Blind Image Restoration via Fast Diffusion Inversion

Image Restoration (IR) methods based on a pre-trained diffusion model have demonstrated state-of-the-art performance. However, they have two fundamental limitations: 1) they often assume that the degradation operator is completely known and 2) they alter the diffusion sampling process, which may result in restored images that do not lie onto the data manifold. To address these issues, we propose Blind Image Restoration via fast Diffusion inversion (BIRD) a blind IR method that jointly optimizes for the degradation model parameters and the restored image. To ensure that the restored images lie onto the data manifold, we propose a novel sampling technique on a pre-trained diffusion model. A key idea in our method is not to modify the reverse sampling, i.e, not to alter all the intermediate latents, once an initial noise is sampled. This is ultimately equivalent to casting the IR task as an optimization problem in the space of the input noise. Moreover, to mitigate the computational cost associated with inverting a fully unrolled diffusion model, we leverage the inherent capability of these models to skip ahead in the forward diffusion process using large time steps. We experimentally validate BIRD on several image restoration tasks and show that it achieves state of the art performance on all of them. Our code is available at https://github.com/hamadichihaoui/BIRD.

Paper

References (29)

Scroll for more · 17 remaining

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer cmXb4/10 · confidence 5/52024-07-10

Summary

The paper introduces a blind image restoration method based on DDIM, which iteratively optimizes the initial noises and the degradation model parameters through the restoration loss of reconstructing the degraded image. As a result, the restored image remains on the data manifold of the pretrained diffusion model. The experiments on three image restoration tasks demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed method.

Strengths

1. The method do not alter the reverse sampling, and could generate images that lie on the data manifold of diffusion model at every iteration. 2. The method is adaptable to multiple image restoration tasks, such as deblurring, super-resolution, and JPEG de-artifacting, without requiring model retraining or fine-tuning.

Weaknesses

1. The inversion of generative models has been extensively used in both GAN and diffusion models. This work does not sufficiently distinguish itself from existing methods. 2. The optimizable degradation model has been presented in the paper of GDP[1], and the iterative optimization of the degradation model and the restored image also has been adopted in the paper of TAO[2]. The authors have not adequately addressed how their method differs from these existing approaches. 3. The paper claims that the method is computationally efficient, yet the timing results presented in Table 2 do not support this claim. In addition, despite the authors' assertion that their method achieves state-of-the-art results, the performance metrics in Table 4 do not substantiate this claim. [1] Fei B, Lyu Z, Pan L, et al. Generative diffusion prior for unified image restoration and enhancement[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2023: 9935-9946. [2] Gou Y, Zhao H, Li B, et al. Test-Time Degradation Adaptation for Open-Set Image Restoration[C]//Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning.

Questions

Please address the concerns in the above Weaknesses.

Rating

4

Confidence

5

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

Please see the above Weaknesses.

Reviewer cmXb2024-08-14

Official Comment by Reviewer cmXb

I appreciate the authors' efforts in the rebuttal, and keep my original score since I reserve my opinion on the first two weaknesses.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-14

First, we thank the reviewer for their response. The reviewer reserves their opinion on the first two points without providing further justification. Regarding the first point (distinction with inversion-based IR methods), we stated that BIRD is the first IR method based on diffusion inversion. We would be grateful if the reviewer could point out any work that applies diffusion inversion for IR. Additionally, we mentioned that a GAN-style inversion approach will not work for diffusion, as in contrast to GANs, one clear difference is that diffusion is much more computationally demanding. Regarding the second point (differences with GDP [1] and TAO [2]), we noted that a key difference is that GDP [1] is a sampling method (it alters the reverse sampling of diffusion by adding a projection-based step to ensure consistency), whereas BIRD is an optimization-based method (it does not alter the reverse sampling). For TAO, a significant difference is that TAO is an open-set method, while BIRD is zero-shot. Figure 1 in TAO [2] illustrates this clearly.

