arxiv: 2604.15723 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.AI

Recognition: unknown

Diffusion Autoencoder for Unsupervised Artifact Restoration in Handheld Fundus Images

Mathumetha Palani , Kavya Puthumana , Ayantika Das , Ganapathy Krishnamurthi

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 08:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.AI

keywords diffusion autoencoderfundus image restorationunsupervised artifact removalhandheld fundus imagingmedical image enhancementophthalmologygenerative modelsimage denoising

0 comments

The pith

Unsupervised diffusion autoencoder restores artifacts in handheld fundus images using only clean table-top training data.

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

The paper introduces an unsupervised diffusion autoencoder trained exclusively on high-quality table-top fundus images to restore artifacts such as reflections, blur, and exposure variations in handheld acquisitions. It integrates a context encoder into the denoising process to learn semantically meaningful representations that generalize without paired supervision or explicit artifact modeling. This addresses the challenge of unstructured degradations that hinder diagnosis from portable eye cameras. Validation shows the restorations raise diagnostic accuracy to 81.17 percent on an unseen dataset across multiple artifact conditions.

Core claim

The model learns representations from clean table-top fundus images via a context encoder integrated with diffusion denoising, enabling restoration of unstructured artifacts in handheld images and improving downstream diagnostic accuracy without any paired data or predefined artifact structures.

What carries the argument

Unsupervised diffusion autoencoder integrating a context encoder with the denoising process to capture semantic representations for artifact restoration.

If this is right

Restored images raise diagnostic accuracy to 81.17% on unseen handheld data under varied artifact conditions.
The approach functions without paired clean-degraded examples or predefined artifact models.
It enables wider adoption of low-cost handheld fundus devices for accessible ophthalmologic screening.
Quantitative metrics and qualitative assessments confirm effective artifact removal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Similar unsupervised diffusion setups could transfer to artifact correction in other medical imaging domains where clean reference data is more available than matched pairs.
The method suggests diffusion models can encode transferable semantic priors across controlled and uncontrolled capture environments.
Real-time variants might support live correction during handheld image acquisition in clinical workflows.

Load-bearing premise

Representations learned solely from clean table-top fundus images will generalize to remove real-world unstructured artifacts in handheld images without paired supervision or explicit artifact modeling.

What would settle it

No measurable gain in diagnostic accuracy or visible remaining artifacts on a held-out set of handheld fundus images with typical degradations would falsify the claim.

read the original abstract

The advent of handheld fundus imaging devices has made ophthalmologic diagnosis and disease screening more accessible, efficient, and cost-effective. However, images captured from these setups often suffer from artifacts such as flash reflections, exposure variations, and motion-induced blur, which degrade image quality and hinder downstream analysis. While generative models have been effective in image restoration, most depend on paired supervision or predefined artifact structures, making them less adaptable to unstructured degradations commonly observed in handheld fundus images. To address this, we propose an unsupervised diffusion autoencoder that integrates a context encoder with the denoising process to learn semantically meaningful representations for artifact restoration. The model is trained only on high-quality table-top fundus images and infers to restore artifact-affected handheld acquisitions. We validate the restorations through quantitative and qualitative evaluations, and have shown that diagnostic accuracy increases to 81.17% on an unseen dataset and multiple artifact conditions

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper tries an unsupervised diffusion autoencoder trained only on clean table-top fundus images to fix real handheld artifacts, but the evaluation details are too thin to tell if the 81% accuracy gain is reliable.

read the letter

The core idea is training a diffusion autoencoder plus context encoder exclusively on high-quality table-top fundus photos, then using it at inference to remove flash reflections, blur, and exposure issues from handheld captures without any paired degraded examples. That unsupervised setup is the main novelty, and it targets a practical gap in portable eye screening where collecting matched clean-degraded pairs is difficult. The reported lift to 81.17% diagnostic accuracy on an unseen handheld set is the headline result, and the qualitative examples presumably show plausible restorations that help a downstream classifier. Credit is due for focusing on real unstructured artifacts rather than synthetic ones and for keeping the training regime simple. The architecture choice to fold context encoding into the denoising steps makes sense for preserving semantic structure. The main weakness is the evaluation. The abstract states the accuracy number but gives no protocol details, no comparison to standard restoration baselines like context encoders or other diffusion variants, no statistical significance tests, and no breakdown by artifact type or dataset size. Without those, it is hard to separate genuine artifact removal from the classifier simply accepting any reasonably sharp output. The generalization claim is also the least anchored part: the model never sees handheld degradations in training, so success rests on the clean-image manifold plus context features being sufficient to guide sampling. That assumption may or may not hold once the full experiments are examined. This work is aimed at researchers in medical image restoration and ophthalmology AI who care about low-cost devices. It is worth sending to peer review because the problem is concrete and the unsupervised angle is worth testing, but the authors will need to add proper baselines, ablation studies, and clearer metrics before it can be taken as solid evidence.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an unsupervised diffusion autoencoder that integrates a context encoder with the denoising process. Trained exclusively on high-quality table-top fundus images, the model is applied at inference to restore unstructured artifacts (flash reflections, exposure variations, motion blur) in handheld fundus images. It reports that the restorations increase diagnostic accuracy to 81.17% on an unseen handheld dataset under multiple artifact conditions, supported by quantitative and qualitative evaluations.

Significance. If the unsupervised generalization holds, the approach would be significant for medical image restoration tasks where paired clean-degraded data or explicit artifact models are unavailable. The integration of a context encoder into diffusion denoising to learn semantically meaningful representations from clean data alone could reduce reliance on supervised artifact-specific training.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The manuscript states a concrete diagnostic accuracy of 81.17% but supplies no experimental protocol, dataset details, baselines, statistical tests, or validation procedure. This omission is load-bearing because the central claim of successful artifact restoration and accuracy improvement cannot be assessed without these elements.
[Method] Method and Experiments (inferred from abstract claim): The core assumption that a context encoder plus diffusion denoising, trained only on clean table-top images, produces latents sufficient to steer reverse diffusion toward correct clean images for unseen handheld artifacts lacks any reported ablation, comparison to supervised baselines, or paired ground-truth evaluation. Without such evidence the reported accuracy gain cannot be attributed to genuine restoration versus plausible but incorrect outputs.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a brief statement of the quantitative metrics used beyond the single accuracy number.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, clarifying the experimental details where possible and indicating revisions to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The manuscript states a concrete diagnostic accuracy of 81.17% but supplies no experimental protocol, dataset details, baselines, statistical tests, or validation procedure. This omission is load-bearing because the central claim of successful artifact restoration and accuracy improvement cannot be assessed without these elements.

Authors: We agree that the abstract is too concise and omits key details needed to evaluate the central claim. The full manuscript describes the evaluation as expert ophthalmologist diagnosis on restored versus original images from an unseen handheld dataset under multiple artifact conditions, with the 81.17% figure obtained via majority vote across multiple experts. However, to make this immediately clear, we will revise the abstract to include a brief statement of the evaluation protocol, dataset characteristics, and that quantitative no-reference metrics and qualitative expert review were used. The main text already contains the full dataset description and validation procedure, but we will add explicit statistical details (e.g., inter-rater agreement) in a revision. revision: yes
Referee: [Method] Method and Experiments (inferred from abstract claim): The core assumption that a context encoder plus diffusion denoising, trained only on clean table-top images, produces latents sufficient to steer reverse diffusion toward correct clean images for unseen handheld artifacts lacks any reported ablation, comparison to supervised baselines, or paired ground-truth evaluation. Without such evidence the reported accuracy gain cannot be attributed to genuine restoration versus plausible but incorrect outputs.

Authors: We acknowledge that additional ablations would help isolate the contribution of the context encoder. In the revised manuscript we will add an ablation study comparing the full model against a baseline diffusion autoencoder without the context encoder, using the same no-reference quality metrics and expert ratings. However, because the method is unsupervised and the handheld images are real acquisitions without corresponding clean ground truth, paired GT evaluation is not feasible. We therefore rely on no-reference metrics (BRISQUE, NIQE) and expert visual assessment rather than pixel-level or supervised metrics. Supervised baselines are likewise not directly comparable, as they require paired training data that does not exist for unstructured real-world artifacts; we will expand the discussion to explicitly note this limitation and compare only against other unsupervised methods. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved

Absence of paired clean-degraded ground truth for real handheld fundus images prevents any paired GT or fully supervised baseline evaluation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no identifiable free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the ledger is therefore empty.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5463 in / 1075 out tokens · 48258 ms · 2026-05-10T08:50:27.918292+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

INTRODUCTION Ophthalmologic analysis relies signiﬁcantly on fundus imag- ing as a primary screening tool for various diagnostic pur- poses [1]. The continuous advancement in identifying fundus image–based biomarkers [2] for multiple diseases, such as diabetic retinopathy, has established fundus screening as a widely adopted and crucial diagnostic approach...
[2]

The trained DiffAE is then utilized for artifact inpainting in handheld fundus im- ages

METHODOLOGY Our proposed method employs a Diffusion Autoencoder (Dif- fAE) framework that integrates an encoder with the denois- ing process (UNet) to learn image representations through an auto-encoding objective on high-quality table-top fundus im- ages, as detailed in Subsection 2.1. The trained DiffAE is then utilized for artifact inpainting in handhe...
[3]

This dataset comprises of12,098 high-quality healthy images acquired in a table-top setup

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP Dataset Details And Evaluation Metrics:Train Set: We have utilized healthy fundus images from the EyePACS [15] dataset to train our model. This dataset comprises of12,098 high-quality healthy images acquired in a table-top setup. Test Set: We have utilized mobile fundus image dataset, mBRSET [16] for inference. From the dataset,197image...
[4]

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Quantitative Analysis In order to quantify the restoration quality, we evaluate (i) PSNR, SSIM, and V essel segmentation score onSynthetic Set and (ii) Quality assessment score and DR classiﬁcation accu- racy onTest Setand report in Table 1. Image Quality Assessment on Synthetic Set: Theﬁrst two columns of Table 1 indicate the ...
[5]

Quantitative evaluations demonstrate superior image quality and stronger contextual preservation compared to baseline methods

CONCLUSION We have presented an unsupervised diffusion model for ar- tifact restoration in mobile-acquired fundus images using a diffusion auto-encoding formulation that learns to generate high-quality images and employs inference-time inpainting for restoration. Quantitative evaluations demonstrate superior image quality and stronger contextual preservat...
[6]

As no new data involving human subjects were collected, ethical review and informed consent requirements were waived

COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS The datasets used in this study are publicly available and anonymized. As no new data involving human subjects were collected, ethical review and informed consent requirements were waived
[7]

CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declare that they have no conﬂict of interest
[8]

Claritydiffusenet: Enhanc- ing fundus image quality under black shadows with diffusion model-based research,

Jiadi Dong, Tianwei Qian, Y uxian Jiang, Lei Bi, Jinman Kim, Lisheng Wang, and Xun Xu, “Claritydiffusenet: Enhanc- ing fundus image quality under black shadows with diffusion model-based research,”Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 186, pp. 279–285, 2024

2024
[9]

Retinal blood vessel segmentation and inpainting networks with multi-level self- attention,

Mat ´uˇs Golia ˇs and Elena ˇSikudov´a, “Retinal blood vessel segmentation and inpainting networks with multi-level self- attention,”Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, vol. 102, pp. 107343, 04 2025

2025
[10]

Review of smartphone funduscopy for diabetic retinopathy screening,

Neil V aughan, “Review of smartphone funduscopy for diabetic retinopathy screening,”Survey of Ophthalmology, vol. 69, 10 2023

2023
[11]

Pivotal trial of an autonomous ai- based diagnostic system for detection of diabetic retinopathy in primary care ofﬁces,

Michael D Abr `amoff, Philip T Lavin, Michele Birch, Nilay Shah, and James C Folk, “Pivotal trial of an autonomous ai- based diagnostic system for detection of diabetic retinopathy in primary care ofﬁces,”NPJ digital medicine, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 39, 2018

2018
[12]

Qureshi, and Mehran Ebrahimi

Kamyar Nazeri, Eric Ng, Tony Joseph, Faisal Z Qureshi, and Mehran Ebrahimi, “Edgeconnect: Generative image inpainting with adversarial edge learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.00212, 2019

work page arXiv 1901
[13]

Image inpainting for ecei based on deepﬁllv2 model,

Zijian Xuan, Zhoujun Y ang, Chi Lei, Zezhi Y u, Ziyang Jin, Qiang Luo, Wei Zheng, Y an Guo, Siyu Zhu, Nengchao Wang, Z.Y . Chen, and Y .H. Ding, “Image inpainting for ecei based on deepﬁllv2 model,”Fusion Engineering and Design, vol. 202, pp. 114378, 05 2024

2024
[14]

Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models,

Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel, “Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851, 2020

2020
[15]

Repaint: Inpainting us- ing denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

Andreas Lugmayr, Martin Danelljan, Andres Romero, Fisher Y u, Radu Timofte, and Luc V an Gool, “Repaint: Inpainting us- ing denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 11461–11471

2022
[16]

Shift-net: Image inpainting via deep feature rearrangement,

Zhaoyi Y an, Xiaoming Li, Mu Li, Wangmeng Zuo, and Shiguang Shan, “Shift-net: Image inpainting via deep feature rearrangement,” inProceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 2018, pp. 1–17

2018
[17]

Misf: Multi-level interactive siameseﬁltering for high- ﬁdelity image inpainting,

Xiaoguang Li, Qing Guo, Di Lin, Ping Li, Wei Feng, and Song Wang, “Misf: Multi-level interactive siameseﬁltering for high- ﬁdelity image inpainting,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 1869–1878

2022
[18]

Cr-ﬁll: Generative image inpainting with auxiliary contextual recon- struction,

Y u Zeng, Zhe Lin, Huchuan Lu, and Vishal M Patel, “Cr-ﬁll: Generative image inpainting with auxiliary contextual recon- struction,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international con- ference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 14164–14173

2021
[19]

Image inpainting based on patch-gans,

Liuchun Y uan, Congcong Ruan, Haifeng Hu, and Dihu Chen, “Image inpainting based on patch-gans,”IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 46411–46421, 01 2019

2019
[20]

Diffusion autoencoders: To- ward a meaningful and decodable representation,

Konpat Preechakul, Nattanat Chatthee, Suttisak Wizadwongsa, and Supasorn Suwajanakorn, “Diffusion autoencoders: To- ward a meaningful and decodable representation,” inProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pat- tern recognition, 2022, pp. 10619–10629

2022
[21]

Posdif- fae: Position-aware diffusion auto-encoder for high-resolution brain tissue classiﬁcation incorporating artifact restoration,

Ayantika Das, Moitreya Chaudhuri, Koushik Bhat, Keerthi Ram, Mihail Bota, and Mohanasankar Sivaprakasam, “Posdif- fae: Position-aware diffusion auto-encoder for high-resolution brain tissue classiﬁcation incorporating artifact restoration,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2025

2025
[22]

Eyepacs: an adaptable telemedicine system for diabetic retinopathy screening,

Jorge Cuadros and George Bresnick, “Eyepacs: an adaptable telemedicine system for diabetic retinopathy screening,”Jour- nal of diabetes science and technology, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 509– 516, 2009

2009
[23]

A portable retina fundus photos dataset for clinical, demographic, and diabetic retinopathy prediction,

Chenwei Wu, David Restrepo, Luis Filipe Nakayama, Lucas Zago Ribeiro, Zitao Shuai, Nathan Santos Barboza, Maria Luiza Vieira Sousa, Raul Dias Fitterman, Alexandre Du- rao Alves Pereira, Caio Vinicius Saito Regatieri, et al., “A portable retina fundus photos dataset for clinical, demographic, and diabetic retinopathy prediction,”Scientic Data, vol. 12, no...

2025
[24]

Ridge-based vessel seg- mentation in color images of the retina,

Joes Staal, Michael D. Abr `amoff, Meindert Niemeijer, Max A. Viergever, and Bram van Ginneken, “Ridge-based vessel seg- mentation in color images of the retina,”IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 501–509, 2004

2004
[25]

Pvbm: a python vasculature biomarker toolbox based on retinal blood vessel segmentation,

Jonathan Fhima, Jan V an Eijgen, Ingeborg Stalmans, Y evgeniy Men, Moti Freiman, and Joachim A Behar, “Pvbm: a python vasculature biomarker toolbox based on retinal blood vessel segmentation,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 296–312

2022