# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

• Previous Article
Lipschitz stability for an inverse source problem in anisotropic parabolic equations with dynamic boundary conditions
• EECT Home
• This Issue
• Next Article
Boundary null-controllability of coupled parabolic systems with Robin conditions
doi: 10.3934/eect.2020084

## A nonlocal Weickert type PDE applied to multi-frame super-resolution

 1 LAMAI, FST Marrakech, Université Cadi Ayyad, Maroc 2 FP Ouarzazate, Université Ibn Zohr, Maroc 3 LAMAI, FST Marrakech, Université Cadi Ayyad, Maroc 4 LMA FST Béni-Mellal, Université Sultan Moulay Slimane, Maroc

* Corresponding author: F. Ait Bella

Received  December 2019 Revised  May 2020 Published  August 2020

In this paper, we propose a nonlocal Weickert type PDE for the multiframe super-resolution task. The proposed PDE can not only preserve singularities and edges while smoothing, but also can keep safe the texture much better. This PDE is based on the nonlocal setting of the anisotropic diffusion behavior by constructing a nonlocal term of Weickert type, which is known by its coherence enhancing diffusion tensor properties. A mathematical study concerning the well-posedness of the nonlocal PDE is also investigated with an appropriate choice of the functional space. This PDE has demonstrated its efficiency by combining the diffusion process of Perona-Malik in the flat regions and the anisotropic diffusion of the Weickert model near strong edges, as well as the ability of the non-local term to preserve the texture. The elaborated experimental results give a great insight into the effectiveness of the proposed nonlocal PDE compared to some PDEs, visually and quantitatively.

