Table 3 Ablation experiments results of different components of the proposed model.
Components | Criteria | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean IoU | Mean Accuracy | Mean Precision | Mean Recall | Mean Specificity | Mean F1-score | Mean F-boundary | |
(Simplified Swin-T)+ (1-head Cross Attention) | 87.5% | 89.74% | 88.1% | 87.9% | 89.2% | 88.6% | 76.8% |
(Modified EFS-Net) )+ (1-head Cross Attention) | 85.2% | 87.42% | 85.8% | 85.5% | 86.48% | 85.6% | 78.5% |
(Simplified Swin-T)+ (Modified EFS-Net) )+ (1-head Cross Attention) | 92.8% | 94.83% | 93.5% | 93.1% | 93.97% | 93.3% | 79.8% |
(Simplified Swin-T)+ (Modified EFS-Net) )+ (3-head Cross Attention) | 96.3% | 97.31% | 96.9% | 96.6% | 97.27% | 96.7% | 80.9% |
(Simplified Swin-T)+ (Modified EFS-Net) )+ (1-head Cross Attention)+CBAM = proposed method | 98.44% | 99.5% | 98.98% | 98.52% | 99.1% | 98.74% | 82.01% |
