Algorithm evaluation demonstrates enhanced visible-thermal point correspondence matching across diverse atmospheric conditions, highlighting improved multi-sensor fusion robustness.
Visible-light-to-thermal-infrared feature matching is essential for multi-sensor fusion but remains challenging because of substantial modality discrepancies in image-formation mechanisms, texture statistics, and structural responses. Existing coarse-to-fine frameworks such as XoFTR improve cross-modal matching, yet their cross-modal interaction is concentrated primarily in the Transformer matching stage, leaving stage-wise error propagation insufficiently addressed. This study presents XoFTR++, a dual-stage cross-modal enhancement framework for visible–thermal correspondence matching. At the coarse stage, Cross-Modal Feature Enhancement (CMFE), Adaptive Feature Pyramid Fusion (AFPF), and Coarse-Level Transformer Enhancement (CLTE) are introduced to reduce early modality shifts, inject multi-scale semantic context into fine features, and improve coarse-candidate reliability. At the fine stage, Fine-Level Cross-Modal Attention Enhancement (FCAE) models local context, modality differences, and bidirectional window interactions to reduce local matching ambiguity before final similarity estimation. On METU-VisTIR under RANSAC = 1.5, XoFTR + + improves AUC@5/10/20 from 12.31 ± 0.62/28.03 ± 0.52/44.92 ± 0.49 to 15.07 ± 0.44/29.95 ± 1.32/47.14 ± 1.28 in Sunny–Cloudy scenes, and from 22.05 ± 1.72/39.11 ± 1.63/54.96 ± 1.59 to 23.28 ± 0.52/41.02 ± 1.04/57.13 ± 1.21 in Cloudy–Cloudy scenes, with a 10.29% parameter increase. Controlled ablations and stage-wise diagnostics support the complementary contributions of the four modules. A separate synthetic-homography evaluation on the public FusionDN RoadScene and MSRS datasets improves aggregate AUC@5/10/20 and reduces mean corner error, providing supplementary transfer evidence under the specified external protocol.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qiao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: