The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Sparse representation based multi-sensor image fusion for multi-focus and multi-modality images: A review
Abstract
Abstract As a result of several successful applications in computer vision and image processing, sparse representation (SR) has attracted significant attention in multi-sensor image fusion. Unlike the traditional multiscale transforms (MSTs) that presume the basis functions, SR learns an over-complete dictionary from a set of training images for image fusion, and it achieves more stable and meaningful representations of the source images. By doing so, the SR-based fusion methods generally outperform the traditional MST image fusion methods in both subjective and objective tests. In addition, they are less susceptible to mis-registration among the source images, thus facilitating the practical applications. This survey paper proposes a systematic review of the SR-based multi-sensor image fusion literature, highlighting the pros and cons of each category of approaches. Specifically, we start by performing a theoretical investigation of the entire system from three key algorithmic aspects, (1) sparse representation models; (2) dictionary learning methods; and (3) activity levels and fusion rules. Subsequently, we show how the existing works address these scientific problems and design the appropriate fusion rules for each application such as multi-focus image fusion and multi-modality (e.g., infrared and visible) image fusion. At last, we carry out some experiments to evaluate the impact of these three algorithmic components on the fusion performance when dealing with different applications. This article is expected to serve as a tutorial and source of reference for researchers preparing to enter the field or who desire to employ the sparse representation theory in other fields.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Liu, J., Fan, X., Huang, Z., Wu, G., Liu, R., Zhong, W., & Luo, Z. (2022) · 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.00571 · Cited by 1,336
Azam, M. A., Khan, K. B., Salahuddin, S., Rehman, E., Khan, S. A., Khan, M. A., Kadry, S., & Gandomi, A. H. (2022) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105253 · Cited by 449
Li, Y., El Habib Daho, M., Conze, P.-H., Zeghlache, R., Le Boité, H., Tadayoni, R., Cochener, B., Lamard, M., & Quellec, G. (2024) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108635 · Cited by 274
Unsupervised Deep Video Hashing via Balanced Code for Large-Scale Video Retrieval
Wu, G., Han, J., Guo, Y., Liu, L., Ding, G., Ni, Q., & Shao, L. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2018.2882155 · Cited by 148
Self-citationXu, S., Ji, L., Wang, Z., Li, P., Sun, K., Zhang, C., & Zhang, J. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging · doi:10.1109/tci.2020.3039564 · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, Q., Liu, Y., Blum, R. S., Han, J., & Tao, D.
- Venue
- Information Fusion
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-03
- Volume
- 40
- Pages
- 57-75
- ISSN
- 1566-2535 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2624240493
- Cited by
- 499
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.