Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 47 references

TDiR: Transformer based Diffusion for Image Restoration Tasks

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A transformer-based diffusion model claims to beat 18 state-of-the-art methods on three restoration tasks — underwater enhancement, Gaussian denoising, and deraining — with top PSNR/SSIM on UIEB, the best UIQM on Test-60, and leading…

desk verdict As written, TDiR's training loss never sees the degraded input, so the central restoration claim is unsupported; the tables also contradict the 'outperforms all' text. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20302 v2 pith:J5JZNW2S submitted 2025-06-25 cs.CV

Abbas Anwar , Ibrahim Radwan , Ali Arshad Nasir , Mudassir Masood , Saeed Anwar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords imagerestorationdiffusionmodelstransformersunderwaterenhancementdenoisingderaininggenerativeall-in-one
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

TDiR asks whether one generative architecture can restore three very different kinds of degradation — underwater color cast, Gaussian noise, and rain streaks — more effectively than the specialist methods built for each. The paper's answer is yes: a denoising diffusion model whose denoiser is a transformer U-Net reports the best scores among 18 compared methods on five standard benchmarks, including 22.90 dB PSNR and 0.8724 SSIM on the UIEB underwater set, a UIQM of 2.73 on Test-60, and leading results on BSD68 denoising and Rain100L deraining. If these numbers hold, the practical payoff is one generalist model that replaces task-specific restorers in downstream applications such as detection and classification that demand clean input imagery. The mechanism is the standard diffusion forward-reverse loop, with a transformer U-Net trained to predict the Gaussian noise added to clean images, which leaves the question of how the actual degraded photograph enters that loop as the crux of the claim.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the denoising diffusion loop with a transformer U-Net as its denoiser. In the forward pass, Gaussian noise is added to a clean image under the scheduler $\beta_t$, giving the closed-form noised sample $y_t = \sqrt{\bar\alpha_t}\,y_0 + \sqrt{1-\bar\alpha_t}\,\epsilon$; the denoiser $f_\theta$ — a four-level transformer U-Net with prompt modules, reused from the PromptIR architecture, plus a decoder path that concatenates the input with the noising timestep — is trained to predict the added noise $\epsilon$ under the $\ell^1$ loss of Eq. (5). The encoder stays frozen at its pretrained state, so only part of the decoder is actually trained. The reverse process iteratively subtracts the predicted noise to return a restored image, and this identity — predicting the noise is the same as learning to score the data distribution, and a transformer attention backbone can approximate that score across several degradation families — is what carries the argument.

What would settle it

Train and run the pipeline exactly as Eq. (5) is written — noised clean images in, predicted Gaussian noise out — while logging every tensor that enters the U-Net during the reverse process; if the degraded photograph never appears at training or inference, the output cannot depend on the specific input, and the UIEB and Rain100L gains must be inherited from the pretrained encoder or the clean-image prior rather than from conditioning. A quicker check a reader can do without retraining: run the reverse chain from the same starting noise on two very different degraded images, and see whether the outputs are nearly identical, which would show the input is not conditioning the restoration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a diffusion model with a transformer U-Net denoiser produces state-of-the-art restored images on three tasks at once, without a separate network per degradation. The forward process adds Gaussian noise to a clean image over $T$ steps, $q(y_t|y_{t-1}) = \mathcal{N}(y_t; \sqrt{1-\beta_t}\,y_{t-1}, \beta_t I)$, closing to $q(y_t|y_0) = \mathcal{N}(y_t; \sqrt{\bar\alpha_t}\,y_0, (1-\bar\alpha_t)I)$, so any noised sample can be drawn directly. A transformer U-Net — the PromptIR restoration architecture plus a decoder path that concatenates the input with the noise timestep — is trained to predict the added noise $\epsilon$ under the $\ell^1$ loss $\|f_\theta(\tilde y, \gamma) - \epsilon\|_1$, and the reverse process converts Gaussian noise back into a restored image. The reported numbers are: 22.90 dB PSNR and 0.8724 SSIM on UIEB, outranking all compared underwater methods; UIQM 2.73 on Test-60 against a next-best near 1.65; the best PSNR among all compared methods on BSD68 at every tested noise level; and 37.43 dB PSNR on Rain100L. The paper interprets these results as showing that diffusion's ability to sample from multimodal degradation distributions, steered by transformer attention, transfers in a single generalist model across noise, rain, and underwater color shift.

