Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Beneath the Surface: The Role of Underwater Image Enhancement in Object Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Underwater image enhancement can help detection when judged image by image, not just hurt it on average.

desk verdict Useful per-image analysis, but the oracle mixed-set gains are probably selection noise until a permutation test is shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14626 v3 pith:V7CPMKLF submitted 2024-11-21 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Ali Awad (1) , Ashraf Saleem (1) , Sidike Paheding (2) , Evan Lucas (1) , Serein Al-Ratrout (1) , Timothy C. Havens (1) ((1) Michigan Technological University , (2) Fairfield University) This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords ComputerVisionUnderwaterObjectDetection(UOD)ImageEnhancement(UIE)DatasetsRemoteSensingandRemotelyOperatedVehicle(ROV)Per-imagemAPqualitymetricsSelective
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

Underwater images are often degraded, and a common assumption is that running them through an enhancement model before object detection helps. This paper finds that at dataset level this assumption fails — detectors trained on enhanced images generally do worse than the original — but argues the assumption is too coarse. Measuring the same images one by one reveals that many low-quality images genuinely detect better after enhancement, and the images that improve are concentrated among the worst-quality ones. The final experiment builds a mixed set that chooses the best original or enhanced variant for each test image, and this set scores a per-image mAP of 0.64 versus 0.41 on CUPDD and 0.77 versus 0.68 on RUOD. The conclusion is that selective, image-level enhancement has real potential, so rejecting enhancement because of dataset averages would throw away a useful signal.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the shift in the unit of evaluation from dataset to image, paired with a quality index. Rather than averaging detector performance over an entire test set, the paper computes mAP50-95 for each individual image, on the original and on each of the nine enhanced variants, and compares variants image by image; this per-image comparison is what exposes the split between images that benefit and images that are hurt. To sort images by quality and explain that split, the paper builds a Q-index, a bounded composite of four reference-free quality metrics (color, contrast/sharpness, chroma, entropy) that is rescaled and averaged so that original and enhanced images can be compared on one scale; the Q-index distributions show that low-quality images gain the most from enhancement while high-quality images tend to be over-enhanced. The demonstration that caps the argument is the mixed set, in which each test image is replaced by the variant with the highest per-image mAP, and the average of those per-image bests gives an upper bound of 0.64 on CUPDD and 0.77 on RUOD for what selective enhancement could achieve.

What would settle it

Recompute the per-image mAP for the same images under several independent detector training runs (different random seeds or checkpoints); if the set of images scored as improved by enhancement changes substantially from run to run, the image-level gain is mostly evaluation noise rather than a real enhancement effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the effect of underwater image enhancement on object detection is conditional on the image: it helps some images and hurts others, and dataset-level averages hide that split. The experimental route is systematic: nine enhancement models spanning physical, non-physical, and learning-based methods are applied to two datasets, one severely degraded and one large and varied; three detectors are compared on the originals, and the best one, YOLO-NAS, is retrained on every enhanced set to produce domain detectors. At the dataset level, no domain detector beats the original detector, which the paper sees as confirming earlier conclusions that enhancement degrades detection when used as a preprocessing step. At the image level, however, a substantial number of individual test images score higher mAP after enhancement, and the paper identifies a mechanism: enhancement reduces the disparity between low-quality, hard-to-detect scenes and the higher-quality scenes on which the detector was trained, effectively making some hard test images more like easy training images. The quantitative proof is the mixed image set — selecting the best-performing variant per image gives mAPs of 0.64 on CUPDD and 0.77 on RUOD, versus 0.41 and 0.68 for the originals — which the paper presents as an upper bound on what selective enhancement could deliver.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a per-image mAP computed on a single image, which often contains only one or a few labeled objects, is a stable measurement — stable enough that the images flagged as improved after enhancement reflect a systematic property of those images rather than random noise in evaluation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Enhancement should not be dismissed as a preprocessing step solely because it fails on dataset averages; its effect is conditional on the image, with low-quality images benefiting most.
  • Because current image-quality metrics do not reliably predict detection performance, a practical selection policy needs metrics that encode machine perception as well as human-aesthetic quality.
  • If a selector could predict which images benefit from enhancement, the mixed-set result sets a concrete target: a per-image mAP gain of about 0.23 on CUPDD and 0.09 on RUOD over the original detector.
  • No domain detector beat the original at dataset level, so wholesale replacement of original training images with enhanced ones is not supported; the value of enhancement lies in per-image selection, not whole-dataset replacement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The mixed-set upper bound was built using ground-truth labels to pick the best variant for each image, so it is an oracle, not a deployable system; the paper's own framing implies a trained selector that predicts which variant will win, and a natural test is whether a lightweight classifier on image statistics plus current quality metrics can approximate half or more of that oracle gain.
  • The paper's proposed mechanism — that enhancement helps by making low-quality test images resemble high-quality training images — invites a direct test: measure how much the feature distribution of images shifts toward the training distribution after enhancement, and check whether that shift predicts the per-image mAP improvement.
  • The observation that visually pleasing deep-learning enhancers do not always beat simpler traditional enhancers on detection suggests that human aesthetics and machine-detector features are only partially aligned; a useful experiment would be to independently vary colorfulness, contrast, and edge sharpness and record which axis most affects per-image mAP.
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 paper evaluates nine underwater image enhancement methods (non-physical, physical, and learning-based) on two underwater object detection datasets (CUPDD and RUOD). The authors train YOLO-NAS detectors on original and enhanced images, show that enhancement usually degrades detection performance at the dataset level (Section 5.1, Tables 4 and 5), propose a composite Q-index to study quality distributions, examine correlations between image quality metrics and mAP (Section 6.1), and then perform an image-level analysis that identifies individual images for which the domain detector outperforms the original detector (Section 6.2). The central claim is that enhancement has the "potential" to improve detection per image, supported by an oracle "mixed set" in Section 6.2.2/Table 6 that selects the best-performing variant for each image, achieving per-image mAP of 0.64 vs 0.41 on CUPDD and 0.77 vs 0.68 on RUOD.

Significance. If the per-image finding were statistically supported, the paper would make a useful contribution: it would show that dataset-level negative conclusions about underwater image enhancement are too coarse, and it would motivate selective enhancement pipelines. The study has concrete strengths: it covers nine enhancement methods and three detectors on two datasets, it releases data and code, it provides joint qualitative-quantitative visualizations, and it proposes a transparent Q-index for quality-distribution analysis. The dataset-level negative result (Section 5.1) is credible and consistent with prior work. However, the headline quantitative evidence for the paper's central claim is an oracle upper bound constructed using ground-truth labels, and the paper does not provide any statistical baseline to distinguish the reported per-image improvements from selection noise. This gap is load-bearing for the main thesis and must be addressed before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.2.2, Table 6] The mixed-set mAP values of 0.64 vs 0.41 (CUPDD) and 0.77 vs 0.68 (RUOD) are produced by selecting, for each test image, the variant (original or one of nine enhanced versions) with the highest per-image mAP. Because the selection uses the ground-truth labels, this is an oracle upper bound: the expected maximum of ten noisy per-image mAP estimates exceeds their average, so the reported improvement is partly an artifact of selection and cannot be interpreted as the performance of any achievable enhancement-selection method. The paper acknowledges that the mixed set "achieves the highest possible mAP" (Section 6.2.2), but the abstract and conclusion present the 23% and 9% gains as evidence of enhancement's potential without this caveat. A permutation test or a random-variant baseline (e.g., randomly assigning each image to one of the ten variants, repeated many times) is needed to establish that the oracle gain exceeds what selection noise alone would produce.
  2. [Section 6.2.1] The qualitative analysis is explicitly restricted to cases where a domain detector performed better than the original detector ("This time, we only look at cases where the domain detector performed better than the Original detector"). Therefore the selected examples cannot establish how frequently or systematically enhancement improves detection at the image level. The paper needs a systematic image-level comparison that reports the fraction of images improved, unchanged, and degraded by each enhancement method, together with a baseline or significance test, rather than only cherry-picked positive examples.
  3. [Section 5.1, Tables 4 and 5] All detection results are reported as point estimates from a single training run per condition, with no error bars, no repeated seeds, and no significance tests. Many reported differences are very small (e.g., Table 4: ACDC 0.34 vs TEBCF 0.33; Table 5: PCDE 0.61 vs TUDA 0.61), and the per-image mAP used in Table 6 is computed on single images often containing very few labeled objects, making it highly discrete and sensitive to small detection changes. Without variance estimates or multiple runs, the claimed per-image improvements cannot be distinguished from evaluation noise. This is especially important because the central claim depends on the stability of per-image mAP differences.
  4. [Section 6.1, Figure 7] The correlation study is based on scatter plots of only ten points (one per enhancement method, plus the original) and reports no correlation coefficients, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The conclusion that "enhancement performance does not reliably predict detection performance" is therefore underpowered and should be either quantified or softened. A simple Spearman or Pearson correlation with a confidence interval would make the claim testable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3] The text says "we selected four common object detection algorithms," but only three are listed (YOLO-NAS, RetinaNet, Faster R-CNN). Please correct the count.
  2. [Section 4.2] There is a typo: "ON the contrary" should be "On the contrary."
  3. [Section 5] The first paragraph refers to "Table 5" when comparing YOLO-NAS, RetinaNet, and Faster R-CNN, but the actual comparison table appears to be Table 3. Please fix the cross-reference.
  4. [Section 4.3] The claim that "the average increase in the Q-index value of low-quality images is much higher than the average increase in the Q-index values of high-quality images" appears to be based on one randomly selected image per quality bin, not on a computed average across images. Please clarify whether this is an observation about the representative examples or a quantified average, and if the latter, report the supporting statistics.
  5. [Section 3, Q-index definition] The Q-index construction does not specify how the four metrics are weighted in the averaging step, and the outlier threshold of three Median Absolute Deviations is an ad-hoc choice. Please state explicitly whether equal weights are used and discuss the sensitivity of the quality-distribution conclusions to the threshold choice, or at least note these as design decisions.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Oracle mixed-set comparison is tautological: choosing the per-image best mAP variant guarantees the reported improvement over the Original set.

