MineSSM is a efficient design that routes each band to the operator it needs: a linear-complexity state-space model (Mamba) that homogenizes the global illumination and a lightweight convolutional branch that performs dust suppression on the high-frequency bands, so that no heavy operator ever runs at full resolution.
Abstract
Safety monitoring and visual surveillance in underground coal mines must cope with extreme low light and pervasive coal dust, yet the most accurate low-light image enhancement models rely on self-attention, whose quadratic cost precludes real-time use on the edge-computing platforms deployed underground, such as inspection robots and explosion-proof cameras. Our key observation is that these two degradations are separable by a wavelet decomposition: the low-frequency band carries the illumination to be corrected, whereas dust-induced noise is largely confined to the high-frequency bands. MineSSM turns this observation into an efficient design that routes each band to the operator it needs: a linear-complexity state-space model (Mamba) that homogenizes the global illumination and a lightweight convolutional branch that performs dust suppression on the high-frequency bands, so that no heavy operator ever runs at full resolution, and the two branches are recomposed under a Retinex constraint for faithful color restoration. A frequency-domain analysis of a real dusty mining frame confirms this split, with the smooth veil and lamp glow in the low-frequency band and the discrete dust speckles in the high-frequency bands. MineSSM surpasses the Transformer-based MEFormer on the MELOL mining dataset (26.58 dB PSNR/0.96 SSIM vs. 26.34 dB/0.91 SSIM) and attains the best PSNR and SSIM on the LOLv1 benchmark, while running at 27.8 FPS (0.036 s per 400×600 image) on a desktop GPU with linear resolution scaling. On an embedded NVIDIA Jetson Orin NX it sustains 8.0 FPS at 400×600, supporting near-real-time on-device enhancement at typical surveillance resolutions.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.
M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 401 citations· ⚡48
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The perception of the impact of agile methods is predominantly positive, and several challenge areas were discovered, but based on this study, agile methods are here to stay.
M. Laanti, O. Salo, P. Abrahamsson· Information and Software Tec...· 260 citations· ⚡20
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 8, 2026
Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity. The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.