4.6 Article

Multi-Scale Cost Attention and Adaptive Fusion Stereo Matching Network

Journal

ELECTRONICS
Volume 12, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/electronics12071594

Keywords

cost attention; adaptive fusion; attention mechanism; stereo matching

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Compared to 3D convolution, 2D convolution is less computationally expensive and faster in stereo matching methods. However, the initial cost volume generated by 2D convolution lacks rich information, resulting in lower robustness and accuracy in the disparity map affected by illumination. To address this, the proposed MCAFNet utilizes multi-scale adaptive cost attention and adaptive fusion to enrich the cost volume. With the improvements, the model achieves better performance in terms of EPE and error matching rates on different datasets.
At present, compared to 3D convolution, 2D convolution is less computationally expensive and faster in stereo matching methods based on convolution. However, compared to the initial cost volume generated by calculation using a 3D convolution method, the initial cost volume generated by 2D convolution in the relevant layer lacks rich information, resulting in the area affected by illumination in the disparity map having a lower robustness and thus affecting its accuracy. Therefore, to address the lack of rich cost volume information in the 2D convolution method, this paper proposes a multi-scale adaptive cost attention and adaptive fusion stereo matching network (MCAFNet) based on AANet+. Firstly, the extracted features are used for initial cost calculation, and the cost volume is input into the multi-scale adaptive cost attention module to generate attention weight, which is then combined with the initial cost volume to suppress irrelevant information and enrich the cost volume. Secondly, the cost aggregation part of the model is improved. A multi-scale adaptive fusion module is added to improve the fusion efficiency of cross-scale cost aggregation. In the Scene Flow dataset, the EPE is reduced to 0.66. The error matching rates in the KITTI2012 and KITTI2015 datasets are 1.60% and 2.22%, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available