《计算机应用》唯一官方网站 ›› 2026, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (3): 959-968.DOI: 10.11772/j.issn.1001-9081.2025030361
收稿日期:2025-04-08
修回日期:2025-05-29
接受日期:2025-06-03
发布日期:2025-06-16
出版日期:2026-03-10
通讯作者:
余松森
作者简介:何皇(1999—),男,江西抚州人,硕士研究生,主要研究方向:计算机视觉基金资助:
Songsen YU(
), Huang HE, Guopeng XUE, Hengtuo CUI
Received:2025-04-08
Revised:2025-05-29
Accepted:2025-06-03
Online:2025-06-16
Published:2026-03-10
Contact:
Songsen YU
About author:HE Huang, born in 1999, M. S. candidate. His research interests include computer vision.Supported by:摘要:
针对瓷砖色差检测中传统方法依赖主观目测导致的结果不稳定问题,提出一种融合纹理与颜色特征的瓷砖色差量化与分级方法。构建包含纹理与颜色双标签的大规模瓷砖数据集TILE-TCR(TILE Texture and Color Recognition),以提升模型对纹理与颜色特征的表征能力;同时,构建色差分级数据集TILE-CAG(TILE Chromatic Aberration Grade),用于支持色差分类任务。在此基础上,改进分形编码网络(FENet)的网络结构,即引入空间金字塔池化(SPP)与SE(Squeeze-and-Excitation)模块,从而实现多任务特征提取与关键区域聚焦。然后,通过聚类算法自适应确定色差分级阈值,从而实现色差分级的客观量化。实验结果表明,所提改进方法在瓷砖纹理分类任务中的准确率达到92.82%,较FENet提升了1.84个百分点;在色差分级任务中所提方法的准确率、精确率、召回率和F1分数均超过90%。此外,还搭建了模拟生产流水线,以完成模型的工业部署与实时性测试。而所提方法在常见规格瓷砖上的平均检测时间低于3 s,满足工业传送带在线检测的实时性要求。
中图分类号:
余松森, 何皇, 薛国鹏, 崔恒拓. 基于改进FENet的瓷砖色差量化分级方法[J]. 计算机应用, 2026, 46(3): 959-968.
Songsen YU, Huang HE, Guopeng XUE, Hengtuo CUI. Quantitation and grading method for ceramic tile chromatic aberration based on improved fractal encoding network[J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(3): 959-968.
| 纹理类型 | 训练集样本数 | 测试集样本数 |
|---|---|---|
| chaos(混乱纹理) | 666 | 86 |
| crackle(裂纹纹理) | 535 | 62 |
| mosaic(马赛克纹理) | 190 | 30 |
| shallow(浅表纹理) | 689 | 71 |
| snowflake(雪花纹理) | 396 | 50 |
| spot(斑点纹理) | 881 | 96 |
| stripe(条纹纹理) | 1 149 | 119 |
| watermark(水印纹理) | 325 | 40 |
| wood(木质纹理) | 693 | 78 |
表1 瓷砖纹理分类数据集的统计信息
Tab. 1 Statistics of ceramic tile texture classification dataset
| 纹理类型 | 训练集样本数 | 测试集样本数 |
|---|---|---|
| chaos(混乱纹理) | 666 | 86 |
| crackle(裂纹纹理) | 535 | 62 |
| mosaic(马赛克纹理) | 190 | 30 |
| shallow(浅表纹理) | 689 | 71 |
| snowflake(雪花纹理) | 396 | 50 |
| spot(斑点纹理) | 881 | 96 |
| stripe(条纹纹理) | 1 149 | 119 |
| watermark(水印纹理) | 325 | 40 |
| wood(木质纹理) | 693 | 78 |
| 颜色类型 | 训练集样本数 | 测试集样本数 |
|---|---|---|
| 0(白色) | 621 | 49 |
| 1(浅灰色) | 784 | 66 |
| 2(深棕色) | 314 | 22 |
| 3(浅蓝色) | 656 | 90 |
| 4(红色) | 132 | 32 |
| 5(黑色) | 105 | 5 |
| 6(木纹色) | 268 | 30 |
| 7(深灰色) | 542 | 50 |
| 8(黄色) | 127 | 29 |
| 9(米色) | 879 | 96 |
| 10(深褐色) | 363 | 40 |
| 11(浅褐色) | 733 | 123 |
表2 瓷砖颜色分类数据集的样本数
Tab. 2 Sample numbers of images in ceramic tile color classification dataset
| 颜色类型 | 训练集样本数 | 测试集样本数 |
|---|---|---|
| 0(白色) | 621 | 49 |
| 1(浅灰色) | 784 | 66 |
| 2(深棕色) | 314 | 22 |
| 3(浅蓝色) | 656 | 90 |
| 4(红色) | 132 | 32 |
| 5(黑色) | 105 | 5 |
| 6(木纹色) | 268 | 30 |
| 7(深灰色) | 542 | 50 |
| 8(黄色) | 127 | 29 |
| 9(米色) | 879 | 96 |
| 10(深褐色) | 363 | 40 |
| 11(浅褐色) | 733 | 123 |
| 模块 | 输入尺寸 | 输出尺寸 | 参数量说明 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ResNet-Conv1 | 224×224×3 | 112×112×64 | 卷积核7×7,stride=2 |
| ResNet-Layer4 | 14×14×1 024 | 7×7×2 048 | Bottleneck结构 |
| GAL | — | 512 | 注意力加权融合 |
| GlobalPool+SubLinear | 7×7×2 048→1×1×2 048 | 256 | GAP+FC |
| Upsample+SE | 7×7×2 048 | 28×28×256 | 转置卷积核4×4 |
| SPP | 7×7×2 048 | 1 024 | 1×1+2×2+4×4池化 |
| FAP | 128通道 | 3维 | 每通道分形维度提取 |
| Final Linear(纹理) | 256 | n | n类纹理等级 |
| Final Linear(颜色) | 256 | m | m类颜色等级 |
表3 FENet-SE-SPP-Color的主要模块参数说明
Tab. 3 Description of main module parameters of FENet-SE-SPP-Color
| 模块 | 输入尺寸 | 输出尺寸 | 参数量说明 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ResNet-Conv1 | 224×224×3 | 112×112×64 | 卷积核7×7,stride=2 |
| ResNet-Layer4 | 14×14×1 024 | 7×7×2 048 | Bottleneck结构 |
| GAL | — | 512 | 注意力加权融合 |
| GlobalPool+SubLinear | 7×7×2 048→1×1×2 048 | 256 | GAP+FC |
| Upsample+SE | 7×7×2 048 | 28×28×256 | 转置卷积核4×4 |
| SPP | 7×7×2 048 | 1 024 | 1×1+2×2+4×4池化 |
| FAP | 128通道 | 3维 | 每通道分形维度提取 |
| Final Linear(纹理) | 256 | n | n类纹理等级 |
| Final Linear(颜色) | 256 | m | m类颜色等级 |
| 骨干网络 | A | B | C | 最大准确率/% | 平均准确率/% | 标准差(±Std)/% | p-value值(对比基准模型) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FENet18 | 90.66 | 89.746 | 0.633 0 | 0.000 0 | |||
| √ | 90.66 | 89.794 | 0.490 9 | 0.872 0 | |||
| √ | 90.82 | 90.127 | 0.399 5 | 0.217 3 | |||
| √ | 91.30 | 89.907 | 0.560 5 | 0.565 8 | |||
| √ | √ | 90.82 | 89.905 | 0.555 2 | 0.331 9 | ||
| √ | √ | 91.46 | 89.904 | 0.964 9 | 0.740 4 | ||
| √ | √ | 91.61 | 90.332 | 0.610 1 | 0.104 3 | ||
| √ | √ | √ | 92.41 | 90.363 | 0.888 1 | 0.135 9 | |
| FENet50 | 90.98 | 90.085 | 0.497 6 | 0.000 0 | |||
| √ | 91.46 | 90.181 | 0.600 0 | 0.705 6 | |||
| √ | 91.30 | 90.270 | 0.686 1 | 0.405 4 | |||
| √ | 91.61 | 90.678 | 0.477 0 | 0.028 8 | |||
| √ | √ | 92.56 | 90.695 | 0.851 3 | 0.131 7 | ||
| √ | √ | 91.93 | 90.743 | 0.820 5 | 0.127 2 | ||
| √ | √ | 91.72 | 90.483 | 0.706 4 | 0.225 9 | ||
| √ | √ | √ | 92.82 | 91.099 | 0.828 1 | 0.029 6 |
表4 消融实验结果
Tab. 4 Ablation experimental results
| 骨干网络 | A | B | C | 最大准确率/% | 平均准确率/% | 标准差(±Std)/% | p-value值(对比基准模型) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FENet18 | 90.66 | 89.746 | 0.633 0 | 0.000 0 | |||
| √ | 90.66 | 89.794 | 0.490 9 | 0.872 0 | |||
