Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 66 references

MSSIDD: A Benchmark for Multi-Sensor Denoising

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Denoising models can be trained to transfer across camera sensors using multi-sensor consistency supervision and a new six-sensor raw benchmark, MSSIDD.

desk verdict A genuinely new public benchmark for raw-domain sensor transferability with a plausible consistency-training plug-in, but the synthetic proxy and the under-documented real-sensor table mean the real-world claims outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11562 v1 pith:WHXFD3TF submitted 2024-11-18 cs.CV eess.IV

Shibin Mei , Hang Wang , Bingbing Ni This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVeess.IV
keywords multi-sensordenoisingraw-domainbenchmarksensortransferabilityinverseISPsynthesisconsistencysupervisionadversarialtrainingdomaingeneralizationimage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces MSSIDD, the first raw-domain benchmark for evaluating whether image-denoising models transfer across camera sensors. It generates 60,000 noisy/clean raw image pairs for six distinct sensors by applying the inverse of a camera ISP pipeline (inverse tone mapping, gamma, color correction, white balance, digital gain, and mosaicing) to clean sRGB images from SIDD. The paper then proposes training with multi-sensor consistency supervision: intra-image constraints that align feature differences across sensors of the same scene, inter-image constraints that do the same across image pairs, and an adversarial sensor classifier that pushes features to be sensor-invariant. Applied to NAFNet and Restormer, this supervision consistently improves performance on all six held-out sensor tasks and on two real cameras, suggesting a general recipe for sensor-invariant raw denoising.

What carries the argument

The central object is the multi-scale, multi-sensor consistency loss $L_{MS} = \lambda_1 L_{inter} + \lambda_2 L_{intra} + \lambda_3 L_{adv}$. $L_{intra}$ constrains, for each image and each scale of a designated sub-network, the difference between feature maps of different sensors to match the difference between their noisy inputs; $L_{inter}$ applies the same relation-based constraint across different images in a batch; and $L_{adv}$ trains a sensor classifier on the sub-network features with a gradient reversal layer so the features become sensor-invariant. The loss is a plug-in that can be added to any encoder-decoder denoising architecture, and the paper's data-generation pipeline (inverse ISP starting from SIDD sRGB) provides the six-sensor paired raw data needed to compute it.

What would settle it

Collect raw noise/clean pairs from a new real camera with its own calibration, train a model on MSSIDD's five synthetic sensors, and evaluate on that real camera without any inverse-transformed data; if the synthetic-trained model does not outperform a model trained only on a single unrelated sensor (or if the performance gap reverses), the inverse-ISP synthesis assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that a denoising network can learn to ignore which sensor produced an image, so that a model trained on a handful of known sensors works on a new, unseen sensor without fine-tuning. The authors argue this with the MSSIDD dataset, where the only differences between the six sensor domains are the calibrated ISP parameters (white balance, color correction, digital gain, black level) and the shot/read noise model. They then show that enforcing consistency between features extracted from different sensors of the same image, and between different images, while adversarially confusing a sensor classifier, yields quantitative gains on every held-out sensor under both raw-domain and sRGB-domain supervision. The same supervision transfers to Sony and Canon real-camera data, which supports the claim that the learned features are sensor-invariant rather than just tuned to synthetic noise levels.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that taking a clean sRGB image and running it backward through an inverse ISP pipeline faithfully produces raw images that behave like real camera raw data for the purpose of training and testing denoising transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the MSSIDD benchmark, MS-NAFNet and MS-Restormer outperform all baselines on all six transfer-to-sensor tasks in both Raw2Raw and Raw2RGB settings, with gains over the base models reaching about 0.2 dB.
  • The consistency supervision can be added to existing denoising architectures with negligible computational overhead, making it a lightweight way to improve sensor portability in mobile terminals.
  • A model trained on five of the six MSSIDD sensors transfers to the sixth without seeing its training data, establishing a reproducible evaluation protocol for sensor transferability research.
  • The real-sensor experiments with Sony and Canon cameras show that the same supervision improves performance on genuinely captured raw data, not only on the synthetic dataset.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the real-sensor validation in Section 5.4 generates the sensor6 domain by the same inverse transformation used to build the benchmark, that validation may not be fully independent of the synthetic-data assumption; a cleaner test would evaluate only on raw data captured natively by an entirely unseen camera.
  • The relation-based consistency losses resemble contrastive and relative-learning constraints, suggesting the recipe could extend to other sensor-dependent restoration tasks such as demosaicing, color correction, or super-resolution, and perhaps to domain generalization beyond cameras.
  • The dataset's noise statistics and ISP parameters are sampled rather than calibrated per image, so transferability scores may depend on the chosen ranges (for instance ISO 2400-12800 and the inverse-gain Gaussian); ablating these ranges would reveal how sensitive the benchmark is to the synthesis choices.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper introduces MSSIDD, a synthetic raw-domain benchmark for evaluating the sensor transferability of denoising models. Starting from clean sRGB ground-truth images from SIDD, the authors apply an inverse ISP pipeline (inverse tone mapping, inverse gamma, inverse color correction, inverse white balance, and mosaicing) to generate clean raw images for six simulated sensors, then add shot and read noise using calibration parameters from each sensor. The resulting 60,000 training and 6,000 validation paired noisy/clean raw images are used to benchmark several existing denoisers under leave-one-sensor-out transfer. The paper also proposes a multi-sensor consistency training framework that combines intra-image and inter-image relation-based feature consistency losses with adversarial sensor classification, and shows consistent improvements over base models on the synthetic benchmark and on a small real-sensor evaluation. The dataset and code are released publicly.

