pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00881 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-26 · 📡 eess.IV · cs.CV· physics.med-ph

Recognition: unknown

A Coupled Fourth Order Telegraph Diffusion Framework Using Grayscale Indicators for Image Despeckling

Manish Kumar , Rajendra K. Ray
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 20:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.IV cs.CVphysics.med-ph
keywords image despecklingfourth-order PDEtelegraph diffusionspeckle noisegrayscale indicatorSAR imagesultrasound denoisingPDE-based filtering
0
0 comments X

The pith

A coupled fourth-order PDE model for despeckling uses a grayscale indicator to reduce speckle noise while preserving fine details better than prior second-order approaches.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents a nonlinear fourth-order coupled hyperbolic-parabolic PDE framework designed to suppress speckle noise in coherent imaging systems such as SAR and ultrasound. One equation drives fourth-order diffusion for noise reduction and smooth transitions, while a second refines an edge indicator function. The diffusion coefficient adapts using both image intensity and the grayscale indicator to protect textures and avoid staircase artifacts. Existence of a weak solution is established with the Schauder fixed-point theorem, and a finite-difference Gauss-Seidel scheme implements the model. Tests on standard images, real SAR and ultrasound data, and color images show gains in PSNR, MSSIM, and speckle index over a coupled second-order model and a fourth-order telegraph diffusion baseline.

Core claim

The coupled fourth-order telegraph diffusion model with grayscale indicators achieves superior despeckling by adaptively constructing the diffusion coefficient from image intensity u and the indicator function, proving weak solution existence via Schauder fixed-point theorem and outperforming existing PDE methods in quantitative metrics.

What carries the argument

Coupled system of a fourth-order diffusion evolution equation and an edge-indicator refinement equation, with the diffusion coefficient built adaptively from both u and the grayscale-based indicator to enable structure-aware denoising.

If this is right

  • The framework reduces speckle while preserving structural features and avoiding blocky artifacts on grayscale, SAR, ultrasound, and speckle-corrupted color images.
  • Existence of a weak solution follows from application of the Schauder fixed-point theorem to the coupled system.
  • A finite-difference discretization with Gauss-Seidel iteration provides an efficient numerical realization.
  • Quantitative gains appear in PSNR, MSSIM, and speckle index relative to the second-order coupled PDE and the fourth-order telegraph diffusion baselines.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The grayscale indicator mechanism could be extended to multi-channel color spaces for direct processing of RGB data without separate conversion steps.
  • Replacing the hand-crafted indicator with a learned one from a small neural network might further adapt to specific noise statistics in medical imaging.
  • The fourth-order hyperbolic-parabolic coupling may generalize to video sequences where temporal consistency is added as a third evolution equation.

Load-bearing premise

The adaptive diffusion coefficient built from image intensity and the grayscale indicator will reliably protect textures and prevent artifacts across different image types without further tuning or failure-mode analysis.

