Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Zero-Shot Low-Light Image Enhancement via Joint Frequency Domain Priors Guided Diffusion

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A joint wavelet-Fourier prior guides zero-shot diffusion low-light enhancement.

desk verdict A plausible zero-shot low-light enhancement method with strong reported numbers, but it is a close sibling of the authors' own [31] and the severe-degradation claim is untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13961 v1 pith:6M4VTQU4 submitted 2024-11-21 cs.CV

Jinhong He , Shivakumara Palaiahnakote , Aoxiang Ning , Minglong Xue This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords zero-shotlow-lightenhancementdiffusionmodelwavelettransformFourierfrequency-domainpriorCLIPtextguidanceillumination
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

The paper attempts to show that the weak point of zero-shot low-light enhancement with a pretrained diffusion model is the absence of image-specific illumination and structure information, and that a rich prior obtained by jointly decomposing the input in the wavelet and Fourier frequency domains can supply that information at every reverse-sampling step without any paired training data. It claims that running the diffusion process in the wavelet low-frequency band and continuously fusing the sample with the input's Fourier phase and high-frequency wavelet coefficients keeps the output faithful to the original scene while correcting its exposure. The reported numbers place the method ahead of the compared zero-shot diffusion baselines on LOL, SICE, and unpaired scenes, with best zero-shot LPIPS 0.281 and FID 63.601 on LOL. If the claim holds, zero-shot enhancement becomes a competitive alternative to unpaired-training approaches in complex real-world lighting.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the joint wavelet-Fourier frequency-domain prior. A two-level discrete wavelet transform of the low-light input yields a low-frequency band ($L_L$, then $L^2_L$) that concentrates illumination, and high-frequency bands ($H_L$, $H^2_L$) that concentrate structure; the Fourier transform of the low-frequency bands separates amplitude (illumination) from phase (structure). At each denoising step the algorithm combines the sampling result's amplitude with the input-derived amplitude, replaces the phase and high-frequency coefficients with the input's, and inverts the transforms, so the updated sample is steered both toward correct exposure and toward the input's content. The second mechanism is the null-space sampling rule from Eq. (10), which keeps the trajectory consistent with the input while accepting the frequency-domain edits, plus a CLIP text loss and a brightness loss that optimise the learned blend factor.

What would settle it

Take a low-light image, add realistic sensor noise or moderate JPEG compression to the dark input, run the method, and compare the output with a clean ground truth; if the PSNR and SSIM gains over simpler baselines shrink or reverse while the method wins on clean synthetic low-light images, the prior-injection point of failure is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that zero-shot low-light enhancement with a pretrained diffusion model fails not because the diffusion prior is weak but because it lacks image-specific illumination and structure guidance, and that a prior assembled from the joint wavelet and Fourier decomposition of the input supplies exactly that missing guidance. The method runs the denoising process on the wavelet low-frequency subband of the input and, at every inverse step, rebuilds the sample from the input's Fourier phase and second-level wavelet high-frequency coefficients, with an amplitude formed by a learned blend of the sample's amplitude and the input's amplitude (Eq. (9)). The rebuilt sample is then merged with the denoiser's prediction using the null-space sampling rule (Eq. (10)), and the final output is inverse-wavelet-transformed with the input's high-frequency band and refined by a simple denoiser. On the LOL and SICE benchmarks plus an unpaired set, the paper reports the best perception scores among the compared zero-shot methods, with the best overall LPIPS and FID on LOL.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the fine details and phase information inherited from the dark input photo are accurate and clean, not ruined by noise or compression; if they are ruined, the method keeps reinserting those flaws at every sampling step and cannot repair them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Zero-shot can rival unpaired-training enhancers on standard benchmarks: on LOL the method reports PSNR 20.922, SSIM 0.811, LPIPS 0.281, and FID 63.601, the top zero-shot row in Table I.
  • Because the diffusion prior is frozen and only frequency coefficients and a scalar factor are changed, the method generalises to new scenes without retraining, as shown by results on SICE and on LIME, DICM, and MEF unpaired images.
  • Pinning the sample's phase and high-frequency wavelet band to the input keeps the output structurally consistent with the source image, which addresses the color distortion and random-detail artifacts the paper attributes to GDP and FourierDiff.
  • The ablation in Table II indicates the wavelet branch carries most of the gain; the CLIP text term mainly refines SSIM and perceptual scores rather than brightness.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the prior freezes the degraded input's phase and high-frequency coefficients, the method should inherit whatever defects those coefficients contain; adding realistic sensor noise or JPEG blocking to a dark input should measurably erode the LPIPS/FID gains, a test the paper does not run.
  • Editorial inference: the same grafting scheme is not tied to light enhancement; swapping the target coefficients should port it to dehazing, deblurring, or super-resolution, where the input's low-frequency structure is also more reliable than its corrupted high frequencies.
  • Editorial inference: the learnable luminance factor is a single global scalar in the paper, so applying the method to scenes with strongly non-uniform illumination would likely benefit from a spatially varying version of $\vartheta$; the paper's fixed brightness level in Eq. (13) does not model local lighting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a zero-shot low-light image enhancement method that combines wavelet and Fourier frequency-domain priors with a pre-trained unconditional diffusion model. The method performs the diffusion sampling in the wavelet low-frequency subband of the input, and at each reverse step replaces the sample's wavelet high-frequency coefficients and Fourier phase with those of the input while updating the Fourier amplitude with a learned luminance factor (Eqs. (4)-(9)). It adds CLIP-based text guidance and a non-reference brightness loss to optimise the luminance factor, and ends with an unspecified denoising post-processing step (Eq. (11)). The authors report state-of-the-art results among zero-shot methods on the LOL and SICE benchmarks, with an ablation study on LOL.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, this is a potentially useful contribution: it achieves zero-shot low-light enhancement without paired training data, and it gives a concrete way to combine wavelet and Fourier priors with diffusion sampling. The paper ships a clear pipeline, compares against many unsupervised methods, and promises public code, all of which are strengths. However, the significance is conditional: the central mechanism fixes the input's high-frequency and phase information at every sampling step, which means the method cannot repair corrupted or lost structural details; the claimed robustness to 'unknown severe degradation' is not tested on noisy, blurred, or compressed inputs. The validation is also thin: Table I reports only single-run metrics with no variance or statistical testing, and the closest published method from the same group, reference [31], is not compared. I do not see a circularity problem in the use of non-reference losses, since L_bri and L_TG are distinct from the ground-truth PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS/FID evaluation criteria.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II-B, Eq. (9)] The structural-prior injection cannot recover corrupted high-frequency detail. The diffusion process operates only on the wavelet low-frequency subband LL (Eq. (4)), and in Eq. (9) the sample's high-frequency coefficients H2_L and Fourier phase phaL are taken directly from the input image. If the input's phase or high-frequency content is corrupted by noise, blur, or compression, those corruptions are copied into the output at every reverse step and cannot be repaired by the diffusion prior. The abstract's claim about handling 'unknown severe degradation' is therefore unsupported, and Table I contains no experiment with noisy, blurred, or compressed inputs. Please either add such experiments or substantially temper the robustness claim.
  2. [Sec. II-B, Eq. (10)] The use of the DDNM-style joint-distribution update is not justified. The formula in Eq. (10) is derived for the linear measurement model y = Ax, where the corrected sample lies in the range of the measurement operator. Here x1_t is produced by a nonlinear sequence of DWT, FFT, amplitude/phase replacement, IFFT, and IDWT operations, so the measurement is not linear and the assumptions behind Eq. (10) do not automatically hold. The authors should either prove that the update remains valid for this nonlinear projection or provide an empirical validation, since this equation is load-bearing for the entire sampling algorithm.
  3. [Sec. III-A, Table I] The quantitative validation is too thin. All metrics in Table I are reported as single-run point estimates with no standard deviation, number of runs, or statistical significance tests, which matters because diffusion sampling is stochastic and the method includes per-image optimisation. In addition, the closest prior work from the same group, 'Low-Light Image Enhancement via CLIP-Fourier Guided Wavelet Diffusion' (reference [31]), is not included as a baseline; given its apparent similarity to the proposed pipeline, omitting it weakens the claim of state-of-the-art performance among zero-shot methods. Please add repeated-run statistics and a direct comparison to [31].
  4. [Sec. II-C and Sec. III-A.2] Key hyperparameters and implementation details are missing, which prevents reproduction. The brightness level E in Eq. (13) is never given; the alternating optimisation interval S is set to 200 but its exact use during sampling is not described; the optimiser and learning rate for ϑ are unspecified; the exact CLIP prompts Tp and Tn are not stated; and the 'simplified' denoising module in Eq. (11) is not described beyond a reference to [17], [24]. Please specify these details or provide the code in a form that allows the experiments to be reproduced.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II-A] The notation around Eq. (1) is garbled: 'αt=Qt i=1 αi' should be the product notation, and 't ∈ {[1,...T}' should be 't ∈ {1,...,T}'.
  2. [Sec. II-B heading] The section heading contains a typo: 'F ourier' should be 'Fourier'.
  3. [Sec. II-C, Eq. (12)] The text guidance loss sums over t ∈ [0,T], but with T=1000 this would require CLIP evaluations at every step. Please clarify how the loss is actually applied in the alternating-optimisation schedule with interval S.
  4. [Sec. II-B, Eqs. (4)-(9)] The notation L2_L and H2_L is confusing because the superscript 2 could be read as a power rather than as a label for the second-level wavelet decomposition. Please define the notation explicitly and consider using different symbols.
  5. [Fig. 3] The visual comparison figure is difficult to read because the method labels are placed directly on the images and some are partially obscured; please provide a clearer layout with separate labels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the joint wavelet/Fourier priors are input-derived heuristics, the per-image parameter ϑ is optimized with non-reference losses, and the reported benchmarks are external.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain (Eqs. 4-11) is an algorithmic construction rather than a fitted prediction. The wavelet/Fourier prior is assembled from the input's own low-frequency/high-frequency coefficients and the diffusion sample's amplitude (Eq. 9), so the output is deliberately constrained by the input; this is a design choice, not a circular derivation of a target from an input. The learnable factor ϑ is optimized per image using the non-reference losses L_bri (Eq. 13) and L_TG (Eq. 12), neither of which uses ground-truth images or the evaluation metrics (PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS/FID), so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations [7], [23], [31], [32] appear only in the introduction as related-work context for supervised and unsupervised low-light methods; none of the sampling equations relies on these papers as justification. The load-bearing supports are external: the diffusion formulation ([9], [28]), the Fourier-prior inspiration ([20]), and the high-frequency sensitivity observation ([26]). Evaluation is against external datasets (LOL, SICE, LIME, DICM, MEF) with no leaked training signal. The untested robustness to severe degradation is a missing-experiment concern, not a circularity. Therefore no specific circular step can be quoted and no step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's claims rest on domain assumptions about frequency-domain semantics and on hand-set constants rather than on fitted physical parameters; the most fragile assumption is the substitution of degraded input phase and high-frequency into the diffusion sample.