Significance. MSSIDD addresses a real gap: there is no widely used raw-domain benchmark specifically designed to measure cross-sensor generalization of denoising models. The dataset itself, if its synthetic generation is trustworthy, would be a useful resource, and the proposed consistency losses are simple, model-agnostic, and show consistent gains of roughly 0.1–0.2 dB across all held-out sensors in Tables 1–2. The authors also provide code, a datasheet, and a public release, which is commendable. However, the benchmark's central validity rests on the assumption that the inverse-ISP synthesis produces raw images whose sensor-to-sensor differences faithfully mimic real cameras. The real-sensor validation in Section 5.4 is not documented sufficiently, and the evaluation protocol in the Raw2Raw setting is not fully described in the main text. These are load-bearing issues that must be resolved before the dataset and the transferability claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.4, Table 3] The real-sensor validation is not documented. The text says that Sony and Canon raw images were captured and that "we subsequently use Sony sRGB image to perform inverse transformation according to the camera parameters of sensor6, resulting in three domains, namely sensor6, Sony, and Canon." It is never explained how the clean reference images for the Sony and Canon raw domains were obtained. If the references are also produced by the same inverse-ISP transformation, then the evaluation is circular and only tests within the synthetic pipeline. If genuine clean raw references exist (e.g., from multi-frame averaging), the acquisition and alignment procedure, the ISP parameters, and the way the references were validated must be described. As written, Table 3 cannot support the claim that the proposed supervision improves generalization to real sensors.
  2. [Section 3.1–3.2, Eq. (1)] The benchmark's validity rests on the assumption that the inverse-ISP pipeline yields clean raw images whose sensor-to-sensor differences (color, noise, black level) match real cameras. The paper provides no validation of this assumption. It relies on the general unprocessing idea of [11] but introduces modifications (random digital gain drawn from a Gaussian, random convex combinations of AWB and CCM parameters) and uses sensor parameters from a public webpage without any comparison to real raw captures. The authors should provide evidence, for example, by comparing the statistics of the synthesized raw images against real raw data from the same sensors, or by demonstrating that models trained on MSSIDD transfer to real raw data in a protocol with clearly documented ground-truth references.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Supplemental Section 7.2] The Raw2Raw evaluation protocol is not described accurately in the main text. Section 5.1 says PSNR and SSIM are reported on raw and sRGB outputs, but the supplement states that "under the RAW2RAW setting, we will conduct the digital gain and gamma correction on the predicted clean raw images output by the network" with a gain of 2.0 and gamma of 1/2.2 before computing metrics. This post-processing is part of the protocol and must be stated in the main text, otherwise the benchmark results are not reproducible from the paper alone. The authors should also analyze sensitivity to the chosen gain and gamma values, since the ranking of methods could depend on these choices.
  4. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (5)–(7)] The proposed intra- and inter-image consistency losses assume that the same scene is available across sensors with pixel-perfect alignment. This assumption holds trivially in the MSSIDD benchmark because all six sensor images are generated from the same sRGB image via the inverse pipeline. For real multi-sensor data, capturing the same scene with different cameras introduces parallax, registration errors, and different lens/ISP characteristics, which would break the assumption. The paper should clarify how the proposed supervision is intended to be applied to real sensor data, or state explicitly that the method is designed for synthetic multi-sensor training data where such alignment is available.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3.3] The abstract states the dataset consists of "60,000 raw images of six distinct sensors," but Section 3.3 and Table 4 describe 60,000 training pairs plus 6,000 validation pairs, totaling 66,000. Please correct the abstract or clarify that the number refers only to training pairs.
  2. [Datasheet, Section 8 vs. Section 3.2] The datasheet says "All raw images are 4 channels with RGGB bayer pattern," while Section 3.2 says the raw images follow the BGGR Bayer pattern. One of these is inconsistent and should be fixed.
  3. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (5)–(7)] The normalization constants in Eqs. (5)–(7) are written with ambiguous notation (e.g., "N (N − 1)/2|D|"). Use explicit fractions such as \frac{N(N-1)}{2|D|L} to avoid confusion about the placement of the dataset-size and scale factors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: held-out sensor transfer tasks use unseen sensor parameters, the consistency losses are training regularizers, and self-citations are background; the underdocumented real-sensor validation is a validity risk, not an exhibited circular reduction.

