A Hyperbola-Prior-Guided Initialization Strategy for Ground-Penetrating Radar Waveform Inversion

Authors

  • Yukui Zhang School of Electronic Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology and Education, Tianjin, 300322 China
  • Ying Liu School of Electronic Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology and Education, Tianjin, 300322 China
  • Yuxin Ji School of Electronic Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology and Education, Tianjin, 300322 China
  • Zewen Zi School of Electronic Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology and Education, Tianjin, 300322 China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/rh6bjt67

Keywords:

Ground-penetrating Radar, Hyperbola Prior, Initialization Strategy, Permittivity Inversion

Abstract

Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) waveform inversion is sensitive to the initial model. This study proposes a hyperbola-prior-guided initialization strategy for two-dimensional GPR permittivity inversion. B-scan preprocessing, robust hyperbola fitting, and bootstrap resampling are used to estimate target geometry and positional uncertainty. The fitted prior, an engineering radius constraint, and uncertainty estimates define an adaptive region; envelope- and amplitude-based coarse scanning selects an initial anomaly permittivity without using the true target value. Four initial models—a homogeneous background (M1), a perturbed model (M2), a hard-boundary prior model (M3), and a sigmoid soft-boundary model (M4)—are compared under identical inversion settings. Simulations of a single PVC pipe in homogeneous soil show that the prior-informed models offer complementary benefits relative to conventional initializations. The main trends remain stable across tested noise levels: M3 provides better regional and boundary reconstruction when the geometric prior is accurate, whereas M4 generally yields smaller target-center errors and lower ROI-RMSE degradation under the tested geometric perturbations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Warren, C., Giannopoulos, A., & Giannakis, I. (2016). gprMax: Open source software to simulate electromagnetic wave propagation for ground penetrating radar. Computer Physics Communications, 209, 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2016.08.018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2016.08.020

[2] He, W., & Lai, W. W. L. (2024). Unified optimization-based analysis of GPR hyperbolic fitting models. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 146, 105633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2024.105633. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2024.105633

[3] Zhu, C., & Ye, H. (2023). A modular method for GPR hyperbolic feature detection and quantitative parameter inversion of underground pipelines. Remote Sensing, 15(8), 2114. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15082114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15082114

[4] He, W., & Lai, W. W. L. (2026). Modelling incomplete GPR hyperbolas. NDT & E International, 162, 103746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2026.103746. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2026.103746

[5] Feng, D., Cao, C., & Wang, X. (2019). Multiscale full-waveform dual-parameter inversion based on total variation regularization to on-ground GPR data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 57(11), 9450–9465. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2019.2926042. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2019.2926626

[6] Meles, G., Greenhalgh, S., van der Kruk, J., et al. (2011). Taming the non-linearity problem in GPR full-waveform inversion for high contrast media. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 73(2), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.01.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.01.001

[7] Jazayeri, S., Klotzsche, A., & Kruse, S. (2018). Improving estimates of buried pipe diameter and infilling material from ground-penetrating radar profiles with full-waveform inversion. Geophysics, 83(4), H27–H41. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2017-0526.1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2017-0617.1

[8] Liu, X., Liu, S., Luo, C., et al. (2022). Source-independent waveform inversion method for ground-penetrating radar based on envelope objective function. Remote Sensing, 14(19), 4878. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14194878. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14194878

[9] Fischler, M. A., & Bolles, R. C. (1981). Random sample consensus: A paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Communications of the ACM, 24(6), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1145/358669.358692. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/358669.358692

[10] Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, 7(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344552. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344552

Downloads

Published

29-10-2026

Issue

Section

Articles