free parameters (5)
  • ϑ (luminance mixing factor) = per-image, unspecified
    Multiply-amplitude mixture in Eq (9) is a learnable scalar optimized during sampling; its value, schedule, and range are not reported.
  • E (target brightness level) = unspecified
    Used in L_bri (Eq 13); the constant value is never stated, and results may vary with it.
  • S (alternating optimization interval) = 200
    Set to 200 by hand; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • CLIP prompts Tp, Tn = 'high light image' / 'low light image'
    Hand-chosen positive and negative prompts; no prompt ablation is reported.
  • denoising module hyperparameters = unspecified
    The simplified denoiser from [17], [24] is not described, so its settings remain free.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pre-trained ImageNet diffusion model supplies a natural image prior sufficient for low-light enhancement.
    The method uses an unconditional 256x256 ImageNet diffusion model (Section III-A2) without verifying its applicability to the low-light image manifold.
  • domain assumption Wavelet low-frequency carries illumination and high-frequency carries structure; Fourier amplitude carries luminance and phase carries structure.
    Invoked in Section I and II-B, based on [10], [20], [26]; no quantitative justification for low-light images is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Replacing the sample's Fourier phase and high-frequency wavelet coefficients with the input's is a valid projection that preserves data distribution.
    Eq (9) performs this substitution every step; it is the central heuristic and is not derived or validated beyond final metrics.
  • domain assumption CLIP text-image similarity between 'high light' and 'low light' prompts provides a usable supervision signal for low-light enhancement.
    Eq (12) assumes CLIP's embedding direction aligns with perceptual brightness quality; no analysis of CLIP's limitations on severely degraded inputs is given.
  • ad hoc to paper DDNM joint-distribution sampling (Eq (10)) remains valid when the 'measurement' x1_t is a non-linear frequency-domain projection rather than a linear measurement.
    The formula from [28] is for linear null-space models; applying it to a hand-crafted projection is an extension without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zero-Shot Low-Light Image Enhancement via Joint Frequency Domain Priors Guided Diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6M4VTQU4

@misc{pith2026241113961,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zero-Shot Low-Light Image Enhancement via Joint Frequency Domain Priors Guided Diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6M4VTQU4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13961}
}
read the original abstract

Due to the singularity of real-world paired datasets and the complexity of low-light environments, this leads to supervised methods lacking a degree of scene generalisation. Meanwhile, limited by poor lighting and content guidance, existing zero-shot methods cannot handle unknown severe degradation well. To address this problem, we will propose a new zero-shot low-light enhancement method to compensate for the lack of light and structural information in the diffusion sampling process by effectively combining the wavelet and Fourier frequency domains to construct rich a priori information. The key to the inspiration comes from the similarity between the wavelet and Fourier frequency domains: both light and structure information are closely related to specific frequency domain regions, respectively. Therefore, by transferring the diffusion process to the wavelet low-frequency domain and combining the wavelet and Fourier frequency domains by continuously decomposing them in the inverse process, the constructed rich illumination prior is utilised to guide the image generation enhancement process. Sufficient experiments show that the framework is robust and effective in various scenarios. The code will be available at: \href{https://github.com/hejh8/Joint-Wavelet-and-Fourier-priors-guided-diffusion}{https://github.com/hejh8/Joint-Wavelet-and-Fourier-priors-guided-diffusion}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13961 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visual comparison with SOTA diffusion-based zero-shot methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Detailed structure and flow of the proposed method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visual comparison of the results of different methods of enhancement, best viewed by zooming in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    Low-light image enhancement via clip-fourier guided wavelet diffusion

    Minglong Xue, Jinhong He, Yanyi He, Zhipu Liu, Wenhai Wang, and Mingliang Zhou. Low-light image enhancement via clip-fourier guided wavelet diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03788 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [17]

    Fastllve: Real-time low-light video enhancement with intensity- aware look-up table

    Wenhao Li, Guangyang Wu, Wenyi Wang, Peiran Ren, and Xiaohong Liu. Fastllve: Real-time low-light video enhancement with intensity- aware look-up table. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pages 8134–8144, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [24]

    Denoising diffusion post- processing for low-light image enhancement

    Savvas Panagiotou and Anna S Bosman. Denoising diffusion post- processing for low-light image enhancement. Pattern Recognition , 156:110799, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [1]

    Learning a deep single image contrast enhancer from multi-exposure images

    Jianrui Cai, Shuhang Gu, and Lei Zhang. Learning a deep single image contrast enhancer from multi-exposure images. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 27(4):2049–2062, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [2]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei- Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 248–255. Ieee, 2009

