Table 4 Evaluation of different fusion strategies for combining dual-stream features. Progressive fusion with attention shows optimal performance.
From: Bilateral collaborative streams with multi-modal attention network for accurate polyp segmentation
Fusion strategy | Endoscene | ClinicDB | ColonDB | ETIS | Kvasir-SEG | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Simple concatenation | 0.863 | 0.912 | 0.771 | 0.742 | 0.897 | 0.837 |
Element-wise addition | 0.869 | 0.918 | 0.778 | 0.748 | 0.903 | 0.843 |
Feature pyramid network | 0.881 | 0.925 | 0.789 | 0.761 | 0.911 | 0.853 |
Progressive fusion | ||||||
Without attention | 0.887 | 0.931 | 0.796 | 0.773 | 0.916 | 0.861 |
With PAB only | 0.902 | 0.936 | 0.807 | 0.785 | 0.923 | 0.871 |
With CBAM only | 0.895 | 0.933 | 0.801 | 0.778 | 0.920 | 0.865 |
With PAB + CBAM | 0.908 | 0.941 | 0.821 | 0.810 | 0.929 | 0.882 |