Fusion Based Progressive Residual Learning for Depth Map Super-Resolution. IEEE T rans. Multimed. 2021, 24, 4113–4127

    2021

  25. [33]

    High-resolution depth maps imaging via attention-based hierarchical multi-modal fusion

    Zhong, Z.; Liu, X.; Jiang, J.; Zhao, D.; Chen, Z.; Ji, X. High-resolution depth maps imaging via attention-based hierarchical multi-modal fusion. IEEE T rans. Image Process. 2021, 31, 648–663

    2021

  26. [34]

    The fully convolutional transformer for medical image segmentation

    Tragakis, A.; Kaul, C.; Murray-Smith, R.; Husmeier, D. The fully convolutional transformer for medical image segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2–7 January 2023; pp. 3660–3669

    2023

  27. [35]

    and Liu, Q

    Tragakis, A. and Liu, Q. and Kaul, C. and Roy, Swalpa K. and Dai, H. and Deligianni, F. and Murray-Smith, R. and Faccio, D. GLFNET: Global-Local (frequency) Filter Networks for efficient medical image segmentation. 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI)...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Indoor segmentation and support inference from rgbd images

    Silberman, N.; Hoiem, D.; Kohli, P .; Fergus, R. Indoor segmentation and support inference from rgbd images. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision–ECCV 2012: 12th European Conference on Computer Vision, Florence, Italy, 7–13 October 2012; Proceedings, Part V 12; Springer: Cham...

    2012

  29. [37]

    Evaluation of cost functions for stereo matching

    Hirschmuller, H.; Scharstein, D. Evaluation of cost functions for stereo matching. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 17–22 June 2007; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 1–8

    2007

  30. [38]

    Learning conditional random fields for stereo

    Scharstein, D.; Pal, C. Learning conditional random fields for stereo. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 17–22 June 2007; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 1–8

    2007

  31. [39]

    Depth enhancement via low-rank matrix completion

    Lu, S.; Ren, X.; Liu, F. Depth enhancement via low-rank matrix completion. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Columbus, OH, USA, 23–28 June 2014; pp. 3390–3397

    2014

  32. [40]

    Learning dynamic guidance for depth image enhancement

    Gu, S.; Zuo, W.; Guo, S.; Chen, Y.; Chen, C.; Zhang, L. Learning dynamic guidance for depth image enhancement. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Honolulu, HI, USA, 21–26 July 2017; pp. 3769–3778

    2017

  33. [41]

    Spatially variant linear representation models for joint filtering

    Pan, J.; Dong, J.; Ren, J.S.; Lin, L.; Tang, J.; Yang, M.H. Spatially variant linear representation models for joint filtering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Long Beach, CA, USA, 15–20 June 2019; pp. 1702–1711

    2019

  34. [42]

    Deformable kernel networks for guided depth map upsampling

    Kim, B.; Ponce, J.; Ham, B. Deformable kernel networks for guided depth map upsampling. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1903.11286

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Joint image filtering with deep convolutional networks

    Li, Y.; Huang, J.B.; Ahuja, N.; Yang, M.H. Joint image filtering with deep convolutional networks. IEEE T rans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2019, 41, 1909–1923

    2019

  36. [44]

    Pixel-adaptive convolutional neural networks

    Su, H.; Jampani, V .; Sun, D.; Gallo, O.; Learned-Miller, E.; Kautz, J. Pixel-adaptive convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Long Beach, CA, USA, 15–20 June 2019; pp. 11166– 11175

    2019

  37. [45]

    Depth map super-resolution by deep multi-scale guidance

    Hui, T.W.; Loy, C.C.; Tang, X. Depth map super-resolution by deep multi-scale guidance. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 11–14 October 2016; Proceedings, Part III 14; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 353–369

    2016

  38. [46]

    Deep joint image filtering

    Li, Y.; Huang, J.B.; Ahuja, N.; Yang, M.H. Deep joint image filtering. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 11–14 October 2016; Proceedings, Part IV 14; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 154–169

    2016

  39. [47]

    Deep convolutional neural network for multi-modal image restoration and fusion

    Deng, X.; Dragotti, P .L. Deep convolutional neural network for multi-modal image restoration and fusion. IEEE T rans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2020, 43, 3333–3348. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.