图学学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (5): 1015-1024.DOI: 10.11996/JG.j.2095-302X.2026051015
李可鑫1, 樊万姝1(
), 米佳乐2, 韩远鹏1, 付鲁艳3, 张仕祥1
收稿日期:2026-03-08
接受日期:2026-06-10
出版日期:2026-10-31
发布日期:2026-10-26
通讯作者:樊万姝,E-mail:fanwanshu@dlu.edu.cn基金资助:
LI Kexin1, FAN Wanshu1(
), MI Jiale2, HAN Yuanpeng1, FU Luyan3, ZHANG Shixiang1
Received:2026-03-08
Accepted:2026-06-10
Published:2026-10-31
Online:2026-10-26
Contact:
FAN Wanshu,E-mail:fanwanshu@dlu.edu.cn
Supported by:摘要:
场景文本图像超分辨率(STISR)旨在从低分辨率(LR)文本图像中恢复清晰、完整且易识别的字符结构,为自然场景文字识别、智能文档处理和视觉检索等任务提供高质量图像输入。受成像距离、焦距变化、运动模糊及复杂背景干扰等因素影响,LR场景文本图像常出现笔画断裂、边缘模糊和结构缺失,导致后续文本识别准确率下降。现有方法多侧重纹理重建或文本语义引导,对严重退化样本中的字符轮廓和细粒度结构恢复仍不充分;扩散模型虽具备较强的细节生成能力,但缺少结构约束时易产生局部伪影或结构偏移。针对上述问题,构建潜在结构先验提示扩散模型(LSPDiff)。LSPDiff由潜在结构生成模型(LSGM)和先验提示扩散模型(PPDM)组成。LSGM以双三次插值后的LR文本图像为输入,通过编码-解码结构学习多尺度潜在结构特征,并利用多尺度监督约束强化字符笔画、边缘轮廓和空间排列关系。先验提示扩散模型在反向去噪过程中同时引入LR条件图像、含噪图像和结构提示,并通过先验提示注意力模块建模扩散中间特征与结构先验之间的关联,从而引导噪声估计和结构重建。考虑到2类模型的优化目标存在差异,采用先训练LSGM、再冻结其参数训练先验提示扩散模型的两阶段策略,以提高训练稳定性和结构先验传递效果。在TextZoom数据集上开展实验,采用ASTER,MORAN和CRNN的3种文本识别模型以及峰值信噪比(PSNR)和结构相似性指数(SSIM)等指标进行评价。LSPDiff在ASTER,MORAN和CRNN上的平均识别准确率分别达66.2%,63.3%和57.0%,PSNR达22.32 dB,SSIM达0.792 2,在文本识别准确率和图像重建质量方面取得较优表现。消融实验显示,引入LSGM后,模型PSNR由21.40 dB提升至22.32 dB,识别准确率由60.5%提升至66.2%。多尺度潜在结构先验能够有效约束扩散式重建过程,改善字符笔画连续性、轮廓清晰度和文本可读性,为复杂退化STISR提供了有效方法。
中图分类号:
李可鑫, 樊万姝, 米佳乐, 韩远鹏, 付鲁艳, 张仕祥. 融合结构先验提示的文本图像超分辨率扩散模型[J]. 图学学报, 2026, 47(5): 1015-1024.
LI Kexin, FAN Wanshu, MI Jiale, HAN Yuanpeng, FU Luyan, ZHANG Shixiang. Latent structure prior-prompted diffusion model for scene text image super-resolution[J]. Journal of Graphics, 2026, 47(5): 1015-1024.