    2009

  6. [3]

    Generative diffusion prior for unified image restoration and enhancement

    Ben Fei, Zhaoyang Lyu, Liang Pan, Junzhe Zhang, Weidong Yang, Tianyue Luo, Bo Zhang, and Bo Dai. Generative diffusion prior for unified image restoration and enhancement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 9935–9946, 2023

    2023

  7. [4]

    Learning a simple low-light image enhancer from paired low-light instances

    Zhenqi Fu, Yan Yang, Xiaotong Tu, Yue Huang, Xinghao Ding, and Kai- Kuang Ma. Learning a simple low-light image enhancer from paired low-light instances. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 22252–22261, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [5]

    Zero-reference deep curve estimation for low-light image enhancement

    Chunle Guo, Chongyi Li, Jichang Guo, Chen Change Loy, Junhui Hou, Sam Kwong, and Runmin Cong. Zero-reference deep curve estimation for low-light image enhancement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 1780– 1789, 2020

    2020

Show all 36 references
  1. [6]

    Lime: Low-light image enhance- ment via illumination map estimation

    Xiaojie Guo, Yu Li, and Haibin Ling. Lime: Low-light image enhance- ment via illumination map estimation. IEEE Transactions on image processing, 26(2):982–993, 2016

    2016

  2. [7]

    Zero-led: Zero-reference lighting estimation diffusion model for low-light image enhancement

    Jinhong He, Minglong Xue, Zhipu Liu, Chengyun Song, and Senming Zhong. Zero-led: Zero-reference lighting estimation diffusion model for low-light image enhancement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02879 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017

    2017

  4. [9]

    Denoising diffusion prob- abilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion prob- abilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  5. [10]

    Low-light image enhancement with wavelet-based diffusion models

    Hai Jiang, Ao Luo, Haoqiang Fan, Songchen Han, and Shuaicheng Liu. Low-light image enhancement with wavelet-based diffusion models. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 42(6):1–14, 2023

    2023

  6. [11]

    Lightendiffusion: Unsupervised low-light image enhancement with latent-retinex diffusion models

    Hai Jiang, Ao Luo, Xiaohong Liu, Songchen Han, and Shuaicheng Liu. Lightendiffusion: Unsupervised low-light image enhancement with latent-retinex diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08939 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [12]

    Enlightengan: Deep light enhancement without paired supervision

    Yifan Jiang, Xinyu Gong, Ding Liu, Yu Cheng, Chen Fang, Xiaohui Shen, Jianchao Yang, Pan Zhou, and Zhangyang Wang. Enlightengan: Deep light enhancement without paired supervision. IEEE transactions on image processing , 30:2340–2349, 2021

    2021

  8. [13]

    Musiq: Multi-scale image quality transformer

    Junjie Ke, Qifei Wang, Yilin Wang, Peyman Milanfar, and Feng Yang. Musiq: Multi-scale image quality transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 5148– 5157, 2021

    2021

  9. [14]

    Contrast enhancement based on layered difference representation of 2d histograms

    Chulwoo Lee, Chul Lee, and Chang-Su Kim. Contrast enhancement based on layered difference representation of 2d histograms. IEEE transactions on image processing , 22(12):5372–5384, 2013

    2013

  10. [15]

    Learning to enhance low-light image via zero-reference deep curve estimation

    Chongyi Li, Chunle Guo, and Chen Change Loy. Learning to enhance low-light image via zero-reference deep curve estimation. IEEE Trans- actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 44(8):4225–4238, 2021

    2021

  11. [16]

    A deep learning based image enhancement approach for autonomous driving at night

    Guofa Li, Yifan Yang, Xingda Qu, Dongpu Cao, and Keqiang Li. A deep learning based image enhancement approach for autonomous driving at night. Knowledge-Based Systems , 213:106617, 2021

    2021

  12. [18]