full rationale

None of the circularity failure modes is realized in the paper's derivation chain. The MSSIDD benchmark is a data-generation contribution: SIDD sRGB content is passed through an inverse-ISP pipeline (Section 3.1) using externally calibrated sensor parameters and noise models, and the '→ sensor m' transfer tasks in Tables 1-2 exclude sensor m from training. The measured PSNR/SSIM therefore quantify generalization to sensor parameters not seen during optimization, rather than being constructed from the same fitted values. The proposed losses (Eqs. 5-9) are training regularizers; they are not fit to the reported evaluation numbers and do not define the metrics. The inverse-ISP pipeline is adopted from external prior work [11], not from the authors' own prior claims. The self-citations [38,39] are cited only as inspiration for relation-based consistency and adversarial training, so they are not load-bearing evidence for the dataset's validity or for the observed gains. A legitimate validity concern remains: the inverse-ISP synthesis in Section 3.1 is a proxy for real sensor behavior, and Section 5.4 does not document how clean references for the real Sony and Canon raw images were obtained, so the real-sensor validation is incomplete as written. But missing documentation is not, by itself, an exhibited circular reduction: the paper never states that the same inverse-ISP outputs are reused as the Sony/Canon references, and no equation shows the evaluation target being defined by the training pipeline. Under the rule that circularity must be quoted and specifically reduced, this is a correctness/validation risk rather than a circularity finding. Score 1 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citations and the background validation gap, not a circular derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the inverse-ISP simulation as a proxy for real sensor diversity, on external sensor calibration parameters treated as given, and on the heuristic that feature consistency and sensor confusion improve transfer. The free parameters are hand-chosen training and evaluation settings, not fitted to an independent benchmark.