Load-bearing premise

The entire restoration claim rests on the degraded photograph actually being fed to the denoiser: the training loss in Eq. (5) only predicts the Gaussian noise added to a clean image and never mentions the underwater or rainy input, so if the observed image never enters the network, the model has no information about the specific corruption it must remove.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One checkpoint replaces three: the same transformer-diffusion model posts top scores on underwater enhancement, Gaussian denoising, and deraining benchmarks where specialists previously dominated.
  • The biggest margin is perceptual: UIQM 2.73 on Test-60 against a next-best near 1.65 means the visible gain is largest where no ground-truth reference constrains the output.
  • Adaptation is cheap in design: with the encoder frozen and only part of the decoder trained, a new degradation type could be added without retraining the whole network.
  • On Rain100L the paper reports 37.43 dB PSNR, above the all-in-one baseline it starts from and above a version trained on deraining alone, which the paper reads as evidence that the diffusion loop adds capacity beyond task mixing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An open question the paper leaves unresolved is what tensor is actually concatenated at the decoder: if it is only the running noisy sample rather than the original degraded photograph, the reported gains come from the pretrained backbone and the clean-image prior, making an ablation that feeds the degraded image at every reverse step the decisive experiment.
  • A testable extension: feed two very different inputs, such as a green-cast underwater scene and a rain-streaked street, through the same reverse chain and measure output similarity — a conditioning-free sampler should return near-identical outputs.
  • The paper's own tables imply a trade it does not discuss: the $\sigma=50$ row shows PSNR 28.62 with SSIM 0.653, well below the baseline's 0.799, so the high-noise win sacrifices structural fidelity; evaluating the outputs on detection or matching tasks would show whether that trade is acceptable in practice.
  • If the conditioning path is made explicit, the same architecture points toward a single model spanning more degradation families such as haze, blur, and low light, because the transformer U-Net already handles several prompt-driven restoration tasks and the diffusion loop is task-agnostic.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TDiR, an image-restoration method that uses a transformer-based U-Net, specifically the PromptIR architecture, as the denoiser inside a DDPM-style diffusion framework. The method is evaluated on three tasks — underwater image enhancement (UIEB and Test-60), Gaussian denoising (BSD68), and deraining (Rain100L) — and compared with 18 prior methods using PSNR, SSIM, UIQM, and UCIQE. The central claim, stated in the abstract and conclusion, is that the diffusion model combined with transformers outperforms current methods on these benchmarks.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the contribution would be incremental: the main novelty is replacing the usual U-Net denoiser with PromptIR and adding a decoder path that concatenates the input and the noise timestep. The paper does not provide code, data, or a procedure detailed enough to reproduce the experiments, and it reports no ablations or parameter-free derivations. The manuscript's own tables contain numbers that contradict the 'outperforms all' claim in multiple cells. The work has no machine-checked proofs or reproducible code to weigh in its favor. Its potential value is a possible empirical data point for transformer-based diffusion denoisers, but as written the evidence does not establish even that modest claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (5)] The training loss is written as ||fθ(ey, γ) − ε||1, where ey is the forward-noised version of the clean image y. The observed degraded input x — the underwater, noisy, or rainy image — never appears in the loss function, and no term involving x is specified in the reverse process. Without x, the network has no information about which clean image it should produce; at inference it can at best sample from the marginal clean-image distribution. The sentence 'we build on this network by adding a path to the decoder part to concatenate the input and the noise timestep' is the only hint of conditioning, but the formal specification does not state how the degraded input enters fθ. This missing conditioning is load-bearing for the paper's central claim: a model that never sees the degraded input cannot perform restoration at all.
  2. [Tables 2 and 3] The manuscript repeatedly claims that TDiR 'outperforms all benchmark methods,' but the reported numbers contradict this. In Table 2, at σ=50, TDiR reports SSIM 0.653 while PromptIR reports 0.799 and AirNet reports 0.797. In Table 3, TDiR reports SSIM 0.947 on Rain100L, while PromptIR* reports 0.979 and AirNet reports 0.967. Section 5.2 acknowledges that the model is outperformed by a single-task denoiser, yet the same paragraph asserts that the model outperforms all benchmark methods. The quantitative evidence in the paper itself undercuts the central claim, so the positive conclusions in the abstract and Section 6 are not supported by the presented data.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Section 3] The diffusion process is severely underspecified. The paper does not state the number of diffusion timesteps T, the noise scheduler β_t, the sampling procedure (DDPM, DDIM, or other), the number of sampling steps at test time, or how the timestep γ is embedded into the PromptIR network. Section 4.1 mentions a pre-trained encoder and training only part of the decoder, but it does not specify which part, what learning rate or schedule was used, what patch size or data augmentation was applied, or how the prompt blocks interact with the diffusion conditioning. Without these details, the experiments cannot be reproduced, which is a fundamental requirement for the empirical claims made in the paper.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'shops' should be 'shows.'
  2. [Table 1] The baseline name 'PrompIR' is misspelled; it should be 'PromptIR.'
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) is written as q(yt|y0) = N(yt, sqrt(α_t)y0, (1 − α_t)I), but the standard DDPM form uses N(yt; sqrt(α_t)y0, (1 − α_t)I), and the missing semicolon makes the notation ambiguous. Also, the subscript 1 in Eq. (5) is unusual and should be clarified.
  4. [Section 4.2] The evaluation details are incomplete: it is not stated whether PSNR and SSIM are computed on the luminance channel or on RGB, nor how the no-reference metrics are applied to the different tasks.
  5. [Declarations] The Data Availability and Code Availability statements both say 'NA,' which makes the experimental results non-reproducible; at minimum, the authors should state which trained models or evaluation scripts, if any, will be released.
  6. [References] The reference list has inconsistent formatting; for example, [21] and [30] lack venue and year information or use different styles. Some citations are also incomplete, such as [41] which has no publication venue.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the Eq. (5) conditioning gap is a correctness defect, not a circularity.

