Organizations: State Key Laboratory of Physical Oceanography, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China. · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 39762 USA.
In real underwater environments, downstream image recognition tasks such as semantic segmentation and object detection often face challenges posed by problems like blurring and color inconsistencies. Underwater image enhancement (UIE) has emerged as a promising preprocessing approach, aiming to improve the recognizability of targets in underwater images. However, most existing UIE methods mainly focus on enhancing images for human visual perception, frequently failing to reconstruct high-frequency details that are critical for task-specific recognition. To address this issue, we propose a Downstream Task-Inspired Underwater Image Enhancement (DTI-UIE) framework, which leverages human visual perception model to enhance images effectively for underwater vision tasks. Specifically, we design an efficient two-branch network with task-aware attention module for feature mixing. The network benefits from a multi-stage training framework and a task-driven perceptual loss. Additionally, inspired by human perception, we automatically construct a Task-Inspired UIE Dataset (TI-UIED) using various task-specific networks. Experimental results demonstrate that DTI-UIE significantly improves task performance by generating preprocessed images that are beneficial for downstream tasks such as semantic segmentation, object detection, and instance segmentation. The codes are publicly available at https://github.com/oucailab/DTIUIE.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Framework of the proposed DTI-UIE. (a) A task-inspired UIE dataset is constructed automatically by task networks. (b) A UIE network providing advantages for downstream tasks is achieved with task-relevant priors and task-driven perceptual loss.
Fig. 2: Underwater images enhanced using different UIE methods. UColor [ 16 ] and HUPE [ 17 ] blurred the outlines of the diver and background, and introduced additional edge and texture information to the foreground seabed. The proposed DTI-UIE introduced more accurate foreground-background differentiation and reduced texture and edge noise, which is beneficial for downstream tasks.
Dataset
Year
Img. Num.
GT & Raw Generation Methods
Degrade & Enhance Method
Objective
Fabbri et al. [ 27 ]
2018
7941
Degradation from HQ images
CycleGAN
Perception-centered
EUVP [ 29 ]
2020
11435
Degradation from HQ images
CycleGAN
Perception-centered
UFO-120 [ 28 ]
2020
1620
Degradation from HQ images
CycleGAN + GB
Perception-centered
UIEB [ 3 ]
2020
890
Majority-voting from Enc by human
12 Trad methods
Perception-centered
SUIM-E [ 18 ]
2022
1635
Majority-voting from Enc by human
12 Trad methods
Perception-centered
HICRD [ 30 ]
2022
2000
Imaging parameter inversion
Trad method
Perception-centered
TABLE I: Comparison of different UIE benchmark datasets. The degrade or enhance methods (Trad) refer to traditional underwater image enhancement methods, (DL) refers to deep-learning-based underwater image enhancement methods, (GB) refers to Gaussian blurring. The image source (Enc) refer to enhanced images, and (HQ) refer to high-quality underwater images
Fig. 3: (a) The percentage of images from different UIE sources corresponding to ground truth in the entire TI-UIED dataset. (b) Number of images containing each object category.
Fig. 4: Example raw and references images in the TI-UIED dataset.
Fig. 5: Overview of the proposed DTI-UIE framework, which consists of the enhancement network Enc and two task network Segpri , Segtask . In the first stage, the task network Segpri for task-relevant prior is trained. During the second stage, DTI-UIE updates the enhancement network Enc using the TDP loss and pixel loss, while both two task networks are frozen. In the third stage, the task network Segtask for TDP loss is updated, using different kinds of enhanced and mixed images.
Fig. 6: Structure of TA-CTB. At the i -th layer, the TA-CAM mixs the target-relevant prior Ti and image feature map Xi and produces the output feature map X^i .
Fig. 7: Visual comparison with different UIE methods on SUIM [ 13 ] (1-3) and LIACi [ 7 ] (4-6) dataset.
Fig. 8: Segmentation results on SUIM [ 13 ] dataset. The results are obtained by training the UNet [ 44 ] on raw and different enhanced images.
Fig. 9: Segmentation results on LIACi [ 7 ] dataset. The results are obtained by training the UNet [ 44 ] on raw and different enhanced images.