Citation: Fatimzehrae Ait Bella, Aissam Hadri, Abdelilah Hakim, Amine Laghrib. A nonlocal Weickert type PDE applied to multi-frame super-resolution. Evolution Equations & Control Theory, doi: 10.3934/eect.2020084
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
Some possible configurations for $\Omega$ and $\Omega_I$
The denoising result of the restored "Square" image whit Gaussian noise (parameter $\sigma^2 = 0.03$)
The denoising result of the restored "Cercle" image whith the Gaussian noise (parameter $\sigma = 0.04$)
The denoising result of the restored "Motif" image when the impulse noise is neglected (parameter $\sigma = 0.03$)
The super-resolution results of our model when the Gaussian noise is considered with $\sigma^2 = 0.03$ and comparisons with other SR models for the "Butterfly" image
Super-resolution results of our model when $\sigma^2 = 0.04$, and comparisons with other models for the "Penguin" image
The super-resolution results of our model when the Gaussian noise is considered with $\sigma^2 = 0.05$ and comparisons with other models for the "Build" image
The super-resolution results of the sequence "Cash-box". The btained PSNR values for these methods are depicated such as : SRCN (32.77), LRSC (33.27), SBM3D (33.88), Our (33.79)
The super-resolution results of the sequence "Satellite". The btained PSNR values for these methods are depicated such as : SRCN (25.11), LRSC (25.29), SBM3D (25.58), Our (26.08)
The super-resolution results of the video sequence "Text"
The super-resolution results of the video sequence "Bar-code" image
The super-resolution results of the video sequence "Wheel"
The PSNR results of different SR methods for selected images. Note that we used a benchmark of $30$ images in our tests and present only ten in this table
 Image $\sigma^2$ noise SR method NPDE NTPDE NLPDE FOPDE TALS Our Butterfly $\sigma^2=0.03$ 29.33 29.11 30.12 31.02 31.06 32.54 Penguin $\sigma^2=0.04$ 27.88 28.29 28.52 29.04 29.21 29.90 Build $\sigma^2=0.05$ 25.33 25.06 25.83 26.52 27.44 28.03 Barbara $\sigma^2=0.06$ 24.66 25.60 26.42 26.74 28.03 28.10 Pirate $\sigma^2=0.02$ 30.12 30.87 31.02 31.86 32.10 32.53 Lena $\sigma^2=0.04$ 29.44 30.12 30.06 31.17 30.54 31.50 Cameraman $\sigma^2=0.01$ 30.06 30.97 30.52 31.11 31.74 32.86 Baboon $\sigma^2=0.02$ 30.10 30.22 31.08 31.16 31.99 32.40 Fly $\sigma^2=0.03$ 29.44 29.70 30.16 30.22 30.76 31.05 Horses $\sigma^2=0.01$ 29.88 30.44 30.77 30.49 31.42 32.20
 Image $\sigma^2$ noise SR method NPDE NTPDE NLPDE FOPDE TALS Our Butterfly $\sigma^2=0.03$ 29.33 29.11 30.12 31.02 31.06 32.54 Penguin $\sigma^2=0.04$ 27.88 28.29 28.52 29.04 29.21 29.90 Build $\sigma^2=0.05$ 25.33 25.06 25.83 26.52 27.44 28.03 Barbara $\sigma^2=0.06$ 24.66 25.60 26.42 26.74 28.03 28.10 Pirate $\sigma^2=0.02$ 30.12 30.87 31.02 31.86 32.10 32.53 Lena $\sigma^2=0.04$ 29.44 30.12 30.06 31.17 30.54 31.50 Cameraman $\sigma^2=0.01$ 30.06 30.97 30.52 31.11 31.74 32.86 Baboon $\sigma^2=0.02$ 30.10 30.22 31.08 31.16 31.99 32.40 Fly $\sigma^2=0.03$ 29.44 29.70 30.16 30.22 30.76 31.05 Horses $\sigma^2=0.01$ 29.88 30.44 30.77 30.49 31.42 32.20
The SSIM results of different SR methods for selected images. Note that we used a benchmark of $30$ images in our tests and present only ten in this table
 Image $\sigma^2$ noise SR method NPDE NTPDE NLPDE FOPDE TALS Our Butterfly $\sigma^2=0.03$ 0.822 0.829 0.839 0.877 0.888 0.901 Penguin $\sigma^2=0.04$ 0.785 0.796 0.806 0.828 0.843 0.882 Build $\sigma^2=0.05$ 0.683 0.694 0.714 0.730 0.764 0.800 Barbara $\sigma^2=0.06$ 0.626 0.660 0.691 0.674 0.708 0.755 Pirate $\sigma^2=0.02$ 0.839 0.847 0.855 0.891 0.886 0.922 Lena $\sigma^2=0.04$ 0.760 0.775 0.793 0.811 0.826 0.829 Cameraman $\sigma^2=0.01$ 0.881 0.902 0.933 0.948 0.942 0.967 Baboon $\sigma^2=0.02$ 0.826 0.836 0.842 0.859 0.870 0.889 Fly $\sigma^2=0.03$ 0.781 0.767 0.807 0.819 0.826 0.867 Horses $\sigma^2=0.01$ 0.869 0.890 0.917 0.923 0.948 0.968
 Image $\sigma^2$ noise SR method NPDE NTPDE NLPDE FOPDE TALS Our Butterfly $\sigma^2=0.03$ 0.822 0.829 0.839 0.877 0.888 0.901 Penguin $\sigma^2=0.04$ 0.785 0.796 0.806 0.828 0.843 0.882 Build $\sigma^2=0.05$ 0.683 0.694 0.714 0.730 0.764 0.800 Barbara $\sigma^2=0.06$ 0.626 0.660 0.691 0.674 0.708 0.755 Pirate $\sigma^2=0.02$ 0.839 0.847 0.855 0.891 0.886 0.922 Lena $\sigma^2=0.04$ 0.760 0.775 0.793 0.811 0.826 0.829 Cameraman $\sigma^2=0.01$ 0.881 0.902 0.933 0.948 0.942 0.967 Baboon $\sigma^2=0.02$ 0.826 0.836 0.842 0.859 0.870 0.889 Fly $\sigma^2=0.03$ 0.781 0.767 0.807 0.819 0.826 0.867 Horses $\sigma^2=0.01$ 0.869 0.890 0.917 0.923 0.948 0.968
 [1] Weiwei Liu, Jinliang Wang, Yuming Chen. Threshold dynamics of a delayed nonlocal reaction-diffusion cholera model. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020316 [2] Qingfang Wang, Hua Yang. Solutions of nonlocal problem with critical exponent. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2020, 19 (12) : 5591-5608. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020253 [3] Monia Capanna, Jean C. Nakasato, Marcone C. Pereira, Julio D. Rossi. Homogenization for nonlocal problems with smooth kernels. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020385 [4] Yuxia Guo, Shaolong Peng. A direct method of moving planes for fully nonlinear nonlocal operators and applications. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020462 [5] Shao-Xia Qiao, Li-Jun Du. Propagation dynamics of nonlocal dispersal equations with inhomogeneous bistable nonlinearity. Electronic Research Archive, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/era.2020116 [6] Pengyu Chen. Non-autonomous stochastic evolution equations with nonlinear noise and nonlocal conditions governed by noncompact evolution families. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020383 [7] Marion Darbas, Jérémy Heleine, Stephanie Lohrengel. Numerical resolution by the quasi-reversibility method of a data completion problem for Maxwell's equations. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2020, 14 (6) : 1107-1133. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020056 [8] Jun Zhou. Lifespan of solutions to a fourth order parabolic PDE involving the Hessian modeling epitaxial growth. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2020, 19 (12) : 5581-5590. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020252 [9] Abdelghafour Atlas, Mostafa Bendahmane, Fahd Karami, Driss Meskine, Omar Oubbih. A nonlinear fractional reaction-diffusion system applied to image denoising and decomposition. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020321 [10] Pierre-Etienne Druet. A theory of generalised solutions for ideal gas mixtures with Maxwell-Stefan diffusion. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020458 [11] Leilei Wei, Yinnian He. A fully discrete local discontinuous Galerkin method with the generalized numerical flux to solve the tempered fractional reaction-diffusion equation. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020319 [12] S. Sadeghi, H. Jafari, S. Nemati. Solving fractional Advection-diffusion equation using Genocchi operational matrix based on Atangana-Baleanu derivative. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020435 [13] H. M. Srivastava, H. I. Abdel-Gawad, Khaled Mohammed Saad. Oscillatory states and patterns formation in a two-cell cubic autocatalytic reaction-diffusion model subjected to the Dirichlet conditions. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020433 [14] Lin Shi, Xuemin Wang, Dingshi Li. Limiting behavior of non-autonomous stochastic reaction-diffusion equations with colored noise on unbounded thin domains. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2020, 19 (12) : 5367-5386. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020242 [15] Hai-Feng Huo, Shi-Ke Hu, Hong Xiang. Traveling wave solution for a diffusion SEIR epidemic model with self-protection and treatment. Electronic Research Archive, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/era.2020118

2019 Impact Factor: 0.953

## Tools

Article outline

Figures and Tables