Defogging Quality Assessment using FRFSIM: Results and Comparisons

We qualitatively and quantitatively compare the defogged images by using our proposed IQA method FRFSIM and SSIM. Besides, the defogged images are obtained by the following methods: DCP[1], DehazeNet[2], MSF[3], MSCNN[4], MOF[5], BCCR[6], CAP[7]. And the foggy images have come from HazeRD[8] and our MRFID dataset. HazeRD is also an outdoor foggy image database, which contains fifteen fog-free outdoor scenes. For each scene, there are five corresponding foggy images.

References:
[1] He K, Sun J, Tang X. Single image haze removal using dark channel prior[J]. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 2010, 33(12): 2341-2353.
[2] Cai B, Xu X, Jia K, et al. Dehazenet: An end-to-end system for single image haze removal[J]. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2016, 25(11): 5187-5198.
[3] Ancuti C O, Ancuti C. Single image dehazing by multi-scale fusion[J]. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2013, 22(8): 3271-3282.
[4] Ren W, Liu S, Zhang H, et al. Single image dehazing via multi-scale convolutional neural networks[C]//European conference on computer vision. Springer, Cham, 2016: 154-169.
[5] Zhao D, Xu L, Yan Y, et al. Multi-scale Optimal Fusion model for single image dehazing[J]. Signal Processing: Image Communication, 2019, 74: 253-265.
[6] Meng G, Wang Y, Duan J, et al. Efficient image dehazing with boundary constraint and contextual regularization[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. 2013: 617-624.
[7] Zhu Q, Mai J, Shao L. A fast single image haze removal algorithm using color attenuation prior[J]. IEEE transactions on image processing, 2015, 24(11): 3522-3533.
[8] Zhang Y, Ding L, Sharma G. Hazerd: an outdoor scene dataset and benchmark for single image dehazing[C]//2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). IEEE, 2017: 3205-3209.

Fig.1 Comparison of different similarity maps of images with different defog methods. (a) Reference image. (b) Foggy image. (c)-(i) The defogged results with their corresponding similarity maps produced by the approaches of DehazeNet [1], MSF [2], DCP [3], BCCR [4], MOF [5], MSCNN [6] and CAP [7]. Second row: The defogged results. Third row: The SSIM maps. Last row: The FRFSIM maps.
Fig.2 Comparison of different similarity maps of images with different defog methods. (a) Reference image. (b) Foggy image. (c)-(i) The defogged results with their corresponding similarity maps produced by the approaches of DehazeNet [1], MSF [2], DCP [3], BCCR [4], MOF [5], MSCNN [6] and CAP [7]. Second row: The defogged results. Third row: The SSIM maps. Last row: The FRFSIM maps.
Fig.3 Comparison of different similarity maps of images with different defog methods. (a) Reference image. (b) Foggy image. (c)-(i) The defogged results with their corresponding similarity maps produced by the approaches of DehazeNet [1], MSF [2], DCP [3], BCCR [4], MOF [5], MSCNN [6] and CAP [7]. Second row: The defogged results. Third row: The SSIM maps. Last row: The FRFSIM maps.
Fig.4 Comparison of different similarity maps of images with different defog methods. (a) Reference image. (b) Foggy image. (c)-(i) The defogged results with their corresponding similarity maps produced by the approaches of DehazeNet [1], MSF [2], DCP [3], BCCR [4], MOF [5], MSCNN [6] and CAP [7]. Second row: The defogged results. Third row: The SSIM maps. Last row: The FRFSIM maps.
Fig.5 Comparison of different similarity maps of images with different defog methods. (a) Reference image. (b) Foggy image. (c)-(i) The defogged results with their corresponding similarity maps produced by the approaches of DehazeNet [1], MSF [2], DCP [3], BCCR [4], MOF [5], MSCNN [6] and CAP [7]. Second row: The defogged results. Third row: The SSIM maps. Last row: The FRFSIM maps.

Fig.6 Comparison of different similarity maps of images with different defog methods. (a) Reference image. (b) Foggy image. (c)-(i) The defogged results with their corresponding similarity maps produced by the approaches of DehazeNet [1], MSF [2], DCP [3], BCCR [4], MOF [5], MSCNN [6] and CAP [7]. Second row: The defogged results. Third row: The SSIM maps. Last row: The FRFSIM maps.
Fig.7 Comparison of different similarity maps of images with different defog methods. (a) Reference image. (b) Foggy image. (c)-(i) The defogged results with their corresponding similarity maps produced by the approaches of DehazeNet [1], MSF [2], DCP [3], BCCR [4], MOF [5], MSCNN [6] and CAP [7]. Second row: The defogged results. Third row: The SSIM maps. Last row: The FRFSIM maps.
Fig.8 Comparison of different similarity maps of images with different defog methods. (a) Reference image. (b) Foggy image. (c)-(i) The defogged results with their corresponding similarity maps produced by the approaches of DehazeNet [1], MSF [2], DCP [3], BCCR [4], MOF [5], MSCNN [6] and CAP [7]. Second row: The defogged results. Third row: The SSIM maps. Last row: The FRFSIM maps.