Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 23 references

GN-FR:Generalizable Neural Radiance Fields for Flare Removal

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes GN-FR, a generalizable neural radiance field framework that renders flare-free novel views from sparse, flare-corrupted multi-view inputs and reports 26.18 dB PSNR on synthetic flared IBRNet scenes.

desk verdict Genuinely new problem formulation, but the masking loss zeroes supervision at exactly the flare pixels, and the current evaluation does not support the claimed cleanup. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08200 v2 pith:W7OLLLK5 submitted 2024-12-11 cs.CV eess.IV

Gopi Raju Matta , Rahul Siddartha , Rongali Simhachala Venkata Girish , Sumit Sharma , Kaushik Mitra This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVeess.IV
keywords lensflareremovalneuralradiancefieldsgeneralizableNeRFmulti-viewimage-basedrenderingoccupancymasknovelviewsynthesisunsupervisedlearningGNT
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 argues that lens flare, though hard to remove from a single image, can be removed by treating it as a multi-view problem: because flare changes with viewpoint, the scene content hidden behind flare in one image is usually visible in neighboring images. The authors build GN-FR, a generalizable neural radiance field built on the Generalizable NeRF Transformer (GNT) architecture, which renders novel views from sparse flare-corrupted inputs while simultaneously removing the flare. To train without paired flare-free ground truth, they supervise only pixels classified as flare-free, using a learned flare-occupancy mask, and they contribute a real 3D multi-view flare dataset with annotated masks. On synthetically flared IBRNet scenes, GN-FR reaches 26.18 dB PSNR, about 3.7 dB above its non-flare-aware generalizable baseline.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the transformer-based generalizable NeRF (GNT) plus three flare-aware modifications. Flare-occupancy masks from a trained PSPNet are multiplied into the view transformer's attention ($A' = A*(1-M)$) and are used to select source views and to mask the loss. The load-bearing identity is the masking loss, which forces the target view to render only from pixels that are flare-free in the source views.

What would settle it

For each target view in the released multi-view flare dataset, compute the pixelwise intersection of the selected source views' flare masks; any pixel that is flared in every source view violates the coverage assumption and is rendered with no data-driven supervision, so inspecting those pixels would directly test whether the central premise holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the view-dependent nature of flare can be exploited to eliminate flare artifacts during novel view synthesis without needing flare-free reference images. The framework consists of three modules inserted into GNT: a Flare-occupancy Mask Generator (FMG) that labels flare regions, a View Sampler (VS) that selects source views with the least flare, and a Point Sampler (PS) that zeros attention weights for sampled points falling in flared regions. A masking loss $L_{\mathrm{unsup}} = \|\mathrm{Pred} \odot (1-M) - \mathrm{Target} \odot (1-M)\|$ restricts training supervision to flare-free pixels, so the network learns to fill flared areas from nearby clean observations. The paper reports 26.18 dB PSNR on flared IBRNet scenes, exceeding the best baseline by about 4 dB, and demonstrates qualitative removal on real scenes.