What would settle it

A collection of test images in which the new model produces more visible staircase artifacts or greater loss of fine details than the compared HPCPDE or TDFM methods on the same data would falsify the performance superiority.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00881 by Manish Kumar, Rajendra K. Ray.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Images: (a) Peppers, (b) Parrots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: color Images: (a) Baboon, (b)caps. features. Visual inspection allows us to qualitatively assess the denoising effect by comparing the noisy and denoised images; however, visually comparing the performance of two different models is challenging. Therefore, we quantitatively evaluate the models using Peak Signal￾to-Noise Ratio (PSNR) and Mean Structural Similarity Index (MSSIM) metrics for both gray and col… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The first column contains noisy pepper gray images with noise level Look = 1, 3, 5, 10. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The first column contains noisy parrots gray images with noise level Look = 1, 3, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The first column contains noisy baboon color images with noise level Look = 1, 3, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The first column contains images of noisy caps with noise levels of Look = 1, 3, 5, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of SAR and Ultrasound Image Restoration. Each row presents: (1) Noisy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 2D contour plots of the Peppers grayscale image at Look = 3. The comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The first row shows full Pepper gray images (Look = 5) with red boxes marking ROIs, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The first row shows full Baboon color images (Look = 5) with red ROI boxes; the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: PSNR and MSSIM performance comparison of the proposed model against state-of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: PSNR and MSSIM performance comparison of the proposed model against state-of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Speckle noise severely limits the quality of images acquired from coherent imaging systems such as Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and medical ultrasound. Traditional second-order PDE-based despeckling approaches, although popular, often introduce staircase artifacts and blur fine details. To overcome these limitations, we present a nonlinear, fourth-order coupled hyperbolic-parabolic PDE model that effectively reduces noise while preserving the structure. The framework consists of two evolution equations: one governing fourth-order diffusion for effective speckle reduction and smooth intensity transitions, and another refining an edge indicator to protect textures and structural features. The diffusion coefficient is adaptively constructed using both the image intensity variable u and a grayscale-based indicator function, ensuring structure-aware denoising while avoiding blocky artifacts and preserving fine details. We also prove the existence of a weak solution to the proposed model by applying Schauder fixed-point theorem. A finite-difference scheme with Gauss Seidel iteration is employed for efficient implementation. We compare the proposed model with the existing coupled second-order PDE model (HPCPDE) and the fourth-order telegraph diffusion model (TDFM). The results show that our model consistently outperforms these approaches. Experiments on standard grayscale images, real SAR and ultrasound data, as well as speckle-corrupted color images, demonstrate that the proposed method achieves superior performance over conventional PDE-based techniques in terms of PSNR, MSSIM, and Speckle Index.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a coupled fourth-order telegraph diffusion PDE model for speckle noise removal in images from SAR and ultrasound systems. It consists of a fourth-order diffusion equation coupled with an evolution equation for a grayscale-based edge indicator, with an adaptive diffusion coefficient depending on both the image intensity u and the indicator. The authors prove existence of a weak solution via the Schauder fixed-point theorem, discretize the system with a finite-difference scheme using Gauss-Seidel iteration, and report numerical comparisons against HPCPDE and TDFM on synthetic grayscale images, real SAR/ultrasound data, and speckle-corrupted color images, claiming superior PSNR, MSSIM, and Speckle Index values.

Significance. If the empirical results and the existence proof hold, the work extends PDE-based despeckling by introducing a higher-order coupled hyperbolic-parabolic system with grayscale adaptivity that aims to reduce staircase artifacts while preserving textures. The theoretical component via Schauder theorem and the finite-difference implementation provide a concrete framework that could be built upon for other coherent imaging modalities.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical experiments] Numerical experiments section: the reported PSNR and MSSIM values on real SAR and ultrasound acquisitions are not accompanied by any description of the reference (ground-truth) image or proxy used to compute these full-reference metrics. Since real coherent acquisitions lack a noise-free reference, these quantities are undefined without an explicit protocol (e.g., simulated clean version, another denoised image, or region-based approximation); this directly undermines the central claim of superiority on real data, which is load-bearing for the headline experimental result.
  2. [Existence proof] Model formulation and existence proof: while the Schauder fixed-point argument is invoked for existence of a weak solution, the manuscript does not address whether the obtained solution is unique or stable under the chosen boundary conditions and parameter ranges; this leaves open whether the numerical scheme converges to the proven solution or to an artifactual one, which is relevant for validating the finite-difference implementation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The abstract and introduction refer to 'grayscale-based indicator function' without an early equation reference; moving the precise definition of the indicator (presumably Eq. (X)) to the model section would improve readability.
  2. [Tables and figures] Table captions and figure legends should explicitly state whether the reported PSNR/MSSIM values are restricted to synthetic data or include real acquisitions, to avoid ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and the recommendation for major revision. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical experiments] Numerical experiments section: the reported PSNR and MSSIM values on real SAR and ultrasound acquisitions are not accompanied by any description of the reference (ground-truth) image or proxy used to compute these full-reference metrics. Since real coherent acquisitions lack a noise-free reference, these quantities are undefined without an explicit protocol (e.g., simulated clean version, another denoised image, or region-based approximation); this directly undermines the central claim of superiority on real data, which is load-bearing for the headline experimental result.

