Cited by 377Image Enhancement TechniquesAdvanced Image Processing TechniquesGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis

All in One Bad Weather Removal Using Architectural Search

Li, Ruoteng, Tan, Robby T., Cheong, Loong-Fah·2020·2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Abstract

Many methods have set state-of-the-art performance on restoring images degraded by bad weather such as rain, haze, fog, and snow, however they are designed specifically to handle one type of degradation. In this paper, we propose a method that can handle multiple bad weather degradations: rain, fog, snow and adherent raindrops using a single network. To achieve this, we first design a generator with multiple task-specific encoders, each of which is associated with a particular bad weather degradation type. We utilize a neural architecture search to optimally process the image features extracted from all encoders. Subsequently, to convert degraded image features to clean background features, we introduce a series of tensor-based operations encapsulating the underlying physics principles behind the formation of rain, fog, snow and adherent raindrops. These operations serve as the basic building blocks for our architectural search. Finally, our discriminator simultaneously assesses the correctness and classifies the degradation type of the restored image. We design a novel adversarial learning scheme that only backpropagates the loss of a degradation type to the respective task-specific encoder. Despite being designed to handle different types of bad weather, extensive experiments demonstrate that our method performs competitively to the individual and dedicated state-of-the-art image restoration methods.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00324

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ren et al.'s proposed system outperformed all other benchmarked methods, including Quan et al. [53] and Li et al. [76].

    “Experimental results showed that Ren et al. proposed system outperformed all other methods that were benchmarked, including the newer approaches proposed by Quan et al. [53] and Li et al. [76].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, R., Tan, R. T., & Cheong, L.-F.
Affiliations
National University of Singapore (SG)
Venue
2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2020-06
Pages
3172-3182
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3035713416
Cited by
377
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 93 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 5
FWCI
9.55
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Enhancement Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Keywords
rain removal, fog removal, snow removal, neural architecture search, adversarial learning

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