Global Sharpness as an Image-Quality Gate for Gas-Pipeline Defect Segmentation: A Retrospective Internal Evaluation

Authors

https://doi.org/10.48314/ijrceai.vi.73

Abstract

Photographs interpreted by machine vision on above-ground gas pipelines vary in sharpness, exposure and compression because of how they are acquired, and that variation degrades network performance. One safeguard is an image-quality gate: Admit photographs passing a criterion, route the rest to manual review. This study asks whether such a criterion can be calibrated to a stated target, what share it admits, and what is withheld. A gate combining a luminance-normalised sharpness statistic with an exposure envelope was calibrated on the validation subset of a family-partitioned corpus of 9,965 pipeline image records, using five instance-segmentation checkpoints as the instrument. The frozen, hashed rule was applied once to a 150-image evaluation subset under fourteen conditions. For deformation, the primary class, no acceptance zone was established: The estimate never reached the target, so the threshold was infinite and the primary endpoint, the change in residual failure among accepted photographs, is not estimable. Two secondary rules accepted 42.7% and 47.2% of image versions, with estimated residual-failure differences of −0.0226 and −0.0248 against the same stream without gating, and intervals including zero; a reduction was not demonstrated. Against nominal performance on unimpaired photographs, a separate comparison point, non-inferiority within the pre-specified margin was also not demonstrated. The quantile-based fallback rule would leave 59.3% of deformation object–seed observations outside automated interpretation, 20.2% of them already correctly matched: Implied workload, not measured cost. The study is a retrospective internal evaluation with a self-documented freeze; deviations found after the evaluation subset had been examined are disclosed.

Keywords:

Image-quality gating, Visual inspection of pipelines, Instance segmentation, Acceptance threshold calibration, Coverage and error trade-off, Retrospective evaluation

References

  1. [1] Spencer, B. F., Hoskere, V., & Narazaki, Y. (2019). Advances in computer vision-based civil infrastructure inspection and monitoring. Engineering, 5(2), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2018.11.030

  2. [2] Eginov, A., & Eginova, S. (2025). A strategy for implementing automated surface-level pipeline monitoring systems based on machine vision for geohazard assessment and risk management: A case study in almaty. Engineering, technology & applied science research, 15(4), 26139–26147. https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.11751

  3. [3] Eginov, A. A., & Eginova, S. A. (2025). PipesDefectDetection: A novel deep learning framework for real-time gas pipeline safety monitoring and defect recognition. SoftwareX, 31, 102357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2025.102357

  4. [4] Dodge, S., & Karam, L. (2016). Understanding how image quality affects deep neural networks. 2016 eighth international conference on quality of multimedia experience (Qomex) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/QoMEX.2016.7498955

  5. [5] Hendrycks, D., & Dietterich, T. (2019). Benchmarking neural network robustness to common corruptions and perturbations. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1903.12261

  6. [6] Michaelis, C., Mitzkus, B., Geirhos, R., Rusak, E., Bringmann, O., Ecker, A. S., … ., & Brendel, W. (2019). Benchmarking robustness in object detection: Autonomous driving when winter is coming. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.07484

  7. [7] Chow, C. K. (1957). An optimum character recognition system using decision functions. IRE transactions on electronic computers, EC-6(4), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEC.1957.5222035

  8. [8] Geifman, Y., & El-Yaniv, R. (2017). Selective classification for deep neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 30). Curran Associates, Inc. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/file/4a8423d5e91fda00bb7e46540e2b0cf1-Paper.pdf

  9. [9] Mittal, A., Moorthy, A. K., & Bovik, A. C. (2012). No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain. IEEE transactions on image processing, 21(12), 4695–4708. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2012.2214050

  10. [10] Mittal, A., Soundararajan, R., & Bovik, A. C. (2013). Making a “completely blind” image quality analyzer. IEEE signal processing letters, 20(3), 209–212. https://doi.org/10.1109/LSP.2012.2227726

  11. [11] Pech-Pacheco, J. L., Cristobal, G., Chamorro-Martinez, J., & Fernandez-Valdivia, J. (2000). Diatom autofocusing in brightfield microscopy: A comparative study. Proceedings 15th international conference on pattern recognition. ICPR-2000 (Vol. 3, pp. 314–317 vol.3). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPR.2000.903548

Published

2026-09-15

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Eginov, A. A. (2026). Global Sharpness as an Image-Quality Gate for Gas-Pipeline Defect Segmentation: A Retrospective Internal Evaluation. International Journal of Researches on Civil Engineering With Artificial Intelligence . https://doi.org/10.48314/ijrceai.vi.73

Similar Articles

21-26 of 26

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.