Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 46 references

BF-STVSR: B-Splines and Fourier-Best Friends for High Fidelity Spatial-Temporal Video Super-Resolution

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A continuous video super-resolution framework using B-spline and Fourier mappers achieves state-of-the-art space-time interpolation without any optical flow network at inference.

desk verdict Solid incremental C-STVSR work with code and honest experiments, but the undefined 'ground-truth forward motion' in the training warmup is a verification gap that must be closed before the no-optical-flow claim is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11043 v2 pith:LOI25PPC submitted 2025-01-19 cs.CV cs.AI

Eunjin Kim , Hyeonjin Kim , Kyong Hwan Jin , Jaejun Yoo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords videosuper-resolutionframeinterpolationimplicitneuralrepresentationB-splinebasisFourierfeaturesopticalflowcontinuousspace-timearbitrary-scaleupsampling
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 continuous spatial-temporal video super-resolution—upsampling video to arbitrary spatial and temporal scales in one model—can be done without any pre-trained optical flow network by replacing motion and feature estimation with two learned basis-function mappers. A B-spline Mapper predicts spline coefficients and knots from encoded frame features and evaluates them at the target time to produce smooth motion vectors, while a Fourier Mapper predicts dominant frequencies and amplitudes to capture fine spatial detail. The authors report that naive position encoding degrades performance in prior implicit neural representation models, and that their mappers outperform these baselines on Vid4, GoPro, and Adobe240 benchmarks in PSNR, SSIM, and perceptual video metrics, at lower FLOPs and faster inference. If the paper is right, arbitrary-scale video upsampling becomes a simpler, faster, and more self-contained operation.

What carries the argument

The B-spline Mapper parameterizes temporal motion: for each reference frame, estimators predict coefficient $c_r$, knot $k_r$, and dilation $d$; the spline basis $\beta^n((\hat{t}-k_r)/d)$ is evaluated at the relative time $\hat{t}$, and a linear projection $f_{\theta_b}$ converts the weighted basis into motion vectors $M^{H}_{t_r\to t}$ and reliability maps $Z^{H}_{t_r\to t}$. The Fourier Mapper represents spatial features by predicting amplitude $A_r$ and frequency $F_r$ from the nearest latent feature $z_r$ and evaluating $A_r \odot [\cos(\pi F_r \delta_r); \sin(\pi F_r \delta_r)]$, then projecting with a linear layer. These two mappers replace the coordinate-concatenation MLPs and the RAFT-based flow features of prior C-STVSR models; softmax splatting carries the warped features forward, and the system is trained end-to-end with only the frame-reconstruction loss.

What would settle it

Inspect the released code or checkpoints to identify the source of the 'ground-truth forward motion' supervision schedule; alternatively, retrain the model from scratch without any such substitution and compare GoPro-Average PSNR/SSIM to the reported 30.22 / 0.8802. A substantial drop would show that the hidden flow supervision is load-bearing, while a match would confirm the no-flow claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

BF-STVSR is a one-stage continuous space-time video super-resolution framework. Given two low-resolution frames, an encoder produces latent features; the B-spline Mapper predicts, for each reference frame, B-spline coefficients, knots, and a dilation parameter so that a linear projection of the spline basis evaluated at the relative time yields the forward motion vectors and reliability maps at any target time $t$. The Fourier Mapper predicts amplitude and frequency fields from the nearest latent feature and evaluates cosine and sine of the frequency times the spatial offset to build high-resolution spatial features. These features are forward-warped to $t$ via softmax splatting, concatenated with the target time coordinate, and decoded into the high-resolution intermediate frame. The training objective is only a Charbonnier loss between the predicted and ground-truth frames; the optical-flow supervision loss used by MoTIF is dropped. The paper's central claim is that this design achieves state-of-the-art results while eliminating the external optical flow network at inference, with lower FLOPs and latency.