| √ | 90.82 | 90.127 | 0.399 5 | 0.217 3 | |||
| √ | 91.30 | 89.907 | 0.560 5 | 0.565 8 | |||
| √ | √ | 90.82 | 89.905 | 0.555 2 | 0.331 9 | ||
| √ | √ | 91.46 | 89.904 | 0.964 9 | 0.740 4 | ||
| √ | √ | 91.61 | 90.332 | 0.610 1 | 0.104 3 | ||
| √ | √ | √ | 92.41 | 90.363 | 0.888 1 | 0.135 9 | |
| FENet50 | 90.98 | 90.085 | 0.497 6 | 0.000 0 | |||
| √ | 91.46 | 90.181 | 0.600 0 | 0.705 6 | |||
| √ | 91.30 | 90.270 | 0.686 1 | 0.405 4 | |||
| √ | 91.61 | 90.678 | 0.477 0 | 0.028 8 | |||
| √ | √ | 92.56 | 90.695 | 0.851 3 | 0.131 7 | ||
| √ | √ | 91.93 | 90.743 | 0.820 5 | 0.127 2 | ||
| √ | √ | 91.72 | 90.483 | 0.706 4 | 0.225 9 | ||
| √ | √ | √ | 92.82 | 91.099 | 0.828 1 | 0.029 6 |
| 方法 | 骨干网络 | DTD | FMD | MINC-2500 | GTOS-M | TILE-TCR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepTEN | ResNet18 | 64.60 | 68.0 | 77.79 | 72.12 | 87.50 |
| DEPNet | 67.80 | 76.1 | 78.28 | 79.18 | 88.26 | |
| HistNet | 69.89 | 83.0 | 80.57 | 82.95 | 88.83 | |
| FENet | 70.85 | 81.0 | 80.45 | 80.53 | 90.66 | |
| FENet-SE-SPP-Color | 73.30 | 84.0 | 82.59 | 82.16 | 92.41 | |
| DeepTEN | ResNet50 | 69.60 | 80.6 | 80.40 | 74.20 | 87.28 |
| DEPNet | 73.20 | 82.0 | 82.00 | 76.07 | 89.87 | |
| HistNet | 72.78 | 82.0 | 83.22 | 82.74 | 90.19 | |
| FENet | 74.04 | 86.0 | 82.83 | 83.33 | 90.98 | |
| FENet-SE-SPP-Color | 73.46 | 87.0 | 83.25 | 84.27 | 92.82 |
表5 不同方法的纹理分类准确率对比 (%)
Tab. 5 Comparison of texture classification accuracy using different methods
| 方法 | 骨干网络 | DTD | FMD | MINC-2500 | GTOS-M | TILE-TCR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepTEN | ResNet18 | 64.60 | 68.0 | 77.79 | 72.12 | 87.50 |
| DEPNet | 67.80 | 76.1 | 78.28 | 79.18 | 88.26 | |
| HistNet | 69.89 | 83.0 | 80.57 | 82.95 | 88.83 | |
| FENet | 70.85 | 81.0 | 80.45 | 80.53 | 90.66 | |
| FENet-SE-SPP-Color | 73.30 | 84.0 | 82.59 | 82.16 | 92.41 | |
| DeepTEN | ResNet50 | 69.60 | 80.6 | 80.40 | 74.20 | 87.28 |
| DEPNet | 73.20 | 82.0 | 82.00 | 76.07 | 89.87 | |
| HistNet | 72.78 | 82.0 | 83.22 | 82.74 | 90.19 | |
| FENet | 74.04 | 86.0 | 82.83 | 83.33 | 90.98 | |
| FENet-SE-SPP-Color | 73.46 | 87.0 | 83.25 | 84.27 | 92.82 |
纹理任务 权重 | 颜色任务 权重 | 纹理识别 准确率/% | 颜色识别 准确率/% | 总体平均 准确率/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.9 | 0.1 | 89.40 | 77.85 | 83.62 |
| 0.8 | 0.2 | 90.19 | 78.32 | 84.26 |
| 0.7 | 0.3 | 90.03 | 78.96 | 84.49 |
| 0.6 | 0.4 | 88.77 | 82.75 | 85.76 |
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 88.77 | 81.49 | 85.13 |
| 0.4 | 0.6 | 88.92 | 81.01 | 84.97 |
| 0.3 | 0.7 | 88.29 | 81.01 | 84.65 |
| 0.2 | 0.8 | 85.92 | 83.07 | 84.49 |
| 0.1 | 0.9 | 76.74 | 84.18 | 80.46 |
表6 多任务识别的实验结果
Tab. 6 Experimental results of multi-task recognition
纹理任务 权重 | 颜色任务 权重 | 纹理识别 准确率/% | 颜色识别 准确率/% | 总体平均 准确率/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.9 | 0.1 | 89.40 | 77.85 | 83.62 |
| 0.8 | 0.2 | 90.19 | 78.32 | 84.26 |
| 0.7 | 0.3 | 90.03 | 78.96 | 84.49 |
| 0.6 | 0.4 | 88.77 | 82.75 | 85.76 |
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 88.77 | 81.49 | 85.13 |
| 0.4 | 0.6 | 88.92 | 81.01 | 84.97 |
| 0.3 | 0.7 | 88.29 | 81.01 | 84.65 |
| 0.2 | 0.8 | 85.92 | 83.07 | 84.49 |
| 0.1 | 0.9 | 76.74 | 84.18 | 80.46 |
| 纹理类别 | 小色差对照组 | 大色差对照组 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 纹理差异均值(DT1) | 颜色差异均值(DC1) | D1 | 纹理差异均值(DT2) | 颜色差异均值(DC2) | D2 | |||
| chaos | 0.165 5 | 1.121 9 | 0.643 7 | 0.616 2 | 0.436 8 | 2.760 5 | 1.598 6 | 1.604 4 |
| crackle | 0.129 3 | 1.002 8 | 0.566 0 | 0.572 6 | 0.284 5 | 2.558 5 | 1.421 5 | 1.463 4 |
| mosaic | 0.052 5 | 0.570 4 | 0.311 5 | 0.271 3 | 0.123 7 | 1.226 2 | 0.674 9 | 0.744 4 |
| shallow | 0.252 1 | 1.340 4 | 0.796 2 | 0.705 6 | 0.481 3 | 3.172 6 | 1.826 9 | 1.904 8 |
| snowflake | 0.250 5 | 1.209 8 | 0.730 1 | 0.627 1 | 0.529 1 | 2.812 8 | 1.671 0 | 1.676 6 |
| spot | 0.113 4 | 1.229 0 | 0.671 2 | 0.624 6 | 0.285 8 | 2.923 0 | 1.604 4 | 1.741 7 |
| stripe | 0.151 5 | 1.267 7 | 0.709 6 | 0.619 3 | 0.360 1 | 3.060 6 | 1.710 3 | 1.603 6 |
| watermark | 0.156 6 | 1.158 3 | 0.657 4 | 0.493 9 | 0.267 6 | 2.318 2 | 1.292 9 | 1.575 3 |
| wood | 0.122 3 | 1.266 5 | 0.694 4 | 0.653 7 | 0.366 7 | 3.261 1 | 1.813 9 | 1.712 9 |
表7 色差分级阈值的实验结果
Tab. 7 Experimental results of color difference grading threshold
| 纹理类别 | 小色差对照组 | 大色差对照组 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 纹理差异均值(DT1) | 颜色差异均值(DC1) | D1 | 纹理差异均值(DT2) | 颜色差异均值(DC2) | D2 | |||
| chaos | 0.165 5 | 1.121 9 | 0.643 7 | 0.616 2 | 0.436 8 | 2.760 5 | 1.598 6 | 1.604 4 |
| crackle | 0.129 3 | 1.002 8 | 0.566 0 | 0.572 6 | 0.284 5 | 2.558 5 | 1.421 5 | 1.463 4 |
| mosaic | 0.052 5 | 0.570 4 | 0.311 5 | 0.271 3 | 0.123 7 | 1.226 2 | 0.674 9 | 0.744 4 |
| shallow | 0.252 1 | 1.340 4 | 0.796 2 | 0.705 6 | 0.481 3 | 3.172 6 | 1.826 9 | 1.904 8 |
| snowflake | 0.250 5 | 1.209 8 | 0.730 1 | 0.627 1 | 0.529 1 | 2.812 8 | 1.671 0 | 1.676 6 |
| spot | 0.113 4 | 1.229 0 | 0.671 2 | 0.624 6 | 0.285 8 | 2.923 0 | 1.604 4 | 1.741 7 |
| stripe | 0.151 5 | 1.267 7 | 0.709 6 | 0.619 3 | 0.360 1 | 3.060 6 | 1.710 3 | 1.603 6 |
| watermark | 0.156 6 | 1.158 3 | 0.657 4 | 0.493 9 | 0.267 6 | 2.318 2 | 1.292 9 | 1.575 3 |
| wood | 0.122 3 | 1.266 5 | 0.694 4 | 0.653 7 | 0.366 7 | 3.261 1 | 1.813 9 | 1.712 9 |
| 类别 | 真实样本数 | 预测正确数 | 预测错误数 | 准确率/% | 精确率/% | 召回率/% | F1-score/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 总体 | 800 | 741 | 59 | 92.6 | 92.0 | 92.6 | 92.3 |
| 无色差(I类) | 250 | 235 | 15 | 94.0 | 92.5 | 94.0 | 93.2 |
| 小色差(Ⅱ类) | 300 | 276 | 24 | 92.0 | 90.8 | 92.0 | 91.4 |
| 大色差(Ⅲ类) | 250 | 230 | 20 | 92.0 | 92.7 | 92.0 | 92.3 |
表8 色差分级的实验结果
Tab. 8 Experimental results of color difference grading
| 类别 | 真实样本数 | 预测正确数 | 预测错误数 | 准确率/% | 精确率/% | 召回率/% | F1-score/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 总体 | 800 | 741 | 59 | 92.6 | 92.0 | 92.6 | 92.3 |
| 无色差(I类) | 250 | 235 | 15 | 94.0 | 92.5 | 94.0 | 93.2 |
| 小色差(Ⅱ类) | 300 | 276 | 24 | 92.0 | 90.8 | 92.0 | 91.4 |
| 大色差(Ⅲ类) | 250 | 230 | 20 | 92.0 | 92.7 | 92.0 | 92.3 |
瓷砖尺寸 (mm×mm) | 最大 检测时间/ms | 平均 检测时间/ms | 标准差(±Std)/ms |
|---|---|---|---|
| 600×600 | 898.2 | 830.53 | 35.94 |
| 800×800 | 1 099.8 | 964.81 | 76.05 |
| 750×1 500 | 1 269.1 | 1 077.31 | 94.35 |
表9 工业部署下的色差检测时间分析
Tab. 9 Color difference detection time analysis in industrial deployment
瓷砖尺寸 (mm×mm) | 最大 检测时间/ms | 平均 检测时间/ms | 标准差(±Std)/ms |
|---|---|---|---|
| 600×600 | 898.2 | 830.53 | 35.94 |
| 800×800 | 1 099.8 | 964.81 | 76.05 |
| 750×1 500 | 1 269.1 | 1 077.31 | 94.35 |
| [1] | 刘策,刘公言,林振国,等. 手持式色差仪测定不同观赏动物的被毛的色差值[J]. 当代畜牧, 2020(4): 24-26. |
| LIU C, LIU G Y, LIN Z G, et al. Measurement of the chromatic values of the coats of different ornamental animals by hand-held colorimeter[J]. Contemporary Animal Husbandry, 2020(4): 24-26. | |
| [2] | BERNS R S, BILLMEYER JR P F W, SALTZMAN M. Billmeyer and Saltzman’s principles of color technology [M]. 4th ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2019. |
| [3] | 杨坤. 基于CCD的瓷砖色差与尺寸检测研究[D]. 武汉:华中科技大学, 2007. |
| YANG K. Research of color difference and dimension measurement of ceramic tile based on CCD [D]. Wuhan: Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 2007. | |
| [4] | 刘利. 基于图像处理的瓷砖色差在线检测方法研究[D]. 长春:长春理工大学, 2019. |
| LIU L. Research on online detection method of ceramic tile color difference based on image processing[D]. Changchun: Changchun University of Science and Technology, 2019. | |
| [5] | QIAN W, YU X, XIE W, et al. Color-separation framework for ceramic-tiles based on few labeled data by HSV and SVM [J]. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2021, 2044: No.012105. |
| [6] | 吴庆涛,曹再辉,施进发. 基于改进颜色直方图和灰度共生矩阵的图像检索[J]. 图学学报, 2017, 38(4): 543-548. |
| WU Q T, CAO Z H, SHI J F. Image retrieval based on improved color histogram and gray level co-occurrence matrix [J]. Journal of Graphics, 2017, 38(4): 543-548. | |
| [7] | 唐海艳. 基于颜色直方图特征的印刷品颜色缺陷检测[D]. 昆明:昆明理工大学, 2020. |
| TANG H Y. Detection on prints color difference based on color histogram features [D]. Kunming: Kunming University of Science and Technology, 2020. | |
| [8] | NADLER E O, DARRAGH-FORD E, DESIKAN B S, et al. Divergences in color perception between deep neural networks and humans [J]. Cognition, 2023, 241: No.105621. |
| [9] | CHEN H, WANG Z, YANG Y, et al. Learning a deep color difference metric for photographic images [C]// Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Piscataway: IEEE, 2023: 22242-22251. |
| [10] | REN J, HU X, ZHU L, et al. Deep texture-aware features for camouflaged object detection [J]. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2023, 33(3): 1157-1167. |
| [11] | WU Q, FANG Z, SONG Z, et al. A color extraction algorithm by segmentation [J]. Scientific Reports, 2023, 13: No.21261. |
| [12] | QIANG H, ZHANG X, HOU J. Attention-based color difference perception for photographic images [J]. Applied Sciences, 2025, 15(5): No.2704. |
| [13] | XU Y, LI F, CHEN Z, et al. Encoding spatial distribution of convolutional features for texture representation [C]// Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Red Hook: Curran Associates Inc., 2021: 22732-22744. |
| [14] | HE K, ZHANG X, REN S, et al. Spatial pyramid pooling in deep convolutional networks for visual recognition [J]. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2015, 37(9): 1904-1916. |
| [15] | HU J, SHEN L, SUN G. Squeeze-and-excitation networks [C]// Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Piscataway: IEEE, 2018: 7132-7141. |
| [16] | MO H, XU B, OUYANG W, et al. Color segmentation of multi-colored fabrics using self-organizing-map based clustering algorithm [J]. Textile Research Journal, 2016, 87(3): 369-380. |
| [17] | DAI Z M, LI D S, XIE H. The analysis for evaluation of ceramic tile’s color difference based on CIELAB color space [J]. Advanced Materials Research, 2012, 490/491/492/493/494/495: 3726-3732. |
| [18] | International Organization for Standardization. . Graphic technology — process control for the production of half-tone colour separations, proof and production prints part 2: offset lithographic processes [S]. Geneva: ISO, 2013. |
| [19] | XUE J, ZHANG H, DANA K. Deep texture manifold for ground terrain recognition [C]// Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Piscataway: IEEE, 2018: 558-567. |
| [20] | BELL S, UPCHURCH P, SNAVELY N, et al. Material recognition in the wild with the materials in context database [C]// Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Piscataway: IEEE, 2015: 3479-3487. |
| [21] | CIMPOI M, MAJI S, KOKKINOS I, et al. Describing textures in the wild [C]// Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Piscataway: IEEE, 2014: 3606-3613. |
| [22] | SHARAN L, ROSENHOLTZ R, ADELSON E. Material perception: What can you see in a brief glance? [J]. Journal of Vision, 2009, 9(8): No.784. |
| [23] | ZHANG H, XUE J, DANA K. Deep TEN: texture encoding network [C]// Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Piscataway: IEEE, 2017: 2896-2905. |
| [24] | PEEPLES J, XU W, ZARE A. Histogram layers for texture analysis [J]. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 2022, 3(4): 541-552. |
| [1] | 张健, 于剑波, 汤健. 基于多层预处理的城市固废焚烧状态识别方法[J]. 《计算机应用》唯一官方网站, 2026, 46(3): 940-949. |
| [2] | 陈敏, 秦小林, 李绍涵, 杨昊, 李韬弘. 深度学习应用于强对流天气预测的综述[J]. 《计算机应用》唯一官方网站, 2026, 46(3): 980-992. |
| [3] | 姜勇维, 陈晓清, 付麟杰. 基于频谱分解的高频保持医学图像弹性配准模型[J]. 《计算机应用》唯一官方网站, 2026, 46(3): 924-932. |
| [4] | 姜皓骞, 张东, 李冠宇, 陈恒. 基于结构增强的层次化任务导向提示策略的对话推荐系统SetaCRS[J]. 《计算机应用》唯一官方网站, 2026, 46(2): 368-377. |
| [5] | 付锦程, 杨仕友. 基于贝叶斯优化和特征融合混合模型的短期风电功率预测[J]. 《计算机应用》唯一官方网站, 2026, 46(2): 652-658. |
| [6] | 韩锋, 卜永丰, 梁浩翔, 黄舒雯, 张朝阳, 孙士杰. 基于多层次时空交互依赖的车辆轨迹异常检测[J]. 《计算机应用》唯一官方网站, 2026, 46(2): 604-612. |
| [7] | 陈晓雷, 郑芷薇, 黄雪, 曲振彬. 结合球面对齐与自适应几何校正的全景视频超分辨率网络[J]. 《计算机应用》唯一官方网站, 2026, 46(2): 528-535. |
| [8] | 刘权捷, 顾兆一, 王春源. 复杂光照条件下的不安全驾驶行为检测[J]. 《计算机应用》唯一官方网站, 2026, 46(2): 613-619. |
| [9] | 林金娇, 张灿舜, 陈淑娅, 王天鑫, 连剑, 徐庸辉. 基于改进图注意力网络的车险欺诈检测方法[J]. 《计算机应用》唯一官方网站, 2026, 46(2): 437-444. |
| [10] | 李名, 王孟齐, 张爱丽, 任花, 窦育强. 基于条件生成对抗网络和混合注意力机制的图像隐写方法[J]. 《计算机应用》唯一官方网站, 2026, 46(2): 475-484. |
| [11] | 曹杰, 谢凌锋, 王丙金, 张昌河, 余紫东, 邓超. 考虑类不平衡和背景多样性问题的青少年脊柱侧弯筛查方法[J]. 《计算机应用》唯一官方网站, 2026, 46(2): 630-639. |
| [12] | 郭泽一, 李凤莲, 徐利春. 基于双重决策机制的深度符号回归算法[J]. 《计算机应用》唯一官方网站, 2026, 46(2): 406-415. |
| [13] | 崔克俭, 王志明, 邱兆文. 基于光学相干断层扫描血管成像的视网膜血管分割与冠心病预测方法[J]. 《计算机应用》唯一官方网站, 2026, 46(2): 640-651. |
| [14] | 边小勇, 袁培洋, 胡其仁. 双编码空频混合的红外小目标检测方法[J]. 《计算机应用》唯一官方网站, 2026, 46(1): 252-259. |
| [15] | 昝志辉, 王雅静, 李珂, 杨智翔, 杨光宇. 基于SAA-CNN-BiLSTM网络的多特征融合语音情感识别方法[J]. 《计算机应用》唯一官方网站, 2026, 46(1): 69-76. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||