PixRestore: Unified Image Restoration via Pixel Diffusion Transformer

arXiv:2608.167932026-08-16

One model fixes noise, haze, rain, and low light at once by diffusing directly on raw pixels instead of a compressed latent space

PixRestore is a single model that handles eight types of image degradation, including denoising, deblurring, dehazing, rain and raindrop removal, desnowing, low-light enhancement, and super-resolution. Instead of reusing a large pretrained text-to-image diffusion model through a compressed latent space, it trains a pixel-space diffusion transformer from scratch, avoiding the detail loss caused by the compression step. With only about 50M parameters and a single inference step, it beats prior diffusion-based restoration methods on quality, speed, and model size.

METAL MEDIA explanatory visual

One model fixes noise, haze, rain, and low light at once by diffusing directly on raw pixels instead of a compressed latent space

01Prior methods adapt large pretrained text-to-image diffusion models such as SDXL or FLUX, but the VAE (variational autoencoder) they use to compress images discards fine restoration-relevant details, and the open-ended generative prior can invent content inconsistent with the input
02PixRestore removes the VAE entirely and instead patchifies the raw low-quality image and a noisy image state into tokens fed directly into a Diffusion Transformer (DiT), keeping pixel-level evidence intact
03Because different degradation types depend on different visual cues, the model extracts multi-layer features from the pretrained vision model DINO and uses a lightweight adaptive layer router to predict, per image, how much to trust each feature layer
04A slow multi-step version of the model is first trained, then fine-tuned into a fast single-step generator using DINO-based adversarial training, cutting inference time sharply
05Across eight degradation types on public benchmarks and real-world images, PixRestore scores better overall on fidelity (PSNR, SSIM), perceptual quality (LPIPS, DISTS), and a proposed degradation-removal score (DR-Score), while using up to about 1200x less computation and running 7 to 23 times faster than competing methods

An explanatory diagram made by METAL MEDIA, not a figure supplied by the paper's authors.

What they did

Prior methods adapt large pretrained text-to-image diffusion models such as SDXL or FLUX, but the VAE (variational autoencoder) they use to compress images discards fine restoration-relevant details, and the open-ended generative prior can invent content inconsistent with the input
PixRestore removes the VAE entirely and instead patchifies the raw low-quality image and a noisy image state into tokens fed directly into a Diffusion Transformer (DiT), keeping pixel-level evidence intact
Because different degradation types depend on different visual cues, the model extracts multi-layer features from the pretrained vision model DINO and uses a lightweight adaptive layer router to predict, per image, how much to trust each feature layer
A slow multi-step version of the model is first trained, then fine-tuned into a fast single-step generator using DINO-based adversarial training, cutting inference time sharply
Across eight degradation types on public benchmarks and real-world images, PixRestore scores better overall on fidelity (PSNR, SSIM), perceptual quality (LPIPS, DISTS), and a proposed degradation-removal score (DR-Score), while using up to about 1200x less computation and running 7 to 23 times faster than competing methods

Figure 1: PixRestore achieves the best overall performance in terms of restoration quality, model size, and inference speed. Top-left: radar charts comparing PSNR, LPIPS, and degradation removal performance across eight degradation types. Top-right: GFLOPs versus inference latency, where the bubble size denotes the number of parameters. Bottom: visual comparisons on eight restoration tasks. With only about 50M parameters and single-step inference, PixRestore achieves the best overall restoration quality while being the most efficient among diffusion-based methods.

Table 1: Latent diffusion vs. pixel diffusion under the same UIR training/test setting. The results are averaged over 8 restoration tasks. Pixel-space modeling provides a better overall trade-off in fidelity, perceptual quality, parameter count, and inference speed.
Model	VAE	Params(M)	Inf Time-DM (ms/step)	Inf Time-VAE (ms)	PSNR (dB) ↑	LPIPS ↓	MUSIQ ↑
Latent DiT-S	SD2VAE (f8c4, ps1)	106.41	25	78	22.10	0.2483	50.38
Latent DiT-S	FluxVAE (f8c16, ps1)	106.59	25	78	22.63	0.2109	50.86
Latent DiT-S	QwenVAE (f8c16, ps1)	67.37	25	41	22.80	0.2181	51.87
Pixel DiT-S	None (ps8)	23.41	25	0	26.62	0.1593	54.32

Figure 2: Overview of PixRestore. A frozen vision encoder extracts multi-layer features from the LQ image, and an adaptive layer router predicts per-layer weights to fuse them into a single conditioning feature. The LQ image and the noisy state xt are patchified, then processed by N DiT blocks, and finally decoded into the HQ output.