| Method | PSNR | SSIM | LPIPS |
|---|---|---|---|
| TSRN[ | 21.42 | 0.769 1 | 0.097 3 |
| TATT[ | 21.52 | 0.793 0 | 0.094 5 |
| C3-STISR[ | 21.60 | 0.793 1 | 0.094 4 |
| TextDiff[ | 21.37 | 0.784 1 | 0.082 2 |
| LSPDiff (Ours) | 22.32 | 0.792 2 | 0.089 3 |
表1 感知质量对比结果
Table 1 Perceptual quality comparison results
| Method | PSNR | SSIM | LPIPS |
|---|---|---|---|
| TSRN[ | 21.42 | 0.769 1 | 0.097 3 |
| TATT[ | 21.52 | 0.793 0 | 0.094 5 |
| C3-STISR[ | 21.60 | 0.793 1 | 0.094 4 |
| TextDiff[ | 21.37 | 0.784 1 | 0.082 2 |
| LSPDiff (Ours) | 22.32 | 0.792 2 | 0.089 3 |
| Method | Accuracy of ASTER | Accuracy of MORAN | Accuracy of CRNN | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| easy | medium | hard | average | easy | medium | hard | average | easy | medium | hard | average | |
| Bicubic | 64.7 | 42.4 | 31.2 | 47.2 | 60.6 | 37.9 | 30.8 | 44.1 | 36.4 | 21.1 | 21.1 | 26.8 |
| SRCNN[ | 69.4 | 43.4 | 32.2 | 49.5 | 63.2 | 39.0 | 30.2 | 45.3 | 38.7 | 21.6 | 20.9 | 27.7 |
| SRResNet[ | 69.4 | 47.3 | 34.3 | 51.3 | 60.7 | 42.9 | 32.6 | 46.3 | 39.7 | 27.6 | 22.7 | 30.6 |
| RCAN[ | 67.3 | 46.6 | 35.1 | 50.7 | 63.1 | 42.9 | 33.6 | 47.5 | 46.8 | 27.9 | 26.5 | 34.5 |
| SAN[ | 68.1 | 48.7 | 36.2 | 50.7 | 65.6 | 44.4 | 35.2 | 49.4 | 50.1 | 31.2 | 28.1 | 37.2 |
| TSRN[ | 75.1 | 56.3 | 40.1 | 58.3 | 70.1 | 53.3 | 37.9 | 54.8 | 52.5 | 38.2 | 31.4 | 41.4 |
| TBSRN[ | 75.7 | 59.9 | 41.6 | 60.0 | 74.1 | 57.0 | 40.8 | 58.4 | 59.6 | 47.1 | 35.3 | 48.1 |
| PCAN[ | 77.5 | 60.7 | 43.1 | 61.5 | 73.7 | 57.6 | 41.0 | 58.5 | 59.6 | 45.4 | 34.8 | 47.4 |
| TATT[ | 78.9 | 63.4 | 45.4 | 63.6 | 72.5 | 60.2 | 43.1 | 59.5 | 62.6 | 53.4 | 39.8 | 52.6 |
| C3-STISR[ | 79.1 | 63.3 | 46.8 | 64.1 | 74.2 | 61.0 | 43.2 | 60.5 | 65.2 | 53.6 | 39.8 | 53.7 |
| DPMN (+TATT) [ | 79.3 | 64.1 | 45.2 | 63.9 | 73.3 | 61.5 | 43.9 | 60.4 | 64.4 | 54.2 | 39.2 | 53.4 |
| TSAN[ | 79.6 | 64.1 | 45.3 | 64.1 | 78.4 | 61.3 | 45.1 | 62.7 | 64.6 | 53.3 | 38.8 | 53.0 |
| LEMMA[ | 81.1 | 66.3 | 47.4 | 66.0 | 77.7 | 64.4 | 44.6 | 63.2 | 67.1 | 58.8 | 40.6 | 56.3 |
| TRMCC[ | 79.1 | 63.1 | 47.1 | 64.1 | 73.7 | 60.0 | 43.7 | 60.1 | 63.4 | 53.1 | 38.9 | 52.6 |
| DSRASRN[ | 80.9 | 64.6 | 46.2 | 65.0 | 75.4 | 62.6 | 45.6 | 62.1 | 61.6 | 53.6 | 38.6 | 52.0 |
| TextSR[ | 80.8 | 64.1 | 48.3 | 65.4 | 77.7 | 61.9 | 46.2 | 63.0 | 67.8 | 57.8 | 41.8 | 56.6 |
| LSPDiff (Ours) | 81.2 | 67.0 | 47.4 | 66.2 | 78.6 | 63.0 | 45.4 | 63.3 | 67.6 | 58.5 | 42.7 | 57.0 |
| HR | 94.2 | 87.7 | 76.2 | 86.6 | 91.2 | 85.3 | 74.2 | 84.1 | 76.4 | 75.1 | 64.6 | 72.4 |
表2 不同模型在TextZoom数据集准确率对比/%