Method
SUIM Dataset [ 13 ]
LIACi Dataset [ 7 ]
UNet [ 44 ]
DeepLabv3 [ 47 ]
FPN [ 50 ]
DPT [ 60 ]
UNet [ 44 ]
DeepLabv3 [ 47 ]
FPN [ 50 ]
DPT [ 60 ]
Dice
mIoU
Dice
mIoU
Dice
mIoU
Dice
mIoU
Dice
mIoU
Dice
mIoU
Dice
mIoU
Dice
mIoU
Raw
72.29
66.52
78.02
66.51
74.96
64.74
82.48
73.18
75.55
54.43
82.51
55.35
81.63
53.66
81.11
56.88
UDCP [ 58 ]
69.58
62.12
77.45
62.28
73.84
60.70
82.08
68.69
76.80
52.21
80.64
53.87
80.44
50.35
81.89
53.19
IBLA [ 59 ]
72.09
61.67
78.10
61.81
76.27
62.71
81.22
68.91
76.43
49.18
79.75
50.25
78.74
45.89
80.12
50.94
CBLA [ 22 ]
72.16
63.63
75.04
67.02
75.07
62.79
81.82
70.73
77.85
54.15
82.67
55.22
79.81
50.95
79.00
55.30
TABLE II: Comparison for semantic segmentation in terms of mIoU( ↑ ) and Dice( ↑ ) on SUIM [ 13 ] and LIACi [ 7 ] dataset. The best and second result are marked in bold and underline .
Fig. 10: Visualization results of object detection on RUOD dataset [ 64 ] . The results are obtained by training the SSD [ 62 ] network on the raw image and different enhanced images.
Method
Faster-RCNN [ 61 ]
SSD [ 62 ]
DINO [ 63 ]
mAPs
mAPm
mAPl
mAP50
mAP75
mAP
mAPs
mAPm
mAPl
mAP50
mAP75
mAP
mAPs
mAPm
mAPl
mAP50
mAP75
mAP
Raw
14.10
40.70
57.30
81.60
57.40
52.10
15.10
35.80
55.90
80.80
54.30
50.50
19.30
43.70
64.80
83.60
63.50
59.00
UDCP [ 58 ]
16.80
36.90
53.80
79.30
52.70
48.80
11.90
34.10
54.50
79.60
52.60
49.30
19.00
42.70
63.70
83.10
62.10
58.00
IBLA [ 59 ]
14.40
35.60
52.40
77.90
50.50
47.40
14.00
33.10
53.30
78.60
51.00
48.20
18.00
39.20
60.30
79.70
58.20
54.60
CBLA [ 22 ]
13.80
37.90
56.30
80.40
55.40
50.80
12.60
30.90
51.10
77.10
48.20
46.00
19.40
40.50
62.60
60.60
81.50
56.60
NU2Net [ 25 ]
16.00
39.70
58.00
82.00
57.60
52.40
8.20
34.00
53.80
79.80
50.90
48.50
18.40
43.00
64.40
83.10
62.90
58.30
TABLE III: Comparison for object detection in terms of mAPs( ↑ ), mAPm( ↑ ) mAPl( ↑ ), mAP50( ↑ ), mAP75( ↑ ) and mAP( ↑ ) on RUOD [ 64 ] dataset. The best and second result are marked in bold and underline .
Fig. 11: Visualization results of instance segmentation on UIIS dataset [ 37 ] . The results are obtained by training the Mask R-CNN [ 61 ] network on the raw image and different enhanced images.
