# Infrared Image Deblurring via High-Order Total Variation and Lp-Pseudonorm Shrinkage
## 5 Experimental Results and Analysis
### Comparison of the Deblurring Performance
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Images** & **SD** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ATV [7]**} & **ITV [34]**} & **ATpV [31]** & **FTV4 Lp [6]** & **Hybrid TV [10]** & **HTV-Lp** \\  & **SDNR/SSIM/CMSD** & **PSNR/SSIM/CMSD** & **PSNR/SSIM/CMSD** & **PSNR/SSIM/CMSD** & **PSNR/SSIM/CMSD** & **PSNR/SSIM/CMSD** & **PSNR/SSIM/CMSD** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Building**} & **1** & 32.216/0.859/0.054 & 32.355/0.864/0.052 & 33.494/0.0893/0.039 & 32.762/0.878/0.042 & 34.203/0.911/0.032 & **34.235/0.911/0.032** \\  & **3** & 30.230/0.875/0.072 & 30.184/0.778/0.081 & 30.854/0.150/0.068 & 30.143/0.786/0.074 & 30.722/0.867/0.067 & 30.889/0.189/0.067 \\  & **5** & 29.372/0.750/0.097 & 29.319/0.748/0.100 & 29.847/0.776/0.081 & 29.437/0.787/0.085 & 30.600/0.786/0.079 & 30.779/0.927/0.077 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Figure**} & **1** & 36.566/0.922/0.027 & 36.760/0.925/0.026 & 36.791/0.925/0.026 & 36.483/0.921/0.027 & 36.735/0.924/0.027 & 36.991/0.927/0.022 \\  & **3** & 34.183/0.887/0.049 & 34.190/0.893/0.049 & 34.421/0.891/0.047 & 33.989/0.897/**0.040** & 34.517/0.896/0.049 & 34.583/0.895/0.049 \\  & **5** & 33.016/0.871/0.061 & 33.000/0.876/0.061 & 33.297/0.876/0.055 & 32.803/0.878/0.055 & 33.477/**0.880** & **0.861** & **34.492** /**********************(**(**(**(**(**(**(**(**(**(**(**(((((((((((((                                                                                                    0 0  0   0  0  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Images**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SD**} & **ATV [7]** & **ITY [34]** & **ATpV [31]** & **FTV4 Lp [6]** & **Hybrid TV [10]** & **HTY-Lp** \\  & & **PSNR/SSIM/GMSD** & **PSNR/SSIM/GMSD** & **PSNR/SSIM/GMSD** & **PSNR/SSIM/GMSD** & **PSNR/SSIM/GMSD** & **PSNR/SSIM/GMSD** & **PSNR/SSIM/GMSD** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Building**} & **1** & 34.956(0.918/0.024 & 34.998(0.919/0.024 & 35.619(0.925/0.017) & 35.115(0.929/0.022) & 36.150(0.936/0.015 & **36.186(0.936/0.014)** \\  & **3** & 32.010(0.850/0.040) & 31.681(0.847/0.041) & 32.376(0.860/0.037 & 31.812(0.846/0.041) & 32.370(0.855/0.036 & **32.716(0.871/0.036)** \\  & **5** & 30.000(0.840/0.050) & 36.61(0.850/0.050) & 31.719(0.825/0.051) & 30.153(0.789/0.056) & 31.245(0.826/0.052) & **31.240(0.825/0.052)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Figure**} & **1** & 3.619(0.935/0.008) & **38.020(0.939/0.007)** & 37.813(0.936/0.008) & 37.803(0.935/0.008) & 37.857(0.937/0.008) & 37.925(0.936/0.008) \\  & **3** & 35.217(0.995/0.023) & 35.390(0.910/0.024 & 34.711(0.907/0.028) & 35.197(0.909/0.024) & 35.393(0.912/0.024) & **35.513(0.911/0.023)** \\  & **5** & 34.118(0.888/0.033) & 34.290(0.896/0.034) & 34.251(0.893/0.033) & 34.163(0.895/0.033) & 34.528(0.899/0.032) & **34.542(0.899/0.032)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Street**} & **1** & 36.317(0.925/0.011) & 36.563(0.928/0.011) & 36.365(0.925/0.011) & 36.265(0.924/0.012) & 36.701(0.701/0.930) & 37.027(0.932/0.009) \\  & **3** & 33.638(0.838/0.028) & 33.531(0.886/0.030) & 33.854(0.828/0.028) & 333.738(0.884/0.0 The performance of the proposed method, illustrated intuitively in Figure 5, and Tables 2 and 3, can be summarized as follows: (1) The performance indicators obtained by the HTV-Lp model are higher than all the other models, thereby demonstrating that the proposed method has better deblurring and denoising effects. (2) Observed from Table 2 when restoring the eight degraded images with the motion blur kernel (M, 10, 10) and Gaussian noise standard deviation of 1-5, the HTV-Lp model shows average PSNR values 0.584 dB higher than those of the ATV method, 0.536 dB higher than those of the ITV method, 0.389 dB higher than those of the ATpV method, 0.575 dB higher than those of the ATpV method, 0. FAV4 Lp method, and 0.100 dB higher than those of the Hybrid TV method.