Table 2: Quantitative comparison on public benchmarks. The best and second-best results are highlighted in red and blue italic, respectively. Methods marked with ∗ are retrained using the same training dataset as ours. Metrics: PSNR↑, SSIM↑, LPIPS↓, DISTS↓, DR-Score (degradation-removal score)↑.
Method	De-rainstreak	Denoise	Deblur	De-raindrop
	PSNR	SSIM	LPIPS	DISTS	DR-Score	PSNR	SSIM	LPIPS	DISTS	DR-Score	PSNR	SSIM	LPIPS	DISTS	DR-Score	PSNR	SSIM	LPIPS	DISTS
PromptIR	24.50	0.7507	0.3529	0.2381	31.25	32.54	0.9029	0.2459	0.1604	55.35	23.82	0.7584	0.3131	0.2195	27.23	18.81	0.6962	0.3390	0.1885
PromptIR∗	28.43	0.8389	0.2659	0.1904	49.99	35.45	0.9377	0.1104	0.1065	79.33	29.10	0.8474	0.2051	0.1560	55.56	23.68	0.8005	0.2236	0.1326
DiffUIR	24.51	0.7618	0.3484	0.2248	40.13	26.61	0.8380	0.3103	0.2056	59.52	27.86	0.8200	0.2258	0.1699	44.09	18.85	0.7004	0.3455	0.1905
UniRestore	22.50	0.7291	0.4223	0.2689	34.31	31.75	0.8969	0.2336	0.1669	61.20	23.87	0.7205	0.2405	0.1716	46.94	18.50	0.6377	0.4114	0.2285
DA-CLIP	24.50	0.7560	0.3347	0.2176	43.09	27.35	0.8245	0.2459	0.1764	64.12	27.40	0.8113	0.1641	0.1303	55.00	20.12	0.6988	0.2715	0.1512
DA-CLIP∗	31.61	0.8606	0.1048	0.0885	78.72	33.97	0.8728	0.1462	0.1166	75.14	28.29	0.8228	0.1474	0.1148	58.38	23.58	0.7916	0.1325	0.0852
FoundIR	26.87	0.8263	0.2454	0.1799	52.37	32.46	0.7925	0.2794	0.1641	55.52	27.29	0.8046	0.2430	0.1781	39.12	18.87	0.6972	0.3586	0.2017
FoundIR∗	32.36	0.8888	0.1593	0.1203	71.12	36.16	0.9415	0.1051	0.1245	80.86	29.14	0.8466	0.1986	0.1503	49.86	24.40	0.8218	0.1942	0.1146
Flux-IR	20.98	0.6233	0.4625	0.2861	26.04	25.71	0.6842	0.4197	0.2367	54.86	23.51	0.6745	0.2746	0.1851	58.70	18.94	0.6459	0.3224	0.1774
Flux-IR∗	21.01	0.6344	0.4511	0.2822	31.04	26.80	0.7410	0.3789	0.2051	37.05	22.15	0.6446	0.2818	0.2036	73.18	17.80	0.5785	0.3266	0.2075
FoundIR-v2	23.17	0.6652	0.3659	0.2218	57.26	26.87	0.7481	0.2785	0.1946	74.47	24.40	0.7079	0.2203	0.1566	73.23	19.63	0.5459	0.2792	0.1563
FoundIR-v2∗	27.85	0.7598	0.1773	0.1322	81.03	28.17	0.7497	0.2889	0.1890	75.01	24.98	0.7351	0.1914	0.1323	77.12	20.81	0.5461	0.2300	0.1294
FAPE-IR	27.51	0.8226	0.2319	0.1679	71.09	32.99	0.9088	0.1238	0.1113	79.31	26.80	0.7895	0.2098	0.1556	50.72	21.39	0.6822	0.2219	0.1316
FAPE-IR∗	31.91	0.8695	0.0903	0.0762	84.64	34.22	0.9172	0.0741	0.0750	82.56	27.96	0.8207	0.1577	0.1094	66.75	23.88	0.7223	0.1555	0.0967
PixRestore	32.28	0.8847	0.0902	0.0905	82.75	34.87	0.9336	0.0624	0.0735	81.89	28.32	0.8284	0.1201	0.0940	70.19	24.48	0.7755	0.1258	0.0882
PixRestore-B	32.85	0.8898	0.0767	0.0817	84.72	34.62	0.9356	0.0564	0.0706	83.70	29.23	0.8511	0.1051	0.0835	72.69	25.21	0.7976	0.1087	0.0763
Method	Desnow	Dehaze	Low-light enhancement	Super-resolution
	PSNR	SSIM	LPIPS	DISTS	DR-Score	PSNR	SSIM	LPIPS	DISTS	DR-Score	PSNR	SSIM	LPIPS	DISTS	DR-Score	PSNR	SSIM	LPIPS	DISTS
PromptIR	22.26	0.7939	0.2452	0.1672	24.35	21.34	0.8803	0.1426	0.1012	61.68	10.49	0.4781	0.5410	0.3765	27.87	24.26	0.7372	0.4394	0.2510
PromptIR∗	29.32	0.8532	0.1818	0.1402	72.39	21.25	0.8931	0.1348	0.0885	67.89	17.91	0.6881	0.3564	0.2512	58.58	27.59	0.7968	0.2839	0.2208
DiffUIR	22.95	0.7948	0.2392	0.1667	25.00	20.41	0.8656	0.1640	0.1175	57.19	21.72	0.7082	0.3819	0.2292	62.93	26.54	0.7582	0.3866	0.2378
UniRestore	22.33	0.7863	0.2464	0.1771	26.12	20.11	0.8469	0.2122	0.1359	67.33	10.94	0.5188	0.5006	0.3165	38.38	24.80	0.7543	0.3548	0.2284
DA-CLIP	23.60	0.7971	0.2221	0.1558	35.53	22.96	0.8751	0.1311	0.0885	70.33	22.25	0.7915	0.2469	0.1622	73.29	23.73	0.6789	0.3772	0.2367
DA-CLIP∗	28.31	0.8282	0.1360	0.1021	81.48	21.92	0.8779	0.1459	0.1077	58.58	18.01	0.8185	0.2129	0.1614	72.79	26.49	0.7585	0.2341	0.1763
FoundIR	23.03	0.7999	0.2406	0.1630	24.68	15.07	0.7901	0.2582	0.1919	33.17	15.34	0.7473	0.3034	0.2132	62.24	25.85	0.7399	0.4280	0.2492
FoundIR∗	29.82	0.8678	0.1524	0.1224	73.00	20.99	0.8903	0.1335	0.0962	64.81	23.34	0.9026	0.1792	0.1439	80.41	27.65	0.7952	0.2883	0.2251
Flux-IR	21.74	0.7231	0.3434	0.2204	26.80	14.73	0.7599	0.2976	0.1986	46.13	18.85	0.7022	0.3557	0.1998	62.16	22.49	0.6541	0.2903	0.2064
Flux-IR∗	21.79	0.6831	0.3023	0.1959	51.21	15.96	0.8061	0.2315	0.1578	52.88	18.40	0.7198	0.3386	0.2010	61.45	20.87	0.5853	0.3569	0.2519
FoundIR-v2	24.72	0.7347	0.2513	0.1671	67.47	19.06	0.7705	0.1928	0.1337	62.79	17.17	0.7448	0.3132	0.2027	72.49	23.85	0.6661	0.2959	0.1974

Figure 3: Motivation of adaptive hierarchical visual guidance. Left: Per-layer DINO feature visualizations for low-light enhancement and de-raindrop. Shallow layers preserve local structures and details, while deeper layers encode global semantics. Right: LQ–HQ feature similarity across DINOv2-B layers for eight types of degradations. We see that different layers are sensitive to different degradations.

Table 3: Complexity comparison of different methods. “NFE” denotes number of evaluations. All values are measured with input 1×3×512×512 on a single NVIDIA A800 GPU, with 5 warmup iterations and averaged over 100 runs.
Method	NFE	Params (M)	FLOPs (G)	Latency (ms)
PromptIR	-	35.59	1382	334
DiffUIR	4	36.26	3839	777
DA-CLIP	100	231.76	112927	18071
FoundIR	4	36.26	3839	777
UniRestore	1	1071.20	5255	158
FoundIR-v2	20	16910.09	119334	18293
Flux-IR	21	17698.23	795290	5790
FAPE-IR	1	21575.43	64758	1011
PixRestore	1	53.70	658	44
PixRestore-B	1	210.89	1842	79

Figure 4: No-reference quality metrics do not reliably reflect degradation removal. Here PixRestore removes the rainstreaks best, yet MUSIQ and AFINE-NR rank it worst, favoring the LQ input and the degradation-preserving output of FoundIR-v2, while our VLM-based DR-Score demonstrates strong alignment with human perceptual judgments.

