Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Satellite Image Utilization for Dehazing with Swin Transformer-Hybrid U-Net and Watershed loss

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims SUFERNOBWA, a Swin-Transformer-hybrid U-Net trained with a watershed loss, outperforms existing dehazing methods on RICE and SateHaze1K, achieving 33.24 dB PSNR and 0.967 SSIM on RICE.

desk verdict A modest architectural recombination whose one novel piece, the watershed loss, is not shown to be differentiable, and whose headline claim is contradicted by its own Table 2. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00835 v1 pith:MYCS4H3H submitted 2025-08-31 cs.CV

Jongwook Si , Sungyoung Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords satelliteimagedehazingSwinTransformerU-Netwatershedlossguidedfilterremotesensingrestorationhazeremovalcloud
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 proposes SUFERNOBWA, a dehazing network for satellite images built by inserting Swin Transformer blocks into a U-Net encoder-decoder, and claims it outperforms existing methods on the RICE and SateHaze1K benchmarks. The central assertion is that a composite loss—L2, guided-filter loss, and a novel watershed-based loss—lets the network remove haze and clouds while keeping object boundaries such as roads and buildings intact. On RICE the method reports PSNR 33.24 dB and SSIM 0.967; on SateHaze1K it reports the highest SSIM under thin and thick haze and the highest PSNR under moderate haze. The authors argue this matters because clear satellite images are required for environmental monitoring, agriculture, disaster response, and urban analysis.

What carries the argument

Two mechanisms carry the argument. SwinRRDB is a block that wraps Swin Transformer self-attention layers inside the Residual-in-Residual Dense Block structure, so a single module can model long-range context and local spatial detail; it is used in every encoder and decoder stage. The watershed loss converts ground-truth and predicted images into normalized segmentation label maps via Gaussian smoothing, local-minima markers, and four-directional region growing, then penalizes their L2 difference, which is meant to force the network to keep object boundaries and internal region consistency.

What would settle it

Compute the gradient of the watershed loss with respect to the predicted image at a random early checkpoint; if it is zero at every pixel, the loss cannot drive learning. A cleaner experiment: train the same network with the watershed term replaced by a differentiable boundary loss, or omitted entirely, and compare PSNR and SSIM—identical curves would show the watershed loss is inert.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery claim is that combining the shifted-window global attention of the Swin Transformer with a U-Net's multi-scale local reconstruction, plus a boundary-aware watershed loss, yields state-of-the-art dehazing for satellite images. The network, called SUFERNOBWA, uses a block the authors name SwinRRDB—Swin Transformer layers embedded in residual-in-residual dense blocks—in the encoder and decoder, with a lightweight bottleneck. The loss compares three quantities between prediction and ground truth: L2 pixel error, a guided-filtered version of each image, and normalized label maps produced by the watershed segmentation algorithm. The authors report that the full loss combinati

Load-bearing premise

The watershed label maps are produced by a non-differentiable pipeline of smoothing, local-minima detection, integer labeling, and region growing, yet the watershed loss is minimized with backpropagation; if gradients through that loss are zero or undefined, the watershed term cannot be what improves training.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers hold, a single RGB-image network can beat methods that use extra sensors or physical priors for satellite dehazing on standard benchmarks.
  • The watershed-loss recipe should carry over to other restoration tasks where boundaries matter, such as cloud removal, super-resolution, or map generation from aerial images.
  • On SateHaze1K, the method's SSIM advantage in thin and thick haze suggests structure preservation can matter more than pixel-error improvements when haze is extreme.
  • The ablations indicate the SwinRRDB module adds roughly 2.7 dB on RICE, so both the architecture and the loss contribute to the reported gain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own limitations note only synthetic datasets were used; the strongest next test is validation on real hazy/clear satellite pairs, since synthetic haze may not reproduce real reflectance and atmosphere.
  • The reported RICE gain over the closest Transformer baseline is about 0.23 dB in PSNR, so the practical case for the method likely rests on structural metrics and downstream tasks rather than on pixel-error margin.
  • If the watershed loss genuinely contributes, a differentiable surrogate—for example, comparing edge maps or soft segmentation maps—could give similar boundary preservation while making end-to-end training cleaner.
  • Because the watershed label maps are extracted independently from each image, a sensitivity test varying the Gaussian smoothing scale and marker density would show how brittle the method is.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes SUFERNOBWA, an encoder–bottleneck–decoder network for single-image dehazing of satellite imagery. The encoder and decoder use SwinRRDB blocks that combine Swin Transformer windowed self-attention with RRDB-style residual dense connections, and the bottleneck uses lightweight Bottleneck blocks without self-attention. Training uses a composite loss (Eq. 13) comprising L2 loss, guided-filter loss, and a novel watershed loss based on watershed label maps of predicted and ground-truth images. The method is evaluated on RICE and SateHaze1K with PSNR/SSIM, including comparisons with several recent dehazing methods and ablation studies for the loss components and SwinRRDB.

Significance. If the results held, the architectural combination would be a modest incremental contribution to satellite-image dehazing, and the watershed-loss idea is interesting in principle. The paper provides quantitative comparisons on two datasets, a visual comparison, and an ablation study, and it explicitly acknowledges limitations such as the use of synthetic data and the lack of real-world validation. However, the central claimed contribution is not currently supported: the watershed loss is described through non-differentiable operations without a surrogate gradient, the ablation text contradicts the reported numbers, and the headline 'outperforms state-of-the-art on both datasets' is contradicted by the paper's own Table 2. The significance of the work is therefore contingent on substantial revision and re-evaluation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (12)] The watershed loss is computed from label maps obtained by (i) Gaussian smoothing, (ii) local-minima detection and integer marker assignment, (iii) four-directional label propagation, and (iv) min-max normalization. Steps (ii)–(iii) are discrete assignment operations, so the loss is piecewise constant almost everywhere with respect to the predicted image; its gradient with respect to network parameters is zero (or undefined at boundaries). No surrogate gradient, straight-through estimator, or detached-target formulation is described in §3.2 or §4.2. Consequently, the training procedure as written cannot credit L_water for the improvements in Table 3. Because this loss is one of the paper's two main contributions, the claim that watershed loss improves boundary preservation is unsubstantiated as stated.
  2. [Abstract and §5 vs Table 2] The unqualified claim that SUFERNOBWA 'outperforms state-of-the-art models on both the RICE and SateHaze1K datasets' is contradicted by Table 2. Under Thin Fog, Ours has PSNR 24.19 dB, below X. Chen et al. (25.84), M2SCN (25.21), DVKT (24.73), and UDAVM-Net (26.76). Under Thick Fog, Ours has PSNR 22.33 dB, below X. Chen et al. (25.20), B. Huang et al. (25.07), DVKT (23.31), and UDAVM-Net (23.48). Under Moderate Fog, Ours has the highest PSNR (28.15 dB), but its SSIM of 0.950 is below UDAVM-Net's 0.952. The conclusion's statement that the method achieves 'the highest PSNR and SSIM in the Moderate Fog region' is false as written. The claims must be revised to reflect the per-condition results.
  3. [§4.4, Table 3] The ablation narrative contradicts the table. The L2+Watershed row (O X O) reports PSNR 32.28 dB, which is lower than the L2-only baseline's 32.71 dB, yet the text states that 'Adding Watershed Loss significantly improved performance, increasing PSNR to 32.28 dB.' Similarly, L2+Guided (32.61 dB) also does not improve PSNR over L2-only; only the three-loss combination reaches 33.24 dB. Thus the ablations do not support the claim that adding guided or watershed loss individually improves pixel accuracy; at most they improve SSIM/UQI. The text needs to be corrected and the interaction effects analyzed, or the experiments need to be rerun with properly controlled comparisons.
  4. [§4.3, Tables 1–2] All reported results appear to come from a single training run with no error bars, multiple seeds, or significance tests. The claimed RICE advantage over RSDformer is 0.23 dB PSNR and 0.014 SSIM; these margins are plausibly within run-to-run variation for deep image-restoration methods. The narrative also selects whichever metric favors the method in each haze condition (PSNR for Moderate, SSIM for Thin/Thick), which further weakens the superiority claim. The authors should report mean±std across multiple runs, or at minimum explicitly state that this is a single-run comparison and temper the comparative claims accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] The citation numbering is inconsistent. For example, ICL-Net is cited as [14] in §2 but reference [14] is a different paper, and C. Li et al.'s efficient dehazing method is cited as [38] while reference [38] in the list is the Swin Transformer paper. Please renumber all references and verify each citation against the bibliography.
  2. [Eq. (9)] The guided-filter formula is ambiguous: products such as I_t·I_GT are not defined with local-window means, and the replacement t ∈ {GT, pred} is confusing. The standard guided-filter expression should be written with explicit windowed mean/covariance notation.
  3. [Fig. 2 and Eq. (12)] Figure 2 and its caption describe an L1 difference between 'input and output' images and a sum of remaining label values, but Eq. (12) defines L2 loss between normalized watershed label maps of predicted and ground-truth images. The figure, caption, and equation need to be aligned.
  4. [Eqs. (2)–(3)] Subscript conventions are inconsistent: Eq. (2) indexes F_l for l ∈ {1,2,3,4}, while Eq. (3) uses F_{l-1} and F_l in ways that do not clearly match the encoder/decoder hierarchy. The text also says 'three consecutive SwinRRDB' but the equation suggests four layers. Please clarify.
  5. [Global] There are numerous typos and inconsistent spellings, e.g., 'StateHaze1K' vs 'SateHaze1k', 'applyting', 'iscrucial', 'his configuration', and inconsistent use of 'watershed loss' vs 'Watershed loss'. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical architecture/loss paper; no derivation reduces to fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper proposes SUFERNOBWA, a U-Net with SwinRRDB and a composite loss. There is no first-principles derivation whose output is equivalent to its input by construction. The loss terms are computed on predicted and ground-truth images via equations (8)-(13); the hyperparameters λ_L2=5, λ_guided=1, λ_water=0.5 are ordinary hand-tuned weights, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. Ablations (Tables 3,4) are comparisons on held-out test portions, not reproductions of training targets. The only author self-citation (ref [4]) appears in the introduction as an example application and is not load-bearing. The watershed loss's non-differentiable label generation is a potential optimization/gradient concern, not circularity. The abstract's 'outperforms state-of-the-art' is internally weakened by Table 2 (e.g., Thin/Thick PSNR below several baselines), but this is an evidence/consistency issue, not circularity. The paper's conclusion also explicitly admits synthetic-only evaluation and color-reconstruction limitations. Therefore no specific circular reduction can be quoted; the work is self-contained empirically.