Reviewer ebAr4/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-11

Summary

The authors propose a novel approach to solving image restoration problems using diffusion models, termed BIRD. Unlike previous approaches, BIRD alternates between optimizing a parameterized forward operator and the initial latent variable of a DDIM to address various IR problems in a blind manner (i.e., with an unknown forward operator). This iterative process involves mapping the current latent variable to its outcome in the DDIM via the DDIMReverse algorithm and alternately taking a gradient step of the measurement error with respect to the current latent variable and the forward operator's parameters.

Strengths

This paper presents an original approach by leveraging pretrained diffusion models to address blind inverse problems in image restoration. The simplicity and novelty of the method lie in its creative combination of well-known techniques, making it a noteworthy contribution to the field. The quality of the theoretical analysis, particularly in sections 3.2 - 3.2.2, is commendable as it is grounded in related work, providing a solid foundation for the proposed method. The results presented demonstrate the method's potential and effectiveness in addressing the stated problems. The clarity of the paper is generally good, with the authors providing a comprehensive introduction and detailed descriptions of the algorithms. The inclusion of specific equations and theoretical justifications helps in understanding the underlying principles of the method. The paper's structure and flow, from the introduction to the results, are logically organized, aiding in the reader's comprehension. In terms of significance, the method shows considerable promise for application in image restoration, particularly for more complex and challenging inverse problems. The differentiation from non-blind methods is an important aspect, and the potential for this method to address a wider range of problems enhances its relevance and impact in the field.

Weaknesses

The paper has several areas that require improvement. The theoretical analysis in section 3.1 is noted to need thorough revision, suggesting that some foundational aspects of the method may not be as robust as they could be. Additionally, much of the theoretical content is heavily dependent on related work, which might limit the perceived novelty of the contribution. Specific areas needing attention include: - The phrase "better neural network architecture choices" on lines 21-22 should be made more specific to avoid ambiguity. - Equations 1, 3, 4, 6, 8: \DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min} - Line 129: If a certain coefficient $\rho$ is equivalent to Eq. 3, it should be easily expressible in terms of $\lambda$. - Line 130: $g_*$ is not defined. - Lines 132-134: The wording and notation need clarification (e.g., $\| z \|^2 = N_x \times M_x$, usually $\| z \|^2$ is a scalar, $N_x \times M_x$ is a tuple) - The derivation of Eq. 8 seems out of place and might be better suited for section 3.2.3. The clarity of the introduction could be improved as it currently reads too much like related work. The work of Chung et al. [2, 3] should be discussed separately in the related work section. Additionally, the statement about GAN inversion methods on lines 104-105 should consider other methods that optimize intermediate latent variables (e.g., https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.03208, https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.07364). Algorithm 1 is confusing with its indices, and it is unclear whether $x_T$ or $x_0$ is the initial latent variable. Similarly, Algorithm 2 would benefit from including requirements similar to those in Algorithm 1 to enhance clarity. Finally, while the results are significant, the paper would benefit from highlighting the unique theoretical contributions more clearly. The differentiation from non-blind methods, especially in solving more general or harder inverse problems, should be emphasized to better showcase the method's potential and impact. In summary, while the paper presents a novel and promising approach to image restoration using pretrained diffusion models, it would benefit from addressing the theoretical and clarity issues mentioned above. Strengthening these aspects will enhance the overall quality and impact of the work.

Questions

How does the method work for general inverse problems? Does Algorithm 1 actually require the measurements to be in image space?

