Physics-guided networks for underwater image restoration predict transmission and backscatter and invert the image-formation model, yet rarely test whether this physics does any work. We audit one representative design, PhysGuide-Net, with four controlled experiments: five-seed ablations on UIEB with zero-shot evaluation on the complete LSUI (4279 pairs) and AUIED3K (3000 pairs) sets; a data-efficiency study with a capacity-matched control that removes the formation model; and a validation of the predicted maps against measured range on Sea-thru. With all 800 training images the physics module gives no zero-shot gain (mean PSNR differences of at most 0.16 dB; all 95% intervals include zero) at 3.4x the FLOPs. With 80 images it helps more (+0.65 dB on UIEB, +1.48 dB on AUIED3K; seed-to-seed s.d. on AUIED3K from 1.3 to 0.5 dB), although not individually significant after correction, and the control does not reproduce this (0.8-1.0 dB lower). Yet the predicted transmission does not behave like a physical quantity: its correlation with range is no stronger than for the range map of a different image (pooled difference +0.02, versus -0.06 for the dark-channel prior), and a Beer-Lambert fit explains 0.4% of its variance. The effect of the module also changes sign with degradation severity between datasets. The benefit thus comes from a physics-shaped inductive bias, not from physics. We further show that single-run ablations can reverse sign and document implementation defects that invalidate loss ablations.

翻译：暂无翻译