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

The central claim rests on standard DL components, on tuned hyperparameters, and on an unstated differentiability assumption for the watershed loss. No code or data are shipped.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda_L2 = 5
    Loss weight tuned on validation, Section 4.2
  • lambda_guided = 1
    Loss weight tuned, Section 4.2
  • lambda_water = 0.5
    Loss weight tuned, Section 4.2
  • alpha residual scaling factors = 0.1 (bottleneck), 0.2 (SwinRRDB)
    Manual constants in residual connections, Sections 3.1 and 3.1.4
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Synthetic benchmark pairs (RICE, SateHaze1k) adequately represent real satellite atmospheric degradation
    The paper itself states no real-world validation was performed (Conclusion).
  • ad hoc to paper Watershed label map operations are differentiable or have a usable surrogate gradient
    Loss Eq. (12) requires gradients through non-differentiable label propagation; no approximation is specified.
  • domain assumption PSNR and SSIM are valid proxies for dehazing quality
    Standard in the field, but the paper's selective emphasis on SSIM when PSNR is lower is a judgement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Satellite Image Utilization for Dehazing with Swin Transformer-Hybrid U-Net and Watershed loss." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MYCS4H3H

@misc{pith2026250900835,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Satellite Image Utilization for Dehazing with Swin Transformer-Hybrid U-Net and Watershed loss},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MYCS4H3H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00835}
}
read the original abstract

Satellite imagery plays a crucial role in various fields; however, atmospheric interference and haze significantly degrade image clarity and reduce the accuracy of information extraction. To address these challenges, this paper proposes a hybrid dehazing framework that integrates Swin Transformer and U-Net to balance global context learning and local detail restoration, called SUFERNOBWA. The proposed network employs SwinRRDB, a Swin Transformer-based Residual-in-Residual Dense Block, in both the encoder and decoder to effectively extract features. This module enables the joint learning of global contextual information and fine spatial structures, which is crucial for structural preservation in satellite image. Furthermore, we introduce a composite loss function that combines L2 loss, guided loss, and a novel watershed loss, which enhances structural boundary preservation and ensures pixel-level accuracy. This architecture enables robust dehazing under diverse atmospheric conditions while maintaining structural consistency across restored images. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art models on both the RICE and SateHaze1K datasets. Specifically, on the RICE dataset, the proposed approach achieved a PSNR of 33.24 dB and an SSIM of 0.967, which is a significant improvement over existing method. This study provides an effective solution for mitigating atmospheric interference in satellite imagery and highlights its potential applicability across diverse remote sensing applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ghamisi, P.; Rasti, B.; Yokoya, N.; Wang, Q.; Hofle, B.; Bruzzone, L.; Benediktsson, J. A. Multisource and multitemporal data fusion in remote sensing: A comprehensive review of the state of the art. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 2019. 7, 6–39