Table 4: Ablation studies of PixRestore. “Avg.” denotes uniform averaging of selected DINO features for conditioning or supervision, while “Adap.” denotes adaptive averaging of selected DINO features for conditioning or supervision. “NFE” denotes the number of evaluations.
ID	Variant	NFE	Conditioning	Supervision	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	LPIPS↓	MUSIQ↑
A0	Pixel DiT-S	10	None	None	26.62	0.8454	0.1593	54.32
A1	+ single-layer conditioning	10	layer 2	None	27.07	0.8457	0.1561	54.45
A2	+ single-layer conditioning	10	layer 5	None	27.36	0.8487	0.1489	54.64
A3	+ single-layer conditioning	10	layer 11	None	27.12	0.8491	0.1508	54.60
A4	+ multi-layer conditioning	10	Avg. 2 layers	None	27.62	0.8540	0.1412	54.90
A5	+ multi-layer conditioning	10	Avg. 6 layers	None	27.72	0.8536	0.1407	55.01
A6	+ hierarchical loss	10	Avg. 6 layers	Avg. 6 layers	27.36	0.8444	0.1239	54.59
A7	+ adaptive hierarchical visual guidance	10	Adap. 6 layers	Adap. 6 layers	27.66	0.8500	0.1209	54.97
A8	+ adaptive hierarchical visual guidance	4	Adap. 6 layers	Adap. 6 layers	27.75	0.8584	0.1228	54.07
A9	+ adaptive hierarchical visual guidance	1	Adap. 6 layers	Adap. 6 layers	28.07	0.8640	0.1202	53.34
A10	+ single-step finetuning (PixRestore)	1	Adap. 6 layers	Adap. 6 layers	28.49	0.8589	0.1120	55.52

Figure 5: Visual comparisons on desnow (top) and low-light enhancement (bottom). PixRestore removes degradations effectively and recovers more faithful details and colors.

Table 5: Comparison between diffusion pretraining and finetuning with regression training under the same objective and total training iterations.
Scheme	Training iterations	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	LPIPS↓	MUSIQ↑
Regression Training	350k	27.00	0.8179	0.1494	52.00
Flow pretraining + one-step finetuning (ours)	250k + 100k	28.49	0.8589	0.1120	55.52

Figure 6: Scaling behavior of PixRestore under varying backbone GFLOPs and patch sizes.

Table 6: Quantitative comparison on real-world test set. The best and second-best results for each metric are highlighted in red bold and blue italic, respectively. Retrained methods are marked with ∗. ‘PR’ denotes the proposed PixRestore, the results of which are shaded in pink.
Degradation	Metric	PromptIR	PromptIR∗	DiffUIR	DA-CLIP	DA-CLIP∗	FoundIR	FoundIR∗	UniRestore	FoundIR-v2	FoundIR-v2∗	Flux-IR	Flux-IR∗	FAPE-IR	FAPE-IR∗	PR	PR-B
De-rainstreak	MUSIQ↑	59.90	60.06	61.02	62.23	59.94	61.00	60.87	62.58	63.06	62.57	62.98	60.23	61.07	59.53	62.62	62.78
Affine-NR↓	-0.90	-0.90	-0.92	-0.91	-0.91	-0.90	-0.92	-0.89	-0.96	-0.96	-0.94	-0.89	-1.00	-1.00	-1.02	-1.03
DR-Score ↑	30.85	30.05	33.77	33.62	51.68	31.48	38.83	32.87	49.07	71.72	25.50	28.37	64.73	76.32	72.12	74.69
Deblur	MUSIQ↑	34.28	32.57	41.64	46.61	43.92	32.85	34.10	49.26	69.99	72.78	55.26	65.73	44.89	45.84	53.37	56.56
Affine-NR↓	-0.73	-0.70	-0.78	-0.77	-0.76	-0.70	-0.72	-0.81	-1.04	-1.10	-0.87	-1.00	-0.80	-0.83	-0.88	-0.93
DR-Score ↑	26.56	31.08	28.12	48.78	45.22	26.58	29.35	46.77	66.66	74.94	38.09	72.18	63.35	65.41	65.43	73.08
De-raindrop	MUSIQ↑	64.18	63.47	64.04	66.26	54.46	61.85	60.62	63.87	65.81	57.74	65.60	66.28	52.71	39.61	47.99	54.54
Affine-NR↓	-0.83	-0.78	-0.82	-0.87	-0.71	-0.77	-0.71	-0.78	-0.83	-0.79	-0.92	-1.02	-0.85	-0.76	-0.72	-0.80
DR-Score↑	25.70	26.15	22.10	37.63	44.65	26.57	32.38	26.00	34.30	62.59	36.05	36.03	80.73	80.82	74.88	80.62
Desnow	MUSIQ↑	58.96	59.27	59.92	59.74	59.36	60.24	60.15	60.30	63.35	63.46	58.33	62.12	57.96	58.68	62.69	62.65
Affine-NR↓	-0.74	-0.75	-0.77	-0.78	-0.77	-0.75	-0.75	-0.73	-0.83	-0.86	-0.76	-0.89	-0.86	-0.88	-0.90	-0.91
DR-Score ↑	26.90	34.17	39.53	45.99	46.69	28.01	32.45	32.13	46.90	64.89	38.63	50.63	71.57	71.73	71.86	74.70
Dehaze	MUSIQ↑	59.83	60.40	59.66	61.00	60.21	60.26	60.55	60.85	63.38	61.32	63.39	60.32	59.77	60.33	61.93	61.47
Affine-NR↓	-0.88	-0.88	-0.87	-0.88	-0.87	-0.87	-0.88	-0.82	-0.90	-0.86	-0.89	-0.83	-0.88	-0.90	-0.93	-0.93
DR-Score ↑	32.90	37.68	24.55	32.36	28.86	31.02	32.43	47.43	42.61	37.52	40.37	40.74	32.67	35.94	44.51	42.06
Low-light	MUSIQ↑	47.67	55.03	54.21	64.66	53.18	49.61	57.10	48.47	63.33	61.31	54.10	52.75	49.91	57.60	58.17	58.63
Affine-NR↓	-0.88	-0.92	-0.71	-0.95	-0.90	-0.89	-0.98	-0.85	-1.00	-0.94	-0.93	-0.91	-0.89	-0.99	-0.98	-0.99
DR-Score↑	31.65	67.03	59.33	66.24	65.10	31.70	65.05	38.87	71.25	66.62	58.07	54.71	38.70	75.09	62.38	62.13
Average	MUSIQ↑	54.14	55.13	56.75	60.08	55.18	54.30	55.56	57.55	64.82	63.20	59.45	61.24	54.39	53.60	57.80	59.44
Affine-NR↓	-0.83	-0.82	-0.81	-0.86	-0.82	-0.81	-0.83	-0.81	-0.93	-0.92	-0.89	-0.92	-0.88	-0.88	-0.91	-0.93
DR-Score ↑	29.09	37.69	34.57	44.10	47.03	29.23	38.42	37.51	51.80	63.05	39.45	47.11	58.63	67.55	65.20	67.88

Figure 7: Visual comparisons on real-world desnow, dehaze, and deblur cases. PixRestore can remove degradations more effectively and recover cleaner details and sharper structures with fewer artifacts.