  1. self definitional [Section 6.2.2, Table 6 (Quantitative Analysis)]
    "The variants associated with the highest mAP are selected to form a new mixed set, consisting of original and enhanced images produced by different enhancement algorithms. The per-image mAP values of the mixed set are then averaged to compute the overall mAP."

    The mixed set is constructed by taking, for each test image, the variant (Original or one of the nine enhanced versions) with the maximum per-image mAP. The paper then reports the average per-image mAP of this selected set (0.64 vs 0.41 on CUPDD; 0.77 vs 0.68 on RUOD) as evidence for enhancement's potential. Since Original is one of the candidate variants, the per-image maximum is by construction at least the Original per-image mAP for every image, so the mixed-set average is guaranteed to be at least the Original average even under the null hypothesis that enhancement never helps.

full rationale

Most of the paper is a self-contained empirical study: enhancement-quality tables, quality-distribution violin plots, dataset-level detector comparisons, and the quality/mAP correlation study do not presuppose the conclusion. The self-citation of the CUPDD dataset (Saleem et al. 2023) and the YOLO-NAS references are not load-bearing for the central claim. The circularity is concentrated in the image-level quantitative 'validation' in Section 6.2.2 and Table 6. There, the mixed set is defined by oracle selection of the best per-image mAP variant, and its average mAP is then presented as evidence of a 23% (CUPDD) and 9% (RUOD) improvement over Original. Because Original is one of the candidate variants, the comparison is guaranteed to favor the mixed set; the magnitude of the gain is an artifact of max-over-variants selection on noisy per-image mAP values. The qualitative examples in Section 6.2.1 were also explicitly chosen only from images where a domain detector outperformed the Original detector, so they do not independently establish a systematic effect. Consequently, the paper's central quantitative support for 'the potential of image enhancement to improve detection' reduces by construction, though the surrounding analyses retain independent descriptive value. Score: 7.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central empirical claims rely on off-the-shelf pretrained enhancement models, a representative detector, standard quality metrics, and per-image mAP as an evaluation unit. The only genuinely new construct in the paper is the Q-index, which has no independent validation. The oracle mixed set is not an invented entity but a selected subset, and its construction dominates the circularity burden.