Load-bearing premise

The paper never defines the 'ground-truth forward motion' it substitutes into training for the first 150,000 iterations; if that supervision comes from a pre-trained optical flow network, then the claim of eliminating optical flow applies only at inference, not to training.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, one model can produce video at any spatial and temporal scale (e.g., ×4 space and ×8 time, or unseen ×12 time) without an optical flow network, making deployment cheaper and simpler.
  • The negative result on position encoding suggests that generic Fourier encodings on input coordinates can hurt in video INR tasks; task-specific mappers (splines for time, Fourier for space) may be a more reliable design pattern.
  • The B-spline motion parameterization appears to improve out-of-distribution temporal interpolation: the model generalizes to ×6 and ×12 time scales despite training at ×8, matching or exceeding baselines.
  • Dropping the optical-flow supervision term simplifies training to a single reconstruction loss without sacrificing accuracy; the authors report the model remains competitive or better than the version trained with flow supervision.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the unwritten 'ground-truth forward motion' used for the first 150,000 training steps comes from a pre-trained flow estimator such as RAFT, then the 'no optical flow' claim is true only at inference; the training budget would still include a flow computation, and the reported FLOPs and latency savings would not cover training.
  • A clean test of the design principle would swap the Fourier spatial basis for another local basis (e.g., wavelets or learned features) while keeping the B-spline temporal mapper, isolating whether the gains come from basis choice or from removing flow features.
  • The same spatial-temporal basis split could transfer to other continuous video prediction tasks—novel view synthesis, video inpainting, or video compression—where smooth motion and high-frequency texture are both essential.
  • The authors' own limitation section concedes that large motion remains unsolved; a stress-test benchmark with fast camera or object motion would show whether the B-spline parameterization is a general motion prior or only a smooth-motion prior.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes BF-STVSR, a continuous spatial-temporal video super-resolution (C-STVSR) method that replaces the external optical flow network (RAFT) used in MoTIF with two learned modules: a B-spline Mapper for smooth temporal motion interpolation and a Fourier Mapper for spatial high-frequency detail. The network takes two low-resolution frames and produces a high-resolution frame at an arbitrary time t and spatial scale, using forward warping with predicted motion and reliability maps. The training objective drops the optical-flow supervision term L_RAFT of MoTIF, retaining only a Charbonnier reconstruction loss. Experiments on Vid4, GoPro, and Adobe240 report PSNR/SSIM and video-quality metrics (VFIPS, FloLPIPS, tOF, VMAF), as well as FLOPs and inference-time comparisons. The paper claims state-of-the-art performance in most settings, with acknowledged exceptions (Vid4, one out-of-distribution scale, and FloLPIPS on GoPro).

Significance. If the central claim holds, BF-STVSR is a meaningful step for C-STVSR: it replaces a bulky pre-trained optical-flow component with a lightweight, self-contained motion model, while improving or matching accuracy and reducing inference cost. The paper is generally honest about its exceptions, provides code, and reports multiple perceptual metrics, which strengthens reproducibility. The main significance hinges on whether the training procedure truly avoids external optical flow; the undefined 'ground-truth forward motion' warmup in Section 4.1 is a load-bearing ambiguity that must be resolved before the no-optical-flow claim can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.1] The sentence 'To ensure training stability, we substitute the predicted forward motion with the ground-truth forward motion with a certain probability, starting from 1.0 and gradually reducing to 0 over the first 150,000 iterations' is not backed by a definition of 'ground-truth forward motion.' The training datasets (Adobe240, Vid4, GoPro) do not provide ground-truth optical flow, so the only plausible source is an external flow estimator applied to ground-truth frames, e.g., RAFT. If this is the case, the claim in Sec. 3.1 that BF-STVSR 'removes the need for an external optical flow network' is only true at inference; the training procedure is still teacher-forced with external flow estimates. Moreover, Table 4's last row, labeled as the variant without O·F and without L_RAFT, still includes this warmup substitution, so it does not demonstrate the effect of removing external flow entirely. Please specify the exact source of the ground-truth motion and, if it comes from a pre-trained network, provide an ablation or a re-training without the warmup to verify that the reported performance is not attributable to this hidden dependency.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Tables 1-3] The reported PSNR/SSIM improvements over MoTIF are small (e.g., GoPro-Average 30.22 vs. 30.04 dB; Adobe-Average 30.12 vs. 29.82 dB). No error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple-seed statistics are provided. Given typical run-to-run variance in deep learning, these margins may be within statistical noise. Please report the standard deviation or the range over at least three independent training runs for the main comparison, or otherwise justify that the improvements are stable and not due to a single lucky run.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 4.2] The abstract states 'Our approach achieves state-of-the-art in various metrics, including PSNR and SSIM,' but Table 1 shows that on Vid4, TMNet outperforms BF-STVSR, and Table 2 shows that at ×16 temporal and ×4 spatial scale, LIIF/LTE are better. The paper explicitly acknowledges these exceptions in the text, but the abstract and conclusion would benefit from a qualifier, such as 'on most evaluated settings.'
  2. [Table 3] The text says 'our model consistently outperforms the baselines across all metrics, except for the FloLPIPS on GoPro dataset,' but the reported FloLPIPS for GoPro is 0.151 for both VideoINR and BF-STVSR, i.e., a tie rather than a clear exception. Please clarify whether this is a tie or whether one is strictly better.
  3. [Sec. 4.4, Fig. 5] For the FLOPs and inference-time comparison, please specify the input resolution and whether the reported numbers include the encoder, decoders, and warping operations. This would make the efficiency comparison more reproducible.
  4. [Eq. (1)] In Eq. (1), d = p_d(g) is written as a scalar-dependent estimate, but it is used as a denominator with the B-spline argument (t̂ - k_r)/d. Since p_d outputs are per-channel, please clarify the broadcasting or the shape of d to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [References] References [34] and [35] appear to refer to the same paper (Su et al., 'Deep video deblurring for hand-held cameras', CVPR 2017) with different page ranges. Please consolidate or correct the duplicate citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity by construction; the central derivation is self-contained, with minor non-load-bearing self-citations and an undefined training-time motion warmup that is a verification concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