free parameters (4)
  • Inverse digital gain distribution = mean 0.65, std 0.2
    Chosen to create dataset diversity; no calibration or justification is provided; affects the brightness of generated raw images. Introduced in Section 3.1.
  • Balance weights lambda1, lambda2, lambda3 = 0.1, 0.1, 1.0
    Set manually for the sensor consistency losses in Eq. 9; no sensitivity study is reported. Section 5.1.
  • Adversarial ramp alpha = 0 to 1
    The classification weight is increased from 0 to 1 during training; the schedule is chosen by hand. Section 5.1.
  • Raw2Raw metric gain and gamma = digital gain 2.0, gamma 1/2.2
    Introduced in Supp. 7.2 specifically so that PSNR/SSIM can 'distinguish' methods; this post-hoc choice affects all reported Raw2Raw numbers.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Inverse ISP pipeline (unprocessing) of [11] produces physically plausible raw images from sRGB images.
    Section 3.1 builds the entire dataset on the validity of inverse tone mapping, inverse gamma, inverse CCM, inverse white balance, and mosaicing.
  • domain assumption The noise model I ~ N(x, sigma_shot^2 x + sigma_read^2) with sigma_shot^2 = K0*ISO + K1 and sigma_read^2 = B0*ISO^2 + B1*ISO + B2 from [27] describes real camera noise.
    Used in Eq. 1 and in data generation in Section 3.2; the six sensors' K/B parameters are taken from external calibration and are not validated in this paper.
  • domain assumption Six sensor profiles from the Sony semiconductor page [1] (plus CCMs and light sources) represent realistic diversity of mobile sensors.
    Section 3.2 collects calibration parameters from [1] without independent verification on real raw captures.
  • domain assumption Encouraging relation-consistency of features across sensors (Eqs. 5-7) and sensor confusion (Eq. 8) improves generalization to unseen sensors.
    This is the method's core heuristic; the paper provides empirical support but no derivation or mechanism guarantee.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MSSIDD: A Benchmark for Multi-Sensor Denoising." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WHXFD3TF

@misc{pith2026241111562,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MSSIDD: A Benchmark for Multi-Sensor Denoising},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WHXFD3TF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11562}
}
read the original abstract

The cameras equipped on mobile terminals employ different sensors in different photograph modes, and the transferability of raw domain denoising models between these sensors is significant but remains sufficient exploration. Industrial solutions either develop distinct training strategies and models for different sensors or ignore the differences between sensors and simply extend existing models to new sensors, which leads to tedious training or unsatisfactory performance. In this paper, we introduce a new benchmark, the Multi-Sensor SIDD (MSSIDD) dataset, which is the first raw-domain dataset designed to evaluate the sensor transferability of denoising models. The MSSIDD dataset consists of 60,000 raw images of six distinct sensors, derived through the degeneration of sRGB images via different camera sensor parameters. Furthermore, we propose a sensor consistency training framework that enables denoising models to learn the sensor-invariant features, thereby facilitating the generalization of the consistent model to unseen sensors. We evaluate previous arts on the newly proposed MSSIDD dataset, and the experimental results validate the effectiveness of our proposed method. Our dataset is available at https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/sjtuwh/mssidd.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11562 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The inverse transformation of ISP pipeline to obtain degenerated raw images. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Noisy and clean image pairs of six sensors. Demosaicing is applied for better visualization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Analysis of noise statistic of six sensors. We display the SNR and total noise variance concerning ADU. We also present the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Model Structure. Intra- and inter-image sensor consis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visual comparison of different methods under Raw2Raw setting on the proposed MSSIDD dataset. (Best viewed by zooming.) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of feature similarity across six sensors (left) and ablation studies of MS-NAF on “ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    Unpro- cessing images for learned raw denoising

    Tim Brooks, Ben Mildenhall, Tianfan Xue, Jiawen Chen, Dillon Sharlet, and Jonathan T Barron. Unpro- cessing images for learned raw denoising. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, pages 11036–11045, 2019. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    https:// www.sony-semicon.com/en/products/is/ camera/index.html

    Image sensor for consumer cameras. https:// www.sony-semicon.com/en/products/is/ camera/index.html. 4

    work page

  3. [2]

    https://en.wikipedia

    Standard illuminant. https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Standard_illuminant. 3

    work page

  4. [3]

