Blind Deconvolution of Binary and Pattern Images with Pixel Intensity Constraints and Sparse Gradient Prior
Authors: Qinghua Zhang, Xuesong Yang, Liangtian He, Liang-jian Deng, Jun Liu
Organizations: Laboratory of Mathematics and Complex Systems (Ministry of Education of China), the School of Mathematical Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, P. R. China · School of Mathematical Sciences, and Anhui University Center for Applied Mathematics, Anhui University, Hefei, 230601, P. R. China · School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, P. R. China · Key Laboratory for Applied Statistics of MOE, School of Mathematics and Statistics, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, P. R. China
Blind image deconvolution (BID) is a prominent research topic in the field of imaging sciences, given its significant practical applications. Most existing model-based BID methods focus on natural images, incorporating appropriate prior knowledge about both the underlying image and the blur kernel. However, for certain classes of images, such as barcodes, text, and patterns, pixels can only take very limited values, a specific prior that is often overlooked in the literature. In this article, we introduce a novel pixel intensity constraint to leverage this important information, improving recovery performance for these specialized image classes. Specifically, we propose a unified framework for blind binary and pattern image deconvolution that incorporates both the pixel intensity constraint and a gradient sparsity regularizer. Numerical experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms many existing BID techniques, achieving superior results in terms of both visual quality and quantitative metrics.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An illustrative example of the two-valued binary image and the multi-valued pattern images. (a) Binary image and (b) its pixel intensity histogram. (c) Pattern image and (d) its pixel intensity histogram.
Figure 2: A visual comparison of binary fingerprint images. (c) Pan et al.’s method [ 40 ] emphasizes the sparsity prior of intensity in the latent image, while (d) Wen et al.’s method [ 35 ] focuses on the extreme channel prior, and (e) Lv et al.’s method [ 39 ] leverages the binary intensity prior. It is evident that (f) our method outperforms these approaches by effectively reducing artifacts while better preserving structural details. (For improved visualization, the estimated kernels are displayed in the lower right corner of the final recovered images.)
Figure 3: An illustrative example of the pixel intensity distribution of xref . The pixel intensity histograms of (a) binary reference image xref (recovered by [ 21 ] ) and (b) pattern reference image xref (recovered by [ 40 ] ). The clustering number s (i.e., the number of different pixel values in the image) can be approximated by the number of peaks in the histogram.
Figure 4: All test images: eight binary images (a-h) and four pattern images (i-l).
Figure 5: All test kernels are from the research conducted by Levin et al. [ 49 ] .
Figure 6: Quantitative evaluations on 8 binary images of different blur kernels, it can be observed that our method performs competitively against other competing methods.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
Pan et al. [ 40 ]
24.15
0.8973
Chen et al. [ 34 ]
24.26
0.8955
Ren et al. [ 21 ]
28.43
0.9114
Wen et al. [ 35 ]
24.59
0.8863
Lv et al. [ 39 ]
24.52
0.8869
Lv* et al. [ 39 ]
25.39
0.8984
Table 1: Quantitative results (average PSNR/SSIM) of binary image deblurring.
Figure 7: The visual quality and quantitative results (PSNR/SSIM) of different methods on “im2”. (a) Ground truth, (b) Blurred image, (c) Pan et al. [ 40 ] , (d) Chen et al. [ 34 ] , (e) Ren et al. [ 21 ] , (f) Wen et al. [ 35 ] , (g) Lv et al. [ 39 ] , (h) Lv* et al. [ 39 ] , (i) Ours, (j) Ours*.
Figure 8: The visual quality and quantitative results (PSNR/SSIM) of different methods on “im6”. (a) Ground truth, (b) Blurred image, (c) Pan et al. [ 40 ] , (d) Chen et al. [ 34 ] , (e) Ren et al. [ 21 ] , (f) Wen et al. [ 35 ] , (g) Lv et al. [ 39 ] , (h) Lv* et al. [ 39 ] , (i) Ours, (j) Ours*.
Figure 9: Quantitative evaluations on 4 pattern images of different blur kernels. It can be observed that our method performs comparably against other competing methods.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
Pan et al. [ 40 ]
30.64
0.9644
Chen et al. [ 34 ]
32.08
0.9768
Ren et al. [ 21 ]
37.24
0.9827
Wen et al. [ 35 ]
33.97
0.9798
Lv et al. [ 39 ]
32.57
0.9761
Lv* et al. [ 39 ]
33.20
0.9784
Table 2: Quantitative results (average PSNR/SSIM) of pattern image deblurring.