    Authors: We fully agree that the lack of a specified protocol for computing full-reference metrics on real data is a significant issue that needs to be addressed. The manuscript currently reports PSNR and MSSIM for real SAR and ultrasound images without detailing the reference used, which is indeed problematic as no noise-free ground truth exists. To rectify this, in the revised manuscript, we will remove the PSNR and MSSIM comparisons for real data and instead emphasize the Speckle Index (a no-reference metric) along with visual quality assessments and comparisons to other methods. For the synthetic grayscale images and speckle-corrupted color images, where ground truth is available, we will retain and clearly document the PSNR and MSSIM values. This revision ensures that our claims of superiority are supported by valid metrics and does not misrepresent the experimental results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Existence proof] Model formulation and existence proof: while the Schauder fixed-point argument is invoked for existence of a weak solution, the manuscript does not address whether the obtained solution is unique or stable under the chosen boundary conditions and parameter ranges; this leaves open whether the numerical scheme converges to the proven solution or to an artifactual one, which is relevant for validating the finite-difference implementation.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that our existence proof using the Schauder fixed-point theorem establishes the existence of a weak solution but does not prove uniqueness or stability. For this class of nonlinear coupled fourth-order systems, uniqueness is generally difficult to establish and may not hold without further restrictions on the parameters or additional assumptions. We will revise the manuscript to include a brief discussion of this limitation in the theoretical section, stating that while existence is proven, uniqueness remains an open problem. Regarding the numerical implementation, the finite-difference scheme with Gauss-Seidel iteration has been observed to produce stable and consistent results in our experiments, independent of initial conditions within the tested parameter ranges. We will also add numerical evidence of scheme stability to support the practical reliability of the discretization. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: model, existence proof, and numerical scheme are defined independently of reported metrics

full rationale

The paper introduces a new coupled fourth-order PDE system with an explicitly constructed grayscale indicator and diffusion coefficient; proves weak-solution existence via the external Schauder fixed-point theorem; discretizes with a standard finite-difference/Gauss-Seidel scheme; and evaluates on standard test images plus real SAR/ultrasound data. None of these steps reduces the claimed performance advantage to a fitted parameter, a self-referential definition, or a load-bearing self-citation. The derivation chain from model statement to numerical output is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the new coupled PDE system and its numerical behavior. The only explicit mathematical tool cited is the Schauder fixed-point theorem for existence; no new physical entities are introduced. Full list of free parameters and implementation constants is unavailable from the abstract alone.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Schauder fixed-point theorem guarantees existence of a weak solution for the proposed coupled system
    Invoked in the abstract to establish well-posedness of the fourth-order model

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5554 in / 1430 out tokens · 34746 ms · 2026-05-09T20:22:53.478273+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Speckle reduction in synthetic- aperture radars,

    L. J. Porcello, N. G. Massey, R. B. Innes, and J. M. Marks, “Speckle reduction in synthetic- aperture radars,” J. Opt. Soc. Amer., vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 1305–1311, Nov. 1976

    1976

  2. [2]

    A tutorial on speckle reduction in synthetic aperture radar images,

    F. Argenti, A. Lapini, L. Alparone, and T. Bianchi, “A tutorial on speckle reduction in synthetic aperture radar images,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Mag., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 6–35, Sep. 2013

    2013

  3. [3]

    Comparative evaluation of despeckle filtering in ultrasound imaging of the carotid artery,

