An Adaptive Non-Reference Approach for Characterizing and Assessing Image Quality in Multichannel GPR for Automatic Hyperbola Detection
Source abstract
Abstract
The automation of the detection infrastructure in GPR imagery is a key issue, particularly in the context of the non-invasive acquisition of radargrams with a multi-antenna ground-penetrating radar. Due to the fact that the dataset acquired with a multi-antenna GPR is very large, in the context of automating the process of detecting hyperbolas, the authors have proposed an adaptive approach to the selection of GPR images. The aim of this project was to develop a method for the selection of GPR images by means of applying the appropriate quality indicators. The authors propose a new, adaptive approach to the selection of radargrams that were recorded during the route of a GPR in a single profile, where several radargrams were recorded. Depending on the obtained initial values of the standard indicators for the assessment of the quality and quality maps of the radargrams, those images from selected channels that will ensure the highest possible quality and efficiency of hyperbola detection were selected. The stage of image quality assessment is essential in the context of improving the effectiveness of the automated detection of underground infrastructure. The quality assessment was performed based on the entropy indicator, PIQE, and Laplacian variance. The selected quality indicators allowed the authors to assess the degree of blurring, noise, and the number of details representing the underground structures that are present in GPR images. An additional product of the quality assessment were the generated maps that present the distribution of entropy in the analyzed images. The image selection was verified based on the results of the parameters that assess the effectiveness of the detection of hyperbolas that represent underground networks. The proposed innovative adaptive approach to the selection of images acquired by GPR enabled a significant improvement in the efficiency of the detection of hyperbolas representing underground utility networks, by 15–40%, shortening data processing and infrastructure detection times.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Geophysical Methods and Applications · Microwave Imaging and Scattering Analysis · Sparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Imagery Intelligence, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geodesy, Military University of Technology (WAT), 00-908 Warsaw, Poland
Faculty of Geo-Data Science, Geodesy, and Environmental, AGH University of Krakow, al. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Cracow, Poland
Funding
Military University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geodesy · IDUB
References (59)
Show source-provided references
1. Enhancing Reinforced Concrete Bridge Health Monitoring: A Case Study on the Integration of InSAR, GPR, and LiDAR within 3D GIS Environment
2. Zhang, X., Pei, J., Liu, H., You, Q., Zhang, H., Yao, L., and Song, Z. (2024). Three-Dimensional Subsurface Pipe Network Survey and Target Identification Using Ground-Penetrating Radar: A Case Study at Jilin Jianzhu University Campus. Appl. Sci., 14.10.3390/app14167293 ↗
3. Cozzolino, M., Gentile, V., Mauriello, P., and Peditrou, A. (2020). Non-Destructive Techniques for Building Evaluation in Urban Areas: The Case Study of the Redesigning Project of Eleftheria Square (Nicosia, Cyprus). Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10124296 ↗
4. Zastosowanie Metody Georadarowej w Badaniach Konstrukcji Podłogi Posadowionej Na Gruncie
5. (2024, November 29). Zarys Metody Georadarowej. Wydawnictwo AGH. Available online: https://www.wydawnictwo.agh.edu.pl/produkt/218-zarys-metody-georadarowej.