Table S.1: Training data sources for each degradation type.
Degradation	Training data
Deblur	GoPro [33], RealBlur [57], UHD-Blur [3], LSD-Defocus [58]
Dehaze	RESIDE [2], UHD-Haze [3], WeatherBench-haze [41], UniSer-Haze [59], synthetic data from UrbanSyn [60], BlendedMVS [61] and MegaDepth [62]
De-raindrop	RaindropClarity [63], RainDS-Real-RainDrop [36],
de-rainstreak	Rain13K [64], RealRain-1k [37], UAV-Rain1k [38], FoundIR-rain [9], RainDS-Real-RainStreak [36], synthetic data from UrbanSyn [60],
Desnow	Snow100K [65], WeatherBench-snow [41], synthetic data from UrbanSyn [60],
Denoise	SIDD [66], PolyU [35], synthetic Gaussian noise DF2K [34, 67]
Low-light
enhancement	LOL [40], UHD-LL [39], DarkFace [68], FoundIR-low-light [9], NTIRE-LLIE [69]
Super-resolution (SR)	RealESRGAN degradation from DF2K [34, 67], RealSR [42], ScreenSR [43]

Figure 8: Visual comparisons on real-world de-raindrop, low-light enhancement, and de-rainstreak cases. PixRestore can remove degradations more effectively and recover cleaner details and sharper structures with fewer artifacts.

Table S.2: Real-world test data sources for each degradation type.
Degradation	Real-world test data
Deblur	GyroBlur-Real [70]
Dehaze	RTTS and OpenReal-fog [44]
De-raindrop	OpenReal-raindrop [44]
De-rainstreak	OpenReal-rainstreak [44] and DiffUIR[10]
Desnow	Snow100K-realistic [65] and OpenReal-snow [44]
Low-light
enhancement	OpenReal-night [44] and ExDark [71]

Figure S.1: Illustration of DR-Score. Given the LQ input, the restored result, and the task description, the VLM judges whether the target degradation has been removed. A better restoration receives a higher DR-Score.

Table S.3: Pixel-space and latent-space comparison on 8 degradation types. We report comparisons on PSNR↑/LPIPS↓/MUSIQ↑.
Degradation	Latent DiT with FLUX-VAE	Latent DiT with Qwen-VAE	Latent DiT with SD2-VAE	Pixel DiT
SR	25.59/0.2038/58.68	25.62/0.1992/62.25	25.03/0.2586/58.53	26.48/0.2067/57.80
Deblur	26.66/0.1617/46.53	26.93/0.1545/46.69	26.00/0.1921/45.23	27.17/0.1850/41.76
Dehaze	15.31/0.2253/54.56	15.16/0.2391/52.50	15.08/0.2659/53.31	24.78/0.1020/58.17
Denoise	31.97/0.0952/47.22	32.33/0.1021/48.37	30.65/0.1252/47.90	32.58/0.1179/51.32
De-raindrop	20.43/0.2257/62.79	20.63/0.2463/64.71	20.01/0.2751/62.46	23.19/0.1707/66.66
De-rainstreak	25.07/0.1478/46.49	25.34/0.1821/47.63	24.53/0.1876/46.00	30.19/0.1350/49.43
Desnow	27.82/0.1304/49.00	28.41/0.1190/49.39	27.30/0.1483/49.45	28.96/0.1301/48.58
Low-light enhancement	10.82/0.4572/40.64	10.82/0.4530/42.13	10.81/0.4834/39.73	20.80/0.2122/57.98
Overall	22.63/0.2109/50.86	22.80/0.2181/51.87	22.10/0.2483/50.38	26.62/0.1593/54.32

Figure S.2: Human alignment analysis of different no-reference metrics with pairwise human preferences. Left: alignment ratios between metric-induced rankings and human judgments across real-world UIR tasks. Right: representative failure cases where two restored results are visually similar with subtle appearance differences but lead to disagreement between DR-Score and human judgment.

Table S.4: Comparison of frozen visual foundation priors under the same pixel DiT setting. All encoders share the ViT-B architecture and parameter count. Features of the same layer are selected. Metrics are averaged over 8 degradation types. Best results are highlighted in bold.
Visual Prior	PSNR (dB) ↑	SSIM ↑	LPIPS ↓	MUSIQ ↑
CLIP-B	26.61	0.8441	0.1598	54.30
MAE-B	26.70	0.8454	0.1593	54.20
SigLIP-B	26.66	0.8449	0.1592	54.19
DINOv2-B	27.25	0.8500	0.1531	54.21

Figure S.3: Visual comparisons on synthetic desnow, low-light enhancement, de-rainstreak, and denoise cases. Overall, PixRestore restores cleaner and more faithful results with better structural details and fewer artifacts.