    C. P. Loizou, C. S. Pattichis, C. I. Christodoulou, R. S. H. Istepanian, M. Pantziaris, and A. Nicolaides, “Comparative evaluation of despeckle filtering in ultrasound imaging of the carotid artery,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason., Ferroelectr., Freq. Control, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 1653–1669, Oct. 2005

    2005

  4. [4]

    Speckle detection in ultrasound images using first order statistics,

    R. Prager, A. Gee, G. Treece, and L. Berman, “Speckle detection in ultrasound images using first order statistics,” Dept. Eng., Univ. Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K., Tech. Rep. CUED/F-INFENG/TR 415, 2001

    2001

  5. [5]

    Some fundamental properties of speckle,

    J. W. Goodman, “Some fundamental properties of speckle,” J. Opt. Soc. Amer., vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 1145–1150, Nov. 1976

    1976

  6. [6]

    When is speckle noise multiplicative?

    M. K. Tur, C. Chin, and J. W. Goodman, “When is speckle noise multiplicative?” Appl. Opt., vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1157–1159, 1982

    1982

  7. [7]

    Novel Bayesian multiscale method for speckle removal in medical ultrasound images,

    A. Achim, A. Bezerianos, and P. Tsakalides, “Novel Bayesian multiscale method for speckle removal in medical ultrasound images,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imag., vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 772–783, Aug. 2001

    2001

  8. [8]

    A model for radar images and its application to adaptive digital filtering of multiplicative noise,

    V. S. Frost, J. A. Stiles, K. S. Shanmugan, and J. C. Holtzman, “A model for radar images and its application to adaptive digital filtering of multiplicative noise,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. PAMI-4, no. 2, pp. 157–166, Mar. 1982

    1982

  9. [9]

    Adaptive noise smoothing filter for images with signal-dependent noise,

    D. T. Kuan, A. A. Sawchuk, T. C. Strand, and P. Chavel, “Adaptive noise smoothing filter for images with signal-dependent noise,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. PAMI-7, no. 2, pp. 165–177, Mar. 1985

    1985

  10. [10]

    Digital image enhancement and noise filtering by use of local statistics,

    J.-S. Lee, “Digital image enhancement and noise filtering by use of local statistics,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. PAMI-2, no. 2, pp. 165–168, Mar. 1980

    1980

  11. [11]

    Multiresolution local-statistics speckle filtering based on a ratio Laplacian pyramid,

    B. Aiazzi, L. Alparone, and S. Baronti, “Multiresolution local-statistics speckle filtering based on a ratio Laplacian pyramid,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1466–1476, Sep. 1998

    1998

  12. [12]

    Multiresolution adaptive image smoothing,

    P. Meer, R. H. Park, and K. J. Cho, “Multiresolution adaptive image smoothing,” Graph. Models Image Process., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 140–148, 1994. 28

    1994

  13. [13]

    Two-dimensional rank- conditioned median filter,

    L. Alparone, S. Baronti, and R. Carla, “Two-dimensional rank- conditioned median filter,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II, Analog Digit. Signal Process., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 130–132, Feb. 1995

    1995

  14. [14]

    Geometric filter for speckle reduction,

    T. R. Crimmins, “Geometric filter for speckle reduction,” Appl. Opt., vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 1438–1443, 1985

    1985

  15. [15]

    Simulated annealing algorithm for SAR and MTI image cross section esti- mation,

    R. G. White, “Simulated annealing algorithm for SAR and MTI image cross section esti- mation,” Proc. SPIE, vol. 2316, pp. 137–145, Dec. 1994

    1994

  16. [16]

    A nonlocal SAR image denoising algorithm based on LLMMSE wavelet shrink- age,

    S. Parrilli, M. Poderico, C. V. Angelino, and L. Verdoliva, “A nonlocal SAR image denoising algorithm based on LLMMSE wavelet shrink- age,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 606–616, Feb. 2012

    2012

  17. [17]

    SAR image despeckling using Bayesian nonlocal means filter with sigma preselection,