6. Onyszko, K., and Fryśkowska-Skibniewska, A. (2021). A New Methodology for the Detection and Extraction of Hyperbolas in GPR Images. Remote Sens., 13.10.3390/rs13234892 ↗
7. GPR surveying method as a tool for geodetic verification of GESUT database of utilities in the light of BSI PAS12810.2478/rgg-2019-0006 ↗
8. Gerea, A.G., and Mihai, A.E. (2024). Exploring the Ground-Penetrating Radar Technique’s Effectiveness in Diagnosing Hydropower Dam Crest Conditions: Insights from Gura Apelor and Herculane Dams, Romania. Appl. Sci., 14.10.3390/app14167212 ↗
9. Enhanced Breast Tumor Localization with DRA Antenna Backscattering and GPR Algorithm in Microwave Imaging10.1016/j.rineng.2024.103044 ↗
10. New Asphalt Pavement Dielectric Constant Inversion Net Based on Improved Gated Attention for Ground Penetrating Radar10.1109/TGRS.2024.3496881 ↗
11. Tassiopoulou, S., and Koukiou, G. (2024). Fusing Ground-Penetrating Radar Images for Improving Image Characteristics Fidelity. Appl. Sci., 14.10.3390/app14156808 ↗
12. FM-GAN: Forward Modeling Network for Generating Approaching-Reality B-Scans of GPR Pipelines With Transformer Tuning
13. Wang, L., Liu, Z., Gu, X., and Wang, D. (2025). Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Road Structural Defects Using GPR Investigation and Back-Projection Algorithm. Sensors, 25.10.3390/s25010162 ↗
14. Esposito, G., Catapano, I., Soldovieri, F., and Gennarelli, G. (2024, January 14-19). Quantitative GPR Imaging via U-NET. Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation and INC/USNC-URSI Radio Science Meeting (AP-S/INC-USNC-URSI), Florence, Italy.10.1109/AP-S/INC-USNC-URSI52054.2024.10687135 ↗
15. Diagnostyka stanu podłoża i podtorza kolejowego metodą georadarową (GPR)
16. GPR Imaging Criteria10.1016/j.jappgeo.2019.04.008 ↗
17. Anomaly Detection via Improvement of GPR Image Quality Using Ensemble Restoration Networks10.1016/j.autcon.2024.105552 ↗
18. Kong, L., Ikusan, A., Dai, R., and Zhu, J. (2019, January 28–30). Blind Image Quality Prediction for Object Detection. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Conference on Multimedia Information Processing and Retrieval (MIPR), San Jose, CA, USA.10.1109/MIPR.2019.00046 ↗
19. Abaza, A., Harrison, M.A., and Bourlai, T. (2012, January 11–15). Quality Metrics for Practical Face Recognition. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR2012), Tsukuba, Japan.
20. Irvine, J.M., and Nelson, E. (2009, January 13–14). Image Quality and Performance Modeling for Automated Target Detection. Proceedings of the Automatic Target Recognition XIX, SPIE, Orlando, FL, USA.10.1117/12.818593 ↗
21. Lin, H.-I., and Lin, P.-Y. (2020, January 3–6). An Image Quality Assessment Method for Surface Defect Inspection. Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference On Artificial Intelligence Testing (AITest), Oxford, UK.10.1109/AITEST49225.2020.00008 ↗
22. Iftimie, N., Savin, A., Steigmann, R., and Dobrescu, G.S. (2021). Underground Pipeline Identification into a Non-Destructive Case Study Based on Ground-Penetrating Radar Imaging. Remote Sens., 13.10.3390/rs13173494 ↗
23. A No-Reference Objective Image Sharpness Metric Based on the Notion of Just Noticeable Blur (JNB)10.1109/TIP.2008.2011760 ↗
24. Huang, Y.-M.R., Xu, C., Cheng, K.-S., Yang, J.-F.K., Swamy, M.N.S., Li, S., and Ding, J.-W. (2008). A No-Reference Blocking Artifacts Metric Using Selective Gradient and Plainness Measures. Advances in Multimedia Information Processing-PCM 2008, Proceedings of the 9th Pacific Rim Conference on Multimedia, Tainan, Taiwan, 9–13 December 2008, Springer.10.1007/978-3-540-89796-5 ↗
25. Narvekar, N.D., and Karam, L.J. (2009, January 29–31). A No-Reference Perceptual Image Sharpness Metric Based on a Cumulative Probability of Blur Detection. Proceedings of the 2009 International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience, San Diego, CA, USA.10.1109/QOMEX.2009.5246972 ↗
26. No-Reference Visually Significant Blocking Artifact Metric for Natural Scene Images10.1016/j.sigpro.2009.02.007 ↗
27. Reduced-Reference Image Quality Assessment in Free-Energy Principle and Sparse Representation10.1109/TMM.2017.2729020 ↗
28. Dual-Quality Map Based No Reference Image Quality Assessment Using Deformable Convolution10.1016/j.dsp.2022.103398 ↗
29. Free-Energy Principle Inspired Visual Quality Assessment: An Overview10.1016/j.dsp.2019.02.017 ↗