Table 2 Accuracy comparison of different models on the TextZoom dataset/%
| Method | Accuracy of ASTER | Accuracy of MORAN | Accuracy of CRNN | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| easy | medium | hard | average | easy | medium | hard | average | easy | medium | hard | average | |
| Bicubic | 64.7 | 42.4 | 31.2 | 47.2 | 60.6 | 37.9 | 30.8 | 44.1 | 36.4 | 21.1 | 21.1 | 26.8 |
| SRCNN[ | 69.4 | 43.4 | 32.2 | 49.5 | 63.2 | 39.0 | 30.2 | 45.3 | 38.7 | 21.6 | 20.9 | 27.7 |
| SRResNet[ | 69.4 | 47.3 | 34.3 | 51.3 | 60.7 | 42.9 | 32.6 | 46.3 | 39.7 | 27.6 | 22.7 | 30.6 |
| RCAN[ | 67.3 | 46.6 | 35.1 | 50.7 | 63.1 | 42.9 | 33.6 | 47.5 | 46.8 | 27.9 | 26.5 | 34.5 |
| SAN[ | 68.1 | 48.7 | 36.2 | 50.7 | 65.6 | 44.4 | 35.2 | 49.4 | 50.1 | 31.2 | 28.1 | 37.2 |
| TSRN[ | 75.1 | 56.3 | 40.1 | 58.3 | 70.1 | 53.3 | 37.9 | 54.8 | 52.5 | 38.2 | 31.4 | 41.4 |
| TBSRN[ | 75.7 | 59.9 | 41.6 | 60.0 | 74.1 | 57.0 | 40.8 | 58.4 | 59.6 | 47.1 | 35.3 | 48.1 |
| PCAN[ | 77.5 | 60.7 | 43.1 | 61.5 | 73.7 | 57.6 | 41.0 | 58.5 | 59.6 | 45.4 | 34.8 | 47.4 |
| TATT[ | 78.9 | 63.4 | 45.4 | 63.6 | 72.5 | 60.2 | 43.1 | 59.5 | 62.6 | 53.4 | 39.8 | 52.6 |
| C3-STISR[ | 79.1 | 63.3 | 46.8 | 64.1 | 74.2 | 61.0 | 43.2 | 60.5 | 65.2 | 53.6 | 39.8 | 53.7 |
| DPMN (+TATT) [ | 79.3 | 64.1 | 45.2 | 63.9 | 73.3 | 61.5 | 43.9 | 60.4 | 64.4 | 54.2 | 39.2 | 53.4 |
| TSAN[ | 79.6 | 64.1 | 45.3 | 64.1 | 78.4 | 61.3 | 45.1 | 62.7 | 64.6 | 53.3 | 38.8 | 53.0 |
| LEMMA[ | 81.1 | 66.3 | 47.4 | 66.0 | 77.7 | 64.4 | 44.6 | 63.2 | 67.1 | 58.8 | 40.6 | 56.3 |
| TRMCC[ | 79.1 | 63.1 | 47.1 | 64.1 | 73.7 | 60.0 | 43.7 | 60.1 | 63.4 | 53.1 | 38.9 | 52.6 |
| DSRASRN[ | 80.9 | 64.6 | 46.2 | 65.0 | 75.4 | 62.6 | 45.6 | 62.1 | 61.6 | 53.6 | 38.6 | 52.0 |
| TextSR[ | 80.8 | 64.1 | 48.3 | 65.4 | 77.7 | 61.9 | 46.2 | 63.0 | 67.8 | 57.8 | 41.8 | 56.6 |
| LSPDiff (Ours) | 81.2 | 67.0 | 47.4 | 66.2 | 78.6 | 63.0 | 45.4 | 63.3 | 67.6 | 58.5 | 42.7 | 57.0 |
| HR | 94.2 | 87.7 | 76.2 | 86.6 | 91.2 | 85.3 | 74.2 | 84.1 | 76.4 | 75.1 | 64.6 | 72.4 |
| Method | PSNR | SSIM | Accuracy/% |
|---|---|---|---|
| TSRN[ | 21.42 | 0.769 1 | 51.5 |
| TATT[ | 21.52 | 0.793 0 | 58.6 |
| C3-STISR[ | 21.60 | 0.793 1 | 59.4 |
| DPMN (+TATT) [ | 21.49 | 0.792 5 | 59.2 |
| LEMMA[ | 22.09 | 0.754 9 | 62.3 |
| TSAN[ | 22.10 | 0.783 5 | 64.1 |
| TRMCC[ | 21.58 | 0.792 0 | 64.1 |
| DSRASRN[ | 21.69 | 0.7806 | 65.0 |
| LSPDiff (Ours) | 22.32 | 0.7922 | 66.2 |
表3 LSPDiff与SOTA模型在TextZoom对比
Table 3 Comparison of LSPDiff and SOTA models in TextZoom
| Method | PSNR | SSIM | Accuracy/% |
|---|---|---|---|
| TSRN[ | 21.42 | 0.769 1 | 51.5 |
| TATT[ | 21.52 | 0.793 0 | 58.6 |
| C3-STISR[ | 21.60 | 0.793 1 | 59.4 |
| DPMN (+TATT) [ | 21.49 | 0.792 5 | 59.2 |
| LEMMA[ | 22.09 | 0.754 9 | 62.3 |
| TSAN[ | 22.10 | 0.783 5 | 64.1 |
| TRMCC[ | 21.58 | 0.792 0 | 64.1 |
| DSRASRN[ | 21.69 | 0.7806 | 65.0 |
| LSPDiff (Ours) | 22.32 | 0.7922 | 66.2 |
| Exp. | LSGM | PPDM | PSNR | SSIM | Accuracy/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 LSGM | √ | × | 18.79 | 0.700 7 | 55.35 |
| 2 PPDM | × | √ | 21.40 | 0.721 7 | 60.50 |
| 3 LSGM+PPDM (Ours) | √ | √ | 22.32 | 0.792 2 | 66.20 |
表4 不同模型设计的效果
Table 4 Effects of different model designs
| Exp. | LSGM | PPDM | PSNR | SSIM | Accuracy/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 LSGM | √ | × | 18.79 | 0.700 7 | 55.35 |
| 2 PPDM | × | √ | 21.40 | 0.721 7 | 60.50 |
| 3 LSGM+PPDM (Ours) | √ | √ | 22.32 | 0.792 2 | 66.20 |
| Method | PSNR | SSIM | Accuracy/% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full (LSPDiff) | 22.32 | 0.792 2 | 81.20 |
| Uniform-D7 | 21.68 | 0.829 6 | 63.93 |
表5 尺度结构先验消融实验结果(easy子集)
Table 5 Ablation results of multi-scale structural prior on the easy subset
| Method | PSNR | SSIM | Accuracy/% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full (LSPDiff) | 22.32 | 0.792 2 | 81.20 |
| Uniform-D7 | 21.68 | 0.829 6 | 63.93 |
| Exp. | LSGM | PPDM | PSNR | SSIM | Accuracy/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Train | Train | 21.01 | 0.769 5 | 60.1 |
| 2 | Train | Frozen | 21.98 | 0.771 8 | 65.4 |
| 3 | Frozen | Train | 22.32 | 0.792 2 | 66.2 |
表6 LSGM和PPDM不同训练策略的性能比较
Table 6 Performance comparison of different training strategies for LSGM and PPDM
| Exp. | LSGM | PPDM | PSNR | SSIM | Accuracy/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Train | Train | 21.01 | 0.769 5 | 60.1 |
| 2 | Train | Frozen | 21.98 | 0.771 8 | 65.4 |
| 3 | Frozen | Train | 22.32 | 0.792 2 | 66.2 |
| Exp. | PSNR | SSIM | Accuracy/% | Time/s |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20.20 | 0.759 6 | 61.73 | 0.080 |
| 3 | 22.32 | 0.792 2 | 66.20 | 0.242 |
| 5 | 21.20 | 0.775 0 | 65.96 | 0.450 |
表7 LSPDiff中不同采样步长的性能比较
Table 7 Performance comparison of different sampling step sizes in LSPDiff
| Exp. | PSNR | SSIM | Accuracy/% | Time/s |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20.20 | 0.759 6 | 61.73 | 0.080 |
| 3 | 22.32 | 0.792 2 | 66.20 | 0.242 |
| 5 | 21.20 | 0.775 0 | 65.96 | 0.450 |
| [1] |
DONG C LOY, C C, HE K M, et al. Image super-resolution using deep convolutional networks[J]. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2016, 38(2): 295-307.
DOI PMID |
| [2] | LAI W S, HUANG J B, AHUJA N, et al. Deep Laplacian pyramid networks for fast and accurate super-resolution[C]// 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. New York: IEEE Press, 2017: 5835-5843. |
| [3] | ZHANG Y L, TIAN Y P, KONG Y, et al. Residual dense network for image super-resolution[C]// 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. New York: IEEE Press, 2018: 2472-2481. |
| [4] | MA J Q, LIANG Z T, ZHANG L. A text attention network for spatial deformation robust scene text image super- resolution[C]// 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. New York: IEEE Press, 2022: 5911-5920. |
| [5] | WANG W J, XIE E Z, LIU X B, et al. Scene text image super-resolution in the wild[C]// The 16th European Conference on Computer Vision. Cham: Springer, 2020: 650-666. |
| [6] | ZHAO M Y, WANG M, BAI F, et al. C3-STISR:scene text image super-resolution with triple clues[EB/OL]. [2025-11-08]. https://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/ijcai/ijcai2022.html#conf/ijcai/ZhaoW0LWZ22. |
| [7] | GUO H, DAI T, MENG G H, et al. Towards robust scene text image super-resolution via explicit location enhancement[EB/OL]. [2025-11-08]. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.24963/ijcai.2023/87. |
| [8] | FENG B T, SMITH J, RUBINSTEIN M, et al. Score-based diffusion models as principled priors for inverse imaging[C]// 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. New York: IEEE Press, 2023: 10486-10497. |
| [9] | XIA B, ZHANG Y L, WANG S Y, et al. DiffIR: efficient diffusion model for image restoration[C]// 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. New York: IEEE Press, 2023: 13095-13105. |
| [10] | HO J, JAIN A, ABBEEL P. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models[C]// The 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Red Hook: Curran Associates, Inc., 2020: 574. |
| [11] | HO J, SAHARIA C, CHAN W, et al. Cascaded diffusion models for high fidelity image generation[J]. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2022, 23(1): 47. |
| [12] | CHENG Z Z, XU Y L, BAI F, et al. AON: towards arbitrarily-oriented text recognition[C]// 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. New York: IEEE Press, 2018: 5571-5579. |
| [13] |
SHI B G, YANG M K, WANG X G, et al. ASTER: an attentional scene text recognizer with flexible rectification[J]. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2019, 41(9): 2035-2048.
DOI PMID |
| [14] |
SHI B G, BAI X, YAO C. An end-to-end trainable neural network for image-based sequence recognition and its application to scene text recognition[J]. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2017, 39(11): 2298-2304.
DOI PMID |
| [15] |
LUO C J, JIN L W, SUN Z H. MORAN: a multi-object rectified attention network for scene text recognition[J]. Pattern Recognition, 2019, 90: 109-118.
DOI URL |
| [16] | ZHAO C R, FENG S Y, ZHAO B N, et al. Scene text image super-resolution via parallelly contextual attention network[C]// The 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. New York: ACM, 2021: 2908-2917. |
| [17] |
MA J Q, GUO S, ZHANG L. Text prior guided scene text image super-resolution[J]. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2023, 32: 1341-1353.
DOI URL |
| [18] | ROMBACH R, BLATTMANN A, LORENZ D, et al. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models[C]// 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. New York: IEEE Press, 2022: 10684-10695. |
| [19] | SOHL-DICKSTEIN J, WEISS E A, MAHESWARANATHAN N, et al. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics[EB/OL]. [2025-11-08]. https://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/icml/icml2015.html#conf/icml/Sohl-DicksteinW15. |
| [20] |
LI H Y, YANG Y F, CHANG M, et al. SRDiff: single image super-resolution with diffusion probabilistic models[J]. Neurocomputing, 2022, 479: 47-59.
DOI URL |
| [21] | SAHARIA C, CHAN W, CHANG H W, et al. Palette: image-to-image diffusion models[C]// ACM SIGGRAPH 2022 Conference Proceedings. New York: ACM, 2022: 15. |
| [22] | WANG J Y, YUE Z S, ZHOU S C, et al. Exploiting diffusion prior for real-world image super-resolution[EB/OL]. [2025-11-08]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07015. |
| [23] | RONNEBERGER O, FISCHER P, BROX T. U-Net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation[C]// Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Cham: Springer, 2015: 234-241. |
| [24] | HUANG Z L, WANG X G, HUANG L C, et al. CCNet: criss-cross attention for semantic segmentation[C]// 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. New York: IEEE Press, 2019: 603-612. |
| [25] |
HUYNH-THU Q, GHANBARI M. Scope of validity of PSNR in image/video quality assessment[J]. Electronics Letters, 2008, 44(13): 800-801.
DOI URL |
| [26] |
WANG Z, BOVIK A C, SHEIKH H R, et al. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity[J]. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2004, 13(4): 600-612.
DOI PMID |
| [27] | ZHU X Y, GUO K H, FANG H, et al. Gradient-based graph attention for scene text image super-resolution[C]// The 37th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Washington: AAAI Press, 2023: 3861-3869. |
| [28] | KINGMA D P, BA J. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization[EB/OL]. [2025-11-08]. https://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/iclr/iclr2015.html#conf/iclr/KingmaB14. |
| [29] | LIU B L, YANG Z Y, WANG P F, et al. TextDiff: mask-guided residual diffusion models for scene text image super-resolution[EB/OL]. [2025-11-08]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06743. |
| [30] | LEDIG C, THEIS L, HUSZÁR F, et al. Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a generative adversarial network[C]// 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. New York: IEEE Press, 2017: 4681-4690. |
| [31] | ZHANG Y L, LI K P, LI K, et al. Image super-resolution using very deep residual channel attention networks[C]// The 15th European Conference on Computer Vision. Cham: Springer, 2018: 286-301. |
| [32] | CHEN J Y, LI B, XUE X Y. Scene text telescope: text-focused scene image super-resolution[C]// 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. New York: IEEE Press, 2021: 12026-12035. |
| [33] | DAI T, CAI J, ZHANG Y B, et al. Second-Order Attention Network for Single Image Super-Resolution[C]// 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. New York: IEEE Press, 2019: 11065-11074. |
| [34] | ZHU S P, ZHAO Z Y, FANG P F, et al. Improving scene text image super-resolution via dual prior modulation network[C]// The AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Washington: AAAI, 2023: 3843-3851. |
| [35] |
YU L, LI X J, YU Q, et al. Scene text image super-resolution via textual reasoning and multiscale cross-convolution[J]. Applied Intelligence, 2024, 54(2): 1997-2008.
DOI |
| [36] |
李大海, 吕春桂, 王振东. 基于双分支序列残差注意力的场景文本图像超分辨率重建[J]. 计算机工程, 2024, 50(9): 286-295.
DOI |
|
LI D H, LÜ C G, WANG Z D. Scene text image super-resolution reconstruction based on dual-branched sequence residual attention[J]. Computer Engineering, 2024, 50(9): 286-295 (in Chinese).
DOI |
|
| [37] | YE K R, GARCIA DORADO I, RAPTIS M, et al. TextSR: diffusion super-resolution with multilingual OCR guidance[EB/OL]. [2025-11-08]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23119. |
| [1] | 于冰, 金桢桢, 狄悠娴, 孙昊睿, 丁友东, 黄东晋. 基于语义引导区域自适应的三维高斯场景局部纹理编辑[J]. 图学学报, 2026, 47(5): 1072-1083. |
| [2] | 赵振兵, 张靖梁, 唐辰康, 毕雨轩, 李浩鹏. 面向积水干扰的变电设备渗漏油精准分割方法[J]. 图学学报, 2026, 47(2): 296-310. |
| [3] | 陈梦琪, 赵俊莉, 邓晓丹. 基于大模型的皮肤病图像掩膜生成与分割[J]. 图学学报, 2026, 47(2): 322-331. |
| [4] | 周金, 周一, 徐鹏飞, 黄惠. PDF-Sketch:基于笔画段距离场与离散扩散的布局式草图生成方法[J]. 图学学报, 2026, 47(2): 380-389. |
| [5] | 刘景豪, 游振国, 杜冬. 基于潜在扩散模型的CAD条件生成[J]. 图学学报, 2026, 47(2): 390-401. |
| [6] | 叶文龙, 陈斌. PanoLoRA:基于Stable Diffusion的全景图像生成的高效微调方法[J]. 图学学报, 2025, 46(5): 980-989. |
| [7] | 雷松林, 赵征鹏, 阳秋霞, 普园媛, 谷金晶, 徐丹. 基于可解耦扩散模型的零样本风格迁移[J]. 图学学报, 2025, 46(4): 727-738. |
| [8] | 孙禾衣, 李艺潇, 田希, 张松海. 结合程序内容生成与扩散模型的图像到三维瓷瓶生成技术[J]. 图学学报, 2025, 46(2): 332-344. |
| [9] | 李纪远, 管哲予, 宋海川, 谭鑫, 马利庄. 人在环路的细分行业logo生成方法[J]. 图学学报, 2025, 46(2): 382-392. |
| [10] | 涂晴昊, 李元琪, 刘一凡, 过洁, 郭延文. 基于扩散模型的文本生成材质贴图的泛化性优化方法[J]. 图学学报, 2025, 46(1): 139-149. |
| [11] | 张冀, 崔文帅, 张荣华, 王文彬, 李亚琦. 基于关键视图的文本驱动3D场景编辑方法[J]. 图学学报, 2024, 45(4): 834-844. |
| [12] | 王吉, 王森, 蒋智文, 谢志峰, 李梦甜. 基于深度条件扩散模型的零样本文本驱动虚拟人生成方法[J]. 图学学报, 2023, 44(6): 1218-1226. |
| [13] | 袁建平 1, 陈晓龙 1, 陈显龙 1, 何恩杰 1, 张加其 2, 高宇豆 2 . 基于文本与视觉信息的细粒度图像分类[J]. 图学学报, 2019, 40(3): 503-512. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||