free parameters (2)
  • Q-index outlier threshold = 3 median absolute deviations
    Used to flag outliers when combining four quality metrics into the Q-index; the threshold is chosen rather than derived and shifts the quality distributions.
  • Q-index component weights = equal weights (1/4 each)
    The four selected quality metrics are averaged equally after rescaling; no sensitivity analysis is given.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pretrained enhancement models transfer to CUPDD and RUOD without retraining.
    Section 3 states all enhancement models are implemented without modification, using source code and trained models from the original authors.
  • domain assumption YOLO-NAS is representative enough of object detectors that conclusions generalize.
    Section 5 selects YOLO-NAS as the best of three detectors and uses it for all subsequent analysis without cross-detector validation.
  • domain assumption No-reference quality metrics (UIQM, UCIQE, CCF, Entropy) are meaningful for ranking image quality.
    Section 4.3 uses these metrics throughout, while also noting they do not always align with human perception.
  • domain assumption Per-image mAP is a valid measure of single-image detection performance.
    Section 6.2.2 computes mAP per image to compare original and enhanced versions, but the stability and statistical properties of per-image mAP are not established.
  • domain assumption The two selected datasets are representative of underwater conditions for general conclusions.
    Section 3 motivates RUOD and CUPDD as large and challenging datasets, but the paper does not quantify coverage of the full underwater imaging distribution.
invented entities (1)
  • Q-index
    purpose: Composite quality score from UIQM, UCIQE, CCF, and Entropy, used for quality distribution analysis.
    The paper introduces it without external validation against human perception or detection performance; the paper itself notes existing metrics are imperfect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beneath the Surface: The Role of Underwater Image Enhancement in Object Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V7CPMKLF

@misc{pith2026241114626,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beneath the Surface: The Role of Underwater Image Enhancement in Object Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V7CPMKLF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14626}
}
read the original abstract

Underwater imagery often suffers from severe degradation resulting in low visual quality and reduced object detection performance. This work aims to evaluate state-of-the-art image enhancement models, investigate their effects on underwater object detection, and explore their potential to improve detection performance. To this end, we apply nine recent underwater image enhancement models, covering physical, non-physical and learning-based categories, to two recent underwater image datasets. Following this, we conduct joint qualitative and quantitative analyses on the original and enhanced images, revealing the discrepancy between the two analyses, and analyzing changes in the quality distribution of the images after enhancement. We then train three recent object detection models on the original datasets, selecting the best-performing detector for further analysis. This detector is subsequently re-trained on the enhanced datasets to evaluate changes in detection performance, highlighting the adverse effect of enhancement on detection performance at the dataset level. Next, we perform a correlation study to examine the relationship between various enhancement metrics and the mean Average Precision (mAP). Finally, we conduct an image-level analysis that reveals images of improved detection performance after enhancement. The findings of this study demonstrate the potential of image enhancement to improve detection performance and provide valuable insights for researchers to further explore the effects of enhancement on detection at the individual image level, rather than at the dataset level. This could enable the selective application of enhancement for improved detection. The data generated, code developed, and supplementary materials are publicly available at: https://github.com/RSSL-MTU/Enhancement-Detection-Analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14626 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. On the left, The quality distribution of the Original images of the CUPDD dataset Saleem et al. (2023) based on the Q-index. On the right, the distributions of the change in quality after enhancement by different models. where (𝐸𝑛ℎ) refers to the enhanced image and (𝑂𝑟𝑔) refers to the original. This helps us understand how enhance￾ment is changing the quality distribution of the images, i.e., whether enhancement uni… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Randomly selected Original images from each avail￾able quality bin of CUPDD dataset. The corresponding Q-index values are color-mapped and placed under each image. produces extremely overexposed images, further deteriorat￾ing the quality of the original images. This suggests that although current underwater metrics are not entirely robust, they can still provide a general indication of image quality. The ACDC and Ba… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Randomly selected Original images from each available quality bin of RUOD dataset. The corresponding Q-index values are color-mapped and placed under each image. models that are trained on enhanced images as domain de￾tectors. On the one hand, the performance of the 10 YOLO￾NAS original and domain detectors on the CUPDD dataset is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Inference visualization of the Original and domain detectors of five random images on the CUPDD dataset. domain detectors outperformed the the Original detector, such as the case for the third image. We also observe that domain detectors that produce more noise and art…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scatter plots of the selected enhancement metrics against the mAP from the Original and domain detectors for CUPDD and RUOD datasets. 6. Enhancement-Detection Discussion In this section, we provide a combined enhancement￾detection analysis. In particular, we study the …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cases where domain detectors performed better than the Original detector on CUPDD dataset. The ground truth bounding boxes are visualized on each image as dotted bounding boxes. The color-mapped values next to images represent Q-index the original images. The enhanceme…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Pie chart of the generated mixed image set comprising original and enhanced images from the CUPDD test set Saleem et al. (2023). The images of this set are selected based on their mAP performance. TEBCF removed the color cast of the image but introduced too much noise…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zhang, Y

