The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Objective Assessment of Multiresolution Image Fusion Algorithms for Context Enhancement in Night Vision: A Comparative Study
Abstract
Comparison of image processing techniques is critically important in deciding which algorithm, method, or metric to use for enhanced image assessment. Image fusion is a popular choice for various image enhancement applications such as overlay of two image products, refinement of image resolutions for alignment, and image combination for feature extraction and target recognition. Since image fusion is used in many geospatial and night vision applications, it is important to understand these techniques and provide a comparative study of the methods. In this paper, we conduct a comparative study on 12 selected image fusion metrics over six multiresolution image fusion algorithms for two different fusion schemes and input images with distortion. The analysis can be applied to different image combination algorithms, image processing methods, and over a different choice of metrics that are of use to an image processing expert. The paper relates the results to an image quality measurement based on power spectrum and correlation analysis and serves as a summary of many contemporary techniques for objective assessment of image fusion 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
Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity
Wang, Z., Bovik, A. C., Sheikh, H. R., & Simoncelli, E. P. (2004) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2003.819861 · Cited by 57,892
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043158 · Cited by 17,812
Cited by
Multi-Focus Image Fusion: Algorithms, Evaluation, and a Library
Zafar, R., Farid, M. S., & Khan, M. H. (2020) · Journal of Imaging · doi:10.3390/jimaging6070060 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, Z., Blasch, E., Xue, Z., Zhao, J., Laganiere, R., & Wu, W.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
- Published
- 2012-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 94-109
- ISSN
- 0162-8828 (ISSN-L)
- 2160-9292
- OpenAlex
- W2142060261
- Cited by
- 717
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 54.87
- 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.
