Digital prediction of ancient ceramic images missing areas based on deep adversarial and reverse diffusion
Source abstract
Abstract
Ancient ceramics are subjected to natural disasters, temporal erosion, and other environmental impacts. These historical ceramics exhibit particular vulnerability to glaze wear, disc damage, and fragmentation phenomena. Such degradation frequently results in ceramic images with missing texture, blurred patterns and other issues. To address these challenges, a digital prediction for missing areas in ancient ceramic images through a coupled deep adversarial and reverse diffusion method is proposed. Using deep adversarial patterns prediction and reverse diffusion complementary prediction to construct characteristic equations for patterns and complementary prediction in ancient ceramics. Experimental results demonstrate that model achieves a discriminator loss of 0.620, with MSE and LPIPS metrics reaching 0.0137 and 0.0166, respectively. The proposed method enables effective prediction of missing regions in ancient ceramic images, providing valuable insights into the artifacts’ historical context and cultural significance. This advancement holds substantial implications for both the preservation and interpretative transmission of cultural heritage.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Image Processing and 3D Reconstruction · Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis · Digital Media Forensic Detection
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (23)
Show source-provided references
1. Li, J. Semantic segmentation-based adaptive mining algorithm for ceramic cultural resource data. Mob. Inf. Syst.2022, 2815077 (2022).
2. Criado-Boado, F. et al. Gazed pottery: an archaeometric-cognitive approach to material culture visuality. J. Archaeol. Sci. 154, 105770 (2023).10.1016/j.jas.2023.105770 ↗
3. Heimann, R. B. On the nature of ceramics technology: from Empedocles to Dawkins. Archaeometry 67, 55–71 (2025).10.1111/arcm.12997 ↗
4. VanValkenburgh, P., Kelloway, S. J., Privat, K. L., Sillar, B. & Quilter, J. Rethinking cultural hybridity and technology transfer: SEM microstructural analysis of lead glazed ceramics from early colonial Peru. J. Archaeol. Sci. 82, 17–30 (2017).10.1016/j.jas.2017.04.007 ↗
5. Zheng, B. et al. Image captioning for cultural artworks: a case study on ceramics. Multimed. Syst. 29, 3223–3243 (2023).10.1007/s00530-023-01178-8 ↗
6. Limp, W. F. & Williamson, M. D. Strategies for international travel with “high-tech” archaeological field equipment. Adv. Archaeol. Pract. 5, 382–387 (2017).10.1017/aap.2017.24 ↗
7. Derech, N., Tal, A. & Shimshoni, I. Solving archaeological puzzles. Pattern Recognit. 119, 108065 (2021).10.1016/j.patcog.2021.108065 ↗
8. Guerneve, T., Subr, K. & Petillot, Y. Three-dimensional reconstruction of underwater objects using wide-aperture imaging SONAR. J. Field Robot. 35, 890–905 (2018).10.1002/rob.21783 ↗
9. Sha, G. et al. Mobile phone imaging point cloud modelling for 3D recording and measurement of small scenes of suspected fossil outcrops found in the field. Geoheritage 15, 33 (2023).10.1007/s12371-022-00780-y ↗
10. Lassandro, P., Fioriello, C. S., Lepore, M. & Zonno, M. Analysing, modelling and promoting tangible and intangible values of building heritage with historic flame lighting system. J. Cult. Herit. 47, 166–179 (2021).10.1016/j.culher.2020.09.013 ↗
11. Argyrou, A., Agapiou, A., Papakonstantinou, A. & Alexakis, D. D. Comparison of machine learning pixel-based classifiers for detecting archaeological ceramics. Drones 7, 578 (2023).10.3390/drones7090578 ↗
12. Fan, J. et al. Development, calibration, and image processing of underwater structured light vision system: a survey. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 72, 1–18 (2023).
13. Gao, Q., Long, T. & Zhou, Z. Mineral identification based on natural feature-oriented image processing and multi-label image classification. Expert Syst. Appl. 238, 122111 (2024).10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122111 ↗
14. Luo, L., Wang, X. & Guo, H. Transitioning from remote sensing archaeology to space archaeology: towards a paradigm shift. Remote Sens. Environ. 308, 114200 (2024).10.1016/j.rse.2024.114200 ↗
15. Kokalj, Ž. et al. Machine learning-ready remote sensing data for Maya archaeology. Sci. Data 10, 558 (2023).10.1038/s41597-023-02455-x ↗
16. Küçükdemirci, M. & Sarris, A. GPR data processing and interpretation based on artificial intelligence approaches: Future perspectives for archaeological prospection. Remote Sens. 14, 3377 (2022).10.3390/rs14143377 ↗
17. Jin, X., Wang, X. & Xue, C. Nondestructive characterization and artificial intelligence recognition of acoustic identifiers of ancient ceramics. Herit. Sci. 11, 144 (2023).10.1186/s40494-023-00990-9 ↗
18. Zhang, X., Zhai, D., Li, T., Zhou, Y. & Lin, Y. Image inpainting based on deep learning: a review. Inf. Fusion 90, 74–94 (2023).10.1016/j.inffus.2022.08.033 ↗
19. Xiang, H. et al. Deep learning for image inpainting: a survey. Pattern Recognit. 134, 109046 (2023).10.1016/j.patcog.2022.109046 ↗
20. Wang, Q., Wang, Z., Zhang, X. & Feng, G. Art image inpainting with style-guided dual-branch inpainting network. IEEE Trans. Multimed. 26, 8026–8037 (2024).10.1109/TMM.2024.3374963 ↗
21. Liao, J., Zhang, J., Ye, L. & Wei, X. Cross-attention and cycle-consistency-based haptic to image inpainting. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 31, 1650–1654 (2024).10.1109/LSP.2024.3414949 ↗
22. Ma, X. et al. Uncertainty-aware image inpainting with adaptive feedback network. Expert Syst. Appl. 235, 121148 (2024).10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121148 ↗
23. Wan, W. & Liu, J. Nonlocal patches based Gaussian mixture model for image inpainting. Appl. Math. Model. 87, 317–331 (2020).10.1016/j.apm.2020.05.030 ↗