Method
Mask R-CNN [ 61 ]
Water Mask R-CNN [ 37 ]
mAPs
mAPm
mAPl
mAP50
mAP75
mAP
mAPs
mAPm
mAPl
mAP50
mAP75
mAP
Raw
7.50
17.70
29.70
40.10
20.50
21.90
8.30
19.00
34.40
40.00
23.90
23.30
UDCP [ 58 ]
7.70
18.60
28.20
40.10
19.80
20.30
6.70
17.10
29.60
36.50
19.50
20.00
IBLA [ 59 ]
7.20
18.60
28.50
38.70
20.60
20.60
6.30
17.20
29.60
35.90
20.70
20.10
CBLA [ 22 ]
6.70
17.70
28.30
38.70
19.90
20.60
7.10
18.60
32.20
38.50
22.40
21.90
NU2Net [ 25 ]
7.60
19.00
29.60
39.50
22.00
21.60
7.70
18.90
32.60
39.20
23.70
22.60
TABLE IV: Comparison for instance segmentation in terms of mAP50( ↑ ), mAP75( ↑ ) and mAP( ↑ ) on UIIS [ 37 ] dataset. The best and second result are marked in bold and underline .
Method
SUIM-E [ 18 ]
UIEB [ 3 ]
UIQM
UCIQE
NUIQ
UIQM
UCIQE
NUIQ
UDCP [ 58 ]
1.81
62.17
6.34
2.14
59.49
6.06
IBLA [ 59 ]
1.87
62.49
6.72
2.34
53.81
6.34
CBLA [ 22 ]
2.24
67.44
6.75
2.32
68.72
7.45
NU2Net [ 25 ]
3.00
58.41
5.74
3.34
58.07
5.99
WfDiff [ 26 ]
2.66
58.35
6.45
3.25
53.26
6.57
TABLE V: Comparison for image quality assessment in terms of UIQM [ 66 ] ( ↑ ), UCIQE [ 66 ] ( ↑ ) and NUIQ [ 67 ] ( ↑ ) on SUIM-E [ 18 ] and UIEB [ 3 ] . The best and second result are marked in bold and underline .
Method
Params (M)
FLOPs (G)
NU2Net [ 25 ]
3.1
10.4
WfDiff [ 26 ]
100.5
369.2
SemiUIR
7.1
36.45
CCMSR [ 23 ]
21.6
43.3
HUPE [ 17 ]
12.1
162.2
TFUIE [ 10 ]
1.3
25.26
TABLE VI: Comparison for different deep-learning-based UIE methods in terms of model size and computational complexity.
Methods
Dice
mIoU
DTI-UIE without FRB branch
72.89
67.01
DTI-UIE without DEB branch
72.52
66.41
DTI-UIE ( Ours )
74.48
67.61
TABLE VII: Effectiveness of the FRB and DEB. The comparison by the implementation of different network branches.
Methods
Dice
mIoU
DTI-UIE without TA-CTB
71.15
67.13
DTI-UIE ( Ours )
74.48
67.61
TABLE VIII: Effectiveness of the TA-CTB. The comparison by including or excluding TA-CTB and target-relevant prior.
Methods
Dice
mIoU
DTI-UIE without TDP loss
71.71
65.12
DTI-UIE with no trainable TDP loss
73.27
66.50
DTI-UIE ( Ours )
74.48
67.61
TABLE IX: Effectiveness of the TDP loss. The comparison by including or excluding TDP loss, as well as by not updating TDP loss.
Methods
Dice
mIoU
Mixing with 16×16 block
72.96
65.94
Mixing with 8×8 block ( Ours )
74.48
67.61
Mixing with 1×1 pixel
73.90
65.53
Full image mixing
73.50
65.32
No mixing in TDP loss
71.34
64.82
TABLE X: Effectiveness the mixing process in TDP loss. The comparison by varying the granularity of image mixing on TDP loss.
Methods
Dice
mIoU
Merging Task Networks
69.58
65.59
Separating Task Networks( Ours )
74.48
67.61
TABLE XI: Effectiveness of Task Network Number. The comparison by merging or separating Segpri and Segtask network.
Methods
Dice
mIoU
ResNet50 UNet
74.58
66.44
VGG-13 UNet
71.64
66.90
VGG-16 UNet ( Ours )
74.48
67.61
TABLE XII: Effectiveness of Task Network Structure. The comparison by the structure of Segpri and Segtask network.
Methods
Dice
mIoU
DTI-UIE trained on SUIM-E
70.47
65.18
DTI-UIE trained on TI-UIED ( Ours )
74.48
67.61
WfDiff source pretrained
72.37
66.09
WfDiff trained on TI-UIED
73.61
66.25
CCMSR source pretrained
72.58
65.47
CCMSR trained on TI-UIED
70.50
63.96
TABLE XIII: Effectiveness of the TI-UIED. The comparison by training on TI-UIED dataset or SUIM-E dataset.
In recent years, learning-based underwater image enhancement (UIE) techniques have rapidly evolved. However, distribution shifts between high-quality enhanced outputs and natural images can hinder semantic cue extraction for downstream vision tasks, thereby limiting the adaptability of existing enhancement models. To address this challenge, this work proposes a new learning mechanism that leverages Vision-Language Models (VLMs) to empower UIE models with semantic-sensitive capabilities. To be concrete, our strategy first generates textual descriptions of key objects from a degraded image via VLMs. Subsequently, a text-image alignment model remaps these relevant descriptions back onto the image to produce a spatial semantic guidance map. This map then steers the UIE network through a dual-guidance mechanism, which combines cross-attention and an explicit alignment loss. This forces the network to focus its restorative power on semantic-sensitive regions during image reconstruction, rather than pursuing a globally uniform improvement, thereby ensuring the faithful restoration of key object features. Experiments confirm that when our strategy is applied to different UIE baselines, significantly boosts their performance on perceptual quality metrics as well as enhances their performance on detection and segmentation tasks, validating its effectiveness and adaptability.
Guodong Fan, Shengning Zhou, Genji Yuan +3
Shandong Technology and Business University, Yantai, China · Shandong University of Finance and Economics, Jinan, China · Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, China
Underwater Image Enhancement (UIE) is essential for robust visual perception in marine applications. However, existing methods predominantly rely on uniform mapping tailored to average dataset distributions, leading to over-processing mildly degraded images or insufficient recovery for severe ones. To address this challenge, we propose a novel adaptive enhancement framework, SDAR-Net. Unlike existing uniform paradigms, it first decouples specific degradation styles from the input and subsequently modulates the enhancement process adaptively. Specifically, since underwater degradation primarily shifts the appearance while keeping the scene structure, SDAR-Net formulates image features into dynamic degradation style embeddings and static scene structural representations through a carefully designed training framework. Subsequently, we introduce an adaptive routing mechanism. By evaluating style features and adaptively predicting soft weights at different enhancement states, it guides the weighted fusion of the corresponding image representations, accurately satisfying the adaptive restoration demands of each image. Extensive experiments show that SDAR-Net achieves a new state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance with a PSNR of 25.72 dB on real-world benchmark, and demonstrates its utility in downstream vision tasks. Our code is available at https://github.com/WHU-USI3DV/SDAR-Net.
Hang Xu, Chen Long, Bing Wang +2
State Key Laboratory of Information Engineering in Surveying, Mapping and Remote Sensing, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430079, China · Department of Aeronautical and Aviation Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China
Underwater images often suffer from severe degradation, such as color distortion, low contrast, and blurred details, due to light absorption and scattering in water. While learning-based methods like CNNs and Transformers have shown promise, they face critical limitations: CNNs struggle to model the long-range dependencies needed for non-uniform degradation, and Transformers incur quadratic computational complexity, making them inefficient for high-resolution images. To address these challenges, we propose Hero-Mamba, a novel Mamba-based network that achieves efficient dual-domain learning for underwater image enhancement. Our approach uniquely processes information from both the spatial domain (RGB image) and the spectral domain (FFT components) in parallel. This dual-domain input allows the network to decouple degradation factors, separating color/brightness information from texture/noise. The core of our network utilizes Mamba-based SS2D blocks to capture global receptive fields and long-range dependencies with linear complexity, overcoming the limitations of both CNNs and Transformers. Furthermore, we introduce a ColorFusion block, guided by a background light prior, to restore color information with high fidelity. Extensive experiments on the LSUI and UIEB benchmark datasets demonstrate that Hero-Mamba outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Notably, our model achieves a PSNR of 25.802 and an SSIM of 0.913 on LSUI, validating its superior performance and generalization capabilities.
Tejeswar Pokuri, Shivarth Rai
Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal - 576104, India