BF-STVSR's empirical claim is checked on held-out test sets (Vid4, GoPro, Adobe240) with supervised losses against ground-truth frames, so the PSNR/SSIM results are not fitted to test data. The derivation chain (Eqs. 1-4, 6) is not circular: the B-spline and Fourier mappers are learned functions of encoded input features, Eq. (6) simply drops the RAFT-supervision term rather than defining the prediction in terms of that supervision, and no equation reduces to its own output by construction. The only self-citations are to LTE [16] and BTC [27], both published methods with independent benchmarks, and they are used as design inspiration, not as a uniqueness theorem or as load-bearing proof. One passage in Sec. 4.1 does require flagging: 'To ensure training stability, we substitute the predicted forward motion with the ground-truth forward motion with a certain probability, starting from 1.0 and gradually reducing to 0 over the first 150,000 iterations.' The term 'ground-truth forward motion' is never defined, and the training datasets do not provide flow; if it is computed with a pre-trained flow network such as RAFT, the claim of removing external optical flow is only true at inference and Table 4's no-OF ablation omits this warmup. This is a missing-support/verifiability issue and a potential overclaim, but it is not circularity by construction: the final model's predictions do not reduce to the warmup signal, and the warmup probability decays to zero. Accordingly, the circularity score is low (2), reflecting only the minor self-citations and the unresolved training-dependency question.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not rest on fitted constants beyond the learned network weights. The main concerns are the undefined ground-truth motion and the unspecified B-spline order, both of which are load-bearing for the training procedure and the resulting performance.

free parameters (3)
  • loss weight lambda = 0.01
    Used in the training objective; set by hand following MoTIF, not fitted to the test result.
  • B-spline order n = not specified
    Equation (1) uses beta^n but the order n is never defined in the paper, affecting the smoothness of temporal interpolation.
  • ground-truth motion substitution schedule = starting from 1.0, decaying to 0 over first 150k iterations
    A training stabilizer whose source of 'ground-truth forward motion' is undefined, potentially depending on a pre-trained optical flow model.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The training datasets (Adobe240 for training, Vid4, GoPro, Adobe240 for evaluation) are representative and the chosen metrics (PSNR, SSIM, VFIPS, FloLPIPS, tOF, VMAF) are valid measures of video super-resolution quality.
    The entire empirical claim rests on the standard benchmarks and metrics used in the C-STVSR literature.
  • ad hoc to paper Ground-truth forward motion exists and is computable for arbitrary intermediate timestamps during training.
    Section 4.1 uses this term for training stabilization but never defines how it is obtained; this is an unstated assumption that may hide a dependency on optical flow estimation.
  • standard math Softmax splatting (Niklaus and Liu 2020) and SIREN activations (Sitzmann et al. 2020) behave as described in their original works.
    The forward warping and the coefficient/knot estimators rely on these published components behaving as specified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BF-STVSR: B-Splines and Fourier-Best Friends for High Fidelity Spatial-Temporal Video Super-Resolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LOI25PPC

@misc{pith2026250111043,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BF-STVSR: B-Splines and Fourier-Best Friends for High Fidelity Spatial-Temporal Video Super-Resolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LOI25PPC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11043}
}
read the original abstract

