Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

GenDeg: Diffusion-based Degradation Synthesis for Generalizable All-In-One Image Restoration

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Training all-in-one image restoration models on a 750k-sample dataset that mixes existing data with 550k diffusion-synthesized degraded images substantially improves their performance on out-of-distribution scenes, the paper reports.

desk verdict Useful dataset, real novelty in conditioning, but the central attribution claim is confounded by data volume. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17687 v2 pith:NXEQX3XR submitted 2024-11-26 cs.CV

Sudarshan Rajagopalan , Nithin Gopalakrishnan Nair , Jay N. Paranjape , Vishal M. Patel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords all-in-oneimagerestorationdiffusionmodelssyntheticdatagenerationdegradationsynthesisout-of-distributiongeneralizationdeweatheringlow-lightenhancementdatasetscaling
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 large training set of synthetic degraded images produced by a diffusion model can fix a core weakness of all-in-one image restoration models: they generalize poorly to degradation patterns and scenes not seen during training. It proposes GenDeg, a degradation and intensity-aware conditional diffusion model that adds controlled haze, rain, snow, motion blur, low-light, and raindrops to clean images, and GenDS, a 750k-sample dataset built from GenDeg plus existing restoration data. The reported result is that five different restoration models trained on GenDS improve out-of-distribution metrics compared with training on existing datasets alone, while within-distribution performance is maintained or improved. If true, this provides a scalable way to obtain paired training data for corruptions where real paired capture is impractical.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the $\mu/\sigma$ conditioning of GenDeg. The generator is trained with the latent-diffusion objective of Eq. (1) on a union of existing restoration datasets, conditioned on the clean image, a scene caption plus degradation phrase, and a one-hot encoding of $\mu$ and $\sigma$ binned into 128 levels (plus a null-prompt bin). At inference, $\mu_{\mathrm{gen}}$ is sampled from the histogram of a randomly chosen dataset for the target degradation and $\sigma_{\mathrm{gen}}$ is sampled conditional on that $\mu$ bin, producing degradation intensities that match realistic ranges. A Structure Correction Module aligns generated images with their clean counterparts for smooth degradations like haze, blur, and raindrops, while rain, snow, and low-light use a VAE-passed clean image instead. This mechanism is what turns a generic image editor into a controllable paired-data generator that can cover a wider degradation manifold than the original datasets.