Table S.5: Detailed quantitative comparison on Deblur benchmarks. The best and second-best results are highlighted in red and blue italic, respectively. Methods marked with ∗ are retrained under the same training setting as ours.
Method	GoPro	UHD-blur
	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	LPIPS↓	DISTS↓	MUSIQ↑	AFINE-NR↓	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	LPIPS↓	DISTS↓	MUSIQ↑	AFINE-NR↓
PromptIR	23.43	0.7903	0.3035	0.1972	25.50	-0.5874	24.21	0.7265	0.3228	0.2418	29.81	-0.6163
PromptIR∗	29.82	0.8775	0.2000	0.1440	36.18	-0.7123	28.39	0.8172	0.2101	0.1681	40.52	-0.7570
DiffUIR	29.32	0.8669	0.2041	0.1492	35.93	-0.7137	26.39	0.7731	0.2476	0.1907	38.01	-0.7075
UniRestore	24.11	0.7496	0.2216	0.1408	45.93	-0.7896	23.63	0.6914	0.2595	0.2024	42.99	-0.6870
DA-CLIP	28.57	0.8554	0.1279	0.0994	41.05	-0.7329	26.23	0.7671	0.2003	0.1612	42.83	-0.7479
DA-CLIP∗	28.87	0.8536	0.1317	0.1031	42.91	-0.7444	27.71	0.7920	0.1630	0.1264	47.05	-0.7656
FoundIR	27.02	0.8121	0.2610	0.1800	29.96	-0.6276	27.56	0.7971	0.2250	0.1762	38.80	-0.7544
FoundIR∗	29.95	0.8762	0.1887	0.1393	35.81	-0.7297	28.33	0.8170	0.2084	0.1613	39.98	-0.7696
FoundIR-v2	24.48	0.7179	0.2224	0.1451	57.73	-0.8954	24.32	0.6980	0.2183	0.1680	63.23	-1.0422
FoundIR-v2∗	24.98	0.7470	0.1965	0.1262	56.90	-0.8914	24.97	0.7232	0.1862	0.1385	58.39	-0.9774
Flux-IR	24.03	0.7012	0.2408	0.1550	55.90	-0.8500	22.98	0.6479	0.3084	0.2153	53.29	-0.8064
Flux-IR∗	22.59	0.6716	0.2717	0.1936	60.22	-0.9609	21.71	0.6176	0.2918	0.2137	58.22	-0.9313
FAPE-IR	28.02	0.8374	0.1527	0.1058	41.62	-0.7781	25.58	0.7417	0.2669	0.2054	35.00	-0.7267
FAPE-IR∗	28.68	0.8505	0.1347	0.0907	38.84	-0.7403	27.25	0.7908	0.1807	0.1282	41.57	-0.7694
PixRestore-S	28.96	0.8553	0.1067	0.0833	43.39	-0.8182	27.67	0.8016	0.1335	0.1046	49.73	-0.8105
PixRestore-B	30.00	0.8805	0.0895	0.0721	44.74	-0.8354	28.46	0.8218	0.1206	0.0949	49.54	-0.8200
PixRestore-L	30.79	0.8948	0.0787	0.0657	45.51	-0.8616	28.96	0.8346	0.1117	0.0891	50.45	-0.8515
PixRestore-XL	31.23	0.9025	0.0721	0.0621	46.34	-0.8712	29.07	0.8407	0.1090	0.0854	50.34	-0.8487

Figure S.4: Visual comparisons on synthetic dehaze, de-raindrop, deblur, and SR cases. Overall, PixRestore restores cleaner and more faithful results with better structural details and fewer artifacts.

Table S.6: Detailed quantitative comparison on Dehaze benchmarks. The best and second-best results are highlighted in red and blue italic, respectively. Methods marked with ∗ are retrained under the same training setting as ours.
Method	RESIDE-6K	UHD-Haze
	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	LPIPS↓	DISTS↓	MUSIQ↑	AFINE-NR↓	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	LPIPS↓	DISTS↓	MUSIQ↑	AFINE-NR↓
PromptIR	26.69	0.9572	0.0460	0.0418	51.24	-0.9422	15.98	0.8035	0.2391	0.1605	63.94	-0.9765
PromptIR∗	24.01	0.9417	0.0642	0.0553	51.58	-0.9362	18.49	0.8445	0.2054	0.1216	63.45	-1.0058
DiffUIR	24.66	0.9311	0.0708	0.0582	50.59	-0.9314	16.15	0.8001	0.2572	0.1768	62.57	-0.9683
UniRestore	23.63	0.9162	0.1171	0.0869	55.68	-0.9630	16.59	0.7776	0.3073	0.1849	62.14	-0.9155
DA-CLIP	28.66	0.9273	0.0559	0.0463	53.52	-0.9784	17.27	0.8230	0.2063	0.1307	65.88	-1.0698
DA-CLIP∗	28.15	0.9579	0.0431	0.0409	51.31	-0.9439	15.70	0.7979	0.2487	0.1746	63.98	-0.9540
FoundIR	16.52	0.8381	0.1665	0.1304	49.68	-0.8612	13.62	0.7421	0.3499	0.2533	59.75	-0.8267
FoundIR∗	25.07	0.9525	0.0523	0.0483	50.61	-0.9464	16.91	0.8282	0.2146	0.1441	64.37	-0.9976
FoundIR-v2	19.01	0.8101	0.1837	0.1318	57.83	-0.9396	19.11	0.7309	0.2018	0.1357	69.04	-1.0056
FoundIR-v2∗	18.57	0.7925	0.1997	0.1342	56.12	-0.9191	19.62	0.7365	0.1870	0.1222	68.08	-1.0543
Flux-IR	15.64	0.7796	0.2591	0.1639	65.46	-1.0185	13.83	0.7402	0.3361	0.2333	61.74	-0.8161
Flux-IR∗	17.27	0.8416	0.1578	0.1074	50.54	-0.8348	14.65	0.7706	0.3052	0.2083	60.48	-0.8251
FAPE-IR	31.36	0.9628	0.0378	0.0364	50.35	-0.9573	19.20	0.8386	0.1542	0.0937	66.12	-1.1555
FAPE-IR∗	28.90	0.9575	0.0411	0.0385	50.32	-0.9488	21.78	0.8537	0.1442	0.0905	65.45	-1.1361
PixRestore-S	28.41	0.9555	0.0473	0.0444	52.81	-0.9777	22.51	0.8729	0.1318	0.0855	66.98	-1.1836
PixRestore-B	29.87	0.9636	0.0390	0.0388	51.79	-0.9737	23.41	0.8820	0.1188	0.0760	67.26	-1.2451
PixRestore-L	30.63	0.9660	0.0365	0.0366	52.11	-0.9772	23.23	0.8836	0.1227	0.0771	66.81	-1.2381
PixRestore-XL	31.73	0.9677	0.0340	0.0355	51.83	-0.9741	23.14	0.8827	0.1223	0.0776	66.92	-1.2237