While prior methods in Continuous Spatial-Temporal Video Super-Resolution (C-STVSR) employ Implicit Neural Representation (INR) for continuous encoding, they often struggle to capture the complexity of video data, relying on simple coordinate concatenation and pre-trained optical flow networks for motion representation. Interestingly, we find that adding position encoding, contrary to common observations, does not improve--and even degrades--performance. This issue becomes particularly pronounced when combined with pre-trained optical flow networks, which can limit the model's flexibility. To address these issues, we propose BF-STVSR, a C-STVSR framework with two key modules tailored to better represent spatial and temporal characteristics of video: 1) B-spline Mapper for smooth temporal interpolation, and 2) Fourier Mapper for capturing dominant spatial frequencies. Our approach achieves state-of-the-art in various metrics, including PSNR and SSIM, showing enhanced spatial details and natural temporal consistency. Our code is available https://github.com/Eunjnnn/bfstvsr.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11043 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of BF-STVSR and results. (a) BF-STVSR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic overview of our BF-STVSR. (a) First, two input frames are encoded as low-resolution feature maps. Based on these features, Fourier Mapper predicts the dominant frequency information, while B-spline Mapper predicts smoothly interpolated motion representation, which is then processed into motion vectors at an arbitrary time t. The frequency information is temporally propagated by being warped with the predic… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison on arbitrary scale temporal interpolation. “Overlap” refers to the averaged image of two input frames [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison on the large out-of-distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Computational cost (left) and inference time (right) com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison on a large motion case with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Depth-aware video frame interpolation

    Wenbo Bao, Wei-Sheng Lai, Chao Ma, Xiaoyun Zhang, Zhiyong Gao, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Depth-aware video frame interpolation. In IEEE Conferene on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019. 5, 7

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Real- time video super-resolution with spatio-temporal networks and motion compensation

    Jose Caballero, Christian Ledig, Andrew Aitken, Alejandro Acosta, Johannes Totz, Zehan Wang, and Wenzhe Shi. Real- time video super-resolution with spatio-temporal networks and motion compensation. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4778–4787, 2017. 1, 2

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Chan, Xintao Wang, Ke Yu, Chao Dong, and Chen Change Loy

    Kelvin C.K. Chan, Xintao Wang, Ke Yu, Chao Dong, and Chen Change Loy. Basicvsr: The search for essential com- ponents in video super-resolution and beyond. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2021. 5, 7

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Chan, Shangchen Zhou, Xiangyu Xu, and Chen Change Loy

    Kelvin C.K. Chan, Shangchen Zhou, Xiangyu Xu, and Chen Change Loy. BasicVSR++: Improving video super- resolution with enhanced propagation and alignment. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition, 2022. 1, 2

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Learning con- tinuous image representation with local implicit image func- tion

    Yinbo Chen, Sifei Liu, and Xiaolong Wang. Learning con- tinuous image representation with local implicit image func- tion. In CVPR, pages 8628–8638, 2021. 1, 2, 5, 7

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Motif: Learning motion trajectories with local implicit neural functions for continuous space-time video super- resolution

    Yi-Hsin Chen, Si-Cun Chen, Yen-Yu Lin, and Wen-Hsiao Peng. Motif: Learning motion trajectories with local implicit neural functions for continuous space-time video super- resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 23131–23141, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Videoinr: Learning video implicit neural represen- tation for continuous space-time super-resolution

    Zeyuan Chen, Yinbo Chen, Jingwen Liu, Xingqian Xu, Vidit Goel, Zhangyang Wang, Humphrey Shi, and Xiaolong Wang. Videoinr: Learning video implicit neural represen- tation for continuous space-time super-resolution. Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Learning temporal coherence via self- supervision for gan-based video generation (tecogan)

    Mengyu Chu, You Xie, Jonas Mayer, Laura Leal-Taixe, and Nils Thuerey. Learning temporal coherence via self- supervision for gan-based video generation (tecogan). ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 39(4), 2020. 6, 7

    work page 2020

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Flolpips: A bespoke video quality metric for frame interpolation

    Duolikun Danier, Fan Zhang, and David Bull. Flolpips: A bespoke video quality metric for frame interpolation. In2022 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS) , pages 283–287. IEEE,

  2. [10]

    Adaptive posi- tional encoding for bundle-adjusting neural radiance fields

    Zelin Gao, Weichen Dai, and Yu Zhang. Adaptive posi- tional encoding for bundle-adjusting neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3284–3294, 2023. 2

    2023

  3. [11]

    Space-time-aware multi-resolution video enhance- ment

    Muhammad Haris, Greg Shakhnarovich, and Norimichi Ukita. Space-time-aware multi-resolution video enhance- ment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2859–2868,

  4. [12]