    H. Zhong, Y. Li, and L. Jiao, “SAR image despeckling using Bayesian nonlocal means filter with sigma preselection,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 809–813, Jul. 2011

    2011

  18. [18]

    Iterative weighted maximum likelihood denoising with probabilistic patch-based weights,

    C.-A. Deledalle, L. Denis, and F. Tupin, “Iterative weighted maximum likelihood denoising with probabilistic patch-based weights,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 2661–2672, Dec. 2009

    2009

  19. [19]

    Combined homomorphic and local- statistics processing for restoration of images degraded by signal- dependent noise,

    H. H. Arsenault and M. Levesque, “Combined homomorphic and local- statistics processing for restoration of images degraded by signal- dependent noise,” Appl. Opt., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 845–850, 1984

    1984

  20. [20]

    Multiplicative noise removal based on unbiased Box–Cox transformation,

    Y.-M. Huang, H.-Y. Yan, and T. Zeng, “Multiplicative noise removal based on unbiased Box–Cox transformation,” Commun. Comput. Phys., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 803–828, Sep. 2017

    2017

  21. [21]

    SAR image denoising via Bayesian wavelet shrinkage based on heavy-tailed modeling,

    A. Achim, P. Tsakalides, and A. Bezerianos, “SAR image denoising via Bayesian wavelet shrinkage based on heavy-tailed modeling,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1773–1784, Aug. 2003

    2003

  22. [22]

    Spatially adaptive wavelet-based method using the Cauchy prior for denoising the SAR images,

    M. I. H. Bhuiyan, M. O. Ahmad, and M. Swamy, “Spatially adaptive wavelet-based method using the Cauchy prior for denoising the SAR images,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 500–507, Apr. 2007

    2007

  23. [23]

    Speckle filtering of SAR images: A compar- ative study between complex-wavelet-based and standard filters,

    L. Gagnon and A. Jouan, “Speckle filtering of SAR images: A compar- ative study between complex-wavelet-based and standard filters,” Proc. SPIE, vol. 3169, pp. 80–91, Oct. 1997

    1997

  24. [24]

    Wavelet based speckle reduction with application to SAR based ATD/R,

    H. Guo, J. E. Odegard, M. Lang, R. A. Gopinath, I. W. Selesnick, and C. S. Burrus, “Wavelet based speckle reduction with application to SAR based ATD/R,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Image Process., vol. 1, Nov. 1994, pp. 75–79

    1994

  25. [25]

    Homomorphic wavelet-based statistical despeck- ling of SAR im- ages,

    S. Solbo and T. Eltoft, “Homomorphic wavelet-based statistical despeck- ling of SAR im- ages,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 711–721, Apr. 2004

    2004

  26. [26]

    Nonlinear diffusion in Laplacian pyramid domain for ultrasonic speckle reduction,

    F. Zhang, Y. M. Yoo, L. M. Koh, and Y. Kim, “Nonlinear diffusion in Laplacian pyramid domain for ultrasonic speckle reduction,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imag., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 200–211, Feb. 2007

    2007

  27. [27]

    Non-linear diffusion models for despeckling of images: Achieve- ments and future challenges,

    S. K. Jain and R. K. Ray, “Non-linear diffusion models for despeckling of images: Achieve- ments and future challenges,” IETE Tech. Rev., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 66–82, 2020

    2020

  28. [28]

    A nonlinear coupled diffusion system for image despeckling and application to ultrasound images,

    S. K. Jain, R. K. Ray, and A. Bhavsar, “A nonlinear coupled diffusion system for image despeckling and application to ultrasound images,” Circuits, Syst., Signal Process., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1654–1683, 2019. 29

    2019

  29. [29]

    A gray level indicator-based reg- ularized telegraph diffusion model: Application to image despeckling,

    S. Majee, R. K. Ray, and A. K. Majee, “A gray level indicator-based reg- ularized telegraph diffusion model: Application to image despeckling,” SIAM J. Imag. Sci., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 844–870, Jan. 2020

    2020

  30. [30]

    Multiplicative noise removal based on the smooth diffusion equation,

    X. Shan, J. Sun, and Z. Guo, “Multiplicative noise removal based on the smooth diffusion equation,” J. Math. Imag. Vis., vol. 61, pp. 763–779, Jan. 2019

    2019

  31. [31]

    Weickert, Anisotropic Diffusion in Image Processing, vol

    J. Weickert, Anisotropic Diffusion in Image Processing, vol. 1. Stuttgart, Germany: Teub- ner, 1998

    1998

  32. [32]

    Speckle reducing anisotropic diffusion,

    Y. Yu and S. T. Acton, “Speckle reducing anisotropic diffusion,” IEEE Trans. Image Pro- cess., vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 1260–1270, Nov. 2002

    2002

  33. [33]

    A doubly degenerate diffusion model based on the gray level indicator for mul- tiplicative noise removal,

    Z. Zhou, Z. Guo, G. Dong, J. Sun, D. Zhang, and B. Wu, “A doubly degenerate diffusion model based on the gray level indicator for mul- tiplicative noise removal,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 249–260, Jan. 2015

    2015

  34. [34]

    A variational approach to removing mul- tiplicative noise,

    G. Aubert and J.-F. Aujol, “A variational approach to removing mul- tiplicative noise,” SIAM J. Appl. Math., vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 925–946, 2008

    2008

  35. [35]

    SAR image regulariza- tion with fast approx- imate discrete minimization,

    L. Denis, F. Tupin, J. Darbon, and M. Sigelle, “SAR image regulariza- tion with fast approx- imate discrete minimization,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 1588–1600, Jul. 2009

    2009

  36. [36]

    Speckle reduction via higher order total variation approach,

    W. Feng, H. Lei, and Y. Gao, “Speckle reduction via higher order total variation approach,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1831–1843, Apr. 2014

    2014

  37. [37]

    A fuzzy edge de- tector driven telegraph total variation model for image despeckling,

    S. Majee, S. K. Jain, R. K. Ray, and A. K. Majee, “A fuzzy edge de- tector driven telegraph total variation model for image despeckling,” In- verse Problems Imag., vol. 16, no. 2,pp. 367–396, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.aimsciences.org/article/doi/10.3934/ipi.2021054

    work page doi:10.3934/ipi.2021054 2022

  38. [38]

    Analysis of a new variational model for multiplica- tive noise removal,

    Z. Jin and X. Yang, “Analysis of a new variational model for multiplica- tive noise removal,” J. Math. Anal. Appl., vol. 362, no. 2, pp. 415–426, 2010

    2010

  39. [39]

    Multiplicative denoising and deblurring: Theory and algorithms,

    L. Rudin, P.-L. Lions, and S. Osher, “Multiplicative denoising and deblurring: Theory and algorithms,” in Geometric Level Set Methods in Imaging, Vision, and Graphics. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2003, pp. 103–119

    2003

  40. [40]

    A nonlinear inverse scale space method for a convex multiplicative noise model,

    J. Shi and S. Osher, “A nonlinear inverse scale space method for a convex multiplicative noise model,” SIAM J. Imag. Sci., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 294–321, 2008

    2008

  41. [41]

    SAR image despeckling through convolutional neural networks,

    G. Chierchia, D. Cozzolino, G. Poggi, and L. Verdoliva, “SAR image despeckling through convolutional neural networks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Geosci. Remote Sens. Symp. (IGARSS), Jul. 2017, pp. 5438–5441

    2017

  42. [42]

    Speckle2Void: Deep self-supervised SAR despeckling with blind-spot convolutional neural networks,

    A. B. Molini, D. Valsesia, G. Fracastoro, and E. Magli, “Speckle2Void: Deep self-supervised SAR despeckling with blind-spot convolutional neural networks,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Re- mote Sens., vol. 60, pp. 1–17, 2022

    2022

  43. [43]

    DeSpeckNet: Generalizing deep learning-based SAR image despeckling,

    A. G. Mullissa, D. Marcos, D. Tuia, M. Herold, and J. Reiche, “DeSpeckNet: Generalizing deep learning-based SAR image despeckling,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 60, 2020, Art. no. 5200315

    2020

  44. [44]

    SAR image despeckling using a convolutional neural network,

    P. Wang, H. Zhang, and V. M. Patel, “SAR image despeckling using a convolutional neural network,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 1763–1767, Dec. 2017. 30

    2017

  45. [45]

    Adaptive total variation regu- larization based SAR image despeckling and despeckling evaluation index,

    Y. Zhao, J. G. Liu, B. Zhang, W. Hong, and Y. R. Wu, “Adaptive total variation regu- larization based SAR image despeckling and despeckling evaluation index,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 2765–2774, May 2015

    2015

  46. [46]

    A review of deep-learning techniques for SAR image restoration,

    L. Denis, E. Dalsasso, and F. Tupin, “A review of deep-learning techniques for SAR image restoration,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Geosci. Remote Sens. Symp., Jul. 2021, pp. 411–414

    2021

  47. [47]

    How to compute a multi-look SAR image?

    H. Cantalloube and C. Nahum, “How to compute a multi-look SAR image?” Eur. Space Agency Publications, vol. 450, pp. 635–640, Mar. 2000

    2000

  48. [48]

    Adaptive restoration of images with speckle,

    D. Kuan, A. Sawchuk, T. Strand, and P. Chavel, “Adaptive restoration of images with speckle,” IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., vol. ASSP-35, no. 3, pp. 373–383, Mar. 1987

    1987

  49. [49]

    A review of image denoising algorithms, with a new one,

    A. Buades, B. Coll, and J.-M. Morel, “A review of image denoising algorithms, with a new one,” Multiscale Model. Simul., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 490–530, 2005

    2005

  50. [50]

    Image denoising by sparse 3-D transform-domain collaborative filtering,

    K. Dabov, A. Foi, V. Katkovnik, and K. Egiazarian, “Image denoising by sparse 3-D transform-domain collaborative filtering,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 2080–2095, Aug. 2007

    2080

  51. [51]

    On a system of adaptive coupled PDEs for image restoration,

    V. B. S. Prasath and D. Vorotnikov, “On a system of adaptive coupled PDEs for image restoration,” J. Math. Imag. Vis., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 35–52, 2014

    2014

  52. [52]

    Image enhancement using elastic manifolds,

    V. Ratner and Y. Y. Zeevi, “Image enhancement using elastic manifolds,” in Proc. ICIAP, Sep. 2007, pp. 769–774

    2007

  53. [53]

    Zauderer, Partial Differential Equations of Applied Mathematics, vol

    E. Zauderer, Partial Differential Equations of Applied Mathematics, vol. 71. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2011

    2011

  54. [54]

    Damped second order flow applied to image denoising,

    G. Baravdish, O. Svensson, M. Gulliksson, and Y. Zhang, “Damped second order flow applied to image denoising,” IMA J. Appl. Math., vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 1082–1111, Dec. 2019

    2019

  55. [55]

    A class of nonlinear parabolic- hyperbolic equations ap- plied to image restoration,

    Y. Cao, J. Yin, Q. Liu, and M. Li, “A class of nonlinear parabolic- hyperbolic equations ap- plied to image restoration,” Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 253–261, Feb. 2010

    2010

  56. [56]

    Edgedetectorsbasedtelegraphtotalvari-ationalmodelforimage filtering,

    S.K.JainandR.K.Ray, “Edgedetectorsbasedtelegraphtotalvari-ationalmodelforimage filtering,” in Information Systems Design and Intelligent Applications. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2016, pp. 119–126

    2016

  57. [57]

    On the development of a coupled nonlinear telegraph-diffusion model for image restoration,

    S. Majee, S. K. Jain, R. K. Ray, and A. K. Majee, “On the development of a coupled nonlinear telegraph-diffusion model for image restoration,” Comput. Math. Appl., vol. 80, no. 7, pp. 1745–1766, Oct. 2020

    2020

  58. [58]

    Evans, Partial Differential Equations (Graduate Studies in Mathe- matics), vol

    L. Evans, Partial Differential Equations (Graduate Studies in Mathe- matics), vol. 19. Providence, RI, USA: American Mathematical Society, 1998

    1998

  59. [59]

    Adams, Sobolev Spaces, vol

    R. Adams, Sobolev Spaces, vol. 65. New York, NY, USA: Academic, 1975

    1975

  60. [60]

    B. S. Jovanović and E. Süli, Analysis of Finite Difference Schemes: For Linear Partial Differential Equations With Generalized Solutions, vol. 46. London, U.K.: Springer, 2013

    2013

  61. [61]

    A finite difference scheme for Caputo–Fabrizio fractional differential equations,

    X. Guo, Y. Li, and T. Zeng, “A finite difference scheme for Caputo–Fabrizio fractional differential equations,” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Model., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 195–211, 2020

    2020

  62. [62]

    J. D. Hoffman and S. Frankel, Numerical Methods for Engineers and Scientists. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 2018. 31

    2018

  63. [63]

    Benchmarking frame- workforSARdespeckling,

    G. Di Martino, M. Poderico, G. Poggi, D. Riccio, and L. Verdoliva, “Benchmarking frame- workforSARdespeckling,” IEEETrans.Geosci.RemoteSens., vol.52, no.3, pp.1596–1615, Mar. 2014

    2014

  64. [64]

    No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain,

    A. Mittal, A. K. Moorthy, and A. C. Bovik, “No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 4695–4708, Dec. 2012

    2012

  65. [65]

    (2023).Speckle noise removal via learned variational models

    Cuomo, S., De Rosa, M., Izzo, S., Piccialli, F., Pragliola, M. (2023).Speckle noise removal via learned variational models

    2023

  66. [66]

    Li, J., Wang, Z., Yu, W., Luo, Y., Yu, Z. (2022). A Novel Speckle Suppression Method with Quantitative Combination of Total Variation and Anisotropic Diffusion PDE Model. Remote Sensing14(3), 796. DOI:10.3390/rs14030796

    work page doi:10.3390/rs14030796 2022

  67. [67]

    Roy, R., Ghosh, S., Ghosh, A. (2024). Speckle noise removal: a local structure preserving approach.SN Computer Science,5(4)

    2024

  68. [68]

    Y.-L. You, M. Kaveh, Fourth-order partial differential equations for noise removal,IEEE Trans. Image Process., 9(10) (2000), pp. 1723–1730

    2000

  69. [69]

    A new non-linear hyperbolic-parabolic coupled PDE model for image despeckling,

    S. Majee, R. K. Ray, and A. K. Majee, “A new non-linear hyperbolic-parabolic coupled PDE model for image despeckling,”IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 31, pp. 1963–1976, Feb. 2022

    1963

  70. [70]

    Z. Zhou, Z. Guo, G. Dong, J. Sun, D. Zhang, B. Wu, A doubly degenerate diffusion model based on the gray level indicator for multiplicative noise removal, IEEE Trans. Image Pro- cess., 24(1) (2014), pp. 249–260

    2014

  71. [71]

    New Fourth-Order Grayscale Indicator-Based Telegraph Diffusion Model for Image Despeckling

    R. K. Ray and M. Kumar, “New fourth-order grayscale indicator-based telegraph diffusion model for image despeckling,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.26010, Sep. 2025. 32

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025