Table S.7: Detailed quantitative comparison on Denoise benchmarks. The best and second-best results are highlighted in red and blue italic, respectively. Methods marked with ∗ are retrained under the same training setting as ours.
Method	DIV2K (Gaussian)	PolyU
	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	LPIPS↓	DISTS↓	MUSIQ↑	AFINE-NR↓	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	LPIPS↓	DISTS↓	MUSIQ↑	AFINE-NR↓
PromptIR	34.57	0.9079	0.1411	0.1384	64.24	-0.9098	30.50	0.8978	0.3506	0.1825	30.88	-0.6068
PromptIR∗	33.91	0.8975	0.1463	0.1388	61.00	-0.8517	37.00	0.9780	0.0744	0.0742	32.70	-0.6156
DiffUIR	21.24	0.7540	0.3437	0.2523	55.21	-0.7013	31.98	0.9221	0.2769	0.1588	32.67	-0.6270
UniRestore	30.38	0.8728	0.1659	0.1420	64.25	-0.8868	33.11	0.9209	0.3012	0.1918	31.60	-0.5629
DA-CLIP	28.91	0.7532	0.2412	0.1764	57.33	-0.8155	25.79	0.8957	0.2506	0.1765	33.00	-0.6137
DA-CLIP∗	30.76	0.7704	0.2448	0.1570	58.12	-0.7929	37.19	0.9753	0.0477	0.0761	33.67	-0.5932
FoundIR	27.14	0.6061	0.4920	0.2574	45.98	-0.6097	37.77	0.9789	0.0668	0.0707	33.55	-0.6303
FoundIR∗	34.06	0.8992	0.1572	0.1469	62.82	-0.9074	38.25	0.9837	0.0529	0.1022	34.24	-0.6195
FoundIR-v2	25.43	0.6544	0.2658	0.1825	62.76	-0.9197	28.31	0.8418	0.2913	0.2066	52.61	-0.8119
FoundIR-v2∗	25.96	0.6584	0.2488	0.1837	62.60	-0.9080	30.39	0.8410	0.3290	0.1943	41.44	-0.6478
Flux-IR	21.33	0.4780	0.5758	0.2660	50.37	-0.7322	30.08	0.8903	0.2637	0.2073	43.26	-0.7832
Flux-IR∗	24.34	0.5837	0.4296	0.2386	49.22	-0.7338	29.26	0.8984	0.3281	0.1716	32.85	-0.6348
FAPE-IR	31.09	0.8540	0.1147	0.1013	60.49	-0.8739	34.89	0.9636	0.1329	0.1212	35.29	-0.6526
FAPE-IR∗	31.32	0.8572	0.1080	0.0978	60.52	-0.8830	37.11	0.9772	0.0401	0.0522	33.52	-0.6135
PixRestore-S	33.04	0.8923	0.0783	0.0863	63.62	-0.9410	36.71	0.9749	0.0465	0.0607	34.54	-0.6139
PixRestore-B	33.40	0.8968	0.0725	0.0777	63.84	-0.9591	35.84	0.9745	0.0402	0.0636	34.15	-0.6030
PixRestore-L	33.35	0.8962	0.0730	0.0768	64.12	-0.9671	35.91	0.9736	0.0385	0.0709	34.39	-0.6022
PixRestore-XL	33.46	0.8979	0.0729	0.0774	64.06	-0.9648	36.50	0.9745	0.0341	0.0753	33.95	-0.5994

Table S.8: Detailed quantitative comparison on De-rainstreak benchmarks. The best and second-best results are highlighted in red and blue italic, respectively. Methods marked with ∗ are retrained under the same training setting as ours.
Method	RainDS-real	RealRain-1K
	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	LPIPS↓	DISTS↓	MUSIQ↑	AFINE-NR↓	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	LPIPS↓	DISTS↓	MUSIQ↑	AFINE-NR↓
PromptIR	25.15	0.7483	0.2047	0.1392	60.54	-0.8602	23.85	0.7531	0.5011	0.3370	42.82	-0.6698
PromptIR∗	26.62	0.7933	0.1977	0.1254	61.79	-0.8963	30.23	0.8845	0.3341	0.2554	36.49	-0.5757
DiffUIR	26.11	0.7888	0.1885	0.1168	63.88	-0.9157	22.91	0.7348	0.5084	0.3329	45.21	-0.7440
UniRestore	23.47	0.7143	0.3220	0.1838	65.71	-0.8797	21.52	0.7439	0.5226	0.3540	45.97	-0.7192
DA-CLIP	24.66	0.7467	0.1834	0.1213	63.20	-0.9041	24.35	0.7654	0.4861	0.3139	46.39	-0.7354
DA-CLIP∗	25.72	0.7516	0.1432	0.0859	63.31	-0.9261	37.50	0.9695	0.0665	0.0910	32.27	-0.6034
FoundIR	26.78	0.7890	0.1630	0.1075	63.26	-0.9045	26.97	0.8635	0.3278	0.2523	39.15	-0.6486
FoundIR∗	27.27	0.8120	0.1993	0.1191	67.29	-0.9812	37.44	0.9655	0.1193	0.1216	35.47	-0.6340
FoundIR-v2	23.65	0.6078	0.1956	0.1111	63.58	-0.9722	22.69	0.7226	0.5362	0.3326	48.23	-0.7375
FoundIR-v2∗	23.74	0.6043	0.1906	0.1088	64.82	-1.0001	31.96	0.9153	0.1641	0.1556	36.17	-0.6297
Flux-IR	22.34	0.6665	0.2695	0.1769	64.41	-0.9676	19.63	0.5801	0.6554	0.3952	50.43	-0.7374
Flux-IR∗	21.66	0.6410	0.2912	0.1803	62.00	-0.9306	20.37	0.6278	0.6110	0.3840	45.93	-0.6811
FAPE-IR	26.53	0.7636	0.1407	0.0835	62.03	-0.9748	28.50	0.8817	0.3232	0.2523	42.51	-0.7340
FAPE-IR∗	26.67	0.7642	0.1270	0.0746	61.14	-0.9816	37.14	0.9748	0.0535	0.0778	31.15	-0.6092
PixRestore-S	27.06	0.7950	0.1180	0.0773	66.07	-1.0433	37.50	0.9744	0.0625	0.1038	32.07	-0.6152
PixRestore-B	27.41	0.8038	0.1078	0.0693	65.65	-1.0461	38.28	0.9758	0.0456	0.0941	32.27	-0.6153
PixRestore-L	27.54	0.8065	0.0990	0.0664	65.60	-1.0532	38.51	0.9760	0.0404	0.0933	32.65	-0.6170
PixRestore-XL	27.58	0.8079	0.1000	0.0650	65.18	-1.0463	38.60	0.9753	0.0401	0.1028	32.81	-0.6160

Table S.9: Detailed quantitative comparison on De-raindrop benchmarks. The best and second-best results are highlighted in red and blue italic, respectively. Methods marked with ∗ are retrained under the same training setting as ours.
Method	RainDS-real	UAV-Rain1k
	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	LPIPS↓	DISTS↓	MUSIQ↑	AFINE-NR↓	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	LPIPS↓	DISTS↓	MUSIQ↑	AFINE-NR↓
PromptIR	20.70	0.7069	0.2773	0.1560	55.31	-0.8088	16.92	0.6855	0.4007	0.2211	66.57	-0.8022
PromptIR∗	24.53	0.7529	0.2637	0.1347	59.14	-0.8560	22.84	0.8482	0.1835	0.1305	68.19	-0.8475
DiffUIR	20.56	0.6996	0.3119	0.1678	56.28	-0.8034	17.13	0.7011	0.3790	0.2132	66.67	-0.7942
UniRestore	20.25	0.6906	0.3482	0.1888	58.44	-0.8111	16.75	0.5847	0.4746	0.2683	65.96	-0.7044
DA-CLIP	22.99	0.7018	0.1763	0.0977	61.66	-0.8832	17.26	0.6958	0.3667	0.2047	67.27	-0.8080
DA-CLIP∗	24.14	0.7077	0.1570	0.0905	60.92	-0.8855	23.01	0.8755	0.1079	0.0799	69.43	-0.9228
FoundIR	20.67	0.7171	0.3145	0.1749	59.34	-0.8041	17.07	0.6773	0.4026	0.2285	67.57	-0.7823
FoundIR∗	25.41	0.7708	0.2487	0.1319	65.20	-0.9316	23.40	0.8729	0.1397	0.0973	69.58	-0.9111
FoundIR-v2	20.22	0.5725	0.3079	0.1566	59.84	-0.8704	19.03	0.5194	0.2505	0.1560	69.47	-0.8975
FoundIR-v2∗	21.72	0.5641	0.2435	0.1255	64.75	-0.9876	19.91	0.5280	0.2165	0.1332	69.30	-0.9315
Flux-IR	21.01	0.6540	0.2335	0.1221	63.08	-1.0046	16.87	0.6377	0.4113	0.2328	66.83	-0.8472
Flux-IR∗	18.85	0.5672	0.3313	0.1964	68.66	-1.1729	16.76	0.5897	0.3218	0.2186	72.29	-1.0842
FAPE-IR	24.71	0.7255	0.1841	0.0930	59.93	-0.9452	18.06	0.6389	0.2598	0.1702	65.88	-0.8070
FAPE-IR∗	25.27	0.7263	0.1502	0.0790	58.40	-0.9358	22.49	0.7183	0.1607	0.1145	68.35	-0.9177
PixRestore-S	25.42	0.7394	0.1326	0.0761	61.54	-0.9911	23.54	0.8117	0.1190	0.1002	70.15	-0.9816
PixRestore-B	25.76	0.7461	0.1245	0.0720	61.41	-0.9928	24.65	0.8490	0.0928	0.0806	70.35	-1.0176
PixRestore-L	25.89	0.7504	0.1195	0.0686	61.30	-0.9963	25.16	0.8631	0.0810	0.0719	70.63	-1.0379
PixRestore-XL	26.01	0.7567	0.1171	0.0677	61.36	-0.9939	25.69	0.8774	0.0715	0.0655	70.55	-1.0392

Table S.10: Detailed quantitative comparison on Low-light Enhancement benchmarks. The best and second-best results are highlighted in red and blue italic, respectively. Methods marked with ∗ are retrained under the same training setting as ours.
Method	UHD-LL	LOL
	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	LPIPS↓	DISTS↓	MUSIQ↑	AFINE-NR↓	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	LPIPS↓	DISTS↓	MUSIQ↑	AFINE-NR↓
PromptIR	11.82	0.5660	0.5088	0.3116	35.06	-0.6577	9.17	0.3902	0.5732	0.4415	38.49	-0.7859
PromptIR∗	25.33	0.8846	0.2303	0.1757	45.85	-0.6794	10.50	0.4916	0.4824	0.3268	44.53	-0.8607
DiffUIR	17.67	0.5064	0.6057	0.3320	37.19	-0.4779	25.76	0.9099	0.1581	0.1264	68.79	-0.9938
UniRestore	12.41	0.6102	0.4665	0.2903	36.98	-0.6417	9.48	0.4274	0.5347	0.3426	43.85	-0.7569
DA-CLIP	20.51	0.7436	0.3675	0.2201	48.51	-0.6172	23.99	0.8395	0.1263	0.1043	74.18	-1.0050
DA-CLIP∗	16.64	0.7776	0.2632	0.2016	47.98	-0.7589	19.38	0.8594	0.1626	0.1212	66.85	-0.9450
FoundIR	14.22	0.6984	0.3548	0.2386	42.38	-0.7037	16.47	0.7963	0.2519	0.1877	65.83	-1.0337
FoundIR∗	24.28	0.8885	0.2113	0.1687	51.48	-0.8552	22.40	0.9168	0.1471	0.1191	71.35	-1.0455
FoundIR-v2	16.40	0.7120	0.3643	0.2381	60.71	-0.9313	17.95	0.7776	0.2620	0.1674	67.72	-1.0373
FoundIR-v2∗	17.72	0.7272	0.3541	0.2273	55.85	-0.8751	16.36	0.7341	0.2834	0.1929	62.16	-0.9620
Flux-IR	15.35	0.5519	0.5455	0.2965	38.47	-0.5140	22.36	0.8525	0.1658	0.1032	72.10	-1.1667
Flux-IR∗	14.33	0.6028	0.4866	0.2852	37.25	-0.5275	22.47	0.8369	0.1906	0.1167	70.91	-1.2086
FAPE-IR	12.57	0.6315	0.3899	0.2669	39.07	-0.7489	26.34	0.8942	0.1261	0.1006	66.74	-1.0265
FAPE-IR∗	26.55	0.8980	0.1445	0.1096	51.54	-0.8156	25.53	0.9049	0.1296	0.1040	65.50	-1.0535
PixRestore-S	26.28	0.8889	0.1420	0.1060	53.31	-0.8461	24.96	0.8899	0.1300	0.0957	66.07	-1.0386
PixRestore-B	26.36	0.8886	0.1384	0.1010	53.45	-0.8534	25.08	0.8983	0.1212	0.0899	65.88	-1.0329
PixRestore-L	26.89	0.8928	0.1326	0.0979	54.53	-0.8613	25.30	0.8960	0.1273	0.0932	64.39	-1.0055
PixRestore-XL	26.37	0.8934	0.1324	0.0982	54.62	-0.8686	26.20	0.8955	0.1286	0.0949	63.64	-1.0015

Table S.11: Detailed quantitative comparison on Desnow benchmarks. The best and second-best results are highlighted in red and blue italic, respectively. Methods marked with ∗ are retrained under the same training setting as ours.
Method	WeatherBench
	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	LPIPS↓	DISTS↓	MUSIQ↑	AFINE-NR↓
PromptIR	22.26	0.7939	0.2452	0.1672	45.60	-0.6023
PromptIR∗	29.32	0.8532	0.1818	0.1402	46.30	-0.6161
DiffUIR	22.95	0.7948	0.2392	0.1667	48.10	-0.6185
UniRestore	22.33	0.7863	0.2464	0.1771	49.39	-0.6451
DA-CLIP	23.60	0.7971	0.2221	0.1558	46.48	-0.6127
DA-CLIP∗	28.31	0.8282	0.1360	0.1021	48.82	-0.6424
FoundIR	23.03	0.7999	0.2406	0.1630	45.77	-0.6029
FoundIR∗	29.82	0.8678	0.1524	0.1224	47.98	-0.6908
FoundIR-v2	24.72	0.7347	0.2513	0.1671	59.98	-0.8032
FoundIR-v2∗	26.28	0.7690	0.1824	0.1311	54.44	-0.7440
Flux-IR	21.74	0.7231	0.3434	0.2204	56.08	-0.6879
Flux-IR∗	21.79	0.6831	0.3023	0.1959	57.03	-0.7504
FAPE-IR	26.02	0.8191	0.1759	0.1189	46.29	-0.6280
FAPE-IR∗	30.19	0.8676	0.1136	0.0849	47.84	-0.6595
PixRestore-S	31.26	0.8859	0.0853	0.0669	49.86	-0.6829
PixRestore-B	31.93	0.8959	0.0688	0.0584	50.10	-0.6825
PixRestore-L	32.35	0.9039	0.0656	0.0569	50.36	-0.6859
PixRestore-XL	32.57	0.9077	0.0623	0.0553	50.25	-0.6864