What would settle it

Evaluate a GenDS-trained model and an existing-data-only model on a held-out degradation produced by a different physical mechanism than any training dataset—for example, haze with a scattering model whose parameters fall outside the $\mu/\sigma$ histogram ranges, or rain with a new streak geometry—and compare LPIPS/FID. If the GenDS-trained model does not beat the baseline there, the claim that the synthetic data bridges the gap to genuinely novel degradations is falsified. A direct precursor check is to compute the Wasserstein distance between DA-CLIP features of GenDS samples and such a held-out set; the paper's own metric would show whether the bridge exists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the domain gap experienced by all-in-one image restoration models is largely a data problem, and that a diffusion model can manufacture the missing data. GenDeg is a latent diffusion model that takes a clean image, a text description of the scene and degradation, and a two-number control signal—the mean intensity $\mu$ and spatial standard deviation $\sigma$ of the degradation map $c_{\mathrm{map}} = |x_{\mathrm{in}} - c_{\mathrm{img}}|$—and produces a degraded version of that image. Sampling $\mu$ and $\sigma$ from histograms of existing datasets and generating roughly 550k additional degraded images from about 120k clean scenes yields GenDS, a paired dataset of over 750k images. The empirical claim is that five restoration architectures trained on GenDS show lower LPIPS and FID on out-of-distribution test sets than the same architectures trained on existing data alone, with the largest gains on haze, low-light, and raindrops, the categories with the smallest and least diverse real datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that degradation patterns drawn from the $\mu/\sigma$ histograms of existing datasets lie in the same part of degradation space as real-world out-of-distribution test images, so that adding them to training closes the domain gap rather than merely interpolating among already-known synthetic patterns.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Models trained on GenDS should transfer better to real-world haze, rain, snow, motion blur, low light, and raindrop images outside the original training distribution, which is the practical setting for autonomous driving and surveillance.
  • Because GenDS contains multiple degraded versions of the same clean scene, it enables controlled studies of degradation-invariant representations and makes it possible to isolate scene content from corruption type in what a model learns.
  • The scaling analysis indicates that the first roughly 100k synthetic samples deliver most of the out-of-distribution gain, so dataset builders can expect diminishing returns beyond that point.
  • The near-flat motion-blur numbers suggest that synthetic data helps most where real diverse paired data is scarce; for a degradation already well covered by real data, extra synthetic samples add little.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test whether GenDeg can generate degradation types beyond the six it was trained on; a natural next experiment is to condition the same pipeline on new prompts and check whether the histogram-sampling machinery transfers to unseen corruptions.
  • One could turn the $\mu/\sigma$ controls into an automatic curriculum, generating training samples at the degradation intensities where a current model's out-of-distribution error is highest, rather than sampling from historical histograms.
  • A reader might infer that the generation budget should be allocated inversely to the amount of real diverse data available per degradation, since the observed gains are largest for haze, low-light, and raindrops—the categories with the smallest real datasets.
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 proposes GenDeg, a latent diffusion model that synthesizes degraded images from clean images by conditioning on a text prompt and on the mean (µ) and standard deviation (σ) of the degradation map. The authors generate about 550k degraded samples across six degradation types (haze, rain, snow, motion blur, low-light, raindrops) and combine them with existing restoration datasets to form GenDS, a dataset of roughly 750k paired images. They train five restoration models (NAFNet, PromptIR, a Swin-based model, DA-CLIP, and Diff-Plugin) on GenDS and compare against models trained on existing datasets alone, reporting improved LPIPS/FID on several out-of-distribution (OOD) benchmarks. They also analyze scaling behavior, the effect of µ/σ conditioning, and the domain gap between existing, generated, and OOD degradations.