Rating

4

Confidence

4

Soundness

2

Presentation

2

Contribution

2

Limitations

- The method is presented as superior to non-blind methods [2, 3], but these methods tackle more general inverse problems that do not require measurements in image space (e.g. sparse-view CT or phase retrieval). This difference should be emphasized. - It would be beneficial to know which problems cause the method to fail, at least in supplementary materials.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-08

We are sorry, we did not manage to include this part during our initial version of rebuttal. ### Q1. The theoretical analysis in Section 3.1 needs revision Thanks for pointing this out. We will update Section 3.1 and take the comments of the reviewer about "specific areas needing attention" into account, including fixing the notation issues. Here, we provide a brief derivation that leads to the same final result and comment on the theory of BIRD. (We keep the same notation as in the paper.) We begin with Eq. (3): $$ \hat{x} = \arg\min_{x \in \mathbb{R}^{N_x \times M_x}} \| y - H(x) \|^2 + \lambda R(x) $$ $R$ is a prior term, and $\lambda > 0$ trades off the likelihood and the prior. We define $\Omega \subset [0, 255]^{N_x \times M_x}$ as the domain of "realistic" images (i.e., the support of $p(x)$) and propose employing a formulation that implicitly assumes a uniform prior $p_U$ on $\Omega$. That is, $R(x) = - \log(p_U(x)) = -\log(\text{const} \cdot 1_\Omega(x))$, where $1_\Omega(x)$ is 1 if $x$ is in the support $\Omega$ and 0 otherwise. This results in the following formulation: $$ \hat{x} = \arg\min_{x \in \Omega} \| y - H(x) \|^2 $$ In theory, this choice ensures two key aspects: 1. *Guarantees realism:* By definition, we are restricting the search to $\Omega$. This is particularly illustrated in Figure 4 of our rebuttal, where BIRD generates more realistic results even in the presence of an error in the degradation model. 2. *Favors higher fidelity:* In other plug-and-play methods that use $R(x) = -\log(p(x))$, an image with higher $p(x)$ but lower fidelity (data term) can be favored over an image with a higher fidelity but a lower $p(x)$ (e.g., in the tail of the distribution). In contrast, in our case, the image with higher fidelity is always favored. This is particularly illustrated in Figure 2 of our rebuttal, where BIRD generates results with higher fidelity even under severe degradation. Returning to the derivation, to ensure that $x \in \Omega$, we parameterize $x$ via the initial noise of a pre-trained diffusion model $g$: $$ \hat{x} = \arg\min_{z \sim \mathcal{N}(0, I)} \| y - H(g(z)) \|^2 $$ Given that most of the density of a high-dimensional normal random variable is around $\|z\|^2 = N_x M_x$ [12, 19], we can derive Eq. (8) (shown in the paper). We will be happy to address any further concerns the reviewer may have. ### Q9. Problems causing the method to fail For the non-blind case, as suggested by the reviewer, we experimented with the task of phase retrieval and found that there were occasional convergence issues. A similar problem was reported in [2]. We will mention it in the limitations section.

Reviewer ebAr2024-08-09

I appreciate the authors detailed responses to my and the other reviewers' comments. The planned revisions and additional clarifications enhance the paper's robustness and clarity. I believe these changes will improve the paper's quality and impact. > Yes, BIRD can handle IR tasks where the measurements are not in image space. Our method only requires a differentiable degradation operator (or some differentiable approximation of it). BIRD can handle the non-differentiable JPEG-deartifacting. In Figure 1, we show some visual results of the sparse-view CT. In Figure 1, in the case of sparse-view CT, the term "degraded" might be misleading. The measurements in this scenario are not in image space; they should be sinograms instead. Are you perhaps referring to baseline reconstructions derived from these measurements as "degraded"? If so, this interpretation differs from the conventional understanding of degradation used in inpainting tasks, where the degradation typically occurs within the image space itself. Also missing here is the extent to which the "sparse view" was applied. My initial concern regarding the reliance on existing theoretical content, which could diminish the perceived novelty of the contribution, remains unaddressed. While I appreciate the revisions made to Section 3.1, the emphasis on problem formulation appears to be somewhat minor and does not directly contribute to the core approach discussed in Section 3.2.3. A more focused theoretical analysis explaining the significance and utility of equations (19), (21), and (22) would be far more beneficial and would strengthen the overall argument of the paper.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-12