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Schmitt, M.; Zhu, X. X. Data fusion and remote sensing: An ever-growing relationship. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 2016. 4, 6–23

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    A.; Loveland, T

    Wulder, M. A.; Loveland, T. R.; Roy, D. P.; Crawford, C. J.; Masek, J. G.; Woodcock, C. E.; Zhu, Z. Current status of Landsat program, science, and applications. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2019. 225, 127–147

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    GAN-Based Map Generation Technique of Aerial Image Using Residual Blocks and Canny Edge Detector

    Si, J.; Kim, S. GAN-Based Map Generation Technique of Aerial Image Using Residual Blocks and Canny Edge Detector. Applied Sciences, 2024. 14, 10963

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    J.; Khan, H

    Khan, M. J.; Khan, H. S.; Yousaf, A.; Khurshid, K.; Abbas, A. Modern trends in hyperspectral image analysis: A review. IEEE Access, 2018. 6, 14118–14129

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Hyperspectral and multispectral data fusion: A comparative review of the recent literature

    Yokoya, N.; Grohnfeldt, C.; Chanussot, J. Hyperspectral and multispectral data fusion: A comparative review of the recent literature. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine,

    work page

  7. [7]

    Remote sensing image scene classification: Benchmark and state of the art

    Cheng, G.; Han, J.; Lu, X. Remote sensing image scene classification: Benchmark and state of the art. Proceedings of the IEEE, 2017. 105, 1865–1883

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    A survey on deep learning-based change detection from high-resolution remote sensing images

    Jiang, H.; Peng, M.; Zhong, Y.; Xie, H.; Hao, Z.; Lin, J.; Hu, X. A survey on deep learning-based change detection from high-resolution remote sensing images. Remote Sensing,

    work page

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Trends and prospects of techniques for haze removal from degraded images: A survey

    Sahu, G.; Seal, A.; Bhattacharjee, D.; Nasipuri, M.; Brida, P.; Krejcar, O. Trends and prospects of techniques for haze removal from degraded images: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence, 2022. 6, 762–782

    2022

  2. [10]

    A review of remote sensing image dehazing

    Liu, J.; Wang, S.; Wang, X.; Ju, M.; Zhang, D. A review of remote sensing image dehazing. Sensors, 2021. 21, 3926

    2021

  3. [11]

    Ren, W.; Liu, S.; Zhang, H.; Pan, J.; Cao, X.; Yang, M. H. Single image dehazing via multi-scale convolutional neural networks. European Conference on Computer Vision, Netherlands, 11 October–14 October 2016. 154–169

    2016

  4. [12]

    G.; Clayton, C

    Hadjimitsis, D. G.; Clayton, C. R. I.; Hope, V. S. An assessment of the effectiveness of atmospheric correction algorithms through the remote sensing of some reservoirs. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 2004. 25. 3651– 3674

    2004

  5. [13]

    C.; Montes, M

    Gao, B. C.; Montes, M. J.; Davis, C. O.; Goetz, A. F. Atmospheric correction algorithms for hyperspectral remote sensing data of land and ocean. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2009. 113, 17–24

    2009

  6. [14]

    Ju, M.; Ding, C.; Ren, W.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, D.; Guo, Y. J. IDE: Image dehazing and exposure using an enhanced atmospheric scattering model. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2021. 30, 2180–2192

    2021

  7. [15]

    K.; Vasikarla, S

    Sharma, T.; Shah, T.; Verma, N. K.; Vasikarla, S. A review on image dehazing algorithms for vision-based applications in outdoor environments. IEEE Applied Imagery Pattern Recognition Workshop, Washington DC, USA, 13 October– 15 October 2020. 1–13

    2020

  8. [16]