full rationale

TDiR's derivation chain is not circular. The training objective in Eq. (5) is the standard DDPM noise-prediction loss applied to a forward-noised clean image, and the reported quantitative claims are obtained by evaluating the trained model against external baselines on public benchmarks (UIEB, Test-60, BSD68, Rain100L). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no result is defined in terms of the claim it is meant to support. The use of PromptIR [33] as the denoiser backbone is an external architectural choice, not a self-citation, and the authors' own prior works ([23], [17]/[39]) appear only as baseline comparisons in Table 1, so they are not load-bearing. The central weakness is not circularity but specification: Section 3 never passes the observed degraded input x into the loss or the reverse process, which, as written, describes an unconditional denoiser rather than a conditional restorer. That is a serious validity/completeness gap, and the paper's own tables also contain results that undercut the 'outperforms all' phrasing (e.g., SSIM 0.653 vs. PromptIR's 0.799 at sigma=50; 0.947 vs. 0.979 on Rain100L), but none of these issues reduce to an equation being equivalent to its inputs by construction. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper adds no new physical entities and reports no fitted constants. Its central claim rests on standard DDPM math, the cited PromptIR backbone, and an unstated assumption that Gaussian-noise training transfers to structured degradations. The diffusion hyperparameters are implicit free choices.

free parameters (1)
  • Diffusion hyperparameters (T, beta_t, sampling schedule) = not reported
    These are chosen by hand and affect the model, but they are not stated, so they are implicit free choices that a reader would need to guess to reproduce the work.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard DDPM forward noising and reverse denoising are valid (Eqs. 1-4).
    This is textbook diffusion machinery from Ho et al. [30], used without modification. It is a standard assumption.
  • domain assumption PromptIR [33] is a competent transformer-based denoiser when used as the diffusion backbone.
    The paper relies on the cited PromptIR model's capability; there is no analysis of its failure modes.
  • domain assumption The UIEB reference images, created by human selection from algorithm outputs, are valid ground truth for restoration.
    The authors acknowledge this concern in Section 4.3 but proceed.
  • ad hoc to paper A denoiser trained on Gaussian noise can remove structured degradations (rain, color cast) without explicit conditioning on the observed image.
    This is the core unstated assumption, since Eq. (5) does not include the degraded observation as input.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TDiR: Transformer based Diffusion for Image Restoration Tasks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J5JZNW2S

@misc{pith2026250620302,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TDiR: Transformer based Diffusion for Image Restoration Tasks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J5JZNW2S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20302}
}
read the original abstract