    Meta-sr: A magnification-arbitrary network for super-resolution

    Xuecai Hu, Haoyuan Mu, Xiangyu Zhang, Zilei Wang, Tie- niu Tan, and Jian Sun. Meta-sr: A magnification-arbitrary network for super-resolution. In IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019. 1

    2019

  5. [13]

    Real-time intermediate flow estimation for video frame interpolation

    Zhewei Huang, Tianyuan Zhang, Wen Heng, Boxin Shi, and Shuchang Zhou. Real-time intermediate flow estimation for video frame interpolation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2022. 1, 2, 5, 7

    2022

  6. [14]

    Super slomo: High quality estimation of multiple intermediate frames for video interpolation

    Huaizu Jiang, Deqing Sun, Varun Jampani, Ming-Hsuan Yang, Erik Learned-Miller, and Jan Kautz. Super slomo: High quality estimation of multiple intermediate frames for video interpolation. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2018. 5, 7

    2018

  7. [15]

    Scal- able neural video representations with learnable positional features

    Subin Kim, Sihyun Yu, Jaeho Lee, and Jinwoo Shin. Scal- able neural video representations with learnable positional features. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 35:12718–12731, 2022. 2

    2022

  8. [16]

    Local texture estimator for implicit representation function

    Jaewon Lee and Kyong Hwan Jin. Local texture estimator for implicit representation function. In CVPR, pages 1929– 1938, 2022. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7

    1929

  9. [17]

    Learn- ing local implicit fourier representation for image warping

    Jaewon Lee, Kwang Pyo Choi, and Kyong Hwan Jin. Learn- ing local implicit fourier representation for image warping. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 182–

  10. [18]

    Toward a practical perceptual video quality metric

    Zhi Li, Anush Moorthy, Anushka Aaron, Ioannis Kat- savounidis, and Manohara Manohara. Toward a practical perceptual video quality metric. Netflix TechBlog, 2016. 6, 7

    2016

  11. [19]

    Swinir: Image restoration us- ing swin transformer

    Jingyun Liang, Jiezhang Cao, Guolei Sun, Kai Zhang, Luc Van Gool, and Radu Timofte. Swinir: Image restoration us- ing swin transformer. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF inter- national conference on computer vision , pages 1833–1844,

  12. [20]

    Enhanced deep residual networks for single image super-resolution

    Bee Lim, Sanghyun Son, Heewon Kim, Seungjun Nah, and Kyoung Mu Lee. Enhanced deep residual networks for single image super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE confer- ence on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, pages 136–144, 2017. 2

    2017

  13. [21]

    A bayesian approach to adaptive video super resolution

    Ce Liu and Deqing Sun. A bayesian approach to adaptive video super resolution. InCVPR 2011, pages 209–216, 2011. 5

    2011

  14. [22]

    Enhancing multi-scale implicit learning in image super- resolution with integrated positional encoding

    Ying-Tian Liu, Yuan-Chen Guo, and Song-Hai Zhang. Enhancing multi-scale implicit learning in image super- resolution with integrated positional encoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.05756, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T. Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. In ECCV, 2020. 2, 4

    2020

  16. [24]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- tiresolution hash encoding

    Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexan- der Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- tiresolution hash encoding. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG), 41(4):1–15, 2022. 2

    2022

  17. [25]

    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 The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017. 5

    2017

  18. [26]

    Softmax splatting for video frame interpolation

    Simon Niklaus and Feng Liu. Softmax splatting for video frame interpolation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 5437–5446, 2020. 1, 2, 4

    2020

  19. [27]

    B- spline texture coefficients estimator for screen content im- age super-resolution

    Byeonghyun Pak, Jaewon Lee, and Kyong Hwan Jin. B- spline texture coefficients estimator for screen content im- age super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10062–10071, 2023. 1, 2, 3

    2023

  20. [28]

    Asymmetric bilateral motion estimation for video frame interpolation

    Junheum Park, Chul Lee, and Chang-Su Kim. Asymmetric bilateral motion estimation for video frame interpolation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 14539–14548, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  21. [29]

    A perceptual quality metric for video frame interpolation

    Feng Liu Qiqi Hou, Abhijay Ghildyal. A perceptual quality metric for video frame interpolation. In European Confer- ence on Computer Vision, 2022. 6, 7

    2022

  22. [30]

    On the spectral bias of neural networks

    Nasim Rahaman, Aristide Baratin, Devansh Arpit, Felix Draxler, Min Lin, Fred Hamprecht, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. On the spectral bias of neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 5301–

  23. [31]