    H.; Chen, L

    Tseng, C. H.; Chen, L. C.; Wu, J. H.; Lin, F. P.; Sheu, R. K. An automated image dehazing method for flood detection to improve flood alert monitoring systems. Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka, 2018. 46. 23

    2018

  9. [17]

    Image dehazing based on dark channel prior and brightness enhancement for agricultural remote sensing images from consumer-grade cameras

    Zhang, J.; Wang, X.; Yang, C.; Zhang, J.; He, D.; Song, H. Image dehazing based on dark channel prior and brightness enhancement for agricultural remote sensing images from consumer-grade cameras. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2018. 151, 196–206

    2018

  10. [18]

    Image dehazing based on dark channel prior and brightness enhancement for agricultural monitoring

    Wang, X.; Yang, C.; Zhang, J.; Song, H. Image dehazing based on dark channel prior and brightness enhancement for agricultural monitoring. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 2018. 11, 170–176

    2018

  11. [19]

    Single satellite image dehazing via linear intensity transformation and local property analysis

    Ni, W.; Gao, X.; Wang, Y. Single satellite image dehazing via linear intensity transformation and local property analysis. Neurocomputing, 2016. 175, 25–39

    2016

  12. [20]

    Q.; Jiang, X

    Shen, H.; Ding, H.; Zhang, Y.; Cong, X.; Zhao, Z. Q.; Jiang, X. Spatial-frequency adaptive remote sensing image dehazing with mixture of experts. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2024. 62, 1-14

    2024

  13. [21]

    A comprehensive survey and taxonomy on single image dehazing based on deep learning

    Gui, J.; Cong, X.; Cao, Y.; Ren, W.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, J.; Cao, J.; Tao, D. A comprehensive survey and taxonomy on single image dehazing based on deep learning. ACM Computing Surveys. 2023. 55, 1-37

    2023

  14. [22]

    Single satellite optical imagery dehazing using SAR image prior based on conditional generative adversarial networks

    Huang, B.; Zhi, L.; Yang, C.; Sun, F.; Song, Y. Single satellite optical imagery dehazing using SAR image prior based on conditional generative adversarial networks. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision Snowmass, CO, USA, 1 March–5 M...

    2020

  15. [23]

    Hybrid high-resolution learning for single remote sensing satellite image dehazing

    Chen, X.; Li, Y.; Dai, L.; Kong, C. Hybrid high-resolution learning for single remote sensing satellite image dehazing. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 2021. 19, 1–5

    2021

  16. [24]

    Learning an effective transformer for remote sensing satellite image dehazing

    Song, T.; Fan, S.; Li, P.; Jin, J.; Jin, G.; Fan, L. Learning an effective transformer for remote sensing satellite image dehazing. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 2023, 20, 1–5

    2023

  17. [25]

    An efficient multi-scale transformer for satellite image dehazing

    Yang, L.; Cao, J.; Chen, W.; Wang, H.; He, L. An efficient multi-scale transformer for satellite image dehazing. Expert Systems, 2024. 41, e13575

    2024

  18. [26]

    SAR-to-optical image translation using SSIM and perceptual loss based cycle-consistent GAN

    Hwang, J.; Yu, C.; Shin, Y. SAR-to-optical image translation using SSIM and perceptual loss based cycle-consistent GAN. International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence, Jeju, Korea, 21 October–23 October 2020. 191–194

    2020

  19. [27]

    Cloud-GAN: Cloud removal for Sentinel-2 imagery using cyclic consistent generative adversarial networks

    Singh, P.; Komodakis, N. Cloud-GAN: Cloud removal for Sentinel-2 imagery using cyclic consistent generative adversarial networks. IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Valencia, Spain, 22 July–27 July 2018. 1772–1775

    2018

  20. [28]

    DehazeNet: An end-to-end system for single image haze removal

    Cai, B.; Xu, X.; Jia, K.; Qing, C.; Tao, D. DehazeNet: An end-to-end system for single image haze removal. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2016. 25, 5187–5198

    2016

  21. [29]

    M2SCN: Multi-model self- correcting network for satellite remote sensing single-image dehazing

    Li, S.; Zhou, Y.; Xiang, W. M2SCN: Multi-model self- correcting network for satellite remote sensing single-image dehazing. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters,

  22. [30]

    A Novel Framework for Satellite Image Dehazing Using Advanced Computational Techniques