    W. Zhang, Y. Wang, and C. Li, ``Underwater image enhancement by attenuated color channel correction and detail preserved contrast enhancement,'' in IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering , 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    J. Yuan, Z. Cai, and W. Cao, ``Tebcf: Real-world underwater image texture enhancement model based on blurriness and color fusion,'' IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1--15, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Zhuang, C

    P. Zhuang, C. Li, and J. Wu, ``Bayesian retinex underwater image enhancement,'' Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , vol. 101, p. 104171, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Zhang, S

    W. Zhang, S. Jin, P. Zhuang, Z. Liang, and C. Li, ``Underwater image enhancement via piecewise color correction and dual prior optimized contrast enhancement,'' IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 30, pp. 229--233, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    G. Hou, N. Li, P. Zhuang, K. Li, H. Sun, and C. Li, ``Non-uniform illumination underwater image restoration via illumination channel sparsity prior,'' IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Y. Tang, T. Iwaguchi, H. Kawasaki, R. Sagawa, and R. Furukawa, ``Autoenhancer: Transformer on u-net architecture search for underwater image enhancement,'' in Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision , pp. 1403--1420, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Huang, K

    S. Huang, K. Wang, H. Liu, J. Chen, and Y. Li, ``Contrastive semi-supervised learning for underwater image restoration via reliable bank,'' in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 18145--18155, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Z. Fu, H. Lin, Y. Yang, S. Chai, L. Sun, Y. Huang, and X. Ding, ``Unsupervised underwater image restoration: From a homology perspective,'' in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 36, pp. 643--651, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Z. Wang, L. Shen, M. Xu, M. Yu, K. Wang, and Y. Lin, ``Domain adaptation for underwater image enhancement,'' IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 32, pp. 1442--1457, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Jiang, Y

    L. Jiang, Y. Wang, Q. Jia, S. Xu, Y. Liu, X. Fan, H. Li, R. Liu, X. Xue, and R. Wang, ``Underwater species detection using channel sharpening attention,'' in Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pp. 4259--4267, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    C. Liu, H. Li, S. Wang, M. Zhu, D. Wang, X. Fan, and Z. Wang, ``A dataset and benchmark of underwater object detection for robot picking,'' in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia & Expo Workshops (ICMEW) , pp. 1--6, IEEE, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    C. Liu, Z. Wang, S. Wang, T. Tang, Y. Tao, C. Yang, H. Li, X. Liu, and X. Fan, ``A new dataset, poisson gan and aquanet for underwater object grabbing,'' IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 2831--2844, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    X. Yuan, L. Guo, C. Luo, X. Zhou, and C. Yu, ``A survey of target detection and recognition methods in underwater turbid areas,'' Applied Sciences , vol. 12, no. 10, p. 4898, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Y. Li, H. Lu, J. Li, X. Li, Y. Li, and S. Serikawa, ``Underwater image de-scattering and classification by deep neural network,'' Computers & Electrical Engineering , vol. 54, pp. 68--77, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    B. Li, W. Ren, D. Fu, D. Tao, D. Feng, W. Zeng, and Z. Wang, ``Benchmarking single-image dehazing and beyond,'' IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 492--505, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Y. Pei, Y. Huang, Q. Zou, X. Zhang, and S. Wang, ``Effects of image degradation and degradation removal to cnn-based image classification,'' IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 1239--1253, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    C. Fu, R. Liu, X. Fan, P. Chen, H. Fu, W. Yuan, M. Zhu, and Z. Luo, ``Rethinking general underwater object detection: Datasets, challenges, and solutions,'' Neurocomputing , vol. 517, pp. 243--256, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Y. Wang, J. Guo, W. He, H. Gao, H. Yue, Z. Zhang, and C. Li, ``Is underwater image enhancement all object detectors need?,'' IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering , 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    X. Chen, Y. Lu, Z. Wu, J. Yu, and L. Wen, ``Reveal of domain effect: How visual restoration contributes to object detection in aquatic scenes,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.01913 , 2020

    2003 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Saleem, A

    A. Saleem, A. Awad, S. Paheding, and A. Marcarelli, ``Multi-class plant type detection in great lakes region using remotely operated vehicle and deep learning,'' in Pattern Recognition and Tracking XXXIV , vol. 12527, pp. 34--40, SPIE, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Saleem, S

    A. Saleem, S. Paheding, N. Rawashdeh, A. Awad, and N. Kaur, ``A non-reference evaluation of underwater image enhancement methods using a new underwater image dataset,'' IEEE Access , vol. 11, pp. 10412--10428, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Panetta, C

    K. Panetta, C. Gao, and S. Agaian, ``Human-visual-system-inspired underwater image quality measures,'' IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering , vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 541--551, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    Yang and A

    M. Yang and A. Sowmya, ``An underwater color image quality evaluation metric,'' IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 6062--6071, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Y. Wang, N. Li, Z. Li, Z. Gu, H. Zheng, B. Zheng, and M. Sun, ``An imaging-inspired no-reference underwater color image quality assessment metric,'' Computers & Electrical Engineering , vol. 70, pp. 904--913, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    R. C. Gonzalez, R. E. Woods, and S. L. Eddins, Digital Image Processing Using MATLAB . New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003

    2003

  18. [26]

    Aharon, Louis-Dupont , Ofri Masad , K

    S. Aharon, Louis-Dupont , Ofri Masad , K. Yurkova, Lotem Fridman , Lkdci , E. Khvedchenya, R. Rubin, N. Bagrov, B. Tymchenko, T. Keren, A. Zhilko, and Eran-Deci , ``Super-gradients,'' 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Hamzaoui, M

    M. Hamzaoui, M. O.-E. Aoueileyine, L. Romdhani, and R. Bouallegue, ``An efficient method for underwater fish detection using a transfer learning techniques,'' in International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications , pp. 257--267, Springer, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    M. F. Ercan, ``Gesture recognition for human and robot interaction underwater,'' in 2023 IEEE 11th Conference on Systems, Process & Control (ICSPC) , pp. 13--16, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    A. Awad, N. Zahan, E. Lucas, T. C. Havens, S. Paheding, and A. Saleem, ``Underwater simultaneous enhancement and super-resolution impact evaluation on object detection,'' in Pattern Recognition and Tracking XXXV , vol. 13040, pp. 67--77, SPIE, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    S. Xu, M. Zhang, W. Song, H. Mei, Q. He, and A. Liotta, ``A systematic review and analysis of deep learning-based underwater object detection,'' Neurocomputing , vol. 527, pp. 204--232, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    J. Zhou, T. Yang, and W. Zhang, ``Underwater vision enhancement technologies: A comprehensive review, challenges, and recent trends,'' Applied Intelligence , vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 3594--3621, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    K. Hu, C. Weng, Y. Zhang, J. Jin, and Q. Xia, ``An overview of underwater vision enhancement: From traditional methods to recent deep learning,'' Journal of Marine Science and Engineering , vol. 10, no. 2, p. 241, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Z. Gu, X. Liu, Z. Hu, G. Wang, B. Zheng, J. Watson, and H. Zheng, ``Underwater computational imaging: a survey,'' Intelligent Marine Technology and Systems , vol. 1, no. 1, p. 2, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    J. S. Jaffe, ``Computer modeling and the design of optimal underwater imaging systems,'' IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering , vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 101--111, 1990

    1990

  27. [35]

    R. Liu, X. Fan, M. Zhu, M. Hou, and Z. Luo, ``Real-world underwater enhancement: Challenges, benchmarks, and solutions under natural light,'' IEEE transactions on circuits and systems for video technology , vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 4861--4875, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    J. Guo, C. Li, C. Guo, and S. Chen, ``Research progress of underwater image enhancement and restoration methods,'' Journal of Image and Graphics , vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 273--287, 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    Liao and X

    K. Liao and X. Peng, ``Underwater image enhancement using multi-task fusion,'' Plos one , vol. 19, no. 2, p. e0299110, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    H. Wang, S. Sun, X. Bai, J. Wang, and P. Ren, ``A reinforcement learning paradigm of configuring visual enhancement for object detection in underwater scenes,'' IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering , vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 443--461, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    N. N. S. F. of China and D. M. P. Government, ``cnurpc.org --- en.cnurpc.org.'' www.urpc.org.cn/, 2018. [Accessed 02-07-2024]