Load-bearing premise

The training loss supervises only flare-free pixels, so the method assumes every flared region in the target view is visible and flare-free in at least one sampled source view.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single trained model can take several flare-corrupted views of an unseen scene and output flare-free novel views, without per-scene optimization or paired clean captures.
  • The masking-loss principle extends the NeRF idea of novel-view synthesis to novel-region synthesis: image areas corrupted in the target can be treated like unseen regions and filled from other views.
  • On quantitative evaluation, the method outperforms the alternative of first removing flare with Flare7K++ and then rendering with NeRF or GNT by roughly 4 dB PSNR.
  • The released dataset of 17 real scenes and 80 real flare patterns with masks provides a multi-view benchmark for flare removal research.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same masked-attention mechanism could be adapted to other view-dependent disturbances such as reflections, glare, or partial occluders, since the only requirement is that a mask identifies the artifact and that it disappears from some viewpoints.
  • The coverage premise could be checked directly on the released dataset: per pixel, count how many source views are flare-free; any target pixel whose flared mask is 1 in every source view receives no supervision and its rendered value is unconstrained.
  • If the premise fails for large, coherent halos, an explicit regularization, for example a perceptual prior or a physics-based flare model, would be needed for those regions.
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 GN-FR, a generalizable neural rendering framework built on GNT for novel view synthesis from flare-corrupted multi-view images, with the goal of jointly rendering novel views and removing lens flare in an unsupervised manner. The method consists of a Flare-occupancy Mask Generation network (FMG), a View Sampler, a Point Sampler, and a masking loss (Sec. 4.3, Eq. (4)) that supervises only flare-free target pixels. The authors also introduce a real 3D flare dataset of 17 scenes with 782 images, 80 real flare patterns, and annotated flare-occupancy masks. Quantitative evaluation is reported on synthetically flared IBRNet scenes (Table 1), where GN-FR reaches 26.18 dB PSNR versus 22.44 dB for vanilla GNT, and qualitative results are shown on synthetic and captured real scenes.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, GN-FR would be the first multi-view, generalizable flare-removal method inside a NeRF-style framework, and the problem framing is timely and practical: flare is view-dependent, so neighboring views are a natural source of information. The idea of a masking loss to avoid paired flare/flare-free data is clever, and the authors deserve credit for capturing a real multi-view flare dataset, training a PSPNet-based mask generator with a 5:1 class-weight ratio, and reporting quantitative mask metrics (0.81 mIoU / 0.94 mAcc). The proposed View Sampler and Point Sampler are intuitive and the comparison against Flare7K++ pre-processing pipelines is relevant. However, the central claim is currently supported mainly by a single synthetic quantitative table with no error bars, no code or dataset release, no flare-region-specific metrics, and only qualitative real-scene validation. As presented, the evidence is not yet sufficient to establish the claimed generalization and simultaneous flare-removal performance.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (4)] The masking loss is identically zero at every target pixel where M=1, which are precisely the pixels that the method claims to restore. The paper itself acknowledges the required condition ('This presupposes that at least one of the source views remains unaffected by flare in the target region'), but it never measures this coverage condition. The authors should report, on both the synthetic and real datasets, the fraction of target flare pixels for which at least one sampled source view is flare-free, and should report PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS restricted to the flare-occupied regions (M=1). Without such metrics, Table 1's whole-image PSNR is dominated by the large flare-free majority and does not demonstrate that flare artifacts are actually removed.
  2. [Sec. 5.2, Table 1] The quantitative evaluation is under-specified. The manuscript does not state whether the synthetically imposed flares on IBRNet scenes use the same 80 flare patterns that trained the FMG, whether the View Sampler's 10% flare-occupancy target exclusion (Sec. 4.2.1) is applied at evaluation time, how many scenes and patterns are used, or how many random trials are averaged. Error bars or per-scene variance are absent. If the test flares come from the same distribution used to train FMG, the result is an in-distribution evaluation and the 'cross-scene generalization' claim requires testing on held-out flare patterns or a separate synthetic protocol.
  3. [Sec. 5.1.2 and Fig. 7] The real-scene validation is qualitative, and the model is fine-tuned for 50k iterations before testing on real scenes, but the manuscript does not state which real scenes are used for fine-tuning or whether they overlap with the evaluated scenes shown in Figs. 5-7. If fine-tuning is performed on the same scenes that are later evaluated, the results do not support a generalization claim. The authors should fine-tune on a separated subset of real scenes and evaluate on held-out real scenes, or clearly report that the qualitative real results are obtained without fine-tuning on the evaluated scenes.
  4. [Sec. 5.1.1 and Sec. 5.1.2] Reproducibility is currently insufficient for the central claim. No code, trained models, or dataset are released, and the training/inference protocol for the synthetic evaluation is incomplete (e.g., exact IBRNet scene split, number of source views at test time, mask thresholding details, and the relationship between the UNet feature encoder mentioned in Sec. 4 and the PSPNet-based FMG). The authors should release code and data, or at minimum provide a detailed protocol so that Table 1 can be independently reproduced.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) has mismatched parentheses: the View-Transformer call is missing a closing parenthesis. Also, the notation for F_i(z, theta) could be clarified.
  2. [Sec. 4.2.2, Eq. (3)] In Eq. (3), A' = A * (1 - M), the dimensions of A and M and the per-source-view indexing are not defined. It should be stated explicitly that M is the flare occupancy mask of the corresponding source view and that the multiplication is element-wise.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (4)] The loss is written as a norm without specifying whether it is the squared L2 norm; the text later calls it MSE loss. The equation should be updated to match the actual loss, e.g., ||Pred - Target||^2 with the mask applied.
  4. [Sec. 2.1] There are several typographical issues in the related-work section, including 'Wuet al.' (missing space), 'kotp et al.' (capitalization), and 'effected' should be 'affected.'
  5. [Sec. 5.4, Fig. 8] The caption states 'on par with annotated masks,' which should be 'on a par with annotated masks.' Also, the abbreviation SOTA is used without definition, and the figure would benefit from quantitative ablation numbers rather than qualitative images alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the pipeline's assumptions and evaluation overlap are risks, not self-referential reductions.