Sorry for the delay. We would like to thank the reviewer for the fruitful discussion and the valuable comments that have helped improve our paper. Please find our detailed response below. ### Q10. Sparse-View CT in Figure 1 Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that the term "degraded" may not be the most accurate description. For the sparse-view CT, we adopted the same setting as [3] and used their official implementation available on GitHub (specifically, the "run\_CT\_recon.py" file) to generate the measurements, which are not in the image space. The sparsity level is set to 6. For an input tensor of size [1, 1, 256, 256], the sinogram has a size of [1, 1, 363, 30]. In Figure 1, we show the baseline reconstructions derived from these measurements (similar to Figure 4 in [3]). ### Q11. Section 3.2.3, Prior Work, Theoretical Analysis, Eq (19), Eq (21), Eq (22) [Part 1] Here, we provide a more theoretical analysis of the approach discussed in Section 3.2.3 and comment on Eq (19), Eq (21), and Eq (22). First, we want to note that the derivation in Section 3.2.3 is directly connected to our problem formulation as we aim to solve Eq (8): $$ \hat{x} = \arg\min_{z: \|z\|^2 = N_x M_x} \| y - H(g(z)) \|^2 $$ One challenge in solving Eq (8) is that an iterative approach is computationally expensive, as a single evaluation of $g(z)$ may take minutes. To address this, we introduce a family of generative processes $\text{DDIMReverse}(., \delta t) = g^{\delta t}$, parameterized by $\delta t \geq 1$. These processes are defined *not on all latent variables* $x_{1:T}$, but on a subset \{$x_0, x_{\delta t}, x_{2 \delta t}, \ldots, x_{T-2 \delta t}, x_{T-\delta t}, x_T$ \} of length $K$. The scalar $\delta t$ defines the jump in the generative process sampling. We can show that, by carefully factorizing both the diffusion forward process and the corresponding generative process and choosing the appropriate marginals, for all $\delta t$, $g^{\delta t}$ constitutes a valid generative model from $p(x)$. Here is a brief derivation: We consider the following factorization of the diffusion forward process: $$ q_{\delta t}(x_{1:T} | x_0) = q_{\delta t}(x_T| x_0) \prod_{i=1}^{K} q_{\delta t}(x_{(i -1) \delta t} | x_{i \delta t}, x_0) \prod_{t \notin \\{ 0, {\delta t}, {2 \delta t}, \ldots, {T-2 \delta t}, {T-\delta t}, T \\} } q_{\delta t}(x_t | x_0) $$ where $ q_{\delta t}(x_t | x_0) = \mathcal{N} \left( \sqrt{\bar{\alpha_t}} x_0, (1 - \bar{\alpha_t}) I \right) $ and $ q_{\delta t}(x_{(i -1) \delta t} | x_{i \delta t}, x_0) = \mathcal{N} \left( \sqrt{\bar{\alpha_{(i -1) \delta t}}} x_0 + \sqrt{1 - \bar{\alpha_{(i -1) \delta t}} - \sigma_{i \delta t}^2} \frac{x_{i \delta t} - \sqrt{\bar{\alpha_{i \delta t} }} x_0}{\sqrt{1 - \bar{\alpha_{i \delta t} }}}, \sigma_{i \delta t} ^2 I \right) $ Specifically, $q_{\delta t}(x_{(i -1) \delta t} | x_{i \delta t}, x_0) $ is defined such that $q_{\delta t}(x_{i \delta t} | x_0) = \mathcal{N} \left( \sqrt{\bar{\alpha_{i \delta t}}} x_0, (1 - \bar{\alpha_{i \delta t}}) I \right)$ for all $i \in [1, K]$. (Here, all the marginals $q_{\delta t}(x_t | x_0)$ for $t \in [1, T]$ match those in the original diffusion formulation.) We then define the corresponding generative process $p_{\theta, \delta t}$: $$ p_{\theta, \delta t}(x_{1:T} | x_0) = p_{\theta, \delta t}(x_T) \prod_{i=1}^{K} p_{\theta, \delta t}(x_{(i -1) \delta t} | x_{i \delta t}) \prod_{t \notin \\{ 0, {\delta t}, {2 \delta t}, \ldots, {T-2 \delta t}, {T-\delta t}, T \\}} p_{\theta, \delta t}(x_0 | x_t) $$ (Only the first part of the factorization is used to produce samples.) We define $ p_{\theta, \delta t}(x_0 | x_t) = \mathcal{N} \left( f_{\theta}^{(t)}(x_t), \sigma_t^2 I \right) $ and $ p_{\theta, \delta t}(x_{(i -1) \delta t} | x_{i \delta t}) = q_{\delta t}(x_{(i -1) \delta t} | x_{i \delta t}, f_{\theta}^{(i \delta t)}(x_{(i -1) \delta t})) $ where $ f_{\theta}^{(t)}(x_t) = \frac{x_t - \sqrt{1 - \bar{\alpha_t}} \cdot \epsilon_\theta^{(t)}(x_t)}{\sqrt{\bar{\alpha_t}}} $ We optimize $\theta$ using the variational inference objective: $$ J_{\delta t}(\epsilon_\theta) = \mathbb{E_{x_{0:T} \sim q_{\delta t} (x_{0:T})}} \left[ \log q_{\delta t} (x_{1:T} | x_0) - \log p_{\theta, \delta t} (x_{0:T}) \right] $$ $$ = \mathbb{E_{x_{0:T} \sim q_{\delta t} (x_{0:T})}} \left[ \sum_{i=1}^{K} D_{KL} \left(q_{\delta t} (x_{(i -1) \delta t} | x_{i \delta t}, x_0) \| \| p_{\theta, \delta t} (x_{(i -1) \delta t} | x_{i \delta t}) \right) + \sum_{t \notin \\{ 0, {\delta t}, {2 \delta t}, \ldots, {T-2 \delta t}, {T-\delta t}, T \\}} D_{KL} \left(q_{\delta t} (x_t | x_0) \|\| p_{\theta, \delta t} (x_0 | x_t) \right) \right] $$ where each KL divergence is between two Gaussians where only the mean depends on $\theta$.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-12

### Q11. Section 3.2.3, Prior Work, Theoretical Analysis, Eq (19), Eq (21), Eq (22) [Part 2] By substituting all the terms with their values: $$ J(\epsilon_\theta) \equiv \mathbb{E_{x_{0:T} \sim q_{\delta t} (x_{0:T})}} \left[ \sum_{i=1}^{K} \frac{\| x_0 - f_{\theta}^{(i \delta t)}(x_{i \delta t}) \|^2}{2 \sigma_{i \delta t}^2} + \sum_{t \notin [ 0, {\delta t}, {2 \delta t}, \ldots, {T-2 \delta t}, {T-\delta t}, T ]} \frac{\| x_0 - f_{\theta}^{(t)}(x_{t})\|^2}{2 \sigma_t^2} \right] $$ $$ \equiv \mathbb{E_{x_{0:T} \sim q_{\delta t} (x_{0:T})}} \sum_{t=1}^{T} \frac{\| x_0 - f_{\theta}^{(t)}(x_{t})\|^2}{2 \sigma_t^2} \equiv \mathbb{E_{x_0 \sim q(x), \epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(0, I), x_t = \sqrt{\bar{\alpha_t}} x_0 + \sqrt{1 - \bar{\alpha_t}} \epsilon}} \sum_{t=1}^{T} \frac{\| \frac{x_t - \sqrt{1 - \bar{\alpha_t}} \epsilon}{ \sqrt{\bar{\alpha_t}}} - \frac{x_t - \sqrt{1 - \bar{\alpha_t}} \cdot \epsilon_\theta^{(t)}(x_t)}{\sqrt{\bar{\alpha_t}}})\|^2}{2 \sigma_t^2} $$ $$ J(\epsilon_\theta) \equiv \mathbb{E_{t \sim \mathcal{U}(0, 1); x_0 \sim q(x); \epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(0, I)}} \left[ \| \epsilon - \epsilon_{\theta} (\sqrt{\bar{\alpha_t}} x_0 + \sqrt{1 - \bar{\alpha_t}} \epsilon, t) \|^2 \right] $$ The objective $J_{\delta t}(\epsilon_\theta)$ matches the original training objective of the vanilla diffusion model (defined over all time steps $[1, T]$). This implies that: 1) All the generative processes $g^{\delta t}$ are equivalent and can be used to sample from $p(x)$. 2) There is no need for retraining to sample from $g^{\delta t}$, as the training objective for the generative process involving only a subset of the latent variables is the same as the one corresponding to the vanilla diffusion model (which involves all the latent variables). Based on these results, we can rewrite the minimization in eq (8) as follows: $$ \hat{x} = \arg\min_{z: \|z\|^2 = N_x M_x} \| y - H(g^{\delta t \gg 1}(z)) \|^2 $$ This leads to a more efficient optimization due to the much faster evaluation of $g^{\delta t \gg 1}(z)$ (as the length of the sampling trajectory is much shorter than $T$), while remaining equivalent to eq (8). In eq (19), given an initial random Gaussian sample $z$, we use $g^{\delta t \gg 1}$ instead of the original $g$ to evaluate the optimization objective. Once $\| y - H(g^{\delta t \gg 1}(z)) \|^2$ is computed, we take a vanilla gradient descent step with respect to the optimization variables ($z$ and $\eta$), which leads directly to eq (21). However, when applying the gradient step, $z$ may deviate from the space \{ $z: \|z\|^2 = N_x M_x$ \}, so we project it back, which leads to eq (22). We repeat this process until convergence. Although that we build on existing techniques, our work introduces a novel formulation of inverse problems within the context of diffusion models and solves it in a unique and innovative way. We also would like to emphasize that we are the *first* to demonstrate that an inversion-based IR approach in the context of diffusion models is not only feasible but also highly effective. The reviewer aptly summarizes this by stating, *"The simplicity and novelty of the method lie in its creative combination of well-known techniques, making it a noteworthy contribution to the field."* As for the impact of our work, we believe that BIRD represents a significant leap forward in expanding the applicability of diffusion models to inverse imaging. BIRD provides a fresh perspective, and we hope it will inspire further research into the under-explored concept of inversion within the context of inverse problems and diffusion models.

Reviewer PrQF5/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-12

Summary

This paper proposed new blind image restoration (BIR) method by exploring the image prior induced by diffusion model (DM). Different from the existing DM-based methods, this work presents a diffusion inversion technique, such that the estimated image can be constrained to lie in the image manifold learned by the pre-trained DM, and the computational cost can be reduced. Experiments on several image restoration tasks have been conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Strengths

The idea of diffusion inversion is interesting and reasonable, which broaden the concept of deep generative prior, and can possibly motivated more related studies.

Weaknesses

The major problem is that the experiments are not comprehensive enough. - Some commonly used benchmarks in corresponding BIR tasks were not considered. For example, for the blind motion deblur task, commonly used Lai [1] and Levin [2] datasets were not used for evaluation. - Some advanced deep prior-based methods for corresponding image restoration tasks were not compared. For example, for the deblur task, some DIP-based methods e.g., [3][4][5], were not compared; for the super-resolution task, also some DIP-based ones, e.g., [6][7], were not included References: [1] W. Lai et al. A comparative study for single image blind deblurring. CVPR, 2016. [2] R. Köhler et al. Recording and playback of camera shake: Benchmarking blind deconvolution with a real-world database. ECCV, 2012. [3] D. Ren et al. Neural blind deconvolution using deep priors. CVPR, 2020. [4] D. Huo et al. Blind image deconvolution using variational deep image prior. TPAMI, 2023. [5] J. Li et al. Self-supervised blind motion deblurring with deep expectation maximization. CVPR, 2023. [6] J. Liang et al. Flow-based kernel prior with application to blind super-resolution. CVPR, 2021. [7] Z. Yue et al. Blind image super-resolution with elaborate degradation modeling on noise and kernel. CVPR, 2022.

Questions

It seems that Figure 1 indeed shows an example of deblurring with motion blur, while the caption says Gaussian blur.

Rating

5

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

2

Contribution

3

Limitations

The authors have discussed the limitations, which are reasonable.

Reviewer gDW87/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-15

Summary

The paper presents a method to accelerate blind image reconstruction by leveraging pre-trained diffusion models. The authors suggest a strategy that simultaneously optimizes the degradation model parameters and the restored image, thereby improving the reconstruction process’s efficiency. Furthermore, the authors introduce a sampling method based on a pre-trained diffusion model. This method is devised to ensure the restored images are in alignment with the image manifold, a critical factor in preserving the restored images’ integrity. To enhance the speed of the process, the authors consider advancing in the forward diffusion process using large time steps, Thus they are able to significantly reduce the runtime of restoration process. The experimental results demonstrate improved performance across various tasks, outperforming BlindDPS, a recent solution for blind inverse problems. Furthermore, it surpasses a couple of other blind image reconstruction methods that do not rely on diffusion models.

Strengths

- The paper demonstrates a significant improvement in speed and memory efficiency over the primary method, BlindDPS. Additionally, the quality of the reconstruction has also been enhanced. - The method, in particular, is articulated and presented effectively in the paper.

Weaknesses

- The paper lacks a theoretical discussion and experimental comparison with some recent or related blind diffusion methods for inverse imaging problems, such as [3-5]. - [3] “Fast Diffusion EM: A Diffusion Model for Blind Inverse Problems with Application to Deconvolution” by Laroche, Charles, Andrés Almansa, and Eva Coupete. *WACV* 2024. - [4] “Gibbsddrm: A Partially Collapsed Gibbs Sampler for Solving Blind Inverse Problems with Denoising Diffusion Restoration” by Murata, Naoki, et al. *ICML* 2023. - [5] “A Diffusion Model with State Estimation for Degradation-Blind Inverse Imaging” by Ji, Liya, et al. *AAAI* 2024.

Questions

- It would be beneficial to include the results of the version with δt=1 in Tables 1, 3, and 4 as well. - The paper only qualitatively considers JPEG de-artifacting and compares it solely to DIP. Why are more recent methods such as the following not considered? - [1] “Towards Flexible Blind JPEG Artifacts Removal” by Jiang, Jiaxi, Kai Zhang, and Radu Timofte. *ICCV* 2021. - [2] “DriftRec: Adapting Diffusion Models to Blind JPEG Restoration” by Welker, Simon, Henry N. Chapman, and Timo Gerkmann. *TIP* 2024. - Minor point: - In Figure 3, the image index should be corrected from (f) to (e).

Rating

7

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

no comments.

Area Chair ENah2024-08-13

TLDR: Reviewers please do acknowledge the rebuttals and react to them.

Dear reviewers, thanks for your reviews. Please do look at the rebuttals of the author and give the authors some feedback whether they could address your concerns. This is really important for the authors. Best regards Your AC.

Reviewer gDW82024-08-14

I appreciate the authors’ efforts in addressing many of the reviewers’ comments. I am inclined to remain positive on the score, as most of my original concerns have been addressed. However, I look forward to seeing the feedback from a couple of other reviewers before deciding on their remaining concerns.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC