A Comparative Analysis of U-Net, PSPNet, AND FPNet: Deep Learning Techniques for Image Segmentation
With applications ranging from environmental monitoring to autonomous driving and medical imaging, image segmentation is a crucial problem in computer vision. It involves partitioning images into meaningful regions to assist in object detection and classification. Traditional methods struggle to capture complex features, while deep learning techniques excel by learning hierarchical representations, leading to greater accuracy and efficiency. This paper provides a detailed comparison of three deep learning-based segmentation models: U-Net, PSPNet, and FPN (Feature Pyramid Network), focusing on how each one tackles pixel-wise classification in unique ways. U-Net’s encoder-decoder architecture with skip connections is well-suited for tasks that require precise boundary delineation, while PSPNet’s pyramid pooling captures global context at multiple scales, and FPN constructs feature pyramids to handle multi-scale object detection and segmentation. We assess the strengths and weaknesses of these models in terms of architecture, computational efficiency, and performance on benchmark datasets. Metrics such as accuracy, Intersection-over-Union (IoU), and computational time reveal that U-Net is especially effective for tasks requiring precise localization, whereas PSPNet and FPN excel at managing complex, multi-scale features. This analysis highlights the importance of choosing the right model for specific segmentation challenges and explores ideas for future improvements, such as combining model features for better performance. Practical applications in fields like autonomous systems and medical imaging are also discussed.
Authors
- Rashmi Benni
- C. Tejas
- Dileep M Upare
- Tarun Y Baddi
- Mohit Netrakar
Institutions
- KLE Technological University (IN)
Publication Details
- Published
- 2024-11-20
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1109/icei64305.2024.10912308
- Citations
- 2
- Primary Topic
- Medical Imaging and Analysis
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.37