Significance. If the empirical claim is robust, GenDS is a large-scale practical resource and the paper offers a useful recipe for improving OOD generalization in all-in-one restoration. The evaluation is broad (five architectures and nine OOD test sets), the OOD benchmarks are external and disjoint from GenDeg's training data, and the µ/σ statistics are fitted to existing training data rather than to OOD results, so the evaluation is not circular. However, the study does not isolate the contribution of the diffusion-based degradation manifold from dataset scale and multi-degradation pairing, and it lacks error bars or significance tests. The significance of the reported gains is therefore contingent on additional control experiments.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Table 2; Sec. 4.2, Fig. 6, Table 4] The reported OOD gains are not attributable to GenDeg's diffusion-based degradation synthesis because every comparison pairs 'existing data alone' against 'existing data plus roughly 550k GenDeg samples.' No control adds an equal number of classically or physically synthesized degradations from the same ~120k clean images, with the same five-degradations-per-image scheme and matched µ/σ distributions. Under this design, the improvements could be driven by dataset size, by generic diversity, or by multi-degradation pairing rather than by the learned diffusion manifold. The saturation after ~100k samples in Fig. 6 and the near-zero motion-blur differences in Table 2 (e.g., NAFNet GoPro FID 28.2 versus 28.7) are consistent with a volume-saturation explanation. Please add a matched-scale classical synthesizer control and provide per-degradation quantitative measures of distributional overlap (e.g., Wasserstein distance between generated and OOD feature distributions), since Fig. 3 is qualitative and shown only for haze.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] GenDS gives each clean image five generated degradations that were not present in its original training set, so a model trained on GenDS sees the same scene under multiple corruption types while the existing-data baseline does not. This structural difference alone could improve an AIOR model's ability to disentangle scene content from degradation, independent of whether the degradations come from GenDeg or from any other generator. Please ablate this factor by training on a dataset with the same 120k clean images each paired with five classically synthesized degradations, or by otherwise matching the multi-degradation-per-image structure.
  3. [Table 2; Sec. 4.1] The paper repeatedly describes improvements as 'significant' but reports no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Several individual OOD cells show small or opposite changes (e.g., NAFNet GoPro FID 28.2 versus 28.7; Swin GoPro FID 31.7 versus 36.2), and the aggregate gains in Table 2 appear to come from single runs. Please report variance over at least three seeds for the core comparisons, or provide paired significance tests, so that the central claim can be properly assessed.
  4. [Sec. 4.1, qualitative comparisons] The statement that GenDS-trained models often produce 'richer colors than the ground truth,' which is used to justify discarding PSNR/SSIM in favor of LPIPS/FID, is concerning because it indicates a systematic deviation from the reference image. If the synthetic data biases models toward more saturated or more colorful outputs, LPIPS and FID gains could partly reflect a stylistic preference rather than improved restoration accuracy. Please quantify the color shift (e.g., mean saturation difference or ∆E) and report PSNR/SSIM for the same models in the main paper, at least for the headline comparisons.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.2] The filtering thresholds and the µ/σ binning ranges are said to be empirically determined and given in the supplementary, but they are not stated in the main text. Please report them in the main paper or state explicitly that they were fixed before looking at any OOD test results.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (3)-(4)] The notation ᾱ_t is not explicitly defined (presumably the cumulative noise schedule), and the weighting term in Eq. (4) should be either derived or cited; the behavior at the boundary t = 0 should also be clarified.
  3. [Tables 2 and 3] Each cell gives 'LPIPS/FID' as 'value/value', but the captions do not label which number is LPIPS and which is FID; please make this explicit and format the tables so that the two metrics are visually distinguishable.
  4. [Fig. 3] The t-SNE visualization is shown only for hazy samples; the caption and text should state this clearly, and the t-SNE hyperparameters (e.g., perplexity and seed) should be reported for reproducibility.
  5. [Sec. 4.2, Table 4] The row labels 'Existing data', 'GenDeg data', and 'GenDS data' should be defined precisely, including whether GenDeg data is post-filtering and whether it uses the same clean images as the existing data.
  6. [Sec. 2.1] The sentence 'Airnet and [12] used contrastive loss' is grammatically malformed; it should read 'AirNet [12] used a contrastive loss' or similar.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central OOD improvement claim is evaluated on external held-out benchmarks, and the paper's only self-citation is a non-load-bearing related-work mention.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical and self-contained. GenDeg is trained on existing paired restoration datasets; the mu/sigma conditioning histograms are fit to those same training datasets, and the generated images are added to the training pool. The reported out-of-distribution improvements are measured on held-out external test sets (REVIDE, O-Haze, GoPro, LOLv1, SICE, RainDS, etc.) that are not used to fit GenDeg, to set its filtering thresholds, or to train the restoration models in a way that would make the test results a construction of the fitted parameters. No equation in the paper makes the predicted LPIPS/FID values algebraically depend on the fitted mu/sigma histograms or on the generated samples. The t-SNE visualization (Fig. 3) is qualitative and illustrative, not a load-bearing derivation. The only self-citation, AWRaCLe [38], appears in the related-work section and does not support any central claim. The absence of a matched-scale control (e.g., adding an equal number of classically synthesized degradations) is a legitimate experimental-design concern about causal attribution to the diffusion-based degradation manifold, but it is not a circularity: the prediction is not defined in terms of the fitted inputs.