    2018

  32. [40]

    X. Chen, J. Yu, S. Kong, Z. Wu, X. Fang, and L. Wen, ``Towards real-time advancement of underwater visual quality with gan,'' IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics , vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 9350--9359, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Griffin, A

    G. Griffin, A. Holub, P. Perona, et al. , ``Caltech-256 object category dataset,'' tech. rep., Technical Report 7694, California Institute of Technology Pasadena, 2007

    2007

  34. [42]

    Alawode, F

    B. Alawode, F. A. Dharejo, M. Ummar, Y. Guo, A. Mahmood, N. Werghi, F. S. Khan, and S. Javed, ``Improving underwater visual tracking with a large scale dataset and image enhancement,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.15816 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Bolya, S

    D. Bolya, S. Foley, J. Hays, and J. Hoffman, ``Tide: A general toolbox for identifying object detection errors,'' in Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part III 16 , pp. 558--573, Springer, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    C. Li, C. Guo, W. Ren, R. Cong, J. Hou, S. Kwong, and D. Tao, ``An underwater image enhancement benchmark dataset and beyond,'' IEEE transactions on image processing , vol. 29, pp. 4376--4389, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    H. Li, J. Li, and W. Wang, ``A fusion adversarial underwater image enhancement network with a public test dataset,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.06819 , 2019

    1906 arXiv

  38. [46]

    McCann, Retinex Theory , pp

    J. McCann, Retinex Theory , pp. 1118--1125. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    S. Sun, H. Wang, H. Zhang, M. Li, M. Xiang, C. Luo, and P. Ren, ``Underwater image enhancement with reinforcement learning,'' IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering , 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Mandal, R

    R. Mandal, R. M. Connolly, T. A. Schlacher, and B. Stantic, ``Assessing fish abundance from underwater video using deep neural networks,'' in 2018 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) , pp. 1--6, IEEE, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun, ``Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,'' IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1137--1149, 2016

    2016

  42. [50]

    Lin, J.-X

    W.-H. Lin, J.-X. Zhong, S. Liu, T. Li, and G. Li, ``Roimix: proposal-fusion among multiple images for underwater object detection,'' in ICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pp. 2588--2592, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    F. Xu, H. Wang, J. Peng, and X. Fu, ``Scale-aware feature pyramid architecture for marine object detection,'' Neural Computing and Applications , vol. 33, pp. 3637--3653, 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    S. Qi, J. Du, M. Wu, H. Yi, L. Tang, T. Qian, and X. Wang, ``Underwater small target detection based on deformable convolutional pyramid,'' in ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pp. 2784--2788, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    Sung, S.-C

    M. Sung, S.-C. Yu, and Y. Girdhar, ``Vision based real-time fish detection using convolutional neural network,'' in OCEANS 2017-Aberdeen , pp. 1--6, IEEE, 2017

    2017

  46. [54]

    Redmon, S

    J. Redmon, S. Divvala, R. Girshick, and A. Farhadi, ``You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,'' in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 779--788, 2016

    2016

  47. [55]

    K. Hu, F. Lu, M. Lu, Z. Deng, and Y. Liu, ``A marine object detection algorithm based on ssd and feature enhancement,'' Complexity , vol. 2020, pp. 1--14, 2020

    2020

  48. [56]

    W. Liu, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, C. Szegedy, S. Reed, C.-Y. Fu, and A. C. Berg, ``Ssd: Single shot multibox detector,'' in Computer Vision--ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11--14, 2016, Proceedings, Part I 14 , pp. 21--37, Springer, 2016

    2016

  49. [57]

    L. Chen, Z. Liu, L. Tong, Z. Jiang, S. Wang, J. Dong, and H. Zhou, ``Underwater object detection using invert multi-class adaboost with deep learning,'' in 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) , pp. 1--8, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  50. [58]

    C.-Y. Fu, W. Liu, A. Ranga, A. Tyagi, and A. C. Berg, ``Dssd: Deconvolutional single shot detector,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06659 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bochkovskiy, C.-Y