    Film: Frame inter- polation for large motion

    Fitsum Reda, Janne Kontkanen, Eric Tabellion, Deqing Sun, Caroline Pantofaru, and Brian Curless. Film: Frame inter- polation for large motion. In European Conference on Com- puter Vision (ECCV), 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  24. [32]

    Frame-recurrent video super-resolution

    Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Raviteja Vemulapalli, and Matthew Brown. Frame-recurrent video super-resolution. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6626–6634, 2018. 1, 2

    2018

  25. [33]

    Martel, Alexander W

    Vincent Sitzmann, Julien N.P. Martel, Alexander W. Bergman, David B. Lindell, and Gordon Wetzstein. Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions. In NeurIPS, 2020. 5

    2020

  26. [34]

    Deep video deblurring for hand-held cameras

    Shuochen Su, Mauricio Delbracio, Jue Wang, Guillermo Sapiro, Wolfgang Heidrich, and Oliver Wang. Deep video deblurring for hand-held cameras. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 237–246, 2017. 5

    2017

  27. [35]

    Deep video deblurring for hand-held cameras

    Shuochen Su, Mauricio Delbracio, Jue Wang, Guillermo Sapiro, Wolfgang Heidrich, and Oliver Wang. Deep video deblurring for hand-held cameras. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition, pages 1279–1288, 2017. 5

    2017

  28. [36]

    Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimen- sional domains

    Matthew Tancik, Pratul Srinivasan, Ben Mildenhall, Sara Fridovich-Keil, Nithin Raghavan, Utkarsh Singhal, Ravi Ra- mamoorthi, Jonathan Barron, and Ren Ng. Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimen- sional domains. Advances in neural information ...

    2020

  29. [37]

    Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow

    Zachary Teed and Jia Deng. Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23– 28, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 16, pages 402–419. Springer,

    2020

  30. [38]

    Spline positional encoding for learning 3d implicit signed distance fields

    Peng-Shuai Wang, Yang Liu, Yu-Qi Yang, and Xin Tong. Spline positional encoding for learning 3d implicit signed distance fields. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21 , pages 1091–1097. International Joint Conferenc...

    2021

  31. [39]

    Chan, Ke Yu, Chao Dong, and Chen Change Loy

    Xintao Wang, Kelvin C.K. Chan, Ke Yu, Chao Dong, and Chen Change Loy. Edvr: Video restoration with enhanced deformable convolutional networks. In The IEEE Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Work- shops (CVPRW), 2019. 5, 7

    2019

  32. [40]

    Allebach, and Chenliang Xu

    Xiaoyu Xiang, Yapeng Tian, Yulun Zhang, Yun Fu, Jan P. Allebach, and Chenliang Xu. Zooming slow-mo: Fast and accurate one-stage space-time video super-resolution. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 3370–3379, 2020. 2, 5, 7

    2020

  33. [41]

    Towards progressive multi- frequency representation for image warping

    Jun Xiao, Zihang Lyu, Cong Zhang, Yakun Ju, Changjian Shui, and Kin-Man Lam. Towards progressive multi- frequency representation for image warping. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 2995–3004, 2024. 2

    2024

  34. [42]

    Temporal modulation network for con- trollable space-time video super-resolution

    Gang Xu, Jun Xu, Zhen Li, Liang Wang, Xing Sun, and Mingming Cheng. Temporal modulation network for con- trollable space-time video super-resolution. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2021. 5, 7

    2021

  35. [43]

    Quadratic video interpolation

    Xiangyu Xu, Li Siyao, Wenxiu Sun, Qian Yin, and Ming- Hsuan Yang. Quadratic video interpolation. In NeurIPS,

  36. [44]

    Video enhancement with task-oriented flow

    Tianfan Xue, Baian Chen, Jiajun Wu, Donglai Wei, and William T Freeman. Video enhancement with task-oriented flow. International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV), 127 (8):1106–1125, 2019. 7

    2019

  37. [45]

    Extracting motion and ap- pearance via inter-frame attention for efficient video frame interpolation

    Guozhen Zhang, Yuhan Zhu, Haonan Wang, Youxin Chen, Gangshan Wu, and Limin Wang. Extracting motion and ap- pearance via inter-frame attention for efficient video frame interpolation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 5...

    2023

  38. [46]

    Image super-resolution using very deep residual channel attention networks

    Yulun Zhang, Kunpeng Li, Kai Li, Lichen Wang, Bineng Zhong, and Yun Fu. Image super-resolution using very deep residual channel attention networks. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 286–301, 2018. 2

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.