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

The main domain assumptions concern the representativeness of the μ/σ statistics and the realism of diffusion-generated degradations. No new physical entities are introduced. Free parameters are limited to filtering thresholds and binning choices, but the former directly shape GenDS and the reported OOD results.

free parameters (2)
  • Filtering thresholds per degradation = not specified in main text (deferred to supplementary)
    Section 3.2 states thresholds are empirically determined; these thresholds discard low-quality generated images and therefore shape the GenDS composition and downstream OOD results.
  • μ/σ binning ranges and bin count = 128 bins (plus null-conditioning bin)
    Section 3.1: ranges computed from existing datasets; bin count 128 is a design choice; the one-hot conditioning depends on this discretization.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The degradation map cmap = |x_in - cimg| is a sufficient conditioning signal; its mean and standard deviation capture perceptually relevant degradation intensity and spatial variation.
    Section 3.1: the entire intensity conditioning is built on μ, σ of cmap; if these statistics do not capture the degradation, the controller cannot steer generation.
  • domain assumption The combined training datasets for each degradation are representative enough that sampling μ, σ from their histograms yields realistic degradation levels.
    Section 3.2: generation samples μgen and σgen from histograms of existing datasets; if the training histogram is unrepresentative, generated degradations are unrealistic.
  • domain assumption BLIP-2 captions plus degradation phrases provide sufficient text guidance for image-conditioned diffusion to preserve scene semantics.
    Section 3.1: text prompt is built from BLIP-2 caption plus degradation phrase; incorrect or low-quality captions could mislead generation.
  • domain assumption The pre-trained Stable Diffusion VAE and InstructPix2Pix initialization are suitable backbones for degradation synthesis and the SCM can reverse VAE artifacts.
    Section 3.1: relies on pretrained LDM; the SCM is only applied to haze, raindrop, motion blur, indicating the backbone's limitations for other degradations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GenDeg: Diffusion-based Degradation Synthesis for Generalizable All-In-One Image Restoration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NXEQX3XR

@misc{pith2026241117687,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GenDeg: Diffusion-based Degradation Synthesis for Generalizable All-In-One Image Restoration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NXEQX3XR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17687}
}
read the original abstract

Deep learning-based models for All-In-One Image Restoration (AIOR) have achieved significant advancements in recent years. However, their practical applicability is limited by poor generalization to samples outside the training distribution. This limitation arises primarily from insufficient diversity in degradation variations and scenes within existing datasets, resulting in inadequate representations of real-world scenarios. Additionally, capturing large-scale real-world paired data for degradations such as haze, low-light, and raindrops is often cumbersome and sometimes infeasible. In this paper, we leverage the generative capabilities of latent diffusion models to synthesize high-quality degraded images from their clean counterparts. Specifically, we introduce GenDeg, a degradation and intensity-aware conditional diffusion model capable of producing diverse degradation patterns on clean images. Using GenDeg, we synthesize over 550k samples across six degradation types: haze, rain, snow, motion blur, low-light, and raindrops. These generated samples are integrated with existing datasets to form the GenDS dataset, comprising over 750k samples. Our experiments reveal that image restoration models trained on the GenDS dataset exhibit significant improvements in out-of-distribution performance compared to those trained solely on existing datasets. Furthermore, we provide comprehensive analyses on implications of diffusion model-based synthetic degradations for AIOR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17687 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Out-of-distribution performance of three image restora [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Analysis of real and synthetic image restoration datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. t-SNE visualization of degradation features obtained for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Illustrates the training stage of the GenDeg model where it is trained to condition on the clean image, text prompt and mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparisons of image restoration models trained with and without our GenDS dataset. The suffix GD represents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of scaling number of GenDeg samples augmented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. IRBridge: Solving Image Restoration Bridge with Pre-trained Generative Diffusion Models

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Gaussian-path transition equation lets a pretrained Stable Diffusion model serve as the denoiser inside image restoration bridges, cutting per-task training to a lightweight ControlNet.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    O-haze: a dehazing bench- mark with real hazy and haze-free outdoor images