    A. Bochkovskiy, C.-Y. Wang, and H.-Y. M. Liao, ``Yolov4: Optimal speed and accuracy of object detection,'' 2020

    2020

  52. [60]

    Zhang, S

    M. Zhang, S. Xu, W. Song, Q. He, and Q. Wei, ``Lightweight underwater object detection based on yolo v4 and multi-scale attentional feature fusion,'' Remote Sensing , vol. 13, no. 22, p. 4706, 2021

    2021

  53. [61]

    Sandler, A

    M. Sandler, A. Howard, M. Zhu, A. Zhmoginov, and L.-C. Chen, ``Mobilenetv2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks,'' in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 4510--4520, 2018

    2018

  54. [62]

    K. Liu, L. Peng, and S. Tang, ``Underwater object detection using tc-yolo with attention mechanisms,'' Sensors , vol. 23, no. 5, p. 2567, 2023

    2023

  55. [63]

    Accessed on: 4/19/2024

    Ultralytics, `` YOLOv5 : A state-of-the-art real-time object detection system.'' https://docs.ultralytics.com, 2021. Accessed on: 4/19/2024

    2021

  56. [64]

    Berman, D

    D. Berman, D. Levy, S. Avidan, and T. Treibitz, ``Underwater single image color restoration using haze-lines and a new quantitative dataset,'' IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 2822--2837, 2020

    2020

  57. [65]

    M. J. Islam, Y. Xia, and J. Sattar, ``Fast underwater image enhancement for improved visual perception,'' IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 3227--3234, 2020

    2020

  58. [66]

    M. J. Islam, C. Edge, Y. Xiao, P. Luo, M. Mehtaz, C. Morse, S. S. Enan, and J. Sattar, ``Semantic segmentation of underwater imagery: Dataset and benchmark,'' in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pp. 1769--1776, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  59. [67]

    L. Hong, X. Wang, G. Zhang, and M. Zhao, ``Usod10k: a new benchmark dataset for underwater salient object detection,'' IEEE transactions on image processing , 2023

    2023

  60. [68]

    Zhuang, Y

    P. Zhuang, Y. Wang, and Y. Qiao, ``Wildfish: A large benchmark for fish recognition in the wild,'' in Proceedings of the 26th ACM international conference on Multimedia , pp. 1301--1309, 2018

    2018

  61. [69]

    B. J. Boom, P. X. Huang, J. He, and R. B. Fisher, ``Supporting ground-truth annotation of image datasets using clustering,'' in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR2012) , pp. 1542--1545, IEEE, 2012

    2012

  62. [70]

    Pedersen, J

    M. Pedersen, J. Bruslund Haurum, R. Gade, and T. B. Moeslund, ``Detection of marine animals in a new underwater dataset with varying visibility,'' in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops , pp. 18--26, 2019

    2019

  63. [71]

    Z. Wang, C. Liu, S. Wang, T. Tang, Y. Tao, C. Yang, H. Li, X. Liu, and X. Fan, ``Udd: An underwater open-sea farm object detection dataset for underwater robot picking,'' arXiv e-prints , pp. arXiv--2003, 2020

    2003

  64. [72]

    C. Liu , H. Li , S. Wang , M. Zhu , D. Wang , X. Fan , and Z. Wang , `` A Dataset And Benchmark Of Underwater Object Detection For Robot Picking ,'' arXiv e-prints , p. arXiv:2106.05681, June 2021

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Verma and M

    G. Verma and M. Kumar, ``Systematic review and analysis on underwater image enhancement methods, datasets, and evaluation metrics,'' Journal of Electronic Imaging , vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 060901--060901, 2022

    2022

  66. [74]

    X. Chen, Q. Zhang, M. Lin, G. Yang, and C. He, ``No-reference color image quality assessment: from entropy to perceptual quality,'' EURASIP J. Image Video Process. , vol. 2019, Dec. 2019

    2019

  67. [75]

    [Accessed 04-07-2024]

    Mathworks, `` D etect and replace outliers in data - M A T L A B filloutliers --- mathworks.com.'' https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/filloutliers.html. [Accessed 04-07-2024]

    2024

  68. [76]

    [Accessed 04-07-2024]

    Mathworks, `` I nverse complementary error function - M A T L A B erfcinv --- mathworks.com.'' https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/erfcinv.html. [Accessed 04-07-2024]

    2024

Pith tools

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