The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ensemble of CNN for multi-focus image fusion
Abstract
Abstract The Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) based multi-focus image fusion methods have recently attracted enormous attention. They greatly enhanced the constructed decision map compared with the previous state of the art methods that have been done in the spatial and transform domains. Nevertheless, these methods have not reached to the satisfactory initial decision map, and they need to undergo vast post-processing algorithms to achieve a satisfactory decision map. In this paper, a novel CNNs based method with the help of the ensemble learning is proposed. It is very reasonable to use various models and datasets rather than just one. The ensemble learning based methods intend to pursue increasing diversity among the models and datasets in order to decrease the problem of the overfitting on the training dataset. It is obvious that the results of an ensemble of CNNs are better than just one single CNNs. Also, the proposed method introduces a new simple type of multi-focus images dataset. It simply changes the arranging of the patches of the multi-focus datasets, which is very useful for obtaining the better accuracy. With this new type arrangement of datasets, the three different datasets including the original and the Gradient in directions of vertical and horizontal patches are generated from the COCO dataset. Therefore, the proposed method introduces a new network that three CNNs models which have been trained on three different created datasets to construct the initial segmented decision map. These ideas greatly improve the initial segmented decision map of the proposed method which is similar, or even better than, the other final decision map of CNNs based methods obtained after applying many post-processing algorithms. Many real multi-focus test images are used in our experiments, and the results are compared with quantitative and qualitative criteria. The obtained experimental results indicate that the proposed CNNs based network is more accurate and have the better decision map without post-processing algorithms than the other existing state of the art multi-focus fusion methods which used many post-processing algorithms.
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
Cites
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition
Lecun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., & Haffner, P. (1998) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/5.726791 · Cited by 58,805
Ensemble methods in machine learning
Dietterich, T. G. (2000) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-45014-9_1 · Cited by 8,408
Cited by
Xu, 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
- Amin-Naji, M., Aghagolzadeh, A., & Ezoji, M.
- Venue
- Information Fusion
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-11
- Volume
- 51
- Pages
- 201-214
- ISSN
- 1566-2535 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2941380944
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 22.55
- 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.