    Codruta O Ancuti, Cosmin Ancuti, Radu Timofte, and Christophe De Vleeschouwer. O-haze: a dehazing bench- mark with real hazy and haze-free outdoor images. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pat- tern recognition workshops, pages 754–762, 2018. 6

    2018

  2. [2]

    Nh-haze: An image dehazing benchmark with non- homogeneous hazy and haze-free images

    Codruta O Ancuti, Cosmin Ancuti, and Radu Timo- fte. Nh-haze: An image dehazing benchmark with non- homogeneous hazy and haze-free images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, pages 444–445, 2020. 8

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Synthetic data from diffusion models improves imagenet classification

    Shekoofeh Azizi, Simon Kornblith, Chitwan Saharia, Mo- hammad Norouzi, and David J Fleet. Synthetic data from diffusion models improves imagenet classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08466, 2023. 3

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Leaving reality to imag- ination: Robust classification via generated datasets

    Hritik Bansal and Aditya Grover. Leaving reality to imag- ination: Robust classification via generated datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.02503, 2023. 3

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18392–18402, 2023. 4

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

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

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

  7. [7]

    A. Cantor. Optics of the atmosphere–scattering by molecules and particles. IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics, 14(9): 698–699, 1978. 2

    work page 1978

  8. [8]

    Snow removal in video: A new dataset and a novel method

    Haoyu Chen, Jingjing Ren, Jinjin Gu, Hongtao Wu, Xuequan Lu, Haoming Cai, and Lei Zhu. Snow removal in video: A new dataset and a novel method. In 2023 IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 13165–13176. IEEE, 2023. 6

    work page 2023

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Textdiffuser: Diffusion models as text painters

    Jingye Chen, Yupan Huang, Tengchao Lv, Lei Cui, Qifeng Chen, and Furu Wei. Textdiffuser: Diffusion models as text painters. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 36, 2024. 5

    2024

  2. [10]

    Simple baselines for image restoration

    Liangyu Chen, Xiaojie Chu, Xiangyu Zhang, and Jian Sun. Simple baselines for image restoration. In European confer- ence on computer vision, pages 17–33. Springer, 2022. 3, 5, 6, 7

    2022

  3. [11]

    Jstasr: Joint size and transparency- aware snow removal algorithm based on modified partial convolution and veiling effect removal

    Wei-Ting Chen, Hao-Yu Fang, Jian-Jiun Ding, Cheng-Che Tsai, and Sy-Yen Kuo. Jstasr: Joint size and transparency- aware snow removal algorithm based on modified partial convolution and veiling effect removal. Berlin, Heidelberg,

  4. [12]

    Learning multiple adverse weather removal via two-stage knowledge learning and multi-contrastive regularization: Toward a uni- fied model

    Wei-Ting Chen, Zhi-Kai Huang, Cheng-Che Tsai, Hao- Hsiang Yang, Jian-Jiun Ding, and Sy-Yen Kuo. Learning multiple adverse weather removal via two-stage knowledge learning and multi-contrastive regularization: Toward a uni- fied model. 2022. 3

    2022

  5. [13]

    Instruc- tir: High-quality image restoration following human instruc- tions

    Marcos V Conde, Gregor Geigle, and Radu Timofte. Instruc- tir: High-quality image restoration following human instruc- tions. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 1–21. Springer, 2025. 1, 3, 6

    2025

  6. [14]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. Ieee, 2009. 5

    2009

  7. [15]

    From sky to the ground: A large-scale benchmark and simple baseline towards real rain removal

    Yun Guo, Xueyao Xiao, Yi Chang, Shumin Deng, and Luxin Yan. From sky to the ground: A large-scale benchmark and simple baseline towards real rain removal. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 12097–12107, 2023. 2, 6

    2023

  8. [16]

    Single image haze removal using dark channel prior

    Kaiming He, Jian Sun, and Xiaoou Tang. Single image haze removal using dark channel prior. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1956– 1963, 2009. 1

    2009

  9. [17]