    A high-quality denoising dataset for smartphone cameras

    Abdelrahman Abdelhamed, Stephen Lin, and Michael S Brown. A high-quality denoising dataset for smartphone cameras. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1692–1700, 2018. 2, 3, 6

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    Cross-camera con- volutional color constancy

    Mahmoud Afifi, Jonathan T Barron, Chloe LeGendre, Yun-Ta Tsai, and Francois Bleibel. Cross-camera con- volutional color constancy. InInternational Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1981–1990, 2021. 3

    work page 1981

  6. [5]

    Real image denoising with feature attention

    Saeed Anwar and Nick Barnes. Real image denoising with feature attention. In International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3155–3164, 2019. 2, 6, 7, 8

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Invariant risk minimization

    Martin Arjovsky, L´eon Bottou, Ishaan Gulrajani, and David Lopez-Paz. Invariant risk minimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02893, 2019. 6

    arXiv 1907

  8. [7]

    Convolutional color constancy

    Jonathan T Barron. Convolutional color constancy. In International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 379–387, 2015. 3

    work page 2015

Show all 66 references
  1. [8]

    Photon shot noise

    CWJ Beenakker and M Patra. Photon shot noise. Mod- ern physics letters B, 13(11):337–347, 1999. 3

    1999

  2. [9]

    Automatic exposure algorithms for digital photography

    Jarosław Bernacki. Automatic exposure algorithms for digital photography. Multimedia Tools and Applica- tions, 79(19):12751–12776, 2020. 3

    2020

  3. [10]

    Boie and Ingemar J

    Robert A. Boie and Ingemar J. Cox. An analysis of camera noise. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 14(06):671–674, 1992. 3

    1992

  4. [12]

    A non-local algorithm for image denoising

    Antoni Buades, Bartomeu Coll, and J-M Morel. A non-local algorithm for image denoising. In IEEE Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 60–65. Ieee, 2005. 2

    2005

  5. [13]

    Self-similarity driven color demo- saicking

    Antoni Buades, Bartomeu Coll, Jean-Michel Morel, and Catalina Sbert. Self-similarity driven color demo- saicking. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 18 (6):1192–1202, 2009. 3

    2009

  6. [14]

    Learning camera-aware noise models

    Ke-Chi Chang, Ren Wang, Hung-Jin Lin, Yu-Lun Liu, Chia-Ping Chen, Yu-Lin Chang, and Hwann-Tzong Chen. Learning camera-aware noise models. In Euro- pean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 343–358,

  7. [15]

    Hinet: Half instance normalization network for image restoration

    Liangyu Chen, Xin Lu, Jie Zhang, Xiaojie Chu, and Chengpeng Chen. Hinet: Half instance normalization network for image restoration. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 182–192, 2021. 6, 7, 8

    2021

  8. [16]

    Simple baselines for image restoration

    Liangyu Chen, Xiaojie Chu, Xiangyu Zhang, and Jian Sun. Simple baselines for image restoration. In Eu- ropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 17–33,

  9. [17]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning , pages 1597–1607. PMLR, 2020. 5

    2020

  10. [18]

    Intrinsic phase-preserving networks for depth super resolution

    Xuanhong Chen, Hang Wang, Jialiang Chen, Kairui Feng, Jinfan Liu, Xiaohang Wang, Weimin Zhang, and Bingbing Ni. Intrinsic phase-preserving networks for depth super resolution. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1210–1218,

  11. [19]

    Focal network for image restoration

    Yuning Cui, Wenqi Ren, Xiaochun Cao, and Alois Knoll. Focal network for image restoration. In Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision, pages 13001– 13011, 2023. 2

    2023

  12. [20]

    Image denoising by sparse 3-d transform-domain collaborative filtering

    Kostadin Dabov, Alessandro Foi, Vladimir Katkovnik, and Karen Egiazarian. Image denoising by sparse 3-d transform-domain collaborative filtering. IEEE Trans- actions on Image Processing, 16(8):2080–2095, 2007. 1, 2, 7, 8

