Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 73 references

PDE: Gene Effect Inspired Parameter Dynamic Evolution for Low-light Image Enhancement

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Resetting trained parameters to random values can improve low-light enhancement for over 30% of images, and per-image parameter evolution counters the effect.

desk verdict Real observation and a useful dynamic-conv module, but the gene-effect mitigation claim is unsupported because the DGE metric is interpreted backwards. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09196 v1 pith:ZOZIZWCF submitted 2025-05-14 cs.CV

Tong Li , Lizhi Wang , Hansen Feng , Lin Zhu , Hua Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV MSC 68T0768U10
keywords low-lightimageenhancementgeneeffectdynamicparametersparameterorthogonalgenerationresettingstaticrestorationtransformernetworks
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 claims that a counterintuitive "gene effect" limits low-light image enhancement: for more than 30% of test images, replacing certain well-trained network parameters with random values produces better enhancement, measured by PSNR. It argues that the cause is static parameters, since a single learned weight set applied to all images cannot fit a training set in which visually similar low-light inputs map to different bright images. Drawing an analogy to biological gene mutation and recombination, the paper proposes parameter dynamic evolution (PDE), a plug-in module that generates convolution parameters per input image, using parameter orthogonal generation (POG) to keep the generated parameter candidates from collapsing into a static set. Experiments on Restormer, Retinexformer, and CIDNet report reduced gene-effect levels and higher PSNR, such as Restormer rising from 20.91 to 21.88 dB on LOL-v1.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the parameter orthogonal generation (POG) technique. For each target parameter, POG learns an embedding, normalizes it, and builds an orthogonal basis via the reflection matrix $B_p = I - 2 N_p N_p^T$, so the basis embeddings are orthogonal to one another. Given an input feature, a two-layer MLP with softmax produces weights, and each parameter embedding is a weighted sum of the orthogonal bases, decoded by another MLP into the actual convolution weights. Orthogonality is what distinguishes PDE from ordinary dynamic convolution: it prevents the candidate parameter embeddings from becoming similar and collapsing to a static parameter set, which the paper identifies as the failure mode of prior dynamic-parameter methods. The PDE module itself is a plug-in bottleneck block inserted after attention in decoder stages, chosen because attention layers show the strongest gene effect.

What would settle it

On a fixed low-light enhancement model and test set, compute per-image PSNR for the original model and for models with each candidate layer reset to random values, and count how many images improve; if that fraction is near zero across layers, the gene effect as defined does not exist. For the PDE claim, repeat the same count after adding PDE: if the fraction of improving images does not decrease while DGE decreases, the paper's mitigation claim is measuring output sensitivity rather than the gene effect itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that static parameters are the source of the gene effect: after training, a fixed weight set is well matched to some images and maladaptive for others, to the point that random weights can beat the learned weights on particular inputs. The paper documents this by resetting attention-layer parameters of Restormer to random values and finding that over 30% of images improve, with up to 40% improving for the first detected layer. To counteract the effect, PDE evolves parameters for each input image: a bottleneck dynamic block generates per-image convolution weights, and POG constructs orthogonal basis embeddings so that the weighted combination of bases cannot converge to a single similar parameter set. Experiments report that adding PDE to existing low-light enhancement networks lowers the proposed DGE metric, defined as the average logarithmic MSE between original and reset outputs, and improves enhancement quality, with Restormer+Ours reaching 21.88 dB PSNR on LOL-v1 versus 20.91 dB for the base model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the DGE metric, which averages the output difference between the original model and a model with parameters reset to random values, actually measures the gene effect, because a small DGE is interpreted as less gene effect even though the gene effect is defined as random reset improving some images.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If static parameters cause the gene effect, any low-light enhancement model that applies one learned weight set to all images carries an inherent performance ceiling that random resetting can expose.
  • Adding PDE as a plug-in module requires about 10k fine-tuning steps versus 320k for original training, so existing models could be upgraded at low cost.
  • The gene effect appears across several architectures, including SNR-Net, LLformer, Retinexmamba, Retinexformer, and CIDNet, suggesting the phenomenon is general across low-light enhancement models.
  • Pruning methods do not remove the gene effect and can collapse enhancement quality on synthetic data, implying that the affected parameters cannot simply be deleted.
  • Orthogonal generation is the key technical ingredient: replacing POG with static convolutions or plain dynamic convolution gives smaller gains in the ablation study.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same random-reset probe could be run on other ill-posed image-restoration tasks, such as dehazing, deraining, or super-resolution, to test whether the static-parameter explanation is specific to low-light enhancement or general across restoration domains.
  • A sharper test than DGE would be to measure the fraction of images whose PSNR improves after random reset before and after PDE training; a method that truly removes the gene effect should lower that fraction, not merely change output distances.
  • The hyperparameter study suggests a natural extension: making the effective number of candidate parameters, controlled by the embedding dimension $D_e$ and bottleneck width $D_m$, adaptive per image rather than fixed.
  • If random parameter mutations are sometimes beneficial per image, a stochastic inference strategy that samples several parameter sets and selects the best output might outperform the single deterministic PDE output, though the paper does not explore this.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a phenomenon dubbed the 'gene effect' in low-light image enhancement: for certain images, resetting trained network parameters to random values yields better enhancement (higher PSNR) than the learned parameters. The authors attribute this to static parameters, propose a 'parameter dynamic evolution' (PDE) module with 'parameter orthogonal generation' (POG) to mitigate the effect, and report PSNR improvements on LOL-v1, LOL-v2-real, and LOL-v2-synthetic benchmarks. The central conceptual claim is that PDE mitigates the gene effect, evaluated with a newly defined DGE metric (Eq. 6) that measures output difference before/after parameter reset.

Significance. If the core claims were established, the paper would contribute a new observation (random parameter resets sometimes improve LLIE outputs) and a practical plug-and-play dynamic convolution module that yields consistent, if modest, PSNR gains on standard paired benchmarks. The method is simple and the empirical enhancement improvements in Table 5 are interesting independent of the biological analogy. However, the significance is substantially weakened because the paper's evaluation of gene-effect mitigation rests on a metric (DGE) that appears to measure the wrong quantity and is interpreted in a way that is internally inconsistent with the paper's own definition of the gene effect. The orthogonality construction in POG also lacks a clear mathematical guarantee in the main text. These issues affect the manuscript's central narrative, not just its presentation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2, Eq. (6)] The DGE metric does not measure the gene effect as defined. The gene effect (Abstract; Section 3) is the event that resetting parameters to random values improves enhancement performance with respect to the ground truth. Eq. (6) computes the average PSNR between the original model output F(xj) and the reset-model output Fi(xj); it never involves the ground truth. A high DGE means the reset changes the output little, which is exactly the regime where a random reset cannot improve quality over the learned model. A low DGE means the reset changes the output substantially, which is a necessary condition for the gene effect (improvement) to occur, but it can also mean large degradation. The paper's interpretation in Section 5.2 ('A larger value of DGE ... indicating more gene effects. Conversely, a smaller DGE implies weaker gene effects.') is therefore backwards relative to the definition. Since every gene-effect-mitigation claim in Tables 3 and 4 and the ablation reasoning are based on DGE reduction, the central claim that PDE mitigates the gene effect is not supported by the presented evidence.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (2)] The orthogonal basis construction is mathematically unclear and likely inconsistent. The paper defines Np as normalized embeddings of shape N × De and then writes Bp = I − 2 Np Np^T. With Np ∈ R^{N×De}, the product Np Np^T is N × N, so Bp is an N × N matrix, not the claimed Bp ∈ R^{N×De×De}. The Householder-reflection form I − 2 v v^T is defined for a single unit vector v, not for a matrix, and no argument is given for why this operation yields orthogonal bases for each parameter. The main text defers the 'theory guarantee' to the supplementary material, but the property is load-bearing for POG's claimed ability to 'prevent the excessive expression of similar parameters.' Please clarify the dimensions and provide a proof or a precise statement in the main text.
  3. [Table 3] The DGE values for Restormer+Ours are reported as 45.09 on both LOL-v1 and LOL-v2-real. Given that these are different test sets with different image distributions, obtaining identical values to two decimal places is implausible and suggests a typo or a calculation error. Please verify the reported DGE values and correct any mistakes, as this table is central to the gene-effect-mitigation claim.
  4. [Table 2] The observation that 'dynamic parameters exhibit weaker gene effects compared to static parameters' is presented through Table 2, but the table does not define what the numeric entries mean (e.g., PSNR change after reset? improvement fraction? units?) and the sign convention is ambiguous. Without a clear definition, the reader cannot assess the strength of the observation, and the subsequent causal attribution of the gene effect to static parameters in Section 3.1 rests on this unspecified evidence.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1] The text says 'gama correction' in the first paragraph; it should read 'gamma correction.'
  2. [Section 5.2] The DGE formula in Eq. (6) is introduced after the sentence 'we use the method in motivation experiments and observations (Section 3.1) to detect gene effect,' but Section 3.1 does not define DGE; consider moving the metric definition earlier or explicitly referencing Eq. (6) in Section 3.1.
  3. [Table 4] Entries such as '11.00 / ——-' and '7.98 / ——-' are used without explanation; please add a footnote stating what the dash denotes (e.g., failed to produce meaningful results or omitted due to collapse).
  4. [Tables 5–8] The main quantitative tables report single-run PSNR/SSIM values without standard deviations or significance tests. Given that some improvements are small (e.g., 20.91 to 21.88 dB), please report variance across at least three runs or a statistical test to confirm the gains are not due to random variation.
  5. [Section 4.2] The notation 'Np^T' is ambiguous: if Np is N × De, then Np^T is De × N, and the product Np Np^T is N × N as noted; please clarify the intended operation and correct the dimensions in Eq. (2) and the surrounding text.
  6. [Figure 1] The figure caption lists numeric values (e.g., '12.24 dB 9.39 dB') without explaining what they represent; adding a legend or clarifying the PSNR values in each panel would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the DGE metric raises validity concerns but is not a circular reduction.

full rationale

No circular step is exhibited. The paper's main claims are tested against external benchmarks (LOL-v1, LOL-v2-real, LOL-v2-syn) and compared with published methods; PDE and POG parameters are trained end-to-end and evaluated on held-out test sets, so no predicted quantity is reinserted as an input. The 'gene effect' is an empirical observation, and the attribution to static parameters is an inference rather than a definition. The self-defined DGE metric (Eq. 6) does raise a validity concern: it measures output similarity between original and reset models, whereas the gene effect is defined as random reset improving enhancement relative to the ground truth, so DGE is not obviously a faithful proxy and may even be directionally misleading. However, that is a correctness/measurement issue, not circularity: DGE is not fitted to the target result, and the enhancement tables (Table 5) stand independently of DGE. There are no load-bearing self-citations; references to dynamic convolution and pruning are external. The score of 1 reflects the minor weight placed on an author-defined metric in the interpretive claim, not any derivation that reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It introduces a named phenomenon (gene effect) and a technique (POG), but both are conceptual re-framings rather than new objects. The load-bearing assumptions are the analogy to biology, the validity of the DGE metric, and the sufficiency of the chosen hyperparameters.

free parameters (2)
  • Dm = 32, ablated with 4, 8, 16
    Bottleneck channel dimension in PDE, chosen by hand and reported in Table 7. It is a design hyperparameter, not fitted to the target benchmark.
  • De = 64, ablated with 16, 32
    Embedding dimension for basis vectors, chosen by hand and reported in Table 8. It is a design hyperparameter, not fitted to the target benchmark.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Dynamic parameters exhibit weaker gene effects than static parameters.
    Used in Section 3.1 to attribute the gene effect to static parameters; based on Table 2. This is an empirical observation, not a demonstrated mechanism.
  • ad hoc to paper The gene effect in neural networks is analogous to biological gene mutation and recombination.
    Used throughout Sections 1, 3, and 4 to justify the PDE design. No formal linkage connects biological evolution to network parameter dynamics.
  • standard math Bp = I - 2 Np Np^T produces orthogonal basis embeddings.
    Householder reflection property, cited to [17]. The paper refers to supplementary material for proof, which is not included.
  • domain assumption Fine-tuning for 10k steps is sufficient to integrate PDE.
    Section 5.1 states 10k steps vs. 320k for the original model. This is an arbitrary choice with no justification that convergence is reached.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PDE: Gene Effect Inspired Parameter Dynamic Evolution for Low-light Image Enhancement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZOZIZWCF

@misc{pith2026250509196,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PDE: Gene Effect Inspired Parameter Dynamic Evolution for Low-light Image Enhancement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZOZIZWCF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09196}
}
read the original abstract

Low-light image enhancement (LLIE) is a fundamental task in computational photography, aiming to improve illumination, reduce noise, and enhance image quality. While recent advancements focus on designing increasingly complex neural network models, we observe a peculiar phenomenon: resetting certain parameters to random values unexpectedly improves enhancement performance for some images. Drawing inspiration from biological genes, we term this phenomenon the gene effect. The gene effect limits enhancement performance, as even random parameters can sometimes outperform learned ones, preventing models from fully utilizing their capacity. In this paper, we investigate the reason and propose a solution. Based on our observations, we attribute the gene effect to static parameters, analogous to how fixed genetic configurations become maladaptive when environments change. Inspired by biological evolution, where adaptation to new environments relies on gene mutation and recombination, we propose parameter dynamic evolution (PDE) to adapt to different images and mitigate the gene effect. PDE employs a parameter orthogonal generation technique and the corresponding generated parameters to simulate gene recombination and gene mutation, separately. Experiments validate the effectiveness of our techniques. The code will be released to the public.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09196 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of gene effect. Resetting certain parameters to random values can even improve enhancement performance for some images. Inspired by biological genes, where random muta￾tions benefit some individuals while harming others, we name this peculiar phenomenon “gene effect”. els to map low-light images to high-light images [3, 27]. In recent years, most research efforts focused on customiz￾ing complex neural netwo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Biological gene evolution. Biological individuals rely on gene mutation and gene recombination to dynamically evolve gene and adapt to new environments. For gene mutation, new ge￾netic information are generated. For gene recombination, different genetic information are changed. Inspired by biological gene evo￾lution, we propose PDE, which employs a parameter orthogonal generation technique and the corresponding gene… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Comparison of the generated dynamic parameters. The top row presents the basic framework of current parameter mechanism, where the dynamic convolution employ convolutions to extract weights based on the input image to weight the candi￾date parameters. The bottom row presents comparison of the gen￾erated dynamic parameters. The dynamic parameters generated by ours for each row and column image exhibit gradual evoluti… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Overview of Parameter Dynamic Evolution (PDE). PDE employs a parameter orthogonal generation technique and the corresponding generated parameters to simulate gene recom￾bination and gene mutation, separately. similar to stable environments, but become maladaptive or ev…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The similar low light images and corresponding dif￾ferent high light images. The training images do not even satisfy the same distribution, as similar low-light images are likely to be mapped to different high-light image. Yet LLIE methods typically are composed of sta…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Overview of Parameter Orthogonal Generation (POG). POG learns parameter embedding for each parameter, then constructs the orthogonal basis embeddings for the parameter, and finally generates specific parameters for the input image. fect. PDE employs a parameter orthogo…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative comparison on LOL-v1 [58] and LOL-v2 [64] datasets. Finally, we also evaluate the effectiveness of other po￾tential methods in mitigating gene effects. Specifically, we mainly focus on pruning methods, which directly remove parameters that exhibit gene effe…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative comparison on DICM [26], LIME [13], MEF [32], NPE [51], and VV [49] datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [70]

    Kindling the darkness: A practical low-light image enhancer

    Yonghua Zhang, Jiawan Zhang, and Xiaojie Guo. Kindling the darkness: A practical low-light image enhancer. Pro- ceedings of the ACM International Conference on MultiMe- dia, pages 1632–1640, 2019. 2, 7, 8

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Retinexmamba: Retinex-based mamba for low-light image enhancement

    Jiesong Bai, Yuhao Yin, and Qiyuan He. Retinexmamba: Retinex-based mamba for low-light image enhancement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03349 , pages 1–15, 2024. 1, 2, 6, 7

    arXiv 2024

  3. [2]

    Zeroq: A novel zero shot quantization framework

    Yaohui Cai, Zhewei Yao, Zhen Dong, Amir Gholami, Michael W Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. Zeroq: A novel zero shot quantization framework. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 13169–13178, 2020. 6

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Retinexformer: One-stage retinex-based transformer for low-light image enhancement

    Yuanhao Cai, Hao Bian, Jing Lin, Haoqian Wang, Radu Timofte, and Yulun Zhang. Retinexformer: One-stage retinex-based transformer for low-light image enhancement. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 12504–12513, 2023. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Frivolous Units: Wider Networks Are Not Really That Wide

    Stephen Casper, Xavier Boix, Vanessa D’Amario, Christo- pher Rodriguez, Ling Guo, Kasper Vinken, and Gabriel Kreiman. Removable and/or repeated units emerge in overparametrized deep neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.04783, pages 1–9, 2019. 2, 4

    work page Pith review arXiv 1912

  6. [5]

    Dynamic convolu- tion: Attention over convolution kernels

    Yinpeng Chen, Xiyang Dai, Mengchen Liu, Dongdong Chen, Lu Yuan, and Zicheng Liu. Dynamic convolu- tion: Attention over convolution kernels. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 11030–11039, 2020. 2, 4

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    A simple and effective histogram equalization approach to image enhancement

    Hengda Cheng and XJ Shi. A simple and effective histogram equalization approach to image enhancement. Digital Signal Processing, pages 158–170, 2004. 2

    work page 2004

  8. [7]

    Origin of the species

    Charles Darwin. Origin of the species. 1859. 3, 4

    work page

Show all 73 references
  1. [8]

    Genetics and the origin of species

    Theodosius Dobzhansky. Genetics and the origin of species

  2. [9]

    You only need one color space: An efficient network for low-light image enhancement

    Yixu Feng, Cheng Zhang, Pei Wang, Peng Wu, Qingsen Yan, and Yanning Zhang. You only need one color space: An efficient network for low-light image enhancement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05809, pages 1–9, 2024. 6, 7, 8

    2024 arXiv

  3. [10]

    The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain

    Rosenblatt Frank. The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psycho- logical Review, page 386, 1958. 5

    1958

  4. [11]

    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. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 22252–22261, 2023. 8

    2023

  5. [12]

    Mambair: A simple baseline for image restoration with state-space model

    Hang Guo, Jinmin Li, Tao Dai, Zhihao Ouyang, Xudong Ren, and Shu-Tao Xia. Mambair: A simple baseline for image restoration with state-space model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15648, pages 1–19, 2024. 1, 2

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Lime: Low-light im- age enhancement via illumination map estimation

    Xiaojie Guo, Yu Li, and Haibin Ling. Lime: Low-light im- age enhancement via illumination map estimation. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP) , pages 982–993,

  7. [14]

    Learning both weights and connections for efficient neural network

    Song Han, Jeff Pool, John Tran, and William Dally. Learning both weights and connections for efficient neural network. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 1–9, 2015. 6

    2015

  8. [15]

    Importance estimation for neural network pruning

    Li Hao, Kadav Asim, Durdanovic Igor, Samet Hanan, and Graf HansPeter. Importance estimation for neural network pruning. International Conference on Learning Representa- tions (ICLR), pages 1–12, 2017. 6, 7

    2017

  9. [16]

    Filter pruning via geometric median for deep convolutional neural networks acceleration

    Yang He, Ping Liu, Ziwei Wang, Zhilan Hu, and Yi Yang. Filter pruning via geometric median for deep convolutional neural networks acceleration. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 4340–4349, 2019. 6, 7

    2019

  10. [17]

    Matrix Analysis

    Roger A Horn and Charles R Johnson. Matrix Analysis . Cambridge University Press, 1990. 5

    1990

  11. [18]

    Global structure-aware diffusion pro- cess for low-light image enhancement

    Jinhui Hou, Zhiyu Zhu, Junhui Hou, Hui Liu, Huanqiang Zeng, and Hui Yuan. Global structure-aware diffusion pro- cess for low-light image enhancement. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 79734–79747, 2024. 2, 7

    2024

  12. [19]

    Krr-cnn: kernels redundancy reduction in convolu- tional neural networks

    El Houssaine Hssayni, Nour-Eddine Joudar, and Mohamed Ettaouil. Krr-cnn: kernels redundancy reduction in convolu- tional neural networks. Neural Computing and Applications, pages 2443–2454, 2022. 2, 4

    2022

  13. [20]

    Effi- cient contrast enhancement using adaptive gamma correction with weighting distribution

    ShihChia Huang, FanChieh Cheng, and YiSheng Chiu. Effi- cient contrast enhancement using adaptive gamma correction with weighting distribution. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP), pages 1032–1041, 2012. 2

    2012

  14. [21]

    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), pages 1–14, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  15. [22]

    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 Process- ing (TIP), pages 2340–2349, 2021. 1, 2, 7

    2021

  16. [23]

    A multiscale retinex for bridging the gap between color images and the human observation of scenes

    Daniel J Jobson, Zia-ur Rahman, and Glenn A Woodell. A multiscale retinex for bridging the gap between color images and the human observation of scenes. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP), pages 965–976, 1997. 2

    1997

  17. [24]

    Properties and performance of a center/surround retinex

    Daniel J Jobson, Zia-ur Rahman, and Glenn A Woodell. Properties and performance of a center/surround retinex. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP) , pages 451– 462, 1997. 2

    1997

  18. [25]

    Evolutionary rate at the molecular level

    Motoo Kimura et al. Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature, pages 624–626, 1968. 3, 4

    1968

  19. [26]

    Contrast en- hancement based on layered difference representation of 2d histograms

    Chulwoo Lee, Chul Lee, and Chang-Su Kim. Contrast en- hancement based on layered difference representation of 2d histograms. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP), pages 5372–5384, 2013. 8

    2013

  20. [27]

    Low-light image and video enhancement using deep learning: A sur- vey

    Chongyi Li, Chunle Guo, Linghao Han, Jun Jiang, Ming- ming Cheng, Jinwei Gu, and Chen Change Loy. Low-light image and video enhancement using deep learning: A sur- vey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI), pages 9396–9416, 2022. 1

    2022

  21. [28]

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

    Chongyi Li, Chunle Guo, and Chen Change Loy. Learning to enhance low-light image via zero-reference deep curve esti- mation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI), pages 4225–4238, 2022. 2, 8

    2022

  22. [29]

    Structure-revealing low-light image en- hancement via robust retinex model

    Mading Li, Jiaying Liu, Wenhan Yang, Xiaoyan Sun, and Zongming Guo. Structure-revealing low-light image en- hancement via robust retinex model. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP), pages 2828–2841, 2018. 2

    2018

  23. [30]

    Recurrent exposure generation for low-light face detection

    Jinxiu Liang, Jingwen Wang, Yuhui Quan, Tianyi Chen, Ji- aying Liu, Haibin Ling, and Yong Xu. Recurrent exposure generation for low-light face detection. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, pages 1609–1621, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  24. [31]

    Benchmarking low-light image enhance- ment and beyond

    Jiaying Liu, Dejia Xu, Wenhan Yang, Minhao Fan, and Haofeng Huang. Benchmarking low-light image enhance- ment and beyond. International Journal of Computer Vision, pages 1153–1184, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  25. [32]

    Perceptual quality assessment for multi-exposure image fusion

    Kede Ma, Kai Zeng, and Zhou Wang. Perceptual quality assessment for multi-exposure image fusion. IEEE Trans- actions on Image Processing (TIP), pages 3345–3356, 2015. 8

    2015

  26. [33]

    Deeplpf: Deep local para- metric filters for image enhancement

    Sean Moran, Pierre Marza, Steven McDonagh, Sarah Parisot, and Gregory Slabaugh. Deeplpf: Deep local para- metric filters for image enhancement. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12826–12835, 2020. 2

    2020

  27. [34]

    The mechanism of mendelian heredity

    Thomas Hunt Morgan, Alfred Henry Sturtevant, Her- mann Joseph Muller, and Calvin Blackman Bridges. The mechanism of mendelian heredity. 1923. 2, 3, 4

    1923

  28. [35]

    Artificial transmutation of the gene

    Hermann J Muller. Artificial transmutation of the gene. Sci- ence, pages 84–87, 1927. 3

    1927

  29. [36]

    Data-free quantization through weight equal- ization and bias correction

    Markus Nagel, Mart van Baalen, Tijmen Blankevoort, and Max Welling. Data-free quantization through weight equal- ization and bias correction. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 1325–1334, 2019. 7

    2019

  30. [37]

    Lateral gene transfer and the nature of bacterial inno- vation

    Howard Ochman, Jeffrey G Lawrence, and Eduardo A Gro- isman. Lateral gene transfer and the nature of bacterial inno- vation. nature, pages 299–304, 2000. 3

    2000

  31. [38]

    Quadrants dynamic histogram equalization for contrast enhancement

    Chen Hee Ooi and Nor Ashidi Mat Isa. Quadrants dynamic histogram equalization for contrast enhancement. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics , pages 2552–2559,

  32. [39]

    Contrast limited adaptive his- togram equalization image processing to improve the detec- tion of simulated spiculations in dense mammograms

    Etta D Pisano, Shuquan Zong, Bradley M Hemminger, Marla DeLuca, R Eugene Johnston, Keith Muller, M Patricia Brae- uning, and Stephen M Pizer. Contrast limited adaptive his- togram equalization image processing to improve the detec- tion of simulated spiculations in dense mammo...

    1998

  33. [40]

    Adaptive histogram equalization and its variations

    Stephen M Pizer, E Philip Amburn, John D Austin, Robert Cromartie, Ari Geselowitz, Trey Greer, Bart ter Haar Romeny, John B Zimmerman, and Karel Zuiderveld. Adaptive histogram equalization and its variations. Com- puter Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing , pages 355– 368, 1987. 2

    1987

  34. [41]

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

    Liu Risheng, Ma Long, Zhang Jiaao, Fan Xin, and Luo Zhongxuan. Retinex-inspired unrolling with cooperative prior architecture search for low-light image enhancement. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2021. 8

    2021

  35. [42]

    Saurabh Saini and P. J. Narayanan. Specularity factorization for low light enhancement. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 1–12, 2024. 7

    2024

  36. [43]

    Nighttime visibility en- hancement by increasing the dynamic range and suppression of light effects

    Aashish Sharma and Robby T Tan. Nighttime visibility en- hancement by increasing the dynamic range and suppression of light effects. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 11977–11986, 2021. 2

    2021

  37. [44]

    Classification- driven dynamic image enhancement

    Vivek Sharma, Ali Diba, Davy Neven, Michael S Brown, Luc Van Gool, and Rainer Stiefelhagen. Classification- driven dynamic image enhancement. pages 4033–4041,

  38. [45]

    Adaptive dy- namic filtering network for image denoising

    Hao Shen, Zhong-Qiu Zhao, and Wandi Zhang. Adaptive dy- namic filtering network for image denoising. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 2227–2235, 2023

    2023

  39. [46]

    Ddet: Dual-path dynamic enhancement network for real-world image super-resolution

    Yukai Shi, Haoyu Zhong, Zhijing Yang, Xiaojun Yang, and Liang Lin. Ddet: Dual-path dynamic enhancement network for real-world image super-resolution. IEEE Signal Process- ing Letters, pages 481–485, 2020

    2020

  40. [47]

    Image super-resolution via dynamic net- work

    Chunwei Tian, Xuanyu Zhang, Qi Zhang, Mingming Yang, and Zhaojie Ju. Image super-resolution via dynamic net- work. CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology, pages 837–849, 2024. 3

    2024

  41. [48]

    Deep learning and the information bottleneck principle

    Naftali Tishby and Noga Zaslavsky. Deep learning and the information bottleneck principle. 2015 IEEE Information Theory Workshop, pages 1–5, 2015. 5

    2015

  42. [49]

    On the evaluation of illumination compensation algorithms

    Vassilios V onikakis, Rigas Kouskouridas, and Antonios Gasteratos. On the evaluation of illumination compensation algorithms. Multimedia Tools and Applications, pages 1–21,

  43. [50]

    Underexposed photo enhance- ment using deep illumination estimation

    Ruixing Wang, Qing Zhang, Chiwing Fu, Xiaoyong Shen, Weishi Zheng, and Jiaya Jia. Underexposed photo enhance- ment using deep illumination estimation. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 6849–6857, 2019. 2

    2019

  44. [51]

    Nat- uralness preserved enhancement algorithm for non-uniform illumination images

    Shuhang Wang, Jin Zheng, Hai-Miao Hu, and Bo Li. Nat- uralness preserved enhancement algorithm for non-uniform illumination images. IEEE Transactions on Image Process- ing (TIP), pages 3538–3548, 2013. 2, 8

    2013

  45. [52]

    Ultra-high-definition low-light image enhancement: A benchmark and transformer-based method

    Tao Wang, Kaihao Zhang, Tianrun Shen, Wenhan Luo, Bjorn Stenger, and Tong Lu. Ultra-high-definition low-light image enhancement: A benchmark and transformer-based method. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence (AAAI), pages 2654–2662, 2023. 2, 6, 7

    2023

  46. [53]

    Gladnet: Low-light enhancement network with global awareness

    Wenjing Wang, Chen Wei, Wenhan Yang, and Jiaying Liu. Gladnet: Low-light enhancement network with global awareness. IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition, pages 751–755, 2018. 2

    2018

  47. [54]

    Zero-reference low-light enhancement via physical quadru- ple priors

    Wenjing Wang, Huan Yang, Jianlong Fu, and Jiaying Liu. Zero-reference low-light enhancement via physical quadru- ple priors. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 26057–26066, 2024. 7

    2024

  48. [55]

    Low-light image enhancement with normalizing flow

    Yufei Wang, Renjie Wan, Wenhan Yang, Haoliang Li, Lap- Pui Chau, and Alex Kot. Low-light image enhancement with normalizing flow. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 2604–2612, 2022. 8

    2022

  49. [56]

    Low-light image enhancement with illumination-aware gamma correction and complete image modelling network

    Yinglong Wang, Zhen Liu, Jianzhuang Liu, Songcen Xu, and Shuaicheng Liu. Low-light image enhancement with illumination-aware gamma correction and complete image modelling network. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 13128–13...

    2023

  50. [57]

    A real-time image processor with combining dynamic contrast ratio en- hancement and inverse gamma correction for pdp

    Zhiguo Wang, Zhihu Liang, and Chunliang Liu. A real-time image processor with combining dynamic contrast ratio en- hancement and inverse gamma correction for pdp. Displays, pages 133–139, 2009. 2

    2009

  51. [58]

    Deep retinex decomposition for low-light enhance- ment

    Chen Wei, Wenjing Wang, Wenhan Yang, and Jiaying Liu. Deep retinex decomposition for low-light enhance- ment. British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC) , pages 1–12, 2018. 1, 2, 7

    2018

  52. [59]

    Mamballie: Implicit retinex-aware low light enhancement with global-then-local state space

    Jiangwei Weng, Zhiqiang Yan, Ying Tai, Jianjun Qian, Jian Yang, and Jun Li. Mamballie: Implicit retinex-aware low light enhancement with global-then-local state space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16105, pages 1–12, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Diffir: Efficient diffusion model for image restoration

    Bin Xia, Yulun Zhang, Shiyin Wang, Yitong Wang, Xing- long Wu, Yapeng Tian, Wenming Yang, and Luc Van Gool. Diffir: Efficient diffusion model for image restoration. Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 13095–13105, 2023. 1

    2023

  54. [61]

    Snr-aware low-light image enhancement

    Xiaogang Xu, Ruixing Wang, Chiwing Fu, and Jiaya Jia. Snr-aware low-light image enhancement. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 17714–17724, 2022. 2, 6, 7, 8

    2022

  55. [62]

    Unified dynamic convolutional network for super-resolution with variational degradations

    Yusyuan Xu, Shouyao Roy Tseng, Yu Tseng, Hsienkai Kuo, and Yi-Min Tsai. Unified dynamic convolutional network for super-resolution with variational degradations. Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12496–12505, 2020. 1

    2020

  56. [63]

    Condconv: Conditionally parameterized convolu- tions for efficient inference

    Brandon Yang, Gabriel Bender, Quoc V Le, and Jiquan Ngiam. Condconv: Conditionally parameterized convolu- tions for efficient inference. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 1–11, 2019. 2, 4

    2019

  57. [64]

    Sparse gradient regularized deep retinex network for robust low-light image enhancement

    Wenhan Yang, Wenjing Wang, Haofeng Huang, Shiqi Wang, and Jiaying Liu. Sparse gradient regularized deep retinex network for robust low-light image enhancement. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP), pages 2072–2086,

  58. [65]

    Diff-retinex: Rethinking low-light image enhance- ment with a generative diffusion model

    Xunpeng Yi, Han Xu, Hao Zhang, Linfeng Tang, and Ji- ayi Ma. Diff-retinex: Rethinking low-light image enhance- ment with a generative diffusion model. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 12302–12311, 2023. 2

    2023

  59. [66]

    Learning enriched features for fast image restoration and enhancement

    Syed Waqas Zamir, Aditya Arora, Salman Khan, Munawar Hayat, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, MingHsuan Yang, and Ling Shao. Learning enriched features for fast image restoration and enhancement. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI), pages 1934–1948, 2022. 2

    1934

  60. [67]

    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. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 5728–...

    2022

  61. [68]

    Learning a single convolutional super-resolution network for multiple degradations

    Kai Zhang, Wangmeng Zuo, and Lei Zhang. Learning a single convolutional super-resolution network for multiple degradations. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 3262–3271, 2018. 1

    2018

  62. [69]

    Llemamba: Low-light enhancement via relighting-guided mamba with deep unfolding network

    Xuanqi Zhang, Haijin Zeng, Jinwang Pan, Qiangqiang Shen, and Yongyong Chen. Llemamba: Low-light enhancement via relighting-guided mamba with deep unfolding network. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01028, pages 1–12, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Beyond brightening low-light images

    Yonghua Zhang, Xiaojie Guo, Jiayi Ma, Wei Liu, and Jiawan Zhang. Beyond brightening low-light images. International Journal of Computer Vision, pages 1013–1037, 2021. 2

    2021

  64. [72]

    Rethinking bottleneck structure for efficient mobile network design

    Daquan Zhou, Qibin Hou, Yunpeng Chen, Jiashi Feng, and Shuicheng Yan. Rethinking bottleneck structure for efficient mobile network design. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 680–697, 2020. 5

    2020

  65. [73]

    Glare: Low light image enhancement via generative latent feature based codebook retrieval

    Han Zhou, Wei Dong, Xiaohong Liu, Shuaicheng Liu, Xiongkuo Min, Guangtao Zhai, and Jun Chen. Glare: Low light image enhancement via generative latent feature based codebook retrieval. In Proceedings of the European Con- ference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages 1–19, 2024. 2, 8

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.