Figure 10: The visual quality and quantitative results (PSNR/SSIM) of different methods on “im10”. (a) Ground truth, (b) Blurred image, (c) Pan et al. [ 40 ] , (d) Chen et al. [ 34 ] , (e) Ren et al. [ 21 ] , (f) Wen et al. [ 35 ] , (g) Lv et al. [ 39 ] , (h) Lv* et al. [ 39 ] , (i) Ours, (j) Ours*.
Figure 11: The visual quality and quantitative results (PSNR/SSIM) of different methods on “im12”. (a) Ground truth, (b) Blurred image, (c) Pan et al. [ 40 ] , (d) Chen et al. [ 34 ] , (e) Ren et al. [ 21 ] , (f) Wen et al. [ 35 ] , (g) Lv et al. [ 39 ] , (h) Lv* et al. [ 39 ] , (i) Ours, (j) Ours*.
Image (kernel)
im1 (ker1)
im2 (ker2)
im3 (ker3)
im4 (ker4)
Pan et al. [ 40 ]
19.46/0.9250
30.70/0.9629
10.09/0.6687
18.80/0.7715
Chen et al. [ 34 ]
24.86/0.9566
29.92/0.9131
17.39/0.9383
19.43/0.6768
Ren et al. [ 21 ]
20.97/0.9519
29.28/0.8163
19.03/0.9580
21.75/0.7839
Wen et al. [ 35 ]
11.72/0.7550
45.75/0.9999
27.61/0.9951
20.27/0.9051
Lv et al. [ 39 ]
32.69/0.9847
28.82/0.9103
15.76/0.8891
21.90/0.7866
Lv* et al. [ 39 ]
34.54/0.9930
32.41/0.9914
20.06/0.9702
22.78/0.8653
Table 3: Quantitative results (PSNR/SSIM) of blurry and noisy (BSNR = 40 dB) binary image deblurring.
Image (kernel)
im5 (ker5)
im6 (ker6)
im7 (ker7)
im8 (ker8)
Pan et al. [ 40 ]
31.70/0.8436
24.33/0.9726
23.37/0.9422
32.63/0.9919
Chen et al. [ 34 ]
29.86/0.8926
23.88/0.9378
22.25/0.9169
26.66/0.9582
Ren et al. [ 21 ]
31.80/0.9284
25.91/0.9836
23.33/0.9458
31.74/0.9904
Wen et al. [ 35 ]
40.63/0.9325
28.96/0.9929
24.40/0.9673
27.39/0.9885
Lv et al. [ 39 ]
31.57/0.9273
26.53/0.9858
23.62/0.9469
28.16/0.9876
Lv* et al. [ 39 ]
33.27/0.9776
28.09/0.9895
24.21/0.9488
28.68/0.9689
Table 4: Quantitative results (PSNR/SSIM) of blurry and noisy (BSNR = 30 dB) binary image deblurring.
Figure 12: The convergence behavior of our proposed algorithm. The test set contains 12 images (im1-im12) that are blurred with kernel “ker1”. Note that the PSNR values and the kernel similarity are evaluated at the finest image scale.
Figure 13: The evolution of SSIM values with the parameter s . (a) Test image: “im2” (with an ideal value s=2 ), blur kernel: ker2. (b) Test image: “im12” (with an ideal value s=7 ), blur kernel: ker2.
Image size
256×256
450×450
600×600
Pan et al. [ 40 ]
13.28
42.07
94.23
Chen et al. [ 34 ]
53.66
147.87
288.39
Wen et al. [ 35 ]
12.60
20.37
31.33
Lv et al. [ 39 ]
16.48
45.26
83.26
Ours
10.38
32.66
59.83
Table 5: Average running time (in seconds) comparisons. The kernel size is 35×35 .
Figure 14: The statistical property comparison between the blurry image and recovery results. (a) Blurred image and (b) the histograms of its intensity, (c) Recovery result of Pan et al. [ 40 ] and (d) the histogram of its intensity, (e) Recovery result of Lv* et al. [ 39 ] and (f) the histogram of its intensity, (g) Recovery result of ours* and (h) the histogram of its intensity.
Figure 15: Ablation study on binary image “im3” (PSNR/SSIM). (a) Input, (b) Ours* without pixel intensity constraint, (c) Ours* without gradient sparsity prior, (d) Ours* with non-blind deblurring algorithm [ 39 ] , (e) Ours*.