Images captured in challenging environments often experience various types of degradation, such as noise, color cast, blur, and light scattering. These issues significantly lower image quality, thereby reducing their usefulness in downstream tasks such as object detection, mapping, and classification. Our transformer-based diffusion model was developed to address image restoration challenges and enhance the quality of degraded images. Our methodology is assessed across three primary image restoration tasks, including underwater enhancement, denoising, and deraining, utilizing five standard benchmarks. It is then compared to 18 state-of-the-art techniques, employing four evaluation metrics. Our results show that the diffusion model, combined with transformers, outperforms current methods. The findings highlight the effectiveness of diffusion models and transformers in improving degraded image quality, thereby broadening their application in downstream tasks that demand high-fidelity visual data

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    In: 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

    Zhang, K., Zuo, W., Gu, S., Zhang, L.: Learning deep cnn denoiser prior for image restoration. In: 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 2808–2817 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR. 2017.300

    doi:10.1109/cvpr 2017

  2. [3]

    Zhang, K., Zuo, W., Chen, Y., Meng, D., Zhang, L.: Beyond a gaussian denoiser: Residual learning of deep cnn for image denoising. Trans. Img. Proc. 26(7), 3142– 3155 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2017.2662206

    arXiv 2017

  3. [4]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence 43(07), 2480–2495 (2021)

    Zhang, Y., Tian, Y., Kong, Y., Zhong, B., Fu, Y.: Residual dense network for image restoration. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence 43(07), 2480–2495 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [8]

    In: 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

    Li, R., Tan, R.T., Cheong, L.-F.: All in one bad weather removal using archi- tectural search. In: 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 3172–3182 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ CVPR42600.2020.00324

    arXiv 2020

  5. [9]

    In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), pp

    Zhu, H., Wang, C., Zhang, Y., Su, Z., Zhao, G.: Physical model guided deep image deraining. In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), pp. 1–6 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICME46284.2020.9102878

    arXiv 2020

  6. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia

    Yu, C., Chang, Y., Li, Y., Zhao, X., Yan, L.: Unsupervised image deraining: Opti- mization model driven deep cnn. In: Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. MM ’21, pp. 2634–2642. Association for Comput- ing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3474085. 3475441 . https://doi.org/10.1145/3474085.3475441

    arXiv 2021

  7. [11]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 21(4), 13 1756–1769 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2011.2179666

    Chiang, J.Y., Chen, Y.-C.: Underwater image enhancement by wavelength compensation and dehazing. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 21(4), 13 1756–1769 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2011.2179666

    arXiv 2012

  8. [12]

    Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation 26, 132–145 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvcir.2014.11.006

    Galdran, A., Pardo, D., Pic´ on, A., Alvarez-Gila, A.: Automatic red-channel underwater image restoration. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation 26, 132–145 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvcir.2014.11.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jvcir.2014.11.006 2015

Show all 47 references
  1. [13]

    IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 36(2), 24–35 (2016) https://doi.org/10

    Drews, P.L.J., Nascimento, E.R., Botelho, S.S.C., Montenegro Campos, M.F.: Underwater depth estimation and image restoration based on single images. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 36(2), 24–35 (2016) https://doi.org/10. 1109/MCG.2016.26

    2016

  2. [14]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 26(4), 1579–1594 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2017.2663846

    Peng, Y.-T., Cosman, P.C.: Underwater image restoration based on image blur- riness and light absorption. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 26(4), 1579–1594 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2017.2663846

    2017

  3. [15]

    In: 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    He, K., Sun, J., Tang, X.: Single image haze removal using dark channel prior. In: 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1956–1963 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2009.5206515

    2009

  4. [16]

    In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, pp

    Drews Jr, P., Nascimento, E., Moraes, F., Botelho, S., Campos, M.: Transmission estimation in underwater single images. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, pp. 825–830 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/ ICCVW.2013.113

    2013

  5. [18]

    IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 45(3), 862–870 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2019.2911447

    Guo, Y., Li, H., Zhuang, P.: Underwater image enhancement using a multi- scale dense generative adversarial network. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 45(3), 862–870 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2019.2911447

    2020

  6. [19]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 3(1), 387–394 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2017.2730363

    Li, J., Skinner, K.A., Eustice, R.M., Johnson-Roberson, M.: Watergan: Unsu- pervised generative network to enable real-time color correction of monocular underwater images. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 3(1), 387–394 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2017.2730363

    2018

  7. [20]

    IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 1–1 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSVT.2023.3328785

    Li, Y., Shen, L., Li, M., Wang, Z., Zhuang, L.: Ruiesr: Realistic underwater image enhancement and super resolution. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 1–1 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSVT.2023.3328785

    2023

  8. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

    Wang, Z., Cun, X., Bao, J., Zhou, W., Liu, J., Li, H.: Uformer: A general u-shaped transformer for image restoration. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 17683–17693 (2022)

    2022

  9. [22]

    arXiv (2021)

    Peng, L., Zhu, C., Bian, L.: U-shape Transformer for Underwater Image Enhance- ment. arXiv (2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2111.11843 . https://arxiv. 14 org/abs/2111.11843

    2021 doi arXiv

  10. [23]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 30, 4985–5000 (2021) https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TIP.2021.3076367

    Li, C., Anwar, S., Hou, J., Cong, R., Guo, C., Ren, W.: Underwater image enhancement via medium transmission-guided multi-color space embedding. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 30, 4985–5000 (2021) https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TIP.2021.3076367

    2021

  11. [24]

    In: OCEANS 2022 - Chennai, pp

    Guo, Z., Guo, D., Gu, Z., Zheng, H., Zheng, B., Wang, G.: Unsupervised under- water image clearness via transformer. In: OCEANS 2022 - Chennai, pp. 1–4 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/OCEANSChennai45887.2022.9775361

    2022

  12. [25]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 60, 1–16 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2022.3205061

    Ren, T., Xu, H., Jiang, G., Yu, M., Zhang, X., Wang, B., Luo, T.: Reinforced swin- convs transformer for simultaneous underwater sensing scene image enhancement and super-resolution. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 60, 1–16 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/TGR...

    2022

  13. [26]

    IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 71, 1–18 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/ TIM.2022.3189630

    Huang, Z., Li, J., Hua, Z., Fan, L.: Underwater image enhancement via adap- tive group attention-based multiscale cascade transformer. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 71, 1–18 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/ TIM.2022.3189630

    2022

  14. [27]

    Jour- nal of Marine Science and Engineering 10(7) (2022) https://doi.org/10.3390/ jmse10070884

    Sun, K., Meng, F., Tian, Y.: Multi-level wavelet-based network embedded with edge enhancement information for underwater image enhancement. Jour- nal of Marine Science and Engineering 10(7) (2022) https://doi.org/10.3390/ jmse10070884

    2022

  15. [28]

    IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 1–14 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2023.3327613

    Jiang, Q., Kang, Y., Wang, Z., Ren, W., Li, C.: Perception-driven deep under- water image enhancement without paired supervision. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 1–14 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2023.3327613

    2023

  16. [29]

    IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 49(1), 237–248 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2023.3297731

    Wang, H., Yang, M., Yin, G., Dong, J.: Self-adversarial generative adversarial net- work for underwater image enhancement. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 49(1), 237–248 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2023.3297731

    2024

  17. [30]

    Ho, J., Jain, A., Abbeel, P.: Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models (2020)

    2020

  18. [31]

    Sohl-Dickstein, J., Weiss, E.A., Maheswaranathan, N., Ganguli, S.: Deep Unsu- pervised Learning using Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics (2015)

    2015

  19. [32]

    Lu, S., Guan, F., Zhang, H., Lai, H.: Underwater image enhancement method based on denoising diffusion probabilistic model. J. Vis. Comun. Image Represent. 96(C) (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvcir.2023.103926

    2023

  20. [33]

    In: Oh, A., Neumann, T., Globerson, A., Saenko, K., Hardt, M., Levine, S

    Potlapalli, V., Zamir, S.W., Khan, S.H., Shahbaz Khan, F.: Promptir: Prompting for all-in-one image restoration. In: Oh, A., Neumann, T., Globerson, A., Saenko, K., Hardt, M., Levine, S. (eds.) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, pp. 71275–71293. Curran...