    A survey on all-in-one image restoration: Taxonomy, evaluation and future trends

    Junjun Jiang, Zengyuan Zuo, Gang Wu, Kui Jiang, and Xianming Liu. A survey on all-in-one image restoration: Taxonomy, evaluation and future trends. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15067, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Autodir: Automatic all-in-one image restoration with latent diffusion

    Yitong Jiang, Zhaoyang Zhang, Tianfan Xue, and Jinwei Gu. Autodir: Automatic all-in-one image restoration with latent diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10123, 2023. 1, 3, 5, 6

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Automatic single-image-based rain streaks removal via image decom- position

    Li-Wei Kang, Chia-Wen Lin, and Yu-Hsiang Fu. Automatic single-image-based rain streaks removal via image decom- position. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 21(4): 1742–1755, 2012. 1

    2012

  12. [20]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes

    Diederik P Kingma. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013. 4

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Segment any- thing

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment any- thing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 4015–4026, 2023. 2

    2023

  14. [22]

    A preliminary ex- ploration towards general image restoration

    Xiangtao Kong, Jinjin Gu, Yihao Liu, Wenlong Zhang, Xi- angyu Chen, Yu Qiao, and Chao Dong. A preliminary ex- ploration towards general image restoration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15143, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Benchmarking single- image dehazing and beyond

    Boyi Li, Wenqi Ren, Dengpan Fu, Dacheng Tao, Dan Feng, Wenjun Zeng, and Zhangyang Wang. Benchmarking single- image dehazing and beyond. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 28(1):492–505, 2019. 1, 2

    2019

  16. [24]

    Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In In- ternational conference on machine learning , pages 19730– 19742. PMLR, 2023. 4

    2023

  17. [25]

    Tan, and Loong-Fah Cheong

    Ruoteng Li, Robby T. Tan, and Loong-Fah Cheong. All in one bad weather removal using architectural search. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR), pages 3172–3182, 2020. 3

    2020

  18. [26]

    Toward real-world single image deraining: A new benchmark and beyond

    Wei Li, Qiming Zhang, Jing Zhang, Zhen Huang, Xinmei Tian, and Dacheng Tao. Toward real-world single image deraining: A new benchmark and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.05514, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Swinir: Image restoration using swin transformer

    Jingyun Liang, Jiezhang Cao, Guolei Sun, Kai Zhang, Luc Van Gool, and Radu Timofte. Swinir: Image restoration using swin transformer. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (ICCVW), pages 1833–1844, 2021. 1

    2021

  20. [28]

    Degae: A new pretraining paradigm for low-level vision

    Yihao Liu, Jingwen He, Jinjin Gu, Xiangtao Kong, Yu Qiao, and Chao Dong. Degae: A new pretraining paradigm for low-level vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 23292–23303, 2023. 5

    2023

  21. [29]

    Diff-plugin: Revitalizing details for diffusion-based low-level tasks

    Yuhao Liu, Zhanghan Ke, Fang Liu, Nanxuan Zhao, and Rynson WH Lau. Diff-plugin: Revitalizing details for diffusion-based low-level tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4197–4208, 2024. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7

    2024

  22. [30]

    Desnownet: Context-aware deep network for snow removal

    Yun-Fu Liu, Da-Wei Jaw, Shih-Chia Huang, and Jenq-Neng Hwang. Desnownet: Context-aware deep network for snow removal. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 27(6): 3064–3073, 2018. 1

    2018

  23. [31]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 10012–10022, 2021. 5

    2021

  24. [32]

    Controlling vision-language models for universal image restoration

    Ziwei Luo, Fredrik K Gustafsson, Zheng Zhao, Jens Sj¨olund, and Thomas B Sch¨on. Controlling vision-language models for universal image restoration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01018, 3(8), 2023. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Diffusionseg: Adapting diffusion towards unsupervised object discovery