    2007

  13. [21]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation

    Yaroslav Ganin and Victor Lempitsky. Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation. In Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1180–

  14. [22]

    Malvar-he-cutler linear image demo- saicking

    Pascal Getreuer. Malvar-he-cutler linear image demo- saicking. Image Processing on Line, 1:83–89, 2011. 3

    2011

  15. [23]

    Deep joint demosaicking and denoising

    Micha¨el Gharbi, Gaurav Chaurasia, Sylvain Paris, and Fr´edo Durand. Deep joint demosaicking and denoising. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 35(6):1–12, 2016. 2

    2016

  16. [24]

    Weighted nuclear norm minimization with application to image denoising

    Shuhang Gu, Lei Zhang, Wangmeng Zuo, and Xi- angchu Feng. Weighted nuclear norm minimization with application to image denoising. In IEEE Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2862–2869, 2014. 2

    2014

  17. [25]

    Gamma correction for digital fringe projection profilometry

    Hongwei Guo, Haitao He, and Mingyi Chen. Gamma correction for digital fringe projection profilometry. Applied optics, 43(14):2906–2914, 2004. 3

    2004

  18. [26]

    Toward convolutional blind denoising of 9 real photographs

    Shi Guo, Zifei Yan, Kai Zhang, Wangmeng Zuo, and Lei Zhang. Toward convolutional blind denoising of 9 real photographs. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 1712–1722, 2019. 2

    2019

  19. [27]

    Radiometric ccd camera calibration and noise estimation

    Glenn E Healey and Raghava Kondepudy. Radiometric ccd camera calibration and noise estimation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence, 16(3):267–276, 1994. 3

    1994

  20. [28]

    The human condition as seen from the cross: Luther and disability

    Stefan Heuser. The human condition as seen from the cross: Luther and disability. Disability in the Christian tradition: A reader, pages 184–215, 2012. 3

    2012

  21. [29]

    Adaptive homogeneity-directed demosaicing algorithm

    Keigo Hirakawa and Thomas W Parks. Adaptive homogeneity-directed demosaicing algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 14(3):360–369,

  22. [30]

    Focnet: A fractional optimal control network for image denoising

    Xixi Jia, Sanyang Liu, Xiangchu Feng, and Lei Zhang. Focnet: A fractional optimal control network for image denoising. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6054–6063, 2019. 2

    2019

  23. [31]

    Lighting every darkness in two pairs: A calibration-free pipeline for raw denoising

    Xin Jin, Jia-Wen Xiao, Ling-Hao Han, Chunle Guo, Ruixun Zhang, Xialei Liu, and Chongyi Li. Lighting every darkness in two pairs: A calibration-free pipeline for raw denoising. In International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 13275–13284, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  24. [32]

    Transfer learning from synthetic to real- noise denoising with adaptive instance normalization

    Yoonsik Kim, Jae Woong Soh, Gu Yong Park, and Nam Ik Cho. Transfer learning from synthetic to real- noise denoising with adaptive instance normalization. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3482–3492, 2020. 7, 8

    2020

  25. [33]

    Efficient visual computing with camera raw snapshots

    Zhihao Li, Ming Lu, Xu Zhang, Xin Feng, M Salman Asif, and Zhan Ma. Efficient visual computing with camera raw snapshots. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024. 2, 3

    2024

  26. [34]

    Swinir: Image restoration using swin transformer

    Jingyun Liang, Jiezhang Cao, Guolei Sun, Kai Zhang, Luc Van Gool, and Radu Timofte. Swinir: Image restoration using swin transformer. In International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 1833–1844,

  27. [35]

    Non-local recurrent network for image restoration

    Ding Liu, Bihan Wen, Yuchen Fan, Chen Change Loy, and Thomas S Huang. Non-local recurrent network for image restoration. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018. 2

    2018

  28. [36]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019. 6

    2019

  29. [37]

    Visu- alizing data using t-sne

    Laurens Van Der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visu- alizing data using t-sne. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(2605):2579–2605, 2008