    2023

  21. [34]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45(7), 8845– 8860 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2022.3226276

    Liu, J., Liu, R.W., Sun, J., Zeng, T.: Rank-one prior: Real-time scene recovery. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45(7), 8845– 8860 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2022.3226276

    2023

  22. [35]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 31, 4922–4936 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2022.3190209

    Liu, R., Jiang, Z., Yang, S., Fan, X.: Twin adversarial contrastive learning for underwater image enhancement and beyond. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 31, 4922–4936 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2022.3190209

    2022

  23. [36]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 31, 3997–4010 (2022) https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TIP.2022.3177129

    Zhang, W., Zhuang, P., Sun, H.-H., Li, G., Kwong, S., Li, C.: Underwater image enhancement via minimal color loss and locally adaptive contrast enhancement. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 31, 3997–4010 (2022) https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TIP.2022.3177129

    2022

  24. [37]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 29, 4376–4389 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2019.2955241

    Li, C., Guo, C., Ren, W., Cong, R., Hou, J., Kwong, S., Tao, D.: An underwater image enhancement benchmark dataset and beyond. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 29, 4376–4389 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2019.2955241

    2020

  25. [38]

    IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 47(3), 718–735 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2022

    Zhang, W., Wang, Y., Li, C.: Underwater image enhancement by attenuated color channel correction and detail preserved contrast enhancement. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 47(3), 718–735 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2022. 3140563

    2022 doi

  26. [39]

    Pattern Recognition 98, 107038 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2019.107038

    Li, C., Anwar, S., Porikli, F.: Underwater scene prior inspired deep underwater image and video enhancement. Pattern Recognition 98, 107038 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2019.107038

    2020

  27. [40]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5(2), 3227–3234 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2020.2974710

    Islam, M.J., Xia, Y., Sattar, J.: Fast underwater image enhancement for improved visual perception. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5(2), 3227–3234 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2020.2974710

    2020

  28. [41]

    Zhang, Z., Yan, H., Tang, K., Duan, Y.: MetaUE: Model-based Meta-learning for Underwater Image Enhancement (2023)

    2023

  29. [42]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 24(12), 6062–6071 (2015) https://doi

    Yang, M., Sowmya, A.: An underwater color image quality evaluation metric. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 24(12), 6062–6071 (2015) https://doi. org/10.1109/TIP.2015.2491020

    2015

  30. [43]

    IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 41(3), 541–551 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2015.2469915

    Panetta, K., Gao, C., Agaian, S.: Human-visual-system-inspired underwater image quality measures. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 41(3), 541–551 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2015.2469915

    2016

  31. [44]

    In: ICCV (2001)

    Martin, D., Fowlkes, C., Tal, D., Malik, J.: A database of human segmented natural images and its application to evaluating segmentation algorithms and measuring ecological statistics. In: ICCV (2001)

    2001

  32. [45]

    IJCV (2009) 16

    Roth, S., Black, M.J.: Fields of experts. IJCV (2009) 16

    2009

  33. [46]

    Yang, F., Yang, H., Fu, J., Lu, H., Guo, B.: Learning Texture Transformer Network for Image Super-Resolution (2020)

    2020

  34. [47]

    Neural Networks 121, 461–473 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet

    Tian, C., Xu, Y., Zuo, W.: Image denoising using deep cnn with batch renormal- ization. Neural Networks 121, 461–473 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet. 2019.08.022

    2020 doi

  35. [48]

    In: 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

    Gao, H., Tao, X., Shen, X., Jia, J.: Dynamic scene deblurring with parameter selective sharing and nested skip connections. In: 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 3843–3851 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2019.00397

    2019

  36. [49]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 34, 10729–10736 (2020) https://doi

    Dong, Y., Liu, Y., Zhang, H., Chen, S., Qiao, Y.: Fd-gan: Generative adversarial networks with fusion-discriminator for single image dehazing. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 34, 10729–10736 (2020) https://doi. org/10.1609/aaai.v34i07.6701

    2020 doi

  37. [50]

    In: 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

    Zamir, S.W., Arora, A., Khan, S., Hayat, M., Khan, F.S., Yang, M.-H., Shao, L.: Multi-stage progressive image restoration. In: 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 14816–14826 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR46437.2021.01458

    2021

  38. [51]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 43(1), 33–47 (2021) https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TPAMI.2019.2925793

    Fan, Q., Chen, D., Yuan, L., Hua, G., Yu, N., Chen, B.: A general decoupled learning framework for parameterized image operators. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 43(1), 33–47 (2021) https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TPAMI.2019.2925793

    2021

  39. [52]

    In: 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

    Li, B., Liu, X., Hu, P., Wu, Z., Lv, J., Peng, X.: All-in-one image restoration for unknown corruption. In: 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 17431–17441 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/ CVPR52688.2022.01693 17

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.