full rationale

GN-FR is an empirical pipeline built on GNT; nothing in the claimed derivation chain reduces by construction to its inputs. The flare-free render is produced by a transformer renderer from source-view features; the FMG mask is a conditioning cue, not a renamed target image, and the masking loss (Eq. 4) does not define the output in the flared regions, it simply withholds supervision there. The paper explicitly acknowledges the reliance on multi-view coverage: 'This presupposes that at least one of the source views remains unaffected by flare in the target region while acknowledging flare presence in the specified area.' This is an unverified assumption and a legitimate robustness/correctness gap, but it is not circularity: a failure of coverage would make the output uncontrolled, not equal to the input by construction. Similarly, the synthetic test set may share flare patterns with the FMG training distribution, which is an evaluation-leakage concern, not a derivation that turns a fitted parameter into a prediction. All cited baselines (GNT, Flare7K++, PSPNet, NeRF) are external prior work; no load-bearing argument rests on a self-citation or on an imported uniqueness theorem. Therefore no step meets the evidentiary bar for circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method depends on two domain assumptions about flare behavior and multi-view coverage, and one hand-tuned hyperparameter in the mask loss. No new physical entities or free parameters are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • FMG class-weight ratio = 5:1
    Empirically chosen in Sec 4.1 to counter class imbalance between flare and non-flare pixels in binary cross-entropy loss.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Lens flare is view-dependent (the directional dependence of flare)
    Stated in Sec 1 and 4.3 as the foundation for using neighboring views to recover flared content. This is physically true for specular reflections and scattering, but less so for diffuse haze-like flare.
  • domain assumption For every flared target region, at least one sampled source view is flare-free in that region
    Stated as a presupposition in Sec 4.3 for the masking loss to work. The paper does not validate this condition on its real dataset, and it can fail for large halos or when all views share the same light-source angle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GN-FR:Generalizable Neural Radiance Fields for Flare Removal." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W7OLLLK5

@misc{pith2026241208200,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GN-FR:Generalizable Neural Radiance Fields for Flare Removal},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W7OLLLK5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08200}
}
read the original abstract

Flare, an optical phenomenon resulting from unwanted scattering and reflections within a lens system, presents a significant challenge in imaging. The diverse patterns of flares, such as halos, streaks, color bleeding, and haze, complicate the flare removal process. Existing traditional and learning-based methods have exhibited limited efficacy due to their reliance on single-image approaches, where flare removal is highly ill-posed. We address this by framing flare removal as a multi-view image problem, taking advantage of the view-dependent nature of flare artifacts. This approach leverages information from neighboring views to recover details obscured by flare in individual images. Our proposed framework, GN-FR (Generalizable Neural Radiance Fields for Flare Removal), can render flare-free views from a sparse set of input images affected by lens flare and generalizes across different scenes in an unsupervised manner. GN-FR incorporates several modules within the Generalizable NeRF Transformer (GNT) framework: Flare-occupancy Mask Generation (FMG), View Sampler (VS), and Point Sampler (PS). To overcome the impracticality of capturing both flare-corrupted and flare-free data, we introduce a masking loss function that utilizes mask information in an unsupervised setting. Additionally, we present a 3D multi-view flare dataset, comprising 17 real flare scenes with 782 images, 80 real flare patterns, and their corresponding annotated flare-occupancy masks. To our knowledge, this is the first work to address flare removal within a Neural Radiance Fields (NeRF) framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08200 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our method: GN-FR is built on significant modifications to the GNT framework with flare masking loss, an effective view sampler and a Point Sampler. Our method consis￾tently removes flare across the views on synthetic flare-imposed scenes and real scenes with flare. Neural scene representations such as NeRF[10] can render realistic novel views, but they are limited by a tedious optimization process for each new scen… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of GN-FR: 1) FMG: Flare-occupancy Mask Generation network: It generates a binary mask for each input view to detect the regions w/ and w/o flare. 2) View Sampler: Samples the views minimally affected by flare using the flare occupancy mask as a cue. 3) Point Sampler: An attention masking-based sampling mechanism in the view transformer to guide the network for better flare removal. to generate a mask (M) th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results of Flare-occupancy Mask Generation network (FMG): on (a) synthetic datasets and (b) real datasets. Corresponding manually annotated masks for the real dataset in (b) match with the learned masks generated by our FMG. 4.2 View and Point Sampling Modules We proposed two sampling modules to effectively sample source, target views and points on each ray while rendering each target view to accurately sample the i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Samples from our captured real flare-3D dataset of 17 scenes and (b) Samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results on Synthetic dataset: GN-FR framework is able to consis￾tently remove the diverse flares present in the synthetically imposed flare images. As the insets highlight, GN-FR surpasses other methods in removing flare artifacts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative results on Real dataset: Our GN-FR framework is able to remove the flare artifacts from flare-corrupted images effectively. It is able to render more visually appealing results consistently compared to other methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Flare removal results on captured Real dataset: GN-FR is able to consistently remove the flare-artifacts on different scenes of our real flare-3D dataset and also reproduce the lost scene information covered up due to flare effects(Zoom-in for better visualization) [P…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effectiveness of Learned mask together with PS and VS modules: Proposed modules(PS & VS) contribute positively to render the target views with very minimal flare artifacts. Rendered target views with learned masks are almost on par with annotated masks. 6 Conclusion We…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Matthew Tancik, Peter Hedman, Ricardo Martin- Brualla, and Pratul P

    Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Matthew Tancik, Peter Hedman, Ricardo Martin- Brualla, and Pratul P. Srinivasan. Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti- aliasing neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 5855–5864, October 2021. MA TTA, SIDDARTHA, GIRISH, SHARMA, MITRA: GN-FR 11

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Mvsnerf: Fast generalizable radiance field reconstruction from multi-view stereo

    Anpei Chen, Zexiang Xu, Fuqiang Zhao, Xiaoshuai Zhang, Fanbo Xiang, Jingyi Yu, and Hao Su. Mvsnerf: Fast generalizable radiance field reconstruction from multi-view stereo. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 14124–14133, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    NeRV: Neural representations for videos

    Hao Chen, Bo He, Hanyu Wang, Yixuan Ren, Ser-Nam Lim, and Abhinav Shrivastava. NeRV: Neural representations for videos. In NeurIPS, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Flare7K++: Mixing Synthetic and Real Datasets for Nighttime Flare Removal and Beyond

    Yuekun Dai, Chongyi Li, Shangchen Zhou, Ruicheng Feng, Yihang Luo, and Chen Change Loy. Flare7k++: Mixing synthetic and real datasets for nighttime flare removal and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04236, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Night- time smartphone reflective flare removal using optical center symmetry prior

    Yuekun Dai, Yihang Luo, Shangchen Zhou, Chongyi Li, and Chen Change Loy. Night- time smartphone reflective flare removal using optical center symmetry prior. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 20783–20791, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Syl- vain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020

    arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    Efficientnerf efficient neural radiance fields