30. TSPR: Deep Network-Based Blind Image Quality Assessment Using Two-Side Pseudo Reference Images10.1016/j.dsp.2020.102849 ↗
31. Blind Quality Assessment for Screen Content Images by Combining Local and Global Features10.1016/j.dsp.2018.12.004 ↗
32. Blind Image Quality Assessment with Hierarchy: Degradation from Local Structure to Deep Semantics10.1016/j.jvcir.2018.12.005 ↗
33. DeepSim: Deep Similarity for Image Quality Assessment10.1016/j.neucom.2017.01.054 ↗
34. An Advanced Scheme for Range Ambiguity Suppression of Spaceborne SAR Based on Blind Source Separation10.1109/TGRS.2022.3184709 ↗
35. Li, P., Bai, M., Li, X., and Liu, C. (2024). Research on the Forward Simulation and Intelligent Detection of Defects in Highways Using Ground-Penetrating Radar. Appl. Sci., 14.10.3390/app142210183 ↗
36. Hyperbola Detection of Ground Penetrating Radar Using Deep Learning10.1063/5.0194124 ↗
37. Hyperbolic Attention-Driven Deep Networks for Enhanced GPR Imaging of Underground Pipelines
38. Bugarinović, Ž., Gavrilović, M., Ristic, A., Šarkanović Bugarinović, M., Radulović, A., and Govedarica, M. (2024). Detection of Hyperbolic Reflections on Real GPR Data Using YOLO Model Trained with Synthetic Data, IEEE.10.1109/TSP63128.2024.10605917 ↗
39. Locate Hyperbolas on Ground Penetrating Radar Slices with Auto Filter Selection Algorithm10.1088/1755-1315/1349/1/012002 ↗
40. Automatic Classification of Pavement Distress Using 3D Ground-Penetrating Radar and Deep Convolutional Neural Network10.1109/TITS.2022.3197712 ↗
41. Automatic Recognition of Tunnel Lining Elements from GPR Images Using Deep Convolutional Networks with Data Augmentation10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103830 ↗
42. Automatic Detection of Moisture Damages in Asphalt Pavements from GPR Data with Deep CNN and IRS Method10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103119 ↗
43. A Novel 3D GPR Image Arrangement for Deep Learning-Based Underground Object Classification10.1080/10298436.2019.1645846 ↗
44. Automatic Recognition of Pavement Cracks from Combined GPR B-Scan and C-Scan Images Using Multiscale Feature Fusion Deep Neural Networks10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104698 ↗
45. Automatic Recognition and Localization of Underground Pipelines in GPR B-Scans Using a Deep Learning Model10.1016/j.tust.2022.104861 ↗
46. Birkenfeld, S. (2010, January 19–23). Automatic Detection of Reflexion Hyperbolas in Gpr Data with Neural Networks. Proceedings of the 2010 World Automation Congress, Kobe, Japan.
47. Detection and Localization of Rebar in Concrete by Deep Learning Using Ground Penetrating Radar10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103279 ↗
48. Automatic Hyperbola Detection and Fitting in GPR B-Scan Image10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102839 ↗
49. Learning a No-Reference Quality Assessment Model of Enhanced Images With Big Data10.1109/TNNLS.2017.2649101 ↗
50. Gabryś, M., and Ortyl, Ł. (2020). Georeferencing of Multi-Channel GPR—Accuracy and Efficiency of Mapping of Underground Utility Networks. Remote Sens., 12.10.3390/rs12182945 ↗
51. Karsznia, K.R., Onyszko, K., and Borkowska, S. (2021). Accuracy Tests and Precision Assessment of Localizing Underground Utilities Using GPR Detection. Sensors, 21.10.3390/s21206765 ↗
52. Automatic Classification of Underground Utilities in Urban Areas: A Novel Method Combining Ground Penetrating Radar and Image Processing10.24425/ace.2024.149851 ↗
53. Pavement Lane Marking Detection Using Matched Filter10.1016/j.measurement.2018.07.089 ↗
54. A Robust QRS Detection Using Novel Pre-Processing Techniques and Kurtosis Based Enhanced Efficiency10.1016/j.measurement.2016.03.015 ↗
55. No-Reference Image Contrast Quality Assessment Based on the Degree of Uniformity in Probability Distribution
56. Venkatanath, N., Praneeth, D., Bh, M.C., Channappayya, S.S., and Medasani, S.S. (2015, January 27). Blind Image Quality Evaluation Using Perception Based Features. Proceedings of the 2015 Twenty First National Conference on Communications (NCC), Mumbai, India.10.1109/NCC.2015.7084843 ↗
57. (2024, December 06). Laboratory for Image and Video Engineering. The University of Texas at Austin. Available online: https://live.ece.utexas.edu/research/quality/subjective.htm.
58. Image Quality Assesment Based on NIQE, PIQE, GLCM, and LBP Using SVM
59. Making a “Completely Blind” Image Quality Analyzer10.1109/LSP.2012.2227726 ↗