    Chaofan Ma, Yuhuan Yang, Chen Ju, Fei Zhang, Jinxiang Liu, Yu Wang, Ya Zhang, and Yanfeng Wang. Diffusionseg: Adapting diffusion towards unsupervised object discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.09813, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Deep multi-scale convolutional neural network for dynamic scene deblurring

    Seungjun Nah, Tae Hyun Kim, and Kyoung Mu Lee. Deep multi-scale convolutional neural network for dynamic scene deblurring. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3883–3891,

  27. [35]

    Promptir: Prompting for all-in- one image restoration

    Vaishnav Potlapalli, Syed Waqas Zamir, Salman H Khan, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. Promptir: Prompting for all-in- one image restoration. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 36, 2024. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7

    2024

  28. [36]

    Remov- ing raindrops and rain streaks in one go

    Ruijie Quan, Xin Yu, Yuanzhi Liang, and Yi Yang. Remov- ing raindrops and rain streaks in one go. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9147–9156, 2021. 6

    2021

  29. [37]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

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

    2021

  30. [38]

    Awracle: All- weather image restoration using visual in-context learning

    Sudarshan Rajagopalan and Vishal M Patel. Awracle: All- weather image restoration using visual in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00263, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Enhancing photorealism enhancement

    Stephan R Richter, Hassan Abu AlHaija, and Vladlen Koltun. Enhancing photorealism enhancement. IEEE Trans- actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(2): 1700–1715, 2022. 3

    2022

  32. [40]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 2, 4

    2022

  33. [41]

    Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 2250...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Human-aware motion deblurring

    Ziyi Shen, Wenguan Wang, Xiankai Lu, Jianbing Shen, Haibin Ling, Tingfa Xu, and Ling Shao. Human-aware motion deblurring. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF inter- national conference on computer vision , pages 5572–5581,

  35. [43]

    Diversity is definitely needed: Improving model-agnostic zero-shot classification via stable diffusion

    Jordan Shipard, Arnold Wiliem, Kien Nguyen Thanh, Wei Xiang, and Clinton Fookes. Diversity is definitely needed: Improving model-agnostic zero-shot classification via stable diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages...

  36. [44]

    Boosting zero-shot classifica- tion with synthetic data diversity via stable diffusion

    Jordan Shipard, Arnold Wiliem, Kien Nguyen Thanh, Wei Xiang, and Clinton Fookes. Boosting zero-shot classifica- tion with synthetic data diversity via stable diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03298, 3(5), 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Satsynth: Augmenting image-mask pairs through diffusion models for aerial semantic segmentation

    Aysim Toker, Marvin Eisenberger, Daniel Cremers, and Laura Leal-Taix´e. Satsynth: Augmenting image-mask pairs through diffusion models for aerial semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 27695–27705, 2024. 3

    2024

  38. [46]

    Jose Valanarasu, R

    J. Jose Valanarasu, R. Yasarla, and V . M. Patel. Tran- sweather: Transformer-based restoration of images degraded by adverse weather conditions. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 2343–2353, 2022. 3

    2022

  39. [47]

    Tianyu Wang, Xin Yang, Ke Xu, Shaozhe Chen, Qiang Zhang, and Rynson W.H. Lau. Spatial attentive single- image deraining with a high quality real rain dataset. In 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12262–12271, 2019. 1, 2

    2019

  40. [48]

    Deep retinex decomposition for low-light enhancement

    Chen Wei, Wenjing Wang, Wenhan Yang, and Jiaying Liu. Deep retinex decomposition for low-light enhancement. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.04560, 2018. 6

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Diffumask: Synthesizing images with pixel-level annotations for semantic segmentation using dif- fusion models

    Weijia Wu, Yuzhong Zhao, Mike Zheng Shou, Hong Zhou, and Chunhua Shen. Diffumask: Synthesizing images with pixel-level annotations for semantic segmentation using dif- fusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision , pages 1206–1217,

  42. [50]