    Iterative prompt learning for unsupervised backlit image enhancement

    Zhexin Liang, Chongyi Li, Shangchen Zhou, Ruicheng Feng, and Chen Change Loy. Iterative prompt learning for unsupervised backlit image enhancement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 8094–8103, 2023

    2023

  13. [19]

    Retinex-inspired unrolling with cooperative prior architecture search for low-light image enhancement

    Risheng Liu, Long Ma, Jiaao Zhang, Xin Fan, and Zhongxuan Luo. Retinex-inspired unrolling with cooperative prior architecture search for low-light image enhancement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 10561– 10570, 2021

    2021

  14. [20]

    Fourier priors-guided diffusion for zero-shot joint low-light enhancement and deblurring

    Xiaoqian Lv, Shengping Zhang, Chenyang Wang, Yichen Zheng, Bineng Zhong, Chongyi Li, and Liqiang Nie. Fourier priors-guided diffusion for zero-shot joint low-light enhancement and deblurring. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition ...

    2024

  15. [21]

    Perceptual quality assessment for multi-exposure image fusion

    Kede Ma, Kai Zeng, and Zhou Wang. Perceptual quality assessment for multi-exposure image fusion. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 24(11):3345–3356, 2015

    2015

  16. [22]

    Toward fast, flexible, and robust low-light image enhancement

    Long Ma, Tengyu Ma, Risheng Liu, Xin Fan, and Zhongxuan Luo. Toward fast, flexible, and robust low-light image enhancement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5637–5646, 2022

    2022

  17. [23]

    Kan see in the dark

    Aoxiang Ning, Minglong Xue, Jinhong He, and Chengyun Song. Kan see in the dark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03404 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning , p...

    2021

  19. [26]

    Freeu: Free lunch in diffusion u-net

    Chenyang Si, Ziqi Huang, Yuming Jiang, and Ziwei Liu. Freeu: Free lunch in diffusion u-net. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 4733–4743, 2024

    2024

  20. [27]

    Naturalness preserved enhancement algorithm for non-uniform illumination images

    Shuhang Wang, Jin Zheng, Hai-Miao Hu, and Bo Li. Naturalness preserved enhancement algorithm for non-uniform illumination images. IEEE transactions on image processing , 22(9):3538–3548, 2013

    2013

  21. [28]

    Zero-shot image restora- tion using denoising diffusion null-space model

    Yinhuai Wang, Jiwen Yu, and Jian Zhang. Zero-shot image restora- tion using denoising diffusion null-space model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.00490, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing , 13(4):600–612, 2004

    2004

  23. [30]

    Deep retinex decomposition for low-light enhancement

    Chen Wei, Wenjing Wang, Wenhan Yang, and Jiaying Liu. Deep retinex decomposition for low-light enhancement. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.04560, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Dldiff: Image detail-guided latent diffusion model for low-light image enhance- ment

    Minglong Xue, Yanyi He, Jinhong He, and Senming Zhong. Dldiff: Image detail-guided latent diffusion model for low-light image enhance- ment. IEEE Signal Processing Letters , 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Arbitrarily- oriented text detection in low light natural scene images

    Minglong Xue, Palaiahnakote Shivakumara, Chao Zhang, Yao Xiao, Tong Lu, Umapada Pal, Daniel Lopresti, and Zhibo Yang. Arbitrarily- oriented text detection in low light natural scene images. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , 23:2706–2720, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Implicit neural representation for cooperative low-light image enhance- ment

    Shuzhou Yang, Moxuan Ding, Yanmin Wu, Zihan Li, and Jian Zhang. Implicit neural representation for cooperative low-light image enhance- ment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 12918–12927, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    From fidelity to perceptual quality: A semi-supervised approach for low- light image enhancement

    Wenhan Yang, Shiqi Wang, Yuming Fang, Yue Wang, and Jiaying Liu. From fidelity to perceptual quality: A semi-supervised approach for low- light image enhancement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 3063–3072, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 586–595, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

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