    Tao Hu, Shu Liu, Yilun Chen, Tiancheng Shen, and Jiaya Jia. Efficientnerf efficient neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 12902–12911, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Flare-free vision: Empowering uformer with depth insights

    Yousef Kotp and Marwan Torki. Flare-free vision: Empowering uformer with depth insights. In ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 2565–2569. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Neural rays for occlusion-aware image-based ren- dering

    Yuan Liu, Sida Peng, Lingjie Liu, Qianqian Wang, Peng Wang, Christian Theobalt, Xiaowei Zhou, and Wenping Wang. Neural rays for occlusion-aware image-based ren- dering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7824–7833, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T. Barron, Ravi Ra- mamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. In ECCV, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Nerf in the dark: High dynamic range view synthesis from noisy raw images

    Ben Mildenhall, Peter Hedman, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Pratul P Srinivasan, and Jonathan T Barron. Nerf in the dark: High dynamic range view synthesis from noisy raw images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 16190–16199, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Light source guided single- image flare removal from unpaired data

    Xiaotian Qiao, Gerhard P Hancke, and Rynson WH Lau. Light source guided single- image flare removal from unpaired data. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4177–4185, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Is attention all that neRF needs? In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023

    Mukund Varma T, Peihao Wang, Xuxi Chen, Tianlong Chen, Subhashini Venugopalan, and Zhangyang Wang. Is attention all that neRF needs? In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=xE-LtsE-xx. 12 MA TTA, SIDDART...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Ref-nerf: Structured view-dependent appearance for neural radi- ance fields

    Dor Verbin, Peter Hedman, Ben Mildenhall, Todd Zickler, Jonathan T Barron, and Pratul P Srinivasan. Ref-nerf: Structured view-dependent appearance for neural radi- ance fields. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), pages 5481–5490. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Generalizable neural radiance fields for novel view synthesis with transformer

    Dan Wang, Xinrui Cui, Septimiu Salcudean, and Z Jane Wang. Generalizable neural radiance fields for novel view synthesis with transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.05375, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Ibrnet: Learning multi-view image-based rendering

    Qianqian Wang, Zhicheng Wang, Kyle Genova, Pratul P Srinivasan, Howard Zhou, Jonathan T Barron, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Noah Snavely, and Thomas Funkhouser. Ibrnet: Learning multi-view image-based rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Patt...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Uformer: A general u-shaped transformer for image restoration

    Zhendong Wang, Xiaodong Cun, Jianmin Bao, Wengang Zhou, Jianzhuang Liu, and Houqiang Li. Uformer: A general u-shaped transformer for image restoration. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 17683–17693, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    How to train neural networks for flare removal

    Yicheng Wu, Qiurui He, Tianfan Xue, Rahul Garg, Jiawen Chen, Ashok Veeraragha- van, and Jonathan T Barron. How to train neural networks for flare removal. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 2239– 2247, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    pixelnerf: Neural radi- ance fields from one or few images

    Alex Yu, Vickie Ye, Matthew Tancik, and Angjoo Kanazawa. pixelnerf: Neural radi- ance fields from one or few images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4578–4587, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Ff-former: Swin fourier transformer for nighttime flare removal

    Dafeng Zhang, Jia Ouyang, Guanqun Liu, Xiaobing Wang, Xiangyu Kong, and Zhezhu Jin. Ff-former: Swin fourier transformer for nighttime flare removal. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2824– 2832, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Single image reflection separation with perceptual losses

    Xuaner Zhang, Ren Ng, and Qifeng Chen. Single image reflection separation with perceptual losses. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4786–4794, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Pyramid scene parsing network

    Hengshuang Zhao, Jianping Shi, Xiaojuan Qi, Xiaogang Wang, and Jiaya Jia. Pyramid scene parsing network. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2881–2890, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Improving lens flare removal with general-purpose pipeline and multiple light sources recovery

    Yuyan Zhou, Dong Liang, Songcan Chen, Sheng-Jun Huang, Shuo Yang, and Chongyi Li. Improving lens flare removal with general-purpose pipeline and multiple light sources recovery. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 12969–12979, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.