Virtual restoration and prediction of urban heritage landscape changes based on generative adversarial networks


Abstract

Urban heritage preservation faces significant challenges due to progressive environmental degradation and structural aging, which threaten the longevity and cultural value of historic landmarks. To address these issues, we propose a unified framework that combines generative adversarial networks (GANs) for virtual restoration with a temporal prediction module for forecasting future degradation. Specifically, our approach includes a Restoration Module based on a GAN architecture augmented with residual connections and attention mechanisms, capable of reconstructing damaged or missing architectural elements with high fidelity; and a Prediction Module that leverages sequence modeling to estimate future landscape deterioration driven by pollution, humidity, and urbanization dynamics. The framework is trained on a curated dataset of 308 high-resolution images of heritage sites, enhanced with manual annotations and synthetic augmentations to simulate both restored and degraded states. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our model outperforms baseline methods in terms of PSNR, SSIM, and FID, validating its superiority in both restoration quality and predictive reliability. This research provides a novel dual-stage approach to urban heritage conservation by integrating visual restoration and long-term environmental forecasting into a single pipeline, offering practical tools for sustainable cultural preservation.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].