    2008

  30. [38]

    Towards bridging sample complexity and model capacity

    Shibin Mei, Chenglong Zhao, Shengchao Yuan, and Bingbing Ni. Towards bridging sample complexity and model capacity. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1972–1980, 2022. 5

    1972

  31. [39]

    Exploring and utilizing pattern imbal- ance

    Shibin Mei, Chenglong Zhao, Shengchao Yuan, and Bingbing Ni. Exploring and utilizing pattern imbal- ance. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 7569–7578, 2023. 6

    2023

  32. [40]

    Graphical modeling for multi-source domain adaptation

    Minghao Xu, Hang Wang, and Bingbing Ni. Graphical modeling for multi-source domain adaptation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence, 46(3):1727–1741, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Reducing domain gap via style-agnostic networks

    Hyeonseob Nam, HyunJae Lee, Jongchan Park, Won- jun Yoon, and Donggeun Yoo. Reducing domain gap via style-agnostic networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.11645, 2(7):8, 2019. 6

    1910 arXiv

  34. [42]

    An iterative regularization method for total variation-based image restoration

    Stanley Osher, Martin Burger, Donald Goldfarb, Jinjun Xu, and Wotao Yin. An iterative regularization method for total variation-based image restoration. Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, 4(2):460–489, 2005. 2

    2005

  35. [43]

    Gradient based threshold free color filter array interpolation

    Ibrahim Pekkucuksen and Yucel Altunbasak. Gradient based threshold free color filter array interpolation. In IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, pages 137–140. IEEE, 2010. 3

    2010

  36. [44]

    Benchmarking denoising algorithms with real photographs

    Tobias Plotz and Stefan Roth. Benchmarking denoising algorithms with real photographs. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1586–1595, 2017. 2, 6

    2017

  37. [45]

    Demosaicking methods for bayer color arrays

    Rajeev Ramanath, Wesley E Snyder, Griff L Bilbro, and William A Sander III. Demosaicking methods for bayer color arrays. Journal of Electronic imaging, 11 (3):306–315, 2002. 3

    2002

  38. [46]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical im- age segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical im- age segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-assisted Intervention, pages 234–241, 2015. 5

    2015

  39. [47]

    Distributionally robust neural net- works for group shifts: On the importance of regular- ization for worst-case generalization

    Shiori Sagawa, Pang Wei Koh, Tatsunori B Hashimoto, and Percy Liang. Distributionally robust neural net- works for group shifts: On the importance of regular- ization for worst-case generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.08731, 2019. 5

    1911 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ntire 2017 challenge on single image super-resolution: Methods and results

    Radu Timofte, Eirikur Agustsson, Luc Van Gool, Ming- Hsuan Yang, and Lei Zhang. Ntire 2017 challenge on single image super-resolution: Methods and results. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, 2017. 6

    2017

  41. [49]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017. 2

    2017

  42. [50]

    Omni aggregation networks for lightweight image super-resolution

    Hang Wang, Xuanhong Chen, Bingbing Ni, Yutian Liu, and Jinfan Liu. Omni aggregation networks for lightweight image super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 22378–22387, 2023. 2 10

    2023

  43. [51]

    Practical deep raw image denoising on mobile devices

    Yuzhi Wang, Haibin Huang, Qin Xu, Jiaming Liu, Yiqun Liu, and Jue Wang. Practical deep raw image denoising on mobile devices. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1–16, 2020. 3

    2020

  44. [52]

    Bovik, H.R

    Zhou Wang, A.C. Bovik, H.R. Sheikh, and E.P. Simon- celli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 6

    2004

  45. [53]

    Uformer: A general u-shaped transformer for image restoration

    Zhendong Wang, Xiaodong Cun, Jianmin Bao, Wen- gang Zhou, Jianzhuang Liu, and Houqiang Li. Uformer: A general u-shaped transformer for image restoration. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17683–17693, 2022. 2, 6, 7, 8

    2022

  46. [54]