    Vishwakarma, S.; Punj, D. A Novel Framework for Satellite Image Dehazing Using Advanced Computational Techniques. IEEE Asian Conference on Innovation in Technology (ASIANCON), 2024, 1–7

    2024

  23. [31]

    Remote sensing image dehazing using heterogeneous atmospheric light prior

    He, Y.; Li, C.; Li, X. Remote sensing image dehazing using heterogeneous atmospheric light prior. IEEE Access, 2023. 11, 18805–18820

    2023

  24. [32]

    IDF- CR: Iterative diffusion process for divide-and-conquer cloud removal in remote-sensing images

    Wang, M.; Song, Y.; Wei, P.; Xian, X.; Shi, Y.; Lin, L. IDF- CR: Iterative diffusion process for divide-and-conquer cloud removal in remote-sensing images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    SCANet: Self-paced semi-curricular attention network for non-homogeneous image dehazing

    Guo, Y.; Gao, Y.; Liu, W.; Lu, Y.; Qu, J.; He, S.; Ren, W. SCANet: Self-paced semi-curricular attention network for non-homogeneous image dehazing. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Vancouver, Canada, 18 June–22 June 2023. 1885–1894

    2023

  26. [34]

    Cloud removal for remote sensing imagery via spatial attention generative adversarial network

    Pan, H. Cloud removal for remote sensing imagery via spatial attention generative adversarial network. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.13015, 2020

    2009 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Vision transformers for single image dehazing

    Song, Y.; He, Z.; Qian, H.; Du, X. Vision transformers for single image dehazing. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2023. 32, 1927-1941

    2023

  28. [36]

    Information Fusion

    Lihe, Z.; He, J.; Yuan, Q.; Jin, X.; Xiao, Y.; Zhang, L; Phdnet: A novel physic-aware dehazing network for remote sensing images. Information Fusion. 2024. 106, 102277

    2024

  29. [37]

    Remote Sensing Image Dehazing via Dual-View Knowledge Transfer

    Yang, L.; Cao, J.; Bian, H.; Qu, R.; Guo, H.; Ning, H. Remote Sensing Image Dehazing via Dual-View Knowledge Transfer. Applied Sciences. 2024. 14, 8633

    2024

  30. [38]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Liu, Z., Lin, Y., Cao, Y., Hu, H., Wei, Y., Zhang, Z., Lin, S.; Guo, B. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, Virtual, 11 October–17 October. 2021. 10012-10022

    2021

  31. [39]

    Efficient dehazing method for outdoor and remote sensing images

    Li, C.; Yu, H.; Zhou, S.; Liu, Z.; Guo, Y.; Yin, X.; Zhang, W. Efficient dehazing method for outdoor and remote sensing images. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 2023, 16, 4516-4528

    2023

  32. [40]

    A Dehazing Method for UAV Remote Sensing Based on Global and Local Feature Collaboration

    Li, C.; Zhou, S.; Wu, T.; Shi, J.; Guo, F. A Dehazing Method for UAV Remote Sensing Based on Global and Local Feature Collaboration. Remote Sens. 2025, 17, 1688

    2025

  33. [41]

    U-Shaped Dual Attention Vision Mamba Network for Satellite Remote Sensing Single-Image Dehazing

    Sui, T.; Xiang, G.; Chen, F.; Li, Y.; Tao, X.; Zhou, J.; Hong, J.; Qiu, Z. U-Shaped Dual Attention Vision Mamba Network for Satellite Remote Sensing Single-Image Dehazing. Remote Sens. 2025, 17, 1055

    2025

  34. [42]

    ICL-Net: Inverse cognitive learning network for remote sensing image dehazing

    Dong, W.; Wang, C.; Xu, X. ICL-Net: Inverse cognitive learning network for remote sensing image dehazing. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing., 2024, 17, 16180-16191

    2024

  35. [43]

    Guided image filtering

    He, K.; Sun, J.; Tang, X. Guided image filtering. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 2012. 35, 1397-1409

    2012

  36. [44]

    A remote sensing image dataset for cloud removal

    Lin, D.; Xu, G.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y.; Sun, X.; Fu, K. A remote sensing image dataset for cloud removal. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.00600, 2019

    1901 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Single image haze removal using dark channel prior

    He, K.; Sun, J.; Tang, X. Single image haze removal using dark channel prior. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal, 2011. 33, 2341– 2353

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.