    Simmim: A simple framework for masked image modeling

    Zhenda Xie, Zheng Zhang, Yue Cao, Yutong Lin, Jianmin Bao, Zhuliang Yao, Qi Dai, and Han Hu. Simmim: A simple framework for masked image modeling. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9653–9663, 2022. 5

    2022

  43. [51]

    Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data

    Lihe Yang, Bingyi Kang, Zilong Huang, Xiaogang Xu, Jiashi Feng, and Hengshuang Zhao. Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10371–10381, 2024. 2

    2024

  44. [52]

    Uncertainty guided multi-scale residual learning-using a cycle spinning cnn for single image de-raining

    Rajeev Yasarla and Vishal M Patel. Uncertainty guided multi-scale residual learning-using a cycle spinning cnn for single image de-raining. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 8405–8414, 2019. 1

    2019

  45. [53]

    Confidence measure guided single image de-raining.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 29:4544–4555, 2020

    Rajeev Yasarla and Vishal M Patel. Confidence measure guided single image de-raining.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 29:4544–4555, 2020. 1

    2020

  46. [54]

    One-step diffusion with distribution matching distillation

    Tianwei Yin, Micha ¨el Gharbi, Richard Zhang, Eli Shecht- man, Fredo Durand, William T Freeman, and Taesung Park. One-step diffusion with distribution matching distillation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 6613–6623...

    2024

  47. [55]

    Not just pretty pictures: Text-to- image generators enable interpretable interventions for ro- bust representations

    Jianhao Yuan, Francesco Pinto, Adam Davies, Aarushi Gupta, and Philip Torr. Not just pretty pictures: Text-to- image generators enable interpretable interventions for ro- bust representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.11237 , 3,

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    Multi-stage progressive image restoration

    Syed Waqas Zamir, Aditya Arora, Salman Khan, Munawar Hayat, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Ling Shao. Multi-stage progressive image restoration. In CVPR,

  49. [57]

    Restormer: Efficient transformer for high-resolution image restoration

    Syed Waqas Zamir, Aditya Arora, Salman Khan, Mu- nawar Hayat, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Restormer: Efficient transformer for high-resolution image restoration. In CVPR, 2022. 1

    2022

  50. [58]

    He Zhang, Vishwanath Sindagi, and Vishal M. Patel. Joint transmission map estimation and dehazing using deep net- works. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 30(7):1975–1986, 2020. 1

    1975

  51. [59]

    Deep dense multi-scale network for snow removal using semantic and depth priors.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30:7419–7431, 2021

    Kaihao Zhang, Rongqing Li, Yanjiang Yu, Wenhan Luo, and Changsheng Li. Deep dense multi-scale network for snow removal using semantic and depth priors.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30:7419–7431, 2021. 1

    2021

  52. [60]

    Learning to restore hazy video: A new real-world dataset and a new method

    Xinyi Zhang, Hang Dong, Jinshan Pan, Chao Zhu, Ying Tai, Chengjie Wang, Jilin Li, Feiyue Huang, and Fei Wang. Learning to restore hazy video: A new real-world dataset and a new method. In CVPR, pages 9239–9248, 2021. 6

    2021

  53. [61]

    Label freedom: Stable dif- fusion for remote sensing image semantic segmentation data generation

    Chenbo Zhao, Yoshiki Ogawa, Shenglong Chen, Zhehui Yang, and Yoshihide Sekimoto. Label freedom: Stable dif- fusion for remote sensing image semantic segmentation data generation. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData), pages 1022–1030. IEEE, 2023. 3

    2023

  54. [62]

    Selective hourglass mapping for universal image restoration based on diffusion model

    Dian Zheng, Xiao-Ming Wu, Shuzhou Yang, Jian Zhang, Jian-Fang Hu, and Wei-shi Zheng. Selective hourglass mapping for universal image restoration based on diffusion model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024. 1, 3, 6

    2024

Pith tools

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