Table S.12: Detailed quantitative comparison on Super-resolution benchmarks. The best and second-best results are highlighted in red and blue italic, respectively. Methods marked with ∗ are retrained under the same training setting as ours.
Method	RealSR	ScreenSR
	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	LPIPS↓	DISTS↓	MUSIQ↑	AFINE-NR↓	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	LPIPS↓	DISTS↓	MUSIQ↑	AFINE-NR↓
PromptIR	23.47	0.7380	0.4647	0.2670	25.95	-0.4435	25.05	0.7365	0.4140	0.2351	42.95	-0.7419
PromptIR∗	28.65	0.8051	0.3045	0.2382	45.99	-0.6821	26.54	0.7884	0.2633	0.2033	58.41	-0.8518
DiffUIR	27.40	0.7734	0.3744	0.2417	35.15	-0.4999	25.68	0.7431	0.3989	0.2338	48.34	-0.7720
UniRestore	24.84	0.7683	0.3358	0.2305	39.91	-0.5857	24.76	0.7403	0.3737	0.2263	53.30	-0.8091
DA-CLIP	24.21	0.7258	0.3910	0.2469	30.60	-0.4804	23.24	0.6321	0.3635	0.2265	47.89	-0.7682
DA-CLIP∗	27.72	0.7777	0.2213	0.1821	50.30	-0.7260	25.26	0.7393	0.2469	0.1705	64.42	-0.9523
FoundIR	26.13	0.7432	0.4474	0.2619	26.74	-0.4396	25.58	0.7365	0.4086	0.2365	42.63	-0.7437
FoundIR∗	28.74	0.8000	0.3354	0.2454	40.54	-0.6443	26.56	0.7903	0.2412	0.2048	61.52	-0.9192
FoundIR-v2	24.61	0.6682	0.3303	0.2248	68.03	-1.0134	23.09	0.6640	0.2616	0.1700	65.93	-0.9700
FoundIR-v2∗	24.83	0.6649	0.3206	0.2179	64.84	-0.9785	22.74	0.6411	0.1781	0.1185	72.46	-1.0921
Flux-IR	23.42	0.6599	0.3548	0.2465	69.74	-1.0971	21.56	0.6483	0.2258	0.1664	72.17	-1.2027
Flux-IR∗	22.41	0.5927	0.3668	0.2559	68.62	-1.0386	19.34	0.5778	0.3471	0.2479	71.41	-1.1189
FAPE-IR	27.92	0.7969	0.2325	0.1877	50.67	-0.8189	25.17	0.7495	0.3307	0.2077	52.83	-0.8243
FAPE-IR∗	29.06	0.8139	0.1843	0.1468	50.37	-0.8224	25.90	0.7546	0.2061	0.1398	61.45	-0.8721
PixRestore-S	28.40	0.7882	0.1776	0.1458	56.20	-0.8501	25.62	0.7578	0.1696	0.1258	66.40	-0.9682
PixRestore-B	28.43	0.7904	0.1646	0.1367	56.15	-0.8590	25.71	0.7642	0.1556	0.1211	67.20	-0.9940
PixRestore-L	28.55	0.7933	0.1590	0.1317	57.26	-0.8880	25.46	0.7508	0.1483	0.1227	68.72	-0.9846
PixRestore-XL	28.59	0.7956	0.1595	0.1332	56.37	-0.8922	25.17	0.7399	0.1504	0.1353	68.07	-0.9560

Why it matters

For anyone building photo restoration, surveillance footage cleanup, or camera preprocessing pipelines that face many kinds of image damage, this shows high-quality unified restoration is possible without a heavy generative backbone. The paper also flags that common no-reference quality metrics fail to reliably measure whether degradation was actually removed, proposing a VLM-based DR-Score as a more human-aligned alternative for future evaluation.

Terms in this paper

VAE (variational autoencoder) · a neural network that compresses an image into a smaller representation and back; here identified as a source of lost fine detail
DiT (Diffusion Transformer) · a diffusion model, which generates images by gradually removing noise, built using a transformer architecture
DINO / DINOv2 · a self-supervised vision model that learns image structure and meaning without labeled data
patchification · splitting an image into small square patches to use as input tokens for a transformer
DR-Score · a new evaluation metric that asks a vision-language model to judge whether a degradation was actually removed

Original abstract (English)

Unified image restoration (UIR) aims to recover high-quality (HQ) content from low-quality (LQ) images with different degradations using a single model. Most recent methods adapt large pretrained text-to-image (T2I) latent diffusion models for their strong capacity and generative priors. However, the variational autoencoder (VAE) in latent T2I models may discard restoration-sensitive details, while the open-ended synthesis prior can introduce content-inconsistent artifacts. We present PixRestore, a VAE-free pixel-space Diffusion Transformer (DiT) for UIR, where the diffusion backbone is trained entirely from scratch, without relying on T2I pretraining. PixRestore performs flow matching directly on patchified pixels, preserving fine-grained details while keeping the token sequence tractable. To adapt to different degradations, PixRestore learns to predict the reliability of layer features using LQ--HQ DINO feature similarity. Features from more reliable layers are fused as dense conditioning, while less reliable layers receive stronger HQ-feature supervision to encourage degradation removal. We train PixRestore on a large-scale corpus of diverse scenes and degradations, and further finetune it into a one-step generator using DINO-based adversarial objectives for efficient inference. Experiments on public benchmarks and real-world test sets show that, with only about 50M parameters and single-step inference, PixRestore achieves the best overall fidelity, perceptual quality, and robustness to degradations among competing UIR models while being far more efficient. Larger PixRestore variants can further boost performance, demonstrating the scalability of our pixel-space design. Code and the curated benchmark can be found at https://github.com/csslc/PixRestore.

Authors · Lingchen Sun

Read on arXiv

Latest papers

All papers →

Latest from METAL MEDIA

NCT 127 drop BLINGY, their first full album in two years

Figures: Lingchen Sun et al., arXiv:2608.16793, CC BY 4.0