REVIEW 1 cited by
Underwater Image Enhancement using Generative Adversarial Networks: A Survey
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
In recent years, there has been a surge of research focused on underwater image enhancement using Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), driven by the need to overcome the challenges posed by underwater environments. Issues such as light attenuation, scattering, and color distortion severely degrade the quality of underwater images, limiting their use in critical applications. Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) have emerged as a powerful tool for enhancing underwater photos due to their ability to learn complex transformations and generate realistic outputs. These advancements have been applied to real-world applications, including marine biology and ecosystem monitoring, coral reef health assessment, underwater archaeology, and autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) navigation. This paper explores all major approaches to underwater image enhancement, from physical and physics-free models to Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)-based models and state-of-the-art GAN-based methods. It provides a comprehensive analysis of these methods, evaluation metrics, datasets, and loss functions, offering a holistic view of the field. Furthermore, the paper delves into the limitations and challenges faced by current methods, such as generalization issues, high computational demands, and dataset biases, while suggesting potential directions for future research.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Improve Underwater Object Detection through YOLOv12 Architecture and Physics-informed Augmentation
Applying YOLOv12 with physics-flavored augmentations yields high reported mAP on four underwater detection benchmarks, but the claims are weakened by missing code, variance, and inconsistent speed numbers.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.