Nighttime images captured under hazy conditions suffer from severe quality degradation, including low visibility, color distortion, and reduced contrast, caused by the combined effects of atmospheric scattering, absorption by suspended particles, and non-uniform illumination from artificial light sources. While existing nighttime dehazing methods have achieved partial success, they typically address only a subset of these issues, such as glow suppression or brightness enhancement, without jointly tackling the full spectrum of degradation factors. In this paper, we propose a two-stage nighttime image dehazing framework that integrates transmittance correction with structure-texture layered optimization. In the first stage, we introduce a novel transmittance correction method that establishes boundary-constrained initial transmittance maps and subsequently applies region-adaptive compensation and normalization based on whether image regions correspond to light source areas. A quadratic Gaussian filtering scheme operating in the YUV color space is employed to estimate the spatially varying atmospheric light map. The corrected transmittance map and atmospheric light map are then used in conjunction with an improved nighttime imaging model to produce the initial dehazed image. In the second stage, we propose a STAR-YUV decomposition model that separates the dehazed image into structure and texture layers within the YUV color space. Gamma correction and MSRCR-based color restoration are applied to the structure layer for illumination compensation and color bias correction, while Laplacian-of-Gaussian filtering is applied to the texture layer for detail enhancement. A novel two-phase fusion strategy, comprising nonlinear Retinex-based fusion of the enhanced layers followed by linear blending with the initial dehazing result, yields the final output.
Figures & tables
Method
Image1
Image2
Image3
Average
DCP
20.506
37.320
15.277
24.368
DehazeNet
19.221
34.211
15.783
23.072
CEEF
26.025
29.485
25.481
26.997
GMLC
17.690
35.502
15.661
22.951
Fb
19.849
20.973
17.238
19.353
IAT
21.684
20.519
16.871
19.691
Table 1: CIEDE2000 color difference evaluation (lower is better). Bold and underlined values indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
Method
Detail
Color
Natural.
Visual
Overall
DCP
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.3
3.4
DehazeNet
3.0
3.2
3.5
3.2
3.2
CEEF
3.6
4.0
3.8
3.7
3.8
GMLC
4.2
3.2
4.0
3.9
4.2
Fb
3.1
4.1
3.8
4.0
3.8
IAT
3.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.7
Table 2: Subjective evaluation scores (1–5 scale) by 30 human assessors. Bold values indicate the best results per column.
ZS330 Samples
HC770 Samples
Method
AG ↑
IE ↑
NIQE ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
AG ↑
IE ↑
NIQE ↓
DCP
3.789
6.535
4.310
14.053
0.611
4.292
6.659
2.461
DehazeNet
3.122
5.596
4.782
13.422
0.441
3.613
5.740
2.692
CEEF
6.763
7.057
4.296
15.920
0.669
7.076
7.176
2.205
GMLC
7.548
6.990
4.380
15.570
0.398
7.814
6.936
2.464
Fb
3.347
6.934
4.344
14.290
0.612
4.335
7.100
2.515
Table 3: Quantitative comparison on representative images from ZS330 (no-reference only) and HC770 (all metrics). ↑ : higher is better; ↓ : lower is better. Bold and underlined values indicate best and second-best results.
ZS330
HC770
Method
AG ↑
IE ↑
NIQE ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
AG ↑
IE ↑
NIQE ↓
DCP
4.526
6.764
2.779
9.899
0.556
3.968
6.835
2.775
DehazeNet
3.807
6.100
3.127
12.105
0.592
3.229
6.663
3.054
CEEF
6.503
7.042
2.600
11.469
0.618
6.592
7.078
2.721
GMLC
7.020
8.321
2.689
14.096
0.460
7.083
6.676
2.640
Fb
3.235
6.795
3.136
13.536
0.693
2.590
6.684
3.392
Table 4: Quantitative comparison on the full ZS330 and HC770 test sets. ↑ : higher is better; ↓ : lower is better. Bold and underlined values indicate best and second-best results.
ZS330
HC770
Method
AG ↑
IE ↑
NIQE ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
AG ↑
IE ↑
NIQE ↓
w/o T
19.065
16.289
5.314
12.959
0.380
5.046
7.701
7.607
w/o Dehaze
7.304
7.500
4.226
15.547
0.592
6.330
7.501
4.357
w/o STAR
5.723
7.113
3.748
16.387
0.779
5.834
7.394
3.711
Full Model
7.836
7.461
2.683
17.024
0.765
7.371
7.595
2.702
Table 5: Ablation study results on the ZS330 and HC770 test sets. Bold and underlined values indicate best and second-best results.
Method
480 × 360
550 × 733
1000 × 653
Average
DCP
8.54
21.04
33.52
21.03
DehazeNet
1.16
3.71
4.25
3.04
CEEF
0.64
2.36
2.55
1.85
GMLC
6.08
13.90
40.74
20.24
Fb
5.51
17.49
27.56
16.85
IAT
8.85
19.24
32.63
20.24
Table 6: Runtime comparison (in seconds) across different image resolutions. Bold values indicate the fastest method.
Department of Computer Science, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taiwan · National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan · National Chengchi University, Taiwan +1