Test image
im4
im7
im10
True pixel intensities
0 and 1
0 and 1
0.1137,0.2980,0.8863
K-Means estimation
0.0063 and 0.9945
0.0073 and 0.9970
0.1209,0.2910,0.8782
Table 6: The comparison between distinct pixel values estimated by K-Means method and the ground truth (blur kernel: ker1).
Figure 16: Comparisons of [ 34 ] with and without the pixel intensity constraint. (a) Ground truth, (b) Blurred image, (c) Result of [ 34 ] , (d) Result of [ 34 ] with our pixel intensity constraint, (e) Ground truth, (f) Blurred image, (g) Result of [ 34 ] , (h) Result of [ 34 ] with our pixel intensity constraint.
Recovering corrupted images is one of the most challenging problems in image processing. Among various restoration tasks, blind image deblurring has been extensively studied due to its practical importance and inherent difficulty. In this problem, both the point spread function (PSF) and the underlying latent sharp image must be estimated simultaneously. This problem cannot be solved directly due to its ill-posed nature. One powerful tool for solving such problems is total variation (TV) regularization. The ℓ0-norm regularization within the TV framework has been widely adopted to promote sparsity in image gradients or transform domains, leading to improved preservation of edges and fine structures. However, the use of the ℓ0-norm results in a highly nonconvex and computationally intractable optimization problem, which limits its practical applicability. To overcome these difficulties, we employ the minimax concave penalty (MCP), which promotes enhanced sparsity and provides a closer approximation to the ℓ0-norm. In addition, a reweighted ℓ1-norm regularization is incorporated to further reduce estimation bias and improve the preservation of fine image details and textures. After introducing the proposed model, a numerical algorithm is developed to solve the resulting optimization problem. The effectiveness of the proposed approach is then demonstrated through experimental evaluations on several test images.
Heng Zhang, Reza Parvaz, Rui Yang
College of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data, Chongqing Polytechnic University of Electronic Technology, Chongqing,China · Department of Engineering Sciences, Faculty of Advanced Technologies, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
Images are important tools in various sciences. Despite the development of photo-taking tools, creating clear and image without noise remains challenging in practice. In particular, Poisson noise has an effect on medical and astronomical images, and reduces their quality. Additionally, blur is another factor that has an effect on image quality. The problem of image restoration becomes very complicated when we have no information about the Point Spread Function (PSF). These types of problems are known as blind case. However, in some images, such as some astronomical images, the type of PSF can be specified, and these types of problems are known as nonblind problems. Total Variation (TV) is a widely used method for solving such inverse problems, where the selection of the penalty function is the most critical factor that affects the method's performance. In this paper, to improve edge preservation, we employ a reweighted ℓ1-regularization of the fractional order derivative. Furthermore, we propose a nonblind and blind image deblurring approach under Poisson noise using the Minimax Concave Penalty (MCP), which is a continuous, sparsity promoting, and nearly unbiased regularizer. This formulation leads to a nonconvex optimization model. To solve the proposed model, we introduce an efficient numerical algorithm based on the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) and provide an analysis of its convergence. Finally, the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm are demonstrated through extensive experiments on various images.
Reza Parvaz
aDepartment of Engineering Sciences, Faculty of Advanced Technologies,Sep University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
MG-SpaIR is a training-data-free framework for restoring a clean image from a single observation corrupted by a mixture of blur, downsampling, noise, and missing pixels. Building on implicit neural representations (INRs), we introduce a multi-grade coarse-to-fine residual hierarchy that progressively refines the reconstruction across resolution grades, improving representational fidelity and mitigating spectral limitations. To stabilize reconstruction optimization and suppress INR-induced artifacts, we further propose an explicit sparse proximal regularization (e.g., ℓ0-type) applied directly in the high-resolution image domain, which discourages spurious high-frequency patterns while preserving sharp structures. The resulting optimization is solved efficiently via a multi-grade proximal alternating scheme, and we establish convergence guarantees for the associated updates under standard regularity conditions. Experiments on mixed-degradation benchmarks demonstrate that MG-SpaIR consistently outperforms strong training-data-free baselines such as Deep Image Prior, providing a stable, interpretable, and data-efficient alternative to conventional learning-based restoration methods.
Jianmin Liao, Lei Huang, Ronglong Fang +3
Department of Mathematics, Syracuse University, 215 Carnegie Building, Syracuse, 13210, NY, USA. · Department of Mathematics & Statistics, Old Dominion University, 2300 Engineering & Computational Sciences Building, Norfolk, 23529, VA, USA. · Department of Medical Physical, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1250 First Avenue, New York, 10065, NY, USA. +1