    Learning enriched features for real image restoration and enhancement

    Syed Waqas Zamir, Aditya Arora, Salman Khan, Mu- nawar Hayat, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Ling Shao. Learning enriched features for real image restoration and enhancement. In European Con- ference on Computer Vision, 2020. 7, 8

    2020

  47. [55]

    Cycleisp: Real image restoration via improved data synthesis

    Syed Waqas Zamir, Aditya Arora, Salman Khan, Mu- nawar Hayat, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Ling Shao. Cycleisp: Real image restoration via improved data synthesis. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2696– 2705, 2020. 2, 6, 7, 8

    2020

  48. [56]

    Learning enriched features for real image restoration and enhancement

    Syed Waqas Zamir, Aditya Arora, Salman Khan, Mu- nawar Hayat, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Ling Shao. Learning enriched features for real image restoration and enhancement. In European Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 492–511, 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  49. [57]

    Multi-stage progressive image restora- tion

    Syed Waqas Zamir, Aditya Arora, Salman Khan, Mu- nawar Hayat, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Ling Shao. Multi-stage progressive image restora- tion. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14821–14831, 2021. 2, 7, 8

    2021

  50. [58]

    Restormer: Efficient transformer for high- resolution image restoration

    Syed Waqas Zamir, Aditya Arora, Salman Khan, Mu- nawar Hayat, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Restormer: Efficient transformer for high- resolution image restoration. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5728– 5739, 2022. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8

    2022

  51. [59]

    Ingredient-oriented multi-degradation learning for image restoration

    Jinghao Zhang, Jie Huang, Mingde Yao, Zizheng Yang, Hu Yu, Man Zhou, and Feng Zhao. Ingredient-oriented multi-degradation learning for image restoration. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5825–5835, 2023. 2

    2023

  52. [60]

    Beyond a gaussian denoiser: Residual learning of deep cnn for image denoising

    Kai Zhang, Wangmeng Zuo, Yunjin Chen, Deyu Meng, and Lei Zhang. Beyond a gaussian denoiser: Residual learning of deep cnn for image denoising. IEEE Trans- actions on Image Processing, 26(7):3142–3155, 2017. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8

    2017

  53. [61]

    Learning deep cnn denoiser prior for image restoration

    Kai Zhang, Wangmeng Zuo, Shuhang Gu, and Lei Zhang. Learning deep cnn denoiser prior for image restoration. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3929–3938, 2017

    2017

  54. [62]

    Ffdnet: Toward a fast and flexible solution for cnn-based image denoising

    Kai Zhang, Wangmeng Zuo, and Lei Zhang. Ffdnet: Toward a fast and flexible solution for cnn-based image denoising. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 27(9):4608–4622, 2018. 2, 6, 7, 8

    2018

  55. [63]

    Plug-and-play image restoration with deep denoiser prior

    Kai Zhang, Yawei Li, Wangmeng Zuo, Lei Zhang, Luc Van Gool, and Radu Timofte. Plug-and-play image restoration with deep denoiser prior. IEEE Transac- tions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44 (10):6360–6376, 2021. 2

    2021

  56. [64]

    Variational adversar- ial defense: A bayes perspective for adversarial train- ing

    Chenglong Zhao, Shibin Mei, Bingbing Ni, Shengchao Yuan, Zhenbo Yu, and Jun Wang. Variational adversar- ial defense: A bayes perspective for adversarial train- ing. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Ma- chine Intelligence, 2023. 6 11

    2023

  57. [65]

    Supplemental Materials 7.1. Datasheet We apply datasheets for datasets for dataset documentation and intended uses, where we illustrate the motivation for developing the MSSIDD benchmark, dataset composition, collection process, preprocessing, dataset usage, distribution, and ...

  58. [66]

    meta data.pkl

    Datasheet for the MSSIDD Benchmark Motivation For what purpose was the dataset created? Was there a specific task in mind? Was there a specific gap that needed to be filled? Please provide a description. MSSIDD is created